De-Dollarization:Dismantling USA’s Financial-Military Empire
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
It's time for a multi-polar world to be born and U.S unipolar hegemony to end.
I support that.
BRIC should create conditions for fairer world order
http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/17/stories/
Dissatisfaction with US policy unites BRIC countries
http://www.russiatoday.com/Politics/2009-06-16
Age of empires has ended: Ahmadinejad
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp
China for diversified monetary system
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/
SCO summit shows there is no alternative to international cooperation
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090616/155269503.html
CSTO leaders agree on rapid reaction forces
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06
So we can see that Bush's eight years in power and his aggressive pursuit to secure U.S hegemony and encirclement of Russia, China in eurasia has caused a reaction and forced the other powers to combine against the common threat.
Your continued shrill anti-USA statements can deflate the credibility mileage you have made with your other more sensible posts.
Seriously, the BRIC is formed by a few disparate countries made up of Brazil, Russia, India and China; while India is not exactly an enthusiastic player but is happily present in response to the invitation by those recognised as the "noveau riche".
Without the support from the other international bodies that combined bigger national groupings of regional countries, and international financial institutions - can any country or group of countries actually "de-dollarize" themselves from a global economy that has used the US Dollar as the International Currency of choice ?
At best that BRIC can do for a start - is to conduct bilateral trade in their respective national currencies, with valuation of individual currencies being made by a weighted common basket of other currencies.
The problem will still remain as to what will happen to the inheritor of the US Dollars dumped by BRIC or any other countries planning to move away from the Dollar.
If the US is planning domination and hegemony on the World Economy - it is odd that it should attempt to do so by puncturing its own economy through fiscal means.
What do you think is the US agenda ?
Could Barack Obama from the Democrat Party continue the hegomonistic policies of George W Bush from the Republicans ?
-
What do you think is the US agenda ?
Could Barack Obama from the Democrat Party continue the hegomonistic policies of George W Bush from the Republicans ?
Important thing is to create multiple poles of power in the world so that USA can never establish their global hegemony again and to bring the neo-con dream of global hegemony to an end.
Some elites and strategists in the USA are already coming to their senses, that is good sign for a peaceful world.
The United States is a superpower in search of a strategy. Following the end of the Cold War, no new grand strategy has won the bipartisan support that underpinned America’s strategy of containment from President Truman to President Reagan. Enthusiastic promoters of globalization occasionally argue that international trade will be a panacea for conflict, at least among developed nations.
The neoconservative vision of unilateral US global hegemony always lacked adequate military forces and funding to realize its ambitious goals. Now, in the aftermath of the Iraq War, the hegemony strategy also lacks public support. Most critics of the hegemony strategy, however, have failed to propose a credible alternative capable of guiding US national security.
A new grand strategy for the United States should be compatible with the nation’s fundamental values and capable of achieving American goals in the world order that will emerge in the decades ahead.Neither the strategy of US hegemony nor two proposed alternatives, neoisolationism and offshore balancing, meet these tests. The United States needs to prepare itself for a multipolar world in which it is not a solitary hegemon but rather one of several great powers, even if it is the most powerful for decades to come.
And the United States has to prepare itself to cooperate in the interest of security with other major powers either as a member of a great-power concert or as a participant in an alliance against one or more powerful aggressors. Because similar military capabilities would be required in either a concert of power or a balance of power strategy, this approach can be defined as a concert-balance strategy for a multipolar world...
-
What do you think is the US agenda ?
Here is a summary of the USA neo-con strategy of worldwide global hegemony under the dominance of the USA, this was pursued by Bush:
A SHORT ANALYSIS OF THE US GLOBAL STRATEGY
By Ding Yuanhong
In the early 1990s, having won the Gulf War and achieved victory over the Cold War, the U.S. Administration proposed to establish “a new international order under the leadership of the United States”.The elements and essence of such a U.S. global strategy as enshrined in the proposal have been increasingly clear in the conduct of the administrations’ foreign policies in the past decade.
To put it simply, the strategy aims at maintaining a lasting unique position of the United States as the world’s sole superpower by relying on its overall national strength, and in particular, the three-pronged superiority of enormous financial resources, advanced level of science and technology and overwhelming military power; it also aims at preventing the emergence of any nation or group of nations which might pose a threat to its “leadership role”, expanding its spheres of influence worldwide, and bringing many developing countries under its control through armed subversion or “democratic reform” in a world Pax Americanna. For more than a decade the successive U.S. Administrations have not changed this strategy in implementation, though with changed tactics.
An important element of the U.S. global strategy is to prevent the emergence of any new competitive opponent. The emphasis was initially on preventing the resurgence of Russia.It was explicitly noted in the Guideline of Defense Program formulated by the U.S. Administration in 1992: “Our primary goal is to prevent the emergence of the threat similar to that in scale posed by the Soviet Union on the soil of former Soviet Union or any other part of the world. … Our strategy must be focused on preventing the emergence of any potential global competitor.”
Since the mid-1990s, especially after George W. Bush assumed office as President, the targets of prevention have increased as a result of the growth of the European Union and the sustained development of China.
It was explicitly stated in the New American Century Agenda formulated by the powerful hawks in the Bush Administration before they went into the government: “The U.S. role of political leadership is higher than the United Nations … and the United States should persuade all developed countries not to reject our leading role and not to hope to play bigger regional roles.” The targets of prevention in reference here are self-evident. No wonder, pressed by the same powerful hawks, the Administration was to categorize China as a “strategic competitor” rather than a “strategic partner”.
To prevent the emergence of any competitive opponent which might pose a threat to its “leadership role”, the United States has adopted different policies towards different countries.
1. To Russia:(1) Using NATO as the major tool to expand its sphere of influence eastward through establishing partnerships and increasing NATO membership, fostering opposition forces in the CIS countries, instigating “street revolutions” to overthrow their regimes, nibbling at the “buffer areas” surrounding Russia step by step, and further weakening Russia’s influence in those countries.
(2) Withdrawing from the ABM treaty and signing a new, unequal nuclear strategic reduction treaty with Moscow, while beginning to build up its missile defense systems, preparing to resume nuclear tests, and further weakening Russia’s military capabilities while building up U.S. military superiority, and its nuclear monopoly in particular.
(3)Taking advantage of Russia’s institutional reform with a view to imposing upon Russia the American-style development model that features democracy, freedom and privatization and has led to a drastic economic downturn, social disorder and continued political turbulence in Russia. As a result, Russia’s national strength has been greatly weakened.
(4) Taking advantage of Russia’s complicated ethnic problems to connive and shield the secessionist forces in Chechnya who have been carrying out terrorist activities, undermining Russia’s domestic stability and national unity, and even seeking to dismember Russia.
2. To the European Union:(1) Taking advantage of its superior position in international finance to keep the Euro in an unstable status from the very beginning and making it difficult for the Euro to play its due role in promoting economic growth and weakening its challenge to the Dollar.
(2) Making use of NATO to strengthen the US control over European countries, trying every possible means to prevent the EU from building up its independent defense capabilities, so that the EU would continue to be subordinated to the United States in the security area.
(3) Retarding the pace of European integration process by adopting a policy of dividing the European Union, producing the concept of “Old Europe and New Europe”, trying to win over new EU members while pressuring old ones in order to “divide and rule” and impede European integration.
(4) countering the EU “southward strategy” by proposing and implementing the Greater Middle East Plan across the entire Middle East region and North Africa in order to compete with EU for greater influence in all Arab countries peripheral to Europe.
3. To Japan:(1) Taking advantage of the superior position of the Dollar to force Japan to accede to the Square Agreement, causing a long-term recession of Japan’s economy and weakening its competitive edge over the United States.
(2) Strengthening the U.S.-Japan security alliance in order both to control the buildup of Japan’s SDF and to keep the SDF under the tight control of the United States.
(3) Taking advantage of Japan’s eagerness to become a “normal country” that would evolve from a mere economic giant into a political or even a military power, reducing Japan to a pawn or a junior partner in pursuit of the U.S. global strategy and, in particular, in maintaining the U.S. dominant position in Asia and the Pacific region and perpetually keeping Japan in a position subordinate to the United States.
4. To China:(1) Strengthening its military deployment in areas surrounding China, playing up the “China threat” to drive wedges in relations between China and its neighbors and trying hard to forge a strategic “encirclement” against China.
(2) Taking Taiwan as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” to contain China, reinterpreting the “one China” principle by distorting the connotation of “Taiwan’s status quo”, and continuing to implement the Taiwan Relations Act and more arms sales to Taiwan in order to obstruct China’s peaceful reunification. To encourage the “democracy forces” in Hong Kong to disrupt social order and incite popular sentiments against the central government, re-precipitating the Korean nuclear crisis, linking Taiwan, Hong Kong and Korea together to tighten its check on China.
(3) Stepping up the infiltration activities in China in the name of “economic globalization” with a view to reaping more benefits and enhancing its influence, and trying to restrict energy supplies to China, destabilizing the RMB exchange rates, and jeopardizing China’s economic security in the energy and financial sectors which are critical to China’s modernization.
(4) Interfering with and imperiling China’s domestic stability by playing up such issues as human rights, activities of the secessionist forces that seek independence of Tibet and Xinjiang, the “democracy movement” and the Falun Gong, etc.
II
Another major element of the U.S. global strategy is to expand its sphere of influence, seize strategic vantage points and get more access to energy and other important resources. This is mainly targeted at vast numbers of developing countries. The way to implement the strategy is to combine military means with non-military means.
1. Relying on its overwhelming military power and in the name of addressing ethnic and religious issues, human rights issues and counter-terrorism, the US interferes in the internal affairs of developing countries, encroaches upon their independence and sovereignty and even tries to overthrow legal governments by force so as to control these countries. In the past decades, the United States has launched one war after another in higher frequency than in any other period of history. The victims have all been developing countries.The Gulf War enabled the United States to control the Gulf region; the Kosovo War enabled the U.S. forces to get extended access to Eastern Europe; the Afghan War enabled the US to have military presence in Central Asia, on which the United States had set its eyes long before. It has also taken advantage to strengthen its military presence in Southeast Asia.
The real aim of the US in launching the Iraqi War is to control areas of strategic importance and rich oil resources in the Middle East. In addition, the United States has military presence in the Red Sea and Africa, among other areas, in the name of countering terrorism.
Recently, it has been aggressively seeking rights to deploy forces in the Malacca Strait – an area vital to the world economy. As for the political unrest in a good number of countries in recent years, it is attributable to US interference in internal affairs of those countries in greater or lesser degrees.
2. In the name of “economic globalization”, the United States has tried hard to persuade developing countries to adopt the American neo-liberal development model, which has given rise to economic crises, social unrest and political turmoil in many countries, thereby making them subordinate to the United States.The domestic turmoil in many African countries, the Southeast Asian financial crisis, unstable economic situation in some Latin American countries, and the severe setbacks suffered by the Central and Eastern European countries during the process of “economic transformation” in recent years are all attributable to the neo-liberalism sold by the United States. Even today, the Untied States is continuing to press developing countries to stick to this model, which will create more serious economic difficulties and political unrest for those countries and further encroach upon their economic sovereignty and political security. As the Algerian President said, “Globalization is a hegemonic monster which will swallow the developing countries anyway.”
III
The 9/11 incident caused a huge shock to the United States. However, the United States has not changed its global strategy thereafter. The terror attacks provided a “reasonable” ready pretext for the United States to implement its global strategy. At present, the emphasis of the U.S. strategy is on the control and “reform” of the Middle East. This is the reason why the United States had targeted the Arab world from the very beginning as the focus of its “global counter-terror war”.The US assertion of “either with us or against us” was designed to intimidate other countries into accepting the U.S. strategic deployment. The argument that “terrorism in combination with proliferation of WMD” is a major threat to global security is a prescribed exaggeration. It can be used as a pretext to punish any country it chooses to free from the restraint of international law or norms governing international relations.
It bypassed the United Nations in launching the Iraq war, threatened Syria and Iran militarily, and rekindled the Korean nuclear crisis. All this was based on the above-mentioned pretext. It also took the advantage to establish the kind of “non-proliferation regime” manipulated by itself outside the United Nations for the purpose of controlling global nuclear energy and its peaceful use outside the NPT framework.
It is quite clear that the United States intends to press with its global strategy under the pretext of counter-terror and non-proliferation. When the US feels the need for cooperation from other major powers in countering terrorism, the United States seems to behave in a slightly more friendly way in bilateral relations with them. However, there has been no substantial change in the implementation of its policies. In a speech delivered at the World Economic Forum last year, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticized the United States for overemphasizing counter-terrorism.
He pointed out that the danger to global security “comes not only from terrorism, but also from the methods of counter-terror wars”, “both international terrorism and counter-terror wars have the potential possibility to overturn the norms of conduct and the standards of human rights and would widen the cultural, religious and ethnic barriers.” He reiterated that global security should never be placed under the law of the jungle.
The U.S. global strategy directly impinges upon the independence, sovereignty and security of other countries. It is also the biggest threat to peace, stability and development of the world.The implementation of such a strategy pits the United States against the people of the world and will surely arouse resistance in various forms from other countries. The evolution of the Iraq war and the resulting international reaction prove that “a just cause enjoys abundant support while an unjust cause finds little support”.
In the implementation of this strategy, the United States will become more and more isolated in the international community. The United States, with its self-assumed overwhelming power, is extremely arrogant, trying to do whatever it wishes to.
But it would only last a brief period of time, and the final outcome would be none other than “lifting the rock only to drop it on one’s own feet”. This is the iron law of history independent of human will.
Ding Yuanhong is former Ambassador of China to EU, Council Member of the CPIFA. -
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
Here is a summary of the USA neo-con strategy of worldwide global hegemony under the dominance of the USA, this was pursued by Bush:
A SHORT ANALYSIS OF THE US GLOBAL STRATEGY
By Ding Yuanhong
In the early 1990s, having won the Gulf War and achieved victory over the Cold War, the U.S. Administration proposed to establish “a new international order under the leadership of the United States”. The elements and essence of such a U.S. global strategy as enshrined in the proposal have been increasingly clear in the conduct of the administrations’ foreign policies in the past decade. To put it simply, the strategy aims at maintaining a lasting unique position of the United States as the world’s sole superpower by relying on its overall national strength, and in particular, the three-pronged superiority of enormous financial resources, advanced level of science and technology and overwhelming military power; it also aims at preventing the emergence of any nation or group of nations which might pose a threat to its “leadership role”, expanding its spheres of influence worldwide, and bringing many developing countries under its control through armed subversion or “democratic reform” in a world Pax Americanna. For more than a decade the successive U.S. Administrations have not changed this strategy in implementation, though with changed tactics.
I
An important element of the U.S. global strategy is to prevent the emergence of any new competitive opponent. The emphasis was initially on preventing the resurgence of Russia. It was explicitly noted in the Guideline of Defense Program formulated by the U.S. Administration in 1992: “Our primary goal is to prevent the emergence of the threat similar to that in scale posed by the Soviet Union on the soil of former Soviet Union or any other part of the world. … Our strategy must be focused on preventing the emergence of any potential global competitor.” Since the mid-1990s, especially after George W. Bush assumed office as President, the targets of prevention have increased as a result of the growth of the European Union and the sustained development of China. It was explicitly stated in the New American Century Agenda formulated by the powerful hawks in the Bush Administration before they went into the government: “The U.S. role of political leadership is higher than the United Nations … and the United States should persuade all developed countries not to reject our leading role and not to hope to play bigger regional roles.” The targets of prevention in reference here are self-evident. No wonder, pressed by the same powerful hawks, the Administration was to categorize China as a “strategic competitor” rather than a “strategic partner”.
To prevent the emergence of any competitive opponent which might pose a threat to its “leadership role”, the United States has adopted different policies towards different countries.
1. To Russia: (1) Using NATO as the major tool to expand its sphere of influence eastward through establishing partnerships and increasing NATO membership, fostering opposition forces in the CIS countries, instigating “street revolutions” to overthrow their regimes, nibbling at the “buffer areas” surrounding Russia step by step, and further weakening Russia’s influence in those countries. (2) Withdrawing from the ABM treaty and signing a new, unequal nuclear strategic reduction treaty with Moscow, while beginning to build up its missile defense systems, preparing to resume nuclear tests, and further weakening Russia’s military capabilities while building up U.S. military superiority, and its nuclear monopoly in particular. (3)Taking advantage of Russia’s institutional reform with a view to imposing upon Russia the American-style development model that features democracy, freedom and privatization and has led to a drastic economic downturn, social disorder and continued political turbulence in Russia. As a result, Russia’s national strength has been greatly weakened. (4) Taking advantage of Russia’s complicated ethnic problems to connive and shield the secessionist forces in Chechnya who have been carrying out terrorist activities, undermining Russia’s domestic stability and national unity, and even seeking to dismember Russia.
2. To the European Union: (1) Taking advantage of its superior position in international finance to keep the Euro in an unstable status from the very beginning and making it difficult for the Euro to play its due role in promoting economic growth and weakening its challenge to the Dollar. (2) Making use of NATO to strengthen the US control over European countries, trying every possible means to prevent the EU from building up its independent defense capabilities, so that the EU would continue to be subordinated to the United States in the security area. (3) Retarding the pace of European integration process by adopting a policy of dividing the European Union, producing the concept of “Old Europe and New Europe”, trying to win over new EU members while pressuring old ones in order to “divide and rule” and impede European integration. (4) countering the EU “southward strategy” by proposing and implementing the Greater Middle East Plan across the entire Middle East region and North Africa in order to compete with EU for greater influence in all Arab countries peripheral to Europe.
3. To Japan: (1) Taking advantage of the superior position of the Dollar to force Japan to accede to the Square Agreement, causing a long-term recession of Japan’s economy and weakening its competitive edge over the United States. (2) Strengthening the U.S.-Japan security alliance in order both to control the buildup of Japan’s SDF and to keep the SDF under the tight control of the United States. (3) Taking advantage of Japan’s eagerness to become a “normal country” that would evolve from a mere economic giant into a political or even a military power, reducing Japan to a pawn or a junior partner in pursuit of the U.S. global strategy and, in particular, in maintaining the U.S. dominant position in Asia and the Pacific region and perpetually keeping Japan in a position subordinate to the United States.
4. To China: (1) Strengthening its military deployment in areas surrounding China, playing up the “China threat” to drive wedges in relations between China and its neighbors and trying hard to forge a strategic “encirclement” against China. (2) Taking Taiwan as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” to contain China, reinterpreting the “one China” principle by distorting the connotation of “Taiwan’s status quo”, and continuing to implement the Taiwan Relations Act and more arms sales to Taiwan in order to obstruct China’s peaceful reunification. To encourage the “democracy forces” in Hong Kong to disrupt social order and incite popular sentiments against the central government, re-precipitating the Korean nuclear crisis, linking Taiwan, Hong Kong and Korea together to tighten its check on China. (3) Stepping up the infiltration activities in China in the name of “economic globalization” with a view to reaping more benefits and enhancing its influence, and trying to restrict energy supplies to China, destabilizing the RMB exchange rates, and jeopardizing China’s economic security in the energy and financial sectors which are critical to China’s modernization. (4) Interfering with and imperiling China’s domestic stability by playing up such issues as human rights, activities of the secessionist forces that seek independence of Tibet and Xinjiang, the “democracy movement” and the Falun Gong, etc.
II
Another major element of the U.S. global strategy is to expand its sphere of influence, seize strategic vantage points and get more access to energy and other important resources. This is mainly targeted at vast numbers of developing countries. The way to implement the strategy is to combine military means with non-military means.
1. Relying on its overwhelming military power and in the name of addressing ethnic and religious issues, human rights issues and counter-terrorism, the US interferes in the internal affairs of developing countries, encroaches upon their independence and sovereignty and even tries to overthrow legal governments by force so as to control these countries. In the past decades, the United States has launched one war after another in higher frequency than in any other period of history. The victims have all been developing countries. The Gulf War enabled the United States to control the Gulf region; the Kosovo War enabled the U.S. forces to get extended access to Eastern Europe; the Afghan War enabled the US to have military presence in Central Asia, on which the United States had set its eyes long before. It has also taken advantage to strengthen its military presence in Southeast Asia. The real aim of the US in launching the Iraqi War is to control areas of strategic importance and rich oil resources in the Middle East. In addition, the United States has military presence in the Red Sea and Africa, among other areas, in the name of countering terrorism. Recently, it has been aggressively seeking rights to deploy forces in the Malacca Strait – an area vital to the world economy. As for the political unrest in a good number of countries in recent years, it is attributable to US interference in internal affairs of those countries in greater or lesser degrees.
2. In the name of “economic globalization”, the United States has tried hard to persuade developing countries to adopt the American neo-liberal development model, which has given rise to economic crises, social unrest and political turmoil in many countries, thereby making them subordinate to the United States. The domestic turmoil in many African countries, the Southeast Asian financial crisis, unstable economic situation in some Latin American countries, and the severe setbacks suffered by the Central and Eastern European countries during the process of “economic transformation” in recent years are all attributable to the neo-liberalism sold by the United States. Even today, the Untied States is continuing to press developing countries to stick to this model, which will create more serious economic difficulties and political unrest for those countries and further encroach upon their economic sovereignty and political security. As the Algerian President said, “Globalization is a hegemonic monster which will swallow the developing countries anyway.”
III
The 9/11 incident caused a huge shock to the United States. However, the United States has not changed its global strategy thereafter. The terror attacks provided a “reasonable” ready pretext for the United States to implement its global strategy. At present, the emphasis of the U.S. strategy is on the control and “reform” of the Middle East. This is the reason why the United States had targeted the Arab world from the very beginning as the focus of its “global counter-terror war”. The US assertion of “either with us or against us” was designed to intimidate other countries into accepting the U.S. strategic deployment. The argument that “terrorism in combination with proliferation of WMD” is a major threat to global security is a prescribed exaggeration. It can be used as a pretext to punish any country it chooses to free from the restraint of international law or norms governing international relations. It bypassed the United Nations in launching the Iraq war, threatened Syria and Iran militarily, and rekindled the Korean nuclear crisis. All this was based on the above-mentioned pretext. It also took the advantage to establish the kind of “non-proliferation regime” manipulated by itself outside the United Nations for the purpose of controlling global nuclear energy and its peaceful use outside the NPT framework. It is quite clear that the United States intends to press with its global strategy under the pretext of counter-terror and non-proliferation. When the US feels the need for cooperation from other major powers in countering terrorism, the United States seems to behave in a slightly more friendly way in bilateral relations with them. However, there has been no substantial change in the implementation of its policies. In a speech delivered at the World Economic Forum last year, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticized the United States for overemphasizing counter-terrorism. He pointed out that the danger to global security “comes not only from terrorism, but also from the methods of counter-terror wars”, “both international terrorism and counter-terror wars have the potential possibility to overturn the norms of conduct and the standards of human rights and would widen the cultural, religious and ethnic barriers.” He reiterated that global security should never be placed under the law of the jungle.
The U.S. global strategy directly impinges upon the independence, sovereignty and security of other countries. It is also the biggest threat to peace, stability and development of the world. The implementation of such a strategy pits the United States against the people of the world and will surely arouse resistance in various forms from other countries. The evolution of the Iraq war and the resulting international reaction prove that “a just cause enjoys abundant support while an unjust cause finds little support”. In the implementation of this strategy, the United States will become more and more isolated in the international community. The United States, with its self-assumed overwhelming power, is extremely arrogant, trying to do whatever it wishes to. But it would only last a brief period of time, and the final outcome would be none other than “lifting the rock only to drop it on one’s own feet”. This is the iron law of history independent of human will.
Ding Yuanhong is former Ambassador of China to EU, Council Member of the CPIFA.If you believe that the point of views expressed by the Chinese is the holy grail of the US Agenda, you might as well accept the Malaysian Mahathir views as the official LKY's political agenda for Singapore.
-
If you believe that the point of views expressed by the Chinese is the holy grail of the US Agenda
They are quite close to it in my view.
Anyway the strategy of USA is openly stated.
They did not hide it.
There are a lot of documents and articles to quote from.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
They are quite close to it in my view.
Anyway the strategy of USA is openly stated.
They did not hide it.
There are a lot of documents and articles to quote from.
Unfortunately, as mentioned, your views nor mine can even be considered the official view points - can the observation of some Chinese commentator be seen or even accepted as the official agenda of the USA ?
It remains in the world of casual observation to be considered and not taken seriously as the "OFFICIAL AGENDA".
The Chinese author is afterall not even appointed by the US Government.
"There are a lot of documents and articles to quote from." - alot but none that can be considered official or even come close to being government policies.
The only known and openly stated policy that was not hidden is the policy to contain "the spread of Communism" at the expense of Freedom and Human Rights for the individual.
-
"There are a lot of documents and articles to quote from." - alot but none that can be considered official or even come close to being government policies.
See:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb245/index.htm
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2002/10/0079354
http://www.cpifa.org/en/Html/2005121102836-1.html
USA strategy is quite obvious and explicit.
It is openly stated.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
See:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb245/index.htm
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2002/10/0079354
http://www.cpifa.org/en/Html/2005121102836-1.html
USA strategy is quite obvious and explicit.
It is openly stated.
Great to see your due diligence in finding the sites to back-up your views, which unfortunately remains distorted by the skewed assumptions of cynics of the USA who are themselves the targets of the US policies.
To begin with, these are not official US policies - but private agendas of George Bush, Dick Cheney and the Right Wing politicians in the Republican Party - all during the presidential term of the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan.
If you note that since WW2 - the USA has always been the country called to bail out the weaker countries that had refused to prepare themselves against aggression, even when they lived amongst an aggressive gangster neighborhood.
Since WW2 - the USA has been called repeatedly to involve themselves in wars that did not directly affect the USA - as in the Korea War, Vietnam War, Balkan Wars, Kuwait War, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and also minor skirmishes to liberate neighboring countries in the Carribean and Latin Americas that were held to ransom by gangsters - who refused to submit to democratic processes.
In all, the USA had sacrificed more then a million young Americans since WW2.
Should we fault the USA for their leaders dreaming up their private agenda in using their supreme power - after the fall of the Soviet Union - to prevent another political competitor to rival the USA on a global scale, who will dominate their neighbors and bring matters to a boil that require more US intervention, and the loss of more young American lives ?
The following are abstracts taken from your referenced sites - have you bothered to read them, or were you reading the articles with fixed ideas made up in your mind ?
The United States should use its power to "prevent the reemergence of a new rival" either on former Soviet territory or elsewhere, declared a controversial draft of the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) prepared by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney's Pentagon and leaked to The New York Times in March 1992. Published in declassified form for the first time on the National Security Archive Web site, this draft, along with related working papers, shows how defense officials during the administration of George H. W. Bush. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb245/index.htm
The Plan was published in unclassified form most recently under the title of Defense Strategy for the 1990s, as Cheney ended his term as secretary of defense under the elder George Bush in early 1993, but it is, like Leaves of Grass, a perpetually evolving work. It was the controversial Defense Planning Guidance draft of 1992—from which Cheney, unconvincingly, tried to distance himself
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2002/10/0079354
Defense Planning Guidance was drafted under the supervision of Paul D. Wolfowitz, the then Under Secretary for Policy of U.S. Defense Department, after drawing ideas from President Bush Senior and his senior security advisors and with the approval of the then Defense Secretary Cheney.
Clarifying its purpose from the very beginning, the Defense Planning Guidance of 1992 states that the disintegration of the internal as well as the external Soviet empire and the discrediting of Communism as an ideology with global pretensions and influence have created fundamental change of the world situation, and the new international environment has also been shaped by the victory of the United States in the Gulf War --- the first conflict after the cold war. In addition to these two victories, there was a “less visible” one, the integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a “democratic zone of peace.” The document aims to put forward the U.S. defense security objective under the new circumstances and the policy and tactics necessary to achieve this objective.
1. To prevent the re-emergence of a new rival that poses a threat to the U.S. as the former Soviet Union did is the primary objective of U.S. defense strategy.
2. The second strategic objective is to address sources of regional conflicts and instability in such a way as to limit international violence and to encourage the spread of democracy and the establishment of open economic systems.
3. The world should be dominated by a military power (the United States), so the U.S. “must maintain a series of mechanisms” by “constructive behaviors” and military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American hegemon.
4. Reject collectivism like the United Nations action, and act through selective coalitions if necessary and get ready to act independently.
5. Take “pre-emptive” strike when necessary against the threat from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
6. Assess “the possible threats” in various regions and put forward counter-measures.
http://www.cpifa.org/en/Html/2005121102836-1.html
After repeatedly playing the "role of savior" since WW2 - and with the collapse of Communist Russia - the USA see itself in a unique position, which allow the USA with no other challenging power in the World - willing to stand up against tyranny and despotic syncopathic rulers - it had to rest on the USA again to take on the role of a "Super Hero".
If the USA is made out to be no more then an untrustworthy nation with its own deliquent agenda to dominate the World - why will the US give themselves a dateline to withdraw from Iraq by 2012 ?
If the USA had an agenda to dominate the World - why will it not go ahead and station more troops permanently in the hot desert of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Panama ?
In fact, over the last 40 years - in all the areas of conflict that had involved US Military Power, we have instead seen US military withdrawing from the theatre after normalcy has been restored.
Unless treaties have been signed with willing governments, there are no instances that resulted in the USA forcing its presence on any host countries.
Is this how a super power dominate the World and impose hegemony ?
Is it better to have a super power that encourages "the spread of democracy and the establishment of open economic systems" or allow dictatorial and autocratic Communist ideologies to dominate weak and hapless countries ?
Do you believe yourself that the USA under Barack Obama-Joe Biden Government - will continue the policies espoused during the George Bush-Dick Cheney term ?
-
Is it better to have a super power that encourages "the spread of democracy and the establishment of open economic systems"
Spread democracy like in Iraq?
If the USA had an agenda to dominate the World
This is true.There are many analysts who have analysed the USA moves.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
Spread democracy like in Iraq?
Is Iraq any better during Saddam Hussein's rule with his sons playing havoc with Iraqi lives ?
Democracy in Iraq today is still very much "works in progress" - and it will take Iraqi's own nationalism to develop the new Iraq without a domineering Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party to make democracy succeed.
If it fails, the Iraqis have themselves to blame for not being able to take advantage of a window of opportunity to advance their nation to a higher political level.
If the Sunnis and the Shiites prefer to kill each other - is it any fault of the USA - when the minority Sunnis have dominated the politics over a ruthlessly suppressed Shiite majority ?
Have you forgotten Afghanistan ?
Is Afghanistan much better under the rule of the Talibans, or are they better off today - after US Special Forces and the Air Force wiped them out of their stranglehold on helpless villages and cities ?
This is true.There are many analysts who have analysed the USA moves.
Analyst are analysts - some forgot the spelling of the word "analyst" begins with the first 4 letters that best decribe their analysis.
-
Analyst are analysts - some forgot the spelling of the word "analyst" begins with the first 4 letters that best decribe their analysis.
Below is one of the better analysts:
The Emerging Russian Giant Plays its Cards Strategically
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopo
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geop
Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order
For the faction controlling the Pentagon, the military industry, and the oil industry, the Cold War never ended. They engineered an incredible plan to grab total control of the planet, of land, sea, air, space, outer space and cyberspace.
Continuing 'below the radar,' they created a global network of military bases and conflicts to advance the long-term goal of Full Spectrum Dominance.
Methods included control of propaganda, use of NGOs for regime change, Color Revolutions to advance NATO eastwards, and a vast array of psychological and economic warfare techniques.
They even used 'save the gorilla' organizations in Africa to secretly run arms in to create wars for raw materials. It was all part of a Revolution in Military Affairs, as they termed it.
The events of September 11, 2001 would allow an American President to declare a worldwide War on Terror, on an enemy who was everywhere, and nowhere.
9/11 justified the Patriot Act, the very act that destroyed Americans' Constitutional freedoms in the name of security.
This book gives a disturbing look at the strategy of Full Spectrum Dominance, at what is behind a strategy that could lead us into a horrific nuclear war in the very near future, and at the very least, to a world at continuous war...
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
Below is one of the better analysts:
The Emerging Russian Giant Plays its Cards Strategically
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopo
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geop
Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order
For the faction controlling the Pentagon, the military industry, and the oil industry, the Cold War never ended. They engineered an incredible plan to grab total control of the planet, of land, sea, air, space, outer space and cyberspace.
Continuing 'below the radar,' they created a global network of military bases and conflicts to advance the long-term goal of Full Spectrum Dominance.
Methods included control of propaganda, use of NGOs for regime change, Color Revolutions to advance NATO eastwards, and a vast array of psychological and economic warfare techniques.
They even used 'save the gorilla' organizations in Africa to secretly run arms in to create wars for raw materials. It was all part of a Revolution in Military Affairs, as they termed it.
The events of September 11, 2001 would allow an American President to declare a worldwide War on Terror, on an enemy who was everywhere, and nowhere.
9/11 justified the Patriot Act, the very act that destroyed Americans' Constitutional freedoms in the name of security.
This book gives a disturbing look at the strategy of Full Spectrum Dominance, at what is behind a strategy that could lead us into a horrific nuclear war in the very near future, and at the very least, to a world at continuous war...
The reference pieces are all dated - as they revealed Russian responses to the naked unilateral use of military power by George Bush Jr and Dick Cheney in pursuit of their Republican Party agenda of containing Communism.George W Bush and Dick Cheney are no longer in the White House - their political hegomonistic agenda is out of play for at least until the GOP return to power.
Even as Russia has dropped Socialist Communism from their political mantle, the World are faced with a bigger threat today from Russia - in that the Russians are not familiar with democratic practices, as since the Bolshevik Revolution - the Russians have lived with the strong hand of a Sole Political Power lording over them.
Is this not the same unilateral mono-power in their complaint made against the USA attempting to "Lord over the World" ?
Is the Russian concern valid when the USA has more then a century of democratic practices that allow U-Turns to be made, and in which US Presidents can be and have been impeached ?
This is a system that is not available to the ordinary Russian citizens to reign in a rougue Political Figure that rules over them.
In any case, Barack Obama has offered the Russian a new Disarmament Program in which both USA and Russia should open talks to have ZERO nuclear devices that will make MAD an irrelevant military option.
This is the new politics of the 21st Century that make your views seems outdated, out of step with new reality, and no longer in tune.
Why continue to hang on to an old anti-US tune sung since the 1960s ?
-
George W Bush and Dick Cheney are no longer in the White House - their political hegomonistic agenda is out of play for at least until the GOP return to power.
Not so, USA strategy is actually based on the same principles, the only difference is tactics.
Why continue to hang on to an old anti-US tune sung since the 1960s ?
USA is the common threat. They are the most aggressive and has dangerous ambitions.
They also abused their power by invading Iraq.
Anyway, I am for the multi-polar world, not unipolar USA dominated world.
USA can basically fuck off if they think they want everyone to kowtow to them.
See also:
Pepe Escobar: Welcome to the new Cold War
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com
-
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor is one of the chief USA foreign policy strategist, he spells out what sort of agenda USA should push in order to secure USA hegemony in his book, "The Grand Chessboard":
THE GRAND CHESSBOARD
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/
A geostrategy for Eurasia by Zbigniew Brzezinski
...America's emergence as the sole global superpower now makes an integrated and comprehensive strategy for Eurasia imperative....
With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and historical legacy....
In a volatile Eurasia, the immediate task is to ensure that no state or combination of states gains the ability to expel the United States or even diminish its decisive role...
A wider Europe and an enlarged NATO will serve the short-term and longer-term interests of U.S. policy. A larger Europe will expand the range of American influence without simultaneously creating a Europe so politically integrated that it could challenge the United States on matters of geopolitical importance, particularly in the Middle East...
Accordingly, NATO and EU enlargement should move forward in deliberate stages. Assuming a sustained American and Western European commitment, here is a speculative but realistic timetable for these stages: By 1999, the first three Central European members will have been admitted into NATO, although their inclusion in the EU will probably not take place before 2002 or 2003; by 2003, the EU is likely to have initiated accession talks with all three Baltic republics, and NATO will likewise have moved forward on their membership as well as that of Romania and Bulgaria, with their accession likely to be completed before 2005; between 2005 and 2010, Ukraine, provided it has made significant domestic reforms and has become identified as a Central European country, should also be ready for initial negotiations with the EU and NATO...
Russia is more likely to make a break with its imperial past if the newly independent post-Soviet states are vital and stable. Their vitality will temper any residual Russian imperial temptations. Political and economic support for the new states must be an integral part of a broader strategy for integrating Russia into a cooperative transcontinental system. A sovereign Ukraine is a critically important component of such a policy, as is support for such strategically pivotal states as Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan...http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.html
It is all part of a grand strategy to divide and control Eurasia, encircle Russia and China.
War on terror, invasion of Afghanistan, kosovo, invasion of Iraq, colour revolutions to overthrow regimes, nuclear issue with Iran, expansion of NATO, military bases across eurasia, building of oil pipelines etc.
It is all part of one big geopolitical strategy of USA to secure their status as sole global hegemonic superpower.
This is what Russia, China and others are fighting against.
If you don't grasp this you won't understand what USA, Russia and China and others are doing in international politics.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Prospects For A Multipolar World
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13707
In this battle I am with Russia, with China and other developing states against the USA hegemon.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
Not so, USA strategy is actually based on the same principles, the only difference is tactics.
Are you suggesting that Barack Obama will continue with the same agenda propagated by the Republican Party ?
USA is the common threat. They are the most aggressive and has dangerous ambitions.
Only the autocrats and despots - that terrorise peaceful and helpless citizens, and endanger the world with their madness - should find the USA to be their common threat.
They also abused their power by invading Iraq.
Yes, USA during the government of George Bush and Dick Cheney abused the Military Power by invading Iraq under false evidence - and should have been tried in the International Court of Justice.
Anyway, I am for the multi-polar world, not unipolar USA dominated world.
USA can basically fuck off if they think they want everyone to kowtow to them.
A multi-polar world that prevent each other from taking actions against a threat will certainly help mankind alot.
Imagine a multi-polar world being uncomfortable to act against the threats from a mad man threatening the World with nuclear weapons - where does that lead us ?
North Korea Kim Jong Il is not a stable person, and neither is the Iranian President Ahmadinejad - as both are bent on sacrificing economic progress for the sake of getting nuclear weapons at all costs.
See also:
Pepe Escobar: Welcome to the new Cold War
Should we share your sympathy for a drug warlord bent on dosing the youths of USA ?
-
Are you suggesting that Barack Obama will continue with the same agenda propagated by the Republican Party ?
See first, I am waiting to see whether Obama will drop the plan of building missile bases in europe.
U.S. firm on missile defense but may change European plans
http://en.rian.ru/world/20090617/155274693.html
There will be a lot of political moves and battles in the coming decade before we can see who wins and who loses.
I am backing Russia, China in this battle.
If USA wins, I think it will be very dangerous, those states don't kowtow to it it will attack.
If Russia and China's multi-polar world succeeds, any aggressor will have to think twice because other powers will oppose the aggression.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
See first, I am waiting to see whether Obama will drop the plan of building missile bases in europe.
U.S. firm on missile defense but may change European plans
http://en.rian.ru/world/20090617/155274693.html
There will be a lot of political moves and battles in the coming decade before we can see who wins and who loses.
I am backing Russia, China in this battle.
If USA wins, I think it will be very dangerous, those states don't kowtow to it it will attack.
If Russia and China's multi-polar world succeeds, any aggressor will have to think twice because other powers will oppose the aggression.
Did you miss the following : Obama calls for ‘world without’ nukes ?Your reference site was a late development from Obama's early effort in March 2009 - which already showed his intent at addressing the missile shield that had bothered the Russian so much:
As matters stand, Russia and China has backed a US proposal to the UN Security Council to tighten sanctions against North Korea for her nuclear and missile tests - in May and June 2009 - made in total defiance to previous agreements during the Six Party Talks.
The fact that such an outcome can happen is due to the changed policies that Obama had shown since he took over the presidency from George W Bush.
This development already has put your narrow options on the skid, and based on Obama's track record at persistence and ability to win others over to his cause - the bet will be on him winning over the Russian and Chinese leadership to work with him in a spirit of co-operation and not along your line of a balance in mutual destruction.
-
The Eurasian Pipeline Calculus
by F. William EngdahlJune 17, 2009Calculus has two main variants—derivative and integral. The Eurasian energy pipeline geopolitics between Turkey Washington and Moscow today has elements of both. It is highly derivative in that the major actors across Central Asia from China, Russia to Turkey are very much engaged in a derived power game which has less to do with any specific state and more to do with maintaining Superpower hegemony for Washington.
Integral as the de facto motion of various pipeline projects now underway or in discussion across Eurasia hold the potential to integrate the economic space of Eurasia in a way that poses a fundamental challenge to Washington’s projection of Full Spectrum Dominance over the greatest land mass on earth.
Since at least the time of the Crimean War of 1853, Turkey has played a strategic role in modern Eurasian and European developments. In the 1850’s Ottoman Turkey became a target of Great Power imperial ambitions as Britain and France sought to take advantage of tensions between Russia and the Ottoman Empire in order to weaken and ultimately take vital parts of that weakened empire.
The Great Powers of that time, the empires of Britain, France, Russia and Austria began plotting the dismemberment of the vast Ottoman Empire. Debt was their preferred instrument. The foreign debt situation in Ottoman Turkey had become so extreme that Sultan Abdul Hamid II was forced by his French and British creditors to put the entire finances of the realm under the control of a banker-run agency in 1881, the Ottoman Public Debt Administration (OPDA), controlled by the two largest creditors—France and Britain.
By the late 1880’s a new player on the Continent who was not part of this debt control, the German Reich, engaged the Ottoman Empire economically. That strategically challenged the vital imperial design of the most powerful empire of the day, Britain.
After Britain sank into a Great Depression after 1873, Germany’s industrial colossus emerged as the fastest-developing economic power on earth with the possible exception of then fledgling United States. The political and economic fate of Germany and Ottoman Turkey were linked after 1899 with the decision by German industry, Deutsche Bank to build a railway connecting Berlin to the Ottoman Empire as far away as Baghdad in then-Mesopotamia. It was a land bridge for trade between Ottoman Turkey and Germany independent of British control of the seas.
A few Eurasian geopolitical basics
German industry had begun to look overseas for sources of raw materials as well as potential markets for German goods. In 1894 German Chancellor, von Caprivi, told the Reichstag, “Asia Minor is important to us as a market for German industry, a place for the investment of German capital and a source of supply, capable of considerable expansion, of such essential goods as we now buy from countries of which it may well sooner or later be in our interests to make ourselves independent.” Caprivi was supported by German industry, especially the steel barons, and by the great banks such as Deutsche Bank.
That Berlin-Baghdad Railway linking the fate of Ottoman Turkey to that of Germany was a geopolitically strategic factor in the events which led Britain to the First World War in a failed bid to preserve her global hegemony. Turkey then as today was regarded by powerful Great Powers as a “pivot” state. The danger in being a pivot state is, of course, the question of who has their hands on it, who moves the pivot for their own geopolitical purposes.
In 1904 a British professor of geography, Sir Halford Mackinder, delivered a lecture before the Royal Geographical Society titled The Geographical Pivot of History, which was to shape a history of two world wars and subsequent wars and power relations. Mackinder, the father of geopolitics—the relation of geography and political economy and power—developed the systematic axiom of British imperial power. It was simple as it was fateful:
Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland:
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island:
Who rules the World-Island commands the World.
For Mackinder East Europe was Continental Europe from Germany to Poland, France and Austria. The Heartland was the vast Eurasian land power, Russia. The World-Island was Eurasia.
When the United States emerged to displace the British Empire in world affairs after 1945, she also took the lessons of Mackinder geopolitics. The leading postwar foreign policy strategists including Henry Kissinger, were schooled in Mackinders’ ideas. One American disciple of Mackinder, Zbigniew Brzezinski, cited Mackinder’s geopolitical axiom in a 1997 essay in Foreign Affairs magazine where he defined the American strategic priorities in the post-Soviet era:
Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states...The world's most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there… Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world's population; 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia's potential power overshadows even America's.
Eurasia is the world's axial super-continent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard…the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy. [1]
That has largely defined US foreign political and military relations with Turkey and the newly emerging former Soviet Republics of Eurasia since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Unfortunately for Turkey and the republics of the Eurasian region, those relations have too often been determined by IMF conditionalities and by military alliances and actions more resembling the Cold War than an era of genuine peace and respect for national sovereignty. Until now the post-Soviet East-West relations have largely been based on a negative construct.
The two geopolitical statements—the one from Mackinder in 1919 during the Versailles talks to divide Europe after the First World War, the second by Mr Brzezinski in 1997 at the end of a bitter Cold War—have defined the principle relations of Turkey and the rest of Eurasia to the world for more than a century.
Eurasia’s Opportunity today
What will define the future for the various nations of Eurasia, especially Turkey, two decades since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact Cold War structures?
The answer requires some clarity on basic issues. First and most essential is how Turkey and other Eurasian nations define their bilateral and regional relationships. Second, how do they define their relationship with the Atlantic alliance, the system of political, military and economic relations built after 1945 around the dominance of the United States.
What defines the situation today is a growing realization across all Eurasia from Beijing to Moscow, from Alma Ata to Ankara that the pillar of the postwar order, the United States has become an increasingly incalculable partner and force in world economic and political affairs. Some even within the US speak of a terminal decline in American influence over the coming decades, with terms such as ‘imperial overstretch.’ It’s essential to understand the extent and nature of the current economic and financial crisis of the Dollar System if we are to make any serious calculation of the future.
The crisis which broke in August 2007 as a crisis in the sub-prime or high-risk segment of US real estate credit was in fact a first manifestation of a process of debt destruction which is bringing the United States into a new Great Depression, one that will last at least a decade, perhaps several. In its severity it will be far worse than that of the 1930’s. Today the USA is the world’s greatest debtor economy. In 1929 it was the largest creditor. Today the USA public debt is over $11 trillion, growing at the fastest rate in history. The Federal deficit this year is estimated to exceed $1.8 trillion as the Treasury pours money into a bankrupt banking system to try to rescue a collapsing Dollar System. In 1929 US Public Debt was insignificant.
Since Washington abandoned the Bretton Woods Gold Exchange Standard convertibility in August 1971 it has been accepted wisdom in Washington that, as Dick Cheney put it, ‘deficits don’t matter.’ So long as the dollar was world reserve currency and the US was the greatest military power, the world would support the dollar. That era appears to have ended. The trade surplus economies of Asia, above all China are becoming increasingly concerned that the value of their dollar investments in US debt will depreciate as the volume of debt needed continues to soar.
In recent months China has begun exploring alternative investment avenues to replace their dollar investments. Russia and Brazil, seeking to reduce their dependence on the dollar, plan to buy $20billion of SDR bonds from the IMF and diversify foreign-currency reserves. Russia’s central bank said it may cut investments in US Treasuries, currently estimated at $240billion, and China says it may reduce reliance on the dollar and US bonds. China today is America’s largest foreign creditor.
This is no short-term impulse to dump dollars or a pressure tactic by the countries of Eurasia. It’s the beginning of a global tectonic shift away from a sole financial center to many regional or ‘multipolar’ centers over the next decade. As the trillions of dollars of US taxpayer bailouts have demonstrated, try as they might, Humpty Dumpty, the Dollar System can’t be put together again, as it was even three years ago. Wrong economic policies, decisions taken more than four decades ago in Washington and Wall Street, have reached their relative limits. The world is in what Joseph Schumpeter once called ‘creative destruction.’ The consequences for the future of Eurasia are enormous.
With the pillar of the US-centered Dollar System slowly collapsing, the choices for Eurasia begin to define themselves. At this point they can go one of two ways: Continue the status quo and subordinate national economic decisions to support the Dollar System. That means abiding by the rules of IMF and World Bank austerity. It means abiding by the trade rules of the G7-dominated WTO, even on issues such as GMO seeds which go against national health security. It means to subordinate national security interests to NATO, an institution created in the Cold War atmosphere of the Truman Doctrine in 1948. That, despite we are at a time the original purpose for NATO, defense against a Soviet military threat or Warsaw Pact aggression has long since become a relic of past history. Those four institutions are at the heart of the 1944 Bretton Woods Dollar System, as I have described in detail in a recent book.
The main problem for fast-emerging Eurasian nations with continuing this Atlantic status quo, sometimes referred to by Washington as ‘Globalization,’ is that it now means going down with the Dollar Titanic over the longer term.
Emerging Eurasian Economic Space
On the other hand there is second dynamic economic perspective, still raw and unformed, but one containing everything necessary to build a vast zone of economic prosperity, a huge new market.
The catastrophic US military experience in Iraq and also in Pakistan and Afghanistan since 2001 has led to much rethinking across Eurasia.
The fact that the new Obama Administration to date, while making rhetorical gestures of a change, has done little of substance to shift US fundamental economic and military policy, suggests that the real options for maintaining the American Century are few at this point. That is clear from the fact that the key players in Obama economic policy were the same persons responsible for creating the conditions of the financial disaster in the first place. The military policies in the new Administration are represented by the same persons responsible for past military misadventures. They are representing an outmoded paradigm that is in fatal decline.
In this situation of a declining economic influence of the USA the various nations across Eurasia are clearly beginning to look to new regional arrangements which could secure export markets, in fact to build new markets.
A market in the end is a political decision. Markets, contrary to what Milton Friedman taught, do not exist free in nature. They are created. There is no abstract ‘world market.’ Regional or local markets can be and are created peacefully.
In the past several years steps to build new markets have become visible across Eurasia. Notable is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). According to Russian and to Chinese economists with whom I have discussed, the SCO is seen as an evolving framework to build a new Eurasian economic space.
It is very initial, but an important framework to economically weave the nations of China, Russia and Central Asia into closer cooperation. From the perspective of geopolitics, the SCO is a natural economic convergence of mutual interests of the republics of Central Asia. SCO founding members include Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Mongolia, India, Pakistan and Iran are observers. They just concluded an annual meeting in Yekaterinburg, Russia where they discussed deeper economic, security and social cooperation. The background of the present deepening dollar crisis shaped the talks. As well the governments of Brazil and India joined after with Russia and China, to discuss mutual economic interests, including energy cooperation.
The Eurasian energy calculus
The future of any economic cooperation among the states of Eurasia, including Turkey, rests on the resolution of vital energy supply issues. Here Eurasia is fortunate to straddle some of the richest energy regions on our planet, in Russia as well as the Caspian Basin state of Kazakhstan and the contiguous Middle East Gulf region.
Following the ill-conceived decision by the G7 in June 1990 to place the economic reorganization of former economies of the Warsaw Pact including Russia under the mandate of IMF conditionalities, a role for which the IMF had never been intended, Russia today is struggling to regain a stable economic base.
It has a way to go. But Russia brings to the table huge positive resource advantages in terms of its wealth of oil and gas reserves and energy technology no Western country possesses. Given the rapid industrial expansion of China since the beginning of the decade, a natural partnership is emerging linking the economies of Russia, Kazakhstan and China increasingly around energy. The role of pipeline geopolitics in the economic future of Turkey and Eurasia generally is central.
Today the future of competing gas pipelines is at the heart of the Eurasian economic calculus. Here Turkey is in a position to play a central role given its geographic and historical role as a bridge between East and West, North and South—Europe and Eurasia.
One key link through Turkey has been the oil and gas pipeline from Azerbaijan to the port of Ceyhan via Georgia. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline are cited as part of Turkey's foreign policy strategy to become an energy conduit. BTC has also been a high priority US foreign policy goal to weaken Russian influence over Caspian energy corridors. By itself BTC has limited strategic effect on the regional geopolitical balance. Were it to be coupled with a second project, the much-discussed Nabucco project, the impact would definitely be a direct challenge to Russia’s energy role. The EU knows this well, which is why several member states have been less than eager to invest serious sums in Nabucco.
Recent developments in discovery and development of new natural gas reserves in both Azerbaijan and most recently in Turkmenistan in South Yolotan-Osman and Yashlar gas fields, located in the eastern part of the Amudarya River basin, add significant new energy resources to the energy calculus of the emerging Eurasian economic space.
Turkey-Russia cooperation or Turkish-Washington Cooperation?
Turkish-Russian economic ties have greatly expanded over the past decade, with trade volume reaching $32 billion in 2008, making Russia Turkey's number one partner. Gas and oil imports from Russia account for most of the trade volume.
Turkey and Russia are already connected by the twin Blue Stream natural gas pipelines across the bottom of the Black Sea. Moscow and Ankara are talking about increasing deliveries through the network, which in 2008 carried 10 bn cm of Russian gas to Turkey.
More importantly, following a March meeting in Ankara between the Turkish Energy Minister and Gazprom chief Alexei Miller, discussions are underway about a Blue Stream-2 project. It would be a new gas pipeline parallel to Blue Stream, in addition to the construction of a gas transportation system in Turkey by expanding Blue Stream to interlink with the proposed Samsun-Ceyhan line, with a spur line under the Mediterranean to Ashkelon in Israel.
Russia’s Prime Minister Putin has also said he was counting on the support of Israel in the construction of a new oil pipeline via Turkey and Israel. The pipeline would link to the Samsun-Ceyhan oil pipeline, to be constructed across the Red and Mediterranean seas.
For Turkey, which currently imports 90 % of its energy, the projects would provide increased energy security and, in the case of the Samsun-Ceyhan-Ashkelon pipeline, generate significant transit revenues.
Discussions are also underway on possible extending Turkey's gas lines across its Thracian territory to supply neighbouring Balkan nations Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia and Hungary. In such an event, Moscow would have gained a prime goal of lessening its dependency on the Ukrainian pipeline network for transit.
Russia also won a tender for the construction of Turkey's first nuclear plant recently, though final resolution is unclear at this time. Russia’s market also plays a major role for Turkish overseas investments and exports. Russia is one of the main customers for Turkish construction firms and a major destination for Turkish exports. Similarly, millions of Russian tourists bring significant revenues to Turkey every year. Importantly, Turkey and Russia may start to use the Turkish lira and the Russian ruble in foreign trade, which could increase Turkish exports to Russia.
In recent months both Turkey and Russia have taken steps to deepen economic and political cooperation. Cooperation between Russia and Turkey is seen by both now as essential to regional peace and stability.
In talk of revived ‘Great Games’ in Eurasia during the 1990’s it seemed Turkey was becoming once more Russia’s geopolitical rival as in the 19th Century. Turkey’s quasi-alliance with Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Georgia led Moscow until recently to view Turkey as a formidable rival. That is changing significantly.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently commended Turkey's actions during the Russian-Georgian war of last summer, and Turkey's subsequent proposal for the establishment of a Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform (CSCP). The Russian President said the Georgia crisis had shown their ability to deal with such problems on their own without the involvement of outside powers.
Russian’s aim is clearly to use its economic resources to counter what it sees as a growing NATO encirclement, made dramatic by the Washington decision to place missile and radar bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, as they see it, aimed at Moscow. To date the Obama Administration has indicated it will continue the Bush ‘missile defense’ policy. Washington also just agreed to place US Patriot missiles in Poland, clearly not aimed at Germany.
If Ankara moves towards closer collaboration with Russia, Georgia's position is precarious and Azerbaijan's natural gas pipeline route to Europe, the Nabucco Pipeline, is blocked. If it cooperates with the United States and manages to reach a stable treaty with Armenia under US auspices, the Russian position in the Caucasus is weakened.
The strategy for Washington to bring Germany into closer cooperation with the US is to weaken German dependence on Russian energy flows. With the recent Obama visit to Ankara, Washington is evidently attempting to win Turkish support for its troubled Nabucco alternative gas pipeline through Turkey from Azerbaijan which would potentially lessen EU dependence on Russian gas.
Turkey is one of the only routes energy from new sources can cross to Europe from the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus. If Turkey decides to cooperate with Russia, Russia retains the initiative. Since it became clear in Moscow that US strategy was to extend NATO to Russia’s front door via Ukraine and Georgia, Russia has moved to use its economic “carrot” its vast natural gas resources, to at the very least neutralize Western Europe, especially Germany, towards Russia.
A Washington Great Game?
However the question of Turkish-EU relations is linked with the issue of Turkish membership into the EU, a move vehemently opposed by France and also less openly so by Germany, and strongly backed by Washington.
Washington is clearly playing what some call ‘a deeper game.’ Obama’s backing for Turkey’s application for EU membership comes with a heavy price. As the US is no member of the EU it was an attempt to try to curry favor with the Erdogan government. Since the April Obama visit, Ankara has begun to discuss an agreement with Armenia including diplomatic relations.
A Turkish accord with Armenia would change the balance of power in the entire region. Since the August 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict the Caucasus, a strategically vital area has been unstable. Russian troops remain in South Ossetia. Russia also has troops in Armenia meaning Russia has Georgia surrounded.
Turkey is the key link in this complex game of geopolitical balance of power between Washington and Moscow.
If Turkey decides to collaborate with Russia Georgia’s position becomes insecure and Azerbaijan’s possible pipeline route to Europe is blocked.
If Turkey decides to cooperate with Washington and at the same time reaches a stable agreement with Armenia under US nudging, Russia’s entire position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for natural gas to Europe becomes available, reducing Russian leverage with Western Europe.
This past March a memorandum was signed between the Azerbaijan state oil company SOCAR and Russia's Gazprom for major deliveries of Azerbaijan natural gas to Russia by January 2010.
Azerbaijan is the only state outside Iran that would likely supply gas to the planned EU Nabucco pipeline from Azerbaijan through Turkey to south-eastern Europe. Russia has proposed South Stream as an alternative to the Nabucco project, also in need of Azerbaijan gas, so in effect Russia weakens the chances of realization of Nabucco.
In this Eurasian pipeline and economic diplomacy, clear is that Turkey and the other nations of Eurasia are grappling with new possible economic arrangements which will have profound impact on the future of the world economy. The EU as a body is at present clearly frozen in the dynamic of the old post-1945 Bretton Woods order. Initiative is unlikely to come from Brussels for a dynamic economic growth in Turkey or Eurasia generally.
Interestingly, Eurasia is becoming the growth locomotive for the EU. Many Europeans find that a hard pill to swallow. It is however the reality, and a fascinating opportunity for the nations of Eurasia as well as for the economies of the EU. Ultimately, as well, a vibrant growing Eurasian economic space would be in the best long-term interest of the United States in a multi-polar world.
1. Brzezinski, Zbigniew, A Geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, 76:5, September/October 1997.
F. William Engdahl is author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. He may be reached via his website www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net -
Mr. Obama, Tear Down This Empire
http://www.takimag.com/article/mr
Mr Obama, for the sake of world peace, stop playing political games.
You keep on playing your games to secure U.S power, keep on scheming, keep on plotting, how can there be peace in the world like that?
Mr Obama, end the american empire.
-
China's embrace of multilateral institutions: from a have-to to an active diplomacy
June 23, 2009
The just-concluded two grand performances with multilateral diplomacy on a full-scale display in Russia's Yekaterinburg—9th summit of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the first ever BRICs formal meeting, are both intended to counterbalance the Western hegemony, and particularly the superpower clout of the U.S., despite the fact that the two could be summoned with different viewpoints and pointing to different objectives. And in the backdrop of the economic downtrend, the effects ensuing the two meetings could ripple all the way through the whole globe. The summits may again focus the world attention upon the emerging economies with China in the spotlight.
Admittedly, some achievements are still beyond attainment for SCO summit and BRICs meeting. But they did contribute a lot to expanding the regional political and security cooperation and catalyzing the maturity of the nascent economic blocs. ‘The organization has already played an essential part in building up the security and cooperation framework in Asia-Pacific region,' as manifested in the SCO's statement. In comparison, BRICs are less significant and more symbolic as a multilateral institution, yet its coming into being will provide an alternative power distribution to challenge today's notoriously unjust and unfair world power structures.
Likewise, China's interest in multilateral diplomacy and multilateral institutions has correspondingly grown with its elevation of national strength and confidence. In 1950s through to 1960s, China mainly adopted bilateral diplomacy as the core of its foreign policies, for the new republic then was economically backward, remained skeptical to multilateral institutions and therefore stayed away from them for the sake of its national security. The policy of reform and opening up adopted in late 1970s not only brought about a major change to the country's political skyline, but to its diplomatic facets as well. Little by little, China has since embraced multilateral diplomacy. And in recent years, with the globalization and market internationalization, China is getting more active than ever in participating in the multilateral system, which it deems a decisive step to go global, and has thus far been admitted to more and more international or regional economic institutions.
That said, China is still seen reluctant to join in the multilateral security and political institutions, considering its domestic pressure for economic growth and a desirable need for a peaceful outside environment to ensure the fulfillment of its development goals. That explains why for years China has invariably remain neutral in dealing with international affairs, as a high-profile appearance would possibly perch it at the heart of confrontations, and China at the time could not afford to derail off the track endeavoring to regain its status as a world power.
Unfortunately, the deteriorating international political and economic conditions have repeatedly compel China to decide whether it would remain silent on the world stage or make a distinct utterance letting its voice be heard. Henceforth, China had to apply itself to the international game dominated by others. In 2001, China was dragged in SCO, and in 2003, it was pushed to the front to stage the Six Party Talks, both in response to the international pressure and also for the consideration of its own security.
The U.S-born credit crisis paralyzed financial market and triggered a globe-sized recession. And further more, the weakening dollar, as well as the irresponsible steps taken by Washington to shift its own troubles to others, has already dealt a harsh blow to the Chinese capital pegged to dollar. In order to get rid of the destructive effects, China has to again join in the chorus combating the dollar hegemony along with other emerging economies.
The increasing popularity of multilateral institutions, and the fact that Beijing is growing up to be a visible player in multilateral cooperation on various occasions, might have prompted China to reset its diplomatic strategies, as a new phenomenon seen currently in many of the international events indicates China is now prepared to play a more active and substantial role and, in a departure from its stereotyped international image, seeking to voice its opinions.
Multilateral mechanism is likely to be a double-edged weapon, bringing more opportunities as well as more challenges. But it turns out to be an irreversible tendency now, and in a long run, multilateral participation will benefit China in its strategies gearing up to a peaceful rise. Additionally, only through partaking in the multilateral institutions, can emerging economies possess the likelihood to alter the existing international power structures and operating rules. The transfer and redistribution of the global power will be the only access to globalization. The multilateral mechanism will help express this common aspiration of the emerging economies.