Current US Hegemony In Asia Pacific by Bobby Tuazon
Peace
Researcher 28 – December 2003
This
is based on a paper bearing the same title that was first read in a Power Point
presentation during a Workshop on Asia-Pacific, sponsored by Bayan and the
International League for Peoples' Struggle, at the Conference on War and
Globalisation on March 1, 2003, held at the School of Economics, University of
the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines. The conference was sponsored by IBON
Foundation. Bobby Tuazon works at the Center for Anti-Imperialist Studies. It
was written during the build up to the Iraq War.
Over the past two decades particularly
after the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European revisionist bloc of
countries, the United States has waged wars and covert operations in many
countries. Unlike during the 40-year Cold War when such actions had to contend
with impediments arising from the Soviet veto power in the United Nations and
by the existence of strong liberation movements, the recent years saw the
United States displaying its unipolar power with arrogance and self-righteousness.
We have seen this, for instance, in its
wars against Afghanistan and Iraq where President George Bush, the Pentagon and
the State Department have time and again declared or hinted that they will not be
bound by international law, by institutions like the United Nations, or by
world public opinion including appeals by Pope John Paul II and the former
South African President, Nelson Mandela, as they decided the fate of Iraq in
the pretext of disarming Saddam Hussein's regime of weapons of mass destruction
(WMDs). And as the whole world knows, not
one single WND has been found in Iraq by the US and its fellow colonisers. Ed.
To a growing number of people in the
world today, however, it is clear who the greatest threat to international
peace and security is. Eight out of ten Americans, according to a recent Time magazine poll, see the US as the
world's greatest threat. Very distant second and third are North Korea and
Iraq, respectively.
Many people, whether here at home or
abroad, ask what really drove George Bush and other superhawks in their
tenacity and arrogance to attack a nation of 26 million who continued to suffer
the effects of the 1990-1991 Gulf War, years of economic sanctions and
deprivation and continuous bombings despite fruitless calls from UN members to
stop what appeared to be an insane war. A former Justice Minister of Germany
likened Bush to Adolf Hitler. Nelson Mandela doubts that Bush can think
coherently. These are of course remarks by leaders meant to warn the world
about a cowboy and a Rambo gone berserk.
There is no question that the war on
Iraq had another agenda to it, which is in relation to the control of oil and
the perpetuation of American hegemony and world domination.
I will not dwell on the economics of
the US war on Iraq and instead share some insights related to the greed of the
Bush Administration to perpetuate American hegemony and world domination. First
of all, the US war on Iraq, dubbed as the continuing "War On Terror,"
is part of a coherent world strategy that was conceived more than ten years
ago.
Roots Of The Grand Strategy
The Bush regime's grand strategy for
domination and hegemony of the world extends beyond the "War On
Terror". This ambitious strategy can be traced in: the Defense Policy
Guidance (DPG) of 1992 and the Project for a New American Century (PNAC),
founded in 1997.
The DEFENSE POLICY GUIDANCE of 1992 is
a top secret blueprint for world domination prepared by the Department of
Defense (DoD), of then US President George Bush, Senior. Its vision is a world
dominated by the unilateral use of US military power to ensure Pax Americana;
to assert the US national interest; and prevent the rise of any possible power
competitor for the future.
DPG particularly stresses that America
will not be bound to its partners and to international laws and institutions
while it stresses a more unilateral and pre-emptive role in attacking its
perceived enemies (terrorist threats and confronting rogue states seeking weapons
of mass destruction or WMDs).
The blueprint also says that a war on
terrorism must be launched. This war to be launched by the American Empire must
be seen as a façade and just a part of a bigger strategy of projecting US
military power around the world, especially Eurasia, and cutting loose the
multilateral bonds that have constrained Washington's freedom of action and
power.
The PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
(PNAC, 1997), on the other hand, envisions to consolidate and preserve Pax
Americana through the 21st Century primarily by military power/hegemony and
secondarily, by economic hegemony. In other words, to create a truly global
empire by military force. "At no time in history has the international
security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals. The
challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American
peace,'" its vision partly says.
In 2000, an election year in the United
States, the men behind PNAC came up with a report, "Rebuilding America's
Defenses - Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century". Its authors
acknowledged that the paper was based on the 1992 DPG.
Four Core Missions
The "Rebuilding" report has
Four Core Missions for US military forces:
* Defend the American homeland;
* Fight and decisively win multiple,
simultaneous major theatre wars;
* Perform the "constabulary"
duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
* Transform US forces to exploit the
"revolution in military affairs".
To carry out the Four Core Missions,
the United States must:
* Maintain nuclear strategic
superiority globally;
* Increase active-duty strength of
today's force from 1.4 million to 1.6 million;
* Reposition US forces by shifting
permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by
changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing US strategic interests in
East Asia;
* Modernise current US forces
selectively (such as sending more attack submarines to Asia; more electronic
support, helicopters and aircraft for the Marine Corps);
* Develop and deploy global missile
defences in order to provide a secure basis for US power projection around the
world;
* Control the new "international
commons" of space and "cyberspace" and pave the way for the creation
of a new military service - US Space Forces - with the mission of space
control;
* Exploit the "Revolution in
Military Affairs" (RMA)
* Increase defence spending gradually
to a minimum level of 3.5% to 3.8% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), adding $US15
billion to $US20 billion to total defence spending annually.
Specifically, the PNAC project also
advocates:
* A much larger military presence
spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 140 nations in which
US troops are already deployed;
* The US needs more permanent military
bases in the Middle East, Southeast Europe, Latin America and in Southeast Asia
(where no such bases exist);
* The US will consider developing
biological weapons in decades to come;
* Iraq is just the beginning, a pretence
for a wider conflict (probably more "regime removals") in the Middle
East;
* In Iraq, according to PNAC co-chair
Donald Kagan, the US will establish permanent military bases in a post-war
Iraq. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle
East over a long period of time...If we have force in Iraq, there will be no
disruption in oil supplies".
* Pinpoints Iraq, North Korea, Libya,
Syria and Iran as "dangerous regimes".
The Brains Behind DPG & PNAC
DEFENSE POLICY GUIDANCE (1992):
* Defense Secretary Dick Cheney (now
Bush's Vice President)
* Paul Wolfowitz (now US Deputy
Secretary of Defense)
* I Lewis Libby (now Dick Cheney's
chief of staff)
PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
(1997) Founding Members:
* Dick Cheney (now US Vice President)
* Donald Rumsfeld (now Bush's Secretary
of Defense)
* Paul Wolfowitz (PNAC's ideologue, now
Defense Deputy Secretary)
* Condoleeza Rice (now Bush's National
Security Adviser)
* Zalmay Khalilzad (an Afghan Central
Intelligence Agency [CIA] asset became senior director of the National Security
Council; now Bush's special envoy in Kabul to follow up oil pipeline project)
* Jeb Bush (brother of George and now
Governor of Florida)
* John Bolton (now Under Secretary of
State)
* Stephen Cambone (now head of
Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation)
* Eliot Cohen & Devon Cross (now
members of Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld)
* Dov Zakheim (now Comptroller for the
Defense Department)
* Bruce Jackson (now with Lockheed
Martin, a major defence contractor)
* William Kristol (of the conservative Weekly Standard which is owned by Rupert
Murdoch, owner of international media giant Fox News and a leading supporter of
the war against Iraq)
*
Donald Kagan (also ideologue, now co-chairs PNAC)
Some of the DPG and PNAC men are old
Asia hands, i.e., those who have advocated a more aggressive and
militarily-oriented US hegemony in Asia including Southeast Asia. The men
behind DPG and PNAC, led by Bush himself, lead the elite circle of 100 powerful
men who occupy the top positions of the US government bringing with them their
connections to the oil industry and the military-industrial complex.
PNAC, meanwhile, gave birth to the
Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which funded anti-Saddam opposition and
heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi (an Enron-like businessman wanted by Jordan for
bank fraud).
For
more on Chalabi, read Foreign Control Watchdog 102,
May 2003; “Stop Thief: Sadly It’s A Common Story. A Desperate Addict Turns To A
Life Of Crime”, by Murray Horton. It can be read at http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/02/06.htm. For more on Rupert Murdoch’s support for the Iraq War,
read Watchdog 103, August 2003; “Who Owns New Zealand’s
News Media? Can We Afford To Let Them Own Our News?”, by Bill Rosenberg. This
can be read online at http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/03/07.htm Ed.
PNAC is staffed by men linked to groups
like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America which backed the US's
bloody covert operations in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s; and the
Committee for the Present Danger, which during the 1980s under President Ronald
Reagan pushed for a "winnable" nuclear war with the former Soviet
Union.
Bush's Strategies And Doctrines
When George Bush took over as President
of the United States in 2001, the DPG and PNAC became a reality. Translating the
two blueprints for US global hegemony and domination in just two years of his
presidency, Bush defined his government's military strategies and doctrines:
* National Security Strategy (NSS,
September 17, 2002)
* Pre-Emptive Doctrine (June 2002, West
Point speech)
* Nuclear Posture Review (January 2002)
* Quadrennial Defense Review of 2001
(September 30, 2001)
* Theory of Less Casualties, New
Weapons Technology and the Training of Surrogate Armies
* Unilateralism and the Manipulation of
Temporary Coalitions
* Regime Change or Regime Removal
Basically, the Bush regime's world
strategies and military doctrines assert American internationalism (spreading
America's "democratic values" throughout the world) and unilateralism
in which the United States will not be bound by international law and global
institutions or by invocations of national sovereignty and territorial
integrity; warn against potential competitors who intend to challenge American
unipolar power; the acquisition of more bases and military stations beyond
Western Europe and Northeast Asia; the right of the US to strike first against
security threats (pre-emptive doctrine) under which the US is justified to use
nuclear weapons; increase America's forward deployed forces and the conduct of
more military trainings and joint war exercises.
America's Economic, Geopolitical
And Military Interests In Asia Pacific
For more than a century, America has
considered itself the dominant hegemonic Power in Asia Pacific, having
conquered American Samoa, Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines and invaded China to
repress the 1900 Boxer Rebellion; it has also fought three major wars in Asia
Vietnam, Korea and the Pacific War of World War 2. US trade with Asia Pacific
surpasses that with Europe, with more than $US500 billion in trade and
investment of more than $US150 billion. About 400,000 US non-military citizens
live and conduct business in the region.
Meanwhile, SOUTHEAST ASIA (population:
525 million) has a combined Gross National Product (GNP) of $US700 billion and
is America's fifth largest trading partner and $US35 billion direct investment
(1998) in the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore; most of Fortune's Top 500 transnational
corporations (TNCs) have significant interests in the region. There are vast
oil and gas reserves in Indonesia and Brunei; as well as in Vietnam, Malaysia
and the Philippines.
To the United States, furthermore,
Southeast Asia is "a place of great geopolitical consequence" because
it sits astride some of the world's most critical sea lanes. According to the
Council on Foreign Relations which advises Bush, more than $US1.3 trillion in
merchandise trade passed through the Straits of Malacca and Lombok in 1999
(nearly half of the world trade) including crucial supplies from the Persian
Gulf to Japan, South Korea and China. The South China Sea, particularly the
Spratly and Paracel island groups, are believed to have significant oil
reserves".
These sea lanes are a strategic part of
the network of oil extraction, production and distribution which is being
consolidated by the United States linking the Caspian and Gulf regions, Asian
oil and natural gas fields and markets and the American mainland.
Bush Regime Strategic
Thinkers/Advisers/Power Players Specialising In Asia Pacific
* RAND Corporation (funded by Pentagon
particularly US Air Force; formerly chaired by Donald Rumsfeld with Zalmay
Khalilzad as senior consultant);
* Council on Foreign Relations;
* Center for Security Policy (which is
also identified with Rumsfeld) - headed by Frank J Gaffney Junior with eight
top chief executive officers [CEOs] from defence contractors on its board);
* Carlyle Group (headed by Frank
Carlucci, ex-Deputy Director of CIA and former Defense Secretary of Reagan;
with former US President, George Bush Senior, and former Philippine President,
Fidel Ramos, as Asian advisers). Carlyle is actually the US's 11th largest
defence contractor with significant interests in Asia;
* Heritage Foundation (official
Rightwing think tank of the Republican Party)
In 2001, RAND came up with a report,
"The United States and Asia: Toward a New US Strategy and Force
Posture" (Lead Author: Zalmay Khalilzad). This report recommends shifting
US forces toward the Philippines, Guam, Southeast Asia and other countries
close to Taiwan.
A year earlier, this think tank in a
report, "The Role of Southeast Asia in US Strategy Toward China,"
also stressed that China's emergence as a major regional power over the next
10-15 years could intensify US-China competition in Southeast Asia and increase
the potential for armed conflict. "Economic growth in the region, which is
important to the economic security of the US, depends on preserving American
presence and influence in the region and unrestricted access to sea lanes,"
RAND said.
The COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, on
the other hand, in a Memorandum to Bush in May 2001 ("The US and Southeast
Asia: A Policy Agenda for the New Administration") argued for a more
assertive US military stance in the region: "The (Bush) Administration should
preserve a credible military presence and a viable regional training and
support infrastructure" specifying "high-priority efforts" in
the areas of "joint and combined military training exercises and
individual and small group exchanges and training".
The HERITAGE FOUNDATION also said that
the "war against terrorism" would ultimately be pursued in Southeast
Asia with or without the express approval of local governments.
Again, PNAC envisions some specific
operative plans for Asia Pacific:
* In Asia, deploying more troops to
beef up the presence of 100,000 US forces to address new challenges for the
21st Century;
* Key to coping with the rise of China
to great-power status is the increase in military strength in East Asia and
Southeast Asia;
* A heightened US military presence in
Southeast Asia will provide the core around which a de facto military coalition
(a la the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation [NATO]) will be formed;
* Reduce the frequency of aircraft
carrier presence in the Mediterranean and the Gulf while increasing US Navy
presence in the Pacific;
* For this reason, it is preferable,
for strategic and operational reasons, to create a second major home port for a
carrier battle group in the southern Pacific - in the Philippines or Australia;
* Establish a network of
"deployment bases" or "forward operating bases" to improve
the ability to project force to outlying regions. Prepositioned materiel would
speed the initial deployment and improve the sustainability of US forces when
deployed for training, joint training with the host nation, or operations in
time of crisis. (e.g. the Military Logistics Supply Agreement, between the US
and the Philippines).
The CARLYLE GROUP, which is worth
$US13.5 billion, a private empire which operates in the shadows of government,
military and industry and spans three continents including Asia; owns companies
making tanks, aircraft wings and other military hardware.
In the company are former US President
George Bush Senior (head of the Asia advisory board); former British Prime
Minister John Major; Frank Carlucci, who was President Reagan's Defense
Secretary; former Philippines President Fidel Ramos (Asia advisory board); and
other world leaders.
Carlyle has large investments and big
acquisitions in South Korea, Taiwan and China. Carlyle has a $US4 million
infrastructure project in the southern Philippine island of Basilan, part of
the joint US/Philippine military exercise, Balikatan 02-1.
Summary
At this point, let me summarise that
most public declarations and policy statements made by the US government
emphasise that the targets of America's current security objectives are to
prevent the rise of a regional hegemonic Power like China, "regime
change" in North Korea for possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs),
to wage war against "transnational terrorism" and insurgencies and
other security threats.
But the secret reports, security
strategies and doctrines of the US government that give emphasis on the use of
military power reveal beyond reasonable doubt that the main objective is to
consolidate and preserve US hegemony and domination in Asia Pacific and the
whole world. The objective is to prolong Pax Americana through the 21st
Century.
Current US Hegemonic Operations
In Asia-Pacific
* US maintains the largest military
command here (US Pacific Command [PACOM]). PACOM interacts with the armed
forces of 14 of Asia Pacific's 45 countries;
* The number of US troops on land and
afloat in the region has surpassed those forward deployed in Europe: 100,000
troops are based in Japan (60,000) and South Korea (37,000), with the rest in
Guam, afloat or on various attachments.
* US-Japan alliance - the lynchpin of
US security in the region, with Japan playing an increasingly aggressive role;
* Bilateral military alliances with
Australia, Thailand and the Philippines; reinforced by access or basing
agreements with Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong and Sri Lanka;
* A stronger military partnership with
Australia;
* New strategic partnership with India
and Pakistan;
* Plan to reinstall its military bases
in Southeast Asia (either in the Philippines, Vietnam, Australia, Indonesia or
Singapore)
* Laying the ground for a regional
military alliance or treaty in the guise of fighting terrorism
The September 11, 2001 events, which
ignited Bush's "war without borders" (or "Operation Enduring
Freedom") were seized upon by Bush to reverse the decline of the US
military presence in Asia Pacific and to aggressively assert US hegemonic
interests. They:
- Opened the "second front"
in Bush's "war without borders" using the Philippines as a template
(or model) for greater military presence and power projection in the region.
The Philippines will serve as the epicentre in the new US military strategy in
the circumference of Asia Pacific.
- Increased military aid to Taiwan,
Indonesia, the Philippines and other countries; increased arms sales;
- Increased military training and funds
to support these;
- Increased "forward deployed
forces" and enhanced their capability through the deployment of Special
Operations Forces, covert operations, war materiel and other equipment;
- Launched offensive moves against
North Korea, hastened plan to build a missile defence system in the Korean
Peninsula.
Conclusion
US hegemony in Asia Pacific is a
reality and is the concrete expression of an American Empire that is undergoing
consolidation with a vision that will last through the 21st Century.
I submit that the debate on whether
there is really US imperialism or a global American Empire should now be put to
rest. In the United States itself, there is a growing advocacy or acceptance
even in many conservative circles, institutions, think tanks, universities and
media that there is indeed an American Empire. The only distinction which they
want the world to believe is that, unlike empires in past centuries, this
American Empire is "benign" and "benevolent" and is
performing a role which no other nation can in order to preserve
"democracy and freedom" across the globe and resist threats posed by
"evils," "rogue regimes" and forces of radicalism.
But this American Empire is something
the American people themselves loathe simply because they also suffer under the
rule of the US oligarchs and their freedoms and civil liberties continue to be
threatened. It is an empire imposed upon the world by America's ruling regime
on behalf of corporate giants, the military-industrial-media complex, oil
oligarchs and other elite interests. It is an empire that is supported by
Rightwing power players, militarists, free market ideologues, Jewish
neo-conservatives, leaders of the Christian and Catholic Right and
anti-socialists. Under Bush the military-industrial complex is no longer
invisible - it has become the most visible, most articulate and most aggressive
driving force behind America's wars for world hegemony and domination today.
In order to preserve the American
Empire that will rule the world for as long as can be sustained, the
strategists and politico-military leaders of this grand project are more and more
relying on the use of military power precisely because America's economic power
is on the decline. America's Rightwing leaders and militarists believe that
economic impositions through the instruments of the Bretton Woods institutions
(the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade-World Trade Organisation) no longer suffice to preserve American hegemony
and domination of the world. With arrogance and self-righteousness, they
believe that the American Empire cannot exist under current international law,
ethical concepts, multilateralism and global institutions like the United
Nations because of the constraints and impediments that these pose on America's
will and action. To them, concepts of national sovereignty, territorial
integrity, self-determination and dignity are just concepts best learned only
in school. To them, the concept of Pax Americana should be asserted through
unipolar military superiority, warlordism, aggression, moral absolutism and a
global ideological offensive using US media oligopolies. Their ideological
offensive centres on drumming up an apocalyptic conflict between "Good and
Evil".
It is clear how this strategy is being
applied in Asia Pacific and across the globe under the Bush Administration and
I personally do not see any change coming even if Bush is no longer President
of the United States. Using the pretext of "war against terrorism"
and other so-called threats to the security of the region, the US government is
increasingly and steadily deploying its forces, rebuilding its military bases,
securing stronger and more reliable military alliances and security
partnerships, gaining more access to ports, airfields and air spaces. But soon
the combat missions that we now see in the Philippines, particularly in
Mindanao, will be replicated throughout the Philippines, in Southeast Asia and
other parts of the Asia Pacific. America's objective in Asia Pacific is to
maintain a strong military power never seen before in the entire history of the
region.
US military power in the region
addresses the American Empire's strategic objectives to contain the rise of
power competitors such as - but not limited to - China, and deter the growth of
other threats to its hegemony including revolutionary movements and the rise of
independent regimes.
Because Asia Pacific is a vast mass of
land and sea territory with huge economic and geopolitical potentials, and
because it is contiguous to the American mainland and its Pacific territories,
this region remains of strategic interest to the United States. Without a
strong power projection in Asia Pacific, America's drive for global hegemony
and domination will be threatened.
To the peoples of Asia Pacific however
the threat to their independence and security is and will always be US
imperialism. So much blood has been spilled because of US imperialism, which
has been asserting itself here for more than a century. The independence,
sovereignty, freedom, self-determination and economic growth of many nations -
including the possible reunification of countries divided by post-WW2 US
intervention in the region - are always threatened because of US imperialism.
Tensions and instabilities particularly in the Korean Peninsula, between China
and Taiwan, and other hot spots in the region are heightened because of US
interventionism.
But, just as the previous world wars
led to the rise of independence and liberation movements throughout the world,
the US "war on terrorism" has led to the reawakening of the peoples
of Asia Pacific to the real threat to humanity. More and more peoples are
standing up against US imperialism. Especially in Muslim countries, the
"war against terrorism" is beginning to appear as a war against the
world particularly against Muslims who oppose foreign domination. Today, the
more US imperialism displays its arrogance and military power, the more
resistance it will generate.
George Bush has declared a "war
against terrorism" - a "war without borders" and without time
limit. This, he said, is America's "war of the century." Let us
instead turn America's "war of the century" into the "Century's
War Against US Imperialism".
--------------------------------
|
|
|
|