Chapter 25 NATO is American Empire Not Alliance

Bush Doctrine 2003 Geopolitics

“Global Clash of Races-Diplomacy of Civilizations” © (2006) Kalki Gaur

25(0) Purport

(1) Europe is Old and in Decline

Rather than punish Germany and Italy for Second World War, the NATO welcomed Germany and Italy as major powers in Europe. NATO from the day one was an American instrument for the geopolitical dominance of the Western Europe, Germany, Italy and France. Old NATO formed on the bedrock of Britain and Germany and de Gaullist France reluctantly joined NATO. NATO helped the defeated Germany join the comity of nations as a responsible power. The white United States of the New World is in competition with the old European powers of the Old World for the domination of European Union and the NATO. The new Europe of East Europeans support United States rather than Germany and France in NATO as well as the European Union. In geopolitical terms, all of Europe is old, the world’s most tourist friendly museum piece. In the mind’s eye of the Neo-conservatives, Europe should be hung with an enormous sign: “The future used to happen here.” It is understatement to say that Germany and France is Old Europe, while former Soviet colonies the East Europeans or Poland represent New Europe, as the whole Europe is old, with ageing population and declining birth rate. After the decline of Germany and France no Catholic nation could ever aspire to join the ranks of world powers in 21st Century, unless Papacy succeeds to partition Protestant USA to carve out a Catholic United States.

(2) Asia is the Future and on the Rise

The NATO is useful to United States so long as it helps America increase its influence in Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Middle East and Central Asia. The 21st Century is an Asian Century and India and China are the leaders of Asia. The trend lines in terms of economic and military power all say “Asia,” Hindu and Buddhist Asia, and the future is happening in Asia, for better or worse. The geopolitical stakes in Asia are much higher than the stakes in Europe. The top world civilizations and top world powers of the 21st Century are: Protestant United States, Buddhist China, Hindu India, Buddhist Japan, Western Christian European Union and Orthodox Russia.

(3) NATO must abandon Islamic Powers

It would not be in the national interests of old European powers to oppose American hegemony in the oil-producing Islamic world, since no Islamic nation would ever become a world power in the 21st Century. No Islamic nation could possibly join the ranks of world powers in the 21st Century, neither Pakistan nor Iran nor Saudi Arabia nor Indonesia, in spite of all oil-incomes the GNPs of all Islamic nations consign them to the status of a medium powers at the best. No OPEC nation and no Muslim nation can ever be a world power in the 3rd Millennium.

(4) Economic Decline of Western Europe

United States would gain more by military alliance with India than with Germany, France and Italy, as European powers cannot make any significant contributions to Allied Forces and Allied war efforts. The clash of civilizations in the 21st Century requires Troika of USA, China and India to lead the world, as by 2050 the GNP of top 4 economies in the world shall be: China, USA, India and Japan, and the GNP of India shall be four times the GNP of Japan. The size of German, French and British economies would steadily decline and the economies of China and India would rise to become dominant economies.

(5) New NATO is Petro-Colonialism

NATO, Germany and France should join forces with American Petro-Colonialism to end the rape of the world by OPEC nations. Germany and France should no longer oppose American Petro-imperialism. The new NATO should shift its strategic focus to establish Petro-Colonial Empires in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia in partnership with United States and India. Old European powers should accept the wisdom of Petro-Colonial Empires, as it would guarantee cheap oil in Europe. The OPEC Oil-cartel created by conspiring American Big Oil to profit by artificial price rise by production manipulation by OPEC oil producers, when Britain gave independence to its colonies in the Arabian Gulf in 1971.

United States should permit selected European Oil Colonial Empires in the Middle East to provide for cheaper oil and gas resources for European industrial economies. European nations should approve the return of the Oil Colonial Empires in the 21st Century in exchange for German, British, French and Italian oil colonies.

One. Dr. Henry Kissinger in “Diplomacy” argues that the 21st Century would be similar to the colonial 18th and 19th Century and Colonial Empires rather than nation states shall be major actors of the international system. Any crude oil price above $25-a-barrel makes imperialistic invasions of thinly populated oil-producing countries an economic necessity for oil-importing industrial economies.

Two. Post-2001 Petro-Imperialism and Oil-seeking Colonial Empires shall take birth, just as post-1500 European Colonialism took birth because of the search for alternate route for Indian spices. The post-1500 European Colonialism was the direct result of European powers to escape from Ottoman price gauging for Indian spices essential for European meat preservation during winter months. The post-2003 new age of Oil Colonialism is the direct result of the price gauging of the Middle Eastern OPEC that artificially manipulated the price for a barrel of crude oil to triple in three years, from $25 in April 2003, to over $72 in April 2006.

(6) New Strategic Goals for NATO

Americans promoted the post-second world war NATO to promote American national interests in Europe and to contain and challenge the Soviet Union. The NATO was not created to promote Germany or France as world powers. With the demise of the communism and the Soviet Union the older goals of the NATO no longer serve any strategic interests of the United States. The new strategic goals of the NATO are as follows. The new NATO should help establish Christian Petro-Colonial Empire in the Middle East and Central Asia. The new NATO should foil Papal eschatological conspiracy to unleash Armageddon Wars. The new NATO should help establish American oil colony in Iran. The new NATO should foil the designs of Slav Russia to regain control over Caspian and Central Asian oil and gas reserves. The new NATO must learn to serve the strategic interests of the United States, if it wants to remain relevant in the 21st Century. These are the arguments the author makes in this chapter.

25(1) Talk Points

(1) Bush Doctrine Undermines NATO

France and Germany hate the US-led NATO as they see NATO as means of colonial occupation of Western Europe by United States. NATO had been a subtle instrument of Pentagon to colonize Western Europe by hyping the menace of Communist Soviet Union that threatened the right of private property in the West. The Western Colonial rulers voluntarily became the dependencies of the United States to ward off the illusory threat of Communism to Capitalist Western Europe. President Bush’s policy of Unilateralism and invasions of Iraq caused the untimely demise of the Atlantic Partnership and NATO. NATO is dead and Germany and France would develop security ties with Russia to hold America in check. Pentagon used its military bases in Germany, Italy and Japan, the former Axis Powers, to keep Germany, Japan and Italy under check and control. Throughout Cold War the real purpose of NATO was to maintain geopolitical dominance over Germany, France and Japan. The White House hyped the power of the Soviet Union to force Germany, France, Japan and Britain into bondage and servitude to America. The demise of the Soviet Union ended the Cold War and the demise of the Warsaw Pact. The NATO would meet the fate of Warsaw Pact and metamorphose into New NATO based on the USA-Poland bedrock. France, Germany, Belgium and Russia would form new European Military Pact to hold America in check. However, the defeat of the Pentagon in the Iraq War might expose United States as paper tiger, toothless even to conquer a third-rate power like Iraq. In that event the anti-US military alliances taking shape might stop in their tracks. The defeat of Pentagon in Iraq might save NATO from extinction. Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes to deny any other power equal or surpass the power of the United States caused the demise of NATO. The ignominy of the defeat in Iraq might turn out to be in the best interests of the United States, if the defeat in Iraq could salvage the NATO Alliance from the scrap dump.

(2) Old NATO is Dead for Ever

The Old NATO died in the rubble of Baghdad and France and Germany would no longer allow the Pentagon use NATO to control and rule over Old Europe. Pentagon must carve out a New NATO in partnership with former members of the Warsaw Pact. The North Atlantic Alliance controlled and led by USA had been an instrument of Pentagon to control and subjugate France and Germany after the Second World War. The NATO met its natural death in the rubble of Baghdad. The Old Europe led by Germany and France would align with Russia to hold America in check. United States would create new version of NATO with Poland and Romania as anchor in East Europe to hold in Check Russia’s expansion into Europe. The United States proposed the formation of a New Nato alliance in Asia, with India as its head. The purpose of the New Nato in Asia would be to control the expansion of China and Russia in Indian Ocean region.

(3) NATO seeks Geopolitical Dominance

United States pursued the policy of Geopolitical dominance in Western Europe during the Cold War. The purpose of the Atlantic partnership and NATO had been to keep France, Germany and Italy under check. United States established NATO to Chaperon Germany, France and Italy. Second, after the invasion of Iraq on the divisive issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction, United States would use NATO, especially the East European members of the NATO to neutralize Germany and Japan if they harbored any ambition to become world powers independent of the United States.

(4) Europe Hoodwinked into Bondage

President Truman and President Eisenhower hyped the menace of the Communist Soviet Union and hood winked the West European nations into the bondage and servitude of United States during Cold War. Fourth, President George W. Bush hyped the menace of the Islamic terrorism and Iraq’s menace to establish American oil colony over Afghanistan and Iraq years later. Fifth, maritime European colonial powers voluntarily became the satellites of the United States after the end of the Second World War, even when their colonial possessions remained intact, because they feared the ideology of Communism could abolish the private property and Soviet Army could overrun and occupy their homelands.

(5) US is Adversary of Europe

However after the demise of the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, Berlin Wall and the Cold War, the Russian threat has disappeared and United States emerged as the principal adversary. Seventh, Germany and Japan fear that the American troops on their soil represent Occupation troops, and United States may use brute force, if they ever decide to go separate ways and develop nuclear weapons. Eight, just as Mao’s China feared Soviet nuclear strikes and Brezhnev Doctrine, the Germany and Japan presently fear Bush Doctrine 2002, which declared that United States would undertake preemptive strikes against any nation, whether friend or foe that attempts to either equal or surpass America’s military capability. What options do Germany, Japan, France, Russia and India have to check American hegemony?

(6) EU is Rival Adversary to USA

America wanted to rule Western Europe rather than help European Union become rival to United States. Tenth, Bush Doctrine is the interventionist form of Monroe Doctrine. Bush doctrine had been the colonial imperial doctrine designed to use preemptive strikes to establish American oil colonies in the Middle East. Eleventh, President Bush would reestablish American Empire and American Oil Colonialism and compete with West Europeans and European Union. Twelfth, Wahhabi hijackers had planned to kill the person of President George W. Bush in 2001, just 100 years after president William McKinley was assassinated. Bush Doctrine outlined America’s dream to create American Empire, just as McKinley Administration created American Empire at the turn of the 20th Century.

(7) Policy of Predominance will Drain USA

Bush Doctrine’s explicit insistence on predominance would gradually united the world against the United States and force it into impositions that would eventually leave it isolated and drained. The road to American Empire leads to domestic decay because, in time, the claims of omnipotence erode domestic restraints. No empire has avoided the road to Caesarism, except British Empire, wrote Dr. Henry Kissinger (Does America Needs a Foreign Policy).

(8) India Welcomes Protestant US Empire

India would welcome America as an Empire, because the any increase in the power of the United States would come at the expense of the European Union. The share of the total power of the white nations is a zero sum game, and any increase of American power would come at the expense of the Europe, and any increase in power of European Union comes at the expense of United States. It is in the national interest of India to join forces with the hegemon America to keep European Union tamed and under check, provided America shared its imperial loot with India fairly.

(9) American Colonialism Good for India

The inevitable rise of America’s Colonial Empire in the 21st Century would be good for rest of the World. Historically, every white colonial empire that arose caused precipitous decline of one or more white Christian colonial of its time. The American colonial empire in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, US built during President William McKinley Administration (1897-1901), came at the expense of Spanish Empire. The rise of United States as the Super Power after the Second World War came at the cost of demise of the European colonial empires of Britain, France and Holland. The crowing of United States in 1990 as the sole super power of the world came after the demise of the Soviet Union. Europeans have succinctly realized that any relative gain in the world influence of United States, whether in United Nations or NATO come at the expense of the West Europeans.

(10) US opposes Asian Bloc

The international order of Asia resembles that of nineteenth-century Europe more than that of the twenty-century post war North Atlantic. Asia’s economy is becoming ever more important for the United States. A hostile Asian bloc combining the most populous nations of the world and vast resources with some of the most industrious peoples would be incompatible with the American national interest. For this reason America’s geopolitical objective must remain to prevent Asia’s coalescence into an unfriendly bloc. Sea Power Maritime America’s relationship to Continental Asia is thus comparable to that of Sea Power Britain towards the land powers of the continent of Europe for four centuries.

(11) India Dominated Singapore to Aden

India is emerging as a major power and will become increasingly active in Southeast Asia, emulating the traditional policy of the British Raj, which aimed for dominance from Singapore to Aden. It is in the maritime interest of the American Sea power to develop naval ties with India to protect the sea-lanes from Singapore to Aden. Eighteenth, America’s Asia policy should be designed in direct analogy to the Cold War, with China replacing the Soviet Union as the organizing threat. The Summit meetings of the leaders of China and Russia proclaimed a strategic partnership against the specter of American hegemony. The relentless American bullying of Russia and China could drive them to a deeper partnership. Russia’s long border with China, only sparsely populated along the Russian side, restrains Russia from deeper partnership with China, in spite of its current irritation with an allegedly hegemonic United States. Clinton Administration influenced by Chinese campaign donations, avoided the geopolitical challenge of the relationship with China. Strategic partnership with China never functioned. United States should treat China as a permanent adversary.

(12) Indian Supremacy in Indian Ocean

Indian foreign policy can best be understood by analogy to the one that had been conducted by British Indian empire. That policy was in fact formulated in Calcutta and then after 1934 from New Delhi. It based Indian security on naval supremacy in the Indian Ocean, on friendly, or at least non-threatening, regimes in the area from Singapore to Aden, and a non-hostile regime at the Khyber Pass and the Himalayas. In the arc from Singapore to Aden, American and Indian interests run quite parallel. Neither country wishes to see a fundamental Islam dominate the region even as motives for this differ,” says Henry Kissinger (Diplomacy, p. 157)

“America’s intensive dialogue is needed with India, especially for the region from Singapore to Aden. America’s interest is primarily geopolitical,” says Kissinger (Diplomacy, p. 161). The challenge is not to reargue the debates of decades but to give impetus to the basis of a new Indian-American relationship. For under the conditions of the post-Cold War world, a close cooperative relationship between the two countries is in their mutual and basic interests. The dictates of Asian balance of power requires United States should develop strategic ties with India the lesser Power to contain China, the hegemon. By the reasoning of Dr. Henry Kissinger United States should develop closer ties with India more than with China. Dr. Kissinger distorted his own reasoning about Asian balance of power, under the influence of Christian religious right conservatism, which gave more weight to the proselytizing interests of the Catholics and Evangelicals over the geopolitical national interests of the United States. Chinese campaign donations and gifts might have influenced the policy recommendations of Dr. Kissinger on US relations with China.

(14) EU is Principal Adversary of USA

(15) Teach America the Limits of the Possible

(16) Bush Doctrine United World Against US

“No matter how selfless America perceives its aims, an explicit insistence on predominance would gradually unite the world against the United States and force it into impositions that would eventually leave it isolated and drained. The road to empire leads to domestic decay because, in time, the claims of omnipotence erode domestic restraints. No empire has avoided the road to Caesarism unless, like the British Empire, it devolved its power before this process could develop. In long-lasting empires, every problem turns into a domestic issue because the outside world no longer provides a counterweight. A deliberate quest for hegemony is the surest way to destroy the values that made the United States great.” (Henry Kissinger, 2001)

(17) Evil Empire Rhetoric Broke up USSR

Bush Administration’s American policy makers mistakenly believe that Soviet Union’s collapse came about more of less automatically as the result of President Reagan’s assertiveness expressed in the change of rhetoric to designate Soviet Union as, “the Evil Empire.” Did President Bush condemn North Korea, Iran and Iraq as parts of the “Axis of Evil” just to borrow Reagan’s new rhetoric, hoping the change in rhetoric still would accomplish its objective like the fall of the Soviet Union?

(18) Dump Dr. Kissinger’s Foreign Policy

The United States must dump the diplomatic style and foreign policy models of Henry Kissinger, as it would in the hands of his successors would result in the Third World War, just as the improper usage of the Bismarck’s diplomacy in the hands of new diplomatic players caused the First World War. It is high time that the foreign policy models and strategy enunciated by Secretary Henry Kissinger given decent burial, lest they cause more harm then good to the world. Kissinger’s diplomacy and statecraft like that of his predecessor Otto von Bismarck if used in the new age would cause more harm than good. Kissinger’s statecraft and polity in the hands of Madeleine Albright caused the 9/11 attacks, just 7 months after her departure. Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski misused the policy of Secretary Henry Kissinger to develop political ties with Shiite fundamentalists in Iran bring down the eclectic regime of Shah of Iran. Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski developed close ties with Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere to undermine the moderate eclectic Islamic societies. America’s policy in Iran and Afghanistan gave birth to Islamic terrorism, financed by America’s close ally Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. Kissinger’s statecraft and polity is too dangerous and too potent to be used by lesser Diplomats. Henry J. Kissinger like his dream-mentor Otto von Bismarck represent a class by itself, and their style and daring diplomatic maneuvers in the hands of less competent policy maker diplomats could bring untold harm to the world.

(19) Possible Disintegration of the USA

The geopolitical future of the United States is very bleak. United States of White Anglos Saxon Protestants heading towards disintegration, due to the conspiracies of the Vatican. Before the 2050 AD, the Protestant-led United States would disintegrate, recreating the trauma of the disintegration of the 1989 disintegration of the Super Power Soviet Union.

(20) Secession of Native Americans

Virtuous among the Anglo‑Saxons, who spearheaded the movement against Apartheid rule in South Africa, would also revolt against the continued enslavement of the original native inhabitants of Australia, North America, & South America. North America and South America during the next decade would give birth to more than 20 new sovereign Indigenous Native American States. Native American States could comprise 20% landmass of Americas. Agriculture sector contributed only 2 percent of total GNP in USA and only 3 percent of GNP in Canada and Australia. Transfer of fertile 20% agricultural lands of United States, Canada and Australia would not cause any loss to the GNP of the White economies.

(21) No Catholic Super Power in Future

There is no Catholic Super Power in the world. All Christian Great Powers are Protestant Powers, namely, United States, Germany, France, Britain, Canada and Australia. No Catholic Power including Spain, Portugal, and Italy, is a Great Power. A new Catholic Super Power, a Nuclear Super Power would emerge carved out of the Catholic majority areas of Canada and the United States, due to the Catholic religious right conservative conspiracy hatched by Papacy sometime before 2050 AD. Twenty-eight, President George W. Bush invaded Iraq, exercising America’s right of preemptive strikes under the Wilsonian ideological camouflage to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which concealed the Roosevelt's real politik interests to establish permanent Oil colony over Iraq, so that American oil companies could procure unlimited supply of crude oil and gas and pay token price for the oil they extract from Iraqi oil fields. Bush’s doctrine of preemptive strikes established the first American Oil colony in Iraq and heralded a new age of colonial empires in the 21st Century.

(22) Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Strikes

President Clinton propagated Clinton Doctrine of Humanitarian Interventions, to justify military attacks on Yugoslavia. President Bush propagates the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive strikes against three types of adversaries: firstly, the preemptive strikes against terrorist nations as cause terror and support terrorist organizations; secondly, the preemptive strikes against terrorist nations seeking weapons of mass destruction and any nation that seeks to either equal or surpass America’s military capability.

(22) Is US Overreaching Itself?

United States is overreaching itself by intervening in overseas wars, in the regions, which do not threaten fundamental interests of the United States. Soviet Union disintegrated because of Afghan War. United States may lose a future war. The defeat in Vietnam is a reminder. The capital inflow of the black money from all over the world, caused this unprecedented growth of the American economy, does not mean that the US economy is inherently strong. The United States will disintegrate due to its internal contradictions, not because of foreign aggression or foreign threat.

(23) USA China India Russia World Powers

Bush Doctrine must not create a fortress America that does not allow India, Russia and China a suitable role in the war on Islamic terrorism. Arrogant Bush Doctrine could inspire the enmity rather than the envy of the Eurasian land powers. In securing Masterland America’s geo-strategic security, President Bush must be careful not to create an arrogant fortress America, protected by National Missile Defense and Pre-emptive strikes, which will inspire the enmity rather than the envy of the Eurasian continental land powers, namely India, China and Russia. United States is yet to prove its war fighting capability in major land battle, to indulge in the self-glory as the preponderant military power of the world. United States lost the Vietnam War and is yet to fight and win any other major war after its dishonorable flight from Vietnam. American Infantry and land troops are yet to prove their battle fighting capability in any major war. The leaders of infantry troops in Indian Army, Chinese Army and Russian Army refuse to accept that American troops would perform better and be able to defeat them in any major land warfare. Just as masturbation different than fucking, similarly, air war different than the land combat. Neither during First World War not during the Second World War, American troops outperformed Indian troops in non-mechanized infantry combats. Indian soldiers refuse to accept the superiority of the American soldiers in land warfare. United States will meet the fate of Germany under Hitler, if it continued to declare that Yankee soldiers are superior to others, just as Hitler had claimed the superiority of Aryan German soldiers.

(24) PGMs Made US Navy Vulnerable

India out rightly rejects the basic notion underlying the Bush Doctrine that the development of Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) transformed the war resulting in the pre-eminence of the space powers and air powers over land powers. On the contrary, the development of the Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) and anti-ship cruise missiles allows land powers sink the maritime fleets of the sea powers, including aircraft carriers very cost effectively. The development of the Precision Guided Munitions signals the decline of the Sea Powers and the vulnerability of the Mechanized warfare as expensive tanks and aircraft carriers have become vulnerable to low-cost Precision Guided Munitions. The military technology that allowed USA & NATO win air war on Yugoslavia, also made American Navy, Aircraft Carrier battle groups and expensive tanks and mechanized units, highly vulnerable to low-cost anti-ship and anti-tank Precision Guided Munitions. The Sea powers and Western Navy have become vulnerable to the anti-ship missiles and PGMs. If land powers succeed in sinking the Western Naval ships and merchant marine vessels then the Eurasian land powers can roll their land armies across land to conquer Asia, Europe and Africa. It is a doctrinal deception on the people of America, for the pentagon to claim that United States is the world’s preponderant land power also. The preponderance in air power and sea power does not get translated as preponderance in land power in Eurasia-Africa landmass. United States destined to lose the World War Three, and meet the fate of Hitler and Napoleon, if its military generals continue to live in the fool’s paradise.

(25) India-China-Commonwealth Rival USA

If China with its 1.2 billion people and world’s 2nd largest economy with GNP at PPP of $4,112 Billion, and India with its 1.1 billion people and world’s 4th largest economy with GNP at PPP of $2,144 Billion, do keep up their brisk economic growth, won’t the day come when they can match America’s GNP of $8,350, and also match America’s defense budget without over-burdening their economies. The Commonwealth of Nations GNP at PPP exceeds $5,710 and landmass exceeds 30.4 million sq. kms. Whenever Canada develops nuclear weapons, Commonwealth would easily overtake United States as leading super power. The collapsing Dow Jones and crashing Wall Street signals the speedy decline of United States as the leading economic and military super power of the world. United States must not even dream to be the permanent Super Power of the 21st Century. Any such claims would be foolhardy and harm the national interests of the United States. A Defense Pact among Russia, France and Germany would easily replace United States as the dominant super power of the world before 2004. A Defense Pact among China, Russia and India would overnight replace United States as the dominant super power of the world.

(26) USA is not Sole Super Power

The United States became the sole superpower by default, after the Second World War as well as after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The collapse of the Soviet Union does not hide the fact that China and India emerged during 2001, as the world’s 2nd and 4th largest economy of the world respectably, as documented by the World Bank. China and India would soon replace United States as seamlessly as United States replaced British Empire and Germany as leading world power after 1945. White Christian race can no longer enjoy dominance over yellow Buddhist Chinese race and brown Hindu Indian race, during 21st century. The decline of the Russian economy to 16th largest economy of the world, with GNP ($332B) and GNP at PPP ($929 Billion), even when Russia owns 17 million sq. kms of surface land area 12.8 percent of world’s total land mass, broadcasts the inevitable decline of the white race in the world and the subsequent rise of yellow and brown races in the world. There is no way white race would succeed to hold on to what it has now, in terms of its share of world’s resources, trade and surface area, after 2050 AD. The goal set forward in the Bush Doctrine 2002 is unwise in light of geopolitics. United States shall fail to stop the rise of either China or India. It is likely that US Dow Jones Index could fall below 6,000 in not so distant a future. This is the argument author makes in this chapter.

25(2) NATO Colonized Europe

25(i) US-led NATO is Empire not Alliance

The dominance of present day United States would have been cause of great concern for European diplomats of 18th and 19th centuries. The post-Cold War new world order of the 21st Century will be strikingly similar to the replay of the European international world of 18th and 19th centuries, asserts Dr. Henry Kissinger correctly. The key element of the new world order shall be: firstly, the scramble for colonial worldwide; secondly, intense rivalries among European colonial powers; thirdly, return of the age of colonial empires.

America’s Monroe Doctrine had been a form of declared war on European colonial powers to keep away from New World. The Atlantic Alliance, the US-led NATO formalized inferior status of the former colonial powers during Cold War period. European powers, including France and Germany recognize United States had been the major adversary of the European powers in the 19th Century and the early 20th century, when it expanded westward and southward, by taking over the lands of French, English, Spanish Empires, and Mexico. United States had been as much enemy of European powers as England had been to Spain and France. After the demise of the Soviet Union and the Communist system, the Russian menace no longer endangers Western Europe. In the 21st Century, Germany and France would challenge the hegemony of the American empire and seek independent power status for Germany and France.

India and United States can develop closer military and diplomatic ties to formalize the Pax-Americana and American empire envisaged in the Bush Doctrine 2002. Indian Empire financed and military participated in the creation of the British Empire worldwide. United States after the defeat in the Vietnam sought to develop military ties with Muslim terrorists to wage proxy wars on the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. India should offer military support to American military operations word wide in exchange for the share of influence in the American colonial Empire.

Germany minister during recent elections 2002 in Germany compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler; to declare that United Germany considers the US-Led NATO and American policies represents American imperialism. Applying raison d’etat Germany would attempt to emerge as world power in its own right as Germany is the 5th largest economy in the world. Germany and France may leave NATO to create independent European military deterrent. Triple Alliance of France, Germany and India can create a new 2nd Pole in the new world order to check the hegemony of the Untied States in the world system.

Did Secretary Kissinger promote China at great cost to India, not to promote America’s national interests, but to promote the interests of the Christian religious right wing conservative conspiracy? This Chapter is the review of “Does America Needs a Foreign Policy” by Dr. Henry Kissinger (2001), to outline role India can play in American strategy to emerge either as an Empire or Leader. The author trying to develop the thesis that logical construction of the reasoning of Dr. Kissinger should result in greater role for India in American foreign policy, possibly more important role China plays now. The Kissinger’s logic should conclude that India not China should be the focus of United States courtship in the 21st century. This is the argument author makes in this chapter.

25(i) America’s Colonial Empire

PRESIDENT BUSH IS PREZ MCKINLEY: Is it mere coincidence that Wahhabi hijackers had planned to kill the person of President George W. Bush in 2001, just 100 years after president William McKinley was assassinated? Bush doctrine outlines America’s dream to create American Empire, just as McKinley Administration created American Empire at the turn of the 20th Century.

When president William McKinley was assassinated in 1901, America had taken possession of an Empire in Cuba and Philippines. American imperialism of 1897-1901 during McKinley Administration was not an accident, a reluctant by-product of events. It was culmination of the efforts of the imperialist camp led by geopolitcian naval strategist Alfred T. Mahan and Theodore Roosevelt, assistant secretary of Navy, not an aberration.

Did the Soviet Union’s collapse came about more or less automatically as the result of a new American assertiveness expressed in the change in rhetoric by President Reagan “the Evil Empire” and Star Wars? Is the solution of the world’s ills American hegemony- the imposition of American solutions on the world’s troubled spots by the unabashed affirmation of its preeminence? “Specially in the 1990s, American preeminence evolved less from a strategic design than a series of ad hoc designs designed to satisfy domestic electoral constituencies. Many see the United States as the ultimate arbitrator of domestic evolutions all over the world,” says Dr. Kissinger. United States became the sole super power, without fighting the duel, because its principal white opponent collapsed. The collapse of the white Christian Soviet Union and decline of Orthodox Russia, does not mean the yellow Buddhist China, brown Hindu India and Buddhist Japan have not emerged as world power to challenge the predominance of the white Protestant United States. During colonial times, when new European power replaced declining European colonial power, there did not emerge any non-European challenger to the dominant power. However, this is not the situation in the world of 2002.

IS AMERICA AN EMPIRE OR A LEADER? Bush Doctrine’s explicit insistence on predominance would gradually united the world against the United States and force it into impositions that would eventually leave it isolated and drained. The road to American Empire leads to domestic decay because, in time, the claims of omnipotence erode domestic restraints. No empire has avoided the road to Caesarism, except British Empire, wrote Dr. Henry Kissinger (Does America Needs a Foreign Policy).

INDIA SUPPORTS AMERICAN EMPIRE: However, India would welcome America as an Empire, because the any increase in the power of the United States would come at the expense of the European Union. The share of the total power of the white nations is a zero sum game, and any increase of American power would come at the expense of the Europe, and any increase in power of European Union comes at the expense of United States. It is in the national interest of India to join forces with the hegemon America to keep European Union tamed and under check.

The power distribution between European Union and United States is a zero sum game. Any gains of the United States in terms of national power results in the corresponding decline of the power of the former European colonial powers. In the global balance of power any net gains to the United States results in the net loss to the Europeans. The overall population of the White race is stagnant, so any increase in the white European immigration to United States results in the net decline of the white population in Europe, Central America and South America. If America succeeds in creating American Colonial Empire, it would put brake on any European dream to recreate European Colonial Empires in the 21st Century. The Pax Americana and American Colonial Empire would not result in the total increase of the national power and influence of the White Race and White nations in the world. Thereby it may not be against India’s national interest, if the Bush Doctrine enunciated by President Bush results in the imperialist phase of US foreign policy. Imperial United States would result in the decline of the European Union. From European perspective, any precipitous decline of the United States would help Europe and strengthen Euro, and this view became credible after the 9/11 terrorist’s attacks on New York and Pentagon. The decline of stock market indexes and the resulting net outflow of foreign capital from the United States strengthened Euro. United States and European Union are the two sides of the same seesaw the rise of one is accompanied by the decline of the other side. Any increase of the American influence in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and Kuwait, came at the expense of historical influence of Britain in the Arabian Gulf, which decline with the rise of American influence. UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar were British colonies before 1971, when British Prime Minister Harold Wilson decided to withdraw its troops from East of Suez, and grant independence to the Trucial States.

The unprecedented economic and military rise of United States, took great toll in the human resources of the Western Europe, as United States is the great suction pump that sucks in the vital force, vital human resources of the Western Europe. Great land of Canada failed to realize its true potential because United States ate into the vitality of Canada leaving only the shell in Canada. The population of white race underwent decline in post-war era and the emigration to United States sealed the fate of even the largest European economies, namely, Germany, France, Britain and Canada. The rise of United States inevitably results in the decline of Western Europe. It is no wonder that European Union resents the colossal power of Hegemon USA. The drive for creating American Colonial Empire will destroy the infant dreams of every Europhile in European Union to recreate European Colonial Empires in 21st Century. The success of American imperialists guarantees the death

Possible rise of America’s Colonial Empire in the 21st Century would be good for rest of the World. Historically, every white colonial empire that arose caused precipitous decline of one or more white Christian colonial of its time. The American colonial empire in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, US built during President William McKinley Administration (1897-1901), came at the expense of Spanish Empire. The rise of United States as the Super Power after the Second World War came at the cost of demise of the European colonial empires of Britain, France and Holland. The crowing of United States in 1990 as the sole super power of the world came after the demise of the Soviet Union. Europeans have succinctly realized that any relative gain in the world influence of United States, whether in United Nations or NATO come at the expense of the West Europeans.

United States became a colonial power at the turn of the 20th century. Imperialists believed that the American history as the history of expansion. The near-simultaneous imperial leaps into the Caribbean Cuba and the Pacific Philippines in 1898, were the logical steps in American expansionism of the 18th century imperialist moves into Tennessee and Ohio. American imperialists led by Theodore Roosevelt and Admiral A.T. Mahan had none of the anti-colonial squeamishness about expansion that religious right conservatives feel today, about President Bush’s preemptive strikes for anti-terrorism and counter-nuclear proliferation purposes. Europeans were never comfortable with the idea of American Colonial Empire. President Truman asked Prime Minister Winston Churchill to hand over half of the British Empire to the United States, in exchange for the British war debts. Winston Churchill refused to cave in and preferred to grant independence to the colonies, rather than hand them over to the United States, as it did in the case the Diego Garcia, which had been a part of Mauritius.

In March 1897, pacifist president William McKinley took office as conflict loomed between the United States and Spain over the Spanish colony of Cuba. President McKinley firmly opposed both war and territorial acquisition. When McKinley was assassinated in 1901, the United States had fought its “Splendid Little War” against Spain, as well as a vicious three-year guerrilla war in Philippines, which cost 400,000 Philippine lives. The imperialist camp led by Theodore Roosevelt, the assistant secretary of the Navy, and geopolitician Admiral A. T. Mahan. Admiral A.T. Mahan developed the concept of America as Masterland, in contrast to the Russia as the Heartland. The imperialist camp of Theodore Roosevelt and Admiral A.T. Mahan not only won the battle over anti-imperialist camp but also was bound to win, because it pressed in the direction, where history was tending in any case. It meant in the first instance, replacing the tottering Spanish Empire in both the Western and Eastern hemisphere. It meant in the second instance, imposing colonial rule in the newly seized territories of Cuba, Philippines and Puerto Rico, rather than giving them independence. America justified the loss of colonial lives as the legitimate cost of empire.

The major lessons of the American Colonial War of 1897-1901 are that United States prefers imposing colonial rule in newly seized territories. United States may impose colonial rule in Afghanistan after liberating it from Al Qaeda & Taliban, arguing that imperial takeover of Afghanistan is desirable, otherwise some other power take it over. American imperialism in Afghanistan and Iraq at the beginning of the 21st century, like the American imperialism in Philippines and Cuba at the beginning of the 20th century, was not an accident, a reluctant byproduct of the 9/11 terrorist events. It was there from the beginning. It can even be argued that some one may have planned the terrorist attacks to justify the eastward expansion of NATO to control as a prelude to control the recently discovered oil reserves in Uzbekistan.

The national interests of the future American Colonial Empire do not clash with national interests of India as growing world power. Any increase in the global influence of the United States would result in the similar decrease in the influence of the European nations, which is good for India, as it translates into greater influence of India in the world affairs. United States presently control major Muslim oil-producing countries, namely, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Qatar, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei, so any increase in influence over Iraq, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan would weaken Islamic world as a whole, which is good for India. Any war and confrontation between United States and the Muslim world is good for the Hindu world. Europeans realize that any increase in American influence in Iraq, would adversely harm the national interests of oil-hungry Europeans. It explains that France and Germany are opposed to the US invasions of Iraq. The US invasions of Iraq would enhance Indian national interests if it results in the creation of independent or semi-autonomous Shiite Iraq and Sunni Kurdistan. The independence of Shiite Iraq would weaken Wahhabi Arab nations. The independence of Kurdistan is good for India, as Kurds belong to the Aryan race and speak a language similar to Persian and Sanskrit, radically different from Arab language and Arab culture. In exchange for the share of the spoils of the Imperial expansion, India should be willing to provide troops and diplomatic support to create Pax Americana. The emergence of the United States as a world power and imperial power in 1900 and in 1945 and in Afghanistan war of 2002, was a culmination, of imperialist lobby’s game-plan, not the aberration of the unforeseen terrorist attacks of 9/11. American Colonial Empire in the oil-producing Islamic world would be welcome news for Indians and millions of Muslim women suffering from bondage and servitude to men. Any colonial expansion of Christian nations in the Muslim world is not bad for the Hindu world, unless the West trains Muslim terrorists for attacks of iconoclast Hindu India.

25(ii) Asia’s Geopolitical Complexity

Balance of Power

For four hundred years the foreign policy of Maritime England had been to oppose the strongest, most aggressive, most dominating land Power on the European Continent. Faced by the dominant power England joined with the less strong Powers, made a combination among them, and thus defeated and frustrated the Continental military tyrant whoever he was, whatever nation he led. United States has the analogous geostrategic objective to maintain the balance of power in Asia by joining with the less strong Powers. (Dr. Kissinger, 2001, p.112)

This logic of Secretary Kissinger would require United States to align with India, the less strong Power than China, to stabilize the Asian balance of power. Failure of Secretary Kissinger to develop ties with India, after the America’s defeat in the Vietnam harmed the national interests of the United States. Secretary Kissinger sought to kow tow at Mao’s court, even when China fought the United States in Korean War and Vietnam War, not to stabilize Asian balance of power, but to destabilize the Buddhist nations. Influenced by the Catholic religious right wing conservative conspiracy the Judeo Kissinger sought alliance with Judeo-Communist Mao Zedong to impose Papacy’s proselytizing agenda in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Chinese consulting fees and other remunerations to Dr. Kissinger and Kissinger Associates, Inc. persuaded Dr. Kissinger to distort his writings and beliefs and promoted US-China ties at the cost of US-India ties. It makes Dr. Kissinger responsible for the massacre of 2,000,000 Buddhists at the hands of Christian Khmer Rouge, who used genocide to promote Christian proselytizing in Cambodia, and Laos.

President George W. Bush does not belong to the Christian Religious Right conservative conspiracy, so Bush Administration should overturn Kissinger’s mistake and develop strategic ties with less strong Power in Asia, namely India. America’s failure to develop better ties with India, allows China to expedite Asia’s coalescence into an unfriendly bloc.

America’s Asia policy should be designed in direct analogy to the Cold War, with China replacing the Soviet Union as the organizing threat. The Summit meetings of the leaders of China and Russia proclaimed a strategic partnership against the specter of American hegemony. The relentless American bullying of Russia and China could drive them to a deeper partnership. Russia’s long border with China, only sparsely populated along the Russian side, restrains Russia from deeper partnership with China, in spite of its current irritation with an allegedly hegemonic United States.

The Japan’s strategy must allow for two contradictory contingencies: disintegration of China as a result of its inability to absorb the consequences of modernization, and the growing power of China if modernization succeeds. Japan must begin the task of building barriers to possible Chinese hegemonistic aspirations by developer closer security ties with India.

America must not lose sight of the fact that Korean Peninsula is where the interests of several major powers intersect. Neither China nor Japan is eager for a rapid unification of Korea-specially were a unified Korea to inherit North Korea’s nuclear and missile technology.

Tanaka Memorial states that he who controls Korea controls Manchuria, and he who controls Manchuria controls China, and he who controls China controls the destiny of the world. Tanaka was the Prime Minister during the War.

Japan would not accept a North Korean capability. In response to North Korean nuclear weapons Japan would develop its own nuclear capability. In 1904-1905, the Russo-Japanese War was fought over which country would control Korea. In 1908, Japan extinguished Korea’s independence. After the Japanese occupation ended in 1945, Korea was partitioned along the 38th parallel. Russia, China and Japan have competing interests in Korea. It is no wonder that China arrested Yang Bin, the Chinese entrepreneur, appointed by Km Jong II, to a 50-year term as head of the free trade zone, Sinuiju Special Administrative Region, in Sinuiju, on the border with China.

The Protestant point of view regards China as a morally flawed “inevitable adversary.” China is at the moment inevitable adversary with respect to Taiwan, eventually the Western Pacific, and, in time the global equilibrium. United States should therefore act toward China not as a strategic partner but as it treated the Soviet Union during the Cold War: as a rival and a challenge, reducing trade wherever possible to non-strategic items, creating an alliance of Asian states to contain China, or failing that, building up India and Japan to help America share the burden for the defense of Asia and the containment of China. America should treat Taiwan as an independent country and a military outpost and in practice scrap the “one-China” policy on which Dr. Kissinger based the Sino-American relations, since diplomatic contacts were reestablished in 1971.

Clinton Administration influenced by Chinese campaign donations, avoided the geopolitical challenge of the relationship with China. Strategic partnership with China never functioned. United States should treat China as a permanent adversary. The Catholic viewpoint and the view of the Clinton administration regarding relationship with China was summed up in the slogans “engagement” and “strategic partnership.” In Asia, barring major Chinese provocation on Taiwan, Australia, Malaysia and Australia, the United States would have to conduct a policy of containment of China over an indefinite period of time, in alliance with other major Asian power, namely India and Japan. A policy that designated China as the enemy because its ideology is inhumane and its anti-Buddhist policy is distasteful would help United States contain China effectively. To be sure, it is in the American national interest to resist the effort of China to dominate Asia- and United States should be prepared to do so with alliance with the lesser a Power India. The emergence of China is comparable to that of Germany in the nineteenth century, which ultimately led to World War I. Faced with a threat of Chinese hegemony in Asia- whatever a regime-America would resist it as it did Japan’s in the Second World War and the Soviet Union’s in the Cold War. China’s approach to policy is skeptical and prudent, and America’s approach to policy is optimistic and missionary.

United States supported Christian leadership of Sun Yatsen, Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai Sheik, because Christian missionaries advocated better ties with the Communists as a means to deny Buddhist the political power in China. In early 1900s, America’s approach to China heavily influenced by Christian missionaries and American traders. In the 1930s and during the Second World War, China was idealized as a victim of Japanese aggression and as a heroic democratic ally. After the Communist victory in the civil war, China was transformed in the American public mind into the incarnation of ideological and strategic hostility. China couldn’t contribute any military force for the Allied war efforts. India contributed 3,500,000 soldiers to the Allied war efforts. It was the heroic efforts of Indian Air force and soldiers that Chinese troops could get supplies to continue resistance to Japanese occupation. Chinese community in Singapore and Malaysia had collaborated with Japanese occupation forces.

What brought United States and China together was their leaders’ awareness of a common threat. The Chinese leaders saw an awesome buildup of Soviet military power along their border, including nuclear missiles and forty modern combat divisions – over a million men. By 1969, it was obvious to China that Marxist theory not only did not shield China from Soviet military pressure, but also provided a pretext for Soviet military pressure on China. For the newly promulgated Brezhnev Doctrine claimed for Kremlin the special right to use military power within the Communist world to enforce its unity. China feared that Soviet Union could invade China just as it invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

United State chose the rapprochement with less strong power China to contain Soviet Union. President Nixon recognized the role China might play in establishing a new Asian balance of power. The new links after 1971, with China and the United States flourished so long as the two sides could concentrate of resisting the hegemony of the Soviet Union in Asia. Resisting the hegemony meant resisting Soviet attempts to upset the global or Asian balance of power and some tacit agreement on an appropriate strategy to achieve this end. In 1971 and 1972, President Richard Nixon and Chairman Mao Zedong reestablished diplomatic contact, not because American and Communist ideologies had become more compatible but because of their respective geopolitical necessities.

The decline of Russia and the rise of China necessitates that United States should develop strategic ties with India to check the hegemony of China in Asia. United States and India should resist Chinese attempts to upset the global or Asian balance of power and some tacit agreement on an appropriate strategy to achieve this end. The Chinese suppression of the demonstrations of Tiananmen Square marked the turning point at which China began to be perceived by many Americans as an ideological and geopolitical adversary of America. During George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations the political and psychological basis for constructive Sino-American relations was gradually weakening. Bill Clinton during his Madison Square Garden Democratic Convention speech declared that United States should not tolerate any dictatorship from Baghdad to Beijing. Bill Clinton began his term with rhetoric that made improvements in Chinese human rights practices the key to Sino-American ties even in the economic field. By 1995, due to the influence of the Chinese campaign donation his administration returned to the pattern of regular dialogue, and the slogan of “engagement” was raised to “strategic partnership.”

“Indian foreign policy can best be understood by analogy to the one that had been conducted by British Indian empire. That policy was in fact formulated in Calcutta and then after 1934 from New Delhi. It based Indian security on naval supremacy in the Indian Ocean, on friendly, or at least non-threatening, regimes in the area from Singapore to Aden, and a non-hostile regime at the Khyber Pass and the Himalayas. In the arc from Singapore to Aden, American and Indian interests run quite parallel. Neither country wishes to see a fundamental Islam dominate the region even as motives for this differ,” says Henry Kissinger (p. 157)

“America’s intensive dialogue is needed with India, especially for the region from Singapore to Aden. America’s interest is primarily geopolitical,” says Kissinger (p. 161). The challenge is not to reargue the debates of decades but to give impetus to the basis of a new Indian-American relationship. For under the conditions of the post-Cold War world, a close cooperative relationship between the two countries is in their mutual and basic interests. The dictates of Asian balance of power requires United States should develop strategic ties with India the lesser Power to contain China, the hegemon. By the reasoning of Dr. Henry Kissinger United States should develop closer ties with India more than with China. Dr. Kissinger distorted his own reasoning about Asian balance of power, under the influence of Christian religious right conservatism, which gave more weight to the proselytizing interests of the Catholics and Evangelicals over the geopolitical national interests of the United States. Chinese campaign donations and gifts might have influenced the policy recommendations of Dr. Kissinger over US relations with China.

25(iii) European Balance of Power

USA-Europe Atlantic relations is a zero sum game in which one side of the Atlantic or the other is bound to have the upper hand, the gains of America are at the cost of Europe and vice versa. Europeans define European identity as a challenge to the United States, even while relying on United States as a guarantor of European security during Cold War. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the weakness of European Russia makes Russia a natural ally of European Union as counter weight to hegemon United States. The three-way balance of power, USA, Russia and European Union, the Europe would befriend the less strong Power, namely Russia, to frustrate the hegemonic ambitions of the hegemon United States. Just as England chose alliance with less strong Power Louis XIV against Philip II of Spain, and William II of Germany against Napoleon, the diplomats of Europe would align with less strong Power Russia to curb the imperial ambitions of America, after the declaration of the Bush Doctrine 2002. The diplomat students of Bismarck in European Union shall court Russia to check America. The European Balance of power shall revert to the classical balance of power system, to the detriment of the hegemon United States. No student of Bismarck, including Henry Kissinger could logically argue that European powers should align with the hegemon, without courting less strong Power Russia, to strengthen European balance of power. United States should learn to check European Union as inevitable adversary in the making. United Europe would become a menace to the world, whenever Germany develops and deploys nuclear weapons. The deployment of American intermediate-range missiles in Germany in 1983, sought to preempt German imperial ambitions. Faced with imminent German nuclear weapon deployment, United States would threaten preemptive nuclear strikes against Germany, the replay of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Historically West Europeans had closer ties with Russia than with United States before the First World War. Germany and France find weak Russia as natural ally of the European Union to check hegemon America.

The emergence of a European Union is one of the most revolutionary events of our time. In the eyes of the America, the European Union replaced the Soviet Union as the principal adversary of the United States. In the new Cold War the European Union and United States are principal adversaries. France supported European integration so that Germany would not again emerge as a national threat. Britain, has historically considered a unified continental Europe a threat to British independence. Britain is always wary of any undertaking that might turn the United Kingdom into a province of Europe. France supported the 1992 Maastricht Treaty that launched Euro, partly to contain German strength, partly to enlist it in a policy of gaining greater freedom of action vis-à-vis the United States. The Vatican supported the European Union because it recreates a new Holy European Empire based on the same barbarian lands that had launched the Holy Roman Empire, on the corpse of Roman Empire.

Will Europe’s emerging identity leave room for an USA-EU Atlantic partnership? Will America’s triumphalism over winning the Cold War veer toward hegemony? France has declared that the purpose of achieving a European identity is to reduce the dominance of the United States. France hates America. “Most American leaders and thinkers have never doubted for an instant that the United States was chosen by providence as the “indispensable nation” and that it must remain dominant for the sake of humankind. American remind Europeans that the contemporary world is the direct outcome of Europe’s complete failure to manage its own and the world’s affairs in the first half of the twentieth century,” commented French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine on 3rd Nov 1999.

USA-EUROPE BALANCE OF POWER: The power distribution between European Union and United States is a zero sum game. Any gains of the United States in terms of national power results in the corresponding decline of the power of the former European colonial powers. In the global balance of power any net gains to the United States results in the net loss to the Europeans. The overall population of the White race is stagnant, so any increase in the white European immigration to United States results in the net decline of the white population in Europe, Central America and South America. If America succeeds in creating American Colonial Empire, it would put brake on any European dream to recreate European Colonial Empires in the 21st Century. The Pax Americana and American Colonial Empire would not result in the total increase of the national power and influence of the White Race and White nations in the world. Thereby it may not be against India’s national interest, if the Bush Doctrine enunciated by President Bush results in the imperialist phase of US foreign policy.

USA-European diplomacy is a zero sum game. The colonial gains of the Imperial United States would result in the decline of the European Union. From European perspective, any precipitous decline of the United States would help Europe and strengthen Euro, and this view became credible after the 9/11 terrorist’s attacks on New York and Pentagon. The decline of stock market indexes and the resulting net outflow of foreign capital from the United States strengthened Euro. United States and European Union are the two sides of the same seesaw the rise of one is accompanied by the decline of the other side.

SPECTER OF IMPERIAL GERMANY: It is one of the ironies of history that Germany emerged stronger in relation to its neighbors after each of the world wars it started and lost than it had been before they began. Germany was instrumental in starting the First World War, though the other European powers, namely Britain and United States seized the opportunity and broke up Ottoman Empire and increased their sphere of influence. Germany single-handedly provoked the Second World War and United States seized the opportunity to achieve European and possibly world domination. Even after having lost the two world wars, Germany is now approaching on the basis of the strength of its economy and the vitality of its people, the predominant position in Europe and preeminent position in the World. Germany, the last European state to be unified, became a nation because the princes of various German principalities proclaimed the state in 1871, following the lead of Prussia, which had defeated them militarily in 1866. Germany’s central geographic location, and Germany’s division into dozens of small states had, for two centuries a permanent source of instability for Europe, enabled its neighbors to contest the European balance of power on German soil.

After unification, Germany moved to the other extreme, seeking to ensure security against all its neighbors simultaneously. It produced Germany’s worst nightmare: a coalition of all the neighboring states against it. Germany had been for centuries either too weak or too strong for the peace of Europe. Otto von Bismarck in the first decades of a unified Germany in the nineteenth century solved this problem. Bismarck sought to arrange the relation of European states toward each other in such a manner that Germany would always have more option than any possible rival, thereby preventing the formation of hostile coalitions. First World War broke out, when this tour de force proved too subtle and complex for his successors who substituted an arms race for diplomatic skill.

In 1990, the German Unification destroyed the East German satellite, the political balance within Europe and NATO basically changed. Germany’s willingness to accept a subordinate status in NATO as well as in Europe has eroded.

Special Russo-German rapprochement based on the Bismarckian tradition that the two countries prospered when they were close and suffered when they were in conflict. As Russian economic recovery gains momentum, under president Putin, the traditional temptation of special German relation with Russia has reappeared, which may undermine Germany-USA relations in long term. Germany will seek for itself within Europe that France insists Europe should play within the Atlantic alliance. These trends will tempt other European nations to court Russia in part as a counterweight to Germany, in part as a reaction to American dominance. Were the United States to enter the same game, the USA-Europe Atlantic relationship would change its character and become more like the traditional European diplomacy of balancing rewards and penalties.

The ‘Old NATO was basically a mirror image of the Warsaw Pact. The disintegration of the Warsaw pact resulted in transformation of NATO from the concept of alliance to the concept of the collective security. The NATO will turn into a mini-United Nations. The “North Atlantic Council” composed of the ambassadors of the nineteen countries belonging to NATO. The “Permanent Joint Council” includes the North Atlantic Council plus Russia. The “Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council,” is grouping of NATO and twenty-eight former East bloc countries. In the “Partnership of Peace” countries of Eastern Europe including Russia are invited to engage in joint training for unspecified multilateral missions. The annual summits of NATO chiefs of state are now attended by nearly fifty leaders of various groupings. “All these threaten to dissolve NATO into a multilateral mishmash,” says Henry Kissinger. The ambiguous priorities of NATO reflect the disappearance of the immediate threat.

The geopolitics for admitting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO eliminated once and for all the strategic vacuum in Central Europe that in the twentieth century had tempted both German and Russian expansionism. NATO was fist and foremost a military alliance, and that it existed for the purpose of preventing the reemergence of a hegemonic power confronting Europe.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there no longer exists a fixed set of foreign policy criteria to which all European Union’s 25 members and NATO allies might appeal. European approach to foreign policy is more traditional and realistic, clashes with American approach that is unilateralist, imperialistic and capitalistic. European leaders assert to help President Bush discover the limits of the possible. The rote repetition of slogans of Atlantic solidarity in the face of crumbling underlying reality of changing European balance of power is no guide to wise policy. The 25-member European Union has begun to systematically undermine the concept of Atlantic partnership, where America used to be the big guy. Germany will soon be in a position to invoke a successful tradition of diplomacy based on the national interest. The Cold War orthodoxy that European integration leads automatically to a strong Europe as well as closer ties with the United States no longer holds ground. In the New Cold War United States and Germany could be adversaries. World War three could start if Germany decides to develop nuclear deterrent and deploy nuclear weapons. Would United States launch preemptive nuclear strikes against Germany, as counter-proliferation measures to denuke nuclear Germany of future?

25(iv) Kissingerian Paradox of US Hegemony

“The end of the Cold War has created what some observers have called a “unipolar” or “one-superpower” world. But the United States is actually in no better position to dictate the global agenda unilaterally than it was at the beginning of the Cold War. America is more preponderant than it was ten years ago yet ironically power has also become more diffuse. Thus America’s ability to employ it to shape the rest of the world has actually decreased.” (Kissinger, “Diplomacy” p. 809)

Bush Administration reluctantly creating America’s Colonial Empire as the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq, just at the dawn of the 20th Century William McKinley’s Administration (1897-1901) created America’s first Colonial Empire in Cuba, Philippines and Puerto Rico. Like the assassination of president William McKinley in 1901, Muslim hijackers had planned the attack on the person of the president 100 years after. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is the leader of the imperialist camp in 2002, just as Theodore Roosevelt, the assistant secretary of the Navy, had been the leader of the imperialist camp in 1901. Bush Doctrine declares that the hegemon America would take measures to maintain its hegemony, by denying any other power, the military capability to equal or overtake America’s military capability.

“American preeminence is a fact of life for the near- and almost certainly the mid-term future. The way the United States handles it will determine what kind of long-term future emerges. President George W. Bush is wise in calling for a measure of humility for America. America’s challenge is to recognize its own preeminence but to conduct its policy as if it were still living in a world of many centers of power. In such a world, the United States will find partners not only for sharing the psychological burdens of leadership but also for shaping an international order consistent with freedom and democracy. While traditional patterns are in transition and the very basis of experience and knowledge is being revolutionized, America’s ultimate challenge is to transform its power into moral consensus, promoting its values not by imposition but by their willing acceptance in a world that, for all its seeming resistance, desperately needs enlightened leadership.” (Henry Kissinger, “Does America Needs a foreign Policy,” Simon & Schuster, 2001, pp 288)

At the dawn of the new millennium, the hegemon United States is enjoying a preeminence and hegemony unrivalled by even the greatest empires of the past. America exercises an unparalleled ascendancy and hegemony around the globe, in military technology to industrial productivity, from higher education to popular TV culture.

In the Balkans, the United States is performing essentially the same functions as did the Austrian and Ottoman empires at the turn of the last century, of keeping dominance and peace by establishing protectorates interposed between warring groups, even when America supported terrorists created the ethnic wars in the eclectic secular Yugoslavia in the first place. United States sowed the seed of religious-ethnic conflicts and gained the reward by forcing warring groups into protectorates. American invaded Yugoslavia and Afghanistan to create new protectorates, the parts of the emerging New American colonial empire.

United States dominates the international financial system by providing the single largest pool of investment capital, the most attractive heaven for foreign investors, and the most efficient financial markets. However, the Protestants of WASPs United States no longer controls the ownership of the largest insurance, banking and securities industries. Foreign interests, and even Arab capital may acquire control over the largest financial institutions, which may in future take financial decisions detrimental to the American economy or transfer capital to European Union.

United States’ hegemony and preeminence is coupled with the serious potential of becoming irrelevant to many of the underlying currents affecting and ultimately transforming the global economic order and global balance of power. Foreign states exhibit exasperation with America’s prescriptions and confusion to its long-term purposes. Especially in the 1990s, the American hegemony evolved less from a strategic design than a series of ad hoc events, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Internet Revolution. United States State Department lacks long-range foreign policy and failed to develop concepts relevant to the emerging reality. Dr. Henry Kissinger’s diplomatic model that resulted in the genocide of 2,000,000 Cambodian Buddhists, and promoted Communist China to the detriment of democratic India no longer serves the national interests of the United States.

America’s new imperialists, the authors of Bush doctrine 2002, believe that the solution to the world’s ills is American hegemony-the imposition of the American solutions to the world’s troubled spots by the unabashed affirmation of its preeminence and hegemony. Neo-imperialists exude a sense that the accumulation of power is self-implementing on the other. European may perceive hegemon United States as new Hitler in the making, if the German elections are any indication of the European mood, when a German minister compared President Bush to Hitler.

Dump Kissinger’s Diplomacy

United States must dump the diplomatic style and foreign policy models of Henry Kissinger, as it would in the hands of his successors would result in the Third World War, just as the improper usage of the Bismarck’s diplomacy in the hands of new diplomatic players caused the First World War.

Diplomat Otto von Bismarck believed in the inherent rotten character of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and he was just buying time, before it would collapse on its own weight. Secretary Henry Kissinger faced with the defeat of the United States in the Vietnam War, believed in the underlying Catholic religious right conservative agenda to proselytize Christianize Buddhist Indo-China by force. Dr. Kissinger promoted China card to direct media hype to forget the agony of Vietnam War. President Clinton invaded Kosovo to take the media spotlight away from Cox Report that highlighted Clinton’s failure to check the thefts of nuclear weapon designs from Los Alamos Labs by Chinese Spy. Dr. Kissinger opened up China to redirect media coverage so that people may forget the lessons of the Vietnam. It allowed Christian Khmer Rouge massacre two million Buddhists in Cambodia without any media exposure of the ongoing genocide, even when it was a known to the American media.

Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski misused the policy of Secretary Henry Kissinger to develop political ties with Shiite fundamentalists in Iran bring down the eclectic regime of Shah of Iran. Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski developed close ties with Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere to undermine the moderate eclectic Islamic societies. America’s policy in Iran and Afghanistan gave birth to Islamic terrorism, financed by America’s close ally Wahhabi Saudi Arabia.

Failure to officially discontinue the Secretary Henry Kissinger’s foreign policy model, after the Ford Administration, allowed Christian religious right conservatives hijack the US foreign policy and legitimized militant Islamism. To the novice United States should court Muslim terrorists and fundamentalists to advance US national interests. They mistakenly sought to justify the CIA’s alliance with Muslim Mujahideens, as if the legitimization of Muslim terrorists no different than the legitimization of renegade Communist China.

Bismarck’s tour de force to prevent the formation of hostile coalitions, proved too subtle and complex for his diplomatic successors who substituted an arms race for diplomatic skill and slid into the First World War by the excessive flexing of muscles. Kissinger’s tour de force to contain Soviet power proved too subtle and complex for his successors Madeleine Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski who cemented alliance with Islamic militants for Chinese and allowed Wahhabi terrorists global nexus with drug cartels that led to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Bismarck’s polity in the hands of the successors resulted in the First World War, and Kissinger’s Chinese détente resulted in the Cambodian genocide. Kissinger’s polity during Clinton Administration resulted in the Taliban’s attacks on US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in early 1990s and Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in 1995.

It is high time that the foreign policy models and strategy enunciated by Secretary Henry Kissinger given decent burial, lest they cause more harm then good to the world. Kissinger’s diplomacy and statecraft like that of his predecessor Otto von Bismarck if used in the new age would cause more harm than good. Kissinger’s statecraft and polity in the hands of Madeleine Albright caused the 9/11 attacks, just 7 months after her departure.

It was stupid for American diplomats to believe that the CIA-trained Muslim Mujahideens that brought down the regime of Shah of Iran and Soviet regime in Afghanistan could be controlled by Bismarck’s traditional diplomacy of balancing rewards and penalties. Only novice would believe that Muslim fundamentalist terrorists could be as reasonable and honorable for the deal as the Communist Chinese elite.

Kissinger’s statecraft and polity is too dangerous and too potent to be used by lesser Diplomats. Henry J. Kissinger like his dream-mentor Otto von Bismarck represent a class by itself, and their style and daring diplomatic maneuvers in the hands of less competent policy maker diplomats could bring untold harm to the world. The legacy of Kissinger’s diplomacy caused Cambodian genocide, Wahhabi Islamic terrorism and demise of quite a few modern and liberal governments. Frankly speaking Dr. Henry J. Kissinger is not relevant in the present times and his policies should be reversed by the Secretary Collin Powell in Bush Administration, if United States serious about averting the Third World War. Foreign Policy recommendations of Dr. Henry Kissinger present great danger to the world.

Henry Kissinger on Lavrenti Beria

“Stalin had never felt comfortable implementing a new policy with personnel he had previously used to steer a different course, even if they had slavishly followed his own directives, and perhaps especially them. Second considered second thoughts to be the seeds of disloyalty and favored the definitive remedy of destroying those who had had the responsibility of carrying out the policy that was about to be modified. In 1952, something along these lines was obviously in preparation, with the loyalists of previous years as the apparent targets-the Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov; Lazar Kaganovich, an old Bolshevik member of the Politburo; and Lavrenti Beria, the head of the secret police. A new set of faces would appear to carry out Stalin’s diplomatic design.” (Henry Kissinger, “Diplomacy,” 1994, pp 499)

“This was evident from the way in which the purge of Beria was explained. In reality, his (Beria) sin had been that he knew too much, and had threatened too many powerful colleagues. Nevertheless, he was arrested at a Politburo meeting and executed shortly thereafter on the charge of having plotted to give us East Germany.” (Kissinger, “diplomacy” pp 504-5)

“Apprenticeship to Stalin had guaranteed psychological malformation. Only the slave of boundless ambition could have made tolerable the pervasive sense of terror generated by the penalty of death or life in the Gulag for the slightest misstep- or even for a shift in the policy by the dictator himself. The generation, which grew up under Stalin could reduce its risks only by servility to the master’s whims and by the systematic denunciation of colleagues. They made their nightmarish existence more tolerable by a passionate belief in the system for which they owed their careers. Stalin’s subordinates were aware of the atrocities being committed in the name of communism. Yet they assuaged their conscience, which in any case were not terribly highly developed, by ascribing Stalinism to the aberration of an individual rather than to the failure of the communist system. Besides, they had little opportunity for systematic reflection because Stalin had seen to it that his top leadership was in a state of constant flux. In 1953, Beria was executed; in 1955, Malenkov was removed from office; in 1957, Khrushchev defeated the so-called anti-party group of Molotov, Kaganovich, Shepilov, and Malenkov, and by 1958 he attained absolute power after the dismissal of Zhukov.” (Kissinger, Diplomacy, 1994, p 519)

“It is true that Khrushchev had the courage to purge Beria, or at least that he recognized the need to do so for the sake of his own survival.” (Kissinger, Diplomacy, p 520)

People associate Stalinism and Stalin’s regime with Lavrenti Beria, just as they associate Nixon Administration and genocide of Cambodia with Secretary Henry Kissinger. Dr. Henry Kissinger’s writings exonerate Bolshevik Jew Lavrenti Beria of any role in the genocide of 30 million Orthodox Russians during his tenure.

Kissinger justified the crimes of Lavrenti Beria, saying, “Apprenticeship to Stalin had guaranteed psychological malformation. The generation which grew up under Stalin could reduce its risks only by servility to the master’s whims and by the systematic denunciation of colleagues.”

Failure of Jews to condemn the genocide committed by Bolshevik Jew Spymaster Lavrenti Beria is very disturbing. Kissinger’s failed to condemn the executions carried out at orders of Lavrenti Beria, when he suggested that Beria had slavishly followed Stalin’s directives. Lavrenti Beria couldn’t have got better public relations officer than Henry Kissinger. Beria symbolizes Stalinism and orthodox Russian genocide, just as Kissinger symbolizes Vietnam War and Buddhist Cambodian genocide. Lavrenti Beria, head of the Stalin’s secret police was the most important Jew in the world before 1952, and Henry Kissinger became the most important Jew in the world during the tumultuous Nixon and Ford Administration. Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretary Madeleine Albright slavishly followed the foreign policy doctrines enunciated by Secretary Henry Kissinger and became powerful Jew during Carter Administration and Clinton Administration respectively. Secretary Brzezinski destroyed the liberal Monarchy of Shah of Iran. Secretary Madeleine Albright destroyed Yugoslavia, just as Secretary Kissinger destroyed Laos and Cambodia.

It has been a known fact that President John F. Kennedy, President Jimmy Carter, President Bill Clinton, Secretary Henry J. Kissinger, Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretary Madeleine Albright belong to the Christian religious right conservative group. President Nixon, President Lynden B. Johnson, President George H. W. Bush, President George W. Bush, Secretary Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary Colin Powell, Attorney General Ashcroft are not members of the Christian religious right conservative conspiracy. It has been a great fortune of United States that the occupant of the Oval Office wasn’t a member of the Christian religious right wing conservative conspiracy when Wahhabi Arab Sunni Hijackers attacked on 9/11.

Kissinger on Khmer Rouge

“Cambodia was the only theater of American combat in Indochina that Nixon had not inherited from his predecessors. Nixon gratuitously expanded the war into Cambodia, and that, in the process, American policy came to bear principal responsibility for the genocide carried out by the communist Khmer rouge after their victory in 1975.” (Kissinger, p 693)

“The idea that Nixon had frivolously expanded the war was a reincarnation of the strategic misconception of 1961-62 over Laos, namely that America’s role in the war could be confined to South Vietnam even

25

NATO IS AN AMERICAN EMPIRE OF EUROPE NOT AN ATLANTIC ALLIANCE - Chapter 25 - KALKI GAUR

Chapter 25

NATO is American Empire Not Alliance