Chapter 35

Rise of Global Power India

India Supports Petro-Colonialism

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

35(0) Purport

(1) Asia is the Future and Europe is Old

Thesis One: The 21st Century is an Asian Century and India and China are the leaders of Asia. 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.

One. 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.

Two. 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.

Three. 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.

(2) Sustainable Balance of Concert of Asia

Thesis Two: The de Richelieu Raison D’etat Concert of Asia, seeking a sustainable triangular continental Asian Balance of Power, among China, India and Japan with United States as the maritime Balancer shall maintain peace in Asia and realize the dream of Century of Asia. The post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe (1815-1914) maintained peace in Europe between several European powers with Britain as a Balancer.

One. The strategic goal of Bush-Rice foreign policy is to create a sustainable balance of power in Asia, so Asian countries can continue to liberalize, progress and develop in the 21st Century of Asia. If the focus of USA-India strategic ties in Asia is containment of rising China vis-à-vis the United States and India, the historic model is Europe circa 1914, with China in the role of Germany.

Two. If the geopolitical balance of power focus in Asia is widened out to include Hindu India and Buddhist Japan along with Buddhist China, then the more congenial triangular Asian balance of power or Concert of Asia might be Europe circa 1815, with a stable balance of power between several Asian world powers, throughout next 100-years of the 21st Century and the Protestant United States as balancer as Britain was during Concert of Europe (from 1815 to 1914), with very little cost to Christian United States.

Three. The Triangular Balance of power in Asia requires United States should undertake preemptive attacks to demilitarize nuke-seeking Iran.

Four. Pakistan does not have any significant independent role in the triangular balance of power and it must work either through China, India or USA to influence the triangular balance in Asia.

 

35(1) Talk Points

(1) New Perception of India as Global Power

INDIA OF 1750 PRODUCED 24.5% OF WORLD: One. In 1750 India accounted for 24.5%, China for 32.8%, West for 18.2%, Orthodoxy for 5.0% and Japan for 3.8% of the world’s total manufacturing output. In 1750 India, China & Japan manufactured 61% of world’s total goods.

 

WORLD HAS NEW PERCEPTION OF INDIA: Two. Perceptions shape decisions. Often they are flawed. Sometimes, they are incomplete. The rich cultural diversity and spiritual traditions of India are well known, but they constitute only one aspect of India. There is another India, the India of the 21st century, which is still not so well known, with its many strengths. Judge India in terms of its present strengths. Modern democratic India of 21st century has unprecedented strengths and look India in the light of this new reality.

 

INDIA’S FIVE REVOLUTIONS: Three. India has six major strengths, its five simultaneously occurring revolutions and the five main areas with the maximum promise of growth. Among the five revolutions, first is the IT revolution. Second revolution is the socio-economic revolution, which was unleashed by the IT revolution. It has empowered hundreds of millions of our citizens. The third revolution is demographic revolution, with 54 pc of the population below 25 years of age. But it were last two revolutions, the fourth a revolution of expectations and fifth a psychological revolution that, were truly path breaking. Fourth revolution is the revolution of expectations of India’s new consumerist class. India now has a powerful new force of young people, full of optimism and ambitions, fired by boundless energy, who are seeking opportunities for wealth, success and prosperity. Fifth revolution is a psychological revolution of can-do attitude.

 

INDIA’S SIX STRENGTHS: Four. The Five Revolutions had translated into Six Strengths. First strength is a strong economy driven primarily by indigenous skills and domestic enterprise. Second strength is a growing and accessible domestic market with import and investment barriers falling away. Third strength is a rich pool of human resources. Fourth strength is English speaking, with R&D skills, technological training and managerial capabilities. Fifth strength is state-of-the-art technologies including indigenously built supercomputers and satellites, global leadership in technologies of the Knowledge Economy. Sixth strength is a sound and transparent financial system, with well-managed banking and insurance sectors, and vibrant capital markets.

 

(2) India may colonize Oil Colonies

One. It is a manifest destiny of India to regain control over oil and gas resources of Iran and Iraq as it had before 1947. It is a manifest destiny of India to reestablish Indian Rupee Zone, as it had before 1965, when Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Muscat and Oman, Yemen kept its foreign exchange reserves in Indian Rupee.

 

Two. India should join forces with the petro-colonialism of the industrialized civilized world. Indian Empire controlled 100% of Iranian Oil and 48% of Iraqi oil before 1947 and Persian Gulf was an Indian Lake. India should join forces with American Oil Colonialism that seeks to establish oil colonies throughout Middle East. India might send Indian troops to administer, control and manage American oil colony in Iraq, because India wants to establish India’s own oil colony in near future to secure its supplies of oil and gas resources. By joining United States and Britain as Co-Occupying Power in Iraqi Oil colony, India would get rewarding first hand experience in Colonial administration, management of oil resources, so that colonial occupation might not become a drain on the national exchequer. Whatever United States would do in Iraq, would come handy for India for properly managing its own oil colonies.

 

Three. India believes that President Bush wisely gave birth to a new age of colonial empires in the 21st Century and India should its utmost so that India and China might not lose in the second age of colonialism. India as a world power should help fellow world power United States, maintain order and peaceful management of its colonial properties in Iraq. India wants to become a full partner in American oil colonialism, so that pentagon should outsource its entire colonial administration and colonial management operations to Indian companies and Indian Army.

 

(3) Indian Empire Ruled Persian Gulf

Indian Army of Indian Empire ruled over Iranian oilfields and Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Muscat and Oman, Yemen and Suez Canal before 1947. When India withdrew Indian Army from Iraq in 1947, British lost control over Iraq in 1958, when military coup overthrew the pro-British King of Iraq, while British Army was in barracks in Baghdad. British garrison in Baghdad failed to quell the uprising and with it ended the dreams of British Oil colonialism in Iraq. Without the support of the India Army, British Prime

 

(4) New Age of Colonial Empires

The American occupation of Iraq created a new world order of Colonial Empires and this world order is as moral as the order it replaced. The top A-grade three world powers are, namely, United States, China and India. The troika is followed by three B-grade large world powers, namely, Russia, France, and Britain. These six great powers followed by C-grade medium world powers, namely, Germany, Japan and Canada. India and China forced to develop new foreign policy and garbage their past diplomatic agenda. United States, India and China must start on a clean slate and set the agenda for the new world order, where great powers like United States, will enjoy full freedom to establish their colonies at the time and place of their choice. The fundamental lesson of the 2003 is that Russia has permanently declined and its international influence could only decline further, because of the decline of Russian population. France and Germany and Russia can play great power role only when they would pool their diplomatic and economic assets, and speak with a single voice of White Christian Europe. The 21st Century is the Century of America, India and China, and European powers lack the resources to play any great power role and no Islamic nation would ever join the ranks of world powers, except may be Pakistan.

 

(5) India is a Global Power in 2006, sez Bush

The nuclear deal with India is turning point as President Bush realized that India is a “Global Power”, and India has a “historic duty to support democracy” around the world and that partnership between USA and India are closer than ever before. “The United States and India separated by half the globe, are closer than ever before, and the partnership between our free people has the power to transform the world. As a global power, India has a historic duty to support democracy around the world,” said President Bush.

 

(6) Diplomacy of Wilsonian Deception

America accepted that it employed traditional Wilsonian ideological deception when it promoted American imperialistic oil colonialism goals under the camouflage of ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ when American resolution to UN Security Council declared its status as ‘Occupying Power’ in Iraq. The concept of Colonial Empires became legitimate from that point onwards. The decolonization process that started in 1960s is heading for reversal. Colonial empires will become legitimate units of the International system in the 21st Century. The great powers would accept the legitimate colonial rights of the colonial powers over the colonies, as they accepted it from 1500 to 1960. Like United States, India and China, Britain and France, Germany and Japan also acquired the legal right to create their colonial empires if they could afford to do so. British American conquest of Iraq started the new scramble for colonies in the 21st Century. The colonial world order shall be as legitimate in terms of international law as the decolonized world order it replaced.

 

(7) Rise of God of Oil

One. The god of Oil decreed that oil producing nations should become colonies of the industrialized world powers. The Capitalist god of Oil shall rule oil-producing countries and establish oil colonial empires throughout oil-producing world. The new pagan secular capitalist god of oil emerged to global prominence in 2003, and exposed its might and grandeur ambitions, which had hitherto been camouflaged under Wilsonian idealism.

 

Two. The Oil lobby would become more powerful than the Jewish lobby, Pope’s lobby and Armament lobby in determining the future policy of the White House and the Capitol. The WASP Oil God would determine the future Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, the Kings of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE, and select the future Prime Ministers and Presidents of Britain, Italy, Israel, Spain and many countries of the world. The God of Oil would rule the world in the 21st Century. Oil will determine politics, religion and economy of the world in 21st Century.

 

Three. America’s status as the super power solely depends on its continued control over Arabian Gulf oil and gas resources. The adversaries of United States would focus their attacks on the Achilles’ Heels of the United States exposed by the vulnerability of the Arabian Gulf oil and gas resources. United States would have lost its super power status had it allowed United Nations to lift sanctions imposed on Iraq, because French and Russian companies had signed lucrative oil contracts with Saddam Hussein, which would have become effective the day UNO lifted sanctions.

 

Four. President Bush realized that America is a superpower so long as United States controlled the global oil trade and the American dollar is the official currency of the global oil trade. The Third World War would be for Arabian Gulf Oil, where adversaries would try to control the oil or undermine adversary’s control over Arabian oil. Any one who controls the Oil and gas reserves of the Arabian Gulf controls the destiny of the world. The future World Wars shall be wars for oil.

 

(8) Decline of Russia

Russia under President Putin emerged as potentially rich oil power. Russia and France would cease to be great powers if they accepted America as the occupying powers over Iraq and ended the United Nations control over Iraqi Oil for Food programs. The failure of Russia to check American imperialism over Iraq would embolden the Americans and encourage United States to engineer the secession of Eastern Siberia from Russia with some help from China. If Russia and France humbly bowed down to the Yankee President over occupation of Iraq then India would have no option but to join American Camp.

 

India provided 3,500,000 troops during WW II And 1,500,000 troops during WW I, for the Allied Forces and India could do so again to create Pax Americana and American oil colonialism, in exchange for the co-Occupying power status that President Bush offered to Poland over a sector in Iraq. Had President Bush offered the Co-Occupying Power role in the post-occupation Iraq to Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, it is very likely that India might have supported American invasions of Iraq. No Muslim nation ever thanked India for standing for the Muslim Iraq, and Muslim Malaysia and Muslim Indonesia arrested Indian IT professionals for India’s support to Iraq during Non Aligned Nation’s conference in Malaysia. If Russia and France failed to stop American occupation of Iraq, then India should support American imperialistic moves in the oil-producing world and Islamic world. India should declare that any war between the Christian world and the Islamic world is good for the Hindu world, so long as India became the co-occupying power after the war.  

 

(9) India’s Options in Post Iraq Order

India should accept the ground reality that Colonial Empires would stage a come back in the first decade of the 21st Century and White Europeans, Russia, Germany, France, South Korea and Japan would be forced to compromise with American Oil Colonialism. The new age of Colonialism dawned on the world in 2003 and it would gain legitimate legal status, when United Nations agreed for transferring control of Iraqi oil to American occupation troops. America made the first move in May ’03 to legitimize the new world order where Colonial Empires would become the principal units of the international system, making the 21st Century similar to the pre-Second World War age. In proposing a UN Security Council resolution on sanctions, the United States and Britain for the first time refer to themselves as "occupying powers" rather than "liberating forces" in Iraq. The "occupier" under the 1949 Geneva Conventions on humanitarian law has specific powers and obligations. Now the American hype of “Operation Iraq Liberation” the typical Wilsonian diplomacy of deception stand exposed as the naked policy of imperialist aggression for establishing American oil colony in Iraq, the country with world’s second-largest oil reserves. India should support American Oil Colonialism in exchange for Occupying Power Status that United States granted TO Poland for supply 200 non-combatants in Iraq War. India should accept the reality of Oil imperialism in the 21st Century and must not try to protect the sovereignty of the oil-producing Islamic nations. India should declare preemptive loyalty to future American imperialistic policies provided India granted suitable status as co-Occupying Power in the American oil colonies. India should covet the role President Bush granted to Britain and Poland in two separate sectors in Iraq. India should learn to worship, honor and support the WASP Oil god and WASP Oil Colonialism.

 

(10) Tri-Polar World

One. India must support Pax-Americana and develop closer USA-India strategic ties to increase its option in USA-China-India Triangular Balance of Power. The World became Tripolar world, with United States, India, and China as world’s top three world powers, when Russia and France failed to Veto the UN Security Council that endorsed United States and Britain as Occupying Powers in Iraq, that made Iraq the legal colony of the United States. The recognition of United States and Britain as the legitimate Occupation Forces under the UN Security Council resolution would simultaneously derecognize Russia as the 2nd leading world power and reduce its status to 4th largest power, behind India and China. The top three world powers are: United States, China and India. 

 

Two. The population of Russia would decline by 600,000 every year and Russia destined to become the ageing nation and Russia would be happy if it could continue to hold on to Eastern Siberia, the continental size landmass with only 7 million population. India should accept the permanent decline of Russia as world power and the fact that due to the continued population decline, Russia’s international role would further decline in years to come.

 

Three. India is a greater world power than Russia in 2003. Russian Orthodox Church does not recognize Hinduism as a legitimate religion. Russia would find its destiny with Catholic European powers, namely France and Germany. Since Russia does not allow Indian’s immigration to Russia, India should better cast its lot with United States, the rising imperial power, dreaming to rule the entire oil-producing world. India as the world’s 3rd Power must learn that India should lead Russia, Germany and France rather than allowing them to lead India, because India as third world power outranks Russia, Germany, France, Britain and Japan.

 

(11) India-Israel Defense Pact

Though Israel is neither a world-class economic power nor a world-class military power, India should sign a Defense Pact because Israel destined to play an important role in the emerging Petro-Colonial Empires of the Middle East. Hindu India should sign defense Pact with Protestant United States and Jewish Israel to create a common front of the democracies against Islamic terrorism. It is in the common interest of India and Israel to convince Republican Neo-conservatives that the geo-strategic situation in the Arabian Peninsula changed after the American conquest of Iraq, and America neither needed the continued support of the Saudi House of Al Saud nor the support of the Mecca’s Wahhabi clergy for establishing direct American control and rule over Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates.

 

American Caliphate should establish direct colonial rule over Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE and declare Christianity as the official religion of Arabian Peninsula. India's National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra proposed an alliance between the United States, India and Israel, among other democratic countries, to meet the threat of terrorism, in an address at the American Jewish Community Annual Dinner in Washington DC, on Thursday, May 8, ’03. The USA-India –Israel alliance would have the political will and moral authority to take bold decisions in extreme cases of terrorist provocation without being distracted by diversionary arguments like "root causes." Israel, Britain, Poland lack the manpower resources to provide administrators to rule over American oil colonies. There is no need to punish American soldiers to engage in the colonial administrators, when they can be more productive in the mainland United States.

 

The population of European nations, Catholic Europeans, Protestant Europeans and Orthodox Europeans would decline in the 21st Century and United States itself would lots of European immigration to sustain its economic miracle, so only India could provide the large number of administrators that United States required for administering the violence prone Islamic Middle East.

 

Britain gave up British Empire because after the secession of Ireland, it no longer had the manpower to control and administer the British Empire. Indian Empire from Delhi paid for the salaries of British officers and soldiers worldwide. Indian soldiers controlled the British Empire worldwide and India provided 3,500,000 soldiers during Second World War and 1,500,000 soldiers during the First War for the Allied Forces. United States would fail to maintain control over Pax Americana without Indian Army, if it wanted to avoid future American casualties.

 

(12) Reunification of Indian Empire

Nuclear India should offer to nuclear Pakistan a favorable offer to Join Indian Federation. The Reunification of Indian Subcontinent would restore India’s rightful place under the sun. The cat is out of bag, and every body came to know that British and American oil colonialism had partitioned India to engineer the secession of Muslim Pakistan and Buddhist Burma to keep Hindu India away from the oil fields of Iran and Burma respectively. British Empire hired Jinnah and Nehru to engineer the Partition of India and the Two-Nation theory was a false doctrine.

 

India should reject the Two-Nation theory as unacceptable and thereby India should reject the 1947 Partition of Indian Empire. India should demand that Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bangladesh and Burma are integral part of India. Germany got united because West Germany refused to accept the artificial creation of East Germany. Yemen got united because North Yemen refused to accept the legitimacy of South Yemen. Communist China refused to accept the legitimacy of Taiwan and world has consented to it. World would also accept India’s claims to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Burma if India declared its determination to unite the Indian Subcontinent peacefully. The brazen American invasion of oil-rich Iraq and the subsequent UN Security Council’s endorsement of the American occupation of Iraq as legitimate Occupying Powers heralded the new age of Colonial empires in 2003. India has valid justification for the occupation of Afghanistan and Burma to secure its energy supplies, crucial for its industrial economy.

 

(13) Intolerance & Crime’s Axis of Evil

India supports American invasion of Iraq. India supports American invasion of Iran that seeks nukes. India supports sanctions against North Korea. India shall break the growing nexus of Wahhabi Sunni Fundamentalism and Sunni Heroin Cartel. India shall oppose the growing nexus of the wealthy organized crime and powerful religious intolerance that threatens to descend on the World Civilization the New Global Dark Age in the 21st Century. India accepts the idea that Iraq, Iran and North Korea are the Axis of Evil, But want Saudi Arabia should join the list as Saudi Arabia is the Womb of Evil and Saudi Wahhabi intolerance creating global terrorist network of religious intolerance financed by Wahhabi Heroin cartel.

 

The micro-evil of organized crime joined forces with the macro-evil of intolerant religious cults to create a global nexus of Crime and Intolerance, which bestowed religious prestige to the criminals and terrorists. Hindu India should join forces with Judaic Israel and Protestant United States to destroy Islamic Heroin cartel and Wahhabi terrorist networks to neutralize the Wahhabi threats to the civilized liberal Islamic sects.

 

The Saudi Hanbali clerics known as Wahhabi presents greatest danger to the Islamic Civilization. Hanafi and Shafei Sunnis are probably majority in Red Sea provinces of Saudi Arabia. The 3 million Shiites account for 15 percent of Saudi population of 20 million. India should oppose the Wahhabi Hanbali Sunni school of Islam and promote Deobandi Sunni school of Islam headquartered in Deoband Shaharanpur UP India. India should support the secession of Shiite-majority provinces of Saudi Arabia bordering Arabian Gulf to eliminate the Saudi support to Kashmir militants.

 

(14) Peacekeeping Process Outsourcing (PPO)

India should send Peacekeepers to Iraq and become the world leaders in the global business of “Foreign Peacekeeping Operations” (FPO) expected to become the multi-billion dollar industry in the new age of Colonial Empires. India emerged as world leaders in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) for back office operations, technical help desk support and Call Centers. American companies make huge cost savings by outsourcing BPO, Call Center and Back office support services in India. India should also emerge as the world leaders in Peacekeeping Process Outsourcing (PPO) in the new Colonial World Order. It would require more manpower to control and occupy Iraq and to maintain administrative, Judicial and economic administration in post occupation Iraq, than was required for the conquest of Iraq. India’s experience in managing one billion plus population in a democratic society would make India the world leader in Peacekeeping Process Outsourcing (PPO). Pentagon could save billions of dollars if it outsourced to India its entire Peacekeeping Process Outsourcing to India. Indians have the expertise in running colonial administration. India could recruit a regular civil service for foreign peacekeeping operations. Foreign Peacekeeping Operations would take sizeable chunk of the Pentagon’s Budget in first decade of the 21st Century and India should become a dominant player in the business of Foreign Peacekeeping Operations (FPO) and the FPO contracts would generate large number of jobs for India.

 

(15) India USA Defense Treaty

India-USA defense pact shall help United States establish profitable oil colonial empire, where entire colonial administration outsourced to India for a flat fee payable in oil as percentage of the total output of the American oil colonies. Indian Empire had its time of glory as a part of Pax Britannia and it would again have its time of glory as a bastion of Pax Americana. India should develop closer military ties with Pentagon to support Pax Americana, Pentagon’s military networks in Africa, Middle East, and Southeast Asia in a manner that while India accepted America’s pre-eminence in the International System, United States should also recognize India’s legitimate needs for sphere of influence in Middle East and Africa. Short of declaring a formal alliance, the India and United States signaled in June ’03 their intent to work together in a global and regional architecture that accepts American pre-eminence but recognizes India’s own sphere of influence and independent line of action without jeopardizing the interests of either country. President Bush expressed his strong desire to continue the process of transforming Indo-US relations, and reaffirmed the US stake in building relations with India in a strategic context. India and United States should formalize a treaty that outlines the strategic context of the bilateral relationship and work together in Asia, Africa and the Middle East that accepts America’s pre-eminence but also recognizes India’s own sphere of influence and independent line of action.

 

(16) India-China Detente

India China détente makes sense because two civilizations with billion plus population cannot afford to go to war across common borders. China is heading for democratic Buddhist revolution. India is likely to overtake China not in so distant a future. India and China compete for influence worldwide but not foolish to fight directly across the common borders. Sino-Indian Tortoise poised to overtake American Hare in the global clash of civilizations. The United States needs to pay attention and adjust to emerging shifts in Asian alliances, lest it play hare to the Sino-Indian tortoise, said Robert Radtke, “China and India: High stakes for US interests, International herald Tribune, June 23, ’03. Sino-Indian détente that began with prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s China’s visit might enable Sino-Indian tortoise overtake American hare. How does the United States fit in this changing landscape of Sino-Indian relations and Asia's future? Neither India nor China wants an Asia dominated by the United States. Both China and India see themselves as great powers fallen on bad times centuries ago, but well on their way back to reclaiming their rightful places as preeminent nations in the world in 21st Century. If China and India settle their differences and deepen economic and cultural cooperation and diplomatic engagement they can establish a multipolar world in first quarter of the 21st Century, in which U.S. power in Asia is moderated and held in check a stated goal of China and India, France and Russia.

 

(17) China-USA-India Triangular Balance

After India-China détente 2003 the created new triangular balance of power among, United States, China and India that would determine the Asian balance of power in the 21st Century and Japan would play less important diplomatic and political role than India as well as China. Nixon Administration Triangular Balance between USA, Japan and China determined the Asian balance of Power in 1970s, 80s and 90s. Since Secretary Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon's visit to China, a triangular relationship among the United States, Japan and China played an important role in the maintenance of peace and stability in Asia. Perhaps the Vajpayee visit to Beijing foreshadows a new kind of triangular stability with China, the United States and India at the three corners. Given economic and military might of the United States 2003, the challenge India-China may present in future is too long-term to be taken seriously by the White House during Bush Administration, which believes that preeminence of the United States has come to stay for ever and they believe only in short-term diplomatic fixes. But China and India think in terms of generations, not quarterly results. The United States needs to pay attention and adjust to emerging shifts in Asian alliances, lest US play hare to the Sino-Indian tortoise and allow India and China to overtake United States as economic and military powers.

 

(18) Harold Wilson Gave Up Colonies in 1971

The Anglo-Saxon American-British joint invasion of Iraq represented the Irish-English attempt to recreate British Empire, that fell apart due to the secession of Catholic Ireland from United Kingdom in 1919. In 1968, the United Kingdom led by Prime Minister Harold Wilson foolishly relinquished Britain’s Colonial security responsibilities "East of Suez," leaving the United States to pick up the oil loot. Skeptics argue that Labor Prime Minister Harold Wilson was a CIA Spy and he harmed the national interests of Britain by giving freedom to UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei even when there was no demand for independence. Only a traitor would do what Harold Wilson did when he unilaterally abandoned all British colonial possessions east of Suez to please his masters in the White House. Only in 1968, the British Labour Prime Minister bribed by some foreign interests gave independence to the oil-rich United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Brunei and Malaysia. America destroyed British oil interests in Iran and Iraq by refusing to support French British invasion of Suez Canal. President Harry Truman wanted British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to pay back British war debts to United States by handing over half of the British Empire to the United States, which Churchill flatly refused. President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair attempting to lick back in 2003 what Britain was forced to spit out due to American machinations in 1956 in Iraq and Iran and 1970 in Arabian Gulf and Brunei. India is better suited to play Gun Boat Diplomacy in the Arabian Gulf region due to its geopolitical location. India-Iran-Pakistan Alliance has the geopolitical potential to replace American domination over Arabian Gulf oil and Caspian oil. Since China as well as India is dependent on foreign oil imports, it bodes well for India-China détente, if it could result in India-China joint oil colonies in the Gulf and Central Asia. Britain partitioned India even when Muslims didn’t want the partition, because Britain feared united India’s threat to British monopoly over Iran oil and sizeable control over Iraqi oil.

 

(19) Persian Gulf was an Indian Lake now an American Lake?

India and United States are geopolitical rivals in the Arabian Gulf. Hindu Aryan India should enter into Defense Pact with Aryan Shiite Iran to establish direct Indian military bases in Iran and should prepare to ward off American military invasions of Iran. India must never consent for the American invasion of Iran. India inherited the patrimony of the Indian Empire in 1947 that enjoyed hegemony in the Persian Gulf region and exercised Gun Boat Diplomacy in Persian Gulf to establish India’s colonial influence over Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Yemen, Trucial States (UAE), and Oman. India should seek military understanding with China and undertake joint military operations in Iran to establish military and Naval bases in Iranian coast to protect Iran in the event United States invaded Aryan Iran under one pretext or another. China and India the world’s 2nd and 4th largest economies must take the final stand on Iran to secure oil and gas supplies from the Persian Gulf for their energy dependent economies. India should aim to transform Arabian Gulf into Indian lake as it had been during 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th Century.

 

Indian Empire had been the principal foreign power responsible for ensuring the security of the Persian Gulf from 1857 to 1947. India was the paramount power in Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Qatar and Yemen as late as 1947 and these countries kept their foreign exchange in Indian Rupee. Britain replaced Indian Empire in 1947 as the principal foreign power responsible for ensuring the security of Arabian Gulf. As late as 1965 there were three foreign currency zones in the world, namely, British Pound Sterling Zone, US Dollar Zone and Indian Rupee Zone. India had inherited legacy of Indian Empire in 1947 as Indian Empire dominated the Persian Gulf up to 1947, and India should have demanded its share of colonial influence in the Persian Gulf Region when Britain decided to relinquish its colonial security responsibilities “East of Suez” in 1968. It appears that the CIA agents and British agents in Indian Civil Service (ICS) and Indian Foreign Service (IFS) in Sept. 1962 decided to invade Chinese troops, so that unprepared India might lose the war against China and thereby relinquish its Great Power pretensions. India had claimed Goa as part of India. India had similar valid claims against Yemen, Oman, Trucial States and Kuwait. India should have asserted its right to take over British colonial territories in the Persian Gulf after 1968. This is the argument the author makes in this Chapter.

 

35(2) India is a Super Power

(1) India asserts its leadership of Asia

INDIA IS A COUNTRY ON THE MOVE: People simply loved the speech Vajpayee gave in Bali, and it could rank as some of the best speeches ever given by a head of government, courting foreign businessmen. It was very precise and original. The speechwriter should get good financial prize. It could also be the most original speech by poet Prime Minister. Vajpayee invited Asia to come and discover New India. Unspooling a sales spiel that would do any advertising guru proud, Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee today called upon Asian businessmen to discover India. Not the India of yore known for its spiritual traditions but ‘India of the 21st century’, a country on the move.

 

INDIA’S FIVE REVOLUTIONS: Addressing the ASEAN Business and Investment Summit at the Grand Ballroom at the Bali Hilton on October 7, 2003, Vajpayee pitched India as a vibrant economy, poised for take-off and reiterated the theme song of the visit prospects of an Asian century and the exciting potential of an Indo-ASEAN partnership. Vajpayee underlined India’s six major strengths, its five simultaneously occurring revolutions and the five main areas with the maximum promise of growth. Among the five revolutions, first, was the IT revolution, which in turn had unleashed a second socio-economic revolution. It has empowered hundreds of millions of our citizens.

 

The third revolution was demographic, with 54 pc of the population below 25 years of age. But it were last two revolutions, the fourth a revolution of expectations and fifth a psychological revolution that, were truly path breaking. Extolling India’s new consumerist class, India now has a powerful new force of young people, full of optimism and ambitions, fired by boundless energy, who are seeking opportunities for wealth, success and prosperity. This has resulted in a psychological revolution and this can-do attitude had translated into six strengths.

 

INDIA’S SIX STRENGTHS: India’s first strength is a strong economy driven primarily by indigenous skills and domestic enterprise; second, a growing and accessible domestic market with import and investment barriers falling away; third, a rich pool of human resources, fourth, English speaking, with R&D skills, technological training and managerial capabilities; fifth, state-of-the-art technologies including indigenously built supercomputers and satellites; global leadership in technologies of the Knowledge Economy; and sixthly, a sound and transparent financial system, with well-managed banking and insurance sectors, and vibrant capital markets. But when it comes to the nitty-gritty, what does India have to offer?

 

INDIA’S FIVE BUSINESS EXPERTISE: The PM stressed five areas of fruitful collaboration with ASEAN business: India’s IT-enabled services, financial services industry, pharmaceutical industry, the entertainment business, and infrastructure development.

 

(2) Vajpayees Wizadry in Bali

Poet-Prime Minister Vajpayee emerged as the Wizard of Bali and show cased India as never before. The poet in Vajpayee shone in full splendor in Bali and his speech would make the world’s top advertising companies proud. Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee at the Asean Business and Investment Summit in Bali, in October 2003 was overjoyed to be among eminent business representatives from Asean (Association of South East Asian Nations), East Asia and India. One must congratulate the organizers of this first Asean Business and Investment Summit. Events like these provide valuable opportunities for interaction among business and industry of Asian countries and for exchange of perspectives between governments and industry.

 

21ST CENTURY IS POST-INDUSTRIAL AGE: First, while the 20th century economy was driven by capital accumulation, manufacturing technologies and labor power, the 21st century is defined by knowledge and human capital. The 20th Century was the Industrial Age. The 21st Century is the post-industrial age and service sector’s contribution in the advanced economies exceeded the agricultural, industrial and manufacturing sectors. In 1999, the Services sector contributed $6.3 trillion towards 72% of US GNP ($8.7 trillion), the agricultural sector contributes $174 billion or 2% to GNP, Industry sector contributes $2.26 trillion 26% of GNP and manufacturing sector contributes $1.57 trillion or 18% of US GNP. Towards India’s GNP Agricultural sector contributed 28%, Industry sector 25%, Manufacturing 16% and Services sector 46%. India is likely to be the leader of the Post-Industrial Information Age.

 

21ST CENTURY OF ASIA’S PREEMINENCE: Second, there is an emerging perception that this will be the Century of Asia's pre-eminence. The brainpower of Asian scientists and engineers, the dynamism of our businessmen and industrialists, our intellectual and human resource capital - all these support this perception. The 21st Century is the Century of Asia. India, China and Japan shall lead the world in the 21st Century of Asia. The Combined GNP ($9.3 trillion) of China ($4.11 trillion), Japan ($3.04 trillion) and India $2.14 trillion) is greater than the combined GNP ($9.076 trillion) of USA ($8.35 trillion) and Canada ($726 billion). The combined GNP of India, China and Japan ($9.3 trillion) is greater than the combined GNP of 15 European Union countries ($8 trillion) plus Russia ($929 billion), which totals $8.9 trillion for 15 countries. Asian Common Market comprising 10-country Asean market and India, China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan dwarfs European Union and NAFTA. The New Millennium ushered in the 21st Century of Asia. The 18th and 19th century was the Century of Europe, and 20th Century was the Century of America, the 21st Century is the Asian Century and India and China shall lead the world in the 21st Century.

 

DEMOGRAPHY FAVORS INDIA: Third, the growing economic weight of Asia is strengthened by favorable demographic trends, and is no longer constrained by Cold War divisions. India, Asean and the countries of East Asia are a part of this trend. Asean is already in an advanced stage of economic integration. With each of China, Japan and (South) Korea also, Asean has a well-developed and diverse economic relationship. India has lagged behind, for a variety of political and economic reasons, which are now history. However, this situation is changing rapidly, and it is the exciting potential of the future India-Asean partnership that Prime Minister Vajpayee proposed to Asean leaders. In the post-Cold War Age and the post-Iraq War realignment of world’s forces India and China would join forces with Asean and usher in the Asian Common Market. India would no longer lag behind China, Japan and South Korea in near future. Political leadership of India has decided to open up India. India seeks well-developed diverse economic relationships with rest of the world including Asean.

 

Fourth, over the last 12 years, from 1990 onwards the Indian economy has maintained an average annual growth of over six percent, which is better than that of most other countries. Indian interest rates are falling, inflation has been kept down, and foreign exchange reserves are growing rapidly. India remained unaffected by the Asian financial crisis a few years ago. India has targeted an eight percent growth over the next five years. As our economic base is large, there is considerable untapped potential for India's continued - and even accelerated - economic growth. The Asian meltdown of the 1998 didn’t affect India.

 

(3) Perceptions of India as Global Power

Perceptions shape decisions. Often they are flawed. Sometimes, they are incomplete. The rich cultural diversity and spiritual traditions of India are well known, but they constitute only one aspect of India. There is another India, the India of the 21st century, which is still not so well known, with its many strengths. Judge India in terms of its present strengths. Modern democratic India of 21st century has unprecedented strengths and look India in the light of this new reality.

 

One, India has an inherently strong economy driven primarily by indigenous skills and domestic enterprise. Indian economy is no dependent on exports and it has vast untapped market. India has vast domestic market, which allows the economies of scale.

 

Two, India has a growing and accessible domestic market, with import and investment barriers falling away. To take just one random example of the growth of the market, in the last few months, it has been absorbing about two million mobile phones a month. Import duties are moving towards Asean levels, and sectoral caps on foreign investments are rising. India no longer needs to protect its competitive industries from foreign competition, especially from Asean countries.

 

Three, India has a rich pool of human resources - English speaking, with R&D (research and development) skills, technological training and managerial capabilities. India has the third largest reservoir of technically qualified people in the world, after United States and Russia. India has the capability to take on United States in knowledge-based industry.

 

Four, India has some special capabilities in state-of-the-art technologies. India is one of only three countries - the others are the U.S. and Japan - to have indigenously designed and manufactured supercomputers. India is one of only six countries, which can build and launch its own satellites. India is a space power. India has developed nuclear technology both for warfare purposes and for peaceful purposes. Prime Minister Vajpayee ushered India into the ranks of the super powers by developing credible nuclear deterrent.

 

Five, India enjoys global leadership in technologies of the Knowledge Economy. India's pre-eminent position in IT and IT-enabled services had led global companies to set up captives in India or to outsource their operations to quality Indian service providers.

 

Six, India has a sound and transparent financial system, with well-managed banking and insurance sectors, and vibrant capital markets. India’s paperless, computer-driven National Stock Exchange is the third largest in the world, in terms of number of annual transactions.

 

(4) India’s Four Revolutions

The four revolutions, namely, the IT Revolution, Demographic Revolution, Revolution of Expectations and the Psychological Revolution would catapult India, the world’s fourth largest economy into the top super power status in not so distant future. It is this India that seeks to partner Asean in this era of globalization. India's trade and economic interaction with the Asean countries has been steadily growing, but not fast enough. A year ago in 2002 the First India-Asean Business Summit, Prime Minister Vajpayee had said that the India-Asean trade of less than $10 billion does not do justice to India and Asean combined population of one and a half billion people, producing a trillion and a half dollars worth of goods and services annually. India’s trade has since grown by about 25 percent, but my comment remains valid.

 

India’s IT Revolution

Under prime minister of Vajpayee’s government billion-strong India experienced four revolutions simultaneously, namely, the IT Revolution, Demographic Revolution, Revolution of Expectations, and Psychological Revolution. India is today a country on the move. India is experiencing many revolutions simultaneously. First, there is, of course, the IT Revolution. This in turn has unleashed a socio-cultural revolution, which has empowered hundreds of millions of our citizens, strengthening our democracy and stimulating our creativity. India is an educational super power and in the post-industrial Information age the knowledge, the information technology generates real economic goods in the society.

 

India’s Demographic Revolution

Second, India is experiencing a Demographic Revolution, where the numbers of young people are increasing. Already, 54 percent of our population is below 25 years of age. India has the vast reservoir of young, educated qualified people.

 

India’s Revolution of Expectations

Third, this has created a Revolution of Expectations, where a powerful new force of young people, full of optimism and ambition, fired by boundless energy, is actively seeking opportunities for wealth, success and prosperity. Prime Minister Vajpayee’s government has unleashed the Revolution of Expectations and no government would be able to throttle the growing revolution of expectations.

 

India’s Psychological Revolution

Fourth, the combined effect of these has been a Psychological Revolution, in which a defensive, introverted approach has given way to an outward-looking, self-confident attitude, willing to accept challenges and take risks, rejecting fear and shunning fatalism. Indians got psychological independence only during Vajpayee’s government.

 

India has recognized this fact in the India-Asean Framework Agreement for Comprehensive Economic Cooperation, which we have been negotiating over the past year. India is working on eliminating trade and investment barriers to facilitate business. At the same time, India is conscious of the concerns of the new Asean members. India offered unilateral tariff concessions on items of export interest to the CLMV (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam) countries. India is also seeking to incorporate an Early Harvest scheme to provide the incentive for long-term engagement. If we proceed along this course, we can target a trade turnover of $30 billion by 2007 and a Free Trade Area within 10 years. India should focus on helping Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, as these countries had been part of Indian civilizations from time immemorial.

 

India’s economic leadership would be led by its competitiveness in four industries, namely IT Services industry, Financial Services industry, Pharmaceutical industry, and Entertainment industry. A study, commissioned by India’s apex commences and industry organizations, has highlighted five main areas with maximum promise for growth. India is a big customer for infrastructure development companies as it seeks to undertake large transportation and tourism projects.

 

India’s IT Services Industry

First, India IT enabled services create multiple opportunities for collaboration in embedded software or joint development of industry specific solutions. Asean countries can outsource their operations to quality Indian service providers at competitive prices. Today, Southeast Asian countries import most of their IT products from the West. The irony is that most of these products are actually created by Indian sub-contractors. The result is a double disadvantage; you pay much more, and India gets much less. The IT-enabled services would provide the bedrock for India-Asean economic joint ventures. India would export IT services and buy consumer goods from Asean countries.

 

India’s Financial Services Industry

Second, the Indian financial services industry is growing rapidly, driven by deregulation of insurance and investment in the banking sector by private companies and foreign banks. Asean investors will find attractive opportunities in personal financial services, insurance and corporate banking. India is poised to emerge as an additional global hub for financial transactions. India would become the leader of the back-office in financial services. Indians would become leaders as brokers and financial service providers in the financial services industry worldwide.

 

India’s Pharmaceutical Industry

Third, the Indian pharmaceutical industry has achieved global recognition. The strength of this industry is low cost, high quality generics. Branded and patented medicines are beginning to emerge as an important segment of the industry. Asean can source its imports of low cost generics from India, or shift manufacturing base to India. India has excelled in the pharmaceutical industry as Indians are good in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals.

 

India’s Entertainment Industry

Fourth, Indian entertainment business has benefited from deregulation and export opportunities. Joint ventures for TV content production and animation software exports present attractive opportunities for India and Asean. Bombay rivals Hollywood in filmmaking infrastructure. India would emerge as the cultural super power by virtue of its expertise in film industry. Neither China nor Japan can rival India in film industry.

 

Fifth, India has placed special emphasis on infrastructure development to stimulate rapid economic growth. This includes de-regulation of all segments of our telecom industry and up gradation of highways, bridges, ports, airports and convention centers. Many Asean companies are already present in these and other sectors. There are many other opportunities in India for Asian business. India’s transportation infrastructure is outdated and it provides great market opportunities for Asian companies.

 

Sixth, for free trade and open economic interaction, India and Asean must review, improve and harmonize its travel-related regulations and restrictions, including visa regimes. India has to upgrade our air, sea and rail links in capacity and quality, to meet new demands. To improve the profitability of business activities and tourist ventures, India and Asean should develop cross-regional links of tourist centers to enhance the synergy of Asian destinations. Tourism is a great growth area and as India is the mother culture of Hindu as well as Buddhist civilizations, there is great potential for cultural tourism.

 

Seventh, India’s investment regime is highly competitive. To say a brief world about India's investment regime, it is liberal and transparent, as befits a democracy like India’s. India may occasionally have some problems, because of the difficulties in reconciling competing interests and concerns. This is normal in an open, democratic set-up. India is constantly trying to refine our regulations and procedures. All the same, if one analyzes the experience of our foreign investors, returns on investments in India are generally higher. Regulation of profits is also much easier than in many other countries. Investors have to understand that India's continental size and diversity are unique. Marketing or investment strategies that may have worked well elsewhere may need to be tailored differently for India. Those who understand this do well. Companies that have taken the trouble of finding the right keys to unlock the doors of the Indian consumer's mind have done well for themselves. People tell that successful investors often paint a deliberately pessimistic picture to discourage competitors from entering the lucrative market!

 

Seventh, India should develop closer bilateral ties with regional economic groupings because of the failure of the September 2003 Cancun WTO Conference. In spite of the stalemate at the Cancun Ministerial Conference, a rule-based and fair multi-lateral trading system should remain India’s goal. But while India search for this ideal, regional trading arrangements offer immediate advantages, particularly for geographically contiguous regions. They can provide our domestic industry and agriculture with a valuable learning period, before being exposed to the far greater competition of global free trade. Non-Asians view Asia as the principal market of the future. But it will also emerge as a manufacturing hub and a global provider of services.

 

Eight, while white Catholics and Protestants in Western Europe and white Orthodox Christians in Russia and Eastern Europe face ageing populations, decline in birth rate and decline in population, the population of Asia growing in healthy rate. Demography guarantees the leadership role for India, China and rest of Asia. In the next 50 years, as the population of the developed world ages, a younger and better-educated will drive the future growth of the global economy. Asian countries should work towards strengthening their mutual synergies, so that they are strategically placed to derive maximum benefit from the emerging opportunities. The India-Asean partnership should energize this process to move us closer to India’s shared goal of making this truly the Asian century.

 

(5) Forecast of Intel’s Andrew S. Grove

India is poised to surpass United States in Software and tech-service jobs by 2010. India would emerge as top IT super power in 2010. By outsourcing software development to India, the US software companies can develop customized software at one-sixth of the cost of the US costs. United states would lose the software and services businesses to India, just as it lost the Steel and Semiconductor business to the Asia’s tigers. The employment in high-tech is not improving in USA, even when the US economy is improving. The 10 per cent of jobs at US information technology vendors will move offshore by 2004. Throughout all US companies, there will be a loss of roughly 3.3 million jobs by 2015 due to offshore moves. The cost of achieving high-speed communication plummeted. As a result, the engineer sitting 6,000 miles away might as well be in the next cubicle.

 

Observing that India and China are "key threats" to continued US dominance in important high technology sectors, Intel Chairman Andrew S Grove has said India could surpass America in software and tech-service jobs by 2010. Would India and China emerge as top IT superpowers? India's booming software industry, which is increasingly doing work for US companies, could surpass America in software and tech-service jobs by 2010, Grove, one of the founding fathers of America's hi-tech industry and co-founder of Intel, told a global technology summit in Washington via satellite in October 2003.

 

America's software and service industries, strong drivers of US economic growth for nearly two decades, show signs of emulating the struggles of the US steel and semiconductor industries. United States' software and service businesses are under siege by countries like India and China taking advantage of cheap labor costs and strong incentives for new financial investment. While the US economy as a whole is improving, its high-tech employment is not improving.

 

More than half a million technology-jobs were lost from mid-2001 to mid-2003. Many of these losses were due to a contraction of the tech sector after the dot.com bubble (in the telecommunications sector) burst in 2000. US tech industry itself is responsible for numerous jobs leaving the country, as firms take advantage of considerably cheaper labor costs in India and elsewhere. Intel is "torn between" his responsibility to his shareholders to cut costs and improve profits and to US workers who helped build the nation's technology industry, but who are now being replaced by cheaper labor. Intel asked the US Government to help decide the proper balance between the two. The technology conference was provided recent estimates from financial consulting firms painting a stark picture of "offshoring," which allows companies to get software development and other services from countries like India at one-sixth the US cost.

 

The Gartber Group, a market research firm estimates that 10 per cent of jobs at US information technology vendors will move offshore by next year. Another research firm, Forrester Research, estimates that throughout all US companies, there will be a loss of roughly 3.3 million jobs by 2015 due to offshore moves. The move offshore has been aided by the busting of the telecommunications bubble of the late 1990s. So much infrastructure for high-speed Internet connections was laid, much of it never used, that the cost of achieving high-speed communication plummeted. As a result, the engineer sitting 6,000 miles away might as well be in the next cubicle. US policymakers for "all but ignored the problem.

 

(6) India's IT Industry arrived World Stage.

You know that well by now. Now, here's a stunner of a revelation. The world's biggest IT firm, the $81.5-billion IBM, has identified Bangalore-based Wipro Technologies as one of its biggest global competitors in a space where it matters the most and where it sees the highest revenue maximization potential. What's more, IBM has identified Wipro as the only non-American challenger in its planned long march to superstardom as a total solutions power house following its acquisition of consultancy major PwC Consulting last year. Wipro's listing comes alongside global service sector giants Accenture, GE and UPS. Wipro figures in IBM's corporate war map a notch above several of the world's best-known IT nameplates. IBM has divided its areas of expertise in a three-tier corporate blueprint comprising component value, infrastructure value and business value propositions. In each of those spaces it's also identified competitors against whom it wants to provide 'best-of-breed' offerings to customers. At the bottom of the ladder, in the hardware space, IBM has identified Intel and Dell as competition. It calls this "component value" proposition. Next, is the software space where it has identified Microsoft, Sun, HP, Oracle and EMC as competition. IBM calls this the "infrastructure value" proposition. The surprise is reserved at the top of the ladder in the services sector where along with GE, UPS and Accenture, IBM has also identified Wipro as competition in the "business value" proposition.

 

35(3) Neo-Con’s Secular Oil God

(1) Petro-Colonialism averts Apocalypse

India supports secular American oil colonialism in the Middle East, so long as it does not have any hidden Christian Apocalyptic Armageddon agenda. India supports secular Neo-Conservative American Petro-Colonialism in the Middle East, as Petro-Colonialism can avert the specter of Christian-Islamic Wars of Armageddon and Apocalypse. Secular Oil god foils Apocalypse of Catholic Christian eschatology.

 

(2) Oil is Achilles Heel of USA

Without the help of India the West would not be able to control over the Middle Eastern and Caspian oil and gas resources. Oil is the Achilles heel of the United States and president Bush would attempt to create American Oil colonies throughout oil-producing world. America could possibly rule the world if it could control the oil and gas resources of Arabian Gulf, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. India has two choices, either India should join forces with American Oil colonialism to create Oil Pax Americana or India should join forces with China, Russia, France and Germany to create rival oil colonial empire. Oil producers have only two choices either oil producers should become American oil colonies or become colonies of the rival colonial empire. Oil is the god for Bush-Cheney Administration. Diplomats would define their national interests in terms of control over oil and gas resources of the world.

 

(3) New Age of Oil Colonialism

President Bush created history and started a new age of Oil Colonialism in the 21st Century. The genie of Colonialism cannot be put back into the bottle. The UN Security Council with 14-0 votes voted to recognize United States and Britain as the de jure Occupying Powers in Iraq for a renewable period of one year, and gave the control over Iraqi oil to United States, on May 22, 2003. It meant that United Nations legitimized Colonialism, and rolled back the De-Colonization process and recognized the First Colonial Government of the 21st Century. The Neo Colonial World Order began on May 22, ’03 and colonial empires became legitimate from then onwards. A New god of Oil raised its head in 2003 and the imperial god of Oil Lobby became overnight stronger than all the other Lobbyists, Pressure and Interest groups, political parties and heads of the organized religious Churches.

 

After United States got the consent of the United Nations Security Council to rule Iraq as legitimate Occupying Power, the God of Oil had its first Kingdom and rest of the world came forward to pay honors to the god of Oil. It is said that Halliburton & Co helped Bush win the Elections 2000 and established Bush Oil Administration in the White House in 2001, and encouraged the Bush Administration to wage war on Afghanistan and Iraq to promote America’s Oil interests. American Jewish lobby supported President Bush’s war on Iraq as a prelude to war on Syria to protect the State of Israel from continued terrorist attacks financed by Syria and Iraq. American oil interests hobnobbed with Vatican to profit by the Vatican-Mecca Axis to support pro-Wahhabi forces in Nigeria, Uganda and Algeria to secure American oil interests. American Oil interests found it easy to live with Wahhabi Taliban in Afghanistan. However after the establishment of direct American colony over Iraq, the Protestant America would no longer play second fiddle to the Wahhabi Mecca and fundamentalist Vatican. WASP Oil Cabal would soon dwarf Zionist Cabal, Papal Cabal, Wahhabi Cabal, De Beers Cartel and OPEC Cartel, in terms of its influence on White House, the Capitol and the world diplomacy. The new secular capitalist god of oil is a jealous god and won’t tolerate split loyalties to the other lobbyists and interest groups and pressure groups. Diplomats and policy makers would redefine national interests in terms of oil interests and formulate foreign policy and diplomacy to enhance the national interests defined in terms of oil power. The WASP Oil Cabal would redefine national and religious interests of Protestant United States in terms of Oil Geopolitics and harness the oil power of the world to nominate the rulers of the leading powers of the world as well as the next Pope of the Vatican. It is high time that Big Oil like Halliburton takes over Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Iraq. In the event the President of Halliburton becomes the King of Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait or Iraq, then the Dow Jones Industrial Average Index would jump from 8,400 to 20,000.

 

(4) Diplomacy of Oil Power

The diplomacy of the 21st Century defined in terms of control over oil and gas reserves of the Middle Eastern and Caspian oil-producers. India, Russia, China, Japan, Germany and France should learn to live with this new center of power that redefined the world of Diplomacy in terms of oil power. The leaders of the anti-American Camp must formulate their military and economic policies to control alternative sources of oil and gas reserves and to militarily challenge the American control over oil and gas reserves of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and UAE. Oil is Achilles’ Heels of the United States. Any success in the denial of American control over oil and gas reserves of erstwhile American oil colonies would translate into national power, and catapult that nation into the ranks of great powers. Great Power status in the 21st Century would signify the ability to control the oil and gas resources and ability to deny rival powers the access to oil and gas resources of selected oil-producing nations.

 

(5) New god of Oil & Power of Oil Lobby

The 21st Century is a playground for the god of Oil and oil colonial empires. The year 2003 is the turning point in the history. The American invasions of Iraq heralded the new age of Oil Colonial Empires and Oil replaced Religion as the dominant force in world politics. The rise of secular WASP’s imperialist god of Oil would undermine the influence over world politics of fundamentalist Semite God Yahweh, Semite Saudi Wahhabi’s God Allah, and Vatican’s Judeo-Christian God. Oil Cabal would not only determine world affairs, but also appoint the rulers of the leading powers of the world. Oil Power would elect the Real Rulers of the world and its Hidden Hand would rule the world like the Universal Form of God Maha Vishnu, with many heads and many hands, but with two feet and one stomach. The imperialistic god of Oil represents the Leviathan and the General Will of the 21st Century and monotheistic, iconoclast organized religions would fail to match or challenge its power over the world politics and history. The Oil Lobby from now onwards would control and lead the Zionist lobby, OPEC lobby and Pope’s lobby and appoint and nominate the next Prime Minister of Israel, next King of Saudi Arabia and next Pope of the Vatican. Oil lobby rather than being the hand maid of the king-makers would control and guide the king-makers of the world and appoint its nominees as the kings, presidents, prime ministers of the leading powers of the world.

 

First, the God of Oil would determine the global clash of races and international politics more than the God of the Jews, God of Wahhabi Muslims and God of the Vatican in the 21st Century. New god of Oil has arisen in the world in 2003 that made the American Oil Cabal become more powerful lobby and influence over diplomacy than the Zionist Cabal, the Papal Cabal, and the Armament Cabal. America’s domination of the global oil industry gave rise to Global Oil Cabal that would determine, who the future rulers of Vatican, Riyadh, Tel Aviv, United States, Russia, Britain, France, and Germany would be. In the post-2003 new world order the oil interests would determine the diplomacy, as diplomats of nations would promote national interests defined in terms of oil power. The New god of oil is a very jealous god and enjoys greater influence over international diplomacy, than the god Yahweh of Jewish lobby, god of Wahhabi Muslim OPEC, god of Catholic Vatican, and the god of Armament lobby. The Oil Cabal would determine the future of Judaism and Israel, Wahhabi Islam and Saudi Arabia, Papacy and the Vatican. The secular capitalist interests of the global oil, would dwarf the interest and influence of Zionist Israeli lobby, Wahhabi Saudi fundamentalism, Catholic Vatican lobby, OPEC Oil Cartel, De Beers Diamond Cartel, and military industrial complex.

 

Second, America’s invasion of Iraq and Iraq’s dismal military performance is a turning point in history and would decisively influence the future of Islamic oil-producing nations. The birth of WASPs American oil colony in Iraq would undermine the America’s support of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican. The new understanding of oil interests after the establishment of oil colony over Iraq, undermined the historical ties of the United States with Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Jewish Israel, Catholic Vatican and Western Europe.

 

Third, the 2003 heralded the new age of oil Colonial Empires, just as the Second World War heralded the new age of De-Colonization. The oil not the world religions would determine the global clash of Civilization in the post-Iraq war new world order. As a firm believer in the religion of oil, the Protestant United States would formulate its foreign policy to promote its oil power, and it would severe its earlier ties with Judaism, Wahhabi Islam and Papal Catholicism and the Oil State would preside over Church. United States promoted Wahhabi Islam and House of Al Saudi monarchy in Saudi Arabia to secure its oil interests in Saudi Arabia.

 

Fourth, Britain and United States promoted Jewish State of Israel to secure the permanent aircraft carrier in the Ocean of Arab lands. Britain created Islamic State of Pakistan to severe India’s border links with oil-rich Iraq, as Indian Empire in 1945 controlled 100% of the Iran’s oil.

 

Fifth, after establishing oil colony over Iraq, the Al Saud monarchy of Saudi Arabia and Jewish State of Israel no longer serve the national interests of the United States. The Jewish interests of Israel, the Wahhabi interests of Saudi Arabia and the Catholic interests of Papacy, directly conflict with the interests of American oil colony over Iraq. Because of the influence of secular capitalist god of oil, the Protestant WASP Diplomats would no longer need the religious ties with Israeli Judaism, Wahhabi Islam and Vatican Catholic Church for promoting the oil interests of the United States. New American Oil Colonialism undermined the WASP Protestants’ ties with fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam as well as fundamentalist Papal Catholicism.

 

Sixth, as fellow believers of Religion of Oil, the Protestant United States, Hindu India and Buddhist Japan and China, would join forces to undermine the Mecca-Vatican-Jerusalem Axis of Iconoclast, Monotheist Fundamentalism.

 

Seventh, the conflicting oil interests would widen the growing animosities between maritime Anglo Saxon America and continental Europe’s France and Germany. The converging oil interests would make Germany, France, Belgium and Russia close allies, and they shall develop continental Eurasian bloc to hold maritime American oil imperialism in check.

 

Eight, American oil colonialism would undermine the diamond and gold interests of the De Beers Cartel in Angola, Liberia and Ivory Coast to protect the oil interests in Angola and Guinea. The role of Mecca and the Vatican in world politics would decline in the new age of Oil Colonial Empires.

 

Ninth, the role of the Islamic world and the Catholic world would decline in the new Oil Age. The role of the Protestant world, Hindu world and the Buddhist world would increase in the new Oil Age. Protestants, Hindus and the Buddhists would be on the same side of the battle lines in the Clash of Civilization in the new Oil Age.

 

Tenth, the capitalist secular imperialist god of Oil would undermine the theocracies, terrorism and fundamentalism. The secular god of oil would liberate women from bondage and subordination to men in Islam and Roman Catholicism in the new age of Oil Colonial Empires. After securing military control over oil-rich Iraq, United States no longer needed to camouflage its oil imperialistic policies, under the cover of support to fundamentalist Semite Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Semite Israel, and Judeo-Christian Vatican.

 

Eleventh, the Israeli Jews influenced the Republican Neo-Conservatives to invade Iraq, even against world opinion, because the Palestine suicide bombers financed by Syria and Iraq had threatened the very existence of the Jewish State of Israel. However, after the Protestant America’s victory in the Iraq war and the establishment of permanent Protestant American Oil Colony, Semite Israel, Semite Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and Bolshevik Judeo-Christian Vatican lost its geopolitical importance for Protestant Oil Empire.

 

Twelfth, Judaic Israel, Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and Catholic Vatican lost their geopolitical importance for WASP American policy makers after the 2003 Gulf War II. The secular imperialistic oil interests of the Protestant United States radically conflicts with the religious interests of Israeli Judaism, Saudi Wahhabi Islam, and Vatican Papal Catholicism. Because of the Oil interests Protestant America would be on the opposite side of the battle lines from Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate and Papal Vatican in the future Clash of Civilizations. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican would no longer influence the policies of the WASP United States. The onward march of Protestant Oil Colonial Empire would widen the Protestant-Catholic rifts, Protestant-Wahhabi rifts, and Protestant-Judaism rifts and wean United States away from Israel, Saudi Arabia and Papacy. Defeat of Iraq would result in the decline of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican.

 

(6) Decline of Islam in Oil-rich Arabia

Golden bird cannot fly free in sky it might security and protection of a golden bird. Only such Islamic oil-producing nations as find security of oil-colonial empires would survive and live to enjoy oil-wealth. Throughout history Muslim barbarians looted wealth civilizations of Syria, Egypt, Persia and India. Now the tables have turned and civilizations shall loot the wealth of oil-rich barbarians of the Middle East. Oil and gas reserves of the Islamic world would turn out to be the greatest curse on Islam, as Islamic oil and gas reserves would result in the enslavement of the Muslim world. The decline of Islam and the eventual revival of Christianity in North Africa and Mediterranean Arabia became distinct possibility due to the dismal military performance of Iraq, supposedly the strongest military power of the Islamic Arab world. The religions that expanded and propagated by the sword in history could face demise by the sword. India is a world power, as India plays very crucial role in the emerging petro-colonial empires emerging in the Islamic oil-producing countries. The 21st Century shall witness the enslavement and colonilization of the oil-producing Islamic nations worldwide. Wahhabi Muslims represent only two percent of the world’s Muslims and it is wrong for Wahhabi Sunnis to control Mecca and Medina. Mecca and Median shall become sovereign independent International Holy City States and member of the United Nations. The Muslims of the world shall directly elect the clergy and political leaders of Mecca and Medina. India is a world power and Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf) shall again become Indian Lake.

 

First, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Libya, Algeria and Tunisia were thriving Apostolic, Gnostic Arian Christian Civilization when the Semite Arab Bedouin Muslims conquered them by sword, put Christian men folk to sword and forced Christian women into concubine or marriage and militarily imposed Islam on Christian nations. Semite Damascus Jews had financed the Semite Arab Muslim raiding parties for share of the war loot. Christianity in North Africa and Mediterranean Arabia lost to Islam in the 7th Century because Sword of Islam was more powerful than the Sword of Christianity.

 

Second, fourteen centuries later the military situation has changed and the Sword of Christianity emerged victorious in 2003 Iraq War, and it is likely that in next 100 years the Muslims of North Africa and Mediterranean Arabia and Turkey would embrace Christianity before 2100 AD, just as the Muslims of Spain and Portugal converted to Catholic Christianity, after suffering 800 years under Muslim rule.

 

Third, Damascus Jews financed the Semite Bedouin Muslim raiding parties in the 7th Century to profit by the loot of the Christian Egypt, Syria, and Libya. Israeli Jews goaded Americans to invade Iraq to profit by the loot of Iraqi oil.

 

Fourth, it is very likely that all Muslim oil-producing countries of the world, namely, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Libya, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Brunei would come under the foreign occupation of colonial powers, who would extract, exploit, and loot the Muslim oil and gas resources, as they please to promote the prosperity of colonial powers.

 

Fifth, the British and American colonialism promoted Semite Wahhabi Cult to weaken the Islamic Empire of Ottomans vis-à-vis Christian Europe, not to make Islam more powerful than Christianity. Semite Wahhabi Sunni Sect weakened and destroyed the power of Islam and made Islamic nations subservient to Christian America and gave Americans full control over the oil and gas reserves of Arabia. The founding principle of Semite Wahhabi Sunni Islam had been to weaken Islamic world and make Islamic nations American colonies. Wahhabi Cult is the Zionist plot to enslave Islamic world, as Wahhabi poison would kill and destroy great Islamic heritage developed by non-Semite, non-Arab Islamic societies.

 

Sixth, the Wahhabi cult designed to stick the stigma of barbarianism on Islamic Civilization in 21st Century, even when Catholic European West represented barbarianism compared to Civilized Islamic world throughout the 1000-year long Medieval Dark Age.

 

Seventh, no Islamic nation would ever join the ranks of world power in the 21st Century, as Indonesia (GNP at PPP $505 billion) the largest Muslim economy ranks 15th in the world and the strongest Muslim military power Pakistan (GNP $237 billion) ranks 26th in world, and Saudi Arabia (GNP $129 billion) very lower in the work ranking. Ottoman Empire ranked as world powers for many centuries, but there would be no Islamic world power in the 3rd Millennium. The fate of the Islamic world is sealed. As the humble colony of the benevolent United States they would retain some of their freedom and independence. 

 

Eight, the Semite Bedouin tribes of Mecca and Medina played any important role in the Islamic history only during Mecca Caliphate and Baghdad Caliphate and Semite Bedouin had no role whatsoever in Baghdad Caliphate and Ottoman Caliphate. After the American conquest of Iraq, Mecca and Semite Arab would lose its power and wealth. Aryan Muslim Nuclear Pakistan emerged as the New Caliphate of Islam and thus acquired patrimony over Mecca and Medina. It is very likely that Pakistan would conquer Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE and establish Islamabad Caliphate to rule over the entire Islamic world from Rabat to Islamabad. Hindu India would support the westward expansion of Pakistan so that from Indus to Gibraltar all Islamic lands would come under the rule of Aryan Pakistan Caliphate, which has replaced Aryan Ottoman Caliphate.

 

Ninth, the suppression of Muslim women is the Achilles’ heels of Islam and many Muslim women would marry foreigners whenever Christian troops takeover the Muslim nations, to demographically transform these Muslim nations into Christian nations. Arab women in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE earnestly plead for the foreign troops that would free them from bondage and subjugation to Muslim men under Shariah laws.

 

Tenth, the Shiites in Iran and Iraq outnumber Sunnis in Arab world, resulting in the demographic shift of power away from pro-Saudi Semite Wahhabi Sunni Arabs to pro-Iran Shiites. It is likely that Shiite Iran and Sunni Pakistan would control Mecca and Medina. The Semite Wahhabi cult in Mecca & Medina would be replaced by mix of mystic Persian Sufism and Indian Deobandi Sunnism. In Mecca and Medina the days of Semite Wahhabi Sunni theocracy numbered.

 

Eleventh, just as the American Indians sold the Island of Manhattan to Europeans for few trinkets, similarly the Sheriff of Mecca and the Wahhabi clergy of Mecca sold all the rights over oil and gas reserves in Arabian Peninsula to American oil colonialism to Colonel Lawrence of Arabia in exchange for religious control over Mecca & Medina and rule of House of Al Saud over Saudi Arabia. Just as Native Indians can’t claim back their Manhattan Island, similarly Wahhabi Arabs have no right to reclaim sovereignty over oil and gas reserves, which has been transferred in perpetuity to white Protestant Americans. Semite Wahhabi Arabs must learn to live at the mercy of white Americans, just as Native Indians do. All the oil and gas under the Arab desert lands belong to Americans and Wahhabi Arabs cannot do anything about it in 21st Century. Wahhabi Arab nations should learn to live without depending upon the oil and gas incomes.

 

Twelfth, the story of Alibaba and Magic Lamp, the wizard came to Ali and took him to the subterranean cave full of diamonds and gold, which had Magic Lamp. The wizard was Colonel Lawrence of Arabia and he showed the Mecca Clergy the way to riches by asserting independence of Wahhabi Mecca from Ottoman Caliphate. The descendants of Lawrence of Arabia invaded Iraq and took away the Magic Lamp of oil to enrich the lands of wizards, the lands of white Christians.

 

Thirteenth, the Pro-Wahhabi militants hacked to death two top Shiite clerics in the bloodbath at the shrine of Imam Ali, which is sacred to the Shiite Muslims, in the Holy city of Al Najaf. Slain was Imam Abdul Majid al-Khoel who had returned from exile from London only a week ago. Slain was Imam Haider al-Kader, who was associated with Saddam Hussein. The killers belonged to the faction loyal to third Imam, Mohammed Baqer al-Sadr.

 

Fourteenth, barbarian Arab Bedouin invaded civilized Persia and imposed Islam in 8th Century. The Persian Civilization responded by amalgamating foreign religion to create the synthesis of Mystic Sufism and Shiite Islam. Presently in the Middle East Shiite Muslims outnumber Sunni Arabs in terms of manpower, infantrymen and size of economy. Sufis and Shiites would take-over Mecca & Medina and replace Wahhabi sect with Deobandi sect in the Middle East.

 

Fifteenth, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE have never existed in the history and are artificial nations, and these lands historically belonged to Egypt, Persia, or Ottomans. Just as Aryan Ottoman Caliphate ruled the Islamic world, the Anglo-Saxon American Caliphate would rule the Islamic World from the White House throughout the 21st Century. Britain and America has more legal claims to the lands and oil of the Saudi Arabia than the corrupt of House of Al Saud. British Indian Empire has greater claims to the lands and oil of Iraq than Saddam Hussein. Throughout 3rd Millennium the Middle East and the Islamic oil-producing world would be the colonies of the foreign powers and colonial empires. Decline of the Islam has begun and enslavement of the Islamic world not far away. Only if Aryan Pakistan takes the courage to invade Mecca & Medina and occupy Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE, would Islam survive becoming the colony of Christianity? The fate of Arab race is sealed.

 

Sixteenth, United States created Islamic fundamentalism to carve out the states of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to control the Arabian oil and gas resources and financed Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Algeria, and India to promote its oil interests. However, President Bush waged war on Afghanistan in the name of America’s War on Islamic terrorism, but primarily to secure control over Turkmenistan-Pakistan oil & gas pipeline and to provide safe passage to Osama bin laden and other Al Qaeda terrorists. After establishing American oil colony in Iraq, United States no longed needed the services of Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and Wahhabi terrorists to pursue its foreign policy objectives. However, after tasted the incomes that the loot of Iraq generated incomes for the occupation troops, United States might be tempted to loot the riches of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE and might allow Osama Bin Laden overthrow the House of Al Saud monarchy in Saudi Arabia. The monarchy in Saudi Arabia and Sheikhdoms in Kuwait and UAE would meet the fate of Pahlavi Monarchy of Iran and foreign troops would loot the riches of the Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in near future. 

 

(7) Decline of Papacy in 21st Century

India will join forces with Protestant Neo-Conservative United States to bring Papacy under the control of hegemon Christian residing at the White House. The rise of WASP-led USA as the sole super power of the world, signals the victory of Protestant Christianity and the defeat of Roman Catholic Christianity and the defeat of Papacy in the ongoing Counter Reformation Wars of the 20th and 21st Century. Papacy shall decline in the 21st Century, primarily because the archconservative policies implanted by Pope John Paul II, made Catholicism and Papacy an anathema of the modernity and progress in the 21st Century. Papacy will decline because Neo-Conservative United States will export Democratic Utopia to the Vatican and inside the Roman Catholic Church that will allow Catholic Laity to directly elect Catholic priests, bishops, cardinals and even Pope. Protestant President at the White House is also a hegemon Christian King of the world, responsible to lead and direct the Christian Church of all denominations, including Papacy, Roman Catholic Church, Protestant Church and Non Denominational Church. The religious and business interest of the fundamentalist Vatican conflict with Protestant American oil interests. Guided by WASP Neo-Conservative oil lobby the WASP American State would control and direct the Catholic Church. India reminds that succession of Popes had been the prisoners of the Vatican from 1877 to 1929, at the orders of the Italian King of House of Savoy. Neo-Conservatives want to export Democracy to Islamic tyrannies in the Middle East and to Roman Catholic Church and Papacy.

 

First, Vatican developed theological ties with the Wahhabi fundamentalists to develop common iconoclast monotheist bloc of anti-women, anti-laity, anti-abortion, pro-theocracy organized Catholic Church and Wahhabi Mecca. The Wahhabi Mecca and Catholic Vatican have a common interest to destabilize political empires to carve out more powers for the religious leaders.

 

Second, the Church of Rome had joined forces with German barbarians that conquered Rome in 410 AD and anointed the barbarian rulers with the title of King of Holy Roman Empire a few centuries later. Church of Rome financed Muslim Ottoman’s conquest and loot of Byzantine Christendom. Church of Rome destroyed Roman temples, Roman Empire, Roman Civilization, Roman Religion, Greek Civilization and Greek temples, in 5th Century and after. Pope John Paul II opposed President Bush’s War on Terrorism and War on Iraq. The WASP oil lobby believes that the Vatican might conspire to undermine the American Empire and Pax Americana by joining forces with Muslim terrorists, just as Church of Rome destroyed Roman Empire by joining forces with barbarian invaders in the past.

 

Third, American oil interests demand that secular Italian government should abolish the Papacy and bring the Church of Rome under the control of the Italian State, failing which Papacy should be brought under control of the White House. In 1870, the King of Italy, King Victor Emmanuel II, of House of Savoy Monarchy, unified Italy for the first time after the collapse of the Roman Empire, and entered Vatican and divested Pope of all temporal and secular powers, and successive Popes remained prisoners of the Vatican from 1870 to 1929. Just as Chinese abolished the Dalai Lama theocracy in Tibet, it is possible that the secular government of Italy may reform or democratize Papacy, allowing laity greater control and supervision of religion. It is very likely Italian public would rise and demand the direct election of the Head of the State of the Vatican and the direct elections of Bishops and the Cardinals by Catholic laity worldwide, on the principal of one-man one-vote. The interests of the American Oil colonialism radically clash with the theocratic interests of the Papacy.

 

Fourth, the expansion of NATO to include Orthodox East European countries ended the Anti-Orthodoxy slant of European Union and NATO. Neither Pentagon nor the NATO would formulate its policies to promote Papal interests, and rather promote the interests of WASPs and Protestant Christianity.

 

Fifth, President Jimmy Carter undermined the influence of French, Spanish and Italians over Vatican bureaucracy by engineering the election of the Bolshevik Polish Bishop as the Pope Jon Paul II, and presently American Cardinals control the Papacy and English replaced Latin as the official language of the Vatican. The American oil lobby would influence the Papal succession and install pro-oil Pope as new Pope. The lobby of the WASP Oil-god would take control over the Papacy in near future. The WASP Oil interests conflict with the religious interests of the Papacy.

 

Sixth, the unprecedented rise of Protestant United States as the unchallenged leader of the Christian world doomed the imperial ambitions of the Papacy. The Church of Rome had been the Curse on Greece, Rome and Britain. The Papacy joined forces with United States to engineer the secession of Catholic Ireland from United Kingdom and doomed the Pax Britannia, by destroying the population base of the home country, at the time when United Kingdom had the largest share of the world exports. Papacy used the turmoil of the First World War to break up Russian Empire and British Empire. The Manifest destiny of the United States in 21st Century is to spread Protestant Christianity southward to the southern tip of Argentina. Many million Catholics would embrace Protestant Churches and English language in the Hispanic America in the 21st Century. The rise of Protestant America foretold the decline of Papacy in the 21st Century, just as the unification of Italy resulted in the imprisonment of Pope in 1870, which continued till 1929.

 

(7) Clash of World Religions

India shall determine the outcome of the clash of world religions in the 21st Century. India leads not only Hinduism but also Buddhism and it makes India the preponderant religious power of the world. India also is a home for second largest number of Muslims in the world, next to Indonesia, and more than the Muslims in Pakistan or Bangladesh. No single country in the world can boast a population of 950 million believers of a single world religion. In the clash of world religions, India shall win the wars of religions if 950 million Hindus take united stand on religious wars. The largest seven world religions in terms of population of believers are, Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholic Christianity, Sunni Islam, Protestant Christianity, Shiite Islam and Orthodox Christianity. Hinduism and Buddhism would merge into one religion and form the world’s largest religion sometime in the 21st Century. In the global clash of religions, the Protestants, Hindus, and Buddhists would be on the same side of the battle lines, and Wahhabi Sunnis and Catholics would be on the other side of the battle lines. It is likely that Mystic Sufi Shiite Muslims and Mystic Sufi Sunni Muslims would join on the side of Hindus to wage wars on Wahhabi Sunnis. It is likely that Russian Orthodoxy would join forces with Protestant Christians to wage wars on Roman Catholicism. The WASP Oil Lobby would force the White House to wage wars on fundamentalist Islam and Shariah. The Hindus will join forces with Mystic Shiites and Sufis to wage wars on iconoclast theocratic Wahhabi Islam. The Hindus would join forces with Chinese Buddhists to overthrow the rule of Atheist Communists in China, so that the world’s two largest populations could form a single Civilization of Hindu-Buddhism.

 

First, all the ancient worlds were Hindu worlds, as ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans worshipped Hindu gods and goddesses. Greek god Zeus, the Roman god Jupiter and Vedic Hindu god Indra are different names of the same king of gods, the god of thunderbolt. The Vedic god Mithra was the reigning deity of Rome, Persia and India. The pre-Vedic god Maha Asura, known as god Ahura Mazda to Persia’s Zoroastrians, and god Ossir to Pharaohs. The Mother goddess Isis of Pharaohs, and Greek goddess Hera worshipped as goddess Devi Hara in India. The ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Persia and India worshipped the same gods and goddesses. The ancient Babylon worshipped Hindu goddess. The ancient world worshipped God as a woman and mother Goddess worshipped as the Creator and Almighty. The ancient world was matriarchal.

 

Second, the Semite Jews nomad propagated patriarchal monotheist iconoclast Judaism religion that destroyed many of the ancient goddess worshipping agricultural societies in the Jordan Valley. Jerusalem Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, and they stoned to death Apostle James the elder brother of Jesus in 64 AD. Jesus had rejected Torah and Jewish Law and had preached Divinity totally different from the God of Jews. There were less than 150,000 Christians in the first two Christian centuries and Gentiles outnumbered Semite Christians and woman presided over at many Christian ceremonies and Gospel of Mary was one the principal Gospels of Christian Bible. Hellenic Jews joined Gentile Christian churches and took over and imposed Old Testament on the Christian Bible. Hellenic Jews joined forces with Christians and looted the ancient temples of Egypt, Syria, Greece and Rome in the 5th Century and burnt the library of Athens in 7th Century. Damascus Jews joined forces with Semite Arab Bedouin and looted the Christian Churches in Syria, Egypt, Libya and Algeria in the 7th Century. Semite Wahhabi Arabs joined forces with iconoclast Catholics to loot the Museums, libraries of Baghdad during Iraq War 2003. The Judeo-Catholics destroyed and looted the temples of Incas, Mayas and Aztecs in the Andes and Latin Americas. Bolshevik Jews looted the property of Russian Czars and destroyed the Orthodox Russian Civilization after the 1917 Bolshevik Soviet Revolution. Bolshevik Jews caused the demise of the Soviet Union and raped the wealth of Russia after the fall of Communism and after the demise of the Soviet Union.

 

Third, the Thirty Years Counter Reformation Wars (1618-1648) the brutal Catholic Wars on Protestants left one-third of the German population dead. More Protestants have died at hands of Catholics in history than at hands of non-Christians. In the age of Protestant Oil Imperialism, the United States would promote Protestant Christianity south of the border and millions of Hispanic Catholic might convert to embrace Protestant Church and English language. The Protestant Christian Church would overtake Roman Catholic Church in the Third World in the 21st Century.

 

Fourth, the Shiite Muslims would overtake Wahhabi Sunni Muslims in the Middle East and liberate Mecca & Medina from the clutches of Wahhabi fundamentalists. The blood bath would some day occur at Mecca Mosque that would end the control of Wahhabi Mullahs in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE.

 

Fifth, the new generation of leaders in China led by President Hu Jintao might decide to coexist with Buddhism just as the previous generation had modified Maoism to coexist with Capitalism. Christianity couldn’t make any breakthrough in China and Japan, where not more than 3 percent of the population could be converted into Christian faiths. China, Japan, North Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar remain predominantly Buddhist. India should lead for the formation of the Organization of Buddhist States (OBS), to represent the Buddhist Japan, Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Burma, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, India and territories of Sikkim, Lhasa, and Tibet. Russia, and Malaysia would its members also. Organization of Buddhist States would dwarf organizations of Islamic nations and organizations of Christian nations.

 

Sixth, Israeli Jews returned to the Holy Land and reclaimed the lands of their ancestors after the Diaspora of 2,000 + years. When Jews could return after the gap of 2,000 years then it is very likely that Apostolic Gnostic Christians would reclaim political power in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Algeria, Lebanon and Jordan during 21st Century as these lands were Christian nations before, Semite Muslim Bedouin imposed Islam by sword 1,300 years ago. The victory of the Protestant Sword over Islamic sword in Iraq in 2003, raised the possibility that many countries in North Africa and Mediterranean Arabia might become Christian nations in 21st Century, following the example of Spain and Portugal that converted en-masse into Christianity, after 800-years rule of Muslims. When Spain and Portugal could become Christians after long Muslim rule, why shouldn’t North Africa and Mediterranean Arabia become Christian again, after Christian Sword defeated Muslim Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and UAE continued to remain under Christian military protection for their very survival.

 

Seventh, due to the blessing of the Almighty Goddess the population of white Hispanics declined and the population of unmixed Incas, Mayas and Aztecs increased in the Central America and the Andean America. Christianity was imposed on indigenous peoples, Incas, Mayas, Aztecs and American Indians by gun and it is high time that the Mestizo followers of ancient religions and cultures of Incas, Mayas and Aztecs expelled unmixed white Spaniards and established Inca governments in Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia, and Aztec and Maya governments in Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Chiapas province of Mexico.

 

35(4) Omni-Rich Oil Lobby

(1) Oil is the King of Diplomacy

Oil is the King. Oil interests would determine world politics. Oil lobby in 2003 became most powerful lobby the king makers in the United States. The leaders of the Oil interests would acquire greater control and influence over leaders of the major industrialized nations in the first decade of the 21st Century. The American Oil Lobby became more powerful than the Jewish lobby, Pope’s lobby and Armament lobby in the United States. The diplomats and leaders now defined their national interests in terms of oil interests and control over and access to the oil and gas resources of the oil-producing nations, which are militarily weak and vulnerable to foreign conquest and occupation. American Oil Lobby embarking upon the ambitious program for establishing American oil colonies in the Arabian Gulf and Caspian oil basin to preempt Russian, French, German, Belgian, Chinese and Indian oil companies. The scramble for oil colonies has begun.

 

(2) New Colonial World Order

The international system in the 21st Century shall be similar to the colonial world order of the 18th century and more than 100 presently sovereign independent nations shall lose their independence and become colonies of the great powers. India welcomes the return to the Colonial world order in the 21st Century as no country that has less than 100 million population and land mass less than 2000,000 square miles should remain sovereign and independent in the 21st Century. International Community must decide what kind of world order it wants in 21st Century. It is very important that diplomats must answer the question of what kind of world we plan to build. The world's nations must determine "the architecture of international security in the proper way taking into account each other's interests. Whatever world order President Bush and President Putin want would become the legitimate new world order. Whatever world order great powers accept becomes the legal world order. President Bush wants to create an international system, in which colonial empires would be the constituent units. President Bush wants to herald the new age of colonial empires.

 

President Bush has the power and the authority to create a new world and he could legitimize the concept of oil colonial empires. India accepts the leadership of Neo-Conservative United States and supports the rise of secular Petro-Colonial Empires in the Middle East and Caspian Muslim oil producing world. Omnipotent Oil god wants to enslave the Arab world so that the ancient world of the Middle East stage a come back, similar to the return of the Jews to the Holy Land of Israel. India as a world power shall adopt foreign policy based on Richelieu’s Raison D’etat to meet the challenge of religious fundamentalism and murderous ideologies and judiciously exercise the power of the sword of inclusive tolerance over religions of sword. The rising oil prices makes the cost of invasions for establishing India-led Petro colonial empires in the Middle East as well as subsequent cost of colonial administration far cheaper than paying for the oil imports from Arabia. Muslims ruled India for 700 years, and it is a birth right of Hindus to rule the Islamic world for 700 years in the Third Christian Millennium. Indian Empire loyally served Pax-Britannia and it is high time that India served Pax-Americana and acted as the Grand Vizier of American Oil Colonial Empire of the Middle East. Pentagon should outsource the entire colonial peacekeeping process outsourcing (PPO) to India and pay India a percentage of the total oil output of the colonies.

 

First, leaders of the independent Nations must decide on New World Order. The international community must decide what kind of world order it wants in the wake of the American victory over Iraq. World’s leaders must decide The Iraqi crisis, oil, money, credits all this is very important, but what's far more important is something else we must answer the question of what kind of world we plan to build. The world's nations must determine the architecture of international security in the proper way, on the basis of the principles of democracy and equality and taking into account each other's interests, to hold the hegemon America into check.

 

Second, Washington was threatening to replace international law with "the law of the fist." There is a dangerous willingness on the part of the United States to ignore opposition around the world in dealing with international problems. Non Aligned Nations strongly opposed the war and helped scuttle U.S. efforts to win clear approval in the U.N. Security Council for an invasion. Non Aligned Nations rebuffed efforts by the U.S.-led coalition to secure a swift removal of the U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990.

 

Third, United States transformed the NATO into the imperial coalition of the hawks that would back every imperial policy of the United States. Germany and France joined forces with Russia and China to check American imperial war designs on Iraq, by leading the United Nations to oppose the British resolution to justify America’s invasion of Iraq. United States failed to buy the votes of poor Non Aligned Nations, namely, Cameroon, Guinea, Angola, Pakistan and Chile. Non Alignment Movement and the United Nations proved its relevance by standing firm in opposition to the United States.

 

Fourth, United States would legitimize the system of colonial empires to gain acceptance of American colonial occupation of Iraq. Once the concept of colonial empires and preemptive strikes gain international recognition then other great powers, namely, Russia, France, Germany, China and India would be free to establish the colonial empires of their own. United States cannot justify its colonial occupation of Iraq, without justifying the concept of colonial empire itself, which would grant other great powers the similar rights to establish the colonial empires of their own. If the European powers and the Third World accepted the right of the United States to establish American oil colony over Iraq, then other great powers would also acquire the right to establish the colonial empires of their own.

 

(3) Decline of OPEC & DeBeers Cartels

OPEC oil cartel artificially hiked the price of oil and great powers must use secular military force to disband OPEC oil cartel. Neo-Conservatism denounces OPEC oil cartel and DeBeers diamond cartel. United States and India should use military force to disintegrate OPEC oil cartel so that oil-producing nations and BiOil should sell the oil at a price they want. The WASP oil interests conflicts with the Semite DeBeers diamond interests and Semite OPEC oil interests. The WASP god of oil would dismantle the Semite DeBeers diamond cartel as well as Semite OPEC oil cartel in the first quarter of the 21st Century.

 

First, United States need not pay more than $1 per barrel to rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for the oil that American oil companies would extract from their soil. The high oil prices set by the Semite OPEC undermined the WASP oil interests. The Semite OPEC nations should not charge more than $1 over the cost of extracting oil, as any profit so generated should enrich great powers not the Arab tyrants. 

 

Second, American oil interests in Angola and Equatorial Guinea conflicted with the Semite DeBeers Diamond cartel’s interests in the rebel diamonds in Angola and Ivory Coast respectively.

 

Third, the American Multi National Enterprises (MNEs) and American Trans National Corporations (TNCs) undergoing fast transformation and would emerge as political rulers in the oil-producing countries. Halliburton & Co and its fellow American Big Oil should aim to become direct rulers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Brunei, and Iraq. The majority of the population of Saudi Arabia especially Wahhabi women would welcome and elect the President of Halliburton as King of Saudi Arabia. Halliburton’s takeover of Saudi Arabia would push the Dow Jones Industrial Index from 8,400 to 20,000+ overnight. What is good for the Wall Street is also good for the world. To push the Dow Jones to 20,000+ the White House should permit the takeover of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, and Brunei by American Big Oil in the first decade of the 21st Century. Just as the CIA proved its efficiency as an instrument of regime change vis-à-vis Pentagon, the Big Oil would prove its efficiency as colonial administrator vis-à-vis the CIA and the Pentagon. Just as East India Company ruled the Bengal Empire from 1757 to 1857, the American Big Oil would directly rule Muslim Oil producing nations including OPEC nations, and it would give unprecedented boost to American economy.

 

Fourth, the WASP American oil interests conflict with the religious interest of Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as well as the national interests of Jewish Israel. WASP Oil interests conflict with the diamond and gold interests of Semite DeBeers Cartel as well as with the oil interests of the Semite OPEC. WASP Oil-god jealously promotes Protestant America’s secular capitalist imperialist oil interests and doesn’t tolerate loyalty to rival gods.

 

(4) Decline of Semite Marxism Communism

Neo-Conservatism rejects Communist ideology and denounces it as a murderous ideology. The celebrated philosopher Semite Karl Marx was a shit-philosopher who produced the shit-philosophy of Marxism, as a camouflage to justify the historical tendency of the Jews to loot the property of the non-Semite Civilizations. The Jewish lobby and Jewish thinkers painted the shit of Marxism in the golden paints and studded it with brilliant jewels so that the Marxist shit could pass as great philosophy of the age.

 

How, otherwise one can explain that while Bolshevik Jews destroyed Orthodox, Catholic, Buddhist and Islamic religious education and infrastructure, it secretly propagated the studies and religious practices of Judaism. Every Bolshevik Jew that landed in Western airport surprised his Western hosts by his firm Jewish religious convictions, deep scriptural knowledge of Torah and invariably joined the religious sects of Orthodox Jews. Semite writers eulogized the shit philosophy of Karl Marx, as it camouflaged the iconoclast monotheism under the cloak of secular doctrine. Semite Marxism and Communism was a religious cult of Devil, and Semite Lavrenti Beria massacred 30 million Orthodox Russians to please his materialist Devil deity. Communist Beria, Communist Mao and Communist Pol Pot murdered millions to worship dialectic Devil by human sacrifices. The atheist philosophy of Marxism and Communism camouflages the Religion of Devil under the veneer of dialectic materialism, which had put the religious Idealistic materialism of Hegel on its head.

 

First, Karl Marx was a prostitute philosopher hired by the British Empire to produce philosophic concoction to destroy Russian Czarist Empire and Buddhist China. Semite thinkers throughout history devised iconoclast monotheist doctrines to justify the loot of the wealthy civilizations of their times. Marxism and Communism was the Devil’s religion, designed by the iconoclast Jews to loot the Russian Civilization. Marxism was not a political philosophy, but a religious cult, that justified the looting of the property of the non-Semite civilizations. Semite theologians devised Judeo-Christianity to loot the ancient temples of Egypt, Greece and Rome. Semite theologians devised Semite Islam to loot the property of Christian Syria, Egypt and Libya. Semite theologians devised Religion of Marxism to justify the looting of the property and wealth of Orthodox Russia, Buddhist China and Orthodox Eastern Europe.

 

Second, British colonialism used Islamic fundamentalism to break apart multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire and Indian Empire. British Empire hired Mohammed Ali Jinnah to partition Indian Empire on the basis of religion. British Empire also hired M.K. Gandhi (Mahatma) to lead Muslim Khilafat Movement, to support the creation of Pakistan, so that Britain might not be forced to give independence to India after the First World War.

 

Third, British Empire devised the doctrine of Secularism to destroy the Islamic base of Ottoman Empire, Buddhist base of Chinese Empire, Hindu base of Indian Empire and Orthodoxy base of Russian Empire. American policy towards China determined by Christian missionary interests. Christians promoted secular Christian Sun Yat sen as Father of Chinese nation, and promoted secular Mahatma Gandhi as the Father of Indian nation, and promoted secular Kemal Pasha Ataturk as the father of Turkey to destroy the religious foundations of China, India and Turkey, respectively, making them vulnerable to Christian interests. The West promoted secularism in India, Islam in Pakistan to weaken India. The West promoted secularism in Turkey and Wahhabi Islam in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, to weaken the Ottoman Caliphate. The West undermined the Buddhist Monarchy in China and Vietnam and imposed the rule of Communists to destroy the Buddhist Civilization of China and Vietnam, to make them vulnerable to Christian proselytizing. The West promoted Communism and Marxism in Russia to destroy the Slav Russians. It is no wonder that Bolshevik Jew spymaster Lavrenti Beria sent more than 30 million Russians to death until 1953, and no Western nation demanded war crime trials for Beria, even when Nazi Holocaust resulted in Nuremberg War Crimes trials.    

 

Fourth, the Third Reich at the end of the First World War supported Vladimir Lenin’s return to Russia. Without the help of Germany Bolshevik Revolution would not captured power in Russia. Germany had the foresight that Communist rule over Russia would weaken Russia. Mao Tse tung was supported by America in China. United States forced Chiang Kai sheik to abandon final attack on Communist stronghold in Manchuria, and encouraged pro-Chiang military leader of Yunnan province in south China, to surrender to Communists. United States supported the rule of atheist Communist Mao in Mainland China and rule of Christian Chiang Kai sheik in Taiwan to destroy the political power of the Buddhists in China.

 

Fifth, Semite Bolshevik Jew spymaster Lavrenti Beria financed the Nazi hunters so that the world’s media spotlight might not focus on the Holocaust of Orthodox Russians and Orthodox East Europeans engineered by Lavrenti Beria in Russia and his minions in Eastern Bloc, which continued 8 years after the end of the Second World War until 1953. Jewish media hyped the Nazi Holocaust of Jews to hide and camouflage the Bolshevik Jews Holocaust of Orthodox Russians, which continued unabated till 1953. The failure to prosecute Bolshevik Jews for crimes of genocide resulted in the genocide of 2 million Cambodian Buddhists during Pol Pot regime and genocide of 60 million Chinese Buddhists during evil regime of Mao Tse Tung in China.

 

(5) Decline of White Christian Europe

The GDP of India is greater than the GDP of Germany or Britain or France. The population decline of Western Europe made the decline of Europe irreversible. United India shall leave European Union far behind. Potentially India is a greater power than European Union. The Decline of the West became common knowledge when the determined opposition of France and Germany failed to stop the American invasion of Iraq. Russia ceased to be a super power after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the fast decline of Russian population. The 1956 Suez Canal Crisis exposed the weakness of France and Britain. The 2003 Iraq Crisis exposed the weakness of Russia, France and Germany, and caused permanent trans Atlantic rifts between maritime United States and Britain on one side and Germany, France and Belgium on the other side. The unity of the Western Christendom broke apart during Iraq war, and France and Germany have no option but to join forces with Russia to create a common continental Eurasian bloc to balance the imperialistic American bloc, which includes Britain, Poland, Spain and Italy. The white Christian Europe has declined and it is no match to the Protestant Yankees.

 

First, the European Powers that constituted the Concert of Europe (1814-1914) after the Congress of Vienna (1814) and managed the Congress System of Diplomacy, namely, France, Germany and Britain no longer have the national resources to play great power role in the 21st Century. Only Canada has the national resources to emerge as the new world power in the Western Hemisphere other than the United States. Germany, France and Russia would pool their diplomatic assets to recreate Europe as a new pole of the world order. Presently there are five world powers, namely, United States, China, India, Europe, and Russia. Russia, Germany and France would join forces to create a single Christian European bloc to hold WASP America in the check. Britain and Canada presently belong to the American Camp.

 

Second, the decline of the Western Europe and the decline of Russia accompanied by the rise of Hindu India and Buddhist China. There are four principal independent actors in the world in 2003, namely, United States, Europe, China and India. United States, Europe and Russia belong to the white Christian world, while China and India belong to the Buddhist and Hindu worlds. The world politics in 21st Century determined by Quadrangular Balance of Power among 4 major players, namely, Maritime America, continental Europe, continental China, continental India. The entire Islamic world became a subset of the American Camp and the future of Islamic world would be determined by the United States. Neither the Jews nor the Muslims would play any important international role, and they would influence the world order only through their influence over White House. First world bloc is led by Protestant United States, Britain and Japan includes Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Spain and Italy. The Second world bloc led by France, Russia, and Germany includes the Vatican, Belgium. Canada and Mexico. The Third world bloc led by China would include Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, and North Korea. The Fourth world bloc led by India includes Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Non Aligned Nations. The top-six major world-class independent players are: United States, China, India, Russia, France and Germany.

 

Third, the world’s largest economies in terms of Gross National Product at Purchasing Power Parity are: United States ($8.4 trillion), China ($4.1 trillion), Japan ($3 trillion), India ($2.2 trillion), Germany ($1.8 trillion), France ($1.3 trillion), Britain ($1.2 trillion) and Russia (10th, $929 billion). Japan is not a world power because it refused to become independent of the United States. American Camp represented Japan and Britain. Nuclear Russia doesn’t have the economic power to play role of independent world power. Only as united state could France and Germany play any important world role. Germany, France and Russia would eventually pool their diplomatic assets to restore great power status to Europe otherwise these three European nations would fail to play any important world role. The leading independent world powers are: nuclear White Anglo Saxon Protestant United States, nuclear Yellow Mongoloid Buddhist China and nuclear Brown Aryan Hindu India. United States, China and India represented the three major continental size powers. India’s camp includes 114-member Non Aligned Nations. United States represented the Islamic nations. In the triangular balance of Christian, Buddhist and Hindu worlds, Christian United States and Hindu India represented the truly two independent poles in the new world order, as Communist China perceives itself as part of the American camp. The growing trans Atlantic rifts would make Germany, France and Russia join the Indian Camp. Indian Camp would represent the interests of Non Aligned Nations, Anti-American Europe, and Russia.

 

Fourth, the Goddess punished European nations especially Catholic Europeans by closing the wombs of the white European women, which resulted in the population decline of Catholic Italy, Spain, France and Germany. The population decline of Russian Slavs imperils Russia’s great power status. The decline of the Europe’s population caused the decline of white Christian Europe.

 

Fifth, the total population of the White Christian world is falling behind rest of the world. The American economic miracle lured younger productive work force from Canada, Australia, and Western Europe and thus the miracle of America expedited the decline of the White Christian West.

 

Sixth, Canada has greater potential than Germany and France to emerge as world power, provided it invited 10 million Indian immigrants to boot its manpower base. Canada along with France and Germany leads the world in Anti-American public opinion of its citizens. The NAFTA has made Canadians more anti-American than pro-American. Canada has the population of 31 million, Surface area of 9.971 million sq. km, population density of 3 people per sq. km, the GNP at PPP $726 billion, the 12th largest economy of the world, produces 2.749 MBPD oil and consumes 2. MBPD oil. French-speaking Quebec wants to secede from Canada and form independent state. Canada should enter into Confederation with Germany and France to emerge as the Super Power in the Western Hemisphere to hold Yankee America in check. The destiny of Canada lies in Europe. Canada, France and Germany Pact would become a great power.

 

(6) Precision Guided Munitions Revolution

The American Revolution of Precision Guided Munitions reinforced India’s claims for world power status. Indian expertise in Information Technology allows India to exploit advances in PGMs to develop world class armed forces without deploying resources to build heavy military equipments. In the past the heavy military hardware required large industrial manufacturing capacity, which is no longer the case in the Precision Guided Munitions. The American innovation of PGMs reinforced India’s claim as world power.

 

American innovation of Precision Guided Munitions transformed the art of war and created new family of smart Bombs. Bombs had been historically inaccurate. GPS technology equipped smart bombs allowed to destroy the target when dropped from 35,000 feet above. The under $15,000 JDAM kit when fitted to dumb bomb makes them smart bombs. The smart bombs made US Air force supreme in the theater of war. It enabled maritime USA project its firepower thousands of miles inland, and could target a specific window in a house, even when bomb dropped at 35,000 miles high up. The PGMs allowed Air force to outflank the Infantry and turned the tables against land powers and air powers became supreme.

 

First, the American innovation of PGMs when fitted to the anti-ship missiles turned the table against US Navy, as American aircraft carriers became a sitting duck for the Anti-ship cruise missiles fitted with GPS homing device technology. The Precision Guided Munitions revolution, which gave unprecedented boost to US Air Force, made US Navy especially Aircraft Carriers vulnerable to anti-ship missiles. The Indian anti-ship missile Brahmos flying at supersonic speed could sink Aircraft Carrier fleets, from a distance of 300 miles.

 

Second, the American innovation of PGMs has ended the age of Tanks, and ended the age of mechanized warfare. The expensive tanks and mechanized infantry became a sitting duck to anti-tank missiles fitted with PGM technology. The PGMs revolution heralded the end of the Age of Aircraft Carriers, end of the Age of Tanks, and end of the Age of Mechanized Warfare.

 

Third, America’s victory in Iraq was neither the victory PGMs nor the valor of American troops, it was simply the result of the cowardice of Arab race, as Iraqi failed to fight the war. The cowardice of the Arabs would doom the future of the Arab countries would come under the foreign colonial rule.

 

Fourth, the revolution of the PGM equipped anti-ship supersonic cruise missiles made the Western tanker fleets, merchant marines, and Western Navies vulnerable. The land powers could sink the entire fleet of oil tankers, merchant shipping at the very outset of the World War III, to devastate the oil-dependent Western economies of the sea powers, while land powers could use transatlantic railways to transport goods and oil.

 

Fifth, the three leading military powers of the world are United States, China and India. No Muslim nation would ever become the world’s great military power. The white United States lost the Vietnam War and the white Soviet Union lost the Afghanistan War. Asian armies of Vietnam and Afghanistan proved their war fighting capabilities to the White Christian armies. President Bush’s 2001 War on Afghanistan won due to the efforts of Northern Alliance soldiers. United States, China and India represent the world’s three largest military war fighting forces. Neither France nor Germany possesses any significant war fighting capabilities. Russia war fighting capability has declined considerably. It is now the responsibility of Indian Armed Forces to protect the freedom and independence of the Non Aligned Nations and the Third World. India has no option but to emerge as the second greatest military power in the world, in terms of conventional war fighting capabilities. United States, India and China are three Super Powers of the world that would lead the world in the Third Millennium.

 

Sixth, the America’s military victory in Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t hide the fact that the balance of military power shifted away from the White Armed forces to Yellow and Brown Asian armed forces. The defining movements in the decline of the White military capabilities were the defeat of United States in the Vietnam War and the defeat of the Soviet troops in Afghanistan War. Northern Alliance soldiers gave United States the victory in Afghanistan War 2001. United States won Iraq War because Iraqi’s didn’t fight the war and surrendered without fighting the war. India and China would play decisive role in the Third World War.

 

Seventh, the American Armament Lobby needs to reinvent itself as positive influence over politics, by articulating the interests of such armament manufacturers as develop and manufacture IT-enabled weapon systems suitable for the Network Centric Warfare, mandated in the Transformation of Army underway. The distinct interests of Army undergoing Transformation required that Pentagon dollars should be equitably distributed say 50/50 between Old Armaments and New IT-enabled Armaments. The Geopolitics helps articulate interests of the New Armament Lobby worldwide, so that New IT-Armament Lobby could compete effectively against Oil Lobby, otherwise Armament lobby would lose its political leverage and influence to Oil Lobby, which has replaced Armament lobby as the dominant influence over American polity.

 

Eighth, like the typical biblical battle of David Vs Goliath, the heavy armament industrial plants manufacturing outdated weapon platforms should be scrapped in favor of plants that manufacture and design Knowledge-based, IT-enabled, Smart Weapons systems. Just as Microsoft PCs did away with IBMs main frames, the bigger and leaders of the American Military Industrial Complex, would be forced by Science of Warfare, to allot more Pentagon dollars to newer IT-enabled Weapon system designers and manufacturers. Many of the large armament manufacturers would have to write off their considerable investments in heavy plant and machinery that no longer could produce the weapon systems that Pentagon would need in the 21st Century. The market evaluation of the larger armament manufacturer needs total reevaluation in the age of Network Centric Warfare.

 

Ninth, the proper study of Geopolitics and Strategy and Weapon Geopolitics must get disseminated among policy makers, financial community, armament industry and politicians the new realities of the Transformation of Army, Network Centric Warfare, and Precision guided Munitions. The American revolution of Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) resulted in Network Centric Warfare and unleashed the Transformation of Army during Bush Administration. The PGM Revolution resulted in the end of the Age of Tanks, Aircraft Carriers, Mechanized Warfare, and Expensive Aircrafts. The weapons of the future would be IT-enabled Weapon systems and guided by GPS technology, Unmanned Aviation Vehicles, and Unmanned Submarine Vehicles. The adaptation of relatively inexpensive missiles to unmanned aerial vehicles, man-portable anti-tank missiles, man-portable anti-aircraft missiles, remote controlled torpedoes-equipped unmanned submarines and Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs), would develop attack weapons without expensive protective shields.

 

Tenth, the US naval Air Warfare Center’s Weapons Division is developing the Spike missile and launcher system initially for use by people on the ground. It is a relatively inexpensive complement to the man-portable javelin anti-tank missile. While Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) are unguided and have a range of only a few hundred yards, Spike missile will be guided with a laser designator or electro-optical imaging and have a range of about two miles. The Spike missile and Spike launcher expected to cost $4,000 and $6,000, respectively. By comparison the Javelin missile and Javelin launcher cost $75,000 and $125,000 respectively. Spike missile is designed to destroy unarmored or lightly armored vehicles, mobile anti-aircraft systems and slow moving helicopters. Spike missile will also have urban warfare applications because the missile will be able to go through a window before exploding. The Spike system is supposed to be small and light- three spike missiles and a Spike launcher could fit in a standard military backpack. Spike is expected to move into system development and demonstration (SDD) phase near the end of calendar 2003 and enter production within about two or three years. The Spike missile could be used on almost any UAV. Spike could serve as a low-cost complement to the hellfire air-to-ground, anti-tank missile, than has been successively fired in combat from predator UAVs.

 

Eleventh, Pentagon should equally divide its procurement dollars between Dumb Armaments and Smart Armaments. The knowledge based armaments if the future of warfare and lots of plants that manufactured Old Armaments should undergo Swords to Plowshare type transformation. The key to the Smart Armaments lied in the Knowledge content of the weapons, which made software engineers more important than the heavy plants and machinery. Germany and France can emerge as major players in the Smart Armament industry, if they can leverage India’s core competence in Information technology and Software. Just as America outsourcers manufacturing to China, American military industrial complex should outsource the knowledge part of the armament designs and development to India, otherwise India would be forced to team up with Russia, Germany and France, in developing new types of Smart armaments. There is a need to develop a separate lobby for Smart Armaments, as the pressure group and interests group of the Smart Armament industry, which would conflict with the Old Armament industry lobby. The companies that would play a greater role in the Network Centric Warfare and Transformation of Army should form a separate Smart Arms Lobby to protect their distinct economic interests. Russia has decommissioned many of its older military industrial plants and focused on Smart Armament manufacturing by teaming up with India and could leapfrog over United States, if American military industrial complex failed to decommission and write off its investments in plants and machinery that could make only obsolete weapon platforms.

 

(7) MOAB is Weapons of Mass Destruction

The MOAB Bombs would help India become a world power and help India assert its military preponderance in the region. The MOAB allows India to use a non-nuclear weapon to achieve military victory. Indian military doctrine allows the use of MOAB bombs in regional wars.

 

The Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) is the conventional Weapons of Mass Destruction, and like poisonous gases kills by asphyxia, by sucking the breathable oxygen out of the stadium size zone. Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) should be banned like the Chemical, biological and gas weapons because it kills not from shrapnel but by asphyxia. The Big Bomb, the Mother of All Bombs the MOAB Bomb, the Massive Ordinance Air Blast is a conventional Weapon of Mass Destruction and it should be banned like Chemical, Biological and Gas weapons. The MOAB sucks the breathable oxygen out of the air in an area two or three times the size of the football stadium. It results in massive death by asphyxia and After its use reporters found trenches after trenches of dead Iraqis. Some of the Iraqi corpses in the bunkers were hunched over, hands covering their ears, as though they'd been waiting in dread. Many seem to have died not from shrapnel but concussion, and dried, discolored blood gathers around their eyes and noses and mouths. Media describes the exploding of Iraqi soldiers in their bunkers as "softening up." Media described slaughtered Iraqi units as being "degraded"; some announcers have even repeated the egregious Pentagon neologism "attributed" to mean "American troops are slowly killing as many of them as we can." The insidiousness of this euphemism and the absurdity of its grammar, hid the cruel reality that the Daisy Cutters and Massive Ordnance Blast (MOAB) worked like the WMD that sucked the air out of the lungs of the soldiers, much like what chemical and biological weapon would do. To recite from a Pentagon press release that an Iraqi division has been "degraded by 70 percent" is an astounding abdication of journalistic responsibility, as it hid the fact that the MOAB Bombs kill like poisonous gases. A journalist these days must not just report the facts, but also explain the news, give it color and significance of the destruction caused by the MOAB. The graphic reality of "degradation" is a large pile of dismembered bodies. Surely some picture or explanation of what the wiping out of an entire division with high explosives actually looks like is called for.

 

United States killed the Republican Guards by using the WMD, the MOAB which sucked the air out of the lungs and depleted the oxygen out of a large areas, two or three times the size of Football Stadiums. Many readers and watchers of the news were baffled as the battle for Baghdad came suddenly upon us without any large-scale engagement with the dreaded Republican Guard. What happened to those three or five divisions that were supposedly ringing the city? The facts of their destruction were grudgingly mentioned almost in passing. They were destroyed from the air. The MOAB Bombs, the Daisy Cutters kills like Chemical weapons and poisonous gases. Iraqi Republican Guards in the trenches puréed by MOAB bombs. The MOAB Bomb worked like the neutron nukes as it killed the soldiers without damaging the property, except a big hole. The MOAB bomb entailed thousands of deaths leading to the rapid collapse of the Iraqi regime and the television and the press simply downsized the story. The mass killing done by the MOAB Bomb did not make a glamorous or even central story to anyone's coverage of this war, because there were no embedded reporters with the Iraqi troops. The MOAB bombs avoided its image become dirty, as it's hard to get a TV camera into a line of trenches that is being puréed by bombs. Instead of reporting that this peripeteia in the war's narrative was happening, and that it entailed thousands of deaths by MOAB Bomb, the conventional WMD that lead to the rapid collapse of the Iraqi regime, the television and the press simply downsized the story. No pictures, no story. This is the real meaning of "degradation." The MOAB Bombs falls into the same category of banned weapons as the poisonous gases, as both work on the similar principle to disturb the breathing process of the targeted victims.

 

(8) Daisy Cutter (MOAB) First Gulf War

The same thing happened in the first Persian Gulf War. Nobody seemed to mind the failure to report the extent of Iraqi casualties then; we don't mind it now. We'd rather have a twelve-hour cycle of interviews with one parent of one rescued POW. The story came out later. Anthony Swofford's memoir, Jarhead, describes coming upon trenches of dead Iraqis. Some of the corpses in the bunkers are hunched over, hands covering their ears, as though they'd been waiting in dread. Many seem to have died not from shrapnel but concussion, and dried, discolored blood gathers around their eyes and noses and mouths. He described the effects of the Daisy Cutter, the smaller version of the Massive Ordnance Air Blast that the US now uses. That language is not degraded. General Franks had just run "one of the most brilliant campaigns in military history." General Franks couldn't possibly have lost. He had complete air superiority, massive technological advantages, a better-trained, better-equipped, better-paid force, and a limitless budget. General Franks was fighting an isolated, impoverished, demoralized conscript Iraqi army, which was already decimated by bombing and if he had not been able to take Baghdad swiftly and decisively he would be regarded as an incompetent.

 

Third, President Bush May Restart Nuclear Testing in the Second Term. The Bush Administration in May ‘03 took a big step toward developing a new generation of nuclear weapons when a Senate panel approved a bill that would lift a 10-year ban on researching small atomic bombs for battlefield use and fund more study on a nuclear "bunker-buster" bomb. The US annual defense authorization bill, approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee, also increased funding for a nuclear weapons site in Nevada to enable the Pentagon if necessary to more quickly resume the weapons testing it suspended 11 years ago. The administration, in a major shift of recent U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine, has been moving to develop options with nuclear weapons to enable it to better deal with emerging threats, such as the deeply buried bunkers where potential adversaries may conceal banned weapons and missiles. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has not designed any new nuclear weapons, as it and Russia have worked to scale back their strategic nuclear arsenals. The new tack has alarmed arms control advocates, who fear that the availability of smaller bombs that promise less secondary damage would encourage nations to use weapons that have been nearly unthinkable for half a century. America is moving away from more than five decades of efforts to de-legitimize the use of nuclear weapons. The administration's logic is that "we don't want to be constrained in any way about any weapon we want to field."

 

The bill would provide $15.5 million in funding for research on a large hydrogen bunker-buster bomb called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. This bomb would be a redesigned version of an existing nuclear weapon to make it better able to burrow deeply into the earth. Unlike the proposed low-yield bombs, which have an explosive force of no more than 5 kilotons five thousand tons of TNT this weapon would have yields in the range of tens of kilotons, to a megaton, making it at least six times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. It would be intended to generate shock waves that could crush targets 300 meters below the earth, experts say. Critics contend the fallout would cover such a wide area and cause so many casualties that presidents would be reluctant to order its use. Along with the $15 million for research on the bunker buster, the bill would set aside $6 million for advanced research on nuclear weapons. Adm. James O. Ellis in charge of the U.S. Strategic Command believes that conventional precision-guided munitions can be used to strike some of the deeply buried targets that others in the Pentagon say require a nuclear weapon.

 

These latest moves on nuclear policy follow a series of policy pronouncements from the administration that suggested a desire for a sharp change in direction on nuclear policy. In 2001, the Bush administration issued a policy statement called the Nuclear Posture Review that urged development of new nuclear capabilities, and suggested that the United States might, in some circumstances, use nuclear weapons against some countries that have none: Syria, Libya, Iraq and Iran. In 2002, the White House issued a presidential directive that made explicit the previously ambiguous policy that the United States may use nuclear weapons if chemical and biological weapons are used against U.S. forces. While the Bush administration has been interested in exploring new nuclear weapons, other nuclear powers has also been pressing to try to shift, in some missions, from nuclear weapons to conventional ones.

 

The bill also seeks $25 million in improvements to the Nevada nuclear weapons test site and U.S. nuclear labs because officials fear some of the nuclear infrastructure has become unreliable since President Clinton declared a voluntary test moratorium. Clinton ordered that the nuclear weapons complex should be prepared to restart testing within two to three years of a presidential order to do so. But Bush administration officials fear that tests may be needed to ensure the reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons, and they want the lead-time reduced to no more than 18 months. The White House intends to begin re-testing, perhaps in a second term if George W. Bush gets reelected in Elections 2004.

 

Fourth, the Battlefield of War is the laboratory of Weapon systems in the Network Centric Warfare, and the military learns from the War with priceless practical experience of what works on the 21st Century battlefield and what doesn’t. American military is better than any other military at adjusting to new realities while the bullets are still flying. The Iraq Qar revealed the continuing value of ground forces. The techno-freaks who insisted that a war could be won with little or no help of the ground forces were proven wrong again. What has largely gone unnoticed is the emergence of another form of precision weapon: ground troops. Traditionally, infantry has been war’s blunt instrument. The dramatic improvements in intelligence and communications allowed American ground troops in Iraq, to focus on combat power at the right place and time before the enemy could begin to react, in a manner that gave one battlefield effect of multiple divisions in past wars. The precision ground forces would resemble the Roman legions of the Roman Empire’s golden age, invincible against all threats posed by barbarians. The numbers still count. United States has only ten divisions. Because of the lack of another Army division, the American troops failed to avoid the time lapse between opportunity and its ability to exploit it. Another heavy division would have allowed Americans to press on immediately to Tikrit, the last citadel and to open the aback door to Mosul and Kirkuk in the north. Iraqi Army didn’t fair fight badly, they were courageous and they lost the war from the air, because the MOAB Bombs killed not by shrapnel but by sucking the oxygen from the air and killed much like the poisonous gases. The strategic air campaigns did not meet initial expectations. Apaches helicopter fleet proved more vulnerable to ground fire than anticipated, and faced unexpected levels of risk on the battlefield. The Apache tactics made the helicopter more vulnerable to the ground fire that it is better Apaches scrapped. The Attack helicopter doctrine should be heavily rewritten after the Iraqi War. The foremost lesson the Iraq War is that the Smart Infantry emerged as another form of precision weapon, the Precision Ground Troops.

 

35(5) India in New World Order

(1) 3 Super Powers: USA China India

In the New World Order, India and China joined the ranks of the Top-3 great powers alongside United States. Top three World Powers of the post-Iraq War international system are United States, China and India. The leading Super Power of the Old World Order, and Germany and France would play less important role than China and India. In the New World Order Russia would jettison its support to Non Alignment and pursue traditional Russian imperialist interests in collusion with Germany and France to bolster the declining role of White Christian Europe in the world. Europe, represented by Russia, France, Germany and Britain was more important than Asia in the Old world Order. In the New World Order Asia represented by China, Japan and India would be more important player in the International system than Europe. Asia would lead the New World Order. Only if Germany and France could sign defense pact and economic pacts with Russia could Europe present any significant challenge to the economic dominance of Asia in world economy. In the New World Order China, India and Japan in 2003, represented $9.3 trillion GNP around 24 percent of the world’s total GNP at PPP, greater than the combined GNP of USA and Canada as well as greater than the combined GNP of 25-member expanded European Union and Russia. In the Old World Order of 1750 AD India manufactured 24.5%, China 32.8% and Japan 3.8%, and India, China & Japan together accounted for 61 percent of world’s total manufactured goods. It is likely that by 2050, India, China and Japan would account for 50% of world’s manufactured goods and GNP at PPP.

 

(2) Rise of Nuclear Hindu India

The three truly independent powers of the world in 2003 are United States, India and China. Just as Premier Khrushchev of Soviet Union called the bluff of France and Britain in the Suez Canal Crisis in 1956, President Bush called the bluff of Russia, France and Germany on the 2003 Iraq War. The 1956 exposed the decline of France and Britain, and the 2003 exposed the decline of Russia, Germany and France. India and China emerged as the members of the top three world powers Club in 2003.

 

(3) End of the Old World Order

The America’s victory in defiant opposition to the Russia, France and Germany represented the End of the Old World Disorder and Russia no longer remained the leading world power and India and China joined United States in the exclusive Club of Three top world powers. In the 21st Century the Troika of United States, India and China would lead the world. The Cold War order ended with the peaceful disintegration of the Soviet Union, and the end of the Cold War. The Old Word disorder ended with the America’s victory in the Iraq War, which exposed that Russia, France and Germany no longer had resources necessary to play the great power role. The Old World Order ended with the decline of the Old Europe, represented by Russia, France and Germany, and the rise of New Asia represented by India and China. The Cold War was unusual because of the longevity of the conflict and because of the peaceful manner in which it ended with the demise of the Soviet Union, primarily due to the realization of President Boris Yeltsin that only after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, could Russian Slavs hold on to the continental size Russian Federation, by replacing Soviet identity with the imperial Russian identity. The tectonic shifts ushered in by the realignment of forces after the Cold War were all the more significant, but they were hidden from view for an unusually long time because of the peaceful resolution of the cold War and the peaceful demise of the Soviet Union, the Berlin War and the peaceful collapse of the Communism in eastern Bloc. It took the 9/11 terrorist attacks to force the pace of change and sharpen the new post-Cold War contours of international politics. This new shape is more visible after the Iraq war.

 

(4) Rise of India as World Power

First, United States, China and India are the only three Civilization States that would play independent great power role in the international system. In 21st Century the continental-size four Major World Powers are: United States, Europe, China and India. The European World Power included Russia, France and Germany that would be able to influence world events only when they pool their diplomatic assets on any single issue. Singly, neither Russia, nor Germany nor France would be able to play any great power role. The nations of the world enjoyed freedom of diplomatic initiative under tri-polar world order from 1947 to 1962, when India led the Non Aligned Nations Movement and kept them free and independent of two warring camp. From 1962 to 1990, it was the Bipolar world order and the role of Non Aligned Nations declined. From 1990 to 1998 the International system became Unipolar or one superpower system after the demise of the Soviet Union. After 1998 the world order became Tripolar World order again after India and Pakistan exploded nuclear weapon devices and built up independent nuclear arsenal.

 

Second, the United States took over the leadership of not only First World but also of the Second World, when the former pro-Soviet East European countries joined the European Union and NATO. However the Iraq War 2003, created permanent rift within the Western Christendom, and France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg vehemently opposed America’s imperialistic oil policies and joined forces with Russia to hold America in check.

 

Third, throughout history India and China had been world powers and India continued to be world power in its own right, even when under British rule. British Empire had been the euphemism for Indian Empire. Delhi paid for the imperial pretensions of the United Kingdom. Indian Army built British Empire worldwide and Delhi paid for the salaries of the British Officers and British soldiers worldwide.

 

Fourth, India would join the ranks of Super Powers by exercising its military muscle in the oil-rich Arabian Gulf and Central Asia. India’s ability to threaten, challenge or deny control or access to the oil and gas resources of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE would make India a world power. Persian gulf had historically been India’s Lake and Indian Rupee had been the Reserve Currency for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE as late as 1965. India should focus on projecting its military, economic and political power to control the foreign power’s access to the Arabian Gulf and Caspian oil and gas resources. India should focus only on Arabian Gulf and Central Asia during World War Three. India’s ability to control the Middle East Oil or ability to deny control to other great powers over Middle East oil would determine India’s status as the world power. India should learn to increase its nuisance value to disturb or threaten Middle East oil trade to ride higher up in the ranking as world power. India’s ability to deny other powers control over Arabian Gulf oil is as important as India’s control over the Arabian Gulf oil.

 

Fifth, the West and USA in 1750 produced 18.2% of total manufactured goods, China produced 32.6%, and India produced 24.5% of world’s manufactured goods. Had Britain India’s economic resources or Indian Army to crush secession of 13 colonies of the Untied States, the United States would not have taken birth. In 1800, China produced 33.3% of world’s goods, India produced 19.7% of world’s goods, even when India had been 43 years under English rule, and the Western Europe including North America produced only 23.3% of world’s goods. Shares of World Manufacturing Output by Civilization or Country, 1750-1980 (in percentages): (a) West (Western Europe + North America) share of the world manufactured goods: 1750 (18.2%), 1800 (23.3%), 1830 (31.1%), 1860 (53.7%), 1880 (68.8%), 1900 (57.8%), 1953 (77.4%), 1980 (74.6%). (b) China’s share of the world’s total manufactured goods: 1750 (32.6%), 1800 (33.3%), 1830 (29.8%), 1860 (19.7%), 1880 (12.5%), 1900 (5.0%), 1953 (6.2%), 1980 (2.3%). (c) South Asia (India + Pak) share of the world’s total manufactured goods: 1750 (24.5%), 1800 (19.7%), 1830 (17.6%), 1860 (8.6%), 1880 (2.8%), 1900 (2.3%), 1953 (1.7%), 1980 (1.7%). (Excerpt of data from Paul Bairoch, International Industrialization Levels from 1750 to 1980 Journal of European Economic History, Fall 1982)

 

Sixth, British Empire and India were greater power than the United States as the manufacturing power in 1913. The Commodity and geographical composition of exports, 1913, in percentage shares of world’s exports was country wise as follows: United Kingdom (22.8%), United States (22.1%), Germany 21.4%), and France (12.1%). The Exports of manufacturers as share of total exports in 1913 as percentage share was: United Kingdom (76.6%), Germany (71.7%), France (57.9%), and United States (34.1%) (Paul Bairoch)

 

Seventh, before 1945, Indian Empire controlled 100% of Iranian oil and 47.5% of Iraqi oil. India was the world’s sixth largest industrial power in 1945, after the World War II. Before independence in 1945 Indian Empire controlled 100% of Iranian oil and 47.5% of Iraqi oil. Persian Gulf was an Indian Lake in 1945 and for 200 years before. Britain partitioned India by creating the artificial concept of Islam as the basis of state, to blunt India’s intervention in Iranian oil and Iraqi oil Indian Empire Oil imperialism and British Oil Imperialism overshadowed American oil imperialism in control over Middle East oil before the Second World War. Before 1945, the Indian Empire and British Empire controlled 100 per cent of Iranian oil and 47.5 percent of Iraqi oil; the U.S. interest was only 23.75 per cent in Iraq equal to France's interest in Iraq oil. After 1945, the control over Middle East oil has changed radically; in 1959 the U.S. share rose to 50 per cent of all Middle East oil, while that of Britain declined to 18 per cent, and France had 5 per cent, the Netherlands 3 per cent, other, including the local Arab governments, 24 percent. After the end of the Cold War the Western oil imperialism is really United States imperialism. The driving doctrine of US foreign policy since the 1940’s after the Second World War is to control the vast energy resources of the Muslim oil-producing nations of the Gulf region, many of these nations had been under British colonial occupation and influence.

 

Eighth, had Britain honored its promise to India for granting freedom in exchange of India’s military contributions towards Allied War efforts in the World War I then Indian Empire would have replaced United States as the dominant great power of the world before 1950. In 1913 the 22.3% United Kingdom’s share of world’s total exports greater than 22.1% share of the United States. In 1913, United Kingdom exported 76.6 of its total exports in manufactured goods, while United States’ manufactured goods exports represented only 34.1% of its total exports. United States engineered the Ireland’s secession in 1919 to weaken British Empire. United States conspired against British oil interests in Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and UAE (Trucial States).

 

Ninth, India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) renamed Tejas (TD series) flew demonstration flights in April 2003. The Indian Tejas will be comparable to the latest versions of the US F-16 Fighting Falcon or the French Dassault Mirage 2000, has a price tag of around $22 million and about 250 are to be built for the Indian Air Force, costing total of $5.5 billion. It uses Lockheed Martin-derived fly-by-wire hardware, the BAE control integration system and the General Electric GE 404 engines, and is developed by Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) Bangalore. The Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) has also developed its own Kaveri engine. India spent more than $1.5 billion on the LCA program since 1983. Indian Defense Minister Geroge Fernandes visited Brazil in July 03 and offered to jointly produce LCA Light combat Aircraft with Brazil.

 

(5) United States China India Troika

The major powers of the world are United States, China and India represented the continental size civilization states of America, East Asia and South Asia. The decline of the Europe compromised the role of Russia, France and Germany. Brown Hindu India would represent the interests of the Third World. Yellow China would represent the interest of the yellow races and Buddhists, including Japan, Koreas, Taiwan and Singapore. Protestant United States would represent the interests of Britain, Spain, Poland and OPEC countries. Catholic and Orthodox Europe would represent the interests of Russia, Germany. France, Belgium and Luxembourg.

 

First, the Quadrangular Balance of Power among America, Europe, East Asia and South Asia would create the stable international system. Britain, Spain and Italy have no future as independent great powers, and they could pursue their national interests only as the Lap Dog of the White House. Poland has no great future in Europe and it must pursue closer military and economic ties with the Untied States. President Putin should develop détente with France and Germany to wean them away for NATO to develop an independent Eurasian Pact, where France, Germany and Russia would provide the anchor. The White Christian world is split into two camps, the First Camp led by maritime United States and Britain and the second Camp led by troika of continental European powers, namely, France, Germany and Russia. Continental Europe consolidated with the emerging alliance of France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Russia. Continental Asia should also consolidate as a common Buddhist-Hindu or Yellow-Brown Bloc that would be led by India, China and Japan. The consolidation of the White Christian Europe as a single Bloc, comprising France, Germany and Russia, necessitates the similar consolidation of Buddhist Hindu Asia comprising India, China and Japan.

 

Second, India should focus in projecting its power in the neighboring oil-producing regions of Arabian Gulf and Caspian Central Asia. Geopolitically India is better suited than China, Russia, France and Germany to project is military power in the neighboring Arabian Gulf, which had been an Indian lake throughout 18th, 19th and first half of 20th Century. India’s claims as world power would gain recognition in terms of India’s ability to project its power and influence in the oil-producing Arabian Gulf region, to control the oil and gas resources of the region as well as to deny or sabotage the control of other great power over these resources. The power to deny the adversary the control over oil resources of Arabia is as important a power as the control over these oil resources. To secure control over Arabian oil resources far more expensive than denying other powers from controlling these resources. Thus India could acquire great power status by demonstrating its military capability to disrupt the global transportation of oil via oil tankers passing through Arabian Sea. India and Russia have jointly developed the supersonic anti-ship Brahmos cruise missiles that could sink aircraft carriers or Naval ships or oil tankers. India should develop close military ties with Iran and deploy anti-ship missiles along the Iranian coast. India should develop military bases in Nicobar Islands to project its power in Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei oil fields. India should develop military ties with Vietnam to project its power in the South China oil fields. India should develop military bases in Uzbekistan to project its military power in the Caspian oil fields. India should develop military ties with Venezuela to project its power in the oil fields of Venezuela and Colombia. India should develop its military ties with Zimbabwe and Zaire-Congo to project its power in oil-rich Angola. India’s primary objective shall be to control the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan India oil and gas pipeline that would transport Caspian oil and gas to Indian markets. India’s great power status depends upon its ability to control the flow of Arabian Gulf oil As well as the control over the Turkmenistan-Pakistan-India oil and gas pipeline. India should do whatever it takes to control the maritime transportation of Arabian Gulf oil and gas resources.

 

(6) Alliance of Oil Hungry Great Powers

The national interests of India, coincide with the national interests of other big oil importers and with the national interests of the emerging Oil-colonialism as India must join forces with oil-importing nations to establish oil-colonial empires in the Middle East and worldwide.

 

The fundamental lesson of America’s invasion of Iraq has been that all great powers have the unfettered right of preemptive strikes to establish their oil colonies to secure their oil and gas supplies, essential for the survival of their industrial economies. Oil hungry great powers that lacked domestic oil reserves should pool their military assets to guarantee their secured supplies of oil and gas requirement at preferential prices from the oil-producing regions. China, India, Japan, Germany, South Korea, France and Taiwan should enter into a formal Oil Defense Pact to pool their military and diplomatic assets in times of war to secure their supplies of oil And gas resources. Oil is the essential for the industrial economy and Oil pact would deploy military force to secure supplies of the oil and gas resources from oil producers.

 

First, the top 20 largest consumers of imported oil that lacked domestic oil and gas reserves are as follows with their rank among the top 20 importers of oil and oil imports in million barrels per day: 2nd largest Japan: 5.423 MBPD, 3rd China: 4.854 MBPD, 4th Germany: 2.814 MBPD, 6th South Korea: 2.126 MBPD, 9th France: 2.040 MBPD, 10th India: 2.011 MBPD, 20th Taiwan: .846 MBPD. The total Chinese oil reserves are 24 billion barrels of oil, and China produces 3.297 MBPD and consumes 4.854 MBPD. The great economic powers that are totally dependent on imported supply of oil are, Japan the 2nd largest importer 5.423 MBPD, Germany the 4th largest importer of oil with imports of 2.814 MBPD, South Korea the 6th largest importer of oil with imports of 2.126 MBPD, France the 9th largest importer of oil with imports of 2.048 MBPD, India the 10th largest importer of oil with imports of 2.011 MBPD, and Taiwan the 20th largest importer of oil with imports of 0.846 MBPD, as of January 1, 2002.

 

Second, India should support WASP Oil Pax Americana, in exchange for India’s guaranteed role in the colonial administration of the American oil colonies. United States divided the military control over Iraq into three separate zones, governed by United States, Britain and Poland. India should participate in the future military operations to establish oil colonies in partnership with other great powers and carve out India’s sphere of influence over the oil-producing colony. So that India might get its requirement of imported oil from oil colonies at discounted prices. 

 

Third, India and China should work towards jointly controlling the oil and gas resources of Caspian Central Asia so that the oil riches of Central enriched the economies of India, China and Japan. Why should China and India quarrel over petty issues when the great wealth of Asia continued to be looted by non-Asian White Christians? India and China’s strategic ties would be sealed on the oil fields of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. India-China Defense Pact could be built on the solid foundation of Caspian Oil and Gas resources.

 

(7) India-USA-Israel Defense Pact

Should India join the US-Israel Camp and militarily support Judaic Israel and Protestant United States control the OPEC oil producing nations by establishing direct American oil colonies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE? Would Israeli occupation of Saudi Arabia in the national interest of India? Should Semite race become the basis of a new state of Israel-Saudi Arabia on the lines of the Austro-Hungarian Empire? Since the basic policy of United States is the control of Arab oil, would India profit if Israel and United States established direct oil colonies in the Arabian Gulf? Would Muslim oil-producers give better oil-deals to India if India helped Arab OPEC nations ward off the Israeli-US invasions of the Arab world?

 

First, India realized that Arab OPEC nations lacked the military muscle to remain independent and it would be in the national interest of India, if India joined the imperialist Camp led by United States to establish direct American oil colonies in the Middle East, in exchange for a slice of the Oil Loot? India's National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra proposed an alliance between the United States, India and Israel, among other democratic countries, to meet the threat of terrorism, in an address at the American Jewish Community Annual Dinner in Washington DC, on Thursday, May 8, ’03. The USA-India –Israel alliance would have the political will and moral authority to take bold decisions in extreme cases of terrorist provocation without being distracted by diversionary arguments like "root causes." Preventive measures like blocking financial supplies, disrupting networks, sharing intelligence, simplifying extradition procedures can only be effective through international cooperation based on trust and shared values. The idea of a Washington-New Delhi-Tel Aviv axis against terror is not new, but it is the first time India proposed it so openly and formally to the American Jews. There are fundamental similarities between India, the United States and Israel, including their democratic system, sharing a common vision of pluralism, tolerance and equal opportunity. Stronger India-US relations and India-Israel relations have a natural logic. New Delhi hoped to receive Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon soon in India on an official visit.

 

Second, Indians are realists and realized that Israeli lobby controlled White House and it would be in the national interest of India, if India directly promoted Israel’s interest in exchange for Israel’s help in promoting Indo-US détente. The alliance between the United States, India and Israel makes sense as American Jews control American foreign policy making. American Jews have dominated American foreign policymaking because of the leading role played by Henry J. Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Madeleine Albright, during Nixon Administration, Carter Administration and Clinton Administration. Just as Kissinger and Brzezinski had neutralized their counterpart Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney dominated the foreign policy under Bush Administration and successfully neutralized Secretary of State Collin Powell. During Nixon Administration and ford Administration Dr. Henry Kissinger dominated the US Foreign policymaking. During Carter Administration Zbigniew Brzezinski dominated the US foreign policymaking. Secretary Madeleine Albright dominated the foreign policymaking during last 2 years of the Clinton Administration.

 

Second, American policy is formulated by competing domestic political vote banks and economic interest groups and India could influence the White House only when it joined forces with one of the dominant interest groups in the United States. Jewish Lobby is the most powerful interest group in the United States. By entering into a formal alliance with United States and Israel, India viewpoint would become one of the key ingredient of the conflicting interests that compete with one another for the eyes and ears of the US President. During Clinton Administration the foreign policy developed by competitive jockeying by various governmental agencies. In the Clinton days, the different agencies, CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), NSC (National Security Council), the Pentagon, the State Department, Congress and others competed and produced a composite policy that at least had the benefit of some degree of unity. It was a bit like shoving a pack of Yankee tomcats in a sack, sewing it up and letting them fight it out and seeing where they ended up, and when the bag stopped moving that becomes the US foreign policy. Usually that US foreign policy would be such a finely balanced, tediously bargained compromise among conflicting interest and pressure groups that American diplomats literally could not believe foreign diplomats when foreign countries wanted to negotiate about American foreign policy issues. American have a tendency that whatever comes out of the tough lobbying by various interest groups, should please all foreign countries, as for Americans all foreign policy issues are primarily local issues of pork. By joining American camp India would become one of the tomcats that would fight for its share of meat.

 

Fourth, the religion played a very important role in the global clash of races and Hindus should align with Jews as Jews and Muslims locked in the mortal combat. Israel needs India as much as India needs Israel. India and Israel have the common enemy in the Arab Islamic world. Hindu India should join the Jews and Christians’ war on Muslims on the side of Christianity and Judaism. India has no option but to join the imperialistic camp led by United States and Israel, because Russia and France lost their courage to tame American imperialism. India on its own lacked the resources to oppose American imperialism. The alliance between United States, India and Israel makes sense as it would American oil colonialism and Pentagon’s interests in the New Middle East. Led by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld the Pentagon increased its voice in the US foreign policy making.

 

Fifth, Untied States wants to create American Empire without loss of American lives and Israel lacked the manpower to wage wars, and both United States and Israel would need Indian army to wage long wars. Indian army and India’s large population base made India very valuable ally for Israel as well as the United States. India’s defense pact with United States and Israel would convince United States that Indian Army could make very effective contributions towards America’s colonial aspirations in the oil-producing world. India should join the Bad Cop part of the White House policy making by linking its interests with that of the imperialistic Pentagon. Bush Administration’s foreign policy making is classic Good Cop Vs Bad Cop routine played by the State Department and the Pentagon respectively, and Pentagon ultimately decides the foreign policy. President Bush’s foreign policy approach does not believe in accommodating of foreign input. George W. Bush may not believe in evolution, but he seems to allow a Darwinian method of American foreign policy formation, where each member of the Bush Administration team, each department, makes up its own policy and pronounces it publicly, or leaks it, until suddenly, one of them is becomes a winner, and adopted by the White House, and then the others shut up and implement that imperialistic policy in a disciplined manner.

 

Sixth, India’s policy towards Israel and United States must take into consideration that White House switched between Good Cop and Bad Cop routine and that United States could be simultaneously pursue the pro-Indian and anti-Indian agenda. India should realize that there is no permanent policy concept in the Untied States. This may seem a chaotic and unproductive way to present your policies to the rest of the world and of course, in the long run, it is not very chaotic and unproductive way to the world, because the Pentagon seems to win more often than not. However in the short term, it does work to worry and unnerve the targets of this foreign policy making process, namely, Iraq, Syria, which keep them off balance and they would not realize the gravity of the situation. Colin Powell's "Good Cop" routine, which is in fact probably a sincerely held position, is made easier by the Bad Cops from the Pentagon running round giving all the appearance of mad dogs, which is probably a pretty sincere act as well. The rest of the world is not quite sure which policy they are being asked to agree with. But of course, that is the wrong question for them to ask. Foreign countries are not asked to agree with any particular policy, but to swear a pre-emptive oath of allegiance to any policy whatsoever that the White House adopts. The interdepartmental struggles in Washington are seriously disturbing to diplomats, and the pattern is of increasing Pentagon dominance. Nuclear Hindu India should be willing to swear a pre-emptive oath of allegiance to any imperialistic policy that the White House would adopt in the New Middle East, provided India gets its share of the oil loot in the Middle East.

 

35(6) Rape of Justice

(1) Rape of Justice in West Judicial System

India wants to prosecute Al Qaeda terrorists that American system failed to prosecute. India wants to prosecute criminal politicians in Italy that growing nexus of organized crime and Papacy implanted in Italian political scene. India wants to promote black South African politicians such as Winnie Mandela.

 

United States never prosecuted any Al Qaeda terrorist or Taliban fundamentalist for the crime they did in Afghanistan. The White Christian imperialistic world misusing the system of justice to reward the cronies of the West and to punish the freedom fighters that opposed the continued dominance of the Whites in the Third World. The Christian West refused to prosecute Al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban fundamentalists for the crimes they did in Afghanistan. The Christian West opposed the prosecution of the Christians responsible for the genocide of 2 million Buddhists in Cambodia. America opposed the International Criminal court, but used it to prosecute Slobadan Milosevic. The jail sentence on Winnie Mandela exposed the black regime of South Africa as the continuation of the White Apartheid regime. United States and Britain attempting to bring down the government of Robert Mugabe for this attempt to confiscate the agricultural farmlands of the pro-Apartheid white farmers. The pro-West regime in Yugoslavia embarked upon a reign of terror on supporters of Slobadan Milosevic. The government and judiciary during Slobadan Milosevic followed the rules of law more truthfully than the pro-West regime that followed.

 

(2) Italy: Acquittal of Giulio Andreotti

India opposes the growing nexus of Organized Crime and Papacy in Italian politics. India supports the return of House of Savoy Italian Kings to Italy to restore limited Monarchy in Italy.

 

First, United States, Mafia and the Vatican misused the Italian Judicial process to guarantee that Mafia-PM escaped the jail terms. The CIA had hired Italian Mafia and the Vatican to destabilize the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini and the CIA-Mafia-Vatican alliance continued to conspire to destabilize Italian parliamentary system to place pro-Mafia, pro-US and pro-Pope Prime Minister to head the governments in Italy, seven times. Giulio Andreotti represented the Nexus of Crime and politics that allowed Mafia and Vatican Church to manipulate the parliamentary system in Italy to impose pro-Mafia and pro-Vatican prime ministerial governments in Italy in the post Second World War era. An appeals court in Palermo, Sicily, Italy upheld the acquittal on Friday, May 2, 03 of former Premier Giulio Andreotti on charges of aiding the Mafia. Andreotti, 84, who served as premier seven times and is a senator, was not in court for the Palermo ruling. Giulio Andreotti said he framed by mobsters that sought revenge for his government's crackdowns on organized crime. He was acquitted in 1999, but Sicilian prosecutors appealed. The former leader said he had expected to triumph in court. "I know I have nothing to do with the Mafia. I only made laws against the Mafia," Andreotti said. Naturally, after Perugia there was some concern. But the appeal went very calmly in a very objective court. During November 2002, in a separate Mafia-linked case, Andreotti was convicted in Perugia of ordering the 1979 slaying of muckraking journalist Mino Pecorelli and sentenced to 24 years in prison. He is not serving that sentence, pending an appeal. Andreotti's defense lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, said Friday's acquittal discredits the conviction of Andreotti in Perugia, but did not invalidate that conviction. "In Perugia, there was a conviction, but this destroys that. It based the conviction on saying he sent the Mafia to do a killing, but this trial ruled out Mafia association. In the Palermo trial, the prosecutors contended that Andreotti and his Christian Democrat party did favors for the Mafia in Sicily, such as promising that lenient judges would handle mobsters' trials, in exchange for votes. They were seeking a 10-year prison sentence. The first Palermo trial, which lasted four years, was widely viewed as putting on trial the Christian Democrat-dominated political system that ran Italy for four decades after World War II. The Christian Democrats were toppled by corruption scandals in the early 1990s. The most riveting accusation of the trial alleged Andreotti exchanged a "kiss of honor" with Sicily's presumed boss of bosses, Salvatore "Toto" Riina, in a secret meeting in the 1980s. Riina was captured in 1993 and is now serving life in prison.

 

(3) Netherlands: Murderer of Pim Fortuyn

Neo-Conservatism deplores the murder of Pin Fortuyn in Netherlands. Neo-Conservatism seeks to set up Neo-Conservative Party in Netherlands and in Europe to promote the ideology of Neo-Conservatism.

 

The pro-Right Pim Fortuyn was murdered by the conspiracy hatched by political parties that wanted to thwart the democratic political process in the Netherlands. The religious right conservatives forces conspired to subvert the democratic process in Netherlands by arranging the murder of Pim Fortuyn, the person who would have become the Prime Minister of Netherlands and installed the pro-right government in Netherlands. Prosecutors in Amsterdam, Netherlands said in April ‘03 they would appeal the 18-year sentence given to the killer of Dutch populist leader Pim Fortuyn, after a wave of criticism that the punishment doesn't match the severity of the crime. Volkert van der Graaf, 33, was convicted and sentenced in an Amsterdam district court Tuesday for shooting Fortuyn on May 6, 2002, nine days before national elections. Fortuyn was a leading contender for prime minister, having risen swiftly on an anti-immigration platform. Prosecutors had demanded life imprisonment for Van der Graaf, but in first reaction they were "not dissatisfied" with the lighter sentence. Dutch courts usually jail defendants convicted of a single murder for 12-16 years, and life sentences are extremely rare. Only 21 have been handed down in the past 50 years, generally for serial murders. Prosecutors decided to appeal after taking a closer look at the ruling and concluding that the sentence was "in a gray area. Van der Graaf, an animal rights activist, wasn't likely to kill again and should be given a chance to rehabilitate. The Netherlands court failed to take into account that the suspect had intended to seriously upset the democratic process by killing Fortuyn." The court further misstated the prosecution's position and "insufficiently weighed the suspect's character in its sentencing. It didn't take into account his failure to show sorrow or remorse. The three-judge panel said the sentence reflected both the severity of the murder and its impact on Dutch society.

 

(4) South Africa: Winnie Mandela Jailed

Neo-Conservatism seeks to promote democracy in South Africa to help patriotic black leadership to emerge in South Africa. Neo-Conservatism and India supports Winnie Mandela in South Africa.

 

The jail sentence of Ms Winnie Mandela exposed the incumbent Black government of South Africa as the continuation of the Apartheid regime of South Africa. Winnie Madikzela-Mandela ended the Apartheid in South Africa, and ungrateful black rulers of South Africa, fearing that Winnie Mandela could become the next popular President of South Africa slapped a 4-year jail sentence on her. On April 24, so-called Black regime of South Africa stood exposed as the pro-Apartheid pro-White regime headed by the stooges of white imperialists. Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, the fiery anti-apartheid leader and ex-wife of former President Nelson Mandela, was sentenced to four years in prison Friday for her conviction on fraud and theft charges. She was convicted on April 24, 2003, Thursday of 43 counts of fraud and 25 of theft of money from a women's political league. The judge handed down a five-year sentence on April 25th, Friday but suspended one year of that term. Magistrate Peet Johnson said she could be released on parole after eight months and required to perform community service for the remainder of her term. Madikizela-Mandela had pleaded innocent to 60 charges of fraud and 25 of theft involving $120,000 at the African National Congress Women's League, which Madikizela-Mandela leads. Outside the courtroom, Madikizela-Mandela declined to discuss the case. However, she said she had resigned her seat in Parliament, her membership in the executive committee of the governing African National Congress (news - web sites), and the head of the ANC Women's League. "I will remain a dedicated, committed and loyal member of the ANC," she said. "I intend to spend my time henceforth to do the work that I started in my early life and to bind my destiny with everyone with whom I share the ideals of a just South Africa." Madikizela-Mandela was convicted in 1991 for kidnapping and assault. Her six-year jail sentence was reduced on appeal to a fine. Madikizela-Mandela also faces a public reprimand in Parliament for failure to disclose some of her income. In Cape Town on Friday, the High Court dismissed with costs her bid to stop the reprimand.

 

35(7) Iraq’s Occupying Powers

Neo-Conservatism welcomes the American Petro-Colonialism in Iraq. India supports the Neo-Conservative Petro-Colonial Empire of the Middle East. The concept of Colonial Empire became a legitimate concept in the 21st Century.

 

United Nations Security Council would be legitimizing the concept of Colonial Empires in 21st Century by legitimizing the American invasion of Iraq by rewarding America with Occupying Powers status in Iraq. Russia would lose its status as world power if it failed to use Veto on America’s Resolution. France and Germany and perhaps Russia too might legitimize America’s Occupation Powers status in Iraq to herald the new age of white Christian colonial empires. India as the leader of the Non Aligned Movement must oppose this America’s UN resolution of May 9, 2003. India should support America’s Occupying Power’s status only if India decided to create Indian Empire of its own in partnership with China and Pakistan.

 

(1) Occupying Power Status is Colonialism

By awarding Occupying Power Status to American troops in Iraq, the United Nations legitimized the concept of Colonialism in the 21st Century. In proposing a UN Security Council resolution on sanctions, the United States and Britain for the first time refer to themselves as "occupying powers" rather than "liberating forces" in Iraq.

 

Here is a look at the main responsibilities of being an "occupier" under the 1949 Geneva Conventions on humanitarian law, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross based in Geneva. An occupier must: (a) Restore and ensure public order and safety, (b) Provide the population with food and medical supplies, (c) Cooperate with aid and relief operations, if needed, (d) Ensure public health and hygiene, (e) Facilitate work of schools, (f) Uphold criminal laws of occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat or contradict international humanitarian law. An occupier cannot: (a) Loot, (b) Compel residents to serve in its armed forces, (c) Forcibly transfer residents out of occupied territory to its own territory, (d) Exploit resources of occupied territory for own benefit. American and British troops violated their responsibility as occupying force in Iraq when they failed to stop the looting of the Iraqi Museums and libraries. America intends to exploit the oil resources of Iraq for the benefit of United States, Britain and Poland.

 

Russia’s consent to the legitimization of United States as the legitimate Occupying Powers in Iraq would mean that Russia realized that it no longer is a world power. It would permanently destroy any future aspirations of France as world power. It would be stupid for Russia and France to legitimize the American invasion of Iraq by granting it the Occupying Powers status in Iraq. The African members of the Security Council, Cameroon, Guinea and Angola would condemn the African continent to slavery and foreign occupation, if they vote for it. United Nations would dig its grave if it legitimized American invasion as the Occupying Power in Iraq. Bush administration has treated the United Nations with disdain, giving it only a minimal role in the reconstruction of Iraq. The resolution amounts to a grudging admission by the United States that it needs some help from the UNO if it hopes to get Iraq back on its feet and on course toward becoming a colonial model for the rest of the oil-producing Arab world. Only the UNO can confer legitimacy on American occupation, end sanctions, open the door to substantial international reconstruction aid and attest to the representative nature of Iraq's future government. Passage of the American resolution would show that Russia and France, Germany, who opposed the Iraq war, are now willing to become the poodle dog of the United States.

 

The American resolution would establish legal American- British oil colony over Iraq. Washington is eager to have the U.N. lift oil export sanctions, which have in the first place allowed United States to win the Iraq War as UN sanctions discouraged other great powers to come to the defense of Iraq. Russia, India and China might have come to the rescue of Iraq, had there not been any UN sanctions against Iraq. More questionably, America’s resolution wants future petroleum revenues to be entrusted temporarily to a new assistance fund, which would be under American and British control. The U.N. would have only a limited oversight role through its representation on the new assistance fund's advisory board, on which the World Bank and International Monetary Fund would also be represented. The American resolution of May 9, 2003 would legitimize American occupation of Iraq as legal Occupying Power, with control over Iraq’s oil and power to create new political structures in Iraq. The U.N. is also being asked to grant American and British occupation forces legal authority to reshape Iraq's institutions, and in that role the U.N. would have only a small role. A special coordinator to be appointed by Secretary General Kofi Annan would take part, along with American, British and Iraqi representatives, in rebuilding local and national governing institutions. Regrettably, the United States seems intent on starting an interim government later this month, before the likely arrival of this U.N. coordinator.

 

President Bush justified its invasions of Iraq to eradicate WMDs and now United States would accept no role for UN weapons inspectors. Washington stubbornly insists on bypassing the U.N. altogether on the sensitive issue of unconventional weapons. Unless American claims about weapons discoveries can be independently verified, they will be widely distrusted. The people best suited to verify any findings are the international arms control professionals already assembled and trained by the UNO. The American resolution leaves many important questions unresolved, like, for example, the extent to which the vast debts incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime will be honored. Its passage would mark an end of the United Nations and end the great power status for Russia, France and Germany.

 

American resolution asked the UN Security Council to give its stamp of approval to American British occupation of Iraq and sought permission to use Iraqi oil revenue from the world's second-largest oil reserves to rebuild the war-battered Iraqi country. The plan envisions the United States and Britain running Iraq as "occupying powers" for at least a year and probably much longer. The American plan's centerpiece is the lifting of oil and trade sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the phasing out of the oil-for-food humanitarian program. America wants to disentangle and to disengage the United Nations from many of the resolutions that were passed under entirely different circumstances. Washington and London sent a letter to the UN Security Council president recognizing their responsibilities and obligations under international law "as occupying powers." The letter marked the first time the United States has referred to its role in Iraq as an "occupying power," a status governed by the Geneva Conventions that details wide-ranging responsibilities for the Iraqi people. Washington had called itself a "liberating force."

 

The recognition of occupier status by the UN Security Council members would mean that UNO officially agreed that oil colonial empires could be established by direct military invasions. That establishes the basis for a clear political discussion as to how other oil colonies could be established in future by other world powers, perhaps Russia, India, China, France and Britain. It would establish a wonderful legal precedent to accord legal status to colonial empires in the 21st Century, and would de-legitimize the anti-colonialism and de-colonization that took place in the aftermath of the Second World War. The American draft calls for transferring control of Iraq's oil revenues from the United Nations to the U.S.-led coalition. The American draft would give America the control over Iraqi oil money to finance the country's reconstruction, without international oversight, and it envisions only a limited, largely advisory role for the United Nations. The draft also calls on all countries to deny safe haven to members of Saddam Hussein's former regime, and wants the present UN embargo on arms aid to Iraq to continue.

 

Russia has proposed that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan maintain control over the oil money until a legitimate Iraqi government is formed. That could trigger opposition from UN Security Council members who want a major U.N. role in creating an interim Iraqi government — and view the U.S. proposal as not offering the "vital role" that President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair promised the world body. The draft calls on Annan to appoint a U.N. special coordinator to work with U.S. and British authorities and the Iraqi people. That coordinator also would promote delivery of humanitarian aid, the return of refugees, reconstruction, human rights, legal and judicial reform, and rebuilding of an Iraqi police force. The draft also calls on all countries to deny safe haven to members of Saddam Hussein's former regime, and to prohibit the trade in looted Iraqi cultural artifacts. In essence the American Draft naively expected that United States would give up all its powers over Iraq and hand over the Oil wealth of Iraq to America and Britain to rape and plunder as they please. In nutshell President Bush expected United Nations to legitimize white colonial empires to take rebirth in the first quarter of the 21st Century. If Russia failed to use its Veto to bloc American resolution, would declare that Russia ceased to be a great power and became the Lap dog of the Yankee president like Britain, France and Germany. India and China the two world powers of the world’s top three powers would have to assert and increase their diplomatic profile before the Third World forced to become colonies of the West. May be India and China should forces with the assertive colonial powers of the age, the United States and establish Indian Empire and Chinese Empires respectively

 

It would be OK if secular Americanism replaced the tyranny of Baathism in Iraq. It would be sad if the secular Baathism replaced by Wahhabi fundamentalism instead of secular Americanism in post-occupation Iraq. The doctrine of Baathism, a secular and socialist doctrine founded by a Syrian Christian Michel Aflak, which formed ruling Baath parties in Syria and Iraq. The secular doctrine of Baathism was direct competitor of Wahhabi fundamentalism promoted by American and British colonialism in oil-rich Arabian Peninsula. India cannot accept the replacement of secular foundations of Iraqi society with Wahhabi Sunni or Ayatollah Shiite version of Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq. India would accept American oil colonialism in Iraq, but India would oppose the Wahhabi fundamentalism in Iraq. The American invasion of Iraq should not replace the secular Iraqi society with barbarian Wahhabi fundamentalism, and this fact should have been recognized while United Nations discussed the Occupying Powers status over Iraq.

 

(2) Bush Trading Old Allies with New Allies

India should exploit the propensity of President Bush to replace traditional allies of the Untied States with new allies that would support the American imperialistic agenda. India should negotiate with the Oval Office to persuade Untied States replace China with India as the America’s global strategic partner. President Bush rewarding its allies in the War on Iraq to tempt other nations to join its camp and legitimize its illegal war on Iraq, with legitimacy of the UN approved Occupying Powers status. President Bush rewarded Poland with control over one of the sectors in Iraq, to tempt Germany break the ties with France to jump into American bandwagon. Gerhard Schroeder regretted his opposition to President Bush, otherwise Germany not Poland would have become the Occupying Force in Iraq. Germans really wanted to get the role Poland would be playing in Iraq. Foreign policy experts expressed concern at the administration's apparent willingness to trade in a set of traditional allies for a set of new ones. No matter how worthy, the new ones dubbed "New Europe" by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cannot replace the Old Europe with untested, novice New Europe. It's not just France and Germany that have been demoted. Russia a nuclear power and U.N. Security Council member that opposed the war has cast its lot with France and Germany. Mexico, an early focus of the president's attention, has gotten short shrift. But while there are 191 members of the United Nations, the White House has listed only 49 countries in the coalition. And while there are about 40 nations in Europe, depending on how they are tallied, only 15 joined the coalition of the willing, eight of them from Eastern Europe. Seven Eastern European countries got full White House honors in May 2003, to mark the Senate's vote that earlier ratified their entry into NATO. The peoples of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia have a fresh memory of tyranny, and these new nations know the consequences of complacency in the face of danger. White House rejoiced at the denigration of traditional allies and insisted that these "new allies," despite their small size, were no less valuable than old partners, such as France and Germany. If people measure principles of right and wrong by gross domestic product] size, they're using the wrong measurements. Right and wrong is right and wrong, whether it's the smallest nation with the lowest GDP that stands on principle, or the largest nation with the highest GDP.

 

India should openly court United States and seek alliance status with United States and Israel, since President Bush wants to trade in a set of traditional allies like China and Pakistan for a set of new allies and bring India into the exclusive club of America's closest allies. President Bush’s apparent willingness to trade in a set of traditional allies for a set of new ones bodes well for India. President Bush could easily jettison China as the strategic ally of the United States to replace China with India. Smaller nations are easily puffed up by the attention White House gives them. The special welcome to Philippine President, who illegally usurped power, might get rewards as the reopening of American military bases in Philippines. United States relations with France and Germany have deteriorated. A look at the White House schedule makes it clear that only members of the "coalition of the willing" the nations that supported the administration's decision to wage war on Iraq are getting face time with Bush. Bush honored Australian Prime Minister John Howard with a coveted visit to his Texas ranch. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar met with Bush in the Oval Office the leaders' third meeting in less than three months. President Bush had breakfast with the prime minister of Denmark and met with the emir of Qatar in the Oval Office. On May 19, 2003, the president of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, was granted the highest honor of all a full-fledged state visit, complete with the pomp of a White House arrival ceremony and a formal state dinner. It will be only the third state dinner since Bush became president; the others were for the president of Mexico in September 2001 and the president of Poland in July. It suggests that Philippines might invite United States to establish bases in Philippines again. The global alliance structure of the United States could undergo fundamental restructuring and Hindu India has a better chance of developing closer military ties with Protestant United States than with Catholic European powers.

 

(3) Germany France Envy Poland

India should join forces with Germany and France that are sidelined by American support to Poland, and increased Polish role in the European Union. Germany and France have become Old Europe, while Poland represents new Europe. United States promoted Poland, a Catholic nation, as the military leader of New Europe, by appointing Poland as the Occupying Power in one of the three sectors of Iraq, along with Britain. United States helped Bolshevik Polish Bishop as the Pope, which undermined the power in the Vatican government of Italian, French and German clergy and enhanced the role of American and Polish clergy in the Vatican government. By promoting Poland as the new military power of Europe, United States expedited the decline of France and Germany, condemned by Donald Rumsfeld as Old Europe. Catholic Poland represented the religious interests of the Vatican in Iraq and Europe. Most of the Catholic-majority countries of Europe opposed the political role of the Vatican and there is no Catholic Super Power in the world. Poland is the most vocal pro-Papacy Catholic military power of the Europe.

 

President Bush by dangling the carrot of Poland as Occupying Power in a sector in Iraq broke the ranks of Germany-France opposition to the Iraq War. The United States entrusted Poland with one of the three occupied zones in Iraq, the job Germany would relish to do. German Defense Minister Struck was angered by his Polish colleague Szmajdzinski's proposal to work together in Iraq. Poland is set to lead one of the occupied sectors in Iraq. German commentators greeted the Polish proposal that it help its neighbor Poland patrol Iraq with jeers, speaking of a wannabe great power bankrolled by the United States.

 

Polish defense minister proposed that the German-Danish-Polish corps be deployed in Iraq. Stationed in northwestern Poland since 1999, the corps is a joint effort between the three countries within the realm of NATO. German soldiers under Polish command in Iraq, for many German opinion-makers it was a downright outrageous idea. Germans observed with amusement that Poland had only sent 200 soldiers to Iraq. No country had ever risen to the position of a victorious war power with such little effort. Poland would be able to undertake its new function as the Occupying Power of Iraq, by looting the oil-riches of Iraq as the Occupying Power. Poland would not require the United States to cover the costs. Poland can become an international player, but only thanks to the grace of the United States.  Poland had occupied the Soviet territories up to Minsk after the fall of monarchy of Russian Czars in 1917. The Polish perspective has been largely ignored in Germany. Poland did not push to become an occupying power in Iraq; the idea was born in Washington. Poland knew from the start that it had neither the money nor the military capacities to station thousands of soldiers in Iraq for very long. Poland accepted the assignment as the Occupying Power with a certain pride, easily explained by Polish history. Germany would become the co-Occupying power in Iraq by joining Poland in the onerous task of Occupying Power, to erase the dishonor of Russian, French, British and United States occupation troops after the Second World War. Germany and France might join with Poland to represent continental Europe as Occupying Power in Iraq.

 

(4) Germany is a Medium-Size Power

Germany can hope to play any important role in world politics, when Germany develops closer ties with India. It shall be in the long-term national interest of Germany to support President Bush’s civilian nuclear deal with India.

 

The Atlanticists in Germany find themselves rather uncomfortably quite possibly to the murky deep of political insignificance in German politics, when Gerhard Schroeder slavishly followed the Pied Piper of Gaullist Paris. Germany realized that the grandeur it experienced under Adolf Hitler was the accident of history and modern day Germany is no match to other world powers. Gerhard Schroeder defined Germany’s role in the world not as a world power but as a medium-size power pivotal to Europe and linked in a vital friendship with the United States, but more independent than in the past. Germany would join forces with Poland and become the Co-Occupying Power in a sector of Iraq. Germany accepted its 2nd class status as world power. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder strongly reaffirmed U.S.-German ties on May 9, 03 in an attempt to move beyond a chill over the Iraq war but said Germany would resist being forced to choose between its main European partner France and the United States. Gerhard Schroeder accepted the idea of predominant American power and said the world must align around the quest for democracy and other values that Europe and the United States share. Gerhard Schroeder laid out his vision of Germany's place in the world after the US-led invasion of Iraq a "medium-size power" pivotal to Europe and linked in a "vital friendship" with the United States, but more independent than in the past. "Nobody should try to force Germany into the senseless choice of choosing between its friendship with France and its friendship with the United States. Germany is certain it would be to the detriment of all concerned, Germany and France, and consequently for the whole world. Germany is eager to overcome months of trans-Atlantic divisions. Germany considers as non-productive academic debate whether the world is "unipolar" code for overwhelming U.S. power is "hardly productive. Germany agrees that we want to have only one 'pole' in world politics: the pole of freedom, peace and justice.

 

Americans are by essence fixers. Confronted with a problem they instinctively try to solve it. Europeans tend to avoid confronting the challenges before them. The emotional gulf that existed before the war between the US and Europe has widened and will be difficult to narrow. Americans have not, it appears, learnt the fundamental lesson of the Vietnam War that there are problems without solutions. By contrast, Europeans, for a combination of historical wisdom, powerlessness and occasional lack of courage, tend to avoid confronting directly the challenges before them. The terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 only reinforced these cultural differences. Americans have been at war ever since 9/11 and Europeans have not joined in any war.

 

Americans feel triumphant over the occupation of Iraq with minimal loss of America lives, but the reality of Iraq war does nothing to increase War’s legitimacy as a tool of foreign policy in the eyes of most Europeans. Even if Europeans shared the Iraq war aims of the US and rejoiced over the speedy victory of the America-led coalition forces, the Europeans cannot accept the Iraq war in its naked, absolute brutality that is an obscene anachronism, to every post-War European value. To an average European Yankees are brutal imperialist, and Bush could be Hitler of 21st Century. However, Germany gave highest compliment to Bush when its minister compared Bush to Hitler. Germans want to become imperialistic like Americans and Gerhard Schroeder deeply regretted that he could have promoted Germany’s international stature by sending German troops to conquer Iraq alongside American troops to regain the military aura of Adolf Hitler. Germans would have called it a great honor if President Bush had appointed Germany as the Occupying Power in a sector of Iraq.  

 

The Cold War did not prepare Germany for the return of a hot war inflicted by Americans the Germany’s former liberators upon Iraq. Instead of Saddam Hussein's total repression, Iraqis now live in fear of chaos and fear of American colonial occupation, and anarchy has replaced tyranny. The citizens of Iraq want order and hope, and they would never get it under American colonial occupation. Iraqis neither want American arrogance matched by self-righteous European criticism of US imperialism, nor Germany and France’s acceptance of American occupation as legitimate Occupying Power endorsed by the UNO.

 

Germany desperately wants to have a rapprochement between the two continents in the months ahead, so that Germany might replace Poland as the Occupying Power in a sector of Iraq. Americans will have to put the trauma of September 11 behind them, and agree not to employ the diplomacy of deception to wage colonial wars in names of war against Islamic terrorism or WMDs. This does not mean belittling its significance: the 9/11 as that day will always be remembered as unique monstrosity, when Saudi Arabian Islamic terrorists attacked United States and the super power failed to prosecute even a single Wahhabi Al Qaeda terrorist, including Osama Bin Laden. United States rewarded Saudi Arabia for the Saudi terrorist attacks of 9/11 by invading secular Iraq, the archenemy of Wahhabi fundamentalist Saudi Arabia.

 

(5) Gaullism Threatens Atlanticism

France can become a major world player if it sticks to Gaullism and enters into strategic ties with rising India. India-France strategic ties can blunt American preponderance over Europe. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and President Chirac honored Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski with their visit to Wroclaw, to warn him that Franco-German axis is the boss in Europe. French President Jacques described Poland who sided with America as “badly brought up.” German diplomats dubbed the Poles “mercenaries and vassals. Germans accustomed to thinking Poles as untutored peasants. President Kwasniewski had the effrontery to invite Germany to share peacekeeping role in northern Iraq, the sector United States has assigned to Poland. The recent contemptuous attitude of German towards the Poles would awaken a lot of animosities and bitter memories of the past that all of us had hoped were buried by the spirit of new Europe. The New Europe that Donald Rumsfeld eulogized is not the New Europe espousing the spirit of New Europe, symbolized by the idea of European Union deterrent, but reflected the idea of Europe as the vassal states of America.

 

The invocation of the Gaullist vision has given Jacques Chirac a firm grip on the French presidency. Old Europe is the old-fashioned idea dating back to thee 1950s the vision of Charles de Gaulle that France allied with Germany could dominate the European continent. There is no place for America or Britain or indeed any other Anglo-Saxon in Gaullist scheme of things. The Gaullist catechism is: Rid Europe of American influence. Gaullism is not a pipe dream of France with an inflated estimate of its own power. Gaullism is more realistic now than it was 45 years ago. Gold War is over and the Soviet threat is no more. Russia is more likely to become closer ally of France and Germany than America could ever be. The Gaullist chimera is a great threat to the United State’s domination of European Union. The announcement in late April ’03 by France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg that they intended to set up headquarters for a new “European Defense Force” near NATO headquarters in Brussels. No other of the 19 NATO countries chose to be part of this exercise in tokenism. Among existing 15 EU members and 10 new members, all except the “Gang of Four” are led by Atlanticists. However, the public opinion in all the 25 members of the expanded EU opposed America’s invasion of Iraq and supported the Anti-Americanism of the so-called “Gang of Four.” It is possible that the public opinion might remove the pro-American leadership in all countries that supported America’s war on Iraq.  

 

Gaullism is certainly a manifestation of the old Europe, the conservative Europe and Gaullism still able to define what is politically correct in Europe. The anti-Americanism that Jacques Chirac stirred doesn’t have Europeanism as its flip side and its mate is nationalism. Anti-Americanism and European nationalism are two sides of the same coin. Anti-Americanism and Independent European deterrent are the two sides of the same coin. Jacques Chirac’s Anti-Americanism would be called a ‘conservative” in European parlance. French Anti-Americanism not so much anti-Democrats but more anti-Republican and George W. Bush is their bete noire. Britain’s Tony Blair and Spain’s Jose Maria Aznar as lap dogs of the Yankee White House is a threat to the old order of European grandeur. French are still able to define what is politically correct in Europe. No doubt this was what Don Rumsfeld had in mind when he differentiated between “old Europe” and ‘new Europe,” the contemptuous attitude that destroyed the NATO, the Atlantic partnership and raised howls from the salons of Paris and Berlin.

 

The Gaullism is based on the divine concept of nationalism and works counter to the concept of internationalism if European Union’s internationalism produced subordination to the United States rather than independent European deterrent. For all the progress made towards European integration, Europe is still a collection of the nation states, with culturally distinct separate languages and separate national characteristics and if European Union failed to develop independent European deterrent than the very rationale of European integration would lose its rationale. Then Germany and France, Belgium and Luxembourg would enter into a military pact with nuclear India to create France-Germany-India Bloc to hold America in check. If Don Rumsfeld continued to fan the fires of nationalistic hatred by promoting Poland as the new military leader of Europe, just as President Jimmy Carter made Bolshevik Polish Bishop the new leader of the Roman Catholic Church, he would destroy what thoughtful architects of new Europe so painstakingly created. Poland as the lap dog of the White House could break up NATO into two hostile camps, one pro-America and other anti-America. The growing hostility of Gaullists and Atlanticists would cause the demise of NATO and the Atlantic partnership. The East Europeans would join Anglo-Saxon United States and Britain to develop new NATO by excluding France and Germany. The Old Europe led by France and Germany would forge new defense alliance with Russia and India to develop Eurasian Defense Pact, to keep United States out of the oil-rich Caspian Central Asia and Iran.

 

(6) India France Germany Triple Alliance

Gaullism stands for multipolar world order, where United States would be one of the great powers of the world. French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie sought the cooperation of India to develop a "multipolar" world after the Iraq war. Gaullism stands for the multipolar world and opposed the concept of Unipolar world. Gaullism can become a diplomatic force in the world only when France and India systematically develop closer military ties to develop a new military pole in the world based on the principle of anti-Americanism. India, France and Germany could become a great alliance that would attract Japan into its fold. German-Russian and French-Russian ties hits a brick wall because of the Cold War era hostilities and suspicions, so France and Germany should enhance their international stature by developing closer military ties with India. Germany, France and India should develop the concept of Non Alignment of Great Powers to assert the independence of medium size world powers. Decline of Russia made the France-Germany-India military alliance a moral imperative for Gaullists. The Triple alliance of France, Germany and India would grow into Quadruple alliance of France, Germany, India and Japan within a decade. Germany and Japan would need the moral and diplomatic support of nuclear India and nuclear France, whenever they decided to develop nuclear deterrent of their own.

 

India could provide nuclear umbrella over Japan and Germany to shield them from American retaliation during the initial phase of development and deployment of nuclear weapons. It is possible that Canada and Brazil would join the Triple alliance of France, Germany and India to assert their independence from United States. The Alliance of India ($2.2 trillion), Germany ($1.8 trillion), France ($1.2 trillion), Japan ($3 trillion), Canada ($726 billion) and Brazil ($1 trillion) would have the combined 1999 GNP of ($8.7 trillion) more than the GNP of United States ($8.35 trillion). Gaullism has the potential to develop an anti-American alliance in the world. Japan, India, Germany, France, Brazil and Canada are the world’s 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 12th largest economies respectively.

 

(7) India’s New Diplomatic Postures

Nuclear India ($2.2 trillion GNP) the 4th largest economy of the world can change the balance of power in the world by developing closer ties with nuclear China ($4.1 trillion GNP) the 2nd largest economy and nuclear Pakistan ($237 billion GNP) the 26th largest economy. Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s June 2003 visit to China and meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao could result in the alliance of yellow Buddhist Chinese Civilization with brown Hindu Indian Civilization. India should not sit on the sidelines in post-occupation Iraq. Either India should join forces with America and deploy troops to establish India’s foothold over Iraq, or India should join forces with Iran, Russia, France and Germany to neutralize America’s imperial ambitions to establish direct American oil colonies in oil-rich Iraq, Iran, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Indian foreign policy should cross the Rubicon and engage with major players of the world to assert India’s role in the world politics. After the invasions of secular non-aligned Yugoslavia, American forces invaded the secular non-aligned Iraq. America could emerge as threat to leading Non-Aligned Nations especially after United States took over the leadership of the First World and the Second World. United States determined to dominate the Third World as a prelude to assert its domination of the world.

 

(8) India might send Troops to Iraq

India should send troops to Iraq to work alongside American, British and Polish troops in Iraq, to maintain law and order and to help the reconstruction of Iraq, as it would be a fitting response to the Mohammed Bin Kassim’s aggression against India 1,000 years ago. Saddam Hussein is finished and Iraq could never again become the Non Aligned Nation. India should cooperate with the new rulers of Iraq and go ahead to promote India’s interests in the Arabian Gulf region. Deployment of Indian troops in any of the three zones, under control of Americans, British or Polish would promote India’s national interest in the Middle East. Mohammed Bin Kassim from Baghdad came to India at the turn of the 2nd Millennium and looted Sindh so it is appropriate that Hindu India should send troops to Muslim Iraq and bask in the glory of the Occupying Powers. Thousands of Indian troops should be pulled out of Jammu and Kashmir to go to Iraq, where they should help in reconstruction of Iraq and assist American, British and Polish Occupation Powers to maintain law and order in Iraq. Indian Army can afford to reduce troops in the region because infiltration has come down, and India can recruit new soldiers if so needed. The Shiite (Shia) heartland of Karbala and Najaf in Iraq is an area that American troops have found problematic to control and that could be the new testing ground for Indian troops from J&K, who have considerable expertise in controlling Islamic militancy. The Indian Army is finalizing plans for a division of Indian soldiers, roughly 17,000 troops, to be pulled out of Kashmir and sent to Iraq. The troops that could go to Iraq include: Three Rashtriya Rifle sectors of about 4,000 troops each, currently deployed in J&K An armored brigade including two tank regiments and a mechanized infantry battalion from the plains. India should be willing to serve alongside American and British troops as India’s military organized on the pattern of British Army.

 

But a key question remains, whether India will join the American coalition that conducted Operation Iraqi Freedom or whether it will seek a United Nations mandate for deploying peacekeepers in Iraq. India's foreign ministry does not deny that a force is being readied for Iraq, but America has not asked for troops and India would prefer the UN route. India has not received a formal American request and India’s well-established policy is to participate in peacekeeping operations under UN auspices. India's peacekeeping history runs through 50 years and 35 different UN missions. More than 60,000 Indian soldiers have served under the UN flag. India’s largest UN contingent so far, the one to Somalia, had just 5,000 troops. A mission to Iraq almost thrice that size could be a far greater challenge. Agreeable solution, for a country that many of its key leaders now believe missed the boat on Iraq, India is looking for ways to mend fences with America - a strategic ally against cross-border terrorism. While the Army's planning and preparations are on in full swing, they will only move once America, the United Nations and India agree on an acceptable framework within which Indian soldiers would operate in Iraq.

 

(9) India China Pakistan Detente

United States, China and India triangular balance of power would transform the world balance of power. It is high time that the civilizations of India and China developed closer ties to assert the diplomatic role of the brown and yellow races in the world. India and China represented around 38 percent of the world population, and they should aim to secure 38% of the world trade and 38% of the world’s GNP. In 1500, India and China represented 50% of the world population. In 1750, India manufactured 24% share of the world’s total manufactured goods and China had 31% of the world share, representing 55% of the world’s manufactured goods.

 

The failure of France and Britain in 1956 Suez Canal War cost them their great power status. The failure of Russia in 2003 Iraq War cost Russia its world power status. The failure of Russia, France and Germany to check the American conquest of Iraq signaled to the world that Russia ceased to be a world power and joined the ranks of 2nd ranking great powers alongside France and Britain. The top three world powers in the post Iraq War age are: United States, China and India, respectively the world’s 1st, 2nd and 4th largest economies. The combined GNP at PPP of China, Japan and India exceeds the combined GNP of United States and Canada. The mating of two giants, India and China could shake the world balance of power and catapult Asia, the Hindu India and Buddhist China as the movers and shakers of the world. India should engage world. India's national interest was in engaging the world, particularly the United States, in a partnership of 'shared values' to shape the new international order. The book Crossing the Rubicon: The Shaping of India's New Foreign Policy, signals that it had become imperative for India in the post-Cold War era to get the world on its side, and not merely have an alliance with the US, the only hyper power. It is stupid to argue that India's partnership with the US gave the impression that it had become Washington's client state. India can never become a client state of the United States, as India is too big and too proud to become America’s vassal state, besides being the world’s third greatest power. Once that partnership comes between India and the United States, then India would have successfully engaged the world. That's how India should take care of its national interest by true engagement. India's position in the post-Cold War era is that diplomats can only say that India's potential is somewhat big. The India’s engagement with United States is not easy because of the asymmetry of power. Terrorism could only be countered if all democracies fought it together, and not through a 'loose international order'. India's foreign policy should embody 'continuity with change. At the beginning of the 1990s, India saw a 'big change in India’s position in the world'. Many Indians felt that India had lost its moorings, during 1990-1998 era. But India needed the nuclear tests of May 11, 1998, to awaken the world to show how India changed the circumstances somewhat to suit India’s policy.

 

It is highly appropriate that two Asian giants, the Elephant India and Dragon China start the mating dance to assert their demand for their place under the sun. The triangular balance of power among United States, China and India would determine the Asian Balance of Power and directly influence the global balance of power as no European power has the resources to play great power role in the world. Russia ceased to be a major player in world after President Putin failed to stop President Bush’s aggression on Iraq. After extending the hand of peace to arch-foe Pakistan, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's planned follow-up visit to old-enemy China could redraw the diplomatic map of Asia, a region that is of acute interest to President Bush after he won victory in Iraq war. Asia’s major players, India, China and Pakistan, bristle with nuclear arms, and elderly politician Atal Behari Vajpayee's peace plays may be aimed not only at ensuring his place in the world history books, but could catapult Asia as the dominant continent of the 21st Century that could seal the decline of the West and the decline of Europe. The shifts in bilateral ties among the trio, India, China, Pakistan, as well as shifts in their relationships with the United States since the Cold War, plus a big nudge from the America’s conquest of Iraq, are starting to alter dramatically diplomatic patterns in Asia that remained unchanged for decades, after 1962 India-China War. Diplomacy is back in business in South Asia. If Vajpayee goes to China in June it will be the first such visit by an Indian prime minister in a decade and comes after Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji toured India in 2002. The proposed visit to China unsettled old China friend Pakistan, putting pressure on President Pervez Musharraf as he ponders Vajpayee's surprise offer in April ‘03 to give peace a chance after the nuclear neighbors narrowly averted war in 2002.

 

It is in the interest of China to develop military alliance with India, which might very handy if ever China decided to conquer Eastern Siberia, Malaysia and Indonesia, or Australia. India is also interested in reducing the number of potential foes during this 'war on terror. That is true for China also, as China is worried over Saudi Arabia and United States financed Islamic militants slipping over the border from Pakistan, Central Asia and stirring resentment in China’s restive Muslim western region of Xinjiang. Vajpayee may be interested in seeing if he can, to any degree, wean China away from Pakistan. This is a tall order given the long-standing relationship between China and Pakistan, China's misgivings about Islamic militancy in Xinjiang notwithstanding." Wooing China away from Pakistan may be a tall order, but not as tall as trying to resolve the India-China territorial disputes that triggered a war between India and China in 1962, and to this day, the two Asian giants have failed to agree even on mapping out common India-China border. Vajpayee made no progress in resolving India China territorial disputes when he met new Chinese leaders President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao.

 

India’s national interests lay in closer trade and political relationships between India and China the world’s 4th largest and 2nd largest economies. India-China territorial problems, nuclear issues are not going to get resolved for decades to come. But symbolism in China acquires a certain substantive dimension. The visit was more than symbolic. By maintaining high-level political contact furthers understanding between these two big countries, India and China have agreed to put such intractable disputes on the back burner while they confront issues of the day, to boosting trade between world 2nd largest and 4th largest economies, reducing military tensions and the consequent drain on budgets, and altering the balance of power in the world, by jointly asserting the role of India and China on the world scene. A rapidly prospering China and greater USA-China trade because of the Most Favored Trading Nations status that China enjoys in United States are factors affecting the balance of power in Asia. It made more sense for India to normalize with China than Pakistan, but it takes two to tango, as India China mating would make more noise than the mating of elephants, the smaller animals would get scared or humbly join the band wagon of the two giants if they could agree to pursue any common Asian agenda that promoted the common civilization interests of Hindu and Buddhist civilizations and common interests of brown and yellow races that represent half of the population of the world. Vajpayee felt that if Musharraf is not ready to take to the dance floor Delhi should be looking to Beijing and Washington to dance the Great powers tango. India as one of the top three world powers must learn to lead the diplomatic dance.

 

(10) Should India Send Troops to Iraq?

Yes. But India should get better bargain.

One. Pentagon should outsource its entire requirements from India. Let Indian soldiers manage the peacekeeping in Iraq. Let Indian defense contractors arrange all the supplies to Iraq. Let Indian contractors do the repairs of military equipment in Iraq. United States would reduce its $4 billion/month expense account by 50% to $2 billion/month if pentagon outsourced its entire military requirements to Indians. Pentagon should persuade Indian government takes over the Peacekeeping operations to the Indian private defense contractors. Privatization of the Colonial military and colonial peacekeeping operations, so that private sector Indian defense contractors could provide peacekeeping and colonial administration in Iraq, would be a better way to wage wars in future. Private Indian companies willing to provide 200,000 private soldiers and 200,000 technicians from India for Iraqi operations under Private contracts directly with Pentagon. Let us privatize the entire process of colonialism, colonial administration, and colonial conquests to better manage the age of colonial empires. In the past private corporation East India Company had ruled India. The private company of Cecil Rhodes ruled over Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Let Private Indian Defense Contractors and suppliers take over as subcontractors the entire process of colonial administration in Iraq.

 

(11) Iraqi War Crime Tribunal is a Good

The Tribunal must investigate the genocide of Kurds and genocide of Shiites by Saddam regime as well as the genocide of Kurds committed by Turks and Turkomans. In order to retain the territorial integrity of Iraq it is very important the Arab Sunnis that committed war crimes and crime of genocide against Kurds and Shiites should get the punishment they deserve. Arab Sunni Iraqi's represented only 16 percent population of Iraq and they tortured Kurds and Shiites, because Lawrence of Arabia secured   ties with the Mecca's Wahhabi Arab Sunni. Britain and America must severe all ties with Wahhabi in Iraq. Iraqi Arab Sunni should be removed from sensitive positions and replaced by Kurds and Shiites. The Turkey's Turkomans should also be put on trial for the War crimes and genocide Turks and Turkomans committed against Kurds in Iraq.

 

(12) White Race Can’t Manage Colonies

Without India USA would lose the war in Iraq. India should help USA by sending 200,000 troops and 200,000 administrators so that Iraq colony would be a fitting reply to Mohammad Bin Qasim's invasion of Sindh in 8th Century. America wants to stay in Iraq for next 20 years, and without India's support it would have to leave Iraq. USA would willingly give India half of the oil of Iraq for helping American colonialism to succeed in Iraq. USA would lose the Iraqi occupation without the help of Indian soldiers because white soldiers are kids that have been plucked from their civilian jobs for war duties. Conquering Iraq was easy. Administering conquered Iraq is more difficult. Only India can administer Iraqi colony. India must not allow USA to lose in Iraq. India should enjoy the bleeding the Americans suffer in Iraq and use it as a bargaining tool to increase India's price for sending troops to Iraq. India can easily get 50% of Iraqi oil, and get 1,000,000-barrels/day free oil from Iraq if India played its cards well. Americans cannot trust any troops from any Muslim country in Iraq as any radical Muslim might shoot the US General in the US Camps at will in Iraq. USA is stuck in Iraq. Hindu government of India, led by BJP might succeed in establishing Hindu Empire in the Arab Middle East, if India could convince USA that India could be loyal, honest, reliable, Colonial administrator and lieutenant of American oil colonial Empire in the Middle East. India can get free oil for all its requirements from Muslim Middle East if we can serve the interests of Christian American Big Oil. Hindu India must seek alliance with Christian Big Oil and Christian Empire over Arab oil producers. The 21st Century could see Hindu Empire in the Arab world, if India could convince Pentagon that India would honestly serve the colonial and oil interests of Protestant America. President Bush started the new age of colonial empires by invading Iraq. The white colonial powers had conquered Iraq in 2003, with loss of lives no more than its cost East India Company to conquer Bengal in Battle of Plassey. India should learn that it is easy to conquer and establish colonies. White races had conquered North America, South America and Australia without much loss of lives. Indian soldiers of Indian Empire built British Empire and Indian Empire paid the salaries of British Army and soldiers in Britain, Canada and Australia and throughout world. British Empire was technically an Indian Empire and India inherited its legacy in 1947 in Arabian Gulf region. Britain had to cough out Pax Britannia and British colonies when India no longer could finance the burden of administering and financing the colonial Armies, after 1947. United States lost the Vietnam War and Somalia war. India should send 200,000 troops to Iraq so that India could manage Iraq for American Big Oil during next 50 years. Christian world are determined to colonize and conquer Islamic oil producing world to eradicate the evil Islamic terrorism that threatened human race. The interests of India and Christian USA coincide in the Iraqi oil colony. India must send troops to help Christian colonial powers establish permanent oil colony in Iraq as a prelude to establish Christian colonial Empires throughout the OPEC oil-producing world. India might end up owning one fourth of the OPEC oil in exchange for providing 1,000,000 soldiers to help Christian United States conquer the Oil-producing nations before 2050 AD. The national interests of Hindu India and American oil imperialism coincide in the Arabian Gulf. India should haggle with the USA but should ultimately send 200,000 soldiers to Iraq plus 200,000 Administrators, and 20,000 engineers, doctors, nurses and Judges to Iraq for colonial administration and transformation of Iraq. Hindu-led BJP can realize its dream of an Hindu Empire in the Arab world if it can convince Christian imperialists that Hindu India would stand by Christian Colonial powers in this new Crusades of 21st Century.

 

(13) America Needs Dept. of Colonialism

The specter of rising oil prices and rising oil import bills makes establishment of a full-fledged department of colonialism at the White House a moral imperative. United States Department of Colonialism should focus on creating American Oil Colonial Empire in the Islamic world and outsource entire colonial administration to India, for a fixed fee payable as percentage of total oil output of the colonies. Just as United States has Pentagon and State Department, it should have full-fledged Department of Colonialism, headed by Secretary of Colonies. Colonialism is a business and every colony should make profits for the Occupying Power and must not become a drain on the National Exchequer.

 

The history of colonialism proved that Cortez, Pizzarro, Robert Clive created the colonial empires in Mexico, Inca Peru and India, respectively with loss of lives no more than   what United States lost in establishing oil colony in Iraq in April 2003. Every nation can easily conquer and establish colonies; the hard part lied in making profit from colonies. India Empire ruled over Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Yemen, Suez Canal and Iranian oil fields before 1947. After India became independent in 1947, Britain failed to keep onto British colonies. Conquering Iraq was a child's play so rookie soldiers could do it in Iraq in 2003. However, the tough part beginning to emerge in Iraq, when Iraq war transformed into guerrilla Warfare and caused low intensity loss of American lives. Without full support of Indian Army and Indian administration, the Pentagon would fail to administer, control and manage Iraqi oil colony profitably. It would be a great risk for Christian American Pentagon to allow Muslim troops from Pakistan, Bangladesh, or other Muslim countries to live alongside American troops in same camps, as these Muslims might turn their guns on the American officers in their camp from inside without any advance warning. US Department of colonialism should outsource its entire colonial administration, management to India, in exchange for a fair share of the Iraqi oil loot or free oil for India. Colonialism is a good business if it is managed as a business.

 

Indian army managed and controlled the entire British Empire and British colonies worldwide in 18th, 19th & early 20th centuries. United States should do the same and pentagon should outsource its entire colonial requirements, to India. USA should request India to send 200,000 soldiers, and 200,000 administrators and 20,000 engineers, judges and doctors, so that Iraqi oil colony could be managed profitably, to make money for Big Oil. Only a full-fledged colonial office would be able to prepare the national budget of colonies and report the profit or loss of the colonial ventures. US Colonial Office should treat ever colony as a separate profit center and should outsource the entire administration and management of the colonies to India, just as US IT companies outsource to India their IT requirements.

 

(15) Defeat of US in Iraq Not India’s Interest

American oil colonialism is in the long-term interest of Hindu India and it allowed Hindu India to establish military foothold in Iraq to retaliate against the invasion of Sindh in India by Baghdad's Mohammad Bin Qasim. India should send 200,000 soldiers in Iraq and United states should share its influence and power over Iraqi oil colony with India so that India could have a long-term geopolitical military base in Iraq. It would be stupid for United States to beg for Peacekeeping troops from dozens of countries after it went all out to invade Iraq unilaterally. If Pentagon didn't have the stamina to bear 2 casualties a day then it should send US troops only for disco dancing in future not for any war efforts. The whole concept that wars could be fought without large human losses is stupid and foolish. Rather than begging the world for peacekeeping troops to clean the shit that Pentagon got into insults United States and must stop.

 

United States should beg only India, rather than the whole world for sending Peacekeeping troops to Iraq, by sweetening the offer to India and offer India 50% stake in the Iraqi oil loot for the entire duration of Iraqi colonial occupation. Pentagon must learn that if it didn't have the guts to face losses of US lives, it shouldn't have started the war in the first place. Since Pentagon invaded Iraq to loot the Iraqi oil, it should not expect India would sacrifice Indian soldiers, without getting 50% stake in the Iraqi oil loot. Pentagon should not expect that India would be saints and sacrifice Indian lives to allow American Big Oil loot Iraqi oil wealth. Indian wants to send 200,000 soldiers to Iraq not for Peace keeping but for colonial occupation of Iraq for the next 50 years. If Pentagon were to vomit out Iraqi oil colony, then it should not ask India to blacken India's hands for no profits. India would join USA in Iraq only if USA wants to keep Iraq under colonial rule forever, minimum of 50 years.

 

(16) Hindu India Can Conquer Islamic World

Indian Army can conquer, and colonize every Islamic national from Morocco to Indonesia. Indian Mughal Empire emerged as the New Caliph of Islam and President APJ Abdul Kalam should be declared the New Caliph of Islam and Islamic nations must pay 20% of the GNPs as tribute to Indian Caliph of Islam. Hindu India and Protestant would fight on the same side of the beltlines in the Clash of Civilizations.

 

(17) Hindu India Supports Bush War on Iraq

United States supports Saudi Arabian Wahhabi Sunni Fundamentalism that gave birth to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Ladin and Sept 11 attacks. USA supports Christian Religious Right Conservatives. United States should support Hindu Religious Right in India so that Hindu India could send 200,000 Indian troops to support the cause of President's Bush in Iraq, Afghanistan and also in any future troubled spot, where Pentagon might send its troops abroad. In the Global Clash of Races and Clash of Civilizations, the Hindu Religious Right and American Protestant Religious Right would be on the same side of the battle lines throughout the 21st Century. Wahhabi Sunni destroyed 2000-year-old Bamian Buddha in Afghanistan. President Bush should support the just political demands of Hindu religious right in India.  India should reconvert to Hindu temples the 5,000 ancient Hindu Temples, which were converted into Muslim Mosques during Muslim rule in India. Hindu would fight the American cause in the Bush's War on terrorism, so it is appropriate that WASPs and President Bush should also support the just demand of Hindus that all ancient Hindu religious properties under illegal occupation of Muslims should be reconverted for Hindu temples.

 

(18) Hindu Protestant Colonial Alliance

India supports Hindu Protestant alliance in the Clash of Civilizations would come out victorious in the global war against predator religious cults and intolerance. Hindu India and Protestant America stands for tolerance, diversity, multi-ethnicity, and separation of State and Church. (5) PROTESTANT-HINDU FRONT would determine history in the 21st Century. Hindus support President Bush's foreign policy.

 

(19) Outsource Peacekeeping Operations to India

India should aggressively market its services for colonial administration. India has the experience of colonial management during Indian Empire. The Core Principle of Conservative US foreign Policy is that USA must avoid peacekeeping operations that compromises US military's war-fighting proficiencies. Just as US corporations outsource IT services to India, and manufacturing services to China, the Pentagon should outsource 100% of its entire peacekeeping operations in Iraq to India, say at 50% cost savings, say $2 billion a month, as Pentagon presently spends $4 billion a month. The Pentagon's Military should focus on making new oil colonies and hand over the entire peacekeeping operations to Private Indian Defense contractors, who can supply 200,000 armed Peacekeepers, and 200,000 technical and administrative peacekeepers, for next 50 years. Pentagon should let India has a share of the control of Iraqi oil, if Pentagon wants India to sacrifice Indian soldiers. Pentagon cannot trust any Muslim peacekeeper, as Muslim soldier could shoot US Officers in the back as had happened in Kuwait at the start of Iraq War this year. Giant Eagle and Giant Elephant should learn that Pentagon needed the services of Carnivorous Eagle to hunt and disarm the prey, but for peacekeeping Pentagon needs the services of giant elephant to make the colonial occupation of Iraq profitable not the economic drain of $4 billion a month. Many animals join the hunt led by the Lion, but desert when Lion falls into a trap. Giant Elephant would be a true friend of giant Eagle, as elephant needs the services of Carnivorous Eagle to kill new preys. Pentagon would destroy Pentagon armed forces war-fighting proficiencies if foolishly got stuck in the quagmire. Pentagon should follow the example of British Empire, which make Indian Army and Indian Empire to rule over Iranian Oil installations, and Iraq, Kuwait, Trucial States (UAE, Bahrain, Oman Muscat, Qatar), Yemen, Suez Canal, Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore and even Hong Kong to Indian empire and London only concerned in keeping the gold from the colonies and Indians did all the dirty works. Private Indian Defense contractors can handle the entire peace keeping operations for Pentagon at 50% of the cost Pentagon present incurs and still make profits for India, and the oil colony would become profitable rather than a drain on the exchequer. American Eagle needs the Peacekeeping and Colonial administration services of Elephant India. India can become the world leader in Colonial Peacekeeping Outsourcing (CPO) just as it is Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) super power.

 

(20) India’s Geopolitical Future in Iraq

American debacles in Iraq create new geopolitical opportunities in Iraq. Total victory of Christian USA in Muslim Iraq is not in Hindu India's national interest as then Pentagon wouldn't need India's military support in future conquests for establishing new oil colonies. Defeat of United States in Iraq is not in India's national interest, as it would delay Hindu India's legitimate sphere of influence in Islamic Arabian Gulf region and might embolden Muslim terrorists. India should exploit America's growing casualties in Iraq to drive better bargain for India's role in Iraq. India should send 200,000 troops to Iraq to establish permanent American oil colony in Iraq, so that India cold get free oil from Iraq.

 

(21) Pentagon Needs India in Iraq

Sending Indian troops under UN supervision would not serve India's national interest, as then Indian troops cannot promote India's colonial and imperial interests in Iraq. Only by serving under Indian flag as Co-Occupying Power in Iraq could Indian troops deployment hope to get a large piece of the colonial oil loot in Iraq. USA needs India more than India needs the support of USA in Iraq. Time is on the side of Hindu India. Pentagon would never trust Muslim troops in Iraq, as it would allow disgruntled Muslim soldiers to shoot at the back of the US Generals in US military camps in Iraq as had happened in Kuwait Camp at the eve of the Iraq War. Without Indian troops Pentagon would lose the war in Iraq. US defeat in not in India's national interest. India should demand better terms but should send troops to Iraq to establish American Oil colony. Sending troops under UN flag would not promote India's national interest. India should send 200,000 troops and 200,000 administrative staff and 20,000 engineers, doctors and Judges to establish permanent oil colony in Iraq so that India cold hope to get 1,000,000 BPD/ barrels of oil per day free from Iraq. India should not miss this opportunity to retaliate against Mohammed Bin Qasim's attack on Sindh. Victory of US colonialism in Iraq is in the national interest of India. India might end up establishing Indian Empire in the Middle East if India could learn to protect and safeguard the national interests of Christian USA and Jewish Israel.

 

(22) Let Uncle Sam get miffed

India should relish that American leaders realized that in this Guerrilla phase of the Iraq War, the American kids can no longer fight in the Desert Summer Heat in Iraq. American GIs can only dance with the girls and prostitutes at army camp bars as happens in US bases in Germany, Japan, Korea and Brussels. Even British didn't know how to fight wars only Indian Empire Army could build British Empire. Pentagon must realize that without Hindu Indian Army American drams of Pax Americana would fail. India should demand 50% of Pax Americana in exchange for supplying say 1,000,000 troops for American imperial adventures in Middle East and Africa. India must get not a penny less than 50% of the total colonial loot and oil loot. Uncle Sam is weeping as it began losing its party going kids masquerading as soldiers in Iraq War. Uncle Sam should transfer 50% of its Iraq war Budget, which runs around 440 billion a year, say $20 billion annually to India to wage American Uncle Sam's War on Iraq. Uncle Sam must know that nephew India would come to their help, but nephew wants 50% of the total budget that Uncle Sam foolishly spends in Iraq. India would do the job but Uncle Sam should pay at least 50% of what it would cost Pentagon to do that on their own. Indian soldier should get the same salary in US$ the US soldiers get in Iraq. If Uncle Sam is pissed le it squirm in the quagmire, and be ready to write bigger check to entice Nephew India to join the Iraq War to save the Uncle's skin.

 

(23) Can Iraq be Waterloo for Bush?

America might turn out to be a paper tiger if it lost in Iraq. Without Indian troops Pentagon troops cannot win the war in Iraq. European nations do not have the manpower to send troops in Iraq. Pentagon would never trust any Muslim nation's troops in Iraq as then Muslim soldier could shoot at the back of US generals inside the US military camps. Napoleon Bonaparte lost the Waterloo because France lacked manpower base to wage the world conquest. United States also lacks the manpower to wage world conquest or oil Colonialism. United States needs the support of giant elephant India to bail USA out in Iraq. India should oblige USA with troops but for a price. Price should be no less than 50% of the American colonial empire in the oil-producing world. Pentagon lost in Vietnam and after that war won only insignificant wars in insignificant nations, namely, Panama, Haiti, Yugoslavia, and USA would lose the war in Iraq if Russia decided to support Iraqi resistance. USA could meet the same fate the Soviet Union met in Afghanistan, when CIA supplied stringer missiles to Afghan rebels. History is cyclical.

 

(24) Descent into Chaos means Defeat of US

Conquering Iraq was a child's joke. History of colonial occupation shows that every conqueror could easily conquer colonies, e.g. Cortez in Maya's Central America and Pizzaro in Andean Inca America. More difficult part is occupying the colony and to manage it profitably so that Colony makes profits and not becomes $4 billion/month drain on US economy. Expert Wolfowitz would realize that without the full partnership of India, United States would fail to profitably manage the Iraqi Oil Colony. To start with Indian and American experts should outline the US-India Colonial Policy so that India could move in after US conquered a colony for profitably managing and ruling the oil-colony, to make profits for USA and India. India has experience in colonial management, as Indian empire ruled and managed Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, and Suez Canal before 1947. Colonialism is a good business if it is done with a view to make money. Pentagon should outsource its colonial administration job to Indians just as US corporations outsource IT and call centers jobs to India.

 

(25) Bush & Blair Like Churchill

Any country could have conquered Iraq, as no Arab nation is powerful, including Iraq. Failure of Britain and USA to bring in great powers like India to manage the colonies might cause the defeat of USA in Iraq. Britain had given independence to UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain and Qatar as without the continued support of India after 1947 it simply couldn't hold on to the Empire. How could USA and Britain possibly dream to conquer and control Iraq without the full cooperation of India? USA should abandon ego and invite India to share profits of Iraqi oil colony equally and supply 200,000 soldiers and 200,000 administrators and 20,000 engineers, doctors, judges etc. Conquering Iraq was a child's joke, which many countries could have done as a joke. Let the democracies learn how to manage and administer oil colony for profits in Iraq? Defeat of American colonialism is not in India's national interest, however in a capitalist world, India is justified in demanding 50% interests in Iraqi oil colony, before India committed 200,000 soldiers in Iraq. Only India can help USA win the war in Iraq permanently.

 

(26) US Oil Colonialism in India’s Interest

United States, Britain and Poland do not simply have the manpower to control and occupy colonies. Lack of manpower had forced many of the European colonial powers gave up colonies after the Second World War, and USA is no exception. Let Pentagon Outsource its entire colonial administration job to India for 50% of the $4 billion/month that Pentagon spending on Iraq. Offer India $2 billion a month to operate, manage and govern Iraq to make it profitable oil colony for US Big Oil. For $24 billion/year outsourcing contract India would be willing to send 200,000 soldiers, 200,000 administrators and 20,000 engineers, doctors and Judges and 50,000 teachers and 100,000 social workers and religious leaders. Capitalist American cannot expect Capitalist India to manage Iraqi oil colony for American colonial powers except for 50% of the stake in Iraqi colony. Uncle Sam must realize that Nephew India has to feed 1.050 billion people at one-third the land that USA has. Nephew India is willing to share the colonial burdens of Uncle Sam for a fair price, say 50% of the oil loot.

 

(27) Pax America Needs Indian Army

President Bush wrongly thought that as British could make Empire so would America. Prime Minister Tony Blair cunningly sowed the dreams of colonial empire in the mind of President Bush during Afghan operations after 9/11. President Bush doesn't have what British Empire had: the support of the Indian Army the brightest Jewel of British Empire. India is willing to become the brightest Jewel of the upcoming American Empire say for a fee of 25% of the empire payable in kind, out of the incomes of the colonies.  India supplied 3,500,000 soldiers during Second World War and 1,500,000 soldiers during First World War and still waiting the India's share of the Victors spoils in world wars. Without Indian soldiers the Allied Powers would have lost the World War Two and One. United States would lose the Iraq War without inviting India, as the equal colonial power. India is ready and willing to serve the long-term interests of American colonial empire, just sweeten the offer to India, give India a bigger piece of the oil meat, and India Elephant would come running after Pax Americana.

 

35(8) Hindu Shiite Alliance

(1) Exploit Shiite-Sunni Rifts

India should develop long-term policy towards Islamic world by leveraging India’s military might to force the outcome of the ongoing Sunni-Shiite mortal combat in the Middle East. Hindu India might join forces with Shiites in Iran, Iraq, and Arabian Gulf to neutralize Wahhabi terrorists in Kashmir. The principal religious conflicts of the world are: Christianity-Islam Clash, Sunni-Shiite Clash, Catholic-Protestant Clash, Catholic-Judaism Clash and Hindu-Muslim Clash. It is likely that Hindus and Shiite Sufi Muslims would join forces to meet the menace of Wahhabi Sunni terrorism. After United States established colonial occupation of Iraq, the Protestant-Shiite alliance would undermine the United States-Wahhabi alliance that determined the Middle East politics after the First World War. Saudi Arabia financed the Wahhabi terrorists in Kashmir and Afghanistan, so it would be reasonable response if India supported the secession of oil-rich Shiite-majority provinces of Saudi Arabia bordering Arabian Gulf. It is likely that Protestants, Hindus, Jews and Shiite Muslims would be on the same side of the battle lines in the global clash of religions.

 

(2) Hindu India- Shiite Iran Alliance

India should support Shiite Iran against Saudi Arabia. India should support the Shiite-majority provinces of Saudi Arabia on Arabian Gulf Coasts to become independent. India can blunt the attacks of Sunni terrorists by supporting Shiites against Sunni in the Middle East. During 13th Century the Shiite Shah of Iran gave Iranian Army to Sunni Humayun to conquer India, with an understanding that Humayun would establish Shiite Mughal rule in India. India should also give Hindu army to Iran to conquer Wahhabi Arabia. Iran should be the leader of the Islamic world. 

 

(3) Menace of Anti-Shiite Saudi Apartheid

Hindus and Shiite Sufi Muslims would be on the same side of the battle lines in the global clash of races. India and Iran would be on the same side of the battle lines in the Third World War. In the Third World War Shiite Muslims would wage wars on Wahhabi Sunni Muslims in alliance with Non-Muslims and Non-Arabs. Sunni Muslims in general and Wahhabi Arabs hate Shiite Muslims and vice versa. Shiite Muslims would join militarily with Hindus to inflict decisive defeat to the Wahhabi militants in the global war against Wahhabi terrorism. In the global clash of races, the Hindus would join forces with Shiites to give fitting blow to the Wahhabi terrorists menacing the peace in Kashmir. Hindu India should join forces with Shiites in the Middle East to undermine the Wahhabi Sunni terrorism in Kashmir, by taking the counter-terrorism war to the Arabian Peninsula. The Saudi repression of Shiite minority in Saudi Arabia might justify the secession of the Shiite-majority provinces in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE. The Sunni-Shiite clash would destabilize oil-rich Middle East. King Faisal was more tolerant towards Shiites and it might have caused his assassination at the hands of a zealot Wahhabi prince. Wahhabi Saudi state policy towards the Shiites practiced benevolent neglect and active repression. The late King Faisal removed many restrictions against the Shiites in the 1960s. In the 1980s agitators from Iran tried to mobilize Saudi Shiites in support of a Khoeminist version of their faith. Iranian clerics failed, but their presence gave the hard-line Hanbali clerics a pretext for seeking new restrictions on Shiites and some Saudi Shiites fled into exile, mostly to Iran and Britain. American military presence in Iraq should force Sunni Wahhabi rulers ease restrictions on Shiite minority in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

 

(4) Secession of Shiite Saudi Arabia

The secession of Shiite-majority provinces from Saudi Arabia would be in the national interests of India as well as United States. United States and India could act upon the advice of French Scholar Laurent Murawiec that United States should engineer the secession of oil-rich Shiite-majority Saudi Arabian provinces bordering Arabian Gulf. India should consider developing political alliances with the Shiite minority in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait to blunt the Wahhabi terrorist threats to Kashmir. French-born scholar Laurent Murawiec in his speech to the National Defense Board in Washington in 2002 urged the United States to use military force to occupy the Saudi oil provinces where Shiites form a majority of the population. Saudi Wahhabi ruling elite fears that Shiites would join forces with foreign invaders to destroy the Wahhabi rule in Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait. Israel used to enjoy closer military ties with Shah of Iran and Israel and Iran could come together to engineer the secession of Shiite –majority oil-rich provinces bordering Arabian Gulf, which would destroy the power of Saudi Arabia and partition it on the religious lines.

 

(5) War Crimes of Saudi Apartheid System

India should join forces with anti-Apartheid forces in United States and the West to end the Apartheid regime in Saudi Arabia that repressed the religious minorities in Saudi Arabia, including Shiites, as religious minorities represent more than 30 percent population of Saudi Arabia. Hindu India should develop political ties with the Shiites of Arabian Gulf to end the Saudi Apartheid System in Saudi Arabia, which repressed Shiite minorities. Saudi Arabia is the sick man of Arabia, and its sickness has its roots in House of Al Saud monarchy’s domestic problems in dealing with Wahhabi terrorism and the continued repression of Shiite religious and ethnic minority in the kingdom. Saudi style discrimination against minorities is related to Saudi Arabia's Shiite community, which officially do not exist in Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. In reality, however, Shiites account for 15 percent of the Saudi kingdom's population of 20 million. Shiites concentrated in the oil-rich province of Al-Sharqiyah, the Saudi Shiites form a good part of the kingdom's urban middle class. Shiites also strongly present in the liberal professions and the private business sector. Yet of the top 400 Saudi government positions, only one post held by a Shiite as the undersecretary of state. Of the 120 members of the all-appointed Saudi Parliament, only two members of Parliament are Shiites. The official theological organs of the state, exclusively held by clerics from the Hanbali Sunni school of Islam, publicly castigated Shiites as non-Muslims. Wahhabi Saudi Courts, controlled by the Hanbali clerics, do not admit testimony by Shiites. The Wahhabi clerics have banned marriages between Hanbali Sunnis and Shiites and declared all Shiite marriages as "illegal." The Shiites insist that the Hanbalis (Wahhabis) do not represent the overwhelming majority that they claim. Radical Sunni theologians believe that they become "unclean" even by shaking the hand of a Shiite.

 

Saudi Shiites should no longer fear the dominance of Sunni Wahhabi militants as the military balance in the Arabian Peninsula shifted in favor of Shiites against Sunni Wahhabi Arabs. Rise of Shiites would result in the rise of Shiite Iran and Shiite Iraq and decline of Wahhabi Sunni Saudi Arabia. Saudi Shiites appear determined to come out of the closet as it were, and to claim equal citizenship rights with fellow Saudi Wahhabi Sunnis. Saudi Shiites in May ’03 published a petition signed by almost 500 businesses, cultural and social leaders of the community, addressed to the kingdom's de facto ruler, Crown Prince Abdullah, the Shiite petition called on the Saudi government to set a national committee to propose "urgent measures" to remove all discrimination against Shiites and other religious minorities. The petition referred to the "historic changes in the region," presumably meaning the war to liberate Iraq, and urged the authorities to "adapt to new circumstances."

 

The Wahhabi represents only 70 percent of the Saudi population and they are overwhelming majority only in the Red Sea provinces. It is wrong to say that sects other than Wahhabi do not exist in Saudi Arabia. Wahhabi is the ruling elite and they suppress all types of religious dissent. Saudi Arabia is a far richer mosaic of religious beliefs, with many minority religious sects than many people imagine. Even the Sunni majority, some 70 percent of the population, is not monolithic. Hanafi and Shafei Sunnis are probably the majority in the Red Sea Provinces of the kingdom. The situation is complex because many heterodox individuals, and at times whole villages and towns, practice taqiyah, dissimulation, to escape persecution and discrimination by the majority. In the Arabian Gulf provinces Shiites are the substantial minority.

 

(6) Shiites are Pro-Monarchy

Wahhabi Sunni militants would militarily force Shiite Arabs convert to Wahhabi faith, whenever they get a chance. Shiites support the House of Al Saud, because they fear that the overthrow of the Al Saud dynasty would bring into power the extremist Hanabali Wahhabi militants, who would force Shiites to convert to Wahhabi Sunni faith. In 1987, however, King Fahd Ibn Abdel-Aziz persuaded most of the exiles to return home in exchange for reforms. With the rise of militant Hanbalism, one version of which is represented by Osama bin Laden, Shiites have emerged as the royal family's strongest supporters for if the Al Saudi dynasty is toppled, its place would be taken by fanatics like bin Laden, who publicly state that Shiites must convert to Hanbalism, leave the country or face death.

 

(7) Genocide of Shiites in Afghanistan

Saudi Arabia directly participated in the genocide of Shiite Afghans during Taliban rule. Saudi Arabia supported Taliban in Afghanistan to massacre Shiites in Afghanistan. Radical bin Ladenists used the America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as a pretext for fomenting violence against the Shiites. They claim that the Taliban and Saddam Hussein both fell because Shiites cooperated with the United States. Some hard-line Wahhabi preachers declared that the ultimate aim of the Shiites is to "destroy Muslim Arab states in the interest of the United States, Israel and Iran." Such is the hatred of Saudi Wahhabi Hanbali clerics for Saudi and Iraqi Shiites that they issued an edict that humanitarian aid collected for Iraq should not be distributed among Iraqi Shiites.

 

(8) Hindu India to Support Shiite Secession

Hindu India should support Shiites over Wahhabi Sunnis because Shiites are more liberal and believe in mystic Sufism. Shiites clerics are more liberal and open to reason than Sunni clerics especially Wahhabi clerics. What is the main reason for the radical Sunnis' dislike of Shiites? Sheikh Abdel-Aziz Bin Baz, earlier Saudi Arabia's highest-ranking Sunni theologian, was especially shocked by the Shiite claim that even the basic rules of Islam could be open to interpretation and re-interpretation. "When the Shi'ites say that Reason (Aql) must be favored over Tradition (Naql), what they mean is putting man in place of God," the blind sheikh asserted. "For us Islam is a truth from the beginning (Azal) to the eternity (Abad). It cannot be something today and some thing else tomorrow."

 

India should support the Shiite political movements in Arabian Peninsula, to counter the Saudi support to the Islamic militants in India. Saudi Shiite demands are modest. Saudi Shiites want Shiite faith to be officially acknowledged in Saudi Arabia as a legitimate version of Islam. Saudi Shiites want the Saudi kingdom to purge its educational textbooks of "vicious lies and slanderous claims" against Shiites. Some official Wahhabi books, printed by Saudi government, claimed that Shiite religion was "invented by a Jew as a means of splitting Islam" and accused Shiites of practicing incest and cannibalism in secret. Saudi Shiites want legal equality with Wahhabi Sunnis including recognition of Shiite marriages and admission of Shiites’ testimonies at all Saudi state courts. Saudi Shiites want the state to allow Shiites to own and manage their own mosques, to perform their religious rites, to open schools to train their own theologians and to go on pilgrimage to Shiite sites in Iraq and Iran. Saudi Shiites want the government to open the Saudi civil service and the Saudi armed forces to Shiite candidates.

 

India would end the Islamic terrorism in India by engineering the secession of Shiite-majority provinces from Saudi Arabia. Shiites in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE are more pro-secession than the Muslims of Kashmir. It threatens the security of Saudi Arabia that there are no Shiite army offices, ministers, governors, mayors and ambassadors in Saudi kingdom. This form of religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia is as intolerable and as abhorrent as was apartheid based on race in Apartheid South Africa and Apartheid Rhodesia/ Zimbabwe. House of Al Saud unleashed repression on Saudi Shiites, because they believed that Shiites would promote the cause of Iran more than the cause of Saudi Arabia. The Princes of Al Saud family not prepared to risk a direct clash with the Hanbali sheikhs to please the Saudi Shiites, but Shiite have "strong allies and sympathizers within the Al Saud royal family, because Princes realize that Saudi Shiites support Al Saud House as Shiites fear Wahhabi clerics. Wahhabi Arabs are at a distinct military disadvantage versus Arab Shiites in the Arabian Peninsula and Shiites would readily inflict military defeat on Wahhabi Arabs. America’s victory over Iraq weakened the cause and strength of Wahhabi Sunni Arabs. Iraq under American occupation might some day become a democracy in which the Shiite majority has the leading role. The prospect of Shiite Iraq and the presence of a large Christian American army just next door changed the political landscape of the Shiites in the Wahhabi Arabian Peninsula. India should politely explain to the Wahhabi Sunni Arabs that any continued support to the Islamic militants in Kashmir would trigger Indian support to the Shiite secessionists in Arabian Peninsula.

 

(9) Intolerant Islam Threatens Christianity

Militant, intolerant Wahhabi fundamentalist Sunni Islam presented threats to Protestants, Jews and Hindus. Hindu India should support Protestants in the mortal combat underway between Christian and Islamic civilizations. Hindu India should support the Shiites in the mortal combat underway among Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims. Hindu India should support Protestants in the mortal combat underway among Protestants and Catholics. Hindu India should support the Orthodox Christians in the mortal combat underway between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Hindu India should support the Jews in the mortal combat underway between Muslims. Hindu India should support Jews in the mortal combat underway among Catholics and Jews. Hindu India should support the Buddhists in China and Japan in the mortal combat underway among Buddhists and Christian Communists. Rise of the Arab Islam accompanied by the massive migration of Arab Muslims to the lands of the Christian Byzantine and Iranian Sassanian Empires, who turned fifth columnists and helped the Muslim conquests of the Christian and Zoroastrian worlds. Muslim conquest of India after 11th Century was also preceded by the massive migration of Muslims to Buddhist Central Asia and Hindu India. Similarly, the presence of large Shiite population in the Arabian Peninsula would turn table on the Wahhabi domination of Arabia and result in the victory of the Shiites and Persians over Wahhabi Saudi Arabia.

 

In the eyes of Hindu Indians the America’s invasion of Iraq is the continuation of the Christian Crusades of 12th Century and the European destabilization of ottomans in the 19th Century. The initial Arab-Islamic sweep outward from the early seventh (7th) to the mid eighth (8th) century (640-750), established Muslim rule in North Africa, Iberia, the Middle East and Persia. For two centuries (800-1000) or so the lines of division between Islam and Christianity stabilized. Then in the late eleventh (11th) century Christians reasserted control of the Western Mediterranean, conquered Sicily, and captured Toledo. In 1095, Christians launched the Crusades. For a century and a half Christian potentates attempted, with decreasing success, to establish Christian rule in the Holy Land and adjoining areas in the Near East, losing Acre, their last foothold there, in 1291. Ottoman Turks first weakened Byzantine and then conquered most of the Balkans as well as North Africa, captured Constantinople in 1453, and besieged Vienna in 1529. The spread of Islam in the seventh century was accompanied by massive migrations of Arab peoples, the scale and speed of which was unprecedented, into the lands of the Byzantine and Sassanian Empires. The Ottomans made one last push besieging Vienna again in 1683. For almost a thousand years from the first Moorish landing in Spain to the second Turkish siege of Vienna (1683), Europe was under a constant threat from Islam. Islam is the only civilization, which has put the survival of the West in doubt, and it has done that at least twice in 1529 and 1683. The Christians gradually recovered Iberia, completing the task at Granada in 1492. In the course of a century, the Ottoman Empire the scourge of Christendom transformed into the sick man of Europe. Islam would never be able to threaten Christian world ever again.

 

35(9) Mistaken Axis of Evil

First, Hindu India accepts President Bush’s categorization of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as belonging to the Axis of Evil. However State cannot be an Axis of Evil, the evil religious intolerance and ideological intolerance can be Axis of Evil. War for oil imperialism is not evil but war for intolerant religious imperialism is evil. To wage wars for oil imperialism and to please god of oil is not evil, but to support and nurture religious intolerance to pursue oil intolerance could be an act of evil. Intolerant Wahhabi Saudi Arabia is a greater Axis of Evil than Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Evil is a religious concept and it manifests in the modern world by means of religious intolerance and ideological intolerance. Intolerance is the essential characteristic of Evil. Zoroastrian Iran and Babylon Iraq and Buddhist North Korea shall cease to be Evil Axis.

 

 

America’s Wars for Oil colonialism would not represent the evil wars so long it did not have any religious agenda, and if it solely concerned about establishing America’s control over oil resources of the Arabian Gulf and Caspian basin. American Oil Wars could become evil wars if it sought to realize any hidden religious agenda, whether religious agenda of Christian religious right or the agenda of the Wahhabi religious intolerance. Hindu India rejected born-again Christian George W. Bush’s characterization of Iraq, Iran and Korea the seat of ancient civilizations as Axis of Evil. The leader of the nation that had not even existed 400 years ago has no right to condemn the political entities of the ancient seats of human Civilization as seats of Axis of Evil. The truth about evil religious and ideological intolerance that needs attention now is its shallow, deadly, fungus quality, which allowed the evil perpetrators of intolerance as respected leaders of the society, whose words sought as guiding principles for the new age by their followers. The legitimization of the evil under the garb of religious and ideological intolerance increased the powers of the Devil manifold, so that virtuous people at time doubted whether God would be able to defeat the devil or evil in the 3rd Millennium.

 

Second, Hindu India believes that unholy nexus of Macro Evil of Religious Intolerance and Micro-Evil of Organized Drug Crime created a Global Axis of Evil that threatened the descent of the New Global Dark Age on the World Civilizations. Evil exists and perpetuates as religious intolerance as well as ideological intolerance. It is as fatuous to deny the existence of Evil, as it is to toss the word around irresponsibly. The use of the term ‘Evil’ as instrument of politics and instrument of diplomacy violated the strict wall that the Constitution of the USA established. President Bush uses the word ‘Evil Axis’ in a born-again Christian manner that takes its resonance from a long Judeo-Christian tradition that sees radical evil embodied in heroically diabolical figures. This personalized evil is the kind that is insinuated by the sauntering Tempter Devil in the first scene of the Book of Job, when God and Satan speculate. In Bush's usage, Axis of Evil has the perverse prestige of Milton's defiant Lucifer, as if Evil in the Axis of Evil emanated, implicitly, from a devilish intelligence, Devil with horns and a tail, an absolutely malevolent personality, represented in the form of State of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Bush made the leaders of Iraq, Iran and North Korea personification of Devil with horns and a tail. Devil in Judeo-Christianity is God's rival in the cosmos, condemned to eventually lose the fight with God, but Devil is very powerful in the world almost a rival to God. George Bush use of term evil to denigrate Iraq, Iran and North Korea is a primitive, frightening and atavistic use of a medieval term that should probably be banished from civilized discourse in a multicultural world in the 21st Century, especially in the Untied States, with a Wall that separates Church and the States. The diplomatic usage of the term Evil, as instrument of diplomacy can s can only cause mischief in international affairs as the evil is a very elusive term and has a way of evaporating or turning into something else as time passes. Even if Evil is elusive and even if the term is used brainlessly, evil is still there and Evil exists in multitudes. The rampant existence of evil among multitude of intolerant religious leaders and political leaders and intolerant terrorists is a mystery, a mysterious black hole into which reason and sunshine of tolerance vanishes but nonetheless there exists intolerant Evil.

 

Third, the new Global Dark Age would descend on the world if the predator intolerant religious fundamentalism succeeded to overthrow the tolerant leadership of liberal religious sects and faiths. The experience of Enlightenment brings individuals closer to the Divine and allowing them to understand the attributes of Almighty intuitively. The experience of Endarkenment brings individuals closer to the Evil and makes them the instrument of Evil intolerance. The children of the Enlightenment sometimes have an inadequate understanding of the possibilities of the Endarkenment. The question is how evil exists, how it works. Prophet Zoroaster said what is evil in one society could be good in other society. Religious intolerant fundamentalist cults define their own concept of good, and condemn all other differing sects as inherently evil, whose followers deserved to be killed by sword or whipped for following their separate path to divine or separate path of economic and political development or cultural expression. Evil religious intolerance is extreme and possesses neither depth nor demonic dimension, but it can outgrow and lay waste the entire Islamic world, because it spreads like a fungus on the surface, which to an onlooker looks spiritual and representative of divine. It is wrong to condemn a nation or culture or religion evil. The term "the banality of evil" suggested that the evil is born and represented separate identifiable people. Evil is never 'radical,' that it is only extreme, and that it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension. Evil can overgrow and lay waste the whole world precisely because it spreads like a fungus on the surface, which to the onlooker might not appear benign and malevolent. Evil is unspectacular and always human, Evil shares our bed and eats at our own table. The normality of evil makes evil greatest menace to the world. Evil could be shallow, deadly, fungus quality. Normal nice leaders often presided over evil deeds, especially in a global village, multicultural world in which different civilizations inhabit in different centuries, the seat of evil moved from Civilization to the Civilization. It is not right to demonizing Iraqi, Iranian or North Korean people as being inherently evil, as Satan is inherently evil. Every nation, religion, culture and society could become the temporary seat of the Evil in the modern age and people of that nation may not ever realize it before it is too late. Religious evil, ideological evil, evil intolerance, evil fundamentalism are forms of opportunistic evil that passed like an electric current through the world and through people, and wandered like an infection that took up residence in individuals political leaders or cultures from time to time. Bad acts of particular leaders didn’t permanently inflict that nation with evil. However certain secret societies could be permanently evil, if it carried out its evil acts over longer period of history.

 

Fourth, the globalization process and the miniaturization of the weapons greatly enhanced the destructive reach of evil intolerant religious cults and intolerant religious ideologies. Evil ideologies caused genocide of 30 million Orthodox Russians under Stalinist Soviet Union and 60 million Buddhists under Maoist China and 2 million Buddhists under Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. The evil Wahhabi Taliban murdered hundreds of thousands of Shiites in Afghanistan. Evil politicians holding high political positions in important countries could cause more harm than the heinous perpetrators of evil in the past. Transportation revolution enhanced the power of the evil rulers, as earlier the evil could cause devastation in limited area. Even in the 15th Century the European immigrants could wipe out the entire population of North America and South America, which represented one-fourth of the world’s population in 1500 AD. Distance once helped dampen the effects of human wickedness, and weapons once had limited range.

 

The globalization allowed the evil religious intolerant cults cause global harm. The miniaturization of weapons allowed the evil terrorists religious fundamentalists acquire quantum leap in their power of destruction. Intolerant fundamentalist evil has burst into a new dimension in the 21st Century. The globalization, democratization and miniaturization of the instruments of destruction, namely shoulder carried high explosive weapons, miniature homemade bombs, nuclear nukes or their diabolical chemical-biological stepbrothers, meant a quantum leap in the delivery systems of evil, which could destabilize Civilizations. This levels the playing field for the competing advocates of the evil religious intolerance and evil ideological intolerance and evil political intolerance, and the level field can cause immense destruction to the society and culture because it could be unleashed by unsuspected terrorists, who misused the democratic freedom to destroy the freedom itself.

 

Fifth, the seat of evil regularly shifted from one Civilization to another, from one nation to another and it frequently crossed the national barriers through the propagation of the Intolerant religious fundamentalism and justification of the terrorist violent means for realizing the goals of the intolerance. The evil lurks not in nations but in the intolerant ideologies and intolerant religious cults. Whenever individual evil the micro-evil acquired control over intolerant religions and intolerant ideologies the micro-evil of intolerance threatened the very existence of the human Civilization. Every advocate of religious intolerance and ideological intolerance with access to modern lethal weapons becomes a potential world-historical force with more discretionary destructive power at hand than the great old monsters, from Caligula to Stalin, ever had. Advocates of Religious intolerance have acquired the means to commit mass genocide of the people that dare to practice a different form of faith or ideology. The micro-evil of organized crime joined forces with the macro-evil of religious intolerance and ideological intolerance to commit genocide of masses in the 20th Century. In the new dimension, micro-evil (the dark impulse to rape or murder, say) and macro-evil (the urge to genocide) achieve an ominous reunion to conspire the teleological, apocalyptic End of Time scenario. Religious intolerance and ideological intolerance is the real evil that is going around in the age of Oil Colonialism. America could threaten the future of human Civilization if it continued to support intolerant Wahhabi sects. The micro-evil of terrorist drug dealers joined forces with the macro-evil of religious and ideological intolerance to cause havoc on the Civilizations in the 21st Century.

 

35(10) G-8 Should Include India

(1) India Supports 2003 G-8 Statement

China and India claims their birthright to be part of G-8, because China and India represent world’s 2nd largest and 4th largest economies in terms of GNP at purchasing power parity. India’s GNP is larger than those of 6 members of the G-8, namely, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Canada and Russia. China and India should be inducted into G-8 if G-8 represents the grouping of world’s leading industrialized nations.

 

The Iraq War divided the G-8 nations into two hostile Camps, one being Pro-American Camp and other being Anti-American Camp and India belonged to both the Camps and leaders of both Camps wants India to join their Camp. France, Germany, Russia and Canada belonged to the Anti-American Camp. United States, Britain, Italy and Japan belonged to Pro-American Camp. The 5 out of the 12 invited guests to the sidelines of the G-8 Summit, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Algeria might join the France-led Anti-American Camp. South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Egypt would support the pro-American Camp in the G-8 Group. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld touted NATO’s alliance with Poland as the victory of the New Europe over Old Europe. President Chirac touted the ascendancy of New Third World Powers, namely, China, India, Brazil and Mexico, the world’s 2nd, 4th, 9th and 11th largest economy as the New Powers that would support the France’s worldview and join forces with France, Germany and Russia to hold hegemon United States into check. Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had the bilateral Summit Meetings with President George W. Bush, President Vladimir Putin, President Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and President Hu Jintao, within one day, and thus declared that India had a rightful claim under the sun as one of the world powers. Nuclear India with large GNP at PPP ($2.2 trillion), and one fifth of the world population (1.1 billion) and world leading IT power and Space power emerged as the World Power one of the Top-3 Super Powers of the World. The top-4 World Powers in declining order are namely, United States (1st), China (2nd), India (3rd), and Russia (4th). India’s GNP exceeds the GNPs of Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Russia and Canada, the 6 members of the G-8 Club. Of the Five P-5 Nuclear Powers, nuclear India has larger economy than France, Britain and Russia. 

 

India’s world perspective similar to the world view of the G-8 nations as regards the issues of Nuclear Proliferation, Islamic Terrorism and AIDS and other life threatening diseases. The G-8 Summit Statement focused on three issues, the Control of Nuclear Proliferation, International terrorism and International Trade. First, India fully agreed with the G-8 nations on the desirability to undertake Counter-Proliferation measures and even preemptive strikes to eliminate the menace of Islamic Nuclear Bomb. India agreed that Iran should not acquire nuclear weapon technology as it has oil-wealth to finance the development of credible nuclear deterrent. India agreed that North Korea should not develop nuclear weapons, as North Korean nuclear weapons would destabilize the East Asia. India agreed that Iran should sign and IAEA Additional Protocol without delay. Iran does not need nuclear weapons. Iranian nuclear weapons would threaten India’s security.

 

Second, India fully endorsed the G-8 Summit Statement on International terrorism. India should be willing to deploy Indian troops to neutralize and combat terrorist networks in Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Yemen. India would work towards destroying the financial network of Sunni heroin cartel that financed Islamic terrorists worldwide. India agreed that great powers should warn the countries that provided the safe heavens to the Islamic terrorists. India agreed that Global Counter-Terrorism Action Group should promote better cooperation among police departments of leading countries to nab the terrorists.

 

Third, India fully supported the G-8 Statement that WTO should make special provisions to alleviate the healthcare problems faced by the developing countries with limited or no pharmaceutical industry. India supports the idea that Indian pharmaceutical industry should be allowed to produce cheaper versions of the life-saving drugs at cheaper prices for mass consumption in Africa and Asia and South and Central America.

 

(2) Group of 8 Summit 2003’s Statement

Weapons of Mass Destruction

The G-8 Summit Statement identified Control over proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, International Islamic Terrorism and World Trade Organization as follows. One. “We recognize that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery poses a growing danger to us all. Together with the spread of international terrorism, it is the pre-eminent threat to international security. This global challenge requires a multifaceted solution. We need to tackle it individually and collectively working together and with other partners, including through relevant international institutions, in particular those of the United Nations system. We have a range of tools available to tackle this threat: international treaty regimes, inspection mechanisms such as those of the International Atomic Energy Agency and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. While all of these instruments are necessary, none is sufficient by itself. Not all proliferation challenges require the same remedies. We need to deploy the tools, which are most effective in each case. North Korea's uranium enrichment and plutonium production programs and its failure to comply with its IAEA safeguards agreement undermine the nonproliferation regime and are a clear breach of North Korea's international obligations. We strongly urge North Korea to visibly, verifiably and irreversibly dismantle any nuclear weapons programs, a fundamental step to facilitate a comprehensive and peaceful solution. We will not ignore the proliferation implications of Iran's advanced nuclear program. We stress the importance of Iran's full compliance with its obligation under the nonproliferation treaty. We urge Iran to sign and implement an IAEA Additional Protocol without delay or conditions. We offer our strongest support to comprehensive IAEA examination of this country's nuclear program. We call on all states to establish effective procedures and machinery to control the transfer of materials, technology and expertise, which may contribute to the development, production or use of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. We likewise call on all states to establish and implement effective national standards for secure storage and handling of such materials with a view to effectively prevent proliferation and eliminate the risk that terrorists gain access to them.”

 

The big story of the G-8 Summit was the mighty, unified growl on the subject of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. These eight industrial countries specifically told Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear weapon programs. North Korea is urged to visibly, verifiably and irreversibly dismantle nuclear weapons program. India concurred with much of the proffered language of the G-8 statement on nuclear proliferation, thereby announcing to all other countries that the position of the great powers on nuclear proliferation is not an act of hegemonic bravado, but a policy through which the civilized seek to maintain civilization. However the real purpose of the American invasion of Iraq on the charges of WMDs had been to warn Germany and Japan not to dream becoming nuclear weapon power any time soon. Germany and Japan realized that United States might use the military bases on Germany and Japan soil to invade Germany and Japan if they ever tried to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. Nuclear India doesn’t believe in the nuclear proliferation and nuclear Japan and nuclear Germany might no longer need the protection of Indian nuclear umbrella if they deployed their own nuclear weapons.

 

(3) Global Islamic Terrorism

India as a responsible world power fully supports the G-8 Statement on global Islamic terrorism. India’s inclusion in G-8 groups would strengthen the global capability of G-8 to effectively wage wars on global terrorism to prevent Islamic terrorism hit targets located in G-8 countries.

 

The G-8 Statement declared: “The international community has been united in fighting against international terrorism since the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. The threat of terrorism still, however, remains serious as has been seen in a series of terrorist incidents including in Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, Pakistan, the Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Yemen over the past year. Developing a successful capacity to tackle terrorism requires a focus on three main areas of counter-terrorism activity: first, to deny terrorists the means to commit terrorist acts (for example, to prevent the financing of terrorism, and denial of false documents and weapons); second, to deny terrorists a safe haven and ensure that terrorists are prosecuted and/or extradited (for example to accelerate the conclusion of counter-terrorism conventions and protocols, to deny terrorists entry into a country and to reinforce law-enforcement agencies); and third, to overcome vulnerability to terrorism (for example to enhance domestic security measures and capability for crisis management and consequence management). The G-8 will create a Counter-terrorism Action Group to focus on building political will, coordinating capacity-building assistance where necessary. Other states, mainly donors, will be invited to join the group. Counter-terrorism Action Group members will provide funding, expertise or training facilities.”

 

The G-8 Statement on the issue of terrorism was a hog wash as it failed to warn Saudi Arabia, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda terrorists that the civilized determined to use force and other counter-terrorism measures to maintain civilization.

 

(4) World Trade Organization

India as a responsible world power fully supports the movement to end Western agricultural subsidies that distorted the global commodity prices to the detriment of third world commodity producers.

 

The G-8 statement declared, “We direct our ministers and officials to pursue urgently with WTO Partners the actions outlined below: First, Work towards strengthening the existing World Trade Organization rules and disciplines, as well as developing further multilateral rules, so as to provide fairer, less distorted, more transparent and more predictable conditions for world trade, and as a contribution to improved international governance. Second, to establish a multilateral solution in the WTO to address the problems faced by developing countries with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector. Third, to deliver capacity-building technical assistance to developing countries in need to help them participate fully in WTO negotiations, implement trade agreements, and respond to the trade opportunities created, in cooperation with other bilateral and multilateral donors.” The G-8 statement on the availability of the life-saving drugs at lower cost to the developing world is a good precedent. Indian pharmaceutical companies would produce low cost life saving drugs to ward of the menace of AIDS in Africa and other parts of the Third World.

 

(5) Permanent US-French Animosities

France-American animosities have come to stay and diplomatic niceties would no longer cover them. Bush as well as Chirac known to bear their grudges and the diplomatic niceties at the Evian unlikely to bridge the geopolitical chasm that bedeviled the US-France ties and made French Civilization including French Fries a pariah throughout the Yankee Civilization. In Évian-les-Bains during Group of 8 Summit Meeting 2003, George W. Bush and Jacques Chirac acted like grown-ups. When President Bush and President Chirac met for the first time since their bitter split over the American-led war on Iraq, they were polite in public and even nice to each other in private. There is no illusion on either the American or the French side that the meeting of the Group of 8 industrialized democracies that brought the two leaders face-to-face has suddenly improved the state of relations between France and United States or altered their very different visions of the world. The rift over Iraq destroyed a bond of trust that may never be quite the same again, or at least not for a very long time, despite the declarations by both men that the alliance between the United States and France can never be broken. President Bush and President Chirac went through a diplomatic rite of passage that allowed both men to commit themselves to look to the future and not dwell on the past and provided an opportunity for France and United States to identify specific areas where they could work together. Call it US-France détente. It is unlikely that the positive meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Chirac would serve as a basis for repairing ties and more likely pass into history as an isolated event involving two men known for their charm and disinclination to bear grudges and the mood in both capitals is one of suspicion and betrayal.

 

France and Russia could bedevil American colonial occupation forces in Iraq, if it indirectly supported the rebel forces in Iraq with arms and moral support, just as what Americans did to Soviet occupation troops in Afghanistan. America and France realized that both would gain if America shared oil-wealth of Iraq with France, Germany and Russia to win the peace in Iraq. America would need the continued support of France, Russia and Germany to maintain peace and order in the post-occupation Iraq. France accepted America’s stand that democracy could be delayed, as the majority rule of Shiites might not necessarily be democratic as it might install an Ayatollah-type Shiite fundamentalist regime in Iraq. America realized that it could win the war alone but without the help of Germany, France and Russia would fail to win the peace alone. Mr. Bush raised the subject of Iraq, and told Mr. Chirac that he did not want the US-France relationship to be tainted by past conflicts over Iraq, and acknowledged that the rebuilding of Iraq was proving both "difficult" and complex. Mr. Chirac agreed that there was no need to revisit the past, since the Americans knew the French position on the war in Iraq very well. Mr. Chirac told Mr. Bush that it was natural and normal between friends to speak "frankly" with each other. Mr. Chirac said that achieving democracy would be a "difficult" process, and that elections could bring to power a Shiite Muslim government, which might not necessarily be democratic. Mr. Chirac said that it was clear that the United States "could and did" win the war alone but that it could not win the peace alone, which was a shared responsibility.

 

The PEW June 2003 public opinion poll reconfirmed that Iraq War resulted in the permanent alienation of the Europe from America. The diplomatic pleasantries at Evian G-8 Summit and St. Petersburg didn’t dilute or undermine the resolve of France, Germany and Russia to cement European ties to hold America in check. The June ’03 public opinion poll by Pew Research Center finds Iraq war has deepened international skepticism toward US, American global policies and President Bush, with even military allies voicing disappointment or suspicion. Iraq war has widened rift between Americans and Western Europeans, further inflamed Muslim world, softened support for war against terrorism and weakened global backing for UN and NATO. The war in Iraq may have been a military success, but it has only deepened international skepticism toward the United States, its global policies and President Bush, with even military allies voicing growing disappointment or suspicion. The war, moreover, has rattled much of the Muslim world, prodding majorities in most countries to worry about the future of Islam and American military ambitions within their borders.

 

(6) India in G-8 makes world Multi-Polar

France and Britain wants India and China to become part of G-8 Group. Russia does not want G-8 to invite India and China, as Russia has just got invited to the G-8 and beginning to learn the ropes. United States does not want to invite India and China to G-8 Summit meetings. Although part of the talks concerned France’s bilateral affairs with China and India, the French president was anxious to show deference to the kind of role he expected China and India to play on the world stage. The G8 has to open up and expand its dialogue with other countries.

 

President Chirac has had to tread a delicate path in his invitation to the 12 that included China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Egypt, Malaysia, Algeria and Senegal. France did not pretend that the G8 could reinvent itself quickly or easily, yet France believed that efforts must be made to build a bridge so that these leading economic powers have a legitimate voice and role in finding a framework for agreement on big issues confronting the world in the 21st century.

 

Bush Administration feared that India, China, Brazil and Mexico would present greater challenge to the American hegemony than the complacent European powers. India had been a great thorn on the hide of America when it led the third world and formed the Non Aligned Movement. The Third World unity is based on the common Non Aligned perspectives. The US is cautious about this French initiative to "expand the dialogue" because it is seen as another move in the French president's strategy of creating a "multi-polar world". United States had wanted China to join G-8 Summit, but France increased the stake by inviting also India, Brazil and Mexico. The US administration has also been looking at ways of including China but is wary of French new initiatives as it already finds the G8 a cumbersome organization. President Bush realized that China, India, Brazil and Mexico would pose greater challenge to the unilateralist policies favored by the United States, than present G-8 members. President George W. Bush's decision to spend only 24 hours in Evian and miss an important part of the proceedings influenced neither by his eagerness to attend a Middle East peace conference, nor due to America’s continued tense relationship with the French president in the wake of the Iraq crisis, but by his realization that China, India, Brazil and Mexico have the diplomatic arrogance to challenge the dominance of the United States in G-12 Summit.

 

Inclusion of China and India in the Group of 8 would enhance the national interests of France, Germany and Russia, more than the inclusion of Poland and East European countries in the NATO had for the national interests of the United States. America understood that president Chirac scored a great diplomatic victory over United States by inviting China, India, Brazil and Mexico as guests at the sidelines of the G-8 Summit meeting and it neutralized the diplomatic gains Untied States secured by buying the allegiance of Poland. If the New Europe represented by Poland replaced declining Old Europe than the China and India replaced the smaller European economic and military powers as real great powers in the 21st Century. President Bush feared that President Chirac would duplicate the pro-Non Alignment Soviet policies that allowed Premier Nikita Khrushchev to hold predominant United States in check to guarantee the independence of the Non Aligned Third World. America always detested the guts of India when President Jawaharlal Nehru led the newly independent nations of the Third World to launch Non aligned Movement that held European and American colonialism at bay and curtailed the exercise of American dominance in the Third World. President Bush disliked Multi-Polar International System, as it would inhibit America's ability to act unilaterally. For President Chirac this vision of Multi-Polar World is a diplomatic way to create a counterbalance to US hegemony, as seen in the case of Iraq war in April 2003, when United States failed to bribe, cajole and threaten poor and weaker Non Aligned Nations, namely, Cameroon, Angola, Guinea, Pakistan and Chile to vote for the America sponsored Resolution on Iraq before the onset of the hostilities. Bush Administration realized that in the multi-polar world, India and China would lead the Third Pole of the international system and greatly inhibit America's ability to act unilaterally, especially in the Third World.

 

(7) Multi-polar Concert of World Powers

India as world power can play constructive role in the Concert of World Power in 21st Century. France, Germany and Britain recognize India’s potential in new balance of power. President Chirac declared at G-8 Summit that France has no doubt whatsoever that the multipolar vision of the world France has defended for some time is certainly supported by a large majority of countries throughout the world. France and Russia would have a greater say and role in the Multi-polar world than in the one-superpower world. France and United States and other G-8 members shared the concern about Islamic nuclear proliferation and North Korean nuclear weapons. The two men agreed that they had to work together to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and the final communiqué at the summit meeting urged both North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons, and Iran to curb their nuclear programs. Mr. Bush told Mr. Chirac that French thoughts on Iran had affected America’s own thinking about Iran. Mr. Chirac said he did not really know Iran and whether there was a substantive difference between conservative and moderate factions in Iran’s leadership.

 

France wants to recreate the successors to the Concert of Europe that the 1814 Congress of Vienna created by developing the Congress System. The G-8 Summit at Evian could unexpectedly launch the Concert of World Powers to hold America in check, because by inviting 12 leaders of the Third World, President Chirac declared that Multi-polar world had replaced the Uni-polar world or one-superpower system that United States replaced the Bipolar world that ended with the demise of the Soviet Union. France, Germany and Russia want to create a Multi-polar world so that the global balance of power could act like the Concert of Europe to hold the preeminent power in check. White House and Pentagon sees the United States as a superpower that can go it alone if necessary, both because of America's overwhelming military might and President Bush’s personal conviction that America knows what is best for the rest of the world. In contrast President Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, and Russian president Vladimir V. Putin see the world as a place with multiple centers of power. In France’s worldview this "multi-polar" world, needs to operate as a global power, limiting in a firm but friendly manner United States interests and influence. French-American relations are 200 years old, and they will continue to flourish in the spirit of cooperation, which would not exclude the fact that America and France have totally divergent different visions of the world. Still, the camaraderie between the Bush and Chirac was enough not to ruin the G-8 get-together. Overall the G-8 was a good meeting, it could have been a disaster.

 

France, Germany and Russia continued to view President Bush and the United States as far too powerful and too willing to use military force to shape the world to America’s liking. President Chirac made clear that American dominance was still one of Franc’s chief concerns. There was no warmth during President Bush’s pro forma handshake and chitchat with President Jacques Chirac of France, just as there was none with the German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. White House made it clear that there was little effort to mend fences at the meeting of the Group of 8 in Evian-les-Bains. America worked behind the scenes to sign countries up for a new White House initiative to create an international legal basis to seizing missiles, chemical and biological agents, and nuclear components on the high seas or in the air. The proposal is clearly intended to quarantine North Korea and Iran. 

 

In President Bush's White House the world “globalization” is rarely uttered. President Bush nothing about the concerns of the protesters for Globalization. America insisted that the main concern it must concern is getting the major economies of the world growing again. The G-8 Summit discussed for the first time the threat of deflation in Japan, Germany and the United States and the, fast-declining value of the American dollar. United States was virtually alone in 2003 as an engine of growth in the global economy. The traditional purpose of the annual G-8 Summit had been the global initiatives to synchronize the three largest world economies in sync. This traditional purpose of G-8 has often gotten lost with the other competing agendas. President Bush wanted the G-8 to unify behind an American vision of confronting tyrants and unconventional weapons. President Bush sees these meetings largely as a forum to press America’s case for the fight against terrorism. The president Bush used the G-8 Meeting to demonstrate that he can work with the traditional allies, even while bitterness over Iraq remained. G-8 leaders came together to give a very strong statement on the need to halt nuclear proliferation. The G-8 Summit at Evian created a lots of water and no great power solidarity could be created at Evian as Gerhard Schroeder came one day late and President Bush cut short his stay in Evian to move on to talks in the Middle East.

 

(8) Bush’s Nuclear Mirage of Nukes

Neo-Conservatism supports President Bush’s plan to conduct new research in the development of new types of nuclear weapons, as China has stolen almost every known new weapon design secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Weapon Labs. India accepts America’s right to conduct advance nuclear research to maintain its technological edge in nuclear balance of power.

 

President Bush talk about nuclear proliferation appeared hollow, as Bush administration moved forward on a new generation of less powerful nuclear warheads. That effort, recently endorsed by Congress unwisely overturns a decade of restraint intended to discourage development of a new nuclear arms race between United States and Russia, where other nuclear powers, India, China, France might also join in. The American nuclear arsenal designed to obliterate the Soviet Union in an all-out-war was not designed to meet emerging threats. The relatively small, low yield nuclear weapons could be used against a variety of targets, ranging from mobile targets to underground bunkers. The trouble is that the smaller nukes might be tempting to use in situations where no one would dream of dropping a more massively destructive nuclear bomb. That could speed the end of the “nuclear taboo” that has kept the world free of nuclear warfare since World War II. For the past decade, throughout 1990s the design and development of the smaller nuclear weapons, nukes, with a yield below five kilotons has been banned in United States by law. The goal was to keep from blurring the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons by lessening the difference in their destructive power. President Bush in 2003 asked that the ban be lifted.  India opposes this policy of developing low-yield nukes. Instead of creating a new generation of nuclear warheads, the Washington should have concentrated on improving its precision-guided-bombs and missiles that carry conventional warheads.

 

(9) How Civilized Maintain Civilization

Islamic atom bomb presents the greatest threat to world civilization in the 21st Century. Christian religious right transferred nuclear technology to Pakistan to deter India’s conventional attacks on Pakistan. Wahhabi Saudi Arabia could acquire nuclear weapons and missile capability and lay the foundation for the second round of barbarian invasions of world’s civilizations armed with nukes. Throughout history the barbarians exploit the freedom the civilization to unleash stealth barbarian attacks on the civilization and many times in history succeeded to conquer the civilization and remade the civilization in the image of the barbarians. Civilizations in history succumbed to the attacks of the barbarians because they failed to take preventive measures against barbarians and failed to retaliate against the barbarian home base, the proverbial womb of the barbarism. It matters that diplomats and academics of the Hindu and Buddhist Civilizations concur with much of this proffered language, thereby announcing to all other countries in the Islamic and Christian Civilizations that the Hindu position is not an act of hegemonic bravado, but a framework of policy and diplomacy through which the civilized should seek to maintain civilization. The World Civilization requires the civilization’s worldview to mobilize the resources in its war against barbarian intolerance, fundamentalism, and extremism. Muslim barbarians destroyed the Civilization of ancient Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iran and Byzantine and imposed Islam by sword. The dismal performance of Muslim forces in Iraq and their total capitulation against Christian armies turned the table on Islam. Christian sword is more powerful than Islamic sword in 21st Century. India should support the G-8 Summit Statement that nuclear proliferation is the gravest single threat to the safety of the world. India should forces with great powers to undertake counter nuclear proliferation measures to forestall the menace of Islamic nuclear weapons. India accepts the right to Pakistan to possess nuclear weapons, as Aryan Pakistan is a civilized nation.

 

(10) G-12 World Forum

Neo-Conservatism advocates that India, China, Brazil and Mexico should join the G-8 and an enlarged G-12 summit should lead the world in creating a new economic order. A new world forum aptly named Group of 12, G-12 nations forum was emerging to discuss issues of poverty and development between the industrialized developed nations and the developing and poor nations. The informal summit of G8 with 12 third World countries was a pointer in this direction. The informal meeting in Evian, to which Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee was specially invited by French President Jacques Chirac, was a unique occasion when 12 select leaders of the developing world interacted with G8 countries on a number of political, economic, social and environmental concerns exercising the developing world. It has created a forum of communication at the highest level between the developed and the developing world and this idea holds great promise for a new kind of cooperative North-South dialogue.

 

Prime Minister Vajpayee had the opportunity to see directly the reported tensions between France and the US after the Iraq war that divided the developed world into two hostile Camps, one pro-America camp and second camp that opposed American imperialism. This first time informal meeting the G-8 countries and the Third Word countries resulted in the widespread realization among the leaders of the two groups that there was a need for all of them to be good in interest of the world at large.

 

India lauded the French initiative at the G8 to bring some other nations into the G8, and argued that it could be due to the realization that the impact of the G8 on the world economy was reducing and they realized the need to discuss the problems of the developing countries with leading Third world economies that included China and India the world’s 2nd and 4th largest economies. The initiative was taken by President Chirac much before the Iraq war. Prime Minister Vajpayee acquired during the short trip a good understanding of the global picture that was emerging. His meetings with all the P5 leaders (Russia, France, China, Britain and the US) during a day sent a message that the globe was now small and that India has a position in it, being a nuclear weapon power, the world’s 4th largest economy, world’s 4th greatest military power and world’s 5th greatest space power. It looks like a new world forum was being started, till now there were two groups the developed and the developing world. A new organization has now been formed to look after the whole world. For the first time in a global meet India heard that they (G8) wanted to address poverty and assist (the poor nations). There was a lot of talk about corruption in the G8 countries, which sometimes made Prime Minister Vajpayee wonder whether he was in Indian Parliament.

 

France by inviting China and India, the world’s 2nd and 4th largest economies of the world to the G-8 Summit as guests for a special meeting exposed the glacial shift that took place in the world. President Jacques Chirac's decision to precede the two-day G8 summit with a special meeting of 12 Third World countries, including 4 large economies, namely, China, India, Brazil and Mexico, the world’s 2nd, 4th, 10th and 11th largest economies legitimized multi-polar world. The GNP of China and India exceeded the GNPs at PPP of 6 of G-8 countries, namely, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Russia and Canada. The combined GNPs of 4 invited developing countries, namely China, India, Brazil and Mexico totaled ($8.1 trillion), and combined GNP of 3 invited developing countries, namely China, India and Brazil totaled ($7.3 trillion), more than the combined GNP of 6 G-8 countries, namely, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Russia and Canada that totaled ($7.2 trillion). President Chirac turned the table on President Bush by inviting China, India, Brazil and Mexico as representatives of the Third World to have formal dialogue with the G-8 leaders at summit level. This invitation to the 4 large developing and 8 middle-income nations has opened a critical debate on how these states can play a part in what has always been an exclusive club of rich countries. The G-8 Summit is primarily concerned with launching a confident message about the G 8's ability to stimulate economic recovery against a background of flat growth and near recession. But President Chirac gave a new flavor to the G-8 gathering by devoting almost half a day on Sunday the May 29th ’03 to informal talks with leaders of these 12 countries as well as the heads of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organization. The meeting with China’s President Hu Jintao, India’s Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, Brazil’s President and Mexico’s President Vincent Fox greatly enhanced the diplomatic prestige of President Chirac.

 

Until now the G7 Summit of leaders of, United States, Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and later on renamed as G8 after the inclusion of Russia, had been used as the forum as an informal means of discussing global growth and stable management of the world's economy, diplomacy and military situation. But the globalization of the economy and the rise of new players such as China, India, Brazil and Mexico made this G-8 Club's discussions increasingly difficult to sustain in isolation, because China and India represented world’s 2nd and 4th largest economies. China and India, with their dynamic growth, enormous billion plus populations and increasing weight within the world economy, is posing a real problem and threatens the dominance of the G-8 countries in world economy. President Chirac emphasized this dilemma by having Summit meeting with China’s President Hu Jintao and India’s Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.

 

The G-8 Group must include China and India to become Group of 10, as China and India represented world’s 2nd and 4th largest economies and nuclear weapons powers. The other G8 countries admitted that the admission of Russia, with the GNP ($929 billion), the world’s 10th largest economy, ignoring the usual economic criteria for membership, was a purely political gesture and created a precedent, for the admission of China ($4.1 trillion) and India ($2.2 trillion) the world’s 2nd and 4th largest economies. The leaders of G-8 countries feel that to seek an enlarged dialogue within the present structure risked opening a Pandora's box with a large number of countries seeking to be included in top table discussions. Even Indians were expressing some nervousness over the apparent preference shown by President Chirac towards President Hu Jintao in his bilateral discussions. The redefinition of the G8 raises an even thornier issue, the reform of the United Nations Security Council. China is already a permanent member but countries such as India, Japan, Canada, Brazil and Mexico to say nothing of Germany and Italy are also anxious for permanent member status

 

35(11) India & Multipolar World

(1) Colonial Peacekeeping Business- Peacekeeping Process Outsourcing (PPO)

India can get recognition as a world power if India agrees to provide soldiers for hire, bureaucrats for hire, Judges for hire, policemen for hire, to the foreign Petro-Colonial Empires worldwide and earn fat profit in oil-gas output of the colonies. Oil-Colonialism is a business like any other business. Colonies must generate profits for the colonial masters and procure oil and gas at very cheap prices. Petro-Imperialism want to outsource the entire colonial administration, law and order, judiciary and bureaucracy to India, a country that has a proven track record in colonial administration during hey days of Pax Britannia. Pax Americana colonial empire in the Middle East would become a profitable business venture for the Pentagon provided India takes the responsibility of colonial administration on a fixed fee payable a percentage of the total oil and gas output of the colony. The Colonial Empires want to outsource, entire colonial administration to India as Peacekeeping Process Outsourcing (PPO) where India gets paid a fixed percentage of the total colonial oil output, so that Colonial masters are guaranteed profitable returns on their investments in imperialistic colonial wars. India should support American Oil Colonialism and bid for Foreign Peacekeeping Operations. India would gain nothing by opposing American colonialism and India could gain very substantial profits by supplying Indian administrators, engineers, judges and, civil service officials to manage the Colonial Administration of the American oil colonies. India should also support the France, German Rapid Deployment Force and supply required manpower, soldiers and technical support services. Peacekeeping Process Outsourcing (PPO) can generate 10 million new jobs in India and earn more than $100 billion in annual revenue, which would pay for oil and gas imports of India. India can secure its energy security by providing turnkey colonial administration services to the world’s would be conquerors and imperialists, provided India gets paid a fixed percentage of the total oil and gas output of the oil-colonies as its fee.

 

India can be a world leader in business of Peacekeeping Process Outsourcing (PPO), India should send Peacekeepers to Iraq and become the world leaders in the global business of “Foreign Peacekeeping Operations” (FPO) expected to become the multi-billion dollar industry in the new age of Colonial Empires. India emerged as world leaders in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) for back office operations, technical help desk support and Call Centers. American companies make huge cost savings by outsourcing BPO, Call Center and Back office support services in India. India should also emerge as the world leaders in Peacekeeping Process Outsourcing (PPO) in the new Colonial World Order. It would require more manpower to control and occupy Iraq and to maintain administrative, Judicial and economic administration in post occupation Iraq, than was required for the conquest of Iraq. India’s experience in managing one billion plus population in a democratic society would make India the world leader in Peacekeeping Process Outsourcing (PPO). Pentagon could save billions of dollars if it outsourced to India its entire Peacekeeping Process Outsourcing to India. Indians have the expertise in running colonial administration. India could recruit a regular civil service for foreign peacekeeping operations. Foreign Peacekeeping Operations would take sizeable chunk of the Pentagon’s Budget in first decade of the 21st Century and India should become a dominant player in the business of Foreign Peacekeeping Operations (FPO) and the FPO contracts would generate large number of jobs for India.

 

Peacekeeping Process Outsourcing (PPO)

India should send Peacekeepers to Iraq and become the world leaders in the global business of “Foreign Peacekeeping Operations” (FPO) expected to become the multi-billion dollar industry in the new age of Colonial Empires. India emerged as world leaders in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) for back office operations, technical help desk support and Call Centers. American companies make huge cost savings by outsourcing BPO, Call Center and Back office support services in India. India should also emerge as the world leaders in Peacekeeping Process Outsourcing (PPO) in the new Colonial World Order. It would require more manpower to control and occupy Iraq and to maintain administrative, Judicial and economic administration in post occupation Iraq, than was required for the conquest of Iraq. India’s experience in managing one billion plus population in a democratic society would make India the world leader in Peacekeeping Process Outsourcing (PPO). Pentagon could save billions of dollars if it outsourced to India its entire Peacekeeping Process Outsourcing to India. Indians have the expertise in running colonial administration. India could recruit a regular civil service for foreign peacekeeping operations. Foreign Peacekeeping Operations would take sizeable chunk of the Pentagon’s Budget in first decade of the 21st Century and India should become a dominant player in the business of Foreign Peacekeeping Operations (FPO) and the FPO contracts would generate large number of jobs for India.

 

(2) Multi-Polar Word is the Norm

India can create a multipolar world, if United States refused to accept India as a strategic partner and accords India the respect it deserves. India can super impose United States dominance in the one super power system if India is co-opted in the new world order as a world power with global responsibilities and global spheres of influence. India has the capability to create a New Non Aligned Movement. India also has a capability to create a New Colonial world order. The ball is in the court of the United States. India can stabilize one super power system and India can also destabilize one super power system.

 

The media hype of the one-superpower system is OK but the fact of one-superpower system existed did not mean that International system became Unipolar from the Tripolar world order that defined the International system from 1950 to 1980. The demise of the Soviet Union didn’t halt the rise of the Asia and the rise of nuclear China and nuclear India as the world’s 2nd and 3rd military powers respectively. American primacy is not divinely ordained. Unipolarity is an aberration. Multipolarity is the recurring historical pattern.

 

India led Non Aligned Movement created the Tri-polar world from 1950 to 1980. It is wrong to suggest that international system after the Second World War was a bipolar world order. The writ of the United States ran supreme in the White Western Christian First World. The writ of the Soviet Union ran supreme in the White Orthodox European Second World. The writs of neither United States nor of the Soviet Union ran supreme in the Non aligned Third World. The world cannot remain unipolar. The history of the modern state system of the past five centuries shows that primacy by any one power provokes others to challenge it. The failure of the United States, Britain and Spain to bribe, cajole, threaten and buy votes of Non Aligned non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, namely, Cameroon, Angola, Guinea, Chile and Pakistan to support American Resolution in March 2003, demonstrated that the Third Pole of the International system the Non-Aligned Pole had continued to exist in 2003 unabated though diminished after the 1980 demise of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War. The defeat of France and Germany in the 1956 Suez Canal War demonstrated that France and Germany were no longer Great Powers. The failure of Russia, France and Germany to stop the American invasions of Iraq and Russia’s failure to undertake suitable military response to the American aggression, demonstrated the decline of Russia as World Power and Russia fell to the status of the 4th power of the world, behind China and India in 2003.

 

(3) India & China As Preeminent Powers

China and India were the preeminent powers of the world for more than 5,000 years, from 3000 BC to 1750 AD. As late as 1750, China produced 32.8%, India 24.5% and Japan 3.8% of the world’s manufactured goods. In 1750, China, India and Japan produced 61.1% of world’s total manufactured goods. Indian economy was destroyed by England after the victory in 1757 Battle of Plassey.

 

(4) Russia No Longer Pro Non Aligned World

India should develop closer ties with United States as well as France and Germany because India could no longer depend on Russia’s support to the Non aligned World as the national interests of Russia radically differed with those of the Soviet Union and remarkably similar to the national interests of the Russian Czars, who competed with Indian Empire in the Great Game in Central Asia and Amu River. Putin’s Russia would not value ties with the Non Aligned Third World, as Russia is no longer a Super Power it used to be. Soviet Union as a super power valued its ties with the Non Aligned World to hold in check the preeminent power United States. President Putin’s Russia would revert back to traditional foreign policies of Russia’s Czars that competed with fellow great powers to expand Russia’s territories at the cost of lesser powerful nations in Eurasia. Putin’s Russia would attempt recreating Russia’s lost Empire in alliance with preeminent Super power United States. Russia is more likely to reluctantly accept the onward march of American colonialism, except to demand concessions from United States that Russia should be allowed to do the same in the former Soviet oil-producing countries in the Caspian Central Asia. Russia’s Czars rather than Brezhnev or Khrushchev would influence the future foreign policy of Russia, especially towards the Non Aligned World.  

 

(5) Challenges to Preeminent Powers

India as a world power can mobilize new challenges to the Preeminent Power of 21st Century, the United States. India as a world power can also reinforce the preeminence of the Preeminent Power, the United States in one super power system.

 

The Hapsburg Holy Roman Empire was the predominant power of its time, during Counter Reformation Wars and during the age of de Richelieu. Richelieu pursued the diplomacy of Raison d’etat and Catholic King of France supported the Protestant princes in Germany to keep Germany disunited and provided military and financial aid to the Protestant Princes in the Counter Reformation Thirty Years Wars (1618-1648). Napoleon Bonaparte was the preeminent power of Europe and the European Powers in the 1814 Congress Of Vienna established the Congress System, the Summit or Congress of the leaders of the European Powers that maintained the Concert of Europe and peace in Europe from 1814 to 1914. Victorian England was the preeminent power of the 19th Century and sun never set in the British Empire, but the power of England based on the power and resources of Indian Empire that paid for the salaries of the English officers and soldiers worldwide. Indian soldiers made the Empire of Victorian England. Papacy conspired to bring down the Protestant Anglican Empire by engineering the secession of Catholic-majority Ireland that destroyed the manpower base of United Kingdom. Failure of England to share imperial revenues with India caused the final demise of British Colonial Empire. Bismarckian Germany was the predominant power of late 19th Century and early 20th Century and it saw its predominance tested by British Empire, Indian Empire, Russia and America. India provided 3,500,000 soldiers during WW II and 1,500,000 soldiers during WW I for Allied Forces. India soldiers contributed more towards Allied Victories in last Two World Wars other than soldiers of Britain, Russia and America. The Hapsburgs, Napoleonic France, Victorian England, Bismarckian Germany were all dominant powers for a short time and they all saw their dominance contested.

 

(6) 2003 Concert of World Powers

India as a member of Concert of World Powers should not join Russia, China, Germany and France to hold America in check. Rather India as a member of Concert of World Powers should develop strategic ties with the United States, the Preeminent Power of the world to keep China in Check. Communist China is a grater geopolitical threat to India than hegemon United States.

 

The Concert of World Powers, represented by Russia, France, India, China and Germany would conduct diplomacy to hold America in check and to maintain global balance of power, in 21st Century just as Concert of Europe after the 1814 Congress of Vienna, held Summit of the leading European powers to maintain European Balance of Power. President Jacques Chirac’s decision to invite China, India, Brazil and Mexico the world’s 2nd, 4th, 9th and 11th largest economies for one day informal meeting with the leaders of the G-4 nations inadvertently laid the foundation for the Concert of World Powers and the system might be called 2003 Congress of Evian, which would coordinate the diplomacy of the top-12 economic powers of the world to hold America in check.

 

(7) Can USA Maintain Hegemony?

The perception of hegemony of the United States would be shattered if President Bush failed to undertake preemptive attacks on nuke-seeking Iran. President Carter damaged international standing of the United States, when he refused to undertake military actions to tame Ayatollah Khomeini and end the seize of American embassy in Tehran. If Iran succeeded in bluffing its way out then United States would cease to be a super power in not so distant a future.

 

America would fail to maintain control and peace throughout the fast expanding American Empire and American sphere of influence. United States became a super power after the Second World War by accident as Britain lost the urge to retain British Empire. The theft of American Atom Bomb secrets allowed the Soviet Union to emerge as the Second Super Power. The German scientists built Atom Bombs and missiles both for United States and the Soviet Union. United States lacks the diplomatic finesse to maintain the Colonial administration in the American Empire. American primacy is not divinely ordained. Unipolarity is an aberration. Multipolarity is the recurring historical pattern. United States suffered from the same handicap that undermined the imperial Roman Empire, the shortage of expandable military manpower. The shrinking population of Roman homeland and expanding Roman Empire required the induction of the barbarian troops into Roman Legions that transferred the Roman military technology to barbarian tribes that improvised upon it to conquer Rome itself in 410 AD. The defeat of American troops in the Vietnam War obliged the Pentagon to hire Mujahideen mercenaries to wage wars on Soviet occupation troops in Afghanistan, which created vast reservoir of Islamic militants that turned around to wage terrorist attacks on United States and Israel.

 

(8) Could Iraq Victory Be Nemesis For Bush?

It would be very difficult for President Bush to preserve the imperial foreign policy of America as it could get bogged down in Iraq peacekeeping efforts. Whether America can preserve or lose its primacy would depend on how America used its primacy in the post-Iraq War era. At the end of the second world war, the US had power no country possessed in history: 50 per cent of the world’s GDP, nuclear monopoly, unmatched military power and the towering status of President F.D. Roosevelt. It used this power to build a liberal international order. Institutions to serve this order were created—the Bretton Woods system, the GATT, the Marshall Plan and NATO. Maintenance of the Atlantic alliance was seen as vital to US interests. America’s Unipolar world order depended upon NATO and Atlantic Alliance both for legitimacy and diplomatic coalition. The US-Europe Atlantic partnership and NATO died in the rubble of Baghdad in 2003. The expansion of NATO to include Poland and 10 former members of the Soviet Bloc weakened NATO rather than strengthen it, as Old Europe led by Germany and France got alienated while the New Europe led by Poland lacked the manpower and economic muscle to contribute significantly to the American imperial operations or peacekeeping operations. President George W Bush lacks the towering status of President Franklin D Roosevelt. It is safe to argue that no president of the United States lacked respect in Europe more than President George W Bush. United States lacked the economic muscle to reward its allies with economic rewards and investments to keep them in line for future military operations envisaged by Pentagon, bent on creating American Oil Colonial Empire. The Asian economic meltdown of 2000 and the collapse of Argentina’s economy exposed the charade of America’s crusade for the free transfer of capital. America’s leadership of the World Bank caused economic disasters in the ASEAN and South America, especially Malaysia, Indonesia, Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru and Colombia. The Sept 11 attacks unhinged the economy of the United States and precipitated the steep decline of the Dow Jones. The military occupation of the oil-rich Iraq gave great boost to American economy, but Iraq oil incomes would never be able to pull American economy out of its morass.

 

(9) Bush Like Freemason Theodore Roosevelt

Neo-Conservative President George Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice do not belong to Christian religious right conservative conspiracy, while President Ford, President Carter, President Clinton, Secretary Kissinger, Secretary Brzezinski and Secretary Albright belonged to religious right conservative conspiracy. The foreign policy of President Bush is blunt realism similar to the realism of President Theodore Roosevelt, who sought American colonial Empire. President Bush succeeded in creating an American colonial empire in Iraq that resulted in unprecedented profits for American Big Oil companies as a direct aftermath of the Iraq war.

 

President Bush pursued the policies of realpolitik President Theodore Roosevelt, who happened to be a declared Freemason like President Ford and President George Washington. Bush Administration jettisoned the diplomacy of President Woodrow Wilson and President Franklin D Roosevelt and adopted the imperial foreign policy of President Theodore Roosevelt. All US presidents, from Truman to Clinton, were basically committed to the Franklin Roosevelt’s liberal interdependent order. President Truman, President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, President Carter, President Reagan, President Bill Clinton pursued the Wilsonian diplomacy and liberal interdependent order. President George W Bush fundamentally departed from it diplomatic traditions of President Woodrow Wilson during First World War and President Franklin d Roosevelt during the Second World War. Crass realpolitik of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld combined with Evangelical Born Again Christian messianic zeal and Freemasonry type Neo-conservatism produced the potent oil colonial imperialist agenda of the Bush administration’s foreign policy. Brotherhood of neo-conservatives smells like the secret society brotherhood of Freemasonry apparently ran Bush Administration’s America, and they sincerely believe that with its enormous military power America could and should reshape the world to suit American colonial interests in the soon to emerge American oil colonial empire.

 

(10) Bush Doctrine Vs Brezhnev Doctrine

Neo-Conservative Bush Doctrine seeks to establish American Petro-imperialism and Oil-colonialism in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, while stupid Brezhnev Doctrine focused on poor countries. Soviet President Brezhnev stupidly enunciated the Brezhnev Doctrine and used it to impose Soviet hegemony over poor Czechoslavakia and poor Afghanistan. Had President Brazhnev used Brezhnev doctrine to overtake Iran the geopolitical consequences would have averted the demise of the Communism and the demise of the Soviet Union. President Bush used the diplomatic opportunity of 9/11 attacks to unleash American attacks on poor Afghanistan and allowed Northern Alliance to fight Taleban forces and conquer Afghanistan. However, President Bush is an Oilman and he understood the profits American oil companies would make if America invaded Iraq and established American oil Empire in Iraq. America is quick to understand the profit potential of the occupation of oil-rich Iran. Bush doctrine seeks to establish American colonial empire in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran to control the land bridge from Caspian oil-gas reserves to Arabian Gulf oil-gas reserves.

 

Soviet Union enunciated the Brezhnev Doctrine immediately after the America’s defeat in the Vietnam War and embarked upon the imperial policies in Angola and Afghanistan. The Soviet arrogance as imperial power lasted only 15 years after the America’s defeat in the Vietnam in 1975 and by 1991 the Soviet Union disintegrated, the Berlin Wall came down, Warsaw Pact became history, and truncated Russia became a second rate power. President Putin enhanced the power to Russia, but Russia would never be Able to climb higher than the 4th world power slot in the world, and Russia destined to remain behind United States, China and India in the Top-4 Club. Would United States face catastrophic decline 15 years after the end of the Cold War in 1991 before 2010. Iraq may turn out to be the nemesis of American power. For the first time since its emergence as a preeminent power, the US has taken on a truly imperial role. Iraq Colonization project is far greater in scope then the one in Vietnam and Vietnam War experiment ended in total failure and defeat for America and Vietnam took 54,000 American lives and nothing suggested that America would succeed in Iraq. Iraq is multi-ethnic society unlike Germany and Japan and minority Arab Sunni representing less than 16 percent of the population ruled over Iraq after the First World War, due to the American and British penchant for Arab Wahhabi Sunni Muslims. US success in implanting democracy on the ruins of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan cannot be replicated elsewhere. Few believe that the US wants to build democracy in Iraq. America would readily settle for a pro-American dictatorship in Iraq, as it has done elsewhere. President Bush enunciated the Bush Doctrine 2002 and declared the preeminence of the United States and its readiness to use military power to undertake preemptive strikes against any nation or group of nations that aimed to equal or surpass United States in military capability.

 

(11) India Not to Oppose American Primacy

United States primacy in the world is not against India’s national interests. United States primacy is against the national interests of China and Russia. Communist China emerged as the principal adversary of the United States in the 21st Century. The American Primacy could be in India’s national interests as it checks the rise of China. Growing India-USA strategic relationship can counterbalance China. In a nutshell India welcomes American Primacy provided India gets its piece of the action and share of the spoils of wars that are waged by the preeminent power of the world. India is ready to do business with the hegemon of the world.

 

Anti-America advisors argue that India will gain nothing by endorsing American primacy. The greater dispersal of power is in India’s interest. In 2001 India signed a statement with the visiting French foreign minister, Hubert Vederine, calling for the building of a multipolar world. Has India abandoned that idea of Multi-polar world? India has not rejected the ideal of the Multi-polar world order, but would not sacrifice the economic gains that would result by supporting American colonial empire and American imperialism time to time. India accepted the predominance of the United States in the Unipolar world and India has decided not to challenge it or attempt to set India as an alternate pole in opposition to the United States. India does not believe that United States would be able to sustain the Unipolar world for long. However, India would not supply Indian troops for any post-occupation peacekeeping operations or for America’s imperialist operations in future, unless America guaranteed India’s share of the colonial loot or sphere of influence. India’s counterpart to Condoleezza Rice, India’s National Security Adviser, Brajesh Mishra argued in a speech to Council of Foreign Relations, Washington DC that “USA is the pre-eminent power in the world today. It would make poor political or economic sense for a country like India, to set itself up as an alternate pole in opposition to the United States.” In a post-Cold War world especially the post-Iraq War world order, the world order is unipolar not multipolar world. But can American “unipolarity” last for any length of time? Of course India’s strategic establishment has concluded that United States “unipolarity” is here to stay and gratuitously advised India government to come to terms with the it. India has decided not to challenge the hegemony of the Untied States in 2003 as it had realized mistake of challenging the America’s predominance in the post 1950 Cold War Age by leading Non Aligned Nations. India didn’t gain anything by leading the Non Aligned Nations. India earned the ire of the West and no respect from the Non Aligned World. The Vajpayee’s government would not repeat the mistake Nehru’s government made in championing the cause of the Third World. Vajpayee’s government would also not repeat the mistake of the pre-independence Indian Empire, which supplied 3,500,000 Indian soldiers in the World War Two and 1,500,000 soldiers in the First World War to the Allied Forces and got no rewards as victor’s spoils of War. Syria got Lebanon as Mandate territory and India got partitioned for helping Allied Powers win the War.

 

(12) NATO Coming to Definitive End

The NATO has lost its military edge and European powers cannot provide any substantial military assets to help United States implement American Colonial agenda. European Union is heading for economic decline. German and French policy to woo new members by offering substantial agricultural subsidies has made European Union the sick man of Europe in the 21st Century.

 

The NATO alliance reversed itself on March 5, ’03. The diplomatic divide that has opened between the US and continental Europe, France and Germany is bringing the NATO the Atlantic alliance to a definitive end. France, Germany and Russia revealed that they are ready for a Europe without United States. The white Western Christendom got divided into two camps, one pro-American Camp and the second anti-American Camp. India is part of both the camps and leaders of both camps want India to join them. France, Germany challenged the imperialist policies of President Bush to lead European Union on an anti-American Crusade. The US primacy was diplomatically challenged by a group of European nations, which has powers to hurt American interests in an area of its prime concern: Europe. On March 5, ’03 the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Russia concerted to block American intervention in Iraq and that was the day when the Atlantic alliance was reversed, remarked Die Zeit, Europe’s influential weekly. India should solidly implant itself in the new military alliance under development in Europe,

 

(13) India Supports American Hegemony

India should not oppose America’s hegemony for the sake of opposition or for the sake of protecting the rights of the Third World Non Aligned nations, unless the victim of American aggression had signed the Defense pact with India beforehand. India should not oppose the expansionism of the American oil colonial Empire, because it would not be a wise step. India should not oppose American colonial imperialism. India should join the winning Camp. India should join the winner and profit by helping the victor manage its colonial possession more profitably in exchange for a sizeable cut in the profits of colonialism. India supported colonial Britain during WWI and WWII so that Britain could remain free and not become the colony of Germany. India never regretted that had India supported Germans during WWII then Hitler might have won the War. However, India regretted that instead of rewarding Indian Empire with mandate territories as justified spoils of Allied Victors of War, Indian Empire was partitioned and India lost, Burma, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Maldives.

 

(14) Foster India-Europe Military Ties

India should not lose the opportunity to forge military ties with France and Germany to develop joint Rapid Deployment force capability, for worldwide military and peacekeeping operations in Africa. India should widen the wedge that developed between America and France and do whatever it would require to deepen the growing trans-Atlantic rift. France, Germany and India should invite India to provide military support for developing independent European Rapid Deployment force. It would be unwise for France, Germany and Belgium to invite Russian Bear to ward of the challenge of Yankee Eagle. Russia could be tempted to takeover West Europe if it could. India should join the emerging France and German initiative to develop European military capability neither dependent on United States nor Russia. India should join forces with France, Germany and Belgium to develop the Third Military pole in the world and it would be mutually beneficial. Without the technological support of France and Germany India might not be able to form a global military Pact. India should become the military anchor to European union so that Germany and France might not have to depend on Russia to provide military support. United States enjoyed overwhelming superiority over France, Germany and Russia and latter have no option but to come to terms with the United States. There is a vast power disparity between France, Germany and Russia on one side, and the United States and this gap likely to widen rather than shorten, especially in military balance of power. However, the development of the independent European Defense System and the European Rapid Deployment Force would project European military power in Africa, the continent Europeans are most concerned about and where France, Belgium, Germany and Portugal had substantial Empire. India should join European Rapid Deployment Force as India could have more influence over European force than American rapid deployment force. But you don’t need an exact equilibrium of forces between adversaries to balance each other. All that the weak needs is the power to hurt the strong. France and Germany and Russia have that power. Talks have begun at Brussels between France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg on a European defense system. France with its penchant for European counterpoise to America would like to see this defense system outside NATO. Germany, Belgium and other European powers would also like independent European defense capability not dependent on Pentagon, and they might not say so openly but hope so privately. What is really significant about these talks is Germany’s participation in it. The German-US relationship has been particularly close. But the US action in Iraq has stirred the Europeans to think about their defense. This is also true of the people of Spain, Italy and Britain, who massively demonstrated against US action in Iraq. Therefore, the principal countries of the European Union together with Russia could emerge as a counterweight to US power. India should provide military support to any European initiative that seeks to develop independent military capability for European Union. 

 

(15) Non-Aligned Defense Pact

India should launch Non-Aligned Defense Pact that should unite Third world countries under the military leadership of India. Non-Aligned Defense Pact will catapult India into the ranks of Super Powers.

 

No nation came to the rescue of Iraq because Iraq hadn’t signed Defense Pact with any great power. Iraq should have offered share of the Iraqi oil wealth by signing a defense pact with one of the world powers, namely India or Russia. It was stupid for Saddam Hussein to believe that any other power would agree to face the brunt of American aggression, without having the guaranteed share of the Iraqi oil wealth. Non Aligned Nations must not accept that India, Russia, France and Germany would come to their rescue when they would face aggression in futures, unless they agreed to share in advance their mineral and oil resources with one of the great powers they would expect to protect them from colonial attacks of hostile great powers. Non-White Non-Aligned Nations would remain independent and avert the looming dark age of Colonialism, only when they form the “Non-Aligned Defense Pact” (NADP) and “Non-Aligned Common Market” (NACM). Only India can lead Non-Aligned Nations, to form the Non-Aligned Defense Pact and Non-Aligned Common Market. In 2003 the World got divided into two Blocs, the White First World and the Non-White Second World. Entire White Christian World got united to impose White Colonial rule over non-White Non Aligned World. Russia is White European power and no longer on side of Non-Aligned Nations. Weakened Russia, France and Germany have no option but to join the America-led White Christian Euro-American Neo-World Order where White Colonial Empires would replace non-White Nation States as legal units of International System. For the first time in history the entire White Christian world, the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox nations united under NATO and European Union. After East European countries joined 25-member European Union the Second World ceased to exist and became part of the First World. If Non-Aligned Nations desire to remain independent and avert the looming dark age of Colonialism, then Non Aligned Nations should form “Non-Aligned Defense Pact” (NADP) and “Non-Aligned Common Market” (NACM) before it is too late. Only India can lead Non-Aligned Nations, to form the Non-Aligned Defense Pact and Non-Aligned Common Market. Nuclear India should rise to the occasion.

 

(16) Indian Peacekeepers in Iraq

Vajpayee’s Government weighed India’s various options before deciding the politically vexed issue of sending Stabilization Force to American colony in Iraq, because United States has formally indicated that America wanted Indian Army troops in the Kurdish sector in Northern Iraq. On the directions of India’s Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), the security establishment, after discussing the latest UN Security Council Resolution 1483, came up with a series of options that made the Iraq force option politically palatable. These options try to address the following questions posed by the CCS: First, is there a UN mandate for the stabilization force? Second, under whose command will the Indian troops operate? Third, will Indians be asked to fire on Iraqis to quell a law and order situation?

 

First, Is there a UN mandate for the stabilization force? The CCS security establishment interpreted the UN mandate for the “force” in the operative paragraph one of resolution 1483, which appeals to member-states and not coalition partners to “contribute to conditions of stability and security in Iraq.” This meant that, by sending troops to Iraq, India would be answering to the UN appeal and not to the Occupying Powers, “authority” namely the US and UK.

 

Second, under whose command will the Indian troops operate? On the command and control structure, the broad thinking of the CCS was that the UN should impress upon the authority to look into the concept of rotational command. This would mean the establishment of a joint command structure between the sector commanders and the American Central Command headed by General Tommy Franks. A two-star general or major general should head the joint command and the post should rotate among those countries contributing to the stabilization force in Iraq. The logic is that a commander will be in charge of his troops in the clearly demarcated sectors following proper rules of engagement. However, Commander will be in touch with the joint command that will translate the authority’s action on the ground. India’s South Block still does not have clear-cut answers to whether Indian troops will have to fire on Iraqis to quell the law and order situation. It was mainly this question that held back the CCS decision on sending troops to Iraq.

 

Third, will Indians be asked to fire on Iraqis to quell a law and order situation? The discussions in the South Block indicated that chances of Indian troops firing on Iraqis are very limited, particularly when the deployment is going to be in Kurdish sector of Northern Iraq. India has a long-standing engagement with the Kurds, who are semantically of a different stock than the Arabs and Jews in West Asia. After the enforcement of a no fly zone in northern Iraq, the Kurdish Patriotic Union (KPU) of Jalal Talabani and Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) of Masood Barzani have been in control of these areas. The two parties, namely, KPU and KDP have been sharing the oil revenues from fields between cities of Kirkuk and Mosul in Northern Iraq and thus have little incentive in provoking the local populace against the Indian troops. However, if India sent troop divisions to Northern Iraq then it will have to deal with militants of Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) led by Abdullah Ocalan and assuage the security concerns of neighboring Turkey. Turkey has serious concerns over Kurdish spillover to Kurdish regions in Turkey and has posted many observers in Kirkuk and Mosul to keep a watch on the situation. The Indian Army has already identified the army battalions that will form a division (around 10,000 troops) for Iraq and none of these battalions will be pulled out from Jammu and Kashmir, and they will have a strong element of engineers and doctors in order to make themselves more helpful to the Iraqi people. But Army needs a clear political green signal before it moved into Iraq as peacekeepers.

 

India’s Peace Keeping Force in Iraq

Most important is the issue of national Interests, as it is in the national interests of India as well as the Non-Aligned Nations, if India accepted the American invitation to monitor one out of the five administrative sections into which Iraq has been divided. Second is the issue of Command, as Indian troops must not be under the command of US or British or Polish troops. Third, India should deploy troops as part of the SAARC troops and invite contingents from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal. No self-respecting Indian leader would let Indian troops serve under foreign command. Fourth, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage proposed to India to send troops to Iraq on May 10, ’03, as it was in the national interest of the US to give India a leadership role in the management of post-Saddam Iraq, lest world gets divided into White Camp and Non-White Camp. Fifth, India would serve only if India has independent command in Iraq. The Indian Parliament in April ’03 passed a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of US-led forces from Iraq and also described the actions of the US-led military operations in Iraq as unacceptable. Sixth, India should support the rule of USA-UK as UN recognized Occupying Powers in Iraq and deploy Indian Peacekeeping troops in Iraq.

 

Britain seriously regretted that British Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson gave independence to Oman, UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar in 1971 and to Kuwait in 1963, even when they didn’t want it. Indian Army created Pax Britannia and British Empire. United States and Britain got back in 2003 in Iraq, what Britain spitted out in 1963 and 1971. India should support Israel, Britain and United States establish Democratic Governments in New Middle East.

 

Seventh, India provided 3,500,000 soldiers during WW II and 1,500,000 soldiers in WW I for Allied Powers. Before 1965, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Oman, and UAE kept their Reserve Currency in Indian Rupees. Arabian Gulf had been Indian Lake ruled by Navy of Indian Empire in 18th, 19th & early 20th Century. Obviously India would again be an Allied Power in the Third World War. Eighth, Indian troops in Iraq would be a fitting reply to the invasion of India by Baghdad Caliphate’s Mohammad Bin Qasim at the turn of the 2nd Millennium.

 

(17) India Demands access to US Markets

India should demand in concrete terms the gains India would make if India sent troops to Iraq. American doctrine enunciated in the Pentagon document states that the Indians are obsessed with "protocol, with symbolic gestures. For the Indians, the act is much more important than the substance, the theory is more important than execution; and the tactic is more important than strategy. Bush Administration suddenly making appropriate noises, gestures, handshakes, bear hugs, all the works, thinking that Indians can be taken in by gestures and photo opportunities without getting anything substantial and concrete in return. The latest instance was Mr Rumsfeld dropping in to see Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani in his hotel room. The news items, obviously inspired by the Pentagon, took pains to explain that the Defense Secretary's gesture was an extraordinary one given his preoccupation with matters other than India. India should explain to United States that India, China are the two new super powers the members of the top-3 world powers, so it is appropriate that US Defense Secretary find time to meet India’s Deputy Prime Minister for a full meeting rather than a casual meeting in a hotel room. It became important as President Pervez Musharraf visited President Bush at Camp David where no Indian Prime minister has been invited as of today. The Pentagon document complains that the Indian establishment both civilian and military suspicious of US intentions and are not willing to think strategically. The document goes to considerable length to explain the timidity of the Indian establishment. The aim is to belittle the intellectual and moral courage of the Indian leadership that refuses to kowtow to the diktats of Washington like the General-next-door. The document says that Indian’s are not interested in gaining access to American markets and give the argument that National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra didn’t meet Treasury Secretary at 7.30 in the morning. Obviously, Brajesh Misra or other officials are available for meeting now, why new appointments not forthcoming. United States has not rewarded India for the support India gave to Untied States in Afghanistan war.

 

(18) No US Military Bases in India

India should offer to set up military bases in worldwide network of American military bases. India should not allowed Pentagon Camel enter the Subcontinent Tent. India is the leader of the Non Aligned World and if India allowed United States to develop military bases in India then no Non Aligned Nation would be able to deny Pentagon’s requests for military bases facility. If India allowed United States military bases in India then why wouldn’t Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka not do the same and give military based to Pentagon? Any American military bases in the Subcontinent would be against India’s national interest. The Pentagon, the nerve center of US strategic policy and mother of all Psy-War operations selectively leaked a 176-page classified document, Indo-US Military Relationship: Expectations and Perceptions, early in 2003. It was a clever leak and its purpose was to avoid creating any sensation, so that the story may percolate down, slowly, to circumvent a public uproar in India and the story to avoid more than a day's mention in the Indian newspapers. This leak allowed Pentagon to declare that it wanted military bases in India, the leader of the Non Aligned Movement, and the implications of what the Americans wanted from India left no trace on the Indian psyche. It allowed United States to scout the world for new military bases that it seeks, where India would have no role. The document is a fairly exhaustive analysis of the India-US military relationship, and explains American point of view in the bilateral engagement of the two most prominent democracies in the world.

 

(19) Indo-China-Japan Asian Common Market

The first is the China-India Detente factor. India, China and Japan should develop Asian Common Market that will have the combined 1999 GNP of $9.3 trillion) more than the combined GNPs of United States and Canada. Asia should unite on the lines of European Union to create the Asian Common Market where other economies of Asia could also join at later date. India should not join anti-China Camp. United States and China enjoy Most Favored Trading Nations (MFN) Status that India does not enjoy currently. United States might use India’s offer to join the anti-China Camp led by United States, to brow beat China join the anti-India Camp led by Christian powers. The drumbeats have already begun. Well-known analysts have already begun their oft-repeated warnings about the Red Dragon. Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes, portrayed forever as a China-hater, had a fruitful visit to Beijing. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee is scheduled to reach the Chinese capital in a fortnight.

 

India-China détente is good for India and good for China. India refused to accept the Permanent Membership of the Taiwan’s seat, as offered by Secretary John Foster Dulles in 1958. Though there is no perceptible warmth in the relationship, both countries are willing to walk towards a common ground of understanding in the present and the future without the baggage of the past. This willingness itself is a positive step towards resolving four decades of bitterness. Such a scenario seriously upsets the geo-political world visualized by Washington in the next two decades. For, China is the only country with the potential of becoming a stumbling block in the way of the American juggernaut. So the American plan is to sustain the China bogey especially in Asia where at least two countries, India and Japan, share a history of bitterness with it.

 

(20) India-China-Pakistan Triangle

India is annoyed that Pakistan supports Muslim terrorists in Kashmir and refuses to develop closer ties with India bypassing Kashmir issue. China is annoyed that India supports Buddhists in Kashmir and refuses to develop closer ties with China bypassing territorial dispute.

 

Encouraged by the American moles in Indian Foreign Policy establishment, Indian policy makers had been duplicating in India-China relationship what Pakistan had been doing in India-Pakistan relationship. Just as Pakistan does by supporting insurrection and Muslims in Kashmir, India did to China in Tibet. Just as Pakistan refused to encourage economic ties with India unless Kashmir problem is resolved, India refused to develop economic ties with China unless the border problem is resolved. Pakistan’s policy towards India and India’s policy towards China traditionally formulated by the CIA moles in the Pakistani and Indian foreign policy establishment as it served America’s primarily purpose to keep the three leading powers of Asia, China, India and Japan divided. Leading Indian opinion makers at the suggestion of the CIA have traditionally undermined the India-China détente and India-Pakistan détente. It is, therefore, not surprising that in India there has been a sustained campaign against China, both subtle and overt. The media campaign has been very sophisticated that it is difficult to know the CIA puppeteers who pull the strings of Indian public opinion regarding China and Pakistan. Broadly speaking, media war took place on two tracks. One campaign extolled the superiority of the Chinese military power, and denigrated India’s military might. Even leading analysts, mostly European educated academics at leading research institutes propagated the view that wise Indians realize that India can’t compete with China, even when China was weak at the height of the Mrs. Mao led Cultural Revolution. The second track led by Marxists found nothing but virtue in Chinese economic progress, and defended China’s drive towards Capitalism while supporting anti-West economic policies of India. Both PsyWar campaigns are aimed at creating fear and awe, a sense of insecurity that is then fanned by stories of increasing Chinese collaboration with Pakistan. The CIA and Pentagon runs both campaigns, one that hypes China’s military capability and China-Pakistan nexus, and second campaign hypes China’s economic progress. Notice the occasional references made by the American establishment to India being an emerging superpower-it keeps us happy even while making the Chinese wary. The seeds of suspicion have long been planted in the minds of the people of the two nations that have the potential of rivaling America in every sphere of life. China and India are the two new super powers besides United States and could compete with United States in economic and military sphere.

 

(21) India & China Both New Super Powers

India can neither dispute Chinese ambitions in terms of military and economic development nor stop China from becoming a superpower, since nuclear China is world’s 2nd largest economy and largest population. Similarly, China can neither dispute India’s ambitions in terms of military and economic development nor stop India from becoming a super power since nuclear India is the world’s fourth largest economy and 2nd largest population. In 1750 China produced one/third of the world’s total manufactured goods and India produced on/fourth of world total manufactured goods. Neither China nor India should succumb to needless suspicions and fears. India as well as China has their place under the sun, and India should look at issues that matter to India from Indian point of view. The Americans have their own agenda and views. India as well as China too should have an agenda. Yes, it is true India had a bitter past with the Chinese dragon in 1962, but does that mean India should continue to follow a path of confrontation with China. That would help neither India, nor China nor Pakistan and would help only the United States. China is India’s neighbor, and it is time India formulated a strategy that works to India’s benefit rather than United States. Reading the Pentagon document is important as it helps India to know what the Americans are planning for next few years in Asia.

 

(22) Sino-Indian Détente 2003

Sino-Indian Tortoise poised to overtake American Hare in the global clash of civilizations. The United States needs to pay attention and adjust to emerging shifts in Asian alliances, lest it play hare to the Sino-Indian tortoise, said Robert Radtke, “China and India: High stakes for US interests, International herald Tribune, June 23, ’03. Sino-Indian détente that began with prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s China’s visit might enable Sino-Indian tortoise overtake American hare. How does the United States fit in this changing landscape of Sino-Indian relations and Asia's future? Neither India nor China wants an Asia dominated by the United States. Both China and India see themselves as great powers fallen on bad times centuries ago, but well on their way back to reclaiming their rightful places as preeminent nations in the world in 21st Century. If China and India settle their differences and deepen economic and cultural cooperation and diplomatic engagement they can establish a multipolar world in first quarter of the 21st Century, in which U.S. power in Asia is moderated and held in check a stated goal of China and India, France and Russia.

 

(23) India-China-USA Triangular Balance

After India-China détente 2003 the created new triangular balance of power among, United States, China and India that would determine the Asian balance of power in the 21st Century and Japan would play less important diplomatic and political role than India as well as China. Nixon Administration Triangular Balance between USA, Japan and China determined the Asian balance of Power in 1970s, 80s and 90s. Since Secretary Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon's visit to China, a triangular relationship among the United States, Japan and China played an important role in the maintenance of peace and stability in Asia. Perhaps the Vajpayee visit to Beijing foreshadows a new kind of triangular stability with China, the United States and India at the three corners. Given economic and military might of the United States 2003, the challenge India-China may present in future is too long-term to be taken seriously by the White House during Bush Administration, which believes that preeminence of the United States has come to stay for ever and they believe only in short-term diplomatic fixes. But China and India think in terms of generations, not quarterly results. The United States needs to pay attention and adjust to emerging shifts in Asian alliances, lest US play hare to the Sino-Indian tortoise and allow India and China to overtake United States as economic and military powers.

 

The Asian Balance of Power in 2003 determined by USA-China-India Triangular Balance of Power. Neither Japan nor Russia would play any significant role in Asian Balance of Power. The Sino-Indian détente has high stakes for US national interests. The visit of the Indian prime minister to China June 2003, was the first in almost a decade, and the high mark of a trend toward deepening Chinese-Indian relations, which has been largely overlooked by White house policymakers and pundits. As India-China rapprochement unfolds, the United States should be watching carefully, because it replaced the USA-Japan-China Triangular Balance of Power with newer USA-China-India triangular balance of power in Asia. Japan would never be able to rival China or India as military and diplomatic power anytime in the 21st Century. Just as White House influenced Islamabad to maintain hostility towards India, it also influenced Delhi to maintain its hostility towards China. China-India détente resulted out of the convergence of national interests on Asian regional security, peaceful resolution of border issues, fast growing economic ties, common front for war on Islamic terrorism and the future of Asia in the 21st Century, rumored as the Century of Asia. Whether China and India would become allies or adversaries has profound effects on Asia's strategic landscape and America's place in it and this would greatly impact US national interests. India refused to develop closer economic and diplomatic ties with China from 1962 to present without demanding the solution of its border problems with China, Just as Pakistan refused to develop closer ties with India before finding solution on Kashmir problem. India identified China, not Pakistan, as the biggest threat to its security, when India conducted its nuclear tests in 1998. India noted with alarm China's growing strategic influence throughout Asia and China's continued support of Pakistan heightened the perception in New Delhi of a potential security threat from China. This dynamic continues to drive Sino-Indian relations five years from 1988 to 2003. The United States should watch to see if China begins to distance itself from Pakistan, since China has a lot more to gain after this visit from a relationship with India than it does with Pakistan. Because of India-China détente Pakistan would become less important in the Asian Balance of Power. President Bush invited President Pervez Musharraf for a Summit meeting at Camp David, during Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s visit to China. 

 

(24) Sino-Indian Wars on Islamic Terrorism

Sino-Indian détente based on the rock solid foundation of converging national interests and Hindu-Buddhist wars on Wahhabi Islamic terrorism. China as well as India faced the common threat of Wahhabi Islamic terrorism. The China’s Mongol rulers conquered Baghdad and the entire Islamic world after 1258. China and India could some day jointly invade the womb of Wahhabi Islamic terrorism to safeguard the territorial integrity of China as well as India. India and China also have common national interests regarding the war on Islamic terrorism and protection of the oil and gas supplies from Caspian Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. India has long been vexed by cross-border Islamic terrorism in Kashmir, and China has its own problems in Xinjian (Sinkiang) province in its western regions with nascent Islamic extremist groups. India and China have signed on to the broader goals of the U.S.-led war on Islamic terrorism, particularly as it affects them domestically in Kashmir and Xinjian. It should be noted that China opposed the creation of Pakistan on the basis of religion in 1947. Both realize that terrorists from Pakistan responsible for law and order problems in Kashmir and Xinjian. United States would be concerned whenever China begins to distance itself from Pakistan since China has a lot more to gain now from a relationship with India than it does with Pakistan.

 

35(12) India Brazil South Africa

(1) G-3 or G-5 Grouping

The important outcome of the G-8 Summit Meeting of industrialized nations at Evian had been the formation of the G-3 Southern Group of India, Brazil and South Africa. The G-5 Group of India, Brazil, South Africa, China and Russia could change the dynamics of the world trade. Brazil's new President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva this week said the three nations, India, Brazil and South Africa plus China and Russia, had to band together to get the attention of G8 nations preoccupied by the US-led war on terror and global economic weakness. India, Brazil and South Africa announced on Friday June 6, ’03 that they have formed a trilateral bloc to boost trade and pool their political muscle in talks with rich nations. The new grouping follows soon after the G8 meeting of major industrial nations failed to act on a proposal for subsidy cuts to help Africa and a Brazilian plan to create a global fund to fight hunger. "When countries like India, South Africa and Brazil speak with one voice, that voice will be heard," said Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha, flanked by his Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim and South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma after their first trilateral meeting. Trade between Brazil and India has more than doubled over the last three years while Brazil and South Africa have seen their trade rise 85 per cent. India and South Africa hope to set up free trade deals with South America's Mercosur trade bloc. "We have every interest that this G3 could become a G5," said Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim. "We will not be exclusive. The new trilateral grouping, India, Brazil, South Africa Group of 3, which will focus on stronger commercial ties in technology, defense and transportation. President Lula and Foreign Minister Amorin have adopted a more activist foreign policy for Brazil and are intent on strengthening South America's international ties. The first political goal of the three is to push the United Nations to reform its security council and create permanent seats for developing nations. The three would back each other to get seats. The 15-member U.N. Security Council includes ten members chosen on a rotating basis from the U.N. membership and five permanent members, the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France. "The first hurdle is to get the reform of UN Security Council accepted," said South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma.

 

The Combined 1999 GNPs of G-3 Nations is ($3,556 billion) of India (2,144 billion), Brazil (1,062 billion) and South Africa ($350 billion). The combined GNPs of G-5 nations shall be ($8,597 billion), by including China ($4,112 billion), and Russia ($929 billion). The 1999 combined population of G-3 nations (1.21 billion), India (1 billion), Brazil (168 million), and South Africa (42 million) represented 22.25% of world’s total population. The surface area of G-3 nations (13.1 million sq. km) of India (3.3 million sq. km), Brazil (8.5 million sq. km) and South Africa (1.2 million sq. km) represented 9.8 percent of world surface area. The G-3 nations represent about one-tenth of the world’s surface are and one-fourth of the world’s population. The Combined surface area of the G-5 nations shall be (39.7 million sq. km) including China (9.6 million sq. km) and Russia (17.1 million sq. km) representing 29.8% of world surface area. The 1999 Combined population of G-5 nation was (2.6 billion) represented 43.6% of world population. The 1999 combined GNP of G-5 nations ($8.6 trillion) represented 22.2% of world’s total GNP at PPP and exceeded the GNP of USA. The G-5 countries owned more than one-fourth of world’s total surface area and around half of the world’s population and one-fourth of the world’s GNP.

 

35(13) Indo-US Military Expectations and Perceptions

(1) Report of Juli A MacDonald

India should not give much importance to the report prepared by Juli A. MacDonald, an associate at Booz Allen Hamilton for the US Department of Defense, as lacked any deep understanding of recent American military doctrine. India should refuse to permit United States permanent military bases in the Subcontinent, unless Untied States allowed India to develop permanent military bases in UAE, Qatar, Oman, and Japan. Like the proverbial Camel and Arab in the tent, India should not allow American Camel enter South Asian tent as it might present grave security risks for India. These comments are based on 'Indo-US Military Relations: Expectations and Perceptions,' a US Defense Department-commissioned study. US defense department classified report, Indo-US Military Relations: Expectations and Perceptions, based on interviews of some 40 Indian policymakers, high ranking military officers, members of National Security Council, senior officials of the Ministry of External Affairs and some security analysts. The report is the most comprehensive picture of American perspective of its military relation with India and its future aspirations. It has quoted US lieutenant generals as saying that the access to India bases would enable the US military 'to be able to touch the rest of the world' and to 'respond rapidly to regional crises'. The report, prepared by Juli A MacDonald, an associate at Booz Allen Hamilton, for the US Department of Defense, is based on interviews of 42 key Americans, including 23 active military officers, 15 government officials and four others. In India MacDonald met 10 active Indian military officers and five government officials besides several members of the National Security Council, and outside experts advising the government. For understandable reasons, none of the individuals are identified by name, but by their ranks or other positions. India should not give too much attention on this report, except to the fact that it declares Pentagon’s goals to establish permanent military bases in the Subcontinent. India must never offer any facility for military bases to Pentagon, lest White House use the offer as a ploy to secure American military bases in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Pakistan. India can never forget that President Bush didn’t even bother to thank Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh for offering use of India’s military bases for American invasions of Afghanistan. On the contrary, Pentagon misused the Indian offer of military bases to Pentagon to force Pakistan provide military bases to United States. 

 

(2) India USA’s Mutual Distrust

There is no denial of the fact that President Pervez Musharraf is a CIA spy and at the behest of the CIA he overthrew the democratically elected government of Pakistan. Obviously, India realizes that Pentagon would prefer to deal with Pakistan, a country led by a CIA spy. India’s leadership cannot betray national interests of India, while the CIA’s implant in Pakistan would serve America’s interests better. First, India should not offer United State any military base in India, because United States could use this consent of India to pressurize Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal or Burma to develop permanent military based, which could be used against India in future. The Indian military approaches the prospects of a military relationship with the US military with deep-seated suspicion, distrust, and apprehension. The deep-seated suspicion in India of America can be attributed to no one issue, but grows out of past US policies, specific events, and actions taken by specific institutions. US positioning of the USS Enterprise in (or near) the Bay of Bengal during the 1971 war with Pakistan was the most potent symbol of the United States supporting its adversary and that American step 'unquestionably left an indelible imprint on the Indian psyche. There is lingering suspicions among Indians that the US military has been and will continue to be Pakistan-centric. US military is much more comfortable with the Pakistanis' and that the US cooperation with Pakistan will be the default US response to the problems in the region. These perceptions of Indian policymakers were strengthened by American response after 9/11. The Indian government for the first time in its relations with US offered unconditional cooperation to its post-9/11 campaign. United States failed to respond or even to communicate effectively, and America seemed to opt for a new relationship with Pakistan. Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh foolishly offered United States the unconditional use of Indian bases. President Pervez Musharraf used the offer made by Jaswant Singh to convince people of Pakistan in his televised speed to people of Pakistan for consenting to American use of Pakistani military bases for conducting war on Afghanistan. India cannot accept American request to allow United States use of military bases in Indian Subcontinent. It is correct for India’s military leadership and diplomats to distrust Pentagon’s motives in South Asia, as only a CIA’s agent would welcome American Camel into India’s tent.

 

(3) No US Military Bases in India

India cannot allow United States military base facilities in India because United States is a sole super power in the world and it would be suicidal to allow United States any permanent bases in India, unless United States allowed India to establish permanent military bases in countries where Pentagon enjoyed access to military bases, namely, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Iraq, South Korea and Japan. America's predominance raises several key contentions in India-US relations. First, Indians would reject any Indo-US relationship that 'circumscribes' India's strategic options and freedom or limits its ability to address its security concerns. And they are particularly sensitive about their relations with Russia and nuclear capability. Indians fear that America could use its predominance to 'impede' strategic relationships that India needs to develop such as those with Myanmar and Iran. India fears that US insensitivity to the effect of US policies on India, e.g. recent American military actions and deployments in Asia could provoke 'China into asserting its interests elsewhere such as in Myanmar', and thus draw India into an unintended stand off against China. Second, Indian intellectuals view any relation with US as 'colonialism through the back door', and so a stronger Indo-US military relation could set off strong political dissent within India. Third, Indians view American bureaucrats as potential obstacles to the Indo-US military relationship." Most Americans are 'ignorant' of India's history, in many cases not even knowing that, like America, India was born of a long revolutionary struggle and has become a vibrant democracy.

 

Any foreign base on the Subcontinent would undermine India’s options in wars against China and Pakistan. India cannot allow United States the use of Indian military bases because it would harm rather than help in case of war against Pakistan or China. India cannot allow Pentagon Camel enter Indian Tent. Indian do not consider Uncle Sam is not a reliable partner or supplier. Americans are quick to entice and then dismiss strategic partners when US strategic interests change. The United States is a rational society that is driven by self-interest. Even at a personal level, Americans have few permanent relationships. Americans act independently, sever family ties, and shift personal relationships with little reservation. This is foreign to Indian sensibilities. United States, narrowly focused on its own national interests, neglect even its most accommodating 'surrogate states' when its interests change. If Indian becomes a strategic ally of America, how will the United States treat India when US strategic interests in South Asia, Southeast Asia, or the Middle East change?" Indians also point out how they closely watched the US court China as a 'strategic balance' to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. With the Soviet Union's collapse American strategic rationale for the partnership waned, and today its relations with China are at best is lukewarm.

 

(4) Never US Air Force Bases in India

In the age of Precision Guided Munitions, India should never allowed United States establish permanent Air Force bases anywhere in the Subcontinent. India should never allow use of Indian Air Force bases to US Air force under any circumstance. America wants access to Indian bases and military infrastructure with the United States Air Force specifically desiring the establishment of airbases in India. USAF's desire for 'having access closer to areas of instability. "American military officers are candid in their plans to eventually seek access to Indian bases and military infrastructure. India's strategic location in the center of Asia, astride the frequently traveled Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) linking the Middle East and East Asia, makes India particularly attractive to the US military. Why should India allow United States access to Indian military and naval bases unless United States allowed Indian Navy use naval bases in Qatar, UAE, Oman and Iraq in exchange? UAE, Kuwait, Yemen and Oman controlled by Indian Empire before independence in 1947. United States should give India special privileges and rights in the oil-producing Arabian Gulf if it wanted to profit by using Indian military bases. India is the dominant power in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal and India should not welcome the entry of US Navy as permanent force in the Indian Ocean region.

 

(5) India Won’t Join Anti-China Coalition

It would not serve India’s national interests if India provided services of Indian army as cannon fodder to neutralize China’s imperialistic moves in Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia. India would dater Chinese invasions of India, Vietnam and Burma but welcome Chinese invasions of Southeast Asia and Australia. India should openly declare that India would refuse to join in anti-China coalition under any circumstance. India would harm its national interests if it agreed to sacrifice Indian blood to neutralize Chinese threats to Australia, Siberia, Malaysia and Indonesia. India could align with United States to engineer the secession of Tibet from China, but India should never join any anti-China coalition. It doesn’t serve India’s national interest if United States exploited India as the cannon fodder in Sino-US wars. US Ambassador to India Robert D Blackwill's resignation is linked to American stand on China and India as Blackwill was for first ending terrorism, including that in Kashmir, before trying to engage India as a counter to China. Indian policymakers interviewed for the report argue that any attempt by America to cast India as a 'balancer' to China, or any state, will not last. In the end of 2001, India Today magazine had in fact reported that America has asked India to be a strategic partner to counter growing Chinese influence. The proposal, which according to the magazine also contained specifics like opening American military bases in India, was discussed twice in Cabinet Committee on Security meetings.

 

(6) Hidden Motives of US Colonialism

Pentagon should negotiate with India the terms of military cooperation in manner of Theodore Roosevelt’s realpolitik rather than deceptive Wilsonian diplomacy of Woodrow Wilson. White house should declare its goal to create American Colonial Empire in oil producing region and offer India specific share of the oil loot to gain India’s military support in the peacekeeping operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for further conquest of new oil colonies. India has seen through the diplomacy of deception and Newspeak that President Bush, President Clinton and President Reagan employed. United States misused the world’s sympathy for 9/11 attacks to wage US war for oil imperialism disguised as America’s War on terrorism in Afghanistan. President Bush sent troops to Afghanistan to provide protection and safe passage to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda terrorists, while it sought support of world community to justify America’s invasions of Afghanistan to support war on terrorism. India policy makers do not know the new foreign policy doctrine enunciated by Bush Administration and Bush Doctrine 2002, whether it camouflaged the hidden imperialistic agenda. United States should clearly outline the imperialistic colonial goals of Bush Oil Administration. For a price India would accept the imperialistic agenda of Bush American Empire. However India cannot accept American imperialistic colonial agenda disguised as America’s self-proclaimed war on Islamic terrorism and Iraqi WMDs. Indian policymakers are not sure of America's strategic vision 'in India's part of the world', and on where does India fit in this vision. If Indian becomes a strategic ally of America, how will the United States treat India when US strategic interests in South Asia, Southeast Asia, or the Middle East change?

 

First, Indian military officers are keen to know the reasons behind the US' sudden interest in India. The Indian military also wants to understand the US 'objectives and strategies' in the region generally, and in the war on terrorism specifically. Indians want to understand how India fits into the US military view of the Indian Ocean Region. To date, no one has explained this to India adequately and no mechanisms of joint consultation on larger strategic issues have been established. Second, Indian military 'has little sense' of America's larger strategic objectives in their region, they are anxious about what they might have to give up and what they might receive in any relationship with the United States. Third, India is realist and accepts the reality that the US is world's sole superpower and the world would remain unipolar for many more decades. "For this reason, Indian military officers, in particular, believe that India must engage the US military.

 

(7) Converging Indo-US National Interests

Without clear intellectual understanding of the converging long term national interests of India and United States, military cooperation would not make any sense to policymakers and military planners. Indian Army has a right to know the intellectual basis of India-USA military cooperation. Pentagon should explain the advantages India would get by joining military forces with United States. There are 'conflicts between Indians' intellectual approach to problems versus Americans' pragmatic approach'. The Indian elites are quintessential intellectuals. American military officers and businessmen who are not interested in intellectual engagements find the quintessential intellectual attitude of Indians off-putting and counter-productive." Even today, Americans 'harbor distrust of their Indian counterparts' for various reasons besides pro-Soviet Cold War-era loyalties of India. The US Pacific Command admitted that Indian military is 'highly capable and well-trained potential partners' in their area of responsibility. American Navy impressed by India's 'sophisticated tactics, operational training, and high level of technology, despite the resource constraints within which the Indian military must operate'.

 

Neither India nor any other South Asian country should allow American Camel into the South Asian tent, lest Camel throw the tent owners out and repeat the history, when the European trading colony of East India company grew to become the rulers of Bengal by exploiting the local rivalries. India should not allow permanent Air Force Bases on Indian soil. India should also discourage its neighbors to provide permanent military bases to United States. United States military bases in the Subcontinent might result in the introduction of the colonial empire in India. Any permanent military bases in Subcontinent would present great security threats to the nations in the region. United States misused Indian minister Jaswant Singh’s offer to provide military bases to United States in its war against Afghanistan, to acquire American military bases in Pakistan. United States would misuse India’s acceptance of American military bases on Indian soil to secure permanent American military bases in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

 

(8) Defense Policy Group

Pentagon correctly commented that Indian diplomats, politicians, bureaucrats and military elite couldn’t think strategically, because India lacks solid training in geopolitics and strategy. It is the fault of Indian educational system not that of Indian Army Indians 'cannot think strategically'. Indian diplomats, bureaucrats, Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals harbor 'deep-seated distrust' of Americans, are mostly 'obsessed' with history than future and see the world through their perennial distrust of Pakistan. American military policymakers held high expectations that their interactions with the Indian military experts will produce a fruitful two-way strategic dialogue, but were disappointed by low quality Indian briefings. Americans were frustrated with the 'Indian unwillingness' to be active participants 'in and exchange of ideas'. Military briefings before Defense Policy Group (DPG) and Executive Steering Groups (ESG), the two forums for military exchange between India and US exposed the lower quality of Indian presentations, which were 'elementary and pedestrian' and these presentations were either lacking in elaboration on Indian strategies, or focusing completely on Pakistan. Indians 'are easily slighted or insulted by US actions or inactions. Indian mantra today is 'Musharraf cannot be trusted. About a decade back Indians saw a 'Chinese periscope behind each wave in the Indian Ocean', when India claimed of Chinese presence in Indian Ocean in the early 1990s.

 

India pulled out of the 1997 Defense Policy Group because it wasn’t sure that it would serves the national interests of India. India should have been told in advance the advantages India would get by Defense Policy Group. In 1997, the third Defense Policy Group meeting was cancelled because of 'India's sensitivity to protocol'. The Indian side pulled out after the US side deputed the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, in place of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The assistant secretary ranks 7th or 8th in civilian hierarchy of the US Defense department, whereas the Indian side was to be led by the Defense Secretary, the highest-ranking civilian officer of the defense ministry. India’s deputation of officers to high-level interactions in the US, especially at the Pacific Command that deals with Indian military under US military strategy. Indians would prefer to send their senior officers to Washington rather than to Pacific Command. In 2002, during the PACOM Joint Chiefs Conference, Indian sent a lower ranking officer because the Indian Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted his first trip to the United States rather than Hawaii. When General V P Malik was the Indian Army chief he agreed to participate in the PACOM Joint Chiefs Conference only after he was assured a subsequent meeting with US Army Chief General Shinseki and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Shelton. When Admiral Dennis Blair, then Pacific Command chief, visited New Delhi he was not allowed to hand over his business card directly to his Indian counterpart. Rather he was required to pass it to an official of the Ministry of External Affairs, who checked and passed it to an official of the defense ministry, who then verified it once again and then it was given to the Indian General. Indian military infrastructure is 'crumbling'. The neglect of the buildings of Indian Defense Ministry offers a 'glimpse of the challenges facing the Indian military as it modernizes'. An American General said walking through the Indian Army headquarters was 'walking back in time'.

 

(9) Pay Allied India Spoils of WWI & WW II

India should demand payment in cash and kind for India’s contributions towards Allied victory in First World War and the Second World War. India should demand that United States and Britain should pay back war victors’ rewards for India’s contribution of 3,500,000 soldiers in the Second World War and 1,500,000 soldiers in the First World War. India should impress upon Pentagon that India as the world’s fourth largest military and economic power could help United States develop Pax Americana with ease just as Indian Army built Pax Britannia for Britain. Many Pentagon planners are thinking about 'different sets of allies and friends for addressing a future strategic environment in Asia that may be dramatically different from today'.  India should be reimbursed to the tune of $100 billion for providing 3,500,000 soldiers in the WW II and 1,500,000 soldiers in WW I. United States should also work towards reunify India as reward for India’s contributions towards Allied Victory in WWI & WW II. India should also get guaranteed 10% of the total oil loot that United States would get in all its future conquest of oil producing countries, where Indian troops would conduct military operations a Coalition Allies.

 

(10) India is not Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia

Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia are militarily insignificant nations and Pentagon would commit greave error if it expected India to grovel like Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Japan. It would be stupid for India to offer military bases to United States, if United States were to need Indian bases only when US lost its military bases in Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia. Unless United States allowed Indian Army share military bases in overseas network of Pentagon’s military bases in Europe, Southeast Asia and Arabian Gulf India should not allow military bases to Pentagon on Indian soil. Why should India allow Pentagon establish military bases in South Asia, unless United States shared its colonial influence in Arabian Gulf and South east Asia with India. "For many, India is the most attractive alternative as new ally of the United States. Americans underscored that eventual access to Indian military infrastructure represented a critical 'strategic hedge' against dramatic changes in traditional US relationships in Asia. However, United States should agree to share its colonial influence in Arabian Gulf and ASEAN countries with India to secure the support of India in the Third World War. A South Asia Foreign Area Officer of the US state department said that India's strategic importance increases if existing US relationships and arrangements in Asia fails. He cites three key possibilities for that: If US relations with other traditional allies (e.g. Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia) becomes more acrimonious or politically uncomfortable for both parties; or if access rights that the United States takes for granted become more restrictive; or if our traditional relationships collapse resulting in a US military withdrawal. "The United States needs to develop alternatives in Asia. India is the optimal choice if we can overcome the obstacles in building the relationship." The US Navy wants a relatively neutral territory on the opposite side of the world that can provide ports and support for operations in the Middle East. India not only has a good infrastructure, the Indian Navy has proved that it can fix and fuel US ships. Over time, port visits must become a natural event. India is a viable player in supporting all naval missions, including escorting and responding to regional crises. In the same vein, the US Air Force would like the Indians to be able to grant them access to bases and landing rights during operations, such as counter-terrorism and heavy airlift support."

 

Did India gain anything for allowing United States use its facilities for 1991 War against Iraq in Kuwait? It is significant that during the 1991 Gulf War-I, India provided refueling facility to US warplanes. And during Operation Enduring Freedom, several US warships used Indian facilities for rest and recuperation. As part of Operation Enduring Freedom, Indian naval ships provided escorts to merchant vessels from North Arabian Sea till Strait of Malacca in the most active cooperation with US navy in history. In fact, it is in naval cooperation that America sees the immediate future of Indo-US military relations. It is not just access to bases and ports that the US military hopes to get in India, but also training facilities in India. The American decision-makers 'believe that the military relationship should result in shared technology and capabilities, and ultimately they would like to be able to respond jointly to regional crises'. India and United States can jointly respond to crises in the Indian Ocean Region, but Pentagon should expect India’s military cooperation only if It s willing to share its colonial influence and colonial loot with India. India willing to give up it s military neutrality and support American colonial imperialism in oil-rich Islamic world provided India gets a suitable share of the oil loot. What is the purpose of India-USA military ties if it failed to establish smaller Indian colonies in the oil-producing world? India wants to militarily support American imperialistic oil colonialism, provided India gets paid in terms of sphere of influence in oil and producing regions. India willing to militarily support the Pentagon’s ambitions to create American Empire and Pax Americana provided United States accepted that India as the Allied Power has legitimate right to establish its oil colonies.

 

(11) Joint Oil Sea Lane Protection

India-USA Naval Pact should aim to make Indian Ocean an Indo-US Lake. Pentagon should accept Bay of Bengal as an Indian Lake. Pentagon should allow India to assert its maritime naval role in Red Sea and Arabian Sea. Indian Navy and US Navy should jointly patrol the Indian Ocean, South China Sea to provide military protection to the transportation of oil and sea-lanes. So where does the opportunity for cooperation lie? Is there a specific area where India and the US can cooperate militarily, without kicking up controversies that could forever damage the growing relationship? Can the cooperation go beyond joint military exercises and high-profile visits? The answer seems to be yes. Americans and Indians agree that naval cooperation represents one of the most promising areas of service-to-service India-USA cooperation because it supports the strongest area of strategic convergence sea-lane protection.

 

India should undertake joint Naval operations to turn Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea, and Red Sea Indo-US Lakes. The India-USA naval joint exercises holds the key to the immediate future for India-USA military ties because India's only joint command, based on the US principle of joint operability, is the Tri-services Command in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The command could 'facilitate joint training and exercises.' The naval cooperation in the Straits of Malacca was the 'first concrete example of Indo-US military cooperation', the policymakers say. During Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the Indian Navy undertook, on the suggestion of the Americans, the escort of commercial ships and patrol of the busy sea-lane running from the North Arabian Sea to the Malacca Straits. This joint patrol program continued for six months. Pentagon accepts that Indian Navy is 'best equipped' to lead military cooperation with the US military because its mission 'dovetails naturally with the larger cooperation agenda'. "The Indian Navy is the only Indian service that is organized to operate outside of India's borders. American admiral says, "The US navy may be the easiest service to move forward with India-USA military cooperation because the US Navy leaves no footprints in India. Exercises are conducted out of sight, with no US troops on the ground in India. Moreover, patrolling the Straits of Malacca or the Straits of Hormuz provides fertile ground for cooperation." Policymakers agree that the Defense Policy Group and Executive Steering Group, the two forums for giving policy direction to India-USA military cooperation, have been successful. The relationship must start with 'baby steps' or a 'crawl' before it can move forward rapidly.

 

(12) High Altitude & Jungle Warfare

Indian Army and Pentagon would gain by joint training and joint military operations in High Altitude Warfare, Jungle Warfare. Soviet Union lost the High Mountain warfare in Afghanistan against Afghan Mujahideens armed with US supplied stringer missiles. The military lesson of the Kargil High Altitude Warfare is that the development of the high-accuracy long-range shoulder carried weapons can disrupt the lines of communication in the mountainous terrain. The areas most conducive' to military cooperation are 'high-altitude and jungle warfare training, joint operations, and search and rescue exercises'. The bilateral military relations are 'blind date', referring to the fact that the two militaries know very little of each other. "They must go through the difficult and awkward process of becoming acquainted, learning the other's idiosyncrasies and preferences, and building trust. The Indian military to push the Indo-US relationship to new heights is limited without the parallel tracks of political and economic engagement. Indian policymakers believe that only a 'defense supply' relationship that includes the transfer of US technology to India 'will demonstrate sufficient US commitment to sustain the relationship'. The Indians will laud the relationship as a success if they obtain the technology that they want from the United States. The US military will view the relationship as a success if Pentagon is able to build a constructive military cooperation program that enabled Pentagon to jointly operate with the Indian Army in future conflicts."

 

(13) Reject CIA Controlled IMET Program

India should not be stupid enough to let Pentagon and the CIA develop direct relationship with top officers in Indian Army, Navy and Air Force. The CIA implants its agents and moles by interacting with the foreign military officers that undergo training at the CIA-controlled IMET Program. India should never be naïve to let its top brass undergo training in CIA-controlled facility in the Untied States for International Military Education and Training Program (IMET Program), the central hub for training future leaders of military coup de etat and military espionage. India should not allow India’s senior military leaders to go to United States for International Military Education and Training Program, because IMET programs controlled by the CIA would plant moles in Indian military and stage military coups at the command and suggestion of the CIA. India must never allow any senior military office that underwent training at IMET to hold any command. India does not need military training at the Pentagon and CIA controlled US State Department’s International Military Education and Training Program. American hype the US State Department's International Military Education and Training (IMET) Program as the central component' of the Pentagon’s military relationship to improve Indian understanding of the American military. Besides, training of senior Indian military commanders in America would enable the US military to 'build critical relationships' with India's 'best and brightest'. India correctly argue that IMET is of not much help because it is only open to a few senior officers and could allow the CIA implant its moles in the senior hierarchy of the Indian military establishment to the detriment of India’s national interests. However Indian forces would like to access 'more technical training courses for officers' in the lower and middle levels. Pentagon and the CIA for heavens sake should take Indian Army and political leadership for fools or traitors.

 

(14) Focus on Indo-US Economic Ties

It is plain stupid to blame Indians for their lack of interest in developing closer economic ties with United States. Brajesh Misra wisely refused to step on the feet of Yashwant Sinha the Finance Minister when he refused an appointment with Secretary Paul O’Neill. Meetings with the top leadership are not jokes that they could be conducted, without diplomats having full night rest. It is wrong to blame Brajesh Misra for refusing to meet Paul O’Neill at 7.30 because he wisely opted out of the meeting rather than sleep through the meeting. No Indian politician can possibly wake up at 7.30 a.m. and still talk sense. Besides Brajesh Mishra as the National Security Adviser was not authorized to represent India on economic issues, which was then the responsibility of Yashwant Sinha. Brajesh Misra wisely opted out of the inconvenient meeting because he couldn’t have impressed his counter party so early in the morning because of his sleep habits. It is correct to say that Indian leadership and bureaucracy and diplomats not focused on improving Indo-US economic ties. Indians are not focused on improving the economic relationship. American policy makers argue that Indians do not fully understand the importance of economic relations. National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra's reluctance to meet then US Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill one early morning during a visit to the US reinforced this view. The view that economic ties was not a priority with Indian leadership was reinforced during a recent visit by National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra, when he backed out of an appointment with US Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill that could only be scheduled at 7:30 am. Mishra's behavior left the impression that the economic discussions were not important enough to get him up that early in the morning,' he is quoted as saying in 'Indo-US Military Relations: Expectations and Perceptions,' a US Defense department-commissioned study. Secretary O'Neill, who was leaving Washington that day for the duration of Mishra's trip, had made an extraordinary effort to accommodate Mishra because O'Neill felt the meeting was important. Many American decision-makers quoted in the report stress that for the military relations to swing up, a strong economic relationship is most important. An economically powerful India would be a 'stabilizing force in Asia' and only strong economic ties between India and US can sustain 'an enduring strategic relationship and insulate the relationship from political change in either country or future disagreement on strategic issues.'

 

India has no desire to copy France, as France is not great power. Even President Charles de Gaulle failed to exercise the diplomatic autonomy that Indian Prime Minister enjoyed as leader of Non Aligned Movement. US investments in India would secure 'a more predictable, long-term American commitment to the Indo-US relationship.' India cannot act like France, described as one of America's most defiant partners in the report. As a result of its deep economic ties with the United States, France, carries political clout that sustains the strategic relationship, even when the French outwardly defy the United States.' From the US view, trade with India is less than one per cent of the total US trade, and Indians are not dependent on the American market so at present 'either party can walk away from the relationship unaffected. Though from an Indian view, the US is one of its biggest trade partners accounting for some 25 per cent of the total trade.

 

(15) Foolish Foreign Policy of Jaswant Singh

India’s Foreign Minister made a fool of India by offering United States usage of Indian military bases, without negotiating with United States the benefits India would get in return. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee wisely removed him from the post of Defense Minister and later as Foreign Minister before he could make harm India’s national interests because of his wrong understanding of diplomacy, geopolitics and foreign policy. Bharatiya Janata Party, Jaswant Singh, Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, the US President Bill Clinton and the influential Indian community in the US for 'created a new context for India-USA military relationship that is measurably different.' Jaswant Singh is identified as the single most important individual on the Indian side who helped forge a positive change in the bilateral relationship. Jaswant Singh lost the Defense portfolio after the United States did not respond to India's offer to provide unprecedented support after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 'Many Indians explained that Jaswant Singh was seen as too close the Americans. Singh held both the defense and external affairs portfolios when 9/11 occurred. Sources in the Indian intelligence agencies claim he was a major influencing factor in them offering assistance to the Americans, including access to several intelligence inputs on Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and other Islamic terrorists. BJP was a 'crucial factor in creating the conditions for a new relationship.' 'The BJP pursued a deliberate policy to enhance India's power position in the world, for example by conducting the nuclear tests in 1998, which raised India's profile in Washington and around the world.

 

By 9/11, the growing Indo-US relations were visible, when India offered in public all assistance to the US. It is another matter that the Americans did not take up the offer and disappointed India. But the Indian offer itself was a marked departure from 1991, when India clandestinely allowed US planes to refuel in Mumbai during the first Gulf War, but stopped it when the assistance became public.

 

(16) What Would India Gain?

India didn’t get its share of the victor’s spoils of war in WW I and WW II, even when India supplied 3,500,000 soldiers in WW II and 1,500,000 soldiers in WW I. United States should offer India in clear terms India’s share of the colonial influence or share of the oil loot as reward for militarily supporting United States in its present and future imperialistic adventures. If the Americans were to enjoy access to Indian military bases, what will India expect in return?

 

First, US should adopt a more liberal, less restrictive technology transfer regimen toward India and for the United States not to impede the transfer to India of critical military equipment and militarily-relevant technologies from third parties, Israel for example emerged from the interviews with Indians in virtually every context. For long America has denied India high technology and dual technology products on several occasions, thus delaying development of several key weapon systems adversely affecting operational abilities of Indian military. For instance, an important reason for the delay in the development of Light Combat Aircraft is the denial of American technologies, including the General Electric engines, some 40 of which have recently been given to India. Several Sea King naval helicopters were grounded after America denied critical components due to the post-1998 nuclear sanctions.

 

Second, America's reluctance to engage in focused technology transfer as a deal killer in the effort to construct an enduring strategic relationship." Indians placed technology transfer as the 'touchstone' of the newfound strategic relationship and 'everything revolves around a strong US commitment to share its technologies so that India can advance'. If the United States willing to share dual use technologies would suggest that the United States regarded India as a partner that shares strategic concerns and burdens. If the United States denied access to dual use technology gave the impression that India is not accepted or trusted by United States."

 

Third, Indians believe it is from technology transfer that the relationship would take off. Americans argue that 'Indians' sole interest in the relationship is gaining access to US technology' because of various reasons. "The Indian military is feeling its weakness especially after witnessing the US capabilities in Afghanistan. Indian air power and C2 (Command and Control) are so limited that the Indian Air Force was surprised by capabilities that the US military takes for granted, such as airlift capacity."

 

Fourth, Indians are unhappy with the quality of the Russian equipment and have experienced problems in their deal with Israel and France. The United States is the preferred alternative. The comment on Russia, Israel and France is sure to ruffle several feathers both within India and in those respective countries. Indian military is built around Russian equipment, while France and Israel have contributed some cutting edge systems and technologies such as Mirage 2000 fighters and advanced radar systems.

 

Fifth, India demands that India-USA relationship be 'an adult-to-adult' one and not a patronizing one. Indians have various reasons for making such a demand, but they put four broad points where this equality should be visible. The norms that govern interactions between two sovereign states must be applied. US technology transfer policy should treat India as a friend. A symbiotic relationship should connect Indian military with the infrastructure in the continental United States.

 

Sixth, Indian policymakers argue that US did not consult them enough before or during Operation Enduring Freedom 'in India's backyard'. In the 'non-Christian Indian Ocean Basin', India could have provided better inputs to the Americans during Operation Enduring Freedom. Indian intelligence agencies that in a rare show of generosity went a long way to assist their American counterparts are a disappointed lot today. Though several sensitive documents, intercepts and the like on Taliban, Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits were handed over to the Americans from the massive collection of India's intelligence on Islamic terrorism, the Americans responded disappointingly when it came to Indian interests.

 

Seventh, India can allow United States access to military bases only when Pentagon allowed India to establish military bases in Oman, UAE, Yemen, Iraq and Kuwait. Arabian Gulf or Persian Gulf had been an Indian Lake throughout 18th 19th and early 20th Century. Pentagon should accept India’s legitimate colonial interests in the oil-rich Middle East in exchange for India’s military support to establish new American oil colonies in the Middle East. United States, Britain and India should jointly manage and administer American Caliphate in the Middle East. India Army would guarantee that the oil and gas reserves of the Middle East and the Central Asia would enrich United States, Britain and India and other allies. India USA military ties should base on the solid foundation of Pax Americana. Allied victories in WWI and WWII, owe a lot to India’s contribution of 3,500,000 soldiers in WWII and 1,500,000 soldiers during WWI for Allied Forces. Indian Army created British Empire, Commonwealth and Pax Britannia and India could also help create Pax Americana, if America agreed to give India a fair share of the colonial Empire. India would allow Pentagon use of Indian military bases provided White House allowed India certain colonial rights colonial territories in the oil producing countries.

 

(17) End of Age of Aircraft Carriers

The American military technology of Precision Guided Munitions that gave birth to smart bombs guided by GPS technology gave unprecedented accuracy to Air Force bombing and made US Air Force principle force in the US Armed Forces. The American innovation of Precision Guided Munitions technology when married to the anti-ship cruise missiles and anti-tank missiles made Aircraft Carriers vulnerable to anti-ship missiles. The vulnerability of Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups to the Smart anti-ship missiles brought about the End of the Age of Aircraft Carriers. India and Russia jointly developed the Brahmos anti-ship supersonic missiles having the range of 290 miles and capability to sink aircraft carriers. India’s geographical location in the Indian Ocean allows India the capability to sink each and every oil tanker, ship and naval vessel in the Indian Ocean Region. The military bases have become geopolitically relevant again in the 21st Century in the age of PGMs. India should control the sea lanes in to and from Indian Ocean. India should not allow the United States to develop permanent military bases in the Subcontinent. 

 

(18) Informal India USA Strategic Alliance

India and United States should enter into an Alliance to formally signaled their intent to work together in a global and regional architecture that accepts American pre-eminence but recognizes India’s own sphere of influence and independent line of action without jeopardizing the interests of either country. The Deputy Prime Minister Lal Kishen Advani confirmed at the end of a landmark visit to Washington DC in June ’03 that appeared to seal an informal alliance between the two United States and India. Profound changes are taking place in India-US ties. Almost everything points to an unprecedented level of confidence, warmth, and fealty between two sides that have had a hard time being on the same wavelength from 1950 to 2000. Short of declaring a formal alliance, the India and United States signaled their intent to work together in a global and regional architecture that accepts American pre-eminence but recognizes India’s own sphere of influence and independent line of action without jeopardizing the interests of either country. President Bush expressed his strong desire to continue the process of transforming Indo-US relations, and reaffirmed the US stake in building relations with India in a strategic context. India assured President Bush that India did not view its relations with the United States as a matter of convenience, but as a partnership of trust and confidence, which can stand up to whatever challenges the future brings. President Bush saw India as one of the leading drivers of the high-technology world who had contributed significantly to the increase in US productivity by providing Indian manpower, know-how and entrepreneurship. Dick Cheney along with defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld credited with providing the intellectual inputs to the new American world view - projecting force and seeking new alliances. Cheney had expected his meeting with Mr. Advani to cover the strategic nature of Indo-US relationship and the agenda for bilateral cooperation.

 

(19) Indian Troops for US Military Bases

India should develop special relationship with Pentagon to allow Pentagon outsource its foreign troops requirements to Indian Army for deployment in Djibouti, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal, Kenya, Romania, Bulgaria, and Azerbaijan. India should send troops to augment US military presence in dozens of new military bases that Pentagon hopes to establish in Africa to protect the oil and gas reserves of Nigeria, Angola, Guinea, and Central Asia. United States would establish new military bases in Africa, Central Asia to protect oil and gas reserves in Nigeria and Caucasus region. Pentagon would develop military bases in Azerbaijan, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Djibouti, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal, Ghana, Mali and Kenya. United States would develop about dozen semi permanent military bases in number of Non Aligned nations. India has no option but to develop military bases in these and other Non Aligned Nations. India should abandon its policy of Non alignment and promote military pacts and establish military bases in the Non Aligned world. India should sign a formal defense agreement with United States to provide Indian military contingent to every American military bases in Africa, Central Asia and Southeast Asia. In a massive shift of its armed forces, the United States is planning to cut the size of its military in Germany, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Britain to put more forces in Africa and Caucasus region. The push is driven by the increasing importance the US is placing on protecting key oil reserves in Nigeria and the Caucasus region. In the Caucasus region, the US is likely to have as many as 15,000 troops, some rotating through small, Spartan bases in places such as Azerbaijan. Most of them, however, would move through larger but still relatively bare-bones facilities in Romania and Bulgaria near ports on the Black Sea. In the Caspian Sea, there are you very large oil and gas reserves and Pentagon wants to be able to assure the long-term viability of those resources. In Africa, the US would increase its presence to 5,000 to 6,500 troops from about 1,500 Marines and special operations soldiers currently based in Djibouti. The troops would use as many as a dozen semi-permanent bases in Africa. The US also expects to maintain about 5,000 to 10,000 troops in Poland. In North Africa, Pentagon officials are looking at establishing semi-permanent bases in Algeria, Morocco and possibly Tunisia. They expect to keep a small number of troops at these facilities and rotate them through a larger force. It is considering smaller, more austere bases in Senegal, Ghana, Mali and Kenya.

 

(19) India to send troops to Iraq

India should send troops to Iraq as Indian Empire exercised control over Iraq before 1947. India should send troops to Iraq as it is in the national interest of India to do so. India should send troops to Iraq as befitting response to the invasion of India by warrior of Baghdad Mohammed Bin Kassim sent by Caliph. India should send Indian troops to maintain peace and order in Iraq, as it would promote India’s national interests in Iraq and catapult India as the major power in the Middle East. India should send troops to Iraq, as it would allow India to gain a sphere of influence in Iraq. India can help Kurds, the Aryan people of non-Semite non-Arab descent. Kurds people would welcome the presence of Indian troops in Kurd-maj