A decade after 9/11: Horrific consequences of threat exaggeration and needless over-reaction

The world and particularly the Americans, are remembering this week-end, with tearful eyes, those 3,000 lives lost ten years ago in the most unfortunate terror attacks in the beginning of the current century. The attacks on the icons of America’s economic and military powers, World Trade Center and Pentagon, were unique in the sense that these changed the world order instantly. The change did not take place due to the terrorist attacks; the world was changed by exaggeration of threat and massive, and needless, reaction and fury of the sole super power. 

Within a period of one month, a punitive attack of combined forces of the West was launched on Afghanistan which toppled the government of Taliban. This attack was another unique in the sense that it caused the terrorists to heave a sigh of relief. They were not angered by the attack, they were jubilant. By the hindsight, it has now been revealed that this was what al Qaeda was asking for. It had successfully provoked the US to enter the land where two earlier super powers, Britain and USSR, had lost their pride and glory. After ten years, one trillion dollar in direct war costs having gone down the drain and thousands of lives lost, al Qaeda is many times stronger and formidable. The US has gained nothing except for finding and killing OBL, who was only a figurehead. The COO of al Qaeda is alive and kicking and so is his ideology of conquering the world and a growing bunch of ideologues .

The massive damage caused by the US attack on Afghanistan is collateral damage. Whether it fits into the calculation of loss of human lives depends upon who got killed. By American definition, those locals who died during the war on terror constituted collateral damage. Lives lost in collateral damage outnumber those lost on 9/11 many times over but this loss is not as significant as of those 3,000 lives. The entire region has become instable giving al Qaeda an excellent opportunity to advance its agenda. The war between the US and a handful of terrorists has assumed the status of a crusade which has given some legitimacy to the killing and mayhem perpetrated by the terrorists. They are fighting this war from the position of an equal number.

It is now time for introspection, if not for the humanity, at least for the benefit of American people who are generally internationally naive. They suffer, and will continue to suffer, international hatred for no fault of theirs, but for the fault of those who take decisions for them. Technically, these decision-makers represent Americans but their arrogant mindset does not represent the mindset of common Americans.


The question that the American people should be asking themselves and their leaders is whether that bunch of transnational thugs who perpetrated 9/11 deserved the amount of response that the administration of that time gave? This did nothing except to promote public perception of al Qaeda as a force to reckon with. In order to understand the impact of ill-advised wastage of power and resources of the sole super power, just try to evaluate the power and influence of al Qaeda now as compared to ten years ago. Today, it is a dreaded force which the combined armies of the world, with state-of-the-art fighting technology at their disposal, have failed to weaken, let alone eliminate.

The reaction of the US administration to 9/11 attacks was as extremist as the attack itself. And the media painted the terrorists as such a threat that it unnerved those who were responsible to take crucial decisions. According to The National, the gruesome purpose of that carefully staged media spectacle was to amplify the significance of Al Qaeda thousands of times beyond its actual power in the Muslim world, and it worked: mediated through real-time television and the responses of US leadership, September 11 turned Osama bin Laden's diminutive network, in the minds of a fearful American imaginations, into a menacing juggernaut.

The climate of media-fuelled fear after the attacks allowed an imperially minded extremist element in the Bush administration to march America off into two wars that did nothing for America's security, but have already cost the lives of more than twice as many Americans as died on September 11, as well as killing hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis, and accelerating US economic decline by adding more than $1 trillion to its fiscal burden even as the Bush administration handed trillions of dollars of tax revenues back to the wealthiest Americans.

The fundamental assumptions that America's survival was threatened by a little known terrorist organization, and that the only acceptable response was an expeditionary war against all who would challenge its writ in the region was flawed from the very beginning.

This response not only pitched the American nation against the whole Muslim world, it glorified the gory act of terrorism. Additionally, it gave rise to many conspiracy theories and made the world whole lot more insecure and much more unsafe. The ideology of al Qaeda, at least in the Muslim world, remained a useless commodity which no one was prepared to buy. This ideology entails takfeer i.e. declaring the opponents as infidels deserving death and sanctioning khuruj i.e. revolt against established order even in the Muslim world. This ideology is in conflict with the fundamental injunctions of Islam which does not allow revolt against established orders. This was sanctioned by a cleric of 14^th century promoting Hambli views, a religious minority within Islam. This ideology has no appeal for the majority of Muslims.

However, the way al Qaeda fought NATO and forced US to leave Afghanistan has raised questions about the ability of modern armies to fight terrorists. It has opened up discussions on the validity and relevance of their doctrine.

Famous consumer advocate, Ralph Nader has drawn some lessons from 9/11 which in his view, Americans must have learned. In an article titled, The Empire is eating Itself, he has suggested to recognize — or unlearn — those reactions and overreactions to 9/11 that have harmed the country. Some of his other suggestions are:

• Do not exaggerate our adversaries’ strength in order to produce a climate of hysteria that results in repression of civil liberties, embodied in the overwrought USA Patriot Act, and immense long-term damage to our economy. Consider the massive diversion of trillions of dollars from domestic civilian needs because of the huge expansion and misspending in military and security budgets.
• Do not allow our leaders to lie and exaggerate as when they told us there were funded, suicidal and hateful al-Qaeda cells all over our country. They were never here. Actually, the wholesale invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan became recruiting grounds for more al-Qaeda branches there and in other countries.
• Do not create a climate of fear or monopolize a partisan definition of patriotism in order to silence dissent from other political parties, the citizenry or the unfairly arrested or harassed.

The Americans have suffered the consequences of exaggerating al Qaeda threat in more than one way; in losing their civil liberties, their core values, their tax-payers' hard-earned money and their peace at home. The rest of the world shares these sufferings. Those innocent non-combatant civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan who lost their lives in needless wars in the past decade will haunt the collective conscious of American people for the decades to come. 


Related story:


A nation of 180m fighting for future of world's seven billion.....

South China Sea and the dream of a bipolar world….

The journey towards a bipolar world has already commenced and some believe that the principal route of this journey will be through the waters of South China Sea. The bipolarity lost at the end of previous century will be rediscovered in a matter of less than a decade, say some assessments. If history is any guide, the polar systems of world power always come into being as a result of major international conflicts involving many nations. And the resurgence of bipolarity will be no exception.

Why is this route so important? It is believed that nearly one third of the world’s shipping transits through the waters of South China Sea. It is also believed to be home to huge quantity of fisheries and have oil and gas reserves beneath its seabed. But are these the reasons enough to trigger a global armed conflict? China, the major claimant to this sea, is all set to become the second super power in the next five years when its economy achieves the status of the strongest economy. The developments over this region are quite interesting and the analysts are not ready to discount the projections that 21^st century will be naval century and, hence, any major war fought in this century will be fought at sea.

The South China Sea joins the Southeast Asian states with the Western Pacific, functioning as the throat of global sea routes. It is a part of the Pacific with an area of 3.5 million kilometers. It is located south of mainland China and the island of Taiwan, west of the Philippines, north west of Sabah (Malaysia), Sarawak (Malaysia) and Brunei, north of Indonesia, north east of the Malay peninsula (Malaysia) and Singapore, and east of Vietnam. The minute South China Sea Islands, collectively an archipelago, number in the hundreds. The sea and its mostly uninhabited islands are subject to competing claims of sovereignty by several countries. These claims are also reflected in the variety of names used for the islands and the sea.

It is an extremely significant body of water in a geopolitical sense. It is the second most used sea lane in the world, while in terms of world annual merchant fleet tonnage; over 50% passes through the Strait of Malacca, the Sunda Strait, and the Lombok Strait. Over 1.6 million m³ (10 million barrels) of crude oil a day are shipped through the Strait of Malacca, where there are regular reports of piracy, but much less frequently than before the mid-20th century.

The region has proven oil reserves of around 1.2 km³ (7.7 billion barrels), with an estimate of 4.5 km³ (28 billion barrels) in total. Natural gas reserves are estimated to total around 7,500 km³ (266 trillion cubic feet).

The area is a bone of contention between many nations. The disputes between these nations have been regarded as Asia's most potentially dangerous point of conflict. These disputes involve China, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines and other neighboring countries. The gravity of these disputes, and their potential for triggering an international war, can be gauged from the fact that in July 2010, US Secretary of State called for the Peoples Republic of China, the major claimant, to resolve the territorial dispute. China responded by demanding the US keep out of the issue. This came at a time when both countries have been engaging in naval exercises in a show of force to the opposing side, which increased tensions in the region. The US Military released a statement where it opposed the use of force to resolve the dispute, and accused China of assertive behavior.

Why is China so much assertive as accused by the US? No doubt, China is a major stakeholder but what is it that leads the conflict-averse country like China to be assertive in this case. The firm reply to the US asking it to mind its own business demonstrates two facts; China treats US interest in the dispute as latter’s interference in China’s affairs because south China Sea is legitimately a Chinese territory, or China has assumed the role of a major arbiter in the region and wants the US to stay away from its turf. China had to fill the vacuum in this area created as a result of US withdrawal from the Philippines.

Marine and energy resources, in the opinion of some analysts, are not the only reasons China is so assertive about this body of water. According to The Diplomat, the semi-closed sea is integral to China’s nuclear strategy. And without understanding the nuclear dimension of the South China Sea disputes, China’s maritime expansion makes little sense. Possessing a credible sea-based nuclear deterrent is a priority for China's military strategy. China’s single Type 092, or Xia-class, nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, equipped with short-range JL-1 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), has never conducted a deterrent patrol from the Bohai Sea since its introduction in the 1980s. However, China is on the verge of acquiring credible second-strike capabilities with the anticipated introduction of JL-2 SLBMs (with an estimated range of 8,000 kilometers) coupled with DF-31 and DF-31A road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). In addition, China plans to introduce up to five Type 094, or Jin-class, SSBNs outfitted with the JL-2 missiles, while constructing an underwater submarine base on Hainan Island in the South China Sea.

With these kinds of strategic interests, China feels it is its legitimate right to keep the South China Sea off-limits. China also needs to secure its forces in the South China Sea and modify its maritime strategy and doctrine accordingly. Currently, the primary wartime missions of the People’s Liberation Army Navy are: 1) securing sea approaches to Taiwan; 2) conducting operations in the western Pacific to deny enemy forces freedom of action; 3) protecting Chinese sea lines of communication; and 4) interdicting enemy lines of communication. With the introduction of the Type 094, protecting Chinese SSBNs will become another primary mission, and this mission will require China to kill enemy strategic antisubmarine forces and end the resistance of other claimants in the South China Sea. Chinese anti-access/area-denial capabilities, especially quieter nuclear-powered attack submarines, can be used to counter enemy forward antisubmarine warfare operations. China’s aircraft carriers, already under sea trial, will be deployed in the South China Sea to silence the neighboring claimants.

If the tension on this sea intensifies, the world will witness global realignment into Allied and Axis powers as a prelude to First World Naval War. Presently, all nine states that touch the South China Sea are more or less arrayed against China and, therefore, dependent on the United States for diplomatic and military support. These conflicting claims are likely to become even more acute as Asia's spiraling energy demands -- energy consumption is expected to double by 2030, with China accounting for half that growth -- make the South China Sea the ever more central guarantor of the region's economic strength. Already, the South China Sea has increasingly become an armed camp, as the claimants build up and modernize their navies, even as the scramble for islands and reefs in recent decades is mostly over.

War or no war, will this realignment translate into another bi-polar world like the one which came into being post-WWII? Professor Samuel Huntington, in his famous book, Clash of Civilizations...., predicted a war between China and Vietnam sometimes close to 2010 over the maritime resources of this sea. In view of Huntington, this would be a war within a civilization; but the later evidence suggests that South China Sea will be a hotbed of a much broader international conflict. Analysts have their fingers crossed but given the economic growth and fast industrialization of China, the world is already on the road to its cherished dream of bipolarity.

Please also read:

India, China and the US: The Debate in India

Oil imperialism; Iraq, Libya and now Balochistan…..

"The oil companies are the major international corporations. Since oil has become important, they have virtually owned the State Department. They are the corporations within the American imperialist system that have the greatest concern for American foreign policy. Because they have the largest overseas investments, their influence over foreign policy has always been extremely strong.” Noam Chomsky

A fugitive from Pakistani law, a Pakistani equivalent of OBL, has finally found a safe haven in Switzerland after having been pushed out of Afghanistan under Pakistani pressure. A person responsible for killings and insurgency in Pakistan has received a kind of media projection in the USA that only a very popular leader deserves. According to a New York Times report, a slim figure in a dark suit, Brahumdagh Bugti, 30, could pass for a banker in the streets of this sedate Swiss city (Geneva). But in truth he is a resistance leader in exile, a player in an increasingly ugly independence war within Pakistan. He has been on the run since 2006. 

The report builds his image of a hero. The fact that the New York Times is promoting this fugitive makes future American plans very clear; American strategists will not be out of job after installing the rebels’ government in Libya. They have very clear future plans and their next destination is Balochistan which figures very prominent in USA’s national interests. The fugitive being now promoted can realize the dreams of gaining control over Balochistan.

This barren land mass is of special interest to the USA for its oil reserves. The interest incidental to oil is the deep-sea port of Gwadar built by China on Balochistan’s Makran coast.

The US interests, its defense, economic and foreign policies, all are driven by global oil reserves. Wherever there is oil, there is US national interest. Speaking about American oil imperialism, Noam Chomsky in an interview in 1977 had said that there's been a very consistent U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, at least since the Second World War, whose primary concern has been to ensure that the energy reserves of the Middle East remain firmly under American control. The State Department noted in 1945 that these reserves constitute a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history. Basically it is a policy meant to keep Saudi Arabia, which has by far the largest known stores of petroleum, under American control.

Commenting on the relation between the U.S. government's policy and the interests of the American oil companies, Chomsky said that the oil companies are the major international corporations. Since oil has become important, they have virtually owned the State Department. They are the corporations within the American imperialist system that have the greatest concern for American foreign policy. Because they have the largest overseas investments, their influence over foreign policy has always been extremely strong.

This all makes motives behind the US policies very clear. The Middle East oil reserves are already firmly under US control with US-installed and backed autocratic regimes. Take the example of Libya, where US-backed NATO forces are in the final stage of overthrowing Qaddafi regime. The Libyan tyrant, Qaddafi was not as pliant as the Saudi rulers or Gulf Emirs. On top of that, Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world with 41.5 billion barrels (6.60×10⁹ m³) as of 2007. Most of Libya remains unexplored as a result of past sanctions and disagreements with foreign oil companies.

Mouth-watering! Isn’t it?

Now look at the “weapons of mass destruction” possessed by Iraq in 2003. Oil reserves in Iraq will be the largest in the world according to recent geological surveys and seismic data. The Iraqi government has stated that new exploration showed Iraq has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, with more than 350 billion barrels. Officially confirmed reserves rank third largest in the world at approximately 143 billion barrels (22.7×10⁹ m³). A major challenge to Iraq's development of the oil sector is that resources are not evenly divided across sectarian lines. Most known resources are in the Shiite areas of the south and the Kurdish north, with few resources in control of the Sunni population in the center.

American access to oil and gas reserves of the Central Asian states was being contemplated through its control of Afghanistan. According to some accounts, US had already decided to attack Afghanistan even before 9/11. Like Iraq’s WMD’s, al Qaeda provided it an excellent excuse to land in and destroy Afghanistan. This move will prove to be counter-productive for the American interests in the years to come because Afghanistan will never be Iraq or Libya for the US.

If the very recent history of America’s global interventionism is any guide, Balochistan should be the next candidate for US-aided rebellion a la Libya.  According to Global Research, Pakistan's extensive oil and gas reserves, largely located in Balochistan province, as well as its pipeline corridors are considered strategic by the Anglo-American alliance, requiring the concurrent militarization of Pakistani territory. Balochistan comprises more than 40 percent of Pakistan's land mass, possesses important reserves of oil and natural gas as well as extensive mineral resources. Balochistan also possesses a deep sea port largely financed by China located at Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea, not far from the Straits of Hormuz where 30 % of the world's daily oil supply moves by ship or pipeline.

Pakistan has an estimated 25.1 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of proven gas reserves of which 19 trillion are located in Balochistan. Among foreign oil and gas contractors in Balochistan are BP, Italy's ENI, Austria's OMV, and Australia's BHP. It is worth noting that Pakistan's State oil and gas companies, including PPL which has the largest stake in the Sui oil fields of Balochistan are up for privatization under IMF-World Bank supervision. According to the Oil and Gas Journal (OGJ), Pakistan had proven oil reserves of 300 million barrels, most of which are located in Balochistan. Other estimates place Balochistan oil reserves at an estimated six trillion barrels of oil reserves both on-shore and off-shore.

This brings us to the major theme of this article; Balochistan's strategic energy reserves have a bearing on the separatist agenda. Following a familiar pattern, there are indications that the Baloch insurgency is being supported and abetted by Britain and the US.  In the current geopolitical context, the separatist movement is in the process of being hijacked by foreign powers. British intelligence is allegedly providing covert support to Balochistan separatists (which from the outset have been repressed by Pakistan's military). In June 2006, Pakistan's Senate Committee on Defense accused British intelligence of "abetting the insurgency in the province bordering Iran" [Balochistan]. Ten British MPs were involved in a closed door session of the Senate Committee on Defense regarding the alleged support of Britain's Secret Service to Baloch separatists. Also of relevance are reports of CIA and Mossad support to Baloch rebels in Iran and Southern Afghanistan.

The stated purpose of US counter-terrorism is to provide covert support as well as training to "Liberation Armies" ultimately with a view to destabilizing sovereign governments. In Kosovo, the training of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in the 1990s had been entrusted to a private mercenary company, Military Professional Resources Inc (MPRI), on contract to the Pentagon. The BLA bears a canny resemblance to Kosovo's KLA, which was financed by the drug trade and supported by the CIA and Germany's Bundes Nachrichten Dienst (BND).

The report says that BLA emerged shortly after the 1999 military coup. It has no tangible links to the Baloch resistance movement, which developed since the late 1940s. An aura of mystery surrounds the leadership of the BLA. Washington favors the creation of a "Greater Balochistan" which would integrate the Baloch areas of Pakistan with those of Iran and possibly the Southern tip of Afghanistan, thereby leading to a process of political fracturing in both Iran and Pakistan. The US is using Baloch nationalism for staging an insurgency inside Iran's Sistan-Balochistan province. The 'war on terror' in Afghanistan gives a useful political backdrop for the ascendancy of Baloch militancy. 

In view of this, the patronizing of a scion of Bugti tribe by the imperialist powers and his image building by a paper like the New York Times makes a lot of strategic sense on the part of the US. How has Pakistan positioned itself, diplomatically and militarily, to face the very imminent onslaught of oil imperialism is something of crucial interest for those watching events unfolding in Balochistan, FATA, particularly South Waziristan and Karachi.

Related links:

Beijing, Washington DC and the Gwadar port

The Great Game for Central Asia now starts from Makran coast

Fast-track Balochistan destabilization on cards....

Fall of Tripoli; NATO does it again….

Whether the Battle of Tripoli has been lost to rebels or not, the Libyan turmoil seems to have entered a new phase. There are conflicting reports of fall of Tripoli but it seems that the fall is imminent if not already taken place. It may be too early to analyze the factors leading to rebels’ apparent success against Libya’s strongman and the atrocities perpetrated by him and his family members. Does the apparent fall of the Qaddafi regime vindicate President Barack Obama's "lead from behind" strategy? It will also be too early to give the credits at this stage.

The key question is whether the rebels could achieve what they did without global intervention (read: USA and NATO’s aerial strikes against the Libyan population)? According to some analysts, NATO’s strikes were the key to success of rebels in Tripoli. This means that the rebellion was not a populist movement and was successful because Libya was facing a collective fury of the mightiest of the global powers.

The major reason of the fall of Tripoli is NATO’s stepped up military operations, especially American military operations, as critics had been calling for. The real test of Obama's Libya operation will be how events play out after Qaddafi is gone and if Libya quickly transitions to a stable, representative political order, then the messiness of the last five months will be forgiven and forgotten. Ask George W. Bush administration which knows, as hard as it is to topple a dictator, the really hard part is what comes after.

NPR Blog has compiled from the international press, some very interesting factors of rebel’s success in Tripoli which are listed as under:

— "Surveillance And Coordination With NATO Aided Rebels": "American and NATO officials cited an intensification of American aerial surveillance in and around the capital city as a major factor in helping to tilt the balance after months of steady erosion of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's military. The officials also said that coordination between NATO and the rebels, and among the loosely organized rebel groups themselves, had become more sophisticated and lethal in recent weeks." (The New York Times)

— As Bombing Weakened Qaddafi's Forces, Opposition Organized: "It took five months after the NATO air strikes began before rebel forces entered Tripoli. Col Gaddafi's forces were a real army with heavy weapons, while the rebels were a bunch of civilians who had managed to get hold of some light arms such as AK-47s. It took a while for the bombing campaign to significantly reduce the government's military advantage and for the rebels to be organized into a proper fighting force. In the end, they advanced on Tripoli from three fronts, surrounding the coastal city, where they were met by jubilant crowds. Many were surprised at how little resistance they met outside the capital." (BBC News)

— NATO Attacks Intensified; Deadline Loomed: "NATO warplanes have flown nearly 20,000 sorties in the past five months, including about 7,500 strike attacks against Qaddafi's forces. The jets have hit at least 40 targets in and around Tripoli in the past two days. This was the highest number on a single geographic location since the bombing started more than five months ago, officials said. ...

"NATO officials deny there has been a fundamental shift in tactics in recent days to provide close air support to the advancing rebels. ... But they acknowledge that in response to new developments, alliance bombers have been pummeling Qaddafi's troops holding defensive positions even when they were only trying to stem the progress of the rebels.

"Alliance's military planners have [also] been racing against a deadline next month, when member states must vote on a second three-month extension of the mission. The bombing campaign has been criticized as detracting resources from NATO's main mission, the 10-year war in Afghanistan." (The Associated Press)

— A "Secret Allegiance?" "One reason for the rebels' startlingly rapid entrance into Tripoli – which had long seemed impregnable – was reported to be the secret allegiance of the commander of the special battalion guarding the capital. Senior rebel official Fathi al-Baja told the Associated Press that the commander's brother had been killed by the regime years ago, and that he had been loyal to the rebels. When opposition forces reached the gates of Tripoli, the battalion promptly surrendered. (The Guardian)

— "Libya's Gritty Mountain Rebels May Have Turned Tide In Tripoli": "The push by guerrilla fighters from Libya's isolated Berber highlands, the rugged Nafusa Mountains near the Tunisian border, was one front too many for Qaddafi's depleted and sometimes demoralized forces." (Los Angeles Times)

As events unfold, it's important to remember that while the U.S., it's NATO allies and opposition leaders believe it's only a matter of time before Qaddafi is captured, as NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro reported from Tripoli earlier today on Morning Edition, everything is a "bit messy" at this point and exactly how things will play out isn't known.


Post-Qaddafi Libya will be as hard to govern as Iraq. Both have many commonalities. Both are oil rich, both were ruled by autocrats to the disgust of common man. Both were attacked by Western imperialists. "Leading from behind" strategy is just a farce. It was a brazen attack on Libya. The instability now looming large in the entire region will be a nightmare for the African countries. However, Libyan oil will be in easy access and the dream of oil dinar will die its own death.


Please also read:


The gold dinar, dollar and Libya intervention.....


US interest in Libya is all about oil and China's growing economy....

A new gem in the String of Pearls….

China has long been a suspect for having ambitions beyond its territorial waters. This is because it has been struggling very hard to secure its energy routes from Hong Kong to Port Sudan. Its sea lanes of communication (SLOC) run through the strategic choke points like Bab al Mandab, Strait of Malacca, Strait of Hormuz and Strait of Lombok as well as other strategic naval interest such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Maldives and Somalia.  These lanes are called China’s String of Pearls. This string was described as such, for the first time, in an internal communication of US DOD, titled Energy Futures in Asia. According to this report, the “String of Pearls” describes the manifestation of China’s rising geopolitical influence through efforts to increase access to ports and airfields, develop special diplomatic relationships, and modernize military forces that extend from the South China Sea through the Strait of Malacca, across the Indian Ocean, and on to the Persian Gulf.

Was China doing something unique which no other country is doing?

China has recently added a precious gem to its String of Pearls; its first aircraft carrier which has just been launched for maiden sea trials. Although aircraft carriers have been in service in many naval forces for decades, the launch of China's first aircraft carrier drew worldwide attention. According to Xinhua, Chinese news agency, the carrier was refitted from an old former Soviet Union vessel and serves mainly as a platform for research, experiment and training. It is true that as a key symbol of a powerful naval force, aircraft carrier is a moving battle platform that can either be used for offense or defense. But their use depends fundamentally on a country's defense policy and military strategy. China's need to defend its long coastline and enormous maritime interests is basically behind the country's resolve to develop aircraft carriers. China has also learnt a lesson from its modern history of humiliation that backwardness leaves one vulnerable to attack.

Between 1840 and 1949, China was attacked from the sea for more than 100 times and was forced to sign a string of unfair treaties due to maritime defense failures. In the 21st century, struggle for maritime interests is becoming increasingly intense as the whole world comes to realize that the seas have become a key space for expansion of national interests and maritime security has become an important sphere of national security. Therefore, building a strong navy that is commensurate with China's rising status is a necessary step and an inevitable choice for the country to safeguard its increasingly globalized national interests.

Will China keep its word that it will never seek hegemony, no matter how developed it is? It may try to but what will China do if the hegemony is thrust upon it? A very recent debt crisis in the US has clearly demonstrated that China is not far from claiming the crown of the globe.

According to Xinhua, Chinese navy fleets had by June escorted 3,953 ships from countries all over the world through the Gulf of Aden and waters off Somalia, among which 47 percent were foreign commercial ships.

China’s plans to enter the blue waters on-board a carrier were known to the world since long but it never admitted that it was indeed building a carrier. Pakistan’s deep sea port of Gwadar was suspected to be a dispersal base for the carrier after an irresponsible remark by defense minister about China’s plans to develop a naval base near the port. Although China distanced itself from these remarks, it however confirmed only last month that it was refitting the old, unfinished Soviet carrier hull bought from Ukraine's government. The world suspects that it was also building two of its own carriers because if Beijing is serious about having a viable carrier strike group, it will need three carriers along with support ships and aircrafts for the carrier group.

In China's neighborhood, India and Thailand already have aircraft carriers, and Australia has ordered two multi-purpose carriers. The United States operates 11 carriers.

The initial reaction from the world is not very significant. The two major countries who would feel threatened are India and the US who have partnered for the sole business of blocking China’s access to Indian and Pacific Oceans. Before the launch, a Pentagon spokesman played down the likelihood of any immediate leaps from China's carrier program. U.S. experts on the Chinese navy agreed.

"A newly-wed couple wants a 'starter home', a new great power wants a 'starter carrier'," Andrew Erickson of the U.S. Naval War College and Gabriel Collins, a security analyst, wrote in a note about the carrier launch (www.andrewerickson.com).

"China's 'starter carrier' is of very limited military utility, and will primarily serve to confer prestige on a rising great power, to help the military master basic procedures, and to project a bit of power."

But the carrier is just one part of China's naval modernization drive, which has forged ahead while other powers tighten their military budgets to cope with debt woes. China has been building new submarines, ships and anti-ship ballistic missiles as part of its naval modernization. The country's growing reach at sea is triggering regional jitters that have fed into long-standing territorial disputes, and could speed up military expansion across Asia. In the past year, China has had run-ins at sea with Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines. The incidents -- boat crashes and charges of territorial incursions -- have been minor, but the diplomatic fallout often heated. The nation most disturbed at this new development is, naturally, India. They always thought that Indian Ocean was “India’s Ocean” but now now they will have to put up with this harsh reality.

"They want to assert their dominance in East Asia as well as the Chinese sea and they have very ambitious plans of asserting their claims over some islands," retired Indian Major General Ashok Mehta, a defense analyst in Delhi, said of China.

"India has lot of catching up to do and the history of India's catching up is not very impressive," he said, noting New Delhi's plan to have three aircraft carriers by 2015.