Mr X ... with the title as well as highlights being imposed by The Editor, Thuppahi
In the West, a narrative has been built up that China is an “aggressor” – an important word in international law because if Country A can frame a narrative that convinces the world Country B is “an aggressor” then Country A is well on the way to providing justification for war or even toppling Country B’s government, which is precisely what US Government has been doing for the past seven decades. The illegal wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yugoslavia are recent examples.
The US and NATO falsely claimed a UN resolution had provided the legal basis for their war on Yugoslavia [ in the 1990s]; but read the fine print on the NATO website attempting to justify its war against Serbia, and you will quickly discover this is not true. There was no specific UN resolution that gave NATO and the US the legal right to declare war on Yugoslavia and split Kosovo from it, just as there was no specific UN resolution that justified the war in Iraq in 2003. When NATO and the US attempt to counter the rational argument that they had no legal basis, they try to rebut it by referring to one clause in the UN Charter (not specific to their wars) and interpret clauses in the UN charter as justification, in much the same way Russia has justified its war against Ukraine, and in the same way Israel justifies slaughtering and wounding over 130,000 Palestinians.
In the case of Yugoslavia, what was the purpose of this war? It was claimed Serbia was conducting mass rape and carrying out ethnic cleansing, but these claims were later proven to be either false or grossly exaggerated. (Strangely the US and the EU don’t mind when Israel carries out ethnic cleansing in Gaza; the US and EU won’t bomb Israel in the way they bombed Serbia, which included an attack on the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade).
The real purpose for the war in Yugoslavia was to split Kosovo from Serbia and to install a pro-US puppet government. And why did the Americans do this? One only has to look at what the US did after bombing Serbia for 78 days. The US government immediately established the largest military base ever built in the Balkans. The base is called Bondsteel which holds troops from the US and ten NATO countries. The Americans have wanted a military base in the Balkans since the 1990s so it is not surprising that the puppet government in Kosovo has recently asked the Americans to make the military base permanent and to expand it. Nuclear materials are kept at this base. Indeed, a nuclear missile launched from Bondsteel could reach Putin’s mansion in the Black Sea in two minutes, and strike Moscow in five minutes, which doesn’t give the Russians much time to respond. This is not a defensive manoeuvre but a deeply offensive one – which may explain why information about the Bondsteel military base has been deliberately kept out of the Western media. For instance, it is not widely known in the West that depleted uranium leaking from sites around Bondsteel is causing cancer among NATO military personnel and locals.
The US is also desperate to establish a military base in Hong Kong. Had their plan to topple the government of Hong Kong and to force a secession from China by supporting a so-called “democracy movement” which sought to achieve those two goals, i.e. topple the government, and achieve secession from China, then there would be a US military base in Hong Kong today probably with nuclear missiles which could reach Shanghai in two minutes and Beijing in five. What stopped it was the National Security Law which deeply annoyed the US, UK and Australian governments who have repeatedly demanded that Hong Kong’s national security law be revoked – a law all Western countries have and would never revoke in the way they demand Hong Kong revoke their laws. That tells us something about the US/UK/Australian intentions in Hong Kong. The National Security law thwarted their plans in Hong Kong which is why these governments criticize this law. It has absolutely nothing to do with democracy or human rights. This law obstructs America’s geopolitical goals in Asia.
PIX = US troops just 3 kilometres from China, preparing for a major war… at … Kinmen Island (part of Taiwan) just 3 km from China and the city of Xiamen.
The US has been quietly moving troops into Kinmen Island which is barely 3 km from China. The West persistently paints China as the “aggressive” in the South China Sea, but we can see this is a strawman fallacy. No country would accept foreign troops so close to their borders. What possible reasons can American troops be stationed on China’s border? The claim by the Americans that they are there to teach the Taiwanese military is nonsense. The Americans could give the Taiwanese military all they need to know on Taiwan’s main island, not on a small island three kilometres from China. This move is another provocative act that reveals the US and the West are the true aggressors in Asia.
Can you imagine the outcry in the Western media if China had stationed troops just three kilometres from Australia? Such a move would be interpreted as a signal of imminent invasion and there would be a military response. The Americans have been pouring special forces in Kinmen which suggests the US intends to carry out operations inside China. Pouring Western troops into Kinmen Island creates the threat of an invasion. The US would love to turn Kinmen Island into a military base as a launching pad for a war against China, and even to position nuclear weapons there would could reach major cities across China in a few minutes, so it is not surprising that China has increased spending on its own military and is looking for ways to counter this type of aggression in the South China Sea which is clearly not a defensive move but an offensive one. It may force China to change its nuclear strategy from defensive to a preventative measure.
Curiously, while the Americans are building up its forces on Kinmen Island, two days ago, Taiwan and China undertook a joint rescue mission to save the lives of local fishermen after their boat capsized near Kinmen Island.
Following the recent ASEAN-Australia summit held in Melbourne, Australian propagandists such as Peter Hartcher came out boasting about Singapore and the Philippines supporting AUKUS. What Hartcher didn’t say openly is that most countries in Southeast Asia do not support AUKUS and are gravely concerned about Australia’s military ambitions in Asia, and do not support the US-Australia war against China. Asian countries have good reason to be deeply alarmed by AUKUS and the Australian government’s attempts to militarize South and Southeast Asian waters, and to provoke an arms race, and nuclear war.
Hartcher misrepresented Indonesia’s position, trying to imply Indonesia supports AUKUS and Western militarization of the Southeast region, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. While Singapore and the Philippines are onboard the US/Australia plans to militarize Southeast Asia, thereby tying themselves to West’s addiction to imperialist wars, Indonesia and Malaysia are not, and are opposed to it. Their opposition to Australia’s plans has been growing for some years. Senior Indonesian politician Tubagus Hasanuddin made the following comments on AUKUS. He says,
“Indonesia’s standpoint is clear, our archipelagic sea lanes cannot be used for activities related to war, the preparation of war, or non-peaceful activities.’
“Now about AUKUS. Is not a forum for training, it is like a defence pact, just like NATO but on a smaller scale, [created] to face Chinese activities in the Pacific. It means the vessels are the inseparable parts of AUKUS. It definitely is related to head-to-head rivalry with the Chinese maritime powers. It means it is not a peaceful means so that Indonesia will reject [them sailing through its waters].”
Tubagus Hasanuddin
Indonesian defence and intelligence analyst Corrie Barkie shares Tubagus Hasanuddin’s view. She writes,
“For example, AUKUS will definitely ask to pass through the East West route that has been closed. The Java Sea is opened for them to pass through and that will be a threat to Indonesia. It is as if they are entering while ‘splitting up’ the house.”
Connie Rahakundini Bakrie, Indonesian defence and intelligence analyst
It is a view shared by the Indonesian government which published a statement on Australia’s arms race in its region on the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website on 17 September 2021. Key points from the statement are,
Indonesia takes note cautiously of the Australian Government’s decision to acquire nuclear powered submarines.
Indonesia is deeply concerned over the continuing arms race and power projection in the region.
Indonesia stresses the importance of Australia’s commitment to continue meeting all of its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
Indonesia calls on Australia to maintain its commitment towards regional peace, stability and security in accordance with the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation.
Such comments must be disheartening for Australians like Peter Hartcher and the anti-Keating lobby, particularly when Asian leaders spoke at the ASEAN-Australia summit in Melbourne a few weeks ago. When questions about China and AUKUS were raised at the summit, the Australian media latched on and amplified one view which was Singapore’s cheering on of AUKUS. Little was reported on what the Malaysian and Indonesian leaders were saying. What we got instead was a pontification from the warmongering propagandist Peter Hartcher who lamented Indonesia-Australia ties as being “woefully weak”, then falsely implying Indonesia military ties with Vietnam and the Philippines are part of the West war against China. As expected, Paul Keating was attacked as being a “destructive” influence, without evidence or even attempting to debate Keating. Hartcher may well understand ASEAN countries do not have a problem with China but ANU’s National Security College, Rory Medcalf went completely overboard when he used emotive language to exaggerate China’s activities as “brutal harassment of the Philippines”. Of course, Medcalf says nothing about the provocative actions taking place just 3 km from China. Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim rejects the claims made by people like Medcalf and Hartcher when he stated in Melbourne such claims were wildly exaggerated and that the issue is a small one that is best resolved through dialogue within Asia. “Leave us out of your rivalry and stop forcing us to take sides” was Anwar’s clear and unambiguous message directed squarely at the US, the EU and Australia. Speaking at the ASEAN-Australia summit, Anwar said:
We [Malaysia] are an independent nation. We are fiercely independent. We do not want to be dictated by any force. So while we remain an important friend to the United States, Europe and Australia, they [the US, Europe and Australia] should not preclude us from being friendly to one of our most important neighbours, precisely China. If they have problems with China, they should not impose it upon us. We do not have a problem with China.
Anwar also condemned the West saying that for the past sixty years, the West has given “carte blanche” to Israel to continue its “murderous rampage on the Palestinians”. Anwar said,
“Unfortunately, the gut-wrenching tragedy that continues to unfold in the Gaza Strip has laid bare the self-serving nature of much valued, the much-vaunted rules-based order.”
The Australian government and its media propaganda machine can’t be happy with Anwar’s criticisms of its military ambitions in Asia. Nor can the Australians be happy about Anwar’s unwillingness to yield to the “Rules-based order”, including the approval of this Rules-based order to Israel’s continual slaughtering, injuring and or disappearance of 130,000 Palestinians in five months – a number that continues to grow at a deeply alarming rate, which has destroyed the West’s credibility among the international community – a credibility that will not be easily recovered, if at all.
Naturally, Hartcher is deeply unhappy with such statements which perhaps explains why he posed the question: “What’s the point of ASEAN?” Any Asian leader would be rightfully offended by this question. Hartcher’s question is wildly arrogant and neocolonial. The question assumes that Australia knows best; that Australia understands Asia better than Asia itself; that Australia’s war against China is righteous; and that Australia demands to be the leading regional hegemonic power in Southeast Asia, and if ASEAN does not yield to the much vaunted “Rules based Order” then ASEAN doesn’t have a right to exist. It is time for ASEAN (that collective group of ten nations in Southeast Asia which has ensured not a single war has broken out among Asian countries), butt out, disappear, retire and fold-up and just let Australia and its Great Council of Wisdom take control of Asia in a further monumental piece of neo-colonial imperialist theatre. Is it any wonder why countries in the Global South are so sick of the West and its much vaunted “Rules based Order”?
Chris Barrett and Karuni Rompies ‘AUKUS created for fighting’: Push for Indonesia to refuse access to subs. The Sydney Morning Hearld 14 March 2023
Peter Hartcher. While Australia threw a party, China threw a punch, The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 March 2024.
Aaryaman Nijhawan. India’s powerplay: The tide is turning in the Indo-Pacific. RT, 8 March 2024.
Presence of U.S. Army Special Forces on outlying islands confirmed. Focus Taiwan, 14 March 2024.
Statement on Australia’s Nuclear-powered Submarines Program, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, 17 September 2021
