The Philippine Senate forced the closure of major U.S. military bases in the country, but the U.S. military presence in the Philippines has not gone away since then. A 1999 agreement allowed hundreds of American troops to return in 2002 to train and arm Filipino soldiers fighting domestic militants allegedly linked to al-Qaeda.

The Obama administration initiated an effort with the Filipino government with the aim of increasing access for U.S. warships and air force and possible for joint war drills, although reports say full U.S. bases will not be reopened.

This is part of a broader imperial plan to counter China’s regional influence and an expanded military presence in the region with bases, troops, and navy warships in Australia and Singapore. The announcement also coincides with diplomatic and military friction in the South China Sea over its oil-rich Spratly Islands, which are subject to disputed claims by China, the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations.

Protecting an oil rig will actually be one of the exercises the Philippines performs with the U.S. military starting this spring. ”This area is vital to the United States,” Chief of U.S. Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert said recently. “It’s been an area vital to our navy and our focus for decades, because of… the trade routes, the large economies.”

Maintaining U.S. military and economic hegemony in Asia-Pacific has been a rising concern of the national security establishment for some time now. The U.S. currently has key military bases in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Guam, and now Australia.

A number of news stories in China focused on this story, with a Chinese newspaper owned by the nation’s ruling Communist Party warned against “appeasement” of the US and urged China’s military to adopt an “assertive” policy in response.

President Obama’s strategy has been presented primarily as a “cut” in the US media, even though it amounts to an overall spending increase. It reduces the number of ground troops but increases spending on both warplanes and naval power.

The change, particularly the increased focus on naval power, is seen by the Chinese as focusing on an inevitable intervention in the South China Sea, where China is in an ongoing dispute with other nations over some key islands.

After the announcement on Wednesday that up to 2,500 U.S. troops would be permanently stationed in Australia, in addition to an increase of Navy and Air Force capabilities based there as well, Chinese officials responded negatively.

“The U.S. sees a growing threat to its hegemony from China. Therefore, America’s strategic move east is aimed in practical terms at pinning down and containing China and counterbalancing China’s development,” the official Xinhua News Agency said in a commentary.

But maintaining U.S. military and economic hegemony in Asia-Pacific has been a rising concern of the national security establishment for some time now. The U.S. currently has key military bases in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Guam, and now Australia.

In Singapore last June, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke at an International Institute for Strategic Studies meeting and argued for “sustaining a robust [U.S.] military presence in Asia.”

He spoke of overcoming “anti-access and area denial scenarios” that the U.S. military faces in Asia, which threatens America’s access to strategic markets and resources. Predominantly, Gates explained, U.S. military presence in Asia-Pacific is important in “deterring, and if necessary defeating, potential adversaries.”

This articulation of U.S. foreign policy is consistent with grand strategy in the past. As was reiterated in the 2002 National Security Strategy, it was of foremost importance that “our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.”

Similarly, in former Secretary of Defense William Cohen’s 1999 annual report to President Clinton the crucial task was to “retain the capability to act unilaterally” to prevent “the possibility that a regional great power or global peer competitor may emerge” and to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.” Under the subheading Additional Security Concerns was mention of China and its “potential to assert its military power in Asia.”

The U.S. has attempted to inject itself into territorial disputes China has recently had with the Philippines and Taiwan, over island groupings in the South China Sea. Recently retired Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen visited China in July “with a vow to maintain the U.S. military presence in Asia and a warning that recent incidents in the disputed waters of the South China Sea could escalate into conflict.”

In the months prior to that visit China called on the U.S. to stop holding military drills with our allied states like “Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei,” as they are seen as a provocation. But Mullen responded with a promise that ”the U.S. is not going away. Our enduring presence in this region has been important to our allies for decades and it will continue to be so.”

America’s military relationship with Taiwan, politically separate from mainland China since 1949, but thought by China to be an inalienable part of One China, has long been instigating tensions in the region. Taiwan currently ranks fourth among worldwide recipients of U.S. arms, with the value of deliveries of U.S. defense articles and services to Taiwan totaling $7.5 billion from 2002-2009.

To curb China’s economic competitiveness in the region, Obama has been making trade deals with Asian nations that would give America’s allies some trading privileges that do not immediately extend to China.

But the declining ability of the U.S. to compete in the Asia-Pacific region is not the result of a rising China. Rather, it is the  result of a struggling U.S. economy. Still, Washington seems content to use force and military provocation in order to suppress China’s growing strength.

In a move widely considered to be aimed at countering growing Chinese military and economic influence in the region, the deal also includes an increased presence of U.S. warships and military aircraft – including B52 bombers – to operate from Australian bases.

In announcing the expanded military presence President Obama said “it’s important for [China] to play by the rules of the road. We will send a clear message to them that we think they may need to be on track, in terms of accepting the rules and responsibilities of being a world power.”

Traditionally, the “rules and responsibilities of being a world power” is to act in a way that is subservient to U.S. power, thus the need for Obama to “send a clear message” of militaristic provocation to the Chinese that their growing influence in recent years are American prerogatives.

China responded negatively to the news. “It may not be quite appropriate to intensify and expand military alliances and may not be in the interest of countries within this region,” said Liu Weimin, a Foreign Ministry spokesman.

The expansion of U.S. military presence in Asia-Pacific occurs despite crippling fiscal deficits and impending cuts to the defense budget. The deployment also has no discernible necessity in terms of defending the nation from a military threat, making the imperial and economic aspects of this particularly blatant.

Attacking Iran would be a “very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences,” warned Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, while China expressed concern that the threats were harming the prospects of diplomacy.

They are just the latest in a growing chorus of nations to express concerns about starting another major war. Germany has also said they oppose such a move.

A growing number of US officials past and present have expressed a preference for launching a military attack on Iran soon, with an IAEA report alleging some vague allegations about computer simulations serving as the latest pretext.

Israeli officials have also been hyping the prospect of launching an attack on Iran themselves, with President Shimon Peres insisted the war was “more likely” than any sort of diplomatic solution. Israeli military officials are said to prefer an attack before winter.

The resolution urged Syria to abandon violence against pro-democracy protesters, but ran afoul of Russian officials in particular by including threats of “tough sanctions” within 30 days of the resolution’s adoption.

Russia, which has made it clear they oppose the sanctions, said that made the resolution unacceptable, and also were upset that the resolution did not explicitly rule out a foreign invasion, something they had sought.

French Ambassador Gerard Araud condemned the vetoes as “politically motivated” and promised that the EU would continue to move forward with efforts to demand Syria change their policy.

Though the Zardari government has long been seen as determined to protect US ties at any costs, they are increasingly seen as resigned to a full-fledged diplomatic split, with diplomats scrambling to set up meetings with other powers in the hope of gaining alternative allies.

The first apparent success of this campaign came in the form of China, which promised to continue to support the Pakistani government and to provide them with whatever economic and technical aid they require in fighting militants in the north.

This could be an extremely valuable asset for Pakistan, as many US officials are raising the prospect of severing foreign aid deals with the nation to punish them over the allegations of ties with the Haqqani Network. US aid is meant to buy influence, and they may be reluctant to withdraw it if it means being replaced by China as the Pakistani government’s benefactor.

The report likewise warns that the Chinese government is aiming to improve its economy as well as its military with a goal of becoming “a world-class economic and military power by 2050.”

One would assume that China, simultaneously the second biggest economy on the planet and spending the second most of its military annually, is already a “world-class” power in both of those senses, but the report will likely fuel further hand-wringing in the US Congress about the “threat” posed by a major trading partner and America’s leading creditor.

Rep, Buck McKeon (R – CA) the chair of the House Armed Services Committee, was already on the subject, warning of Beijing’s “increasing assertiveness” and terming the nation a “growing concern not only to the United States but to China’s neighbors.”

Taiwan, a U.S. ally, has been politically separate from mainland China since 1949, despite the Chinese government’s assertion that the island is an inalienable part of One China.

Taiwan currently ranks fourth among worldwide recipients of U.S. arms (behind Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt), with the value of deliveries of U.S. defense articles and services to Taiwan totaling $7.5 billion from 2002-2009. The U.S. is set to decide in October whether it will allow the sale of 66 Lockheed Martin Corp. F-16 jets to Taiwan, despite the fact that it would be much more a result of the influence of the defense industry and military posturing than any actual need for more defensive capabilities.

U.S. policy towards Taiwan is fundamentally about the military industrial complex and displaying military power towards China to maintain hegemony in Asia Pacific. Taiwan’s client state status is merely a projection of the American Empire, which takes precedence for Washington over potentially inflaming tensions between China and Taiwan, as has happened before and as was on display Wednesday.

Much of this martial frivolity and expansionism is justified on the grounds that China is actively expanding its defense spending and capabilities. But the notion that this presents a security concern for the U.S. is not grounded in reality. Foreign policy towards Asia Pacific reflects the large disconnect between defending America and maintaining global military dominance.

Rather, Pakistan’s military today insists that they don’t need the US military aid at all, and that the civilian government is the one more in need of help from abroad.  Major General Athar Abbas, the military’s spokesman, also accused the US of trying to undermine the military leadership.

But the US isn’t the only horse in the race to court the Pakistanis, and Pakistan’s military is being very plain about this fact. The military is now reporting that they are seeking even closer ties with the Chinese government, in the hopes of “filling the gap” in weapons sales that may be lost by the US.

Pakistan and China have long had a solid relationship bolstered by their mutual tensions with India. It is only natural then, with China’s own ambitions for increased regional influence that they should be in the bidding to court Pakistan, particularly when the US is making it increasingly clear that their relations are at risk.

Perhaps even more interesting is the blaise attitude of the US surrouding this potential loss of what has often been called a “key ally.” Both Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are visiting the region in the next few days, and neither is planning to stop off in Pakistan. Spurning such a visit is likely deliberate, particularly with regional tensions on the rise.