The New Dark Age

15 June 2011 — Stop NATO

• Huge Columns Of Smoke Over Tripoli After NATO Strikes
• U.S., French Amphibious Assault Ships Link Up In Mediterranean
• Britain Mulls Continuing War In Libya
• Global Military Dominance Becoming Unaffordable
• When Will U.S. And NATO Decide It’s Venezuela’s Turn?
• Belgrade: NATO Conference Has Tri-Continental Military Significance
• Overwhelming Majority Of Serbs Reject NATO
• Serbian Patriarch Condemns NATO
• Montenegro Being Prepared As NATO’s 29th Member
• Pentagon Appoints New Military Command For Kyrgyz Transit Center
• McCain Demands Russian Withdrawal From Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdniester

Huge Columns Of Smoke Over Tripoli After NATO Strikes

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-06/15/c_13929665.htm

Xinhua News Agency

June 15, 2011

Blast hits east Tripoli of Libya

TRIPOLI: A heavy explosion rocked the east of the Libyan capital of Tripoli late Tuesday evening, causing a big fire, with helicopters of the NATO forces hovering over the area, a Xinhua correspondent said.

Huge columns of smoke can be seen arising from the district of Fernaj, in east Tripoli, according to the Xinhua correspondent.

Libyan state TV later confirmed the blast, without indicating the casualties from the incident.

During the past several weeks, NATO forces have intensified strikes against Tripoli and the neighboring areas. Libyan authorities have continually accused NATO of killing hundreds of civilians and destroying civil facilities and infrastructures.

The world’s major powers, the UK, the U.S. and France, started on March 19 to launch strikes from the air and sea against Gaddafi ‘s forces after the UN Security Council passed a resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and authorize “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya.

NATO has formally taken over full command and control of military operations against Libya from the U.S. on March 31.

====

U.S., French Amphibious Assault Ships Link Up In Mediterranean

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=60901

United States Navy

June 9, 2011

Bataan Helps Prepare Longtime U.S. Partner for Mission Ahead

By Mass Communication Specialist Seaman James Turner, USS Bataan Public Affairs

USS BATAAN, At Sea: Sailors and Marines aboard multipurpose amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD 5) embarked aboard FS Tonnerre (L9014) June 7 to assist the crew of the French amphibious assault ship with their successful well-deck certification while both ships were conducting operations in the Mediterranean Sea.

Bataan employed a landing craft, air cushioned (LCAC), from Assault Craft Unit (ACU) 4 and a team of amphibious operations subject matter experts to work side-by-side with their French counterparts.

The certification will provide Tonnerre with additional flexibility during their support to NATO-led Operation Unified Protector.

“This is a very beneficial capability to have for NATO,” said Captain Philippe Ebanga, Tonnerre’s commanding officer. “The French do not own LCACs, so the U.S. Navy is the only organization that is capable of providing us with a certification.”

This is Tonnerre’s first recertification since receiving an initial certification after being delivered to the French fleet five years ago. The certification expires every two years.

“The certification performed aboard Tonnerre is the same process done on any amphibious assault U.S. Navy vessel,” said Chief Warrant Officer (CWO3) Wes Mason, officer in charge of the ACU-4 detachment operating from Bataan.

…

Sailors and Marines from Bataan spent eight hours aboard Tonnerre working with the French sailors.

…

Bataan is the command ship of the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), supporting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of responsibility.

====

Britain Mulls Continuing War In Libya

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/06/14/51706300.html

Voice of Russia

June 14, 2011

Britain mulls continuing war in Libya

Sergei Sayenko

The British Royal Navy will have to deal with consequences if the operation in Libya exceeds six months, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, told reporters on Monday.

The escalation of the Libyan conflict has already prompted Britain to deploy more warships off the coast of Libya, including the Ocean assault ship, equipped with the Apache attack helicopters, which regularly launch air strikes on pro-Gaddafi forces. According to Sir Stanhope, “if the operation in Libya goes beyond the six-month mark, the government will have to reprioritize forces.”

Britain signaled its readiness to join Operation Unified Protector in Libya several months after Prime Minister David Cameron moved to cut his country’s military budget by 8 percent by 2015. The decision left Britain without the Ark Royal aircraft carrier and its fleet of the Harrier jump jets, which Sir Stanhope conceded “would have been useful in Libya”.

The First Sea Lord’s comments have already infuriated many highly placed officials in Britain, with Shadow Defense Secretary Jim Murphy describing them as “incredible.” He said that “the country will be dismayed to hear that the operation in Libya could have been conducted more cheaply and more effectively had the government taken a different approach. Now, it is vital that ministers tell us how they intend to equip the mission in Libya should it go beyond the six-month mark.”

Instead of answering this question, official London should better explain its decision to take part in Operation Unified Protector, which was, by the way, initiated by Britain and France, our political commentator says, citing the United States, which, he said, refrained from actively participating in the operation. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates made it plain that London and Paris should not rely on Washington’s help as far as their war-effort in Libya is concerned.

With plans for a ground operation in Libya already in the pipeline, London will certainly have tougher times ahead trying to find ways to continue to finance its military mission in this North African country. According to the Daily Mail newspaper, Britain has already injected about 75 million pounds into the mission, with analysts putting the figure at more than 300 million pounds – something that, they say, may increase at least three-fold by year-end. The question is whether the British economy will cope with the burden…

====

Global Military Dominance Becoming Unaffordable

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/6/15/focus/8901154&sec=focus

The Star (Malaysia)

June 15, 2011

Global military dominance becoming unaffordable

By Bunn Nagara

Both ‘Britannia’ and the Western alliance are losing the means to perpetuate military-political hegemony worldwide

-After Iraq, the US has waded into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya while straining to get stuck into Syria. Its challenge is to get a sizeable number of allies to go along to a significant degree.

-If the continued role of global policeman today seems dated, it is even more surreal given emerging major powers such as those in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa).

-[S]trategically Afgha?nistan is critically located in Central Asia next door to China, Pakistan and Iran. So long as it remains in that position, which it will, the great powers will play their “games” while the locals will fight a war to resist them.

Britain was once a proud maritime power, with a foremost Royal Navy that policed a global empire on which “the sun never set.”

These days the British Navy has trouble trying to pin down a single Third World country with a tottering regime: Libya. This incompatibility between present Western capacities and current intentions is, however, greater than any disjuncture with past glories.

This week Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, Britain’s First Sea Lord, announced that the Royal Navy would not be able to sustain the current campaign against Libya for more than six months. He also noted that the decline is in both equipment inventory and, consequently, morale.

Britain’s Strategic Defence and Security Review last year had cut 10,000 jobs in the Navy and Royal Air Force, and consigned the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, the frigate HMS Cumberland and the once-iconic Harrier jets to the storeroom or junkyard.

As the Libya military campaign suddenly loomed, the Cumberland was diverted there to help in evacuating British nationals. Yet for Downing Street, Britain remains a leading military power with the world’s fourth-largest defence budget.

Evidently like much of Europe, Britain’s lack of appetite for global patrolling work is not totally in sync with US interventionist moves. The “pole positions” occupied by Britain and France over Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya helps to conceal the incongruity, but not for long.

When US Defence Secretary Robert Gates reportedly blasted unnamed Nato partners in Brussels last week for not contributing their share, he ridiculed some for running out of ammunition at critical times in laying siege to a country. The Royal Navy now needs to purchase more Cruise missiles from the US after firing some of them.

The US provides more than 75% of Nato’s budget, with Gates wondering aloud whether this major contribution and Nato itself could be sustained. All of this has come at a time of budget squeezes, after Osama bin Laden’s death and a Cold War which ended 20 years ago.

Washington has been lobbying its European partners in Nato to raise their military commitment, much of it in vain. It is not that the latter do not share US concerns about global instability, but rather they prefer political, diplomatic, economic and social solutions rather than inordinately military ones.

After Iraq, the US has waded into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya while straining to get stuck into Syria. Its challenge is to get a sizeable number of allies to go along to a significant degree.

For much of the world outside Washington, a propensity for unilateral military intervention abroad links these various armed adventures. It is not a popular indulgence, not even when the spectre of international terrorism is invoked as the alternative to inaction.

If the continued role of global policeman today seems dated, it is even more surreal given emerging major powers such as those in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). These are all fast-growing major economies, besides Russia and China being permanent members of the UNSC with veto power.

This week both Moscow and Beijing boycotted a UNSC meeting called by the Western powers to discuss a proposed resolution against Syria. The other BRICS countries are also unhappy with the prospect of further war against another oil-rich Muslim country.

Even in Western circles there is strong reluctance to rely on more military power. Germany, Europe’s leading economy and a major Nato partner, is still unconvinced by the campaign against Libya.

But if the interests of the military-industrial complex are any guide, efforts will continue towards war. Officially there are six major US military bases in Afghanistan, but on the ground US and other foreign forces are stationed at some 400 bases in the country.

Although the Obama White House is supposed to comply with its pullout schedule in Afghanistan, secret talks with Kabul are continuing over the actual outcome. There are reports that US forces may well remain in Afghanistan for decades after the 2014 complete pullout date.

On the surface the issue is a resurgent Taliban and their terror connections, but strategically Afgha?nistan is critically located in Central Asia next door to China, Pakistan and Iran. So long as it remains in that position, which it will, the great powers will play their “games” while the locals will fight a war to resist them.

Afghanistan meanwhile is pressing for better terms in a draft agreement that would reflect its sense of sovereignty. Whether that would work is another question.

====

When Will U.S. And NATO Decide It’s Venezuela’s Turn?

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=101979

VHeadline

June 14, 2011

When will the USA and NATO decide that it’s Chavez’ turn?

Oscar Heck

Wow! Thanks to my good friend and writer (and translator), Franco Munini, another piece of the puzzle has fallen into place. He sent me the link to a very interesting article about why Libya and Gaddhafi are suddenly being attacked by the USA and its allies. The similarities between what is happening in Libya (or rather the reasons why it is happening in Libya) and what is happening in Latin America these days is eerie.

Basically, the USA, France, England, Italy and their NATO allies have to stop Gaddhafi from further spreading his ideas throughout the entire African continent. His ideas would weaken the US dollar and other non-gold-based currencies to the point that they could become worthless on the African continent.

Gaddhafi has been leading several efforts with the goal of creating an independent and autonomous Africa, non-reliant on western financial, lending and banking systems and institutions, and non-reliant on western-controlled telecommunication and military technology, amongst other things.

For example, he had led the movement that created an African joint organization that owns its own satellite … to avoid paying exorbitant rental fees to European countries, as was previously being done.

Coincidentally, in 2008, Venezuela launched its own satellite, using Chinese technology.

Gaddhafi was also leading two major moves to form the African Union and the African Investment Bank and the African Monetary Fund, which would replace financing for the African Union countries that have traditionally been financed by western institutions such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund).

Coincidentally, Venezuela (Chavez) along with concerted efforts on the part of Argentina (Cristina Fernandez), Cuba (Fidel and Raul Castro), Ecuador (Rafael Correa) and Bolivia (Evo Moralez), have been leading the process in putting together UNASUR, the Union of South American Nations and the formation of a common investment bank, Banco Del Sur, that would also replace the IMF and other western US-dollar-based lending institutions.

Gaddhafi has been proposing going a step further, by creating a common currency for the African Union.

UNASUR is proposing a common currency, the Sucre, to replace the US dollar for trade between UNASUR countries.

Gaddhafi has been proposing the unification of the military for the African Union.

A new, joint military school was recently inaugurated in Bolivia for UNASUR.

But the best is still to come. In July of this year, the announcement of the creation of CELAC will be announced (Community for Latin American and Caribbean States – which excludes Canada and the USA). The CELAC aims at replacing the OAS, which has been just as subservient and bootlicking to the USA and Canada as the UN is subservient and prostrate to the USA and its allies.

Venezuela has been considering changing the currency used for oil sales … and so has Gaddhafi.

For years, Libya was embargoed by the USA … and so is Venezuela in the military and oil sectors.

Venezuela is geographically in a strategic location, at the central top of South America, an excellent access point to the vast Amazonian resources, including its vast water supply. Libya is also central to Africa, and has access to some of the largest underground water resources in the world. And oil, of course.

Libya has been the main country leading the move toward African unity and independence from former colonizing countries … and Venezuela is the leader in the move toward South American unity and independence from former controlling countries such as the USA and Canada and its allies.

The USA and NATO are presently attacking Libya, trying to assassinate Gaddhafi and bring Libya back to colonization by western nations.

====

Belgrade: NATO Conference Has Tri-Continental Military Significance

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=06&dd=14&nav_id=74904&version=print

B92/Tanjug News Agency

June 14, 2011

Minister: Conference has military significance

-The conference is attended by representatives of member states of NATO, the Partnership for Peace, Mediterranean Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, as well as high EU and NATO officials.

BELGRADE: Defense Minister Dragan ?utanovac says the Strategic Military Partner Conference in Belgrade has considerable military, but not political significance.

…

?utanovac stressed that, while making a decision to host the gathering, the Serbian Defense Ministry was aware of the emotions that NATO provokes in Serbia.

….

“The conference has an extremely important military, not political character,” ?utanovac stressed, adding that the goal of the meeting is to show that Serbia is a dependable partner that can be relied on not only by NATO, but also by other countries attending the conference.

?utanovac said that Serbia will continue strengthening its defense forces and raising international reputation through its presence in peacekeeping missions.

He underscored that two recently signed agreements with the EU will establish the legal framework for Serbia’s participation in the EU peacekeeping operations.

“In this way, we will confirm our commitment to Serbia’s European perspective and the universal system of values fostered in the modern world,” he said.

The aim of the Strategic Military Partner Conference is to exchange experience and opinions on major strategic issues of common interest. The conference is attended by representatives of member states of NATO, the Partnership for Peace, Mediterranean Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, as well as high EU and NATO officials.

The gathering, bringing together NATO and its partner countries, was opened today by NATO Commander of Allied Command Transformation Stephane Abrial.

Dragan ?utanovac and Miloje Mileti?, chief of the VS general staff, were present.

Representatives of some 60 countries are taking part in the event that started at the Hyatt Hotel in Belgrade.

Ahead of the official start of the conference, participants attended a reception at the Guard House in Top?ider.

The conference will last through June 15.

It is organized by NATO’s Allied Command Transformation, and gathered members of this western military alliance, its Partnership for Peace program, the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Initiative.

Security culture

Serbia is recognized as a partner country that shares a common security culture of the contemporary world Stephane Abrial has been quoted as saying ahead of the conference.

Abrial met with Dragan ?utanovac in Belgrade on Monday.

Abrial praised the Serbian Defense Ministry and the army (VS) for a successful organization and extraordinary cooperation in the preparation of the Strategic Military Partner Conference, co-organized with the Allied Command Transformation, the Defense Ministry said in a website release.

?utanovac informed his guest about the results achieved in the defense system reforms that have been key conditions to put Serbia among countries with the capacity to contribute to international peace and security.

Trust is also being earned by such conferences, and credibility gained by readiness to reform a country’s defense system in a way that it can respond to national, regional and global security challenges, ?utanovac said.

====

Overwhelming Majority Of Serbs Reject NATO

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/06/14/51703227.html

Voice of Russia

June 14, 2011

Serbians not too keen on joining NATO

Alexander Vatutin

-“NATO bombed Yugoslavia for 79 days. Over 800 children were killed, the number of cancer patients has increased by six times because the alliance used shells with depleted uranium, and the country suffered damage of more than $200 billion. In the end, it was due to NATO that Serbia lost Kosovo which makes up 15% of its territory. This is how the alliance contributed to the good of our country”.

An overwhelming majority of the Serbians have a negative opinion of the plans of their leadership to start the process of joining NATO. This was obviously demonstrated on Monday, ahead of the NATO conference on strategic military partnership in Belgrade. Hundreds of people went into the streets to protest against President Boris Tadic’s pro-NATO policy.

For ordinary Serbians NATO is first of all associated with devastating bombings of Belgrade in 1999. According to public opinion polls, 75% of Serbian citizens do not accept the policy of joining the alliance.

Many people believe that holding a NATO conference so soon after the extradition of General Ratko Mladic to the Hague is an act of national humiliation. Instead of suing NATO in the International Court for numerous victims and the collapse of Yugoslavia, the authorities are developing a close military cooperation with the bloc.

Moreover, the Serbian Defence Ministry has declared that “holding the conference will raise the clout of the country on the international arena”. This is not a very politically correct explanation for their own people, believes the head of the Centre for Studying the Current Balkan Crisis Yelena Guskova:

“People have not forgotten the bombings, deprivations, grief and isolation of the country. This is why they march in the streets protesting against NATO. The country’s leadership is sure that holding the conference in Belgrade is a sign of a good attitude to Serbia. But if Serbia, which was bombed in the past, joins NATO, this will be the justification of the NATO policy in that period and Serbia will pass its own indictment.”

Serbians who live in Kosovo and Metohija are also utterly disappointed. Serbia lost its lands exactly because of the NATO policy. Serbian politician Marko Jaksic calls the decision of the Serbian authorities to host the NATO conference “masochistic”:

“NATO bombed Yugoslavia for 79 days. Over 800 children were killed, the number of cancer patients has increased by six times because the alliance used shells with depleted uranium, and the country suffered damage of more than $200 billion. In the end, it was due to NATO that Serbia lost Kosovo which makes up 15% of its territory. This is how the alliance contributed to the good of our country”.

However, it would be wrong to say that all Serbians are against integration with Europe. They support cooperation with the EU and joining it in the future, but they do not want to join NATO. This is what Alexander Karasiov, the head of a department of the Institute of Slavonic Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, says:

“There is a consensus about joining the EU. Most Serbians are in favour of this, joining the EU is important for both intellectuals and businessmen. As for relations with NATO, the problem is much more complicated. We can see a definite rift here. The majority of those who want the country to join the EU are against Serbia joining NATO”.

====

Serbian Patriarch Condemns NATO

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/06/15/51720388.html

Voice of Russia

June 15, 2011

Serbian Patriarch condemns NATO

The head of the Serbian Orthodox Church Patriarch Irenaeus condemned the holding of a NATO conference in Belgrade. According to him, the wounds inflicted by the alliance on the Serbian people have not yet healed.

In March 1999, NATO countries, led by the United States, began a bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, mainly in Serbia and Montenegro.

Due to the fact that aircraft used shells with depleted uranium cores the local residents who were in the areas of the bombing have seen a dramatic increase in mortality rates and an increased number of congenital diseases in children.

The NATO operation, undertaken without UN sanctions, continued for about three months. Its purpose was to protect Kosovar Albanians from the Serbian authorities, who started a military operation against the militant Albanian terrorist organization “The Kosovo Liberation Army.”

====

Montenegro Being Prepared As NATO’s 29th Member

http://www.balkans.com/open-news.php?uniquenumber=108494

Balkans Business News

June 14, 2011

Montenegro receives support to become the 29th NATO alliance member

“Montenegro is an important partner to NATO and you have our full support to become the 29th Alliance member,” the NATO Parliamentary Assembly president Karl Lamers told Montenegro’s Prime Minister Igor Luk?i? at their meeting on 12 June in Budva, Montenegro.

Mr Lamers said he has deep appreciation for PM Luk?i?’s policy and commended Montenegro’s commitment to EU and NATO integration. He welcomed Montenegro’s involvement in Afghanistan..

Mr Lamers also made a favourable assessment of Montenegro’s EU accession process, at the same time underlining that “Germany gives full support to both the EU and NATO integration of Montenegro.”

PM Luk?i? stressed that Montenegro will continue to work diligently on venerating the European and Euro-Atlantic principles not only for the sake of joining the organisations but primarily to ensure better quality of life for its citizens.

====

Pentagon Appoints New Military Command For Kyrgyz Transit Center

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-06/15/c_13929624.htm

Xinhua News Agency

June 15, 2011

U.S. Transit Center in Kyrgyzstan appoints new commander

BISHKEK: The U.S. Transit Center at Manas airport in Kyrgyzstan will continue deliver cargo and military personnel to Afghanistan within the same scope, a new commander of the Center said on Tuesday.

The new commnander, James Jacobson, is replacing Dwight Sones, who will now command the Travis airbase in California, the United States, Interfax reported.

The base’s mission will continue on the same scale, Jacobson told journalists after the command handover ceremony.

The Transit Center’s main operations will not change and will be expressed in ground and aerial refueling of air transport and sending personnel to and from Afghanistan, the new commander said.

“We will fulfill a decision of higher-ranking authorities to increase or to decrease the scope of cargo and personnel transportation to this country,” Jacobson said.

On Tuesday, command over the 376th Air Expeditionary Wing deployed at the airbase, which changed its name to the Transit Center in 2009, was handed over to U.S. Air Force Col. J. Jacobson.

Jacobson started service in the United States Air Force in 1990. Prior to his appointment in Kyrgyzstan he had served as deputy foreign policy advisor at the U.S. Africa Command in Stuttgart in Germany. At his new job, he will command over 1,200 service people and around 900 civilians – U.S. and Kyrgyz citizens working under contract, according to Interfax.

====

McCain Demands Russian Withdrawal From Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdniester

http://rustavi2.com/news/news_text.php?id_news=41998&pg=1&im=main&ct=0&wth=

Rustavi 2

June 14, 2011

McCain calls for Russian withdrawal from Georgia, Moldova

U.S. Senator John McCain calls on Russia to…withdraw its forces from the occupied territories of Georgia and Moldova.

McCain made the statement during his visit to Chisinau. [Capital of Moldova.]

He said Washington supports calls for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Moldova`s breakaway Transdniester region.

He said Moscow is violating the territorial integrity of Moldova and Georgia and one of the `fundamental norms` of `international behavior`.

According to McCain, territorial occupation is the problem which troubles these two nations similarly.