site stats
Sunday, May 29, 2022
HomeLatest NewsSolomon Islands and the globalization of geopolitics

Solomon Islands and the globalization of geopolitics

05.05.202005.04.2022
Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) and Chinese President Xi Jinping pose for a photograph during a meeting in Beijing February 4, 2022.
Alexey Druzhinin / Sputnik / AFP

The Solomon Islands is a small archipelago located west of Papua New Guinea and southwest of Australia. Its area is only 28,900 square kilometers and the population is 648,000 people. It was a British colony and its currency is the Solomon Islands dollar, which says a lot about its economy. Until a few weeks ago, it was an insignificant state, and it was until April 19 when it signed a security agreement with China, an agreement that irritated the US and Australia, whose governments are hitting, not screaming, but screaming in the sky. and beyond, warning that such an agreement could allow China to establish a naval base in the archipelago. Despite immediate denials from Beijing and Solomon, Australian and American warnings and exhortations cascaded. The Australian government immediately dispatched a ministerial mission. The other arrived later from the USA. The Yankee emissaries said the US would pay more attention to the country and even open an embassy in the Solomon Islands.

On April 24, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said that China’s construction of a military base in the Solomon Islands would be a “red line” for Canberra and the United States. Australia, Morrison argued, “doesn’t want to see Chinese naval bases around the corner.” Morrison added that the government of the Solomon Islands promised him that there would be no Chinese bases on their territory, despite the fact that swords remain raised in both the United States and Australia. For its part, – quote from the statement – “the US delegation indicated that the agreement has potential security implications for both the United States and its allies.” While the right of states to make “sovereignty decisions in the interests of their people” was recognized, the delegation warned that if a Chinese military base were established in the Solomon Islands, the United States would express “grave concern” and I would respond accordingly. Come on, I just have to add that the country will be invaded, as requested by senior Australian politicians from the fringes of the government.

Said the news so, it doesn’t say much. Putting it in a real context that is not talked about in these “democratic” and “extremely free” countries, it will be possible to understand the real cause of the explosion in Washington and Canberra. This reason is related to a topic that we have touched on several times already (and which we will continue to touch on) and that will inevitably be talked about much more in the future: US military strategy against China in the face of a more than likely military confrontation. This strategy is perversely simple: it involves the military and political encirclement of Chinese territory with two chains of islands that completely surround both the East China Sea and the South China Sea. The first and most important chain starts from South Korea, continues through Japan, connects to Taiwan, and continues through the Philippines to Singapore. This whole long chain of islands, almost 5,000 kilometers long, is filled with US military bases, to which should be added the bases of each of these countries, especially Japan, a country that has spent a decade in an accelerated process of rearmament, about which China has repeatedly expressed its concern and related with this risk.

The second chain is much longer, so much so that it goes from Alaska to Australia, a country that the United States has elevated to a higher category, declaring it the strategic rearguard of the two rings of fire. On this second chain, the US has built its new geostrategic concept of the “Indo-Pacific Region”, guarded by the Pacific Fleet, the largest and most powerful of all US navies. From California and Alaska, the US wants to control the North Pacific and Russia; California and Australia, Central and South Pacific. The “hot zone”, the one in front of China, has its most important bases in Hawaii, Guam and Wake Island, which makes the Australian naval and air bases an important function of supporting and controlling the seas and straits, which will close all sea routes in seas of China and from them. In fact, we are talking about the Straits of Malacca and Sunda, control over which will be provided by the joint forces of the United States and Australia and – ultimately, if the US strategy is adopted – by European ships of NATO.

The centerpiece of US military strategy is to prevent China from somehow jumping over the two rings of fire that have formed over the past thirty years. This is the reason for the violent and immediate reaction of the US and Australia to the security agreement between the Solomon Islands and China. This archipelago country is outside the second ring of fire, and if the possibility of a Chinese naval base materializes, the fleet of an Asian power could attack the second ring from the rear, forcing the US to fight – at least as long as they can the Chinese base – on two fronts, which will break the US military strategy for drowning. Control of the seas is at the heart of US military doctrine, as reflected in the December 2020 Advantage at Sea document:

“Disputed seas require a new emphasis on control of the sea. Denying our adversaries the use of the seas undermines their direct military objectives and frustrates their attempts to threaten our allies and the American homeland from the sea. We must increase our focus in controlling the seas. in conflict to give joint and allied forces leeway to attack opposing forces and impose costs on a global scale.”

Hal Brands, Henry A. Kissinger Chair and “Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins University,” describes the interesting relationship between China and Russia that runs through Ukraine in an article with the militant title: Opposing China Means Russia’s Defeat (Opposing China Means Russia’s Defeat ), April 2022. Eminent Professor Brands’ thesis is that “China is America’s most formidable autocratic enemy, and Washington could inflict a serious strategic defeat on it if it ensures Russia loses the war in Ukraine.” According to Brands, “no serious observer cares about the emergence of a Russian-centric world, even if Putin can seriously destabilize the existing system. However, China depends on a strong and supportive Russia: without it, Xi will not be able to achieve its goals.”

Brands elaborates on his thesis further:

“China’s dependence on Russia will be even greater in the event of war. Russia under Putin’s leadership will become a huge friendly rearguard that will allow China to concentrate its forces against the United States and its allies. Russia could provide military supplies or help China overcome the otherwise devastating effects of a US naval blockade.

As veteran propaganda and strategy commentator Hu Xijin writes:[c]With Russia as a partner, China will not be afraid of the US energy blockade, our food supply will be more secure, as will [nuestros suministros] many other raw materials. “Russia could even find creative ways to ease democratic military pressure on China, perhaps by placing its forces threateningly in Eastern Europe.”

Brands concludes his speech with the following statements:

“Ultimately, this strategy requires a major intellectual shift. It is no longer appropriate to view China and Russia as separate strategic challenges. The two countries are part of a unified authoritarian axis in the heart of Eurasia that seriously challenges the security of democracies. .”, which inhabit the European and Pacific margins of this land mass.

China is the strongest partner in this effort; The United States is unlikely to leave the Pacific. But he also cannot accept the dogmatic view of Asia First in the midst of a deepening global crisis. Sometimes the indirect route is the most promising. And right now the way to defeat China lies through Moscow.”

Imagine for a moment, reader, that the policy that guides Washington’s strategy against Russia in Ukraine was just that. This would mean that the US would push Europe out of the chicken coop into a colossal war against Russia, not for Ukraine, but as part of its strategy to weaken and defeat China, using Ukraine as a tool. Given that, as many in the US admit, a Russian defeat cannot be considered a possibility, the US will promote a world war for the sole purpose of maintaining its hegemony in the Pacific. Besides, if that were the case, China would be forced to death to support Russia in its interests, and if China stepped in…

Further comments are superfluous. We only note that the main goal of the NATO summit in Madrid, which will be held in June, is the creation of a vast anti-Chinese and anti-Russian front. Let each reader draw their own conclusions. oh! And the last remark: the Russian military doctrine provides for the use of nuclear weapons in the event of a threat to the existence of Russia. You can see where you can go swimming, starting from the beaches of the Solomon Islands. And red lines, oh red lines!



Source: blogs.publico.es

*The article has been translated based on the content of blogs.publico.es. If there is any problem regarding the content, copyright, please leave a report below the article. We will try to process as quickly as possible to protect the rights of the author. Thank you very much!

*We just want readers to access information more quickly and easily with other multilingual content, instead of information only available in a certain language.

*We always respect the copyright of the content of the author and always include the original link of the source article.If the author disagrees, just leave the report below the article, the article will be edited or deleted at the request of the author. Thanks very much! Best regards!



RELATED ARTICLES

Most Popular

Recent Comments

%d bloggers like this: