US AGGRESSION AND MILITARY
INTERVENTION IN ASIA-PACIFIC
Conference of Lawyers in Asia-Pacific
Workshop on US Aggression and
Military Intervention
SMX Convention Center, Manila
18 September 2010
A century of aggression and
intervention
• The 20th century was the bloodiest and most violent in the
history of mankind; much of the blood is in the hands of US
imperialism
• US aggression and military intervention in Asia-Pacific began
at the turn of the 20th century, along with the rise of modern
imperialism.
• The US emerged from the 2nd World War as the mightiest and
most prosperous industrial power, and thereafter used its
military superiority to engage in aggression and intervention
to preserve its supremacy and expand and consolidate its
global hegemony.
• The Cold War was a handy excuse for the US
to maintain its forces and conduct a host of
military activities in the region until the
1980s.
• With the collapse of the USSR and East
European regimes in 1990-91, the US needed
another pretext for sustaining its aggression
and military intervention all over the world.
• The 9/11 attacks on the US became a new
and effective pretext for the US to seize and
control strategic resources, prevent the rise
of a peer rival, expand and consolidate its
global hegemony , and ensure its preeminent
position as sole superpower.
• It employed the combination of deception
and force, with coercion and force as the
main and decisive instrument.
US PACIFIC COMMAND – Symbol of US
presence and interest in Asia-Pacific
US PACIFIC COMMAND
• (covers) 36 nations encompassing about half of the earth's
surface
• home to more than 50% of the world's population (East
Asia- 33%)
• world's six largest armed forces (China, US, Russia, India,
North Korea, South Korea)
• Source of about 1/3 of US trade
• World's three largest economies (US, China, Japan)
• Five nations allied with the US through mutual defense
treaties (Australia, Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Japan)
• US PACOM has 325,000 troops, 1/5 of the total US armed
forces; of which 100,000 are based in Japan and Korea
alone.
• occupying and having US military bases in
Afghanistan would tighten US control over the
region flanking China to the west. The military
plans for invasion and occupation were
complete long before 9/11. The US special
forces and other troops used in the invasion
had been training for years in the nearby
Central Asian republics to familiarize with the
terrain.
From Rand Corporation study “The United States and Asia”
Chap 4- Implications for the military and USAF: Challenges and Change
“You have a Maoist
insurgency that’s
trying to overthrow
the government, and
this really is the kind
of thing that we are
fighting against
throughout the
world.”
• Obama campaigned –and won the Presidency
– largely on a promise of reversing the Bush
policies of pursuing a “dumb war”, as well as
allowing the bankers to screw the economy.
Obama had since reversed not Bush’ policies
and thrusts in relation to the War on Terror,
nor on the US and global economy. Obama’s
subsequent actions are a reverse of his own
word and his promises.
• The Obama regime has of late attempted to give a
new and more benign face to its wars of aggression
by ‘civilianizing” it and stressing the “primacy of
non-military means”, even avoiding the use of the
phrase “war against terrorism” and preferring to use
“war of counter-insurgency” instead.
• But on the ground, the reality is that coercion and
force, not deception, are the main instruments for
suppressing resistance and protext, and for
perpetuating the status quo.
Impact on Human Rights and Conflict
• From the beginning, the intolerable hardships and
suffering inflicted on the people by the plunder of
their economies and by wars of aggression and
intervention have pushed more and more people to
protest and fight for freedom and their rights.
• The more the people perceive the truth about the
root causes of their misery and hardships and find
that strength is gained through collective action, the
more that deception fails and force is increasingly
resorted to by those who wish to retain the status
quo.