The Kings of Asia Are Gathering: But Why?--Global Politician

[Gloria]

From the NEW World Media Watch up now at http://www.zianet.com/insightanalytical
Tomorrow at Buzzflash.com


2//Global Politician, US 8/8/2005

http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=1066&cid=5&sid=30



THE KINGS OF ASIA ARE GATHERING: BUT WHY?

Frederick Stakelbeck, Jr



In July, permanent members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/topics/sco/t57970.htm, China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, met in the Kazakh capital of Astana to discuss matters of mutual importance which included trade, energy, security and technology cooperation.

A growing number of Western observers, however, fear that the SCO is less a cooperative arrangement and more a modern day “Warsaw Pact,” determined to reduce U.S. global influence and confront what is perceived as growing Western expansionism in Central Asia and the Middle East. The addition of India, Iran, Pakistan and Mongolia as “observers” to the SCO, coupled with the abrupt rejection of U.S. requests for observer status, raise important questions concerning the organization’s long-term strategic goals and vision.

In short, is the SCO merely a union of independent member countries with mutual interests, or a military confederacy designed to eventually confront the U.S.?

SNIP)


If an attack by the SCO on U.S. forces stationed in Central Asia and the Middle East did occur, the combined armies of China, Russia, and Iran would provide a formidable adversary. Add India, Pakistan and several smaller Central Asian states into the fray and you have all the necessary ingredients of an unparalleled military conflict. Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev recently boasted, “The organization now represents half of all humankind.” This was not merely a factual statement; rather, it was meant as a direct challenge to U.S. superiority.

The military threat from the SCO becomes increasingly legitimate when we consider that even after the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) completes its current downsizing of 200,000 men; it will still have a standing army of approximately 2.3 million men with another 10 million men available from its organized militia.


MORE

[madeline_con]

1. In a word... OIL

"... China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan ..."

All of the above are about controlling it, moving it, and piping it overland. Asia's making its move...

[JDPriestly]

3. And thanks to the obsession of our industrial leaders with

world trade, we are completely dependent on some of these very countries for our economic survival and wellbeing. Good work, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Rockefeller. You destroyed America's security by selling out to big business. Buy a horse, get out your darning needles, put up a clothesline and learn to can. It's back to the 19th century for the American economy.

[Horse with no Name]

2. I have to agree...Bush was 100% correct

He IS a uniter....:eyes:

[walldude]

6. LOL.. yup, he's got everyone hating us now... n/t

[teryang]

4. The perception of mutual self interest outside American intrusion

...is a good developement because it will curb the military fantansies of the neo-cons in the Pentagon and national security establishment who have no understanding what inland warfare in central Asia is all about.

[wli]

5. Bushler now faces an alliance of enemies, as did Hitler

The megolamania must be stopped before he wrecks the country as Germany was wrecked after WWII (after 50 years, Germany has still not recovered).

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. The author seems to think the US has a right to occupy other countries

He thinks there should be more American troops there. Not because the other countries want it, but just because he wants it.

While the leaders of these countries are shifty politicians, not above fixing elections, or a bit of torture and illegal imprisonment, neither is Bush. They at least are in their own countries.