SUPPLEMENT

No. 45November 21, 2020

Warmongering Halifax International Security Forum

Ban the Halifax War Conference!
Oppose Canada's Stated War Aims! 

• War Party

- Poem by El Jones -

• Ban the Halifax War Conference! Oppose Canada's Stated War Aims!

• Desperate Attempts to Mobilize the Youth for War
and War Preparations

• Putting Canadian and Quebec Territory and Public Space in Service of Aggressive Military Alliances

- Christine Dandenault and Claude Brunelle -

• Confrontational China Strategy

- Tony Seed -
• NATO's Current Preoccupations Inform War Gathering

- Nick Lin -
• Biden's Picks for Pentagon Transition Team Show
He Is Cold War-Era Fossil

- Voice of Revolution -
• Australia Joins Parade of War Criminals en route to War Conference

• Another Warmongering University Network Seeks to
Embroil Youth in War Preparations

For Your Information

• 2020 Agenda, Speakers and Participants

• Partners and Sponsors

• Evidence of U.S. National Security Concerns and
Morbid Preoccupation with Defeat

War Party

- Poem by El Jones -

A woman's going to send the drones
So ready the covers of your Vogues
The food bank lines are now miles long
But a woman's the one who sends the bombs
Liberal feminism can't be wrong
When a woman's the one who sends the bombs.
Can't get workers PPE
But you go girl Nancy Pelosi
All hail the bipartisan war parties
Now Trump is gone we all agree
George W. Bush has been redeemed
The war criminals are on our team
And there's a Black woman on my TV screen
And when she bombs I'll yell yasss Queen
We'll force your countries to be free
And little Black girls can finally see
Themselves in drones and F-16s
And this is MLK Jr's dream
Brought to you by Wall Street
Brought to you by the elites
We'll never ever give you peace
Fund military and police
But a woman could be commander in chief
See what can happen when you believe?
This is gender equality
So everybody take a knee
The resistance heroes hip hip hooray
The FBI and CIA
The generals and NSA
So please enjoy your new air base
We've all forgot Abu Ghraib
We all forgot Guantanamo Bay
And none of them will see the Hague
The Patriot Act's so yesterday
We‘re all in love with John McCain
Make Lockheed Martin great again
Centrist neo-liberals all the rage
Kids still living in a cage
The war party is here to stay
And let's lock Julian Assange away.
We can't let him expose the truth
We're never bringing home the troops
Obama's so cool shooting hoops
You'll all be crushed under the boot
We're plotting out another coup
Billionaires we won't prosecute
We save that for moms of truant youth
Those Timberlands were looking cute
So let the oil companies pollute
He'll put them in the cabinet
Add bankers to make up the set
We'll regulate the internet
Corporate news is all you'll get
But a woman's going to send the jets
Are Yemeni women happy yet?
This moment gives me all the feels
A woman's making weapons deals
A woman's making refugees
A woman's going to rob and steal
Last week we were environmentalists
But now wars for oil are feminist
And history will reminisce
How all the donors benefit
Orange man is out the door
Things can go back to how they were before
Biden voted for the Iraq War
How dare you ask for any more
Your kids still super predators
And his kid's on strike number four
But prison's just for you and yours
And really the crime bill's all your fault
This is the time for unity
Bow down to oil and energy
And let's be friends with GOP
And white suburban families
There's no more white supremacy
Black woman deliver us the vote
We'll still be kneeling on your throat
But a woman's going to send the drones
So volunteer to work those phones
So we can bomb some woman's home
And probably waterboard her son
They're back in fashion neo-cons
So four more years of settlements
War parties are in agreement
And let's hashtag Black excellence
Kamala is Vice President.
The ladies join the gentlemen
In sword, famine, wild beast, pestilence
The four horse persons of apocalypse
These days we call that feminist
Is this the dream of suffragists?
And I heard her bombs never miss
And don't forget to call her Ms.
Madame, her honour, she or ma'am
Get ready those detainment camps
Muster the troops line up the ranks
A woman's going to send the tanks
And all of us will give her thanks
Especially weapons manufacturers, banks
And thanks to those suburban moms
A woman's going to send the bombs
I'm glad a woman is so strong
To send our countries all those bombs.

(November 19, 2020)

Ban the Halifax War Conference!
Oppose Canada's Stated War Aims!

November 21, 2009. Demonstration against the first Halifax International Security Forum
demands "Warmongers Out of Halifax!"

From November 20 to 22, the 12th Halifax International Security Forum (HISF) convenes as a platform for warmongering and empire-building of U.S. imperialism and the NATO bloc, in which the Trudeau Liberal government is fully embroiled. The HISF is being convened in a virtual format. For the 12th consecutive year, the anti-war forces in Halifax are organizing to oppose it. On November 20, No Harbour for War organized a public anti-war webinar. On November 21, a rally is organized at Halifax Peace Park across from the venue of the HISF.

Peace activists in Halifax are joined by others across the country to firmly reject their city and our country being used as the venue for this war conference and a base for war preparations.

This is not a Halifax -- let alone a Canadian -- event. It is a NATO bloc event, which it officially sponsors and directs. Its virtual format is organized from NATO's Washington, DC headquarters. The majority of its sessions are private and classified as "informal." The eight "plenary sessions" are broadcast in Canada by CPAC, owned by the Rogers telecommunications monopoly.

The HISF describes itself as "non-partisan" and "independent" but it is a U.S. imperialist enterprise -- lock, stock and barrel. An instrument of the U.S. state, its credo is "Halifax creates opportunities for leaders to learn, generate ideas and put them into action." The word "security" in HISF's name is informed by NATO's warmongering definition, namely protecting and advancing Anglo-American imperialist political and economic interests to the detriment of the peoples of the world, including those of the United States, Canada and Europe itself, in addition to those of Asia, Oceania, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. This is dangerous and puts Canadians and peoples everywhere in harm's way.

There is nothing honourable, "internationalist" or "multilateral" in the way that the Trudeau Liberals are funding and promoting this venue on Canadian territory, just as the Harper Conservatives did before them. Not only is everything related to foreign relations a prerogative power over which the people have no say whatsoever, but Canada plays no independent role. In fact, both its defence minister and armed forces are subordinate to the U.S. Commander-in-Chief through both NATO and NORAD command structures.

Who adopted the "Global Canada" conception which is being pushed? Who agrees that Canada's government should be set up as a war government with a war economy?

The "security" this conference is based on is a Cold War definition of "collective security" which does not respond to Canada's defence needs or the demand of the peoples of the world for peace and the peaceful resolution of conflicts within and between nations. It responds to the demands of the U.S. imperialists through NATO and the biggest arms monopolies and other private interests to increase military spending, step up war preparations and control all interests which clash with their own.

In line with the Liberal government's public relations approach, Canada's participation in the HISF and launching of wars is presented as a factor for a "more stable and peaceful world" and a "rules-based international order." It is not. The great insecurity felt by the world's peoples today is a direct result of the U.S.-led imperialist wars that have devastated and threatened countries and whole regions. Against this warmongering path -- which does not contribute one iota to solving the serious problems humankind is facing due to the neo-liberal destruction of the natural and social environment, betrayal of the nation, and issues such as poverty, hunger, and the COVID-19 pandemic -- the forces which genuinely stand for peace demand concrete measures to make Canada a zone for peace by getting Canada out of NATO and NORAD, and demilitarizing the economy and changing its direction to make it pro-social so that it can meet the needs of the people.

The HISF attaches high significance to its initiative to bring together the movers and shakers of U.S. imperialist attempts to dominate the world. But no matter how much they give rise to refurbished notions of old theories, they cannot overcome the imperialist security dilemma formulated as far back as 1957 by none other than Henry Kissinger when he was still a professor at  Harvard University.

"But so far as the effect on our national policy is concerned, the stalemate ... has been with us ever since the explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To be sure, in the first postwar years it was not a physical stalemate. For nearly a decade the United States was virtually immune to Soviet retaliation. It was a stalemate, none the less, in the sense that we never succeeded in translating our military superiority into a political advantage." (emphasis added.) Kissinger adds, [O]ur atomic monopoly had at best a deterrent effect."

This describes the problem the Anglo-American imperialists have had all along -- that their military superiority does not provide political advantage. It does not do away with politics. Sovereign countries continue to exist with their own right to be and right to decide their own affairs. Thirty NATO members out of 198 countries in the world do not the world make.

With the fall of the Soviet Union and the onset of the neo-liberal nation-wrecking agenda, the security dilemma facing the imperialists can only continue to get worse so long as their neo-liberal agenda does not recognize international relations based on territoriality and nation-states have been usurped by very narrow private interests which operate internationally as cartels and coalitions vying for control. What they cannot control, they seek to destroy. No matter what choice the imperialists and their henchmen make, in the absence of politics all they have left is "endless war" -- states of exception and the use of force to try to control what they cannot control through threats, anarchy and violence coupled with attempts to justify what cannot be justified.

In 2016, it was the missile defence shield to contain Russia. Now it is a global handbook to contain China.

The fact remains that the greatest insecurity is that people are disempowered, the prerogative power gives them no say whatsoever over foreign affairs and defence policy. This makes gatherings such as the one organized by No Harbour for War very significant because its aim is to provide those who are on the front line fighting for peace with information and assessments of the war preparations by the HISF, Canada and NATO. To share and exchange experiences, and work out a new direction for Canada is important work.

Canadians should demand that the HISF be banned, along with demanding that Canada get out of NATO and NORAD and that they be dismantled. No foreign troops should be permitted to operate on Canadian territory and Canadian forces should be brought home to operate only in defence of Canada based on how the Canadian people define that need, not the U.S. imperialists, NATO and their so-called intelligence agencies. No foreign warships, whether or not they carry nuclear weapons, should be permitted to use our harbours. All foreign think tanks and NATO-sponsored Canadian academic institutions should be dismantled. All front groups and non-governmental organizations which promote imperialist war aims must be rejected by the people.

With a pro-social aim and new direction for the economy, other uses can be found for that social wealth and the human productive force released from the war economy. Needless to say, the suggestions to humanize the social and natural environment are unlimited in their scope.

Ban the Halifax War Conference and Oppose the Government of Canada's War Aims!
No Harbour for War!
Make Canada a Zone for Peace!

Desperate Attempts to Mobilize the Youth
for War and War Preparations

The Government of Canada and NATO continue to take measures to embroil the youth in their imperialist wars and war preparations. A recent report from the Center for European Policy Analysis think tank declared, "NATO faces existential threat if it can't reach younger generations." The report said "NATO has not done enough to activate interest in younger European leaders."

"'We need to recognize there is a whole new generation of post-Cold War citizens of the alliance who have grown up in an entirely different environment, and they are already beginning to take up roles in national government, and they have a different set of priorities that are more in line with future threats,' the author of the report, Lauren Speranza, told Defense News.

"'If NATO doesn't bring them into the fold now, we risk this scenario in which NATO is viewed as outdated and doesn't have the buy-in of a next generation of political leaders, and at that point risks retirement.'

"Speranza offered three key areas where the alliance should step up its focus in order to make sure NATO is relevant to that post-Cold War cohort.

"The first is a focus on the nontraditional threats that are well below the Article 5 designation, an area that 'has impact on the everyday lives of millennials and Gen Z in a way that it doesn't current policy makers,' per Speranza. A more proactive effort in that regard (something NATO has begun doing in recent years) would help attract interest in a way that a focus on Article 5, which refers to the alliance's collective defense clause, may not, she said.

"The second is a need to develop a technology and innovation agenda. The private tech industry is always in competition with the defence sector for young talent, and often wins, but NATO also lags behind the Pentagon and the European Union in how it recruits and offers interesting challenges for younger technology experts.

"The third area also dovetails with statements from NATO leadership that it needs to figure out how to relate to China, and what role the alliance may play in the Pacific.

"'There are a lot of next-gen leaders with an interest in Asia, so bringing them in to help inform how partnerships with Asian nations could happen is a good way to benefit both sides,' Speranza said. 'It's not about tearing up the current NATO agenda. It's about finding ways to communicate those priorities with ways that resonate with next-gen leaders.'"

On November 9 in Brussels, "NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg kicked off an all-day NATO 2030 Youth Summit aimed at injecting interest in the alliance into millennial and Generation Z future leaders," Defense News reported.

"'You -- tomorrow's leaders, both in North America and Europe -- have the greatest stake in our security, so NATO 2030 is the chance for you to step up and safeguard your future, your freedom, your Alliance,' Stoltenberg said in his opening comments."

The Centre for European Policy Analysis approved the Summit.

The report from Defense News continues:

"The next-gen summit itself serves as a perfect example of the internal challenges Speranza sees at alliance headquarters. The effort is billed as a way to bring younger voices into NATO at a time when the alliance is undergoing a major review of its future, dubbed NATO 2030, and alliance leadership has announced plans to stand up a Young Leaders group in parallel to the review -- all good moves, on paper.

"But, Speranza says, 'in an ideal world, we would just put a few next-gen representatives on the main Reflection Group instead of running a parallel process.'

"'Oftentimes the next generation wants to be consulted but they get very few opportunities, and it's always under this next-gen label; they don't get to sit at the adults table or get to actually work shoulder to shoulder. By maintaining this divide, we do the Alliance a disservice.'"

The fact is that the younger generations born after the fall of the Soviet Union and the Cold War division of the world into two camps are not infected with the superpowers' Cold War preoccupations. "We are not getting into their games. Every day our efforts of awareness, information and mobilization must ensure that the youth won't be mobilized for imperialist war and won't serve as cannon fodder for the hegemonic wars of the oligarchs and their governments," said Alexandre Cubaynes on behalf of Youth for Democratic Renewal. "Canada must not participate in U.S. imperialist war preparations and must also defend its sovereignty in a meaningful way. By this, we mean that we shall not permit the U.S. imperialists to exercise command and control over Canada's air, land, water and government and military assets. We must withdraw from NATO as well as NORAD and work for an independent foreign policy. This means removing all Canadian soldiers, ships and equipment from foreign territory. Most importantly, it means that Canadians must prepare to establish an anti-war government."

Alexandre stressed that the slogan of the youth is Not a Single Youth for Imperialist War. "Our aim is to establish an anti-war government so that Canada is a factor for peace, not predatory war. An anti-war government would withdraw Canada from NATO, NORAD and other aggressive military bodies and arrangements, and end interference in the affairs of sovereign countries. An anti-war government would work to end the displacement of people as a result of wars of aggression and occupation and to provide humanitarian aid to refugees and victims of natural disasters," he said.

Not a Single Youth for Imperialist War!
Pas un seul jeune pour la guerre impérialiste!

Putting Canadian and Quebec Territory and Public Space in Service of Aggressive Military Alliances

- Christine Dandenault and Claude Brunelle -

October 30, 2004. Demonstration in opposition to the presence of warships in Montreal.

Canada is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) established on April 4, 1949. It has also been a member of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) since May 12, 1958. The integration of the Canadian military into the U.S. military has been one of the characteristics of Canada's membership in these military alliances. Despite the determined and continued opposition of the Quebec, Canadian and Indigenous peoples to any participation of Canada in such alliances and wars of aggression and occupation under the helm of the U.S. imperialists, the Canadian government continues its interventions against the peoples of the world. This translates into putting the territory, public space and public funds at the disposal of these alliances.

La Presse reported on October 21, that the Canadian government will be increasing the federal budget allocation for war based on its commitment as a member of NATO. "NATO figures show that Canada is on the verge of committing 1.45 per cent of its GDP to the military this year. This not only represents a significant hike from last year's 1.29 per cent, but the largest share of the GDP for defence in a decade.[1]

"It also exceeds the Liberal government's original provisions, set out in the 2017 defence policy, to spend 1.4 per cent of the GDP on the military by 2024-2025 -- the year NATO members were to reach the two per cent target."[2]

Pretext of Protecting Populations and Countering
Threats from Abroad

Fifty years after the implementation of the War Measures Act and the military occupation of Quebec by the Trudeau government, Canadian military training activities continue in the name of protecting the population.

The military occupation of Quebec was used to crush the struggle of the Quebec people in the late 1960s for the affirmation of their rights, under the pretext of an apprehended armed insurrection, which was later revealed as pure fabrication on the government's part. Shortly before the 50th anniversary of that occupation, October 31, Canadian Special Operations Forces held a military exercise at the Farnham military base during the night of October 20-21. CH-146 Griffon and CH-147 Chinook aircraft flew over the municipalities of Farnham, Chambly and the surrounding towns en route to the Saint-Hubert airport. It was reported that the sky was full of helicopters and that shots were fired. Canadian Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM) is a high-readiness organization, able to deploy special operations forces on very short notice, purportedly to protect the Canadian population against threats at home and abroad.

Ian Grant, the captain in charge of the command, says: "The training included extensive air support from the Royal Canadian Air Force. This exercise was regular training for Canadian Special Operations Forces Command that helps maintain the skills that may be required for overseas deployments, and provides an opportunity to build the skills needed to protect Canadians here at home.[3]

In August, a military training exercise was held in the Arctic, called Operation NANOOK, a mainstay of the Canadian Armed Forces since 2007. The exercise lasted three weeks and was led by Canada and, for the first time, joined by allies the United States, France and Denmark.

A report on the naval exercise in the Arctic says that it was intended to send a message of unity against potential adversaries in the north -- who are identified as Russia or China. Three Canadian Navy warships and four allied warships participated in the exercise, conducting most of their activities in the Davis Strait between Baffin Island and Greenland, which is considered part of the Northwest Passage.

"The message is that the Arctic is strategically important. It's becoming increasingly important for our collective national security," said Vice Admiral Steven Poulin, Commander of the U.S. Coast Guard's Atlantic area [our emphasis].[4]

In July 2020, the 408 Tactical Helicopter Squadron travelled to 4 Wing Cold Lake, Alberta to participate in Gander Gunner 2020, a week-long aerial gunnery exercise for the squadron's newly-assigned aircrew. CH-146 Griffon helicopters flew over the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range, each equipped with two lateral C6 machine guns to learn new skills.

The Gander Gunner exercise focused on door gunner accuracy, effective attack patterns and realistic tactical scenarios, to maintain the high standard of training for all aircrew. Missions used night vision goggle technology to allow attack teams to conduct fire missions even through the darkest nights.[5]

In October, soldiers from the Canadian Army participated in a military exercise in Kuwait with the U.S. military. Canadian Forces members in Kuwait were trained in special operations weapons at the Udairi Range complex with the U.S. Joint Special Operations Forces Support Detachment in Kuwait (JSSD-K), led by the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), responsible for U.S. military operations in the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia.[6]

Members of JSSD-K brought together soldiers from the 386th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron, the 386th Expeditionary Civil Engineering Squadron, 387 Air Expeditionary Squadron, Camp Canada and Camp Moreell for a day of Special Operations -- Weapons (SOF) training.[7]

Militarization of Police Forces

One of the aspects of life today is the bankruptcy of democratic institutions and the violent response of governments to contain the popular will that demands control over all decisions affecting the lives of the people. The use of police powers takes many forms, including the militarization of police forces. For example, war weaponry is now purchased by various municipalities and made available to their police forces. In February 2018, the City of Laval entered into a $168,000 private contract with Colt for the purchase of long guns and powerful ammunition. The assault rifles are not intended for use by special forces, but for patrol officers.

The justification was provided in the call for tenders: "It is imperative for the Laval Police Service to acquire adequate, effective and precise patrol rifles so that police officers can neutralize the threat in a minimum amount of time and with maximum precision." The rifles are to be made available to patrol officers and carried in the trunks of patrol cars so that they can react in the event of an attack or killing. What is the threat? It did not say.

In 2018, the Chateauguay Police Department took steps to equip its patrol officers with 5.56 mm calibre weapons. These weapons are to be used under two circumstances: in the presence of an active shooter or a barricaded suspect. Patrol officers can intervene in high-risk situations without waiting for the arrival of the intervention team.

In November 2019, the media announced that members of the City of Montreal Police Service (SPVM) Emergency Response Team (ERT) will soon carry assault rifles with an even greater strike force than those already in their possession. The police force has issued a call for tender to acquire weapons comparable to the mythical AK-47, capable of stopping a pickup truck or piercing light armor.

In 2018, the Sûreté du Québec (SQ), the provincial police force, received 230 Colt C8 rifles from the Canadian Forces. One hundred and fifty patrol officers are to be trained "on budget." One hundred have already taken the course and some forty weapons are already circulating in as many patrol units across Quebec. In November 2019, the SQ also signed a $153,000 contract to purchase semi-automatic long guns and 300 Blackout ammunition from the MD Charlton Company.

During 2017, the City of Longueuil signed at least 11 contracts for a total of $751,000. A dozen assault rifles were purchased for the tactical teams, as well as accessories such as silencers, and optical equipment.

In addition, tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition have been ordered for patrol officers' long guns. Patrol officers will use C8 assault rifles supplied by the Canadian Army. "All of our patrol officers who will be using long guns have undergone rigorous training," the City of Longueuil Police Service said.[8]

Militarization of Life and Public Space

More recently, within in the context of the pandemic, the federal government deployed the Canadian Armed Forces to "assist" public authorities. Among other things, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland's refusal to allow the Cuban Henry Reeve Brigades to provide assistance to the Anishinaabe and Dakota communities in Manitoba at their request is a case in point. Instead, the next day, the Deputy Prime Minister called on the Canadian Armed Forces to assist them.

In Quebec, more than 1,400 members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) were mobilized by civilian authorities in 47 residential and long-term care centres (CHSLDs). Operation LASER -- the deployment of Canadian Forces members to seniors' residences in Quebec and Ontario in the spring to combat COVID-19 -- was carried out gradually, beginning on April 22. The Legault government even intervened to request that the armed forces remain until September, saying it was an essential service.

The government refused and continues to refuse to listen to and apply the proposals of workers and professionals in the field who have the experience and know-how to save lives. Instead of responding to the pressing demands of health care workers in terms of equipment, masks, human and material resources and ending the anti-social offensive with large investments in health care, the government has turned to the armed forces. COVID-19 becomes the pretext. In actual fact, this becomes a military exercise in the public domain, right in the heart of health care facilities.

Natural Resources Deemed in the National Interest

Another aspect of the use of our national territory for military and aggressive NATO and U.S. Command purposes is their strong interest in our natural resources that can be used for military purposes. The October 24, 2020 issue of TML Weekly points to the minerals of interest:

"Of the 35 critical minerals, many others are also extracted in Canada, such as cobalt (in Ontario), niobium, scandium and titanium (in Quebec). Plans are in place for others to be mined, such as chromium (Ontario's Ring of Fire), vanadium (from the tar sands in Alberta and Quebec's Lac Doré complex), lithium (in the James Bay area, Quebec) and rare earth elements (REEs) (in northern Saskatchewan). In all these cases, Quebec and provincial governments across Canada are providing all sorts of handouts to the rich in the form of infrastructure projects (building of roads, railways, power lines, and research and development facilities) and bailouts. [...]

"As indicated in the 2018 United States Geological Survey document on critical minerals, many of the elements found in Canada have military and civilian applications. Aluminum is used in many civilian and military ground, marine and aerospace applications such as vehicles, naval vessels, airframes and plane and rocket fuselages. Cesium and rubidium are indispensable elements in global positioning satellites (GPS), rocket guidance systems, military infrared devices (night vision), cellular phones and fibre optics, to name just a few.

"Indium is used for aircraft windshields, military infrared imaging, flat panel displays for computer and TV screens and for nuclear applications, amongst many other uses. Various REEs are used in jet engines; in military guidance, laser, radar and sonar systems; and to make permanent magnets. Tellurium has military applications in infrared devices (night vision) and semiconductors for telecommunication and electronic devices. Uranium has many applications for space missions, nuclear propulsion of military vessels and nuclear power stations."

Make Canada a Zone for Peace

In these military activities and the occupation of public space and territory, the peoples of Canada, Quebec, the First Nations and even the peoples of the world and their objective movement to be able to decide upon all matters of concern to them are not part of the equation. Yet, the reality is that only the peoples of the world in their struggle for justice, dignity, emancipation, peace and security are capable of achieving peace. 

For decades Canadians and Quebeckers have expressed their opposition to any participation by Canada in aggressive alliances that seek to crush and subjugate other peoples and nations that refuse to submit to imperialist dictate. Demonstrations, petitions, and public statements are now part of their DNA. Not a single NATO warship can dock in a Quebec port, or anywhere else in the country, without being met by demonstrators. The Canadian, Quebec and Indigenous peoples are actively demonstrating their desire for a Canada that is a zone of peace, for an anti-war Canada that it is so urgent to build.

Notes

1. "Le Canada augmente nettement sa part en défense, selon l'OTAN," La Presse, October 21, 2020.

2. Ibid.

3. "Des aéronets survolent la région en plein nuit," Journal de Chambly, October 21, 2020.

4. "Le Canada mène un exercice militaire dans l'Arctique," La Presse, August 4, 2020.

5. "Exercise Grander Gunner 2020," Canadian Armed Forces, September 16, 2020.

6. 45e Nord, Armes d'opérations spéciales: les Canadiens s'entraînent au Koweit avec les Américains, October 23, 2020.

7. Ibid.

8. "Vague d'achats de fusils d'assaut au sein des corps policiers du Québec," Radio-Canada, May 15, 2018.

Confrontational China Strategy

- Tony Seed -

The U.S. imperialists and their allies, such as Canada, have been increasingly targeting China through the Halifax International Security Forum (HISF).

In a November 13 press release concerning the priorities at this year's forum (HFX2020), the HISF stated: "China's increasingly antagonistic foreign policy stance and what democracies can do about it will be a key topic at HFX2020. Taking part in those discussions will, amongst others, be the former chairperson of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, Emily Lau; Ai Weiwei, human rights activist and artist; and Dolkun Isa, President of the World Uyghur Congress. China vs Democracy: The Greatest Game, a handbook outlining the collective approach that the world's democracies can take to counter Xi Jinping's global ambitions, will also be released at HFX2020."

A related development is the increasing arms sales to Taiwan (officially the Republic of China) to provoke China, seemingly in contravention of the one-China policy. Whether or not this signals an end to respect for the one-China policy, it certainly shows that attempts to replace arrangements entered into in the aftermath of World War II and the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the basis of which international relations have been conducted are being destroyed.

The anti-China initiative was originally announced November 22, 2019, two days after U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a demand following a NATO Foreign Ministers' meeting in Brussels, that NATO countries cannot ignore the "fundamental differences and beliefs" between themselves and the Communist Party of China.

In a press release issued at last year's forum, the HISF announced "a new year-long initiative focused on China" and HISF President Peter Van Praagh declared, "It's no longer a secret that Xi Jinping's China is working hard to make the world safe for authoritarianism. It is time for a comprehensive China strategy for the United States, Canada and their allies -- one that makes the world safe for democracy.

"Over the next 12 months, Halifax will consult with subject experts and thought leaders to get their input on what can be done to confront this growing threat to our freedom."

The HISF "consulted with over 250 experts from around the world, including cabinet secretaries from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations." In the end its "thought leaders" produced a bleak "handbook" and "a statement of principles," barren of principle, titled China vs. Democracy -- The Greatest Game: A Handbook for Democracies, a 101-page document available on the HISF website.[1]

The handbook's Executive Summary resorts to discredited accusations that the PRC is to blame for the COVID-19 pandemic, using this to buttress its claims that China and its leadership pose an existential threat to "democracy" worldwide. The summary ends by threatening retaliation against China for its alleged misdeeds:

"Now is the time to soberly rethink the democratic world's policy responses to the China challenge. Democracies must pursue a carefully considered yet robust push back -- push back that Xi's China has brought upon itself. The CCP [Chinese Communist Party] must recalibrate its global ambitions and back off from the ongoing assault on the world's democracies.

"Neither the United States nor any other democracy is likely to successfully meet the challenge from the PRC by going it alone. The good news is that no country, including the United States, need go it alone.

"The effective deployment of U.S. power, wealth and technological prowess in conjunction with its vast array of global allies, will ensure that China's ambitions can be kept in check. While the United States remains the free world's natural leader, alliances and partnerships among democracies will be different than those of the twentieth century. Reimagining democratic alliances that are fit for the twenty-first century is the most urgent task of the day."

The handbook does not mention Pompeo or his marching orders. Rather it says of its genesis: "This project began as a series of meetings hosted by Baroness Neville-Jones at the U.K. House of Lords in London in 2019. At one of those meetings, Baroness Neville-Jones, who has been a stalwart friend and supporter since HFX began in 2009, pointedly declared that there was no common strategy among the world's democracies with regard to China, and that there ought to be one. This handbook seeks to contribute toward building that common strategy." Neville-Jones has been a member of Bilderberg, Chairman, QinetiQ (UK privatized military research/services company); governor, BBC; Chairman, Information Assurance Advisory Council; Chairman, Joint Intelligence Committee; and Managing Director, NatWest Markets.

The lead author of the handbook is Robin Shepherd, newly-appointed HISF Vice-President, and an experienced reactionary British journalist affiliated with the Henry Jackson Society in Britain, the McCain Institute in the U.S., and Just Journalism, an Israeli advocacy group. His book, A State Beyond the Pale: Europe's Problem with Israel, was so extreme in its promotion of Israeli state terrorism that he was reportedly fired by Chatham House, also known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, where he was head of the Europe program.

The "team of colleagues and collaborators" includes Paz Magat, who comes from a counter-revolutionary background -- her family fled the People Power Revolution in 1986 against the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines. She previously worked with the U.S. State Department and is in charge of the HISF NATO "Peace With Women Fellowship" organized to embroil women in aggression and war under the banner of "inclusion."

The handbook specifically credits amongst others:

- Michael R. Auslin, of the Hoover Institution and HISF's Senior Advisor for Asia, "who provided general oversight." In 1959, former U.S. President Herbert Hoover said of the institute that bears his name, "The purpose of this institution must be, by its research and publications, to demonstrate the evils of the doctrines of Karl Marx." Auslin is a fellow at London's Policy Exchange, a conservative think tank which had close ties to David Cameron; and Vice Chairman of the Wilton Park USA Foundation, the U.S. arm of Wilton Park, an executive agency of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Auslin was formerly Director of Japan Studies with the conservative American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, which played a major role in manufacturing support for the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

- Admiral Mike Rogers (retired), former Director of the U.S. National Security Agency and former Commander of U.S. Cyber Command;

- John Mullen, former Assistant Director of the CIA for East Asia and the Pacific and former Associate Executive Assistant Director for the FBI, responsible for "counterterrorism, counterintelligence, WMD, and intelligence efforts worldwide";

- Ambassador Kenichiro Sasae, President of the Japan Institute of International Affairs;

- Ambassador Hemant Singh, Director General of the Delhi Policy Group (DPG), and Brigadier Arun Sahgal (retired), DPG Senior Fellow for Strategic and Regional Security;

- Peter Hefele, Head of Department Asia and Pacific, and David Merkle, Desk Officer China, at Germany's Konrad Adenauer-Stiftung Foundation; and

- Roland Paris, Trudeau's former senior foreign policy advisor.

In a November 17 tweet, the HISF declared: "Beijing has made a priority of installing its loyalists as leading figures in int'l organizations, from the @ITU to the @icao. HFX thanks @UNWatch & @HillelNeuer for their contribution to the Handbook for Democracies, and for keeping authoritarian regimes like China in check."

Neuer is a South African from Toronto. UN Watch is a minuscule Geneva-based agency which looks after Israel's interests; it is formally affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, a pro-Israeli political lobby organization based in New York. UN Watch is devoted to subverting the most fundamental principles of the UN Charter in the name of human rights and ensuring "balance" towards Israel which has been condemned by more than 20 human rights resolutions and more than 70 UN General Assembly resolutions.

UN Watch has nothing to teach Canadians or the peoples of the world about democracy. It organized the so-called Libyan Human Rights letter of February 21, 2011 faking the case against Libya. It called for the UN Security Council (UNSC) to invoke the "Responsibility to Protect" and invade Libya. The letter was used by the UNSC, Obama and NATO as the pretext for unleashing the "no fly zones" as a cover for the savage aggression of the U.S.-NATO forces. This included bombing by warplanes and drone attacks which killed thousands of innocent people. A Canadian Forces general was installed as commander.

In the same vein as the handbook, the HISF also released its "China Principles," presented as some sort of pledge of allegiance to be sworn by those it deems part of the "democratic world." It reads as follows:

"The democratic world pledges to defend itself from the following practices that undermine its values and way of life:

"- ignoring China's attempts to interfere in democratic societies;
- submitting to, collaborating with, or participating in any censorship or self-censorship of ideas, writings, artistic endeavors, or statements related to the People's Republic of China;
- participating in any business or technology-related practices or exchanges that aid and abet Chinese Communist Party oppression of its own people;
- neglecting to oppose attempts by the People's Republic of China to bring global governance of the internet and technological standards into alignment with its own authoritarian values and ambitions;
- supporting or engaging in any kind of punishment or sanction of anyone for engaging in criticism of China;
- failing to support democratically-minded people and governments across the world who face pressure or intimidation by the People's Republic of China;
- knowingly buying or trading in Chinese products or services made with forced labor, or that are the result of criminal activities like counterfeiting or intellectual property theft."

On November 18, the Communications Security Establishment and its Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, whose chief Shelly Bruce participates in the HISF, released a hysterical report declaring China, Russia, Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as "strategic threats to Canada" for cyber attacks, fake news, theft of intellectual property and so on. To justify its approach the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in a recent report desperately went so far as to paint Chinese Canadians as shock troops in China's alleged schemes. According to the xenophobic and racist theses akin to the Yellow Peril of the 19th century, Chinese Canadians are puppets of the Communist Party of China who are secretly infiltrating Canadian society. This follows explicit attempts to dub COVID-19 the "Wuhan virus" as if to blame China for the negligence of the public health system by the ruling circles in Canada. Besides the aim of fomenting aggression against China, such baseless accusations are to divert the people from looking at their own economic system, political process and the inhuman conditions forced on them, so that they do not take action to find new arrangements.

Note

1. China vs Democracy: The Greatest Game, available here.

(With files from HISF website, TML Archives.)

NATO's Current Preoccupations
Inform War Gathering

- Nick Lin -

At a one-day conference titled "Preparing NATO and the Allies for the Future Challenges" in Sofia, Bulgaria on October 27, NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana gave a speech in which he outlined NATO's current preoccupations.

The speech was part of the first panel discussion called "NATO in the next decade: Providing peace and security in a challenging security environment."

Geoana stated, "NATO's main task during the pandemic is to make sure that the health crisis does not become a security crisis. [...] We have done what is necessary to keep our forces safe, to maintain our operational readiness and sustain our missions and operations, from our presence here in the Black Sea Region to countering terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan." He mentioned that troops in NATO countries are supporting their national civilian responses to COVID-19.

He highlighted what he called areas of instability of concern for the aggressive alliance, including "North Africa and the greater Middle East," as well as the "Western Balkans [...], where we see a confluence of threats from nationalist, Islamist, radicalist and Russian interference." Russia's activities in its own territory were described as "seek[ing] to dominate its neighbours here in the Black Sea Region and all along NATO's eastern flank, expanding its military presence on NATO's borders."

Geoana also cited the importance of cyber warfare and artificial intelligence for NATO going forward, saying, "We are involved in a new technological race where conflicts are increasingly defined by bytes and big data and AI as the minister has said, as much as by bullets and battleships. And NATO is driving innovation. Our Science and Technology Organization runs a network of over 6,000 scientists and engineers from across the Alliance. They're dedicated to integrating the most advanced technologies in NATO and Allied platforms [...]

"Throughout NATO's 70 years history, we have mostly dominated the technological race, but now that dominance is being challenged. Other nations like Russia and China, countries that do not share the same values as we do, are developing new technologies: from hypersonic missiles, to autonomous systems, through artificial intelligence and cyber warfare."

He went on to say, in effect, that post-secondary institutions and the fields of science and engineering should be used to maintain NATO's dominance, and also that the youth should also be embroiled in "transforming our societies and ensure that our economies and militaries remain strong."

He also pushed for NATO members to subordinate themselves to the supranational interests of the aggressive alliance in the name of "interoperability," saying, "[...] we must make sure that we do not create an unbridgeable technological gap between Allies. This is why and where NATO plays a central role, agreeing standards across all Allies. So we are not 30 separate nations, but one united alliance." He did not mention NATO's demand that member countries are expected to commit two per cent of GDP toward the military, regardless of what the citizens of those countries want.

Geoana went on to claim that NATO is concerned about climate change, citing a recent speech by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg "on the very real and growing security implications of our changing climate, which is putting pressure on basic resources like food, water and energy, fuelling conflict and increasing existing threats." He added that "NATO is directly affected by a warming planet. For example, our Training Mission in Iraq, this summer in Baghdad, temperatures regularly went above 50 degrees Celsius. Just imagine being in that sort of heat, let alone wearing full combat gear." Nothing was said about the fact that NATO and its aggressive activities are collectively one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases that are responsible for climate change.

Geoana stated that NATO's Secretary General "is leading a process called NATO 2030. It aims to look to the future so that NATO can continue to protect our almost one billion citizens in the coming decade and way, way beyond. NATO 2030 is about keeping the Alliance strong, literally, by continuing to invest more in capabilities we need to deter and to defend ourselves on land, at sea, in the air, in space and cyberspace.

"Also making NATO stronger politically, by bringing more issues that affect our security to NATO's table -- even if sometimes, as we see, these very days, discussions may not be easy.

"And also, third, taking a more global approach. This doesn't mean a global presence, per se, because NATO remains a regional organization by definition and by treaty. But working ever closely with our partners around the world to defend our values and way of life. And this is paramount for our continued success.

"So a strong military, a strong political Alliance is essential. But this is not enough. We also need strong societies able to prevent, to endure, to adapt and bounce back from whatever happens to them. In the years ahead, we have to put a much greater emphasis on resilience.

"NATO Allies have already agreed high standards for resilience in areas including the continuity of government, secure transport and communications including 5G, energy, food and water supplies. And we are working closely with the European Union, with the private sector, with civil society and academia on all these, because ultimately, although resilience is a national responsibility, it is also a collective effort.

"As part of NATO 2030, we want to go further and agree stronger requirements for resilience at the meeting of NATO heads of states and governments next year."

Geoana concluded by promoting the fiction that the aggressive NATO alliance ensures the collective security of its members, while it threatens the safety and well-being of all those who do not submit to its agenda. Joining NATO's protection racket, he claimed has "protected Bulgaria for the last 15, 16 years now. And it will continue to do so for many years to come. Our nations stand united across two continents for a single, simple and powerful reason: our values, our freedom, our democracy, our human rights, the rule of law."

The first panel also featured opening remarks from organizers and sponsors, as well as remarks from Bulgarian defence officials.

There were three other panels, which elaborated NATO's preoccupations outlined in the speech by Geoana.

The second panel was titled "NATO's key tasks in the dynamic security environment. Non-military non-traditional risks and threats to NATO and the member-states. Shall NATO adopt new roles?" which was described in conference materials as follows:

"The global pandemic caused by the coronavirus has a devastating effect on many countries. Many people were infected and many lost their lives. The economies are suffering heavy losses. The crisis is having an impact on NATO activities and exercises.

"Following the initial shock, Member States and NATO have been able to coordinate their efforts to deal with the crisis, making full use of NATO structures and common capabilities. What are the implications of the COVID-19 crisis on NATO operations and capabilities?

"What are the first analyses and lessons learned from the crisis and what shall we do in order to be more prepared if similar threats occur in the future? What conclusions for NATO strategic foresight, preparedness and cooperation can be drawn?"

The third panel was titled "Providing NATO with new capabilities in the new technological environment," which was described by organizers as follows:

"The new technologies can greatly enhance NATO's capabilities. At the same time, their vulnerabilities and weaknesses must be known. On the other hand, strategic rivals are also developing military capabilities based on new technologies.

"What are NATO's approaches and policies towards emerging and disruptive technologies and new non-military threats? How to coordinate planning and development of capabilities based on the new technologies? Advantages and disadvantages of the new technologies. Is there a digital divide within NATO and how to overcome it? How shall NATO and the EU better coordinate approaches?"

The last panel was titled "Anticipating the future. How to prepare NATO and Allies to meet the future risks and threats" and was described as follows:

"The complex security environment which combines old and new risks and threats, requires an improved assessment and strategic foresight. Better understanding of the nature of these risks and strong leadership are needed to deal with them. This is especially relevant for the use of new technologies to achieve superiority in capabilities and operations.

"How can we better prepare NATO and the member-states to face the future challenges? What needs to be done at national and NATO levels so that we can assess the potential negative developments or impact of new technologies on defence capabilities and the nature of war as a whole? What must we do now to be able to predict and adequately respond to future crises and challenges? What policies and coordination mechanisms help us to better prepare to meet the new crises?"

(With files from nato.int, cmdrcoe.org.)

Biden's Picks for Pentagon Transition Team
Show He Is Cold War-Era Fossil

- Voice of Revolution -

Having declared himself President-elect, Joe Biden on November 10 announced a 23-member transition team to review the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) between now and when the new president is supposed to take office on January 20, 2021. The people chosen and the institutions they come from -- created during the Cold War -- are indicative that a Biden administration will be as hopelessly stuck in past failures as have its predecessors. U.S. pragmatism follows the adage that failures will somehow turn into successes if only one reshuffles the cards enough times. Fossilized Cold War relics will not provide the U.S. with a way forward no matter how much it tries.

Defense News notes two notable members of the team: "The team is led by Kathleen Hicks, who served as both principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, as well as deputy undersecretary of defense for strategy, plans, and forces in the Obama administration. She is currently the director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' [CSIS] International Security Program.

"Also included on the list is Christine Wormuth, director of the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center. Wormuth held a number of roles in the Obama administration, culminating as undersecretary of defense for policy from 2014-2016. Both Hicks and Wormuth were seen as contenders for top DoD jobs, perhaps deputy secretary of defense, before today's announcement."

Center for Strategic and International Studies

The CSIS is a U.S. thinktank that says its "purpose is to define the future of national security. We are guided by a distinct set of values -- non-partisanship, independent thought, innovative thinking, cross-disciplinary scholarship, integrity and professionalism, and talent development. CSIS's values work in concert toward the goal of making real-world impact."

"A Brief History" of the CSIS on its website states it was founded in 1962 "at the height of the Cold War" and that since then it "has been at the forefront of solutions to the vexing foreign policy and national security problems of the day. [...] In 2007, the CSIS Smart Power Commission provided a diagnosis of America's declining standing in the world and offered a set of recommendations for a smart power approach to America's global engagement.[...] CSIS is regularly called upon by Congress, the executive branch, the media, and others to explain the day's events and offer recommendations to improve U.S. strategy."

Topics that the CSIS deals with include: climate change; cypersecurity and technology; defense and security; economics; energy and sustainability; global health; human rights; international development.

RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center

The RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center (ISDP) says its "work spans the political, military, and economic aspects of global challenges, drawing on the best available qualitative data, quantitative data, and methodological tools. ISDP helps its clients understand and manage security challenges, evaluate the effectiveness of military forces and postures, and build the capacity of allies and partners."

The ISDP website further states that it "focuses on the most-pressing challenges facing the United States and the world, including potential threats and opportunities relating to China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, terrorism, civil war, space, and technological change. ISDP has helped clients develop strategies and operational concepts through workshops, gaming, and other cutting-edge methods. Topics include countering advanced Chinese missiles, deterring Russian and North Korean aggression, and targeting terrorist networks through coordinated applications of hard and soft power."

The ISDP is also involved in evaluating "how U.S. competitors are modernizing their military forces to constrain U.S. and allied military power projection." It also supports "U.S. efforts to strengthen both the governments and the militaries of allies and partners. By applying proven analytical methods, ISDP helps identify opportunities for U.S. programs to improve the ability of allies and partners to operate alongside, or in place of, U.S. military forces."

The ISDP is part of the RAND Corporation, that began as the U.S. Air Force's "Project RAND" (Research ANd Development) after World War II that conducted long-range planning of weapons development. In March 1946, the Douglas Aircraft Company was granted a contract to conduct research on intercontinental warfare as Project RAND. Project RAND separated from Douglas on May 14, 1948, becoming the RAND Corporation. Between 2013-2019, RAND was the top recipient of U.S. government and defence contractor funding, receiving $1,209,100,000 in six years.

Center for a New American Security

Biden's Pentagon transition team also draws two members from the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). It describes itself as "an independent, bipartisan, nonprofit organization that develops strong, pragmatic, and principled national security and defense policies. CNAS engages policymakers, experts, and the public with innovative, fact-based research, ideas, and analysis to shape and elevate the national security debate. A key part of our mission is to inform and prepare the national security leaders of today and tomorrow." Its website indicates a preoccupation with U.S. contention with Russia and China. A section titled "A New American Way of War," says, "The 2018 National Defense Strategy [NDS] rightly focuses on competing with, deterring and, if necessary, defeating Chinese and Russian aggression. This stark break from a post-Cold War era focused on regional and irregular threats requires a wholesale rethinking of how the U.S. military fights wars.

"A New American Way of War begins where the nascent ideas of the NDS leave off to develop new warfighting approaches, operational concepts, and associated force structure requirements."

Biden's Pentagon Transition Team

The full list of Biden's Pentagon transition team is:

- Susanna Blume of CNAS, who served as deputy chief of staff for programs and plans under Bob Work

- Sharon Burke of the New America think tank, a former assistant secretary of defense for operational energy

- Lisa Coe of OtherSide Consulting, a defence industry consultant

- Melissa Dalton of the CSIS, who has held a number of jobs in the Pentagon

- John Estrada, a Marine Corps veteran who was appointed as ambassador to the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago towards the end of the Obama administration

- Victor Garcia of Rebellion Defense, a former director of engineering for the U.S. Digital Service

- Karen Gibson, a retired Army lieutenant general who retired in March as deputy director of National Intelligence for National Security Partnerships

- Michelle Howard, a retired four-star admiral who became the first woman to serve as vice chief of staff for any military branch

- Andrew Hunter of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a well-known acquisition expert

- Mike McCord of the Stennis Center for Public Service, a former DoD comptroller during the Obama administration

- Farooq Mitha, who served as special assistant to the director of the Department of Defense Office of Small Business Programs under Obama and as a senior advisor on Muslim American engagement for the Biden campaign

- Frank Mora for Florida International University, a former deputy assistant secretary of defence for the Western Hemisphere under Obama

- Michael Negron, a Navy vet with ties to former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who is currently assistant director at the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity to the state of Illinois

- Stacie Pettyjohn of the RAND Corporation, an expert in wargaming who works on strategy and doctrine issues

- Ely Ratner of the Center for a New American Security, Biden's deputy national security adviser during the Obama administration

- Deborah Rosenblum of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nuclear expert who has been part of negotiations with North Korea

- Lisa Sawyer of JPMorgan Chase, who worked a number of jobs at both the Pentagon and National Security Council

- Shawn Skelly of CACI International, a Navy vet, former commissioner on the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service and vice-president of the Out in National Security group

- Terri Tanielian of the RAND Corporation, who focuses on military and veteran health issues

- Veronica Valdez, a former special assistant to both Navy and Air Force leadership, currently with the Port of Seattle

- Debra Wada, a former assistant secretary of the Army (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) and longtime House Armed Services Committee staffer.

Voice of Revolution is a publication of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization.

Australia Joins Parade of War Criminals
en route to War Conference

March 20, 2003. Mass anti-war action as Australian people reject U.S. imperialist aggression in Iraq alongside people around the world.

Angus Campbell, chief of Australian Imperial Defence Staff, is billed as a lead speaker by the NATO-sponsored, U.S.-organized "Halifax" Imperial Insecurity Forum. An official inquiry has just confirmed Australian soldiers were involved in the unlawful killing of dozens of Afghan civilians. It found 25 special forces soldiers killed 39 civilians in practices known as "throwdowns," where concealable weapons were placed on the bodies of those killed in order to photograph evidence to justify the killings.

The "whistleblower," David McBride, former soldier, has been charged with five offences including theft of Commonwealth property and the unauthorized disclosure of material to journalists after leaking documents about the unlawful killings of unarmed civilians in Afghanistan to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Australian academic Tim Anderson, commenting on the matter offers the reminder that "as we consider these shocking war crimes committed by Australian forces, let's not forget Australian Air Force participation in the massacre of more than 120 Syrian soldiers at Deir Ezzor in September 2016, to assist ISIS terrorists."

"NATO and Australia have been engaged in dialogue and cooperation since 2005. Australia is one of a range of countries beyond the Euro-Atlantic area -- often referred to as 'partners across the globe' -- with which NATO is strengthening relations," according to NATO's website. In 2011 it agreed to host a base for U.S. Marines in Darwin as part of Obama's "pivot to Asia." The website further says that Australia "currently provides support for NATO-led defence capacity building efforts in Afghanistan and has committed to supporting the new NATO Mission Iraq."

Without even the fig leaf of a resolution from the UN Security Council, the Anglo-American occupation of Afghanistan from 2001 to date set a new low in all the norms of human conduct that now pervades international relations. It signalled one of the clearest markers of the terrible danger that confronts humanity.

The war in Afghanistan was officially launched to avenge the attacks of September 11, 2001. However, it had been prepared beforehand. The war, which was supposed to last two weeks, has been going on for 19 years. It is planned to last as long as possible.

Canadian Forces under the command of Gen Rick Hillier were alleged to be involved in torture of Afghan. Hillier infamously vilified Afghans as "scumbags." To date this has been swept under the rug. Hillier became Chief of Defence Staff and then Chancellor of Memorial University in Newfoundland (2008-2012).

The so-called Halifax International Security Forum was inaugurated in 2009 by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In the opening session, then-Defence Minister Peter MacKay, sounding like a yes-man, stated, "We take great pride in knowing that Canadians' contribution to transatlantic cooperation as a steadfast reliable friend and ally is recognized." Gates lauded Canada as a "major contributor" to the Afghan war, for helping to "hold the line in the South before U.S. reinforcements arrived." This followed the celebrated mini-surge that began in the latter days of the Bush administration, which was subsequently bolstered by Obama's addition of another 20,000 troops. In line with the warmongering agenda of the conference, Hillier and U.S. Senator McCain together advocated that "U.S. President Obama send in thousands more troops to establish security." Hillier avoided questions of his personal responsibility for the alleged torture of prisoners under his command.

Gates further called in his speech on the Harper government to now play a greater role in "hemispheric security," i.e., Fortress America. Thus, after a year of inflammatory statements about Russian intentions in the Arctic -- which followed hard on the heels of the 2008 "August war" in Georgia -- and as part of the secret deal-making, MacKay and Gates signed an agreement on November 20, 2009 providing for the annual participation of U.S. Marines in the Nanook war games. This participation began in 2010, in the name of "protecting Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic" -- a peculiar concept of sovereignty! In parallel, Canada began that year to deploy warships to the Caribbean in the now annual "Op Caribbe" deployment under control of U.S. Southcom under the pretext of drug interdiction. In 2011, Canada established a military base in Jamaica where it began taking part in U.S.-led naval exercises along with Mexico.

Malalai Joya, a former Afghan parliamentarian and opponent of the occupation of her country, addressed the rally against the War Conference, and also spoke to a packed auditorium that night. Ms Joya was refused entrance to the "security forum."

Joya said, "Democracy never comes by war, by fire of guns, by cluster bomb," pointing out that thousands of innocent Afghan civilians were being killed on the ground by terrorists and warlords, and from the air, by the bombing of the NATO occupying forces.

"Many of the weapons and bombs used in Afghanistan, used against my people, are made in Canada," Joya said to shouts of "shame" from the protesters. "You have dropped two-thousand-pound large, Canadian-made bombs in my hometown which killed over 150 civilians, mainly women and children."

War Criminals Are Not Welcome in Canada!

(With files from Tony Seed.)

Another Warmongering University Network Seeks
to Embroil Youth in War Preparations

Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) has announced the creation of another warmongering network of 18 universities whose main aim is to mobilize "the best and the brightest" to take up Canada's war aims. The Network for Strategic Analysis (the "Network") is being launched as part of Canada's "Mobilizing Insights in Defence and Security (MINDS) programme." DND says it is the very first fully bilingual MINDS network "that will offer cutting-edge expertise in Canada's two official languages." This is code for saying that Quebec youth are to be targeted second to none.

The promotional material states, "Our primary mission is to mobilize Canadian and global expertise on three strategic challenges for Canada:

- The evolving role of great powers in a shifting world order (led by Jonathan Paquin, Laval University);
- Multilateral cooperation in international security (led by Sarah-Myriam Martin Brûlé, Bishop's University);
- The future of defence capacity building for global partners (led by Theodore McLauchlin, University of Montreal)."

The three objectives the Network claims to pursue "in this context," are:

"1. Mobilize -- in French and English -- innovative and multidisciplinary research in the field of defence and security in order to develop synergies and amplify the voice of experts;

"2. Disseminate the results of strategic analysis to the Government of Canada, partner organizations and the general public so as to inform political decisions and public debate;

"3. Train the next generation of security and defence experts by integrating students into the development and dissemination of knowledge and through the professional development of young researchers, with a particular concern for equity, diversity and inclusion."

The Network is co-directed by Justin Massie (UQAM) and Stéfanie von Hlatky (Queen's University). It claims to "bring together" "more than 60 renowned scholars and seasoned practitioners. In addition to its research fellows, the Network mobilizes the expertise of international collaborators, and is supported by a Scientific Board and an Advisory Board."

For Your Information

2020 Agenda, Speakers and Participants

Plenary Sessions (On-the-Record)
- Democracy vs. Ourselves: Divided We Fall
- China vs. Democracy: The Greatest Game
- Economic Depression: Democracies' Recession
- Clubs Med: The Scramble for Middle Earth
- Go Canada! Middle Powers Show the Way
- Space: Contested
- Years On: Re-Making The Democratic World Order
- After 2020: The World With America

Informal Sessions (Off-the-Record)
- Africa Matters
- Climate: Changed
- France, Freedom, Faith
- From Moscow to Minsk: Putin's Poison
- Himalayan Heat: Sino-Indian Friction
- Israel's New Friends
- Afghanistan's Final Piece
- Back: Nagorno-Karabakh
- Hong Kong's Present, Taiwan's Future
- London Outs, Brussels Pouts
- Maduro's Venezuela: A Rogues' Gallery
- Tide Power: Bay Of Fundy's Electric Waves
- Biden: His Time
- Post-Pandemic Precipice
- Racial Justice: When?
- Steal IP: Get Rich Quick
- TikTok, Tick Tock: Globalization Times Out
- Worthless Advice: The End Of Experts

The 2020 agenda of the Halifax International Security Forum (HISF) gives pride of place to speakers and war criminals representing the U.S. military power: Secretary of State, Michael R. Pompeo on his return from a tour of sabre-rattling meetings in France, Turkey, Georgia, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia; General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; U.S. Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithwaite; Admiral Philip Davidson, Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command based in Hawaii; and General John Raymond, Chief of Space Operations, U.S. Space Force, which represents "a new operational domain."

Speakers from the NATO military bloc include Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg; Stuart Peach, Chairman of its Military Committee; Canada's Minister of National Defence, Harjit Sajjan speaking in the "Go Canada: Middle Powers Show the Way" session; Kersti Kaljulaid, President, Republic of Estonia; Artis Pabriks, Minister of Defence, Latvia; Rajmund Andrzejczak, Chief of Defense, Poland; Rob Bauer, Chief of Defence, Netherlands Armed Forces; Liam Fox, former UK Secretary of Defence and International Trade Secretary until sacked in June 2019; Radmila Shekerinska, Minister of Defense, North Macedonia; and Angus Campbell, Chief of Defence, Australia. Most of these countries share a border with Russia and are occupied by NATO, US and Canadian combat brigades and missile systems; North Macedonia is being turned into a nerve centre for further destabilizing the Balkans and splitting its peoples on ethnic lines; and "out of area" partner Australia is increasingly being involved in NATO, expected to join in 2026.

Some 300 people are expected to participate in this year's HISF, either in-person or virtually.

The U.S. Congressional delegation includes two senators involved in the Biden presidency: Senator Chris Coons (Delaware) and Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), members of Senate committees on foreign relations and armed forces respectively.

Coons, who inherited Biden's seat in the Senate and is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee is reportedly a candidate for U.S. Secretary of State. Coons is also a member of the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs. In 2019, according to Kaiser Health News which published "Pharma Cash To Congress," a campaign contributions tracker, Coons had received $549,000 since 2007 from big pharma.

Shaheen, a former governor of New Hampshire, was invited to be vetted to be Biden's vice-presidential candidate. She is a member of three subcommittees of the Committee on Armed Services including the Subcommittee on Seapower which exercises congressional jurisdiction over all U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, including non-tactical air programs, and Naval Reserve Forces. In 2018 Shaheen and Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) reformed the Senate North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Observer Group, of which they are co-chairs. It "has an expanded mission to closely monitor and inform Senators outside of national security committees about defence spending commitments of Alliance members, the process of upgrading military capabilities, the Alliance's counter-terrorism capability, NATO enlargement and the ability of NATO member states to address non-conventional warfare." Senator Coons is a member as is Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), who is also at the HISF.

Liam Fox was the British Conservative Party Secretary of State for International Trade until he was sacked by the incoming prime minister Boris Johnson in June 2019. He was first appointed to the role in July 2016 by Prime Minister Theresa May. The Guardian reported on December 21, 2017 that as International Trade Secretary, Fox had said he would "personally lead on helping the defence and security industries to export and will be involved in the most significant global deals across all sectors." Half of his new secondees in the Department of International Trade had been transferred from the private arms industry.

Fox was previously UK Defence Secretary from 2010-2011 but was forced to resign in October 2011 amid the controversy over his friend and unofficial advisor businessman Adam Werritty accompanying him on several trips to key UK arms markets. Werrity did not work for the government and had no security clearance to be involved in ministerial business.

Fox is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel and on the Executive Board of Atlantic Bridge (Atlantik-Brücke). The latter was founded in 1952 with the aim of advancing cooperation between Germany, Europe and America to promote "multi-lateralism, open societies and free trade." Its membership, by invitation only, is said to be comprised of 500 "decision-makers from business, politics, science and the media on both sides of the Atlantic."

Fox participated in HISF 2010, 2011, 2112, all expenses paid by Canadian tax dollars.

The 2020 HISF will also be attended by the presidents of Brookings Institution, the McCain Institute, the Stimson Centre, Freedom House, and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations; and representatives of the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, Atlantic Council, Chatham House, Council on Foreign Relations, Hoover Institute, Hudson Institute, the neo-liberal New America Foundation and several centres and foundations from Japan, India, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, etc.

The Canadian involvement in the HISF now includes the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, Global Affairs Institute of Canada at the University of Calgary and the Centre of International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, each of whom have representatives on the HISF Agenda Working Group, as well as the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Dalhousie University, Acadia University and the Canadian International Council.

(With files from HISF website, TML Archives.)

Partners and Sponsors

Partners

The Halifax International Security Forum (HISF) lists the following organizations as its "partners":

- The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: its stated goal is "to enhance the economy of Atlantic Canadian communities through the successful development of business and job opportunities";

- The Department of National Defence: the department bills itself with the Canadian Armed Forces as "Canada's Defence Team" which together it says "make up the largest federal government department";

- The Halifax Canada Club.

The Halifax Canada Club is made up of the following companies involved with military organizations and war production, which the HISF profiles as below:

- ATCO: a major contractor for the Department of Defence and NATO, involved in privatizing their bases in Afghanistan, Balkans and Canada. Its website says, "For more than 70 years, ATCO has provided military support services, shelter solutions, logistics and energy services worldwide. As a company built upon the belief that strong partnerships form the basis of safe and prosperous communities, ATCO supports the collaborative vision of Club HFX."

- OYAK: "Established in 1961, OYAK (The Armed Forces Pension Fund) serves as an occupational and supplementary pension fund for the members of the Turkish armed forces. With investments, including multinational joint ventures, in sectors such as steel, cement, automotive, logistics, finance, energy and chemicals, OYAK supports the mission of Club HFX of securing our modern way of life through strategic alliances among democracies." Turkey is the third largest arms market for Canada.

- Çalik  Holding: "Çalik Holding, based in Turkey, carries out its operations in energy, construction and real estate, mining, textile, telecom, and finance sectors. With the vision to add sustainable values to the lives it touches, Çalik Holding supports collaborative efforts of the HCC toward global prosperity." Çalik Holding is also one of the top foreign funders of NATO's political arm, the Atlantic Council ($500,000-$999,999 category).

- Boeing: "Boeing is the world's largest aerospace company and leading manufacturer of commercial jetliners and defense, space and security systems. As America's biggest manufacturing exporter, the company supports airlines and U.S. and allied government customers in more than 150 countries. Boeing products and tailored services include commercial and military aircraft, satellites, weapons, electronic and defense systems, launch systems, advanced information and communication systems, and performance-based logistics and training."

The HISF is clearly an instrument of giant arms and energy monopolies and oligopolies and international finance capital involved in the business of war, the most profitable business of all. U.S. imperialist theft of social wealth from the peoples of the world and its competition with other big powers feed the war economy and in turn generate increased instability, violence and war.

The initiative to involve monopolies and corporate executives in the HISF as "partners" is also in conformity with strategies elaborated in the U.S. (such as in the Princeton Project on National Security). The purpose is to "form elite regional opinion" by bringing together "leading thinkers" in academia, business and non-profit sectors in countries targeted for annexation by the United States, as well as the supranational arms and energy monopolies, to work out how to usurp control over the natural and human resources and over the state itself.

- NATO: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is listed under its own heading that reads "With Support From." Its entry on the HISF website says:

"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's fundamental purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means. NATO brings together 28 member countries from Europe and North America, consulting and cooperating in the fields of security and defence. In this respect, NATO provides a unique transatlantic link for political and security cooperation."

In practice, the HISF is fully embroiled in NATO's agenda and provides a venue for it to promote its aggressive aims.

Media Partners

There are three U.S. publications/media organizations which are involved in main projects of the U.S. ruling circles to unite the vying factions, especially the huge military bureaucracy and moving more deeply into Canadian ruling circles, while also keeping the people dispersed and disempowered. The HISF describes them collectively as "thought leaders," an elitist concept that denies the movement for enlightenment. Like the other HISF partners and sponsors, the basis for the partnership is not immediately clear.   

- Foreign Affairs Magazine: Its description on the HISF website says: "Since its founding in 1922, Foreign Affairs has been the leading forum for serious discussion of American foreign policy and global affairs. It is published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a non-profit and nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to improving the understanding of U.S. foreign policy and international affairs through the free exchange of ideas."

CFR is a leading council that brings various ruling factions together to work out relations. It has been previously described as a veritable shadow government that plans the general strategies of the global imperialist system, acting above any government.[1] The CFR backed the presidential candidacy of Joe Biden and champions the chorus against China. The editor of Foreign Affairs, Gideon Rose, formerly of the U.S. State Dept., is participating in the 2020 HISF conference.

- POLITICO: This is a specialized U.S. political news journal, which recently moved into Canada with a subscription-based edition and a free weekly newsletter Crossroads. This company says it "strives to be the dominant source for politics and policy in power centers across every continent where access to reliable information, non-partisan journalism and real-time tools creates, informs and engages a global citizenry." John Harris, Politico Editor-in-Chief, is a member of the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS) board of trustees, original organizer of the HISF in 2009 and 2010 which followed on security conferences the GMFUS had staged in European countries targeted for U.S. influence operations, such as in Kiev, Ukraine; Riga, Latvia; Bucharest, Romania; and Istanbul, Turkey. It is hosting live streaming of the HISF conference to its readers.

- Foreign Policy Magazine: Although not listed on the HISF's "Partners and Sponsors" page, it is listed on the "About" page as a media partner. It is U.S. news publication which focuses on global affairs, current events, and domestic and international policy. It was founded in 1970 during the turmoil of the Vietnam War by the imperialist ideologue Samuel P. Huntington of the "clash of civilizations" theory and Warren Demian Manshel.

On February 26, Foreign Affairs and the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft co-sponsored a conference to explore "A New Vision for America in the World," describing it as "a leadership forum on the future of U.S. foreign policy and national security." Key topics included: "Ending endless wars in the Middle East, the impact of the Sino-American antagonism, democratizing foreign policy, and international cooperation in an era of American restraint." The conference was funded by billionaires George Soros, a big Clinton backer, and Charles Koch, a Trump supporter, each of whom put up $500,000 to finance the start-up of the Quincy Institute in 2019. Former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus was the big name draw for the conference. The roster of speakers included Rosa Brooks, an HISF Fellow, columnist for Foreign Policy, founder and co-director of Georgetown Law's Program on Innovative Policing and a Senior Fellow, New American Foundation. Along with Tom Wright of the Brookings Institution, she argued that the U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria are really "counter-terrorism operations" rather than "wars." This is what the Biden Democrats mean by a "return to normal," around which they hope to unify the executive and military power. Brooks was Senior Adviser to Michèle Flournoy, U.S. defense undersecretary for policy from 2009 to 2011, now Chief Executive Officer of the Center for a New American Security, and expected to be Biden's Defense Secretary (see article below).

Sponsors

- CAE: Formerly known as Canadian Aviation Electronics, CAE is a global aerospace monopoly and the only Canadian company listed in the top 100 arms producers in the world, ranking 85th. It calls itself "a worldwide leader in training for the civil aviation, defence and security, and healthcare markets.

"Our vision is to be the recognized global training partner of choice to enhance safety, efficiency and readiness.

"Unmatched on a global scale, we continue to help define worldwide training standards with our innovative virtual-to-live training solutions to make flying safer, maintain defence force readiness and enhance patient safety."

- Pansophico: This company deals in arms and security equipment for military and law enforcement clients, among others. Its website says, "Pansophico works exclusively with democracies. We are dedicated to enhancing national and international security through strengthening democracies, building commercial relations, bolstering military readiness, and connecting key leaders and groups that protect and strengthen democratic processes. Pansophico supports the military and security readiness of democracies by sourcing and providing access to military and security hardware, technology, concepts, and training. Building on 30 years of substantive experience in international diplomacy, military affairs, and intelligence, we are experienced in identifying and finding the right solution for every national security need.

"Our ethos IS democracy. Pansophico invests profits from its commercial ventures back into democracy-building entities. We financially support key global institutions that build, guide, and support global democracies. Our success in turn contributes to building global democracy.

"Pansophico works hand-in-hand with global democratic governments, identifying, sourcing, and providing military and security materiel and hardware through DCS [direct commercial sales] transactions. With global reach, international connectivity, and breadth of experience, our team will help resolve the most sophisticated challenges facing your team."

- Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC): This is a Taiwanese arms company, originally founded in 1969 under the authority of the Republic of China Air Force and later privatized. AIDC is responsible for the development of Taiwan's Indigenous Defense Fighter, created when diplomatic agreements between the U.S. and China prevented the sale of U.S. fighters to Taiwan. AIDC is a partner of Boeing. The presence of an arms manufacturer from Taiwan -- a country frequently used as a cat's paw by the U.S. imperialists in their dealings with China -- at the HISF is in line with the war conference's preoccupation with China as a purported "threat to democracy."

- Konrad Adenauer Foundation: The website of this German foundation says, "Nationally and internationally, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation is committed to achieving and maintaining peace, freedom and justice through political education. We promote and preserve free democracy, the social market economy, and the development and consolidation of the value consensus."

Regarding its name, the foundation says, "We are proud to bear the name of Konrad Adenauer. The first chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany's name and principles are our guidelines, duty, and obligation."

As for Adenauer's principles, he was a noted anti-communist; he opposed the post-war program of denazification and instead introduced an amnesty law for Nazis, to the benefit of nearly 800,000 war criminals; he advocated for West Germany's membership in NATO and its alignment with the Anglo-American imperialists in the Cold War.

- Ipsos: This French-owned polling and marketing firm says of itself "In our world of rapid change, the need for reliable information to make confident decisions has never been greater." It is a NATO contractor.

"At Ipsos we believe our clients need more than a data supplier, they need a partner who can produce accurate and relevant information and turn it into actionable truth.

"This is why our passionately curious experts not only provide the most precise measurement, but shape it to provide True Understanding of Society, Markets and People.

"To do this we use the best of science, technology and know-how and apply the principles of security, simplicity, speed and substance to everything we do.

"So that our clients can act faster, smarter and bolder."

Polling firms like Ipsos are more and more discrediting themselves, as they do not assist the polity to discuss and analyze important issues, but present issues in a limited and prejudiced way to serve establishment interests. A question that arises is what is the role of a polling and public relations firm like Ipsos at the HISF, when the starting point for the majority of Canadians and Quebeckers is to oppose imperialist war and aggression. A November 13 article in the Ottawa Citizen reported on plans by DND that "would have allowed military public affairs officers to use propaganda to change attitudes and behaviours of Canadians as well as collect and analyze information from the public's social media accounts."

Note

1. Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, The Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1977.

(With files from HISF website, TML Archives.)

Evidence of U.S. National Security Concerns
and Morbid Preoccupation with Defeat

TML Weekly is printing below in its entirety an article entitled "How to Prevent War in Asia" by Michèle A. Flournoy, published June 18, 2020 in Foreign Affairs Magazine by the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, on June 18, 2020. The article not only illustrates the U.S. morbid preoccupation with defeat but also its concern on how to re-establish the Cold War doctrine of Deterrence. It serves to inform how issues are being framed at the Halifax International Security Forum.

The erosion of American deterrence raises the risk of Chinese miscalculation, Fournoy argues. She calls for defence officials "to accelerate efforts to develop new operational concepts -- new ways in which the military will fight" saying "where there's a will there's a way."

Flournoy is being considered for Secretary of Defense in Biden's administration. Born in 1960, she got her BA at Harvard and MLitt at Balliol College, Oxford. She served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy under President Bill Clinton and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under President Barack Obama, as well as a principal advisor to U.S. Secretaries of Defense Robert Gates and Leon Panetta from February 2009 to February 2012. During her tenure in the Clinton administration, Flournoy was the principal author of the May 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which advocated the unilateral use of military power in defence of U.S. interests.

While serving in the Obama administration, Flournoy crafted the administration's policy of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan and helped persuade President Obama to intervene militarily in Libya. When the U.S. Senate confirmed her nomination on February 9, 2009, she was at the time the highest-ranking woman at the Pentagon in the department's history.

In 2007, Flournoy co-founded the Center for a New American Security, a for-profit Washington, DC-based think tank that specializes in U.S. national security issues. After leaving the Obama White House, Flournoy joined the Boston Consulting Group as a senior advisor, overseeing the development of $32 million in military contracts.[1] In 2018, she joined the board of Booz Allen Hamilton, a publicly traded consulting firm with military contracts and cyber security expertise. She is currently the co-founder and managing partner of WestExec Advisors,[2] and a Senior Fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Her prominent role in setting U.S. foreign policy will continue in the Biden administration.

How to Prevent a War in Asia
- Michèle A. Flournoy -

Amid all the uncertainty about the world that will follow the pandemic, one thing is almost sure to be true: tensions between the United States and China will be even sharper than they were before the coronavirus outbreak. The resurgence of U.S.-Chinese competition poses a host of challenges for policymakers -- related to trade and economics, technology, global influence, and more -- but none is more consequential than reducing the risk of war. Unfortunately, thanks to today's uniquely dangerous mix of growing Chinese assertiveness and military strength and eroding U.S. deterrence, that risk is higher than it has been for decades, and it is growing.

Neither Washington nor Beijing seeks a military conflict with the other. Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump both undoubtedly understand that a war would be disastrous. Yet the United States and China could all too easily stumble into conflict, sparked by a Chinese miscalculation of the United States' willingness or capability to respond to provocations in disputed areas such as the South China Sea or to outright aggression against Taiwan or another U.S. security partner in the region.

For the past two decades, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been growing in size, capability, and confidence. China is also emerging as a serious competitor in a number of technological areas that will ultimately determine military advantage. At the same time, the credibility of U.S. deterrence has been declining. For Beijing, the 2008-09 financial crisis gave rise to an enduring narrative of U.S. decline and Chinese superiority that has been reinforced by perceptions of U.S. withdrawal from the world -- as well as, more recently, by its perception of bungled U.S. management of the pandemic and societal upheaval over systemic racism.

What's more, Washington has not delivered on its promised "pivot" to Asia. U.S. troop levels in the region remain similar to what they were a decade ago. The current administration discarded the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement its predecessor had so painstakingly negotiated. Senior diplomatic positions in the region remain empty, and the United States is often underrepresented or entirely AWOL from the region's major diplomatic forums. There has been no U.S. answer to Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative, even as its influence expands through Asia and well beyond. And Chinese activities in the "gray zone," below the level of conflict -- such as building militarized "islands" and using coercive measures to enforce disputed sovereignty claims in the South China Sea -- have gone largely unanswered by the United States beyond the occasional diplomatic démarche or freedom-of-navigation operation.

All of this spells trouble for deterrence. The more confident China's leaders are in their own capabilities and the more they doubt the capabilities and resolve of the United States, the greater the chance of miscalculation -- a breakdown in deterrence that could bring direct conflict between two nuclear powers. As tensions continue to rise and Chinese assertiveness in the region grows, it will take a concerted effort to rebuild the credibility of U.S. deterrence in order to reduce the risk of a war that neither side seeks.

Declining Advantage, Increasing Risk

Since the 1991 Gulf War, the PLA has gone to school on the American way of war and developed an expanding set of asymmetric approaches to undermine U.S. military strengths and exploit U.S. vulnerabilities. Of greatest concern is the substantial investment Beijing has made in "anti-access/area-denial" (A2/AD) capabilities. Ranging from persistent precision strikes on U.S. logistics, forces, and bases to electronic, kinetic, and cyber attacks on digital connections and systems inside U.S. battle management networks, these capabilities are designed to prevent the United States from projecting military power into East Asia in order to defend its interests or allies. As a result, in the event that conflict starts, the United States can no longer expect to quickly achieve air, space, or maritime superiority; the U.S. military would need to fight to gain advantage, and then to keep it, in the face of continuous efforts to disrupt and degrade its battle management networks.

The Chinese military has also made rapid advances in cyber- and artificial intelligence -- thanks to China's massive theft of Western technology, state support for its leading technology companies, and doctrine of "civil-military fusion," which requires that any commercial or academic technological advancement with military implications be shared with the PLA. Technological investments have come along with doctrinal innovations. Chinese military doctrine now holds that the side that can make and execute battlefield decisions most quickly will gain a decisive advantage in any conflict. China's theory of victory increasingly relies on "system destruction warfare" -- crippling an adversary at the outset of conflict, by deploying sophisticated electronic warfare, counterspace, and cyber-capabilities to disrupt what are known as C4ISR networks (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance), and thereby thwarting its power projection and undermining its resolve. Among other things, this means that the United States can no longer assume that its satellites -- essential for navigation, communications, early warning, targeting, and much more -- would escape attack during a conflict. Given China's ability to interfere with, spoof, damage, or destroy U.S. satellites, Washington can no longer take space for granted as an uncontested domain during war.

Deterrence could break down owing to either strategic or tactical miscalculation.

The upshot of the developments is dangerous new uncertainty about the U.S. ability to check various Chinese moves, which could invite risk-taking by Chinese leaders. Deterrence could break down owing to either strategic or tactical miscalculation. A strategic miscalculation might involve Chinese leaders choosing to blockade or attack Taiwan in the near term or midterm based on a set of strongly held beliefs about the United States as a declining power -- one racked by internal political divisions, preoccupied with domestic crises, no longer showing up in the region diplomatically, lacking the military capabilities that might be effective in the face of A2/AD, and with an uncertain commitment to defending Taiwan. They could conclude that China should move on Taiwan sooner rather than later, a fait accompli that a weakened and distracted United States would have to accept.

Alternatively, a tactical miscalculation could have strategic consequences. For example, Chinese military planning for taking Taiwan by force envisions early cyberattacks against the electric power grids around key military bases in the United States, to prevent the deployment of U.S. forces to the region. But these same power grids also support the surrounding civilian population, including hospitals, emergency services, and other functions critical to public safety. Any such attack would have a high risk of killing American citizens. So rather than deter U.S. action, the envisioned cyberattacks could actually increase the U.S. determination to respond.

Reestablishing Deterrence

To reestablish credible deterrence of China, the United States must be able to prevent the success of any act of military aggression by Beijing, either by denying the PLA's ability to achieve its aims or by imposing costs so great that Chinese leaders ultimately decide that the act is not in their interest. And Xi and his advisers must believe that the United States has not just the capability but also the resolve to carry through on any deterrent threat it makes.

Given China's A2/AD networks and ability to field a far larger force in its own backyard than the United States can, U.S. policymakers need to start thinking more creatively about how to shape Beijing's calculus. For example, if the U.S. military had the capability to credibly threaten to sink all of China's military vessels, submarines, and merchant ships in the South China Sea within 72 hours, Chinese leaders might think twice before, say, launching a blockade or invasion of Taiwan; they would have to wonder whether it was worth putting their entire fleet at risk.

In part, the United States can develop such approaches to deterrence by using existing capabilities in new ways. Yet new capabilities will also be necessary, and here especially, the Pentagon's current efforts are lagging, notwithstanding some promising exceptions. The Defense Department continues to overinvest in legacy platforms and weapons systems while underinvesting in emerging technologies that will determine who has the advantage in the future. Although the Defense Innovation Unit, Special Operations Command, and various military service organizations are doing a good job of scouting for new, transformative technologies, there is a "valley of death" between demonstrating a prototype of a new capability and getting it produced at scale and into the hands of deployed operators. And the Pentagon still lacks the tech talent it needs -- at all levels, civilian and military -- and has failed to give its acquisition workforce the right incentives to adopt cutting-edge technologies, such as artificial intelligence and unmanned systems, rapidly and at scale.

The Defense Department continues to underinvest in technologies that will determine who has the advantage in the future.

There are several steps that the Defense Department can take to accelerate innovation in service of deterrence. In the wake of the pandemic, there will be substantial downward pressure on defense spending, as other priorities compete for funding. A flat or declining defense budget will require making tough tradeoffs between legacy programs, which alone are insufficient to maintain the U.S. military's edge, and the new capabilities that will ultimately determine military success -- such as resilient battlefield networks, artificial intelligence to support faster decision-making, fleets of unmanned systems, and hypersonic and long-range precision missiles. Continuing to underinvest in these emerging capabilities will ultimately have dire costs for U.S. deterrence. For every existing major program, both defense officials and Congress need to ask whether buying one additional unit or platform is really worth forgoing investment in the new technologies and capabilities that are key to making U.S. forces effective in a far more contested and lethal environment. The secretary of defense should press each service chief to recommend tough choices, and Congress should back up the Pentagon when it makes those choices.

The U.S. military also needs to adapt its own overseas posture while shoring up the capabilities of allies and partners. It should expect that China will try to disrupt the U.S. ability to reenforce forward forces from the outset of a conflict, in all domains -- air, sea, undersea, space, cyberspace. Accordingly, U.S. forces, bases, logistics networks, and C4ISR networks must be made more survivable and resilient. This will require investments in stronger cyber- and missile defenses; more geographically dispersed bases and forces; more unmanned systems to augment manned platforms; and resilient networks that can continue to function under attack.

China's A2/AD capabilities can be thought of as having different rings of threat intensity that generally correspond to the first island chain (the first arc of archipelagos east of the East Asian continent, stretching from the Kuril Islands, to Japan and Taiwan, and then to the northern Philippines and Borneo) and the second island chain (further to the east, formed by the Bonin Islands, the Volcano Islands of Japan, and the Mariana Islands) -- with anything inside the inner ring highly vulnerable to Chinese attack, and anything within and beyond the outer ring less so. Beyond the outer ring, the United States will likely want to maintain bases, fortified against threats, for staging and logistics. But the overall operating principle should be based on "places, not bases": within the inner ring, the military should increasingly rely on smaller, more agile force packages such as submarines and unmanned underwater vehicles, expeditionary air units, and highly mobile marine or army units able to move between austere, temporary bases in order to complicate Chinese planning. Also essential will be taking a more strategic approach to security cooperation, assessing what each U.S. ally and partner can contribute to deterrence and developing multiyear security cooperation plans for each.

The Pentagon will also need to implement a series of acquisition, investment, and workforce-development reforms. Acquisition officials must be trained on best practices for acquiring software and emerging technologies. There must be more funding for turning successful prototypes into successful programs. And to bolster its tech workforce, the department should work with Congress to expand programs that offer scholarships or debt relief to students in a broad array of tech fields in return for government service and to recruit mid- and senior-level talent by expanding fellowships for private-sector technologists. For employees at all levels, it needs to create opportunities for skill development and viable career paths for technical talent that allow for both promotion and continued technical development, including through rotations in the private sector.

Finally, defense officials need to accelerate efforts to develop new operational concepts -- new ways in which the military will fight -- in order to clarify which capabilities will be essential, or even game changing, and to accelerate their acquisition and delivery into the hands of service members in the field. There are ongoing efforts to develop and test "joint" (that is, applicable across the different military services) operational concepts, such as Multi-Domain Operations, as well as service-specific operational concepts, which aim to erode the adversary's advantage in various ways. Determining which technologies will be essential to these will require iterative, ongoing development and experimentation -- with dedicated funding from Congress.

Where There's a Will

Effective deterrence does not depend just on Chinese leaders believing the United States has the capability to thwart any act of aggression; they must also believe it has the will to do so. Today, Beijing has doubts on both scores. Accordingly, along with investments in military capabilities, Washington needs to clarify -- and consistently demonstrate -- its commitment to the Indo-Pacific region, making clear who and what it is willing to defend. It must deploy more senior officials and additional military forces to the region, to underscore its enduring presence, strengthen its relationships, and counterbalance China's influence. It should conduct more regular military exercises with allies and partners in the region, both to demonstrate capabilities it has already and to accelerate the development of new ones.

Ultimately, competition with China is far more than a military one, and its economic, technological, political, and ideological elements cannot be neglected. The most consequential thing the United States can do is to invest in the drivers of competitiveness at home -- especially as it emerges from the current crisis. It is a time for investments in everything from STEM and higher education to critical technology and twenty-first-century infrastructure, such as 5G. It is also a time for restoring a smart immigration policy, welcoming foreign-born talent that poses no risks to national security and encouraging it to stay and build innovative enterprises in the United States.

Competition with China is far more than a military one.

The United States should also leverage its unique advantage of having an unrivaled network of allies and partners around the world. The best way to deal with the challenges China poses, be they unfair trade practices or orchestrated disinformation campaigns, is by making common cause with allies and partners whenever possible, confronting violations of the rules-based order as a coalition of like-minded states committed to a shared set of norms. The United States should work closely with its allies and partners to make a clear-eyed assessment of what each country can contribute to stabilizing the region and deterring increasingly aggressive behavior. This will also require reassuring them in words and deeds that they can count on the United States to have their backs in disputes with Beijing and ultimately to help defend them against gray-zone coercion or outright attacks.

Washington should spell out to countries in the region the stark contrast between what international rules and norms shaped by Beijing would look like and those the region has enjoyed to date -- especially when it comes to enduring norms such as the freedom of navigation and peaceful resolution of disputes. In an Asia dominated by an authoritarian, revisionist China, ships that today can freely navigate the seas would be vulnerable to possible harassment. Decisions taken today by independent governments could increasingly fall prey to coercion. And failure to resist these coercive measures would, in turn, limit the collective ability of the United States and its allies to deter aggression or, if aggression takes place, to reverse it.

Yet even as it strengthens its capacity to deter China, Washington must also reopen a sustained high-level strategic dialogue with Beijing -- a practice that every administration since Richard Nixon's has adopted, until the current one. Reestablishing a forum in which China and the United States could regularly discuss their respective interests and perspectives, identify areas of potential cooperation (such as nonproliferation and climate change), and manage their differences short of conflict is essential; tactical discussions on trade issues are simply not enough. After all, deterrence depends on the clear and consistent communication of interests and intent in order to minimize the risk of miscalculation. Given Beijing's assumption that the United States is preoccupied and in decline, Chinese leaders' propensity to test the limits in areas such as Taiwan or the South China Sea, and the faulty, potentially escalatory assumptions embedded in Chinese military doctrine, such a dialogue cannot come too soon.

TML Notes

1. Boston Consulting Group: In July 2020, American Prospect journalist Jonathan Guyer reported in "How Biden's Foreign Policy Team Got Rich," that under Flournoy's direction the Boston Consulting Group's military contracts went "from $1.6 million in 2013 to $3 million in 2016."

2. WestExec Advisors "is a strategic advisory firm for international companies and financial institutions addressing geopolitical factors that affect their business strategy and investment portfolios.

(To access articles individually click on the black headline.)

PDF

PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME

Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca