25

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

Chapter 25

NATO is American Empire Not Alliance

Bush Doctrine 2003 Geopolitics

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

25(0) Purport

(1) Europe is Old and in Decline

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

(2) Asia is the Future and on the Rise

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

 

(3) NATO must abandon Islamic Powers

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

 

(4) Economic Decline of Western Europe

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

 

(5) New NATO is Petro-Colonialism

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

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

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

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

 

(6) New Strategic Goals for NATO

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

 

25(1) Talk Points

(1) Bush Doctrine Undermines NATO

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

 

(2) Old NATO is Dead for Ever

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

 

(3) NATO seeks Geopolitical Dominance

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

 

(4) Europe Hoodwinked into Bondage

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

 

(5) US is Adversary of Europe

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

 

(6) EU is Rival Adversary to USA

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

 

(7) Policy of Predominance will Drain USA

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

 

(8) India Welcomes Protestant US Empire

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

 

(9) American Colonialism Good for India

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

 

(10) US opposes Asian Bloc

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

 

(11) India Dominated Singapore to Aden

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

 

(12) Indian Supremacy in Indian Ocean

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

 

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

 

(14) EU is Principal Adversary of USA

The emergence of a European Union is one of the most revolutionary events of our time. In the eyes of the America, the European Union replaced the Soviet Union as the principal adversary of the United States. In the new Cold War the European Union and United States are principal adversaries. France supported European integration so that Germany would not again emerge as a national threat. Britain, has historically considered a unified continental Europe a threat to British independence. Britain is always wary of any undertaking that might turn the United Kingdom into a province of Europe.

 

(15) Teach America the Limits of the Possible

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there no longer exists a fixed set of foreign policy criteria to which all European Union’s 25 members and NATO allies might appeal. European approach to foreign policy is more traditional and realistic, clashes with American approach that is unilateralist, imperialistic and capitalistic. European leaders assert to help President Bush discover the limits of the possible. The rote repetition of slogans of Atlantic solidarity in the face of crumbling underlying reality of changing European balance of power is no guide to wise policy. The 25-member European Union has begun to systematically undermine the concept of Atlantic partnership, where America used to be the big guy.

 

(16) Bush Doctrine United World Against US

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

 

(17) Evil Empire Rhetoric Broke up USSR

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

 

(18) Dump Dr. Kissinger’s Foreign Policy

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

 

(19) Possible Disintegration of the USA

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

 

(20) Secession of Native Americans

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

 

(21) No Catholic Super Power in Future

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

 

(22) Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Strikes

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

 

(22) Is US Overreaching Itself?

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

 

(23) USA China India Russia World Powers

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

 

(24) PGMs Made US Navy Vulnerable

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

 

(25) India-China-Commonwealth Rival USA

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

 

(26) USA is not Sole Super Power

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

 

25(2) NATO Colonized Europe

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

25(i) America’s Colonial Empire

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

25(ii) Asia’s Geopolitical Complexity

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

 

Balance of Power

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

 

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

 

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

 

India is emerging as a major power and will become increasingly active in Southeast Asia, emulating the traditional policy of the British Raj, which aimed for dominance from Singapore to Aden. It is in the maritime interest of the American Sea power to develop naval ties with India to protect the sea-lanes from Singapore to Aden.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

25(iii) European Balance of Power

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

25(iv) Kissingerian Paradox of US Hegemony

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Dump Kissinger’s Diplomacy

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Henry Kissinger on Lavrenti Beria

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Kissinger on Khmer Rouge

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

 

“The idea that Nixon had frivolously expanded the war was a reincarnation of the strategic misconception of 1961-62 over Laos, namely that America’s role in the war could be confined to South Vietnam even Hanoi was fighting the war in all three countries of the Indo-Chinese Theater. The Nixon Administration therefore made the tactical decision to attack the sanctuary areas by air in 1969, and on the ground in 1970. In each instance, the American offensive as welcomed by the Cambodian authorities, who saw them as a defense of their country’s neutrality; after all, no one had invited the North Vietnamese into Cambodia.” (Kissinger, p 693)

 

“The Administration policy reflected a strategy; the critique focused on the moral validity of the war itself. This attitude was magnified by the nation’s inability to fathom the nature and the implacability of revolutionary ideology. All evidence shows that the Khmer Rouge had been fanatical ideologues as early as their student days in Paris in the 1950s. They were determined to uproot and destroy the existing Cambodian society and to impose a sort of mad utopia by exterminating everybody with the slightest “bourgeois” education. To allege that they had been turned into killers by American actions has the same moral stature, as would be argument that the holocaust had been caused by American strategic bombing of Germany.” (Kissinger “Diplomacy” p. 694)

 

“The purpose of these pages is not to seek a final judgment on matters about which passions have run so high that they have, in the interim, evolved their own cult literature. But America owes it to itself to recognize that, whatever the final judgment on the tactical wisdom of American decision in Cambodia, it was, tragically, the Khmer rouge who did the murdering, and the Cambodians who paid the penalty for America’s domestic divisions. The critics, who made it impossible for America to continue assisting the Cambodian government in its efforts to resist the Khmer Rouge onslaught, did not realize that a bloodbath would follow about. They were surely horrified by it. Yet their misjudgment of the genocidal foe figured far less in their postmortems than did their condemnations of their own compatriots.) (Kissinger, “Diplomacy” p 694)

 

“The test of a society is whether it can submerge its differences in the pursuit of common objectives, and whether it can keep in mind that societies thrive on their reconciliation’s, not on their conflicts. America failed in that test in Indochina.” (Kissinger “Diplomacy” p. 694)

 

“The communist victory rapidly settled one of the perennial debates in the Vietnam war era- whether the specter of the expected bloodbath in the wake of a communist takeover was figment of the policymakers’ search for pretexts to continue the war. In Cambodia, of course, genocide did occur. The new rulers killed at least 15 percent of their own population.” (Kissinger, Diplomacy, p. 697)

 

Secretary Kissinger agrees that Christian Khmer Rouge leadership trained in Judeo Marxist ideology in Paris even in student days in 1950s were determined to be genocidal war criminals. “They (Khmer Rouge) were determined to uproot and destroy the existing Cambodian society and to impose a sort of mad utopia by exterminating everybody with the slightest bourgeoisie education.” (p. 694).

 

Secretary Kissinger admits that, “Nixon gratuitously expanded the war into Cambodia. In the process American policy came to bear principal responsibility for the genocide carried out by the communist Khmer Rouge after their victory in 1975.” (Kissinger, Diplomacy, p. 693)

 

Secretary Henry Kissinger gratuitously expanded the war into Cambodia, to implement the agenda of Christian religious right wing conservatism and proselytizing agenda of Evangelicals. Secretary Henry Kissinger and America bear principal responsibility for the genocide of 2,000,000 Buddhist Cambodians carried out by Judeo-Christian Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge. It explains why United Nations continue to provide relief to Khmer Rouge mass killers in camps in Thailand on borders of Cambodia. It explains why United Nations, Vatican and the West oppose the war crime trials to prosecute Christian Khmer Rouge criminals, even when evidence of genocide exists beyond doubt. Did Secretary Henry Kissinger and Judeo-Communist Christian Mao Zedong implanted Christian Judeo-Communist Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot into power in Cambodia to engineer the massacre of Buddhists in Cambodia to impose Christianity on Hindu-Buddhist Cambodia by massacre? Just as Catholic Church used genocide to destroy Inca, Maya and Aztec civilizations and religions in South America, it use Christian Khmer rouge and Evangelicals to massacre Buddhist monks and educated Buddhists in Cambodia hoping genocide would create Catholic and Evangelical Christian civilization in Cambodia, just as it did in Peru, Mexico, Ecuador and South America. Shouldn’t Christian executioners of Judeo-Communist Khmer Rouge face firing squad of the War Crime Tribunals of the Cambodian government? Shouldn’t International Criminal Court arrest all the Christian and Judeo-Communist executioners that find shelter in Christian Churches as religious workers and priests in Cambodia brought to justice in the International Criminal Court?

 

America realizes that International Criminal Court itching to indict and prosecute Secretary Henry Kissinger, Senator Bob Kerry for crime of genocide and war crimes in Cambodia. To protect Secretary Henry J. Kissinger and Senator Bob Kerry President Bush insists that International Criminal Court should declare that Americans are out of the bound of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

 

Christian religious right conservative conspiracy didn’t organize the genocide of 2 million Cambodian Buddhists to promote the national interests of the United States. There is no reason why the Reformed Christians, good Protestants not demand that those who are suspected of the complicity of genocide of Buddhist Cambodians and Pagan Ugandans under Idi Amin voluntarily submit themselves to the jurisdiction of International Criminal Court to absolve good Protestant United States of any complicity in the genocide of Buddhist Cambodians? Why should good White Anglo Saxon Protestants’ United States, damage its claim to be the moral leader of the world? Why should Reformed Christians and Protestants taint the clean image of Protestant Christianity trying to protect certain non-Protestants who may or may not be guilty of crime of genocide and war crimes in Buddhist Cambodia?

 

Failure of Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal to prosecute Bolshevik Jews, executioners of Lavrenti Beria allowed the evil to contaminate the Communist ideology and Communist political system, which resulted in the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and the collapse of the Communism in the Eastern bloc, 40 years later. Similarly the failure to prosecute Americans responsible for the genocide of 2 million Buddhists in Cambodia may contaminate Reformed Christianity and WASPs United States, resulting in the Soviet Union type disintegration for United States.

 

To restore the moral pretensions of the WASPs United States, the US Supreme Court should set up the War Crime bench to prosecute or exonerate Americans accused of war crimes, to keep the moral image of the WASPs United States clean. Prosecution of Americans for war crimes in Cambodia would enhance the national interests of the United States. Why should Protestants let non-Protestants taint the clean image of the United States, because of their possible involvement in Crime of Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity? Prosecution and conviction of certain Americans for Cambodian genocide, by International Criminal Court or by American courts would enhance the image, power and national interests of the United States of America. Failure of the Soviet Union to prosecute the co-executioners and Bolshevik Jews, collaborators of the Spymaster Lavrenti Beria, resulted in the destruction of the Soviet Union 40 years later. Could United States also disintegrate if it fails to prosecute the war criminals responsible for the genocide of 2 million Buddhist Cambodians, 40 years after? Protestant United States does not gain by shielding the war criminals responsible for Cambodian genocide.

 

25(v) Will USA split like USSR?

(1) American Clash of Civilizations

The geopolitical future of the United States is very bleak. United States of White Anglos Saxon Protestants heading towards disintegration, due to the conspiracies of the Vatican. Before the 2050 AD, the Protestant-led United States would disintegrate, recreating the trauma of the disintegration of the 1989 disintegration of the Super Power Soviet Union. White-led super power United States would disintegrate into three sovereign independent States-Catholic United States, Protestant United States, and Black-Indian United States. The integrity of the United States is under sinister attack of Catholics, which could result in the Soviet Union type disintegration of the United States. There is no Catholic Super Power in the world. Only by carving out Catholic majority areas in North America, could Papacy hope to create Catholic Super Power in the 21st Century.

 

The United States is a Protestant nation, ruled by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASP). The United States guaranteed the freedom of religion and the separation of State and Church. The concept of the United States is the anti-thesis of the Vatican’s concept of Emperor Pope and Holy Roman Emperor. Irish origin President Reagan solemnized the strategic alliance of the United States with the Papacy, for undermining the Communist rule in Catholic Poland. The success of that policy surprised everyone, and the policy repeated in numerous countries. The success of that Reagan-Papal policy will embolden the Vatican to recreate the institution of Emperor Pope and Holy Catholic Empire in the North America. The United States and Canada would undergo multiple disintegrations, which would give birth to two new super powers, Protestant USA, and Catholic USA. It is very likely that during this birthing process of Catholic USA, the independent states of Black USA, Latino USA, Indigenous Indians’ USA would become a reality, without any hostile foreign intervention.

(2) Imperial Disintegration

Study of History shows that Great Empires fall apart without any hostile foreign intervention, whenever Empire undermines the founding principals of the Empire builders. Roman Empire fell when Roman Senators failed to curb the Ruler of Rome, the Roman Emperor. Soviet Empire fell apart when blue-eyed white Russians realized that the Propaganda jargon of Soviet communism is not just the camouflage to justify Russian occupation. Empires of the United States would fall apart whenever white Anglo‑Saxon Protestants (WASP) realize that the United States is no longer a Protestant nation but transforming into a Holy Catholic American Empire. Canadian Empire would fall apart whenever the English-speaking Canadians realize that they could no longer rule over diverse ethnic groups comprising English, French and Eskimos. Brazilian Empire would fall apart when Nations more powerful than Portugal would demand their share of Indian Lands.

(3) Future US Colonial Empires

To observers in the Orthodox, Buddhist, Hindu and Shiite civilizations, the Vatican is on a warpath. The NATO-USA bombing and the subsequent control over Kosovo reminded them of the first phase of the Second World War, when Allied powers accepted the Hitler’s conquest of the Belgium and Benelux countries. To many the settlement of the Kosovo, conflict is the phase one of the Third World War. The American diplomacy during Kosovo conflict resembled Hitler’s grandiose dreams. The United States is goading the NATO and the United Europe to expand to include Central Asian Muslim Republics. United States and NATO intend to interfere in other Civil Wars round the world. The present NATO victory did not cause any loss to lives to NATO and USA. The United States had also won victories without the loss of U.S. lives in operations in Iraq, Haiti, and Panama. NATO could inflict by Air-war against Serbia, infrastructure damages valued at over $40 billions and over 10,000 loss of Serbia lives. The victory in Kosovo is shallow, arrived at with the excessive use of force and has exposed the military weaknesses of the European partners. It would incite the future Mongol warriors to attempt the conquest of weaker countries of the European alliances. The conduct of the Kosovo War has exposed the military weaknesses of every European power. It overlooks the fact that in case heavy NATO loss of lives, the war coalition may crack. Empires break-up when it over-reaches its capacity. The defeat of the United States in the Vietnam War, and failure and consequent U.S. troops withdrawal from Somalia suggests that the NATO and the United States may face a big defeat in future. The United States would disintegrate in the defeat of another Vietnam type defeat in future. The quagmire of the land war would disintegrate the United States.

        

(4) Birth of Red Indian States

It is inconceivable that virtuous among White races would consent to the continued suppression, enslavement, massacre, and genocide of native indigenous American peoples. British Empire disintegrated when a noble Englishman decided that the continued occupation of other nationalities is morally indefensible. Virtuous among the Anglo‑Saxons, who spearheaded the movement against Apartheid rule in South Africa, would also revolt against the continued enslavement of the original native inhabitants of Australia, North America, & South America. North America and South America during the next decade would give birth to more than 20 new sovereign Indigenous Native American States. Native American States could comprise 20% landmass of Americas.

(5) Rise of Blacks

White race is no longer dominant race on this planet. White race can no longer use brutal force to enslave the Black race. Black pride has galvanized the Black Americans. Blacks have realized that Apartheid System that determined American social life until 1965 continues to hold down Black races in a new form. Black Americans would not rest unless they have an Independent Black United States, which would also be the first Black Nuclear Weapon Power on this planet. Black United States will consist of twenty (20) percent landmasses of the United States.

(6) Catholics Overtaking USA

There is no Catholic Nuclear Super Power in the world, even when the Catholics outnumber the Protestants. The Vatican is conspiring to partition the United States and Canada to create a new Catholic Super Power. Catholic Hispanic, Irish and Anglo‑Saxons in the United States and Canada, would join white Mexicans to create a new Catholic United States of America, a form of the Holy American Empire. It would incite the white Anglo‑Saxon Protestants (WASP), to create a Protestant United States of America. Both would also be Nuclear Super Powers. Catholics and Protestants could each have 30% landmass of the North America.

(7) Ethnic Cleansing in USA

The Canadian and American disintegration will create crisis of relocations, population transfers, and ethnic cleansing. Ethnic Russians had to leave from Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, and Moldova even when they had lived there for many centuries. The Canada and the United States should solve the problem of mass transfer of ethnic populations beforehand. The black and white areas in United States should be identified beforehand to avoid bloodshed. The specter of Yugoslavian disintegration should not repeat in America. The Vatican and NATO exacerbated the policy of ethnic cleansing as a diplomatic tool to weaken Orthodoxy.

(8) Vatican Disintegrating USA

Papacy conspiring to engineer the disintegration of the United States to carve out a Catholic USA. There is no Catholic super power in the world. Only the reconfiguration of North America would give rise to a Catholic USA. The Vatican is aiming for a New Holy Roman Empire in America. Only out of Canada and the United States can Catholic USA carved out? The rising cost of the presidential election campaigns, allowed Chinese military to bribe the presidential campaign, perhaps even the President himself to secure the transfer of highly sensitive nuclear and military technologies. Holy Pope commands the entire wealth and resources of all Catholic Churches and entire Church workforce. The Vatican exploits Church control over the campaign donations, endorsement from the pulpit, and Catholic vote banks, to secure the election of a Catholic Archbishop to the Oval Office. An U.S. born Pope could easily become the President for the period of four years if not for eight years. Holy Pope will become an Emperor Pope

 

25(vi) Changing White Man’s Map in the World

EUROPEAN MAP CHANGING: The political map of White Europe is undergoing fast changes and it would destabilize the political map of North & South America. United States is the nation of European immigrants, so the changing role of nation states in political thinking of white race would affect the continued role of Canada and the United States. The United States would change according to the changing white man’s view toward nationalism, patriotism, and national frontiers. No human force could stop the disintegration of Canada and United States, because the mind and thinking of the white man are undergoing fundamental changes. White man would no longer justify the massacre of Red Indians, which provided the bedrock of the Canadian and American Statehood.

(1) European Map Fragile

The European map is most unstable. The political Map of Europe, the land of the White man, has undergone more changes than any other continent on the planet. If the political map of Europe the home of Colonial Empire could undergo drastic change, then the political map of White Continents of North & South America and Australia would change. Perhaps America would soon catch the map‑virus of Europe and create many new States in Americas.

 

(2) Austro-Hungarian Empire:

The disintegration of Austria‑ Hungarian Empire after the First World War created seven- (7) new States: a) Hungary, b) Poland, c) Czechoslovakia, d) Austria, e) Estonia, f) Latvia and g) Lithuania.

 

(3) Ottoman Empire:

The disintegration of Ottoman Empire after the First World War created four (4) new States of a) Romania, b) Bulgaria, c) Yugoslavia and d) Albania.

 

(4) Soviet Empire:

The disintegration of the Soviet Union created seven (7) new States in Europe and eight (8) new States in Asia. It created in Europe new States of, a) Estonia, b) Latvia, c) Lithuania, d) Belarus, e) Ukraine and f) Moldova. It created in eight (8) new States in Asia, namely, a) Kazakhstan, b) Uzbekistan, c) Turkmenistan, d) Armenia, e) Georgia, f) Azerbaijan, g) Kyrgyzstan, and h) Tajikistan.

 

(5) Vatican Cannibalized Yugoslavia:

The disintegration of Yugoslavia has created Six (6) new States of: a) Slovenia, b) Croatia, c) Bosnia & Herzegovina, d) Montenegro, e) Macedonia and f) Serbia-Yugoslavia. Vatican played a very dirty role in the secession of Catholic Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia. NATO was scared that United Yugoslavia was more powerful than Italy. Marshal Tito had proposed a defense pact of Non Aligned Nations. Marshal Tito should have developed nuclear weapons. Perhaps future Serb leaders drop few thermonuclear devices over Vatican, Naples, Bari, Geneva, and Berlin to avenge for the NATO invasions and secession of Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia. Catholic-Orthodox Nuclear war in Europe would cause the loss of more than 100 million white Christian lives in Europe, in 21st Century. Yugoslavia would justify the use of nuclear weapons against Vatican, Italy and Germany for the inhuman barbaric infrastructure war unleashed by NATO and USA.

 

(6) Czechoslovakia, Ireland, Cyprus:

Vatican caused the secession of Catholic Ireland from Britain. NATO and Vatican encouraged Turkey to partition Cyprus to weaken Orthodox Greece. Czechoslovakia split into a) Czech Republic and b) Slovakia. IRELAND: Ireland had seceded from British Empire to form the Republic of Ireland. The Cyprus partitioned into two (2) new States: a) Greek Cyprus and b) Turkish Cyprus.

 

UNIFICATION OF UNITED EUROPE: United Europe would rearrange the political map of Europe again. With United Europe “Euro” will evolve as common Currency of United Europe.

 

THIRTEEN NEW EUROPEAN STATES: The thirteen- (13) new sovereign independent States added onto the European map during last two decades. The number thirteen- (13) is unlucky. Perhaps Kosovo would become another new State of Europe. The number 13 would cause the doom for Europe.

(7) Africa's Tribal Boundaries

The frontiers of Africa have remained stable even when Colonial Empires disintegrated to give birth to many new States in Africa. Colonies gained independence but the Colonial frontiers remained intact and African political Map did not undergo much change.

 

AFRICAN MERGERS: Zanzibar merged with Tanzania. Spanish Sahara merged with Morocco. Bantu Homelands of Swaziland and Lesotho merged with South Africa after the fall of Apartheid Government in South Africa. The disintegration of Ethiopia created a new State of Eritrea. The colony of Djibouti became an independent State.

 

(8) Map of Asia more stable than Europe

The political map of Asia would be very stable, as Asia had been the seat of ancient empires and ancient civilizations.

 

SOVIET UNION: The disintegration of European power the Soviet Union created two- (2) new Christian States of, a) Georgia and b) Armenia and six (6) new Muslim States of a) Kazakhstan, b) Uzbekistan, c) Turkmenistan, d) Kyrgyzstan, e) Tajikistan, f) Azerbaijan.

 

OTTOMAN EMPIRE: The disintegration of Ottoman Empire created five (5) new States of a) Saudi Arabia, b) Jordan, c) Iraq, d) Syria, e) Lebanon and f) Turkey.

 

INDIAN EMPIRE: Indian Empire was partitioned into, a) Burma, b) Sri Lanka, c) Maldives Islands, d) Mauritius, e) Diego Garcia, f) Nepal, g) Tibet, h) Afghanistan, i) Pakistan, j) Trucial States, k) Oman. India was partitioned to create a new State of Pakistan. Pakistan was partitioned to create a new State of Bangladesh. Indira Gandhi created a new State of Bhutan. British‑Indian Empire’s Colony Trucial States disintegrated to create the new States of a) Oman, b) United Arab Emirates, c) Bahrain and d) Qatar. Portuguese Colony of Goa merged with India.

 

MERGER OF ASIAN STATES: South Yemen and North Yemen have rejoined to form Yemen. Indonesia has occupied Portuguese Colony of East Timor. Colonies of West New Guinea merged into Indonesia as Jaya Irian. Diego Garcia was separated from Mauritius. Malaysia was partitioned into a) Malaysia, b) Singapore, and c) Borneo. Taiwan separated from China. Hong Kong has merged into China. China has occupied Tibet.

 

CHANGES IN ASIAN MAP: Asian Map has undergone changes to create seven (7) new States of 1) Pakistan, 2) Taiwan, 3) Bangladesh, 4) Singapore, 5) Borneo, 6) North Korea and 7) Bhutan. Other changes were due to the de-Colonization process. Asian Map has been more stable than the European Map. The disintegration of Indonesia and Malaysia could create many new States in Asia. Indonesia is the Sick Man of Asia. Then Asian map would undergo many new changes.

 

EUROPEAN MAP IS MOST UNSTABLE: The European Map is very unstable as many Empires arose in Europe and frontiers of Empires changed frequently. The concept of the Nation State has never enamored the Europeans. Concept of the nation state is no longer sacrosanct in Europe. The Vatican promotes supra national ideals which work against the nation states.

 

ROMAN EMPIRE: The nationalism in European Civilization is a new phenomenon and lacks deep historical roots. Even the State of Germany formed only during 19th Century by the merger of numerous German tribes. During ancient Roman Empire and Classical Greece, the German people considered uncivilized barbarians. Christian Roman Empire conquered Nation States that emerged out of the collapse of Ancient Roman Empire. Christian Empire split into Western Roman Empire based at Rome and Eastern Roman Empire based at Constantinople. Ottomans in 1453 conquered Constantinople, and the Christian Eastern Roman Empire massacred and enslaved Orthodox Christians and murdered Orthodox Patriarch and laid the foundation of Muslim Ottoman Empire. The Western Roman Empire provided military and financial support, to the invading Ottoman Muslims in their invasions. The Vatican led NATO-USA invasions of Kosovo, the Holy Land of Orthodoxy, reminded about the fall of Constantinople.

 

MONGOL EMPIRE: During 12th and 13th Century Mongol Empire extended from the China in the West to Germany’s Danube River in the West and included Iraq and Iran in the South. Mongol Empire included the whole of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Mongol Empire had the military capability to massacre the White European Civilization, not unlike the genocide committed by Spanish Catholic missionaries in North America and South America. Great Khan’s sudden death due to Beer poisoning averted the massacre of Germans West of Danube River, as then Mongols canceled the invasion. Batu Khan the Mongol warlord wanted to depopulate Germany to grow grass for Mongol Horses, not unlike the expulsion of Irish farmers by absentee landlords of English Aristocracy to grow grass for Sheep. Europe could have become a Yellow man’s continent had Mongols crossed Danube River westwards. Russians controlled the Duchy of Muscovy and were the Tax collectors of Mongol Empire. Russians Mongol Tax Collectors used Mongol type ruthlessness in filling the vacuum created by the collapse of the Mongol Empire. Russian Czar inherited Mongol Empire and it explains that Russia is a European power only in name. Russia is practically an Asian State. Soviet Union disintegrated creating 17 new States in Europe and Asia, simply because it was not a Nation State but an Empire.

 

EMPIRE OF UNITED EUROPE: United Europe is a supra‑National ideal on the lines of Holy Roman Empire. United Europe is a Protestant power. United Europe is the result of the continental unification of Europe, the very same goal that motivated Napoleon Bonaparte, William Kaiser, and Adolph Hitler. United Europe would be an expansionist power. United Europe is a land power, not a sea power, or the maritime power. United Europe would not be a temporary phenomenon but would consolidate as a Continental European Empire. The binding force of the United Europe is the economic prosperity of the Union. Any failure of United Europe to emerge as a Super Power would disintegrate United Europe.

 

GERMAN-FRENCH CORE STATE: The essence of United Europe is the German‑French‑Dutch Civilization. It would be in the national interest of France, Germany, and Holland to speed up the disintegration of Anglo‑Saxon Empires of Canada, United States, and Australia. France would prefer the secession of Quebec from Canada. Germans and Dutch would love to speed up the fall of Apartheid regime in Australia. Englishmen were the principal cause for the collapse of Afrikaners led Apartheid South Africa. United Europe would promote the disintegration of North America, South America, and Australia. The preponderance of the United States and British Rule in Australia would not be in the Imperial interests of the United Europe.

 

CATHOLIC SUPER POWER: The Vatican tasted its first blood, at the fall of Communism in Catholic Poland, after having lied dormant for many centuries. The Success of Reagan-Pope Alliance has ignited the imperial dreams of the Vatican, the successors of the Holy Roman Empire of the Inquisitions fame. The Pope might want to use the military prowess of the United States and NATO to further the Papal goals. The Vatican control over Catholic campaign donations, endorsements from the Church pulpit and the Catholic vote banks, could be used to buy political influence at the White House. The influence over the Catholic votes, in elections, results into pro-Vatican policies in the USA and the democratic Europe. The European map changed due to the liberation of the Catholic Poland and Hungary, from Orthodox Soviet Empire. A United States-Vatican alliance empowered the Catholic Vatican, to engineer the disintegration of Orthodox Church. These three States namely, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Ethiopia were all non‑Catholic and non‑Protestant Christian States. Greek Orthodox Church was the dominant Church in Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Ethiopia had its own ancient Church. The ascendant Catholic Church caused farther disintegration of non‑Catholic States in the Western world. The Vatican would encourage the disintegration of Canada and the United States to carve a Catholic Super Power in North America. There is no Catholic Super Power in the World. Only out of United States, a new Catholic majority State will carve out. Catholic United States would be a Nuclear Weapon Power and a Super Power. Vatican would sacrifice territorial integrity of the United States to realize the goal of a Catholic Super Power. It is high time that the WASP leaders of the USA realize the gravity of this looming Papal conspiracy. The Vatican would engineer the partition of the United States to carve out a Catholic United States of America.

 

FOUR CENTERS OF WHITE CIVILIZATION: The White Civilization is a Christian Civilization and encompasses four (4) continents of Europe, North & South America and Australia. The four foundations of White Civilization are as follows: a) Anglo‑Saxons, b) Slavs, c) Germans, and d) Hispanics. North America and Australia are the fulfillment of Anglo‑Saxon dreams and English is its language. Russia is the fulfillment of Slav dreams and Russian is its language. Central & South America is the fulfillment of Hispanic dreams and Spanish & Portuguese are its languages. United Europe is the fulfillment of German‑Dutch‑French dreams better expressed as central European continental culture and Deutsche & French are its languages.

 

PROTESTANT UNITED EUROPE: United Europe is the continental unification of European Heartland. The basic character of United Europe is a Land Power not a Sea Power and English is not the dominant language of Europe. The dominant ethos of United Europe is neither the classical heritage of the ancient Greece, nor the Maggi and Mithraism heritage of the ancient Rome. Continental Europeans are uniting as never before to create a non‑American and a non‑English speaking Civilization of the White Race. United Europe is a Protestant Christian, non‑English, non‑Colonial, White Land Power of the World. United Europe would unleash the new Age of Reformation in the World. Martin Luther King, the father of the Reformation movement in the Christianity, is the true founding Father of the United Europe. United Europe would be anti‑Russia as well as anti‑United States.

 

HISPANIC AMERICA ALIGNS WITH UNITED EUROPE: Hispanic America would cast its lot with the non‑English speaking United Europe. The United Europe would restore the umbilical cord, uniting the Hispanic America with United Europe that was ruptured due to Monroe Doctrine. The Hispanic America prefers to join the United Europe (UE) rather than the NAFTA much to the chagrin of the United States. The Catholic Churches will organize the Hispanic minorities in California and Texas, encouraging their secession from the United States to create a Catholic Hispanic United State. The growing number of Catholic priests at the Capitol could lead United States toward theocratic state. Catholic priest, a sitting Senator, Congressman or Governor, can secure the Republican Party’s Presidential nominations and becomes the President of the United States, then it is possible that the Pontiff could be occupying the Oval Office in the White House.

 

MONROE DOCTRINE & QUEBEC SECESSION: Secession of Quebec would provide United Europe a strong foothold in the continental America. United Europe would become a Super Power whenever Quebec, Brazil and Argentina agree to join United Europe. Hispanic America would catapult United Europe into a Super Power. Quebec, Guyana, Surinam, French Guinea and Cuba would be first to align with United Europe. Brazil and Argentina would soon follow.

 

END OF MONROE DOCTRINE: Independence of Quebec would cause the demise of Monroe Doctrine. Independent Quebec would be a World Power in its own right. Entry of Quebec as a member of United Europe would make France the leader of United Europe. Demise of Monroe Doctrine would erode the preponderance of the United States in the New World. The future of South America would lie with United Europe not with NAFTA. Hispanic South America would align with the United Europe (UE), to check the southward expansion of the United States.

 

SUPRA‑NATIONALISM IS WHITE MAN’S IDEAL: The disintegration of the European colonial empires, decline of European Powers, and the rise of the United States as the sole Super Power has transformed the psyche of the Europeans. It has undermined the notion of Nation States. White Man is willing to explore beyond the notion of Nation‑States.

 

The psyche of White Americans and white Canadians would undergo similar changes, prompting them to explore beyond Nation-States. Canada and the United States might disintegrate to create many new States in North America, which would better serve the needs of White Protestants, Catholics, and Blacks. The national frontiers of United States and Canada would get rearranged to create, a) White Catholic Super Power, b) White Protestant Super Power, c) Black Super Power and d) Native American State.

 

To a White American the Frontiers of a Nation State are no longer sacrosanct. Whenever the Hispanic white Americans realize that the secession from United States would enhance their economic status, then they would exercise the option of secession. The political Map of the United States would undergo change due to the impact of United Europe.

 

NAFTA EXPEDITED TO FORESTALL QUEBEC SECESSION: Irish origin Prime Minister of Canada, expeditiously signed the NAFTA Agreement, with the Irish Origin President Reagan of the United States, to forestall the secession of French speaking Quebec from Canada. United States speeded up NAFTA to forestall the Canadian transfer of sovereign mining and mineral rights in northern territories to Eskimo Indians. Indigenous Alaskans would prefer to join Canadian Eskimo Indians.

 

NAFTA PROMOTES HISPANIC SECESSION: The NAFTA has strengthened cross border links among Hispanic communities. Hispanic people in Texas and California could vote for the secession from the United States whenever they have the choice. NAFTA would hasten the process of undermining the national frontiers, rather than cementing the frontiers. Mexico signed the NAFTA with the USA, because it enables the Mexican Drug Barons to monopolize the Cocaine shipments to the United States.

 

MAP OF UNITED STATES WOULD CHANGE: Monroe Doctrine failed to spread American Culture and English language south of the United States borders. Due to Monroe Doctrine South America escaped the influence of the British Empire. Spanish and Portuguese influence became more prominent due to Monroe Doctrine. The collapse of Monroe Doctrine due to the influence of United Europe would farther erode the influence of the United States, as Hispanic America would prefer to align with United Europe. The secession of Quebec would redraw the political Map of Canada and provide United Europe a strong foothold in North America.

 

UNITED STATES IS AN EMPIRE NOT A NATION STATE: United States started as 13 colonies on the east Atlantic coast in 1776. United States extended from Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. The total population of the USA in 1754 was 1.36 million and in 1783 was 3.12 million. About 20 million Indians were living in the North America, when Columbus reached the New World. Abraham Lincoln abolished Slavery because otherwise Black would have joined with the Red Indians and sabotaged the white conquest of Americas. The Treaty of Paris in 1783, which ended the Revolutionary War ceded the areas east of Mississippi River. United States annexed Texas from Mexico in 1845. Mexican cession of 1848 ceded California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico. Mexico ceded these territories in the treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican War in 1848. Spain in the Treaty of 1819 ceded the Florida. United States annexed Hawaii in 1898. They bought Alaska from Russia in 1867. It is natural that whenever Hispanic people gain self‑confidence they would like to secede from the United States to rejoin Mexico. North America would split to create new States of French, Anglo‑Saxons, Protestants, Catholics, Hispanics, Blacks and Red Indians. The confederations of the original 13 Colonies of the United States have expanded during last Century. The WASP Americans could prefer to secede from the Union to create a new WASP United States out of the lands of the Canada and the USA.

 

25(vii) United States Would Disintegrate Like USSR

USA IN 2000 SIMILAR TO UK IN 1900: United States is at its peak on the eve of AD 2000 just as Great Britain was at its peak in AD 1900. When Soviet Union could disintegrate means that Super Power United States may also disintegrate.

 

ROLE OF DRUG MONEY: United States would disintegrate because it is changing into an Evil American Empire, misusing the might as the Sole Super Power to promote Christian objectives, incited by the Vatican. United States would become an Organized Crime Empire as it earns half the world’s income from the organized crime, which comes to $500 billion a year, out of which $300 billion is from Drug trade. The United States misuses the power of the Super Power to harm India, the world’s largest democracy and to promote China the Evil Atheist Empire. In the battle of Light against darkness, the United States does not represent the Light.

 

HOW COULD USA DISINTEGRATE? The United States could disintegrate because it has abandoned the ideals for which WASP stood. The United States abandoned the policy to promote Protestantism, Freedom, and Democracy. The United States could disintegrate because it militarily supports for the ideals just opposite for what it stood for earlier. The right of Self‑determination of Native Americans could disintegrate the United States.

 

USA CANNOT MASSACRE TO CHECK SECESSION: The military establishment and political institutions of United States, unlike China, would never permit the massacre of any sizeable community or ethnic group to prevent its secession from the United States. Suppose most of Black Americans in a Referendum vote for secession from the United States, then there is not much that WASP the White Americans could do to keep them in the Union.

 

PRE‑1964 AMERICAN APARTHEID SYSTEM: The Apartheid system in place in USA before 1964 was very similar to the notorious South African Apartheid system. Abraham Lincoln abolished the Slavery but the Apartheid system in America remained intact. Black Americans did not have the Right to Vote and contest Elections. Black Americans only could use the designated seats at the back of the Bus in public transportation. Even today, Blacks in America have much less political power than the Blacks in South Africa. Black Americans prefer an independent Black United States, even if it is poor.

 

LESSON OF SECESSION OF IRELAND FROM BRITAIN: Ireland voted to secede from Britain and accepted a poorer Ireland, even when Britannia Ruled the Sea and sun never set on the British Empire. Blacks and Hispanics would vote for the secession from the United States even when United States economy is booming and it is at the top of the World.

 

BLACK & HISPANIC SECESSION: Hispanic and Black Americans will secede from the United States, even if it would cost them economic deprivations, whenever they get convinced, that the White Protestant Americans (WASP), consider themselves racially superior to Hispanics and Blacks. If the WASP Americans continue to mistreat Hispanics and Blacks as Englishmen have mistreated the Irishmen, then Hispanics and Blacks would vote for the secession from the United States.

 

DISINTEGRATION OF ROMAN EMPIRE: Roman Empire disintegrated at the height of its glory. The nature and the character of Roman Empire had undergone fundamental changes without any foreign invasion. The founding principle of the United States was the religious freedom, which meant the freedom from the Vatican influence. The United States would disintegrate, if it frequently misuses its military power, and the Super Power status, for promoting the Vatican agenda. The United States would disintegrate, if it promotes Catholic agenda, undermining the agenda of the Protestants.

 

IMMORAL ROMAN RULE: Roman Empire disintegrated when the citizens of the Rome realized that the leaders of Rome were corrupt and that Rome misused its power for immoral goals. Roman Empire based on the notion of fairness and certain ideals, and when the power of Rome was frequently misused, then the Roman Empire itself lost its legitimacy.

 

ARBITRARY ROMAN RULERS: When Senators of Rome refused to check the arbitrary use of power of Roman Emperors, then the decline of Rome became imminent. Similarly, the powerlessness of Senate and Congress to check the arbitrary misuse of American power by the United States President would lead to the decline of the United States.

 

MISUSE OF AMERICAN POWER: The United States is misusing its power for immoral purposes and it would erode the legitimacy of the United States in the eyes of the White Protestant Americans (WASP). The misuse of American power for the disintegration of Yugoslavia would come to haunt United States. United States has entered a strategic partnership with a theocratic Vatican and the totalitarian China and conspired to weaken democratic, secular India. It is a gross misuse of American power, and erodes the legitimacy of the United States.

 

EVIL EMPIRE: United States has lost its legitimacy as a Virtuous Super Power, and come to represent the “Evil Empire of the world.” The United States‑China conspired to Partition India and to ignite Indo‑Pakistan Nuclear War would suggest the USA could be an Evil Empire.

 

EMPEROR NERO VERSUS BILL CLINTON: Roman Emperor Nero comes to our mind whenever we remember the disintegration of Roman Empire. They believe that Emperor Nero sang while Rome was burning. History may write about the disintegration of the United States with a note about President Bill Clinton, who is reputed to have sex in the Oval Office. Bill Clinton has the reputation to be the only sitting President of a country, dragged into Court for having exposed himself to a female state employee. The moral deprivations of the occupants of the White House signal that the days of the empire of the United States are numbered.

 

UNITED STATES IS THE CRIME CAPITAL OF WORLD: The organized crime in the United States generates, the half of the income generated by the organized crime in the world. The Organized Crime in the world generates around One Trillion dollars a year as income. Around half of that income, around $500 Billion, is generated in the United States every year. The United States earns from Drug trade around $350 Billion every year. Seventy percent (70%) of the total income of the organized crime generated by the crime of Drug trade. The income from the Narcotics trade in the United States, is more than the net inflow capital into US Mutual Funds, which is around $29 Billion per month. United States has imposed stringent control on overseas wire transfers, and it means that the income from the Drug trade can only circulate in American economy. The entire net capital inflow into the US stock Markets equals the income generated by the contraband Drugs. The economy of the United States could collapse if the contraband Drug Income taken out of the United States economy.

 

USA FAVORS PAPACY NOT DENOMINATIONS: The United States has abandoned the Protestant Denominations to favor the Catholic Vatican. The United States has abandoned Protestant policies in favor of Papal imperial goals in Balkans, Rwanda, Burundi, and Cambodia. United States accepts that the Vatican’s Pope represents the God on earth. The Protestant WASP American ideal of religious freedom, is the freedom of the Denominations to compete with a Catholic Vatican on a level playing ground. The Protestants resent the Catholic repression and the legacy of the Catholic Inquisitions and Witch burning. The ideal of the WASP is to oppose the Papacy. The United States no longer promotes Protestant Denominations. The essence of the United States is WASP leadership and Denominations. Both United States and the Britain supported Denominations rather than the Vatican Papacy. During the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, the power of the United States formally aligned with the spiritual power of the Vatican Pope, for the expediency of overthrowing the Communist regime in the Catholic Poland. The successful anti‑Communist policy of the Reagan‑Papacy Alliance in Poland repeated in East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union, and it again met with the Stunning success. The United States would disintegrate if it attempts to transform itself into a military wing of the Vatican or Holy Roman Empire. The Vatican has hijacked the policy making process of the White House, due to its influence over campaign contributions, to major political parties in the United States.

 

ABANDONED DEMOCRACIES: The United States abandoned freedom and democracy and misused its military and economic powers to support totalitarian dictatorships and Christian missionaries. Great Empires fall whenever its core support base realizes that the power of the Empire is increasingly misused to support evil objectives, rather than the noble ideals. President Bill Clinton went to China and attended the official reception at the Tiananman Square, where Chinese Army in 1989 had murdered hundreds of Chinese student demonstrators. Bill Clinton did not meet any dissidents in China. The United States has abandoned the ideals of Democracy and Freedom for imperial and missionary expediency.

 

IMMORAL USE OF POWER: The United State is misusing its preponderance for Immoral Causes. United States is willing to engage troops in Kosovo Province of Serbia/ Yugoslavia, forcing Serbia to grant autonomy or outright independence to Kosovo Province, since Kosovo has a majority of Muslims. It is an immoral use of military power. Otherwise the United States should also have demanded that Indonesia should grant independence to East Timor where the population is 90% Christian. The United States should also demand that Mexico grant autonomy or independence to Chiapas State of Mexico, where the Native Indians are 90% of the population. The United States should also support the Kurds demand for autonomy and independence in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. The United States should also demand the autonomy and independence to Amazonian Indians in Brazil. The United States would disintegrate when the White WASP leaders realize that the United States is misusing its power for immoral goals. The imperial Rome declined when it misused its power to destroy the religions of Goddess in Egypt, Greece in the Empire.

 

United States would survive the disintegration only when the dominant WASP white Protestant Americans keep doors of America wide open to all immigrants from all parts of the world without any distinctions based on race, color or religion. The WASP Americans should not expect the loyalty of the immigrant minorities if the Immigration laws discriminate in favor of white European immigrants. The United States would disintegrate, whenever it gets the attributes of an Evil Empire and repeatedly misuses its power for harming the cause of Democracy, Freedom, Tolerance, and free choice in the world.

 

25(viii) Catholic-Protestant Rift Disintegrating USA

NO CATHOLIC SUPER POWER: There is no Catholic Super Power in the world. All Christian Great Powers are Protestant Powers, namely, United States, Germany, France, Britain, Canada and Australia. No Catholic Power including Spain, Portugal, and Italy, is a Great Power. A new Catholic Super Power, a Nuclear Super Power would emerge carved out of the Catholic majority areas of Canada and the United States, due to the Catholic religious right conservative conspiracy hatched by Papacy sometime before 2050 AD. The Vatican would exacerbate the disintegration of the United States to carve out a Catholic United States. The recent 1998 agreement between Catholic Church and Calvinist Church, which sought to undo the damages of the reformation of the Martin Luther, could goad the United States to become the New Holy Roman Empire.

 

UNITED EUROPE IS A PROTESTANT SUPER POWER: The essence of European nationalism is the liberation from supranational allegiance to Papacy. United Europe would curb the influence of Papacy and promote Protestant Christianity. The changing Balance of Power among World Religions, between Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Worlds, and among Catholics, Protestant and Eastern Churches, would determine the history of the white race in the next Millennium. United States should promote Protestant Denominations against the Vatican, otherwise WASP White Americans would secede from the United States, to create a Protestant United States in alliance with the United Europe.

 

USA‑VATICAN ALLIANCE HARMED DENOMINATIONS: President Reagan developed USA‑Vatican Alliance to overthrow Communism in Poland and Russia. President Reagan promoted the Vatican Pope, as the Representative of the God on Earth, to a great discomfort of Protestant Clergies and orthodox Patriarchs. Perhaps President Reagan wanted to cast United States, into the mold of American Holy Roman Empire. Protestants outnumber Catholics in the United States. The essence of the United States is the WASP (White Anglo‑Saxon Protestant) Culture. Once the WASP leadership realizes that the United States is aligning with the Vatican for political reasons, then WASP leaders would adopt political secession as an option to safeguard WASP Culture and to form a Protestant United States.

 

MONROE DOCTRINE HARMED PROTESTANTS: But for the Monroe Doctrine the Anglican Church of England would have replaced Catholic Church in South America. British Empire would have promoted Protestant and English language in South America. Protestant Missionaries of Europe and America would join hands to promote Protestant Denominations in the South America. The demise of Monroe Doctrine would promote Denominations in South America.

 

ELECTORAL POWER OF CATHOLIC CHURCH: The Vatican has become a political heavy weight due to its ability to influence the electoral results by means of its hold over campaign donations and vote banks. The Vatican has developed grass roots political base, by promoting the Right to Life movements and Anti‑Abortion movements. Christian movements have paralyzed Republican Party. Vatican control over Catholic political movements would enable Papacy to harness the power of the United States to promote Vatican interests worldwide. The very success of the Catholic political movements in influencing the political agenda of the Republican Party would threaten the WASP dominance of the United States. Weakening of the political stronghold of the WASP leadership due to the rising fortunes of Catholic movements electoral success could flare up in the partition of the United States into two independent states, the Catholic USA and the Protestant USA. The Protestants are losing the electoral battle with the Catholic movements, because all Catholic Churches and Clergy are under the leadership of Pope, while Denominations have multiple centers of power.

 

ASIA FAVORS PROTESTANTS: China and other Asian States consider Catholicism as the product of European Colonialism. China suspects that the Papal claim to be the real head of the Catholic Church could undermine citizens’ loyalty to the State. Just as England promoted the Church of England to counter the pervading influence of Papacy. China and India would politically support either the Protestant Denominations or Orthodoxy, to reconvert Catholics and Catholic Churches into either Protestant Denominations or Orthodoxy. United States as a Protestant Power would be welcome by the Third World. However, the United States as a Catholic Power would be a threat to World Peace. China and India would welcome an alliance with WASP leaders to promote Protestant Denominations in Asia and to check the Catholicism.

 

25(ix) Cause of Soviet Union’s Disintegration

EXPANSION OF USA & RUSSIA: The United States of 13 Colonies, expanded from the eastern coast to western coasts. It rivaled the expansion of the Duchy of Muscovy to encompass the entire Siberia at the aftermath of the collapse of the Mongol Empire. The essence of the nationalism of the United States is that the USA is a heaven for the immigrants of the world, where everyone has the freedom and opportunity to realize his own personal American dream. Whenever the United States would shut its wide-open doors of Heaven for the immigrants of the world, then the USA would disintegrate. Soviet Union disintegrated when Soviet citizens realized that the Soviet Communist system instead of being a heaven for the working masses is a living Hell.

 

DISINTEGRATION OF USSR: The Soviet Union disintegrated without any hostile foreign invasion. Many compelling internal forces that brought down the Soviet Union, the second most powerful State on the earth. A study of History establishes that the Great Powers disintegrate due to internal compulsions, normally without any hostile foreign interventions. What caused the disintegration of the Soviet Union that created seven (7) new States in Europe and eight (8) new States in Asia, in all fifteen (15) new States? It included nine (9) new Christian States and six (6) new Muslim States in Asia. There are historical parallels between the history of the Soviet Union and that of the United States. United States would possibly disintegrate before 2015 AD Similar internal forces would disintegrate the United States at the peak of its glory.

 

DISINTEGRATION OF MONGOL EMPIRE: Russia grew out of the disintegration of Mongol Empire that extended from Chinese Pacific coasts to the Danube River of Germany. Russian rulers of Duchy of Muscovy were the tax collectors of Mongol Empire. Similarly, United States grew out of the decline of the Canadian Empire. United States expanded to occupy the lands of Red Indians similar to the Russian occupation of the lands of Siberian Indians of the Mongol Empire. United States occupied Texas and California from Mexico. Similarly, Russia occupied the territories in Eastern Europe. Both Russia and United States lack historical attachment to the notion of the Nation-State.

 

SLAVERY IS DERIVED FROM THE ROOT SLAV: The word ‘Slavery’ is derived from the root ‘Slav’. Slav people sold as Slaves in the Eastern Roman Empire, in the open markets of Constantinople as late as AD 1,000. Christian East Europeans hired as Slaves in the Ottoman Empire much later. Similarly, Irish people evicted from the farmlands of Ireland by English landowners, to grow grass for Sheep farming. People who were poor and deprived have built both Russia and United States. Immigrants have come to the United States to have a better future. Once white immigrants feel that United States would no longer provide a better economic future, they would explore the idea of secession from the United States.

 

SHIFT OF POWER DISINTEGRATES: Soviet Union split once the political power shifted to non‑Russians. Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze was from Georgia and rumored to be a CIA Mole. Similarly if a Black American or a Chinese American, or a Hispanic American wins the United States Presidential elections then United States could face a series of secessionist demands. America is safe as long as the political power is in the hands of the WASP.

 

JEWS CONTROL RUSSIAN MAFIA: Overseas Russian Jews control Russian Mafia. Russian Mafia is rumored to have stolen more than $200 Billions and transferred to Swiss and German banks. Russian Mafia was responsible for the disintegration of Soviet Union. Organized Crime syndicates and drug lords based in the United States generate around $500 Billion annual income in hard cash. Organized Crime Mafia would finance the secessionist movements, as smaller States are more amenable to bribes. The bulging coffers of American Drug Mafia, expanding at the annual rate of $300 billion, would exacerbate the disintegration of the United States. Jews controlled the Russian Mafia. Jews have been instrumental in siphoning away the hard currency of Russia in Swiss bank accounts. American Jews control the financial markets of the United States. President Bill Clinton’s policy to create a Palestine Homeland may alienate the American Jews. American Jews have the capability to sabotage the financial health of the American economy by siphoning away the capital to Europe.

 

CHINA CONSPIRED SOVIET MILITARY COUP: Gorbachev visited China just before the Chinese massacre of dissidents at Tiananman Square. Gorbachev tried to promote his policy of Glasnost to China. Chinese counter moves disintegrated Soviet Union. United States has been conspiring with China and Pakistan to destabilize India. Indian counter moves would be more effective in destabilizing the United States itself. If India devotes resources to promote the secession of Native American tribes; half as much as United States invests in promoting secession of Sikhs and Kashmir, then the United States would split much earlier.

 

INDIA HAS INHERITED RED-INDIAN LEGACY: Russia occupied Siberia after the collapse of the Mongol Empire. United States encourages China to invade arguing that China has inherited the legacy of the Mongol Empire. Therefore, China’s claim over Siberia has reasonable legitimacy. Similarly, we can argue that India has inherited the legacy of Red Indians, Incas and Mayas. Would it legitimize India’s claim over the lands of Red Indians in the United States, Mexico, and Brazil?

 

WASP DISILLUSIONMENT WITH USA: Soviet Union disintegrated after the aborted Soviet Military Coup organized at the direct orders of the Soviet Communist Party. Soviet Union disintegrated, when blue-eye White Russians realized the Leviathan Soviet ideology and institutions imprisons White Russians. Russian realized Soviets is not just propaganda to justify Russian Rule over others.

 

USA HARMS WASP INTERESTS: When the WASP leaders realize the ideals and institutions of the United States are no longer propaganda ploys to promote the interests of the WASP community? When WASP realize that US would imprison WASP leaders, just as it destroyed Red Indians, then WASP would dismantle the United States. Whenever United States would use its power to curtail WASP, as Soviet Army curtailed the power of White Russians, then WASP leaders would dismantle the United States.

 

PAPAL CONTROL OVER WHITE HOUSE: The WASP leaders would dismantle the United States whenever Vatican Papacy gets a stronghold over the White House. President Reagan’s alliance with the Vatican that dismantled the Evil Soviet Empire, could lead to the disintegration of the United States, if it makes the WASP leaders suspicious of the Pontiff’s eye on the oval office. The United States alliance with the Vatican harms the Protestant Denominations. The Vatican is trying to buy influence over the Protestant Churches by making suitable financial arrangements. The Pope might succeed in buying influence over Orthodox and Protestant Church leadership, by spending part of is unlimited wealth rumored to be more than $100 billions. The merger and acquisitions of the Denominational Churches by the Vatican would rival major merger and acquisition deals of the twenty-first century.

 

BLACK PRESIDENT OF USA: The WASP leaders would disintegrate the United States if any Black American wins the Presidency of the United States. The ex-Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, had he not died under suspicious circumstances, he would have won the Democratic Primaries in the year 2000. Ron Brown would have become the President of the United States. Had Ron Brown won the Presidency, he would not have survived assassinations to complete his term in the White House. The United States would disintegrate when a Black American, get elected as the President of the United States.

 

AMERICAN DREAM IS ACHILLES HEEL OF USA: American Dream is the Achilles Heel of the United States. United States would escape disintegration only by granting sovereign Statehood to Indigenous Native Americans. United States should promote Protestant Denominations and abandon the idea of Holy Roman American Empire. United States should keep its Immigration doors wide open to allow unlimited immigration without any restrictions, as the white race is not the original owner of this American Land. United States should resist being an Evil Empire, should abandon Evil Alliances with atheist powers, and forge close ties with Great free democracies of the world. United States would cease being dominated by White Anglo‑Saxon Protestants, but the Great ideal of the United States would survive even under a non‑White Government. The Achilles heel of the United States is the equal opportunity to all the immigrants. The United States would split apart whenever its citizens and immigrants lose faith in the reality of American Dream. The campaign donation dependent Senators and Member of Congress would dig the grave of the United States, if legislation shuts the open door of the American Dream from the non‑White future immigrants of the world. Individuals should be able to realize their own America Dreams, in a free land with wide‑open doors. It encourages unlimited immigration, so that the best of the world will realize their highest potential in a free prosperous society, without any distinction based on race, color or creed. White rulers of this land should give at least this much in return for occupying the land of Red Man. The United States would disintegrate whenever the American Dream becomes an unrealizable mirage for immigrants, in this land of unlimited opportunities.

 

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

 

25(3) Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Strikes

President George W. Bush invaded Iraq, exercising America’s right of preemptive strikes under the Wilsonian ideological camouflage to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which concealed the Roosevelt's real politik interests to establish permanent Oil colony over Iraq, so that American oil companies could procure unlimited supply of crude oil and gas and pay token price for the oil they extract from Iraqi oil fields. Bush’s doctrine of preemptive strikes established the first American Oil colony in Iraq and heralded a new age of colonial empires in the 21st Century.

 

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

 

Preemptive Strikes

Bush Doctrine 2002 establishes the legal right under customary law Right of Self-Defense the right to undertake preemptive military strikes against potential terrorist nations, to destroy the terrorist infrastructure. Bush Doctrine enlarges the war on terrorism to include the Right of Preemptive strikes against terrorist nations seeking to acquire the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), including nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Bush Doctrine also establishes the right of the United States to undertake preemptive strikes to against any nation, friendly or non-friendly that seeks to equal or surpass the military capability of the United States.

 

India supports President Bush so long Bush Doctrine justifies the preemptive strikes against Islamic terrorist nations and preemptive strikes against Islamic nations seeking Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear, biological and chemical warfare capability. America is justified in undertaking military operations against Afghanistan and Iraq. However, experts of geopolitics and military strategy argue that it is factually wrong to argue that since Soviet Union has collapsed, United States is the sole military power of the world, because it has acquired Precision Guided Munitions technology, which has allowed Air Force equipped with GDAM Smart Bombs to devastate the Infantry. The Precision Guided Munitions technology when married to the anti-Ship Cruise Missiles devastates the aircraft carriers battle groups. The PGMs enhanced the power of the US Air force have also made US Navy highly vulnerable to the anti-ship missiles equipped with PGM and GSP technology. The four largest economy of the world in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GNP at PPP) in 2002 are United States, China, Japan and India. The Bush Doctrine 2002, which gloats over the collapse of the Soviet Union, fails to mention that the three of the top four economies of the world in 2002 are non-Christian, non-European and non-White economies. Bush doctrine is correct in stating that United States has no rival in White Christian European world, however China, Japan and India have arisen as world powers and would soon challenge the domination of the United States. India can use the precedent of the United States’ attack on Iraq to attack. This is the argument the author makes in this Chapter.

 

25(i) Pax Americana in Bush Doctrine 2003

(1) American Empire Strikes First

Pax America took its first step in 2003, with the invasions of Iraq. American Empire led by Emperor George W. Bush launched lightening strikes on Iraq to establish America’s oil colony over Iraq on 20th March 2003. There was no smoking gun in 2003 State of the Nation address by President Bush. The Axis of Evil has shrunk to Saddam Hussein, evil incarnate. Iran and North Korea were put aside with a comment, different threats require different strategies. Osama bin Laden was not even mentioned, only al Qaeda was referred to. President Bush’s rationale for war on Iraq is based on ample metaphysical evidence, the perfect storm of imperial schemes and ideological stratagems driving the desire to establish American Oil colonialism over Iraq, with the second largest reservoir of oil in the world. Bush 43 Administration thinks the best way to galvanize the American public opinion is with fear of terrorist attacks similar to that of 9/11 attacks. Bush 43 Administration started by coupling Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and building Saddam into a Hitler, who could threaten the world with a holocaust. Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby and Paul Wolfowitz think that Saddam Hussein is the perfect lab rat on which to test their new “Pre-emptive Empire Strikes first’ national security strategy, enunciated in the Bush doctrine 2002. This doctrine first drafted in 1992 during Bush 41 Administration, by the Wolfowitz and Libby. The President Bush (1989-93) found the Wolfowitz-Libby ideas too far out, but present President Bush has put them into play. President George Bush coined the phrase, “We recognize that our best defense is a good offense,” that sums up the new national security strategy of the Bush 43 Administration.

 

Wolfowitz, Libby and Richard Perle want to turn United States into a laboratory for democracy in the oil-rich Arab world. After planting the democracy on Mesopotamian Iraqi soil, United States can orchestrate more freedom, democracies throughout the oil-producing Middle East, so long as the Muslim world continues to accept Yankee president as the new sheriff. White House intends to put pressure on Iran to restore the Pahlevi monarchy of Mohammed Riza Pahlevi. Perhaps America-born Queen Noor installed as reigning monarch of Syria. Perhaps a Queen should rule Saudi Arabia as reigning monarch to restore rights to Saudi women. Whatever may be the cause, president Bush’s imperialistic moves in Iraq, shows that Pre-emptive Empire Strikes First military strategy, represents the classical response of the civilizations, that faced barbarian invasions in the history.

 

(2) Bush Doctrine 2003 fit for Roman Empire & Napoleon

Bush Doctrine declares its intention to create Pax Americana, without first proving on a battle front that Untied States has emerged as the preponderant infantry power of the world. The tension between idealism and realism in foreign policy runs through America history, and the fault lines are evident in president Bush's policy statement to Congress. The paper: “The national Security Strategy of the United States”- a policy summation that every president is required to submit to Congress- seems in some sections to be animated by the most enlightened and constructive impulses of the land of Jefferson, Lincoln and the Marshall Plans. At other points, the paper sounds more like a pronouncement that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might have produced. President Bush imagines an intimidating, heavyweight America. A few of the policy prescriptions capture the spirit: American military power will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries form ever trying to challenge the military supremacy of the United States. Washington is free to take pre-emptive action against hostile states that are developing weapons of mass destruction. The successful strategies of the cold war, which relied on the threat of overwhelming American retaliation to deter foreign aggression, are largely obsolete. Forceful counter-proliferation measures to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons are more effective than non-proliferation treaties.

 

In an era of international terrorism there is good reason to keep nation strong and vigilant. Striking first to prevent aggression is not unreasonable when dealing with global non-state terrorist groups, which operate independently of the restraints that govern the behavior of most nation-states. But when these pugnacious strategies become the dominant theme in American conduct, overwhelming more cooperative instincts, the United States risks alienating its friends and undermining the very interests that president Bush seeks to protect. Strong, confident political leaders need not be arrogant leaders. Indeed, arrogance subverts effective leadership.

 

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

 

India out rightly rejects the basic notion underlying the Bush Doctrine that the development of Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) transformed the war resulting in the pre-eminence of the space powers and air powers over land powers. On the contrary, the development of the Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) and anti-ship cruise missiles allows land powers sink the maritime fleets of the sea powers, including aircraft carriers very cost effectively. The development of the Precision Guided Munitions signals the decline of the Sea Powers and the vulnerability of the Mechanized warfare as expensive tanks and aircraft carriers have become vulnerable to low-cost Precision Guided Munitions. The military technology that allowed USA & NATO win air war on Yugoslavia, also made American Navy, Aircraft Carrier battle groups and expensive tanks and mechanized units, highly vulnerable to low-cost anti-ship and anti-tank Precision Guided Munitions. The Sea powers and Western Navy have become vulnerable to the anti-ship missiles and PGMs. If land powers succeed in sinking the Western Naval ships and merchant marine vessels then the Eurasian land powers can roll their land armies across land to conquer Asia, Europe and Africa. It is a doctrinal deception on the people of America, for the pentagon to claim that United States is the world’s preponderant land power also. The preponderance in air power and sea power does not get translated as preponderance in land power in Eurasia-Africa landmass. United States destined to lose the World War Three, and meet the fate of Hitler and Napoleon, if its military generals continue to live in the fool’s paradise. Bombing by air war akin to masturbation on the pussy. The dick if it can fuck doesn’t mean that it fire guns to kill the enemy in a land battle also. Every good general knows that good soldier in any army is a formidable opponent and deserves high respect, if you want to win the war. It is foolhardy on the part of Pentagon to declare that sea power United States has overnight become the predominant infantry power of the world without proving its infantry battle-fighting prowess in any major land war against a major adversary. India, China and Russia simply refuse to accept this claim of the Pentagon enunciated in the Bush Doctrine 2002.

 

President Bush tells American people that America is at war. But this war is war with no foreseeable end. What kind of war is that? Does the war that America declared on terrorism, a metaphor? We know that this war on terror is a metaphor, and one with powerful consequence. Real wars are not metaphors. Real wars have a beginning and an end. This anti-terror war can never end, because United States not interested in punishing Wahhabi Saudi Arabia for being the womb of Wahhabi Islamist terrorism. It is not a war, but a mandate for expanding the use of American power in Eurasia, and for expanding the domestic power of the White House. America’s war on Islamic terrorism is a phantom war, because United States continues to reward Saudi Arabia for financing the global web of Wahhabi terrorism. President Bush’s war on Islamic terrorism has been neutralized into a form of pseudo-declaration of a pseudo-war, due to the machinations of Catholic Religious Right Conservative Conspiracy. These necessary actions should not be called a war. There are no endless wars. There are no wars without any noticeable casualties of the terrorist enemy. Since United States failed to inflict any deaths on terrorists, so it is safe to assume that Bush’s doctrine simply seeks the declarations of the extension of power by the state that believes it cannot be challenged.

 

America has every right to hunt down the perpetrators of 9/11 and their accomplices. But this determination is not necessarily a war. Limited, focused military engagements do not translate into wartime at home, if the long-drawn war results in zero casualties of the enemy. Describing America’s new foreign policy as actions undertaken in wartime is a powerful disincentive to having a mainstream debate about what is actually happening. Those who supported the Crusade language used by the American government (good versus evil, civilization versus barbarism), felt let down when United States armed forces failed to capture even a single leader of Wahhabi Arab Al Qaeda terrorist during entire military operations in Afghanistan. Why has United States failed to hunt down, capture or neutralize even one leader of Wahhabi Arab Al Qaeda terrorists, even after spending so much money? Real battles, big budget, real expenses, but empty coffins and empty graveyards: what kind of war is it. It is a war of deception?

 

(3) Pre-emptive Action’s Place in History:

The Bush Doctrine 2002, legitimizes US diplomatic freedom to use military force unhampered by multilateral treaties and international law, what past presidents have done, namely, president Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam War, president Johnson in Dominican Republic, president Ragan in Grenada invasion, and president Bill Clinton on invasion of Haiti. However United States have undertaken pre-emptive strikes against smaller nations, namely, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq etc.

 

In 1857, as Spain’s King Philip II massed a formidable fleet for invasion of England, Queen Elizabeth did not wait to be attacked, Sir Francis Drake launched a pre-emptive assault and destroyed part of the Spanish Armada while it was still anchored in Cadiz. Partly as a result, England won a famous victory the following year.

 

In 1756, as Austria, Russia and France plotted to crush Prussia Emperor Frederick the great did not wait to be attacked. He struck first, invading Saxony and Bohemia, and eventually winning important victories against his far more numerous enemies.

 

In 1967, as Arab armies gathered on Israel’s borders, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol did not wait to be attacked. Israeli forces struck first and defeated their enemies in just six days. Preventive actions like Israel’s 1981 raid on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility have become essential. In the days of nuclear weapons the distinction between pre-emptive actions and preventive collapses has blurred.

 

In 1846, President James Polk used Mexican move to remove US troops that had moved into disputed territory as a convenient causus belli. Fifth years later, Congress declared war on Spain to liberate Cuba. United States employed diplomacy of deception, to declare war on Spain on Cuba, and there is no evidence that Spanish Navy sank Maine in Havana harbor. During Mexican War of 1846, Spanish-American War on Cuba and Vietnam War, the United States sought out battle and didn’t wait for it to come to the US, and created false incidents, namely, Mexican attacks, sinking of Maine, and attacks in Gulf of Tonkin to justify the US invasion. United States justified the fabrication of the causus belli incident, as justifiable diplomacy of deception as the war had a large element of moral purpose.

 

President Lyndon B. Johnson employed the diplomacy of deception, to allege two attacks on American warships on Gulf of Tonkin, one of which didn’t ever occur. The purpose of United States to invade North Vietnam was to spread Christianity in Indo-China and to destroy Buddhism, not to contain Communism. President Kennedy and President Lynden waged war on Buddhist Vietnam to empower Christians, who represented less than 10 percent of the population in Vietnam to control political power in North Vietnam and South Vietnam. United States justified the genocide of 2 million Buddhists at hands of Catholics and Evangelical Christians in Cambodia, Laos as legitimate collateral damage.

 

Many US pre-emptive interventions have been undertaken as part of America’s long-standing commitment to act as global policemen. Between 1800 and 1934 US Marines staged 180 landings abroad, and many were launched before any provocation to the US or attacks on US citizens took place. In the 20th Century, these overseas interventions often became quite prolonged. Woodrow Wilson sent marines to occupy Haiti in 1915, and they wound up staying 19 years. President Wilson sent Marines to occupy Dominican Republic in 1916, and they wound up staying 8 years. President Johnson ordered United States Marine landings in Dominican Republic, justifying it as necessary to prevent Communism take root in Dominican Republic. President Ronald Reagan ordered pre-emptive assaults on Grenada in 1983, to prevent Soviet’s from using an airfield being built on Grenada and to protect US medical students.

 

The Cuban missile crisis fits a similar mold. President Kennedy sent US Navy to quarantine Cuba, an act that easily could have sparked World War III.

 

United States historically believed that it’s better to cure festering ills before they metastasize into something worse. America has seldom hesitated to draw the sword when sweet-talking wound not suffice, even when they had in mind diplomatic not military action.

 

25(ii) Defense Policy Guidelines (DPG) 1992:

The Draft DPG issued in spring of 1992, when its excerpts appeared in New York Times, was a prescription for “literally a “Pax Americana.” It boldly called for a permanent US military-pre-eminence over virtually all of Eurasia- to be achieved by deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role and by pre-empting states believed to be developing weapons of mass destruction. It foretold a world in which US military intervention would come to be seen as a constant fixture of the geo-political landscape and Washington would act as the ultimate guarantee of the international order. Indeed, the Draft DPG failed to even mention the United Nations.

 

While the US cannot become the world’s policeman by assuming the responsibility for righting every wrong, it will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but also those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations. The DPG Draft was essentially a vision of a world dominated by the unilateral use of US military power to ensure international stability, promote the US national interest, and prevent the rise of any possible challenger for the foreseeable future.

 

The Final DPG was toned down to the point it was unrecognizable. But the Draft DPG’s strategy clearly retained a central place in the hearts and minds of its two authors, Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby and their boss, then Pentagon chief Dick Cheney, until new circumstances might offer a more auspicious moment.

 

25(iii) Decline of Superpowers

The authors of the President Bush’s 13,000 words landmark national security Manifesto should read Arnold Toynbee’s “Study of History.” Toynbee said that Barbarians improvise the military technology developed by Civilization’s and use it to undermine the Civilization. The decline of great economic and military powers is a perennial of history. The military secrets of a world power Civilization seep beyond its borders, empowering others, present day Barbarians. Just ask the great Roman Empire, which was beset and ultimately overrun by German barbarians using Roman military techniques. Or ask the Chinese subdued by Mongols using Chinese weapons technology. Or ask Hindu Indians subdued by Central Asian Mughals using cannon firepower. The eventual decline of United States as the sole super power is inevitable. United States endowed upon the sole superpower status by the failure and demise of the Soviet Union, not by any brilliant act of the United States. Even after the Second World War, it was the genius of Zews and German scientists that gave United States the Atom Bomb and missile technology. United States has yet to prove its infantry war-fighting prowess in any major land war after the defeat in the Vietnam War. Only a fool would dream that United States could sustain its sole superpower status indefinitely. There are Americans who think that a superpower facing eventual decline but for now possessing unprecedented influence would be wise to sustain close security ties with other rising world powers, namely India and China, to expedite the evolution of international policing structures.

 

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

 

DECLINE OF SEA POWERS IN AGE OF PGMs: The very technology, PGM revolution, that made US Air Force a lethal force, has also doomed the fortunes of US Navy and US Heavy Mechanized Warfare Units. Land powers having arsenals of PGM-technology equipped anti-ship cruise missiles, and anti-tank missiles can sink all Western aircraft carrier fleets cost effectively. America’s recent lead in the Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) is the military technology that authors of Bush Doctrine relied upon to claim that American forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hope of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States. Every military writer knows that the American Precision Guided Munitions (PGM) technology that allowed Air Force bomb specific targets on the ground with pin-point accuracy from the safety of 39,000 feet up in air, also enables anti-ship PGM missiles to sink aircraft carrier battle groups from the distance of 300 miles. The PGM technology equipped anti-tank missiles have made tanks and heavy mechanized warfare units highly vulnerable to anti-tank missile attacks. The 21st Century heralds the decline of Sea powers, the end of the age of aircraft carriers and end of the tank warfare. During Afghanistan War, the aircraft carrier battle group Kitty Hawk, which served as the floating Special Operations base, was a vulnerable sitting duck for the PGM technology equipped anti-ship cruise missiles. A number of anti-ship PGM missiles, guided by GPS technology costing less than $20 million would have sank the Aircraft Carrier Battle group Kitty Hawk, costing over $10 billion, in less than a day. The PGM technology is believed to be the foundation of the Permanent American Super power in the 21st Century. However Precision Guided Munitions technology equipped anti-ship missiles could also sink all 12 US aircraft carrier battle groups in the Third World War. The Precision Guided Munitions technology equipped anti-ship cruise missiles, heralds the demise of the Western Maritime Powers, shifting the military balance in favor of Eurasian continental lands powers.

 

AMERICA AS GLOBAL HEGEMON: President Bush must abandon any dream to duplicate the glory of Napoleon and Hitler simply because United States is not strong enough. The US economy is heading for a meltdown after the 9/11. United States cannot create Pax Americana, like Pax Britannia, simply because it lacks the manpower to do so. Pax Britannia created by Indian soldiers and British officers and paid for by the economic resources of Indian Empire. Unless United States co-opts India in the Pax Americana, it would be fool hardy to dream of Pax Americana.

 

United States neither has the military capability nor economic strength to remain global hegemon for more than 10 years, beyond 201 AD, if the ongoing collapse of the Wall Street is any indication. On thing that creates hatred of America is resentment of American power. So president Bush’s insistence that America remain unchallenged global hegemon in 21st Century, and his willingness to preemptive strikes to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States, may force Russia, France, Germany, Japan, China and India form a coalition to contain the US hegemon.

 

Why did India support colonial power Britain against Germany during Second World War, even when Hitler honored Hindu Swastika? Indians supplied 3,500,000 soldiers during Second World War and 6,500.000 soldiers during First World War, believing that Britain represented forces of Good while Germany represented forces of Evil. If would be suicidal for the United States, if rest of the world begins to perceive United States as Axis of Medieval or Mini-Evil. United States is simply not strong enough, however confident the armchair politicians may be about the war-fighting capabilities of the American Armed Forces. Politicians must learn that war is a very serious matter. Every good general knows that a good soldier in any army is a formidable opponent. Diplomatic masturbation doesn’t translate into the victory at the warfront. United States has not as yet fought any major war after the Vietnam War. Unless United States fights and wins a war bigger than Vietnam War, it should not arrogate itself to be the global hegemon. American victories at Panama War, Haiti War, Kuwait War, and Yugoslavia War must not be extrapolated to conclude, United States has acquired the military war-fighting prowess to defeat major land powers of Eurasia. Only a general high on cocaine would arrive at such absurd conclusion. Just because a hunter can kill dogs, cats and pigs doesn’t mean that he can also kill lions, tigers and bear in the wild, without getting killed first. Armchair diplomats learn, War is a very serious matter, bullet is a bullet and it would kill a white soldier as easily as it kills a brown, yellow or black soldier.

 

Rise & Fall of Races

LAW OF NATURAL RACIAL SELECTION: The dislocating sweep of the Global Clash of Races is the discovery of Natural Selection of Races. The austere logic of the Rise & Fall and Clash of Civilizations and Clash of Races, spans three seemingly unbridgeable metaphysical chasms. Kalki Zeus shows how the clash of races, civilizations and religions unites the nonliving national resources and the living populations, the nonhuman geopolitical forces and human ingenuity, and the physical technological advancements and the mental philosophical evolution into a single fabric of intelligent material causation and resulting diplomatic and political responses of the ruling elites of the world. If one could accept the prize, the prize is principled explanation of the world history from antiquity to the present time, and a logical geopolitical design of world politics, diplomacy and foreign policies of the major world powers.

 

Anti-women Christian, Muslim religious fundamentalists, may find the geopolitical restructuring of the world politics as unacceptable, as it seeks to redesign the architecture of the diplomats mind, based on the cherished mind not the soul as the naturally selected product of the organized matter, organized state and organized diplomacy. The mind of the diplomats and world leaders with its moral sense should be taken out of the authoritative domain of clerics and philosophers. For Kalki, the responsibility for its investigation and policy formulation should be in hands of trained geopoliticians, neither clerics nor illiterate politicians, nor dictators. The investigation and advice of the geopoliticians should carry no prior guarantees that their findings would respect what society and religion held sacrosanct.

 

Although many Protestants welcome the discrediting of a static Genesis Creation described in the Old Testament and later adopted in Christian Bible and Muslim Koran, they still demand a intellectual universe in which their Christian values, capitalist democratic ideologies, white identities and geographic expansion are ratified and reinforced by some cosmic, philosophic and intellectual sanction.

 

Throughout 2nd Millennium, for European Marxists and capitalists, anarchists and imperialists, Catholics and Protestants, White humans were to be the summit, the goal around which life and history progress. Despite many attempts, no compromise was possible between this need for ideological affirmation of the white dominance and the logic of the geopolitical worldview. In a world governed by geopolitics, physics and selection of the fittest nation, the present day dominance of the WASP’s United States is just a chance, that presented itself after the Second World War, consolidated by the ingenuity of the immigrant German and Jewish scientists that gave United States as well as the Soviet Union, their first Atom Bomb and Missiles. The present predominance of the United States is the result of chance mechanical invention, and there is no necessary progression, so it is absurd for President Bush to declare that United States will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged it was during the cold war.

 

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

 

25(iv) Lessons of Afghan War

The future wars involving the United States may arrive as unexpectedly as the recent one in Afghanistan. Afghanistan War confirmed the axiom that wars are won on the ground. The war plan for Afghanistan may seem like a blueprint for victory, especially since the unexpectedly swift success was secured with just 19 American deaths. The war in Afghanistan pressed the Air force, Navy and Army towards a world in which parochial differences, while not eliminated, were filed down dramatically. The enduring lesson of this new campaign against terror is that, the military is no longer fighting single-front battles against a clearly defined enemy. Handling this broad spectrum of responsibilities has brought an understanding that the battle space extends from Afghanistan all the way back, at least New York City and Washington. Afghanistan was a battle laboratory for successful tests of new tactics and weapons. The Afghan campaign illuminated weaknesses that must be addressed before the next offensive on Iraq. However, it must be mentioned that the victory in the Afghanistan War, resulted because of the war-fighting prowess of the Tajik and Uzbek soldiers of the Northern Alliance. American Armed forces played no significant role in the land warfare in Afghanistan. The war confirmed the axiom that wars are won on the ground. The credit to the victory in Afghanistan goes to the Northern Alliance Infantry.

 

The US navy has to be even more places at once, and its planes will have to attack far beyond the shores to bring persistent, credible combat power around the globe. The Marines have to think not of amphibious landings, but of expeditionary invasions hundreds of miles inland. Navy is a service that is allowed to go out and scour around the largest maneuver space on the planet that is the oceans. The task of the American military is to keep enemies guessing. Where we are going to show up next?

 

Navy shall determine how best to float a huge, mobile base so special Operation forces and Marine expeditionary troops can strike targets with speed and secrecy even when no land base is available. Naval Ocean-Going Camp could be an aging aircraft carrier without its jest; it could be a supertanker; it could be a series of oil platforms lashed together and pushed around the globe by barge. For the war in Afghanistan the carrier Kitty Hawk served as a floating Special Operations base, but the decision took one-twelfth of the US Navy’s centerpiece battle platforms out of the usual rotation. US Aircraft Carrier battle group Kitty Hawk had been a sitting duck and vulnerable to attacks by Precision Guided Munitions technology equipped anti-ship cruise missiles. United States was very fortunate the Afghanistan didn’t have anti-ship missiles or French Exocet anti-ship missiles.

 

US Army’s forces light forces have to have some form of armored vehicles when they first arrive at the front, while heavy armor has to be faster to the battle front. Army is transforming some units into STRYKER BRIGADES as an interim step between today’s tanks and the futuristic weapons of tomorrow. Built around a light armored vehicle called Striker, the brigades can be flown in C-130 transports, as opposed to the massive C-17 required by the tanks.

 

The US Air force will have to shorten the time it takes to identify images of potential targets captured by unmanned aircraft, like Predators and Global hawk, send that information to the command centers and ultimately to dispatch attack order to bombers loitering high above the battlefield. There is a need to decrease these timelines so you could deal with fleeting targets in timely ways and still give the decision makers in these very most sensitive situations time to assess and decide whether the target was worth seeking or not, or valid, or too much of a risk.

 

Afghanistan War confirmed the axiom that wars are won on the ground. The B-52 is an airframe older than most of the pilots in the cockpit and the soldiers who call in the bomb. The B-52 is best known for dropping carpets of dumb bombs on the rice paddies of Vietnam, but in Afghanistan it was armed with Precision Guided Munitions weapons, the $20,000 JDAM kit, and assigned the job of close air support at an altitude of 39,000 feet. The task of bombing targets close to ground troops is usually assigned to small and nimble Air Force and navy fighters. Precision is extraordinary important to the ability to wage war with a smaller logistical trail when one smart bomb can do the job of dozens heavy, dumb pieces of ordnance.

 

The battlefield of the future will be defined, by smaller units doing, what larger units used to do in 20th Century. The rifle company of the 21st century will be doing what the rifle battalion of the 20th century used to do. A company has about 160 troops and a battalion has about 1,000.

 

25(v) America’s Imperial Ambition

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and Cheney’s chief of staff, and national security adviser I. Lewis Libby, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, engineering a radical break with 55 years of bipartisan tradition in US foreign policy making in 2002.

 

The 55 years of Bipartisan Tradition consisted of a mixture of two grand strategies pursued after World War II: a realist policy organized around containment, deterrence and maintaining a global balance of power; and a more liberal, internationalist policy based on constructing a set of multilateral institutions and alliances to promote free trade, open economies and democratic values. While various past US administrations have emphasized one strategy over the other, none since the Second World War has abandoned both at the same time. For the first time since the dawn of the Cold War a new grand strategy is taking shape in Washington. Viewing the Bush Administration’s policy after Sept 11 as directed against “terrorism” is to miss its much broader purpose and thrust.

 

According to the new paradigm, America is to be less bound to its partners and to global rules and institutions while it steps forward to play a more unilateral and anticipatory role in attacking terrorist threats and confronting rogue states seeking WMD (weapons of mass destruction).” The United States will use its unrivalled military power to manage the global order. In that respect, the “War on Terrorism” must be seen as a façade for a much more ambitious strategy of projecting US military power around the world, especially Eurasia, and cutting loose the multilateral bonds that have constrained Washington’s freedom of action and power.

 

The attacks of Sept. 11, and the quick military success in Afghanistan that followed) ended a stalemate within the Bush Administration between more tradition foreign-policy practitioners, led by Secretary of State Colin Powell, and those who embraced the new paradigm, like Rumsfeld and Cheney. The 9/11 also gave the new strategy a momentum it could never have achieved with its previous marginal political support. The events of 9/11 effectively empowered this coalition within the Bush Administration at the expense of the more traditional forces led by Secretary Powell, who, significantly, has received strong support from veterans of the first Bush Administration, namely Scowcroft and Baker.

 

Behind this strategy, lie the 1992 draft DPG and a coalition of three major political forces. These include right wing power players, some of whom like Rumsfeld and Cheney played key roles in the Nixon and Ford administrations; and leaders of American Christian Evangelical Right and Catholic Right Wing Conservatism.

 

Aside from a strong belief in US military power and a Manichean worldview it assumes the United States is fundamentally good. It shares a contempt for multilateralism, which necessarily denies the exceptional nature of the Untied states, a similar disdain and distrust for Europeans, and a conviction that barbarian fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam poses a major threat to the Protestant United States and the Christian Western Civilization. This coalition also considers China a long-term strategic threat that should be confronted sooner rather than later. This coalition also considers nuclear India a long-term strategic ally of the United States that should be cultivated to contain China. Many of these group members formed a coalition and gave it a concrete institutional form outside the administration, a group called the “PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY (PNAC), founded in 1997 by two-dozen prominent right-wingers, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Libby.

 

25(vi) National Security Strategy of the USA 2002:

(1) Doctrine of Preemptive Attacks

 New Bush Doctrine published in Sept 2002 its first comprehensive rationale for shifting American military strategy towards pre-emptive action against hostile states and terrorist groups developing weapons of mass destruction. It states for the first time, that the United States will never allow its military strategy to be challenged the way it was during the Cold War. It calls this union of values and national interests a distinctly American Internationalism. The document titled “The national Security Strategy of the United States.” I include the discounting of most nonproliferation treaties in favor of a doctrine of “counter proliferation,” a reference to everything from missile defense to forcibly dismantling weapons or their components. It declares that the strategies of containment and deterrence-staples of American policy sine 1940’s- are all but dead. There is no other way in this changed would, to deter those who hate the United States and everything for which it stands. America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. This document amounts to the death knell for many of the key strategies of the Cold War. It declared that President Bush has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall off the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. American forces would be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing, or equaling the power of the United States. It is important to foreclose the option that other nation would aspire to challenge the United States militarily, because once you cut off the challenge of military competition, you open up the possibility of cooperation in a number of other areas.

 

While United States will seek allies in the battle against terrorism, United States will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively. That includes convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities not to aid terrorists.

 

The great struggles of the 20th century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy and free enterprise. In the 21st century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. The events of Sept 11, 2001, taught us that weak states could pose as great a danger to American national interests as strong states.

 

United States will be first to disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations of global reach and attack their leadership; command, control and communications; material support; and finances. This will have a disabling effect upon the terrorists’ ability to plan and operate.

 

United states will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and international power. Its immediate focus will be those terrorist organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of terrorism, which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.) or their precursors. United States will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively.

 

United States will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism. This includes using the full influence of the untied States and working closely with allies and friends, to make clear that all acts of terrorism are illegitimate so that terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government can condone or support and must oppose. United States will support moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find ground in any nation.

 

United States will prevent its enemies from threatening it, its allies and its friends with weapons of mass destruction. The comprehensive strategy to combat W.M.D. includes: proactive counter proliferation efforts. United States must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today’s threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries’ choice of weapons, do not permit that option.

 

The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy-whether a state or nonstate actor-to impose its will on the United States. United States will maintain the forces sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. American forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hops of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.

 

(2) Preemptive Strikes on Islamic Terrorism:

India supports Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Strikes, the Right of Self-Defense to deny further sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities to combat terrorism. India agrees that all acts of terrorism are illegitimate so that terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no responsible government can condone or support and all must oppose terrorism. India shall militarily help United States disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by direct and continuous actions using all the elements of national and international power. India will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise its right of self-defense by acting pre-emotively. India will convince or compel states to accept their sovereign responsibilities to deny further sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists. India will use the full influence of media and political movements to make clear that all acts of terrorism are illegitimate so that the terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide. India will convince and compel all state sponsors of terrorism that no respectable government can condone or support terrorism and all Arab states, including Saudi Arabia must oppose Wahhabi terrorism. Arab Wahhabi states must pay sufficient economic reparation for the damage caused by Wahhabi Al-Qaeda terrorists in United States, India and worldwide. According to the Bush doctrine, the nation’s right of sovereignty can be abrogated if any Islamic nation continues to sponsor, support and provide sanctuary to terrorists. India reserves its right to invade the Source of Islamic terrorism in Arabian Peninsula, as Arabian Gulf had been Indian Empire’s Lake during 18th 19th Century and early 20th Century. Kuwait, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman had been part of the Indian Empire. Indian Rupee had been the official currency in these countries up to 1965. The military occupation of Wahhabi Heartland in Arabian Peninsula, by civilized Turkey, Pakistan or Egypt not against the national interests of secular India. India supports the attempts of Turkey, or Egypt or Pakistan become the custodian of the Holy cities of Mecca & Medina, as a permanent solution to the menace of Al-Qaeda Arab Wahhabi terrorism. India asserts its right to undertake pre-emptive strikes against Arab terrorist nations to protect Hindu India against Wahhabi terrorist attacks. Like United States, India also asserts its right to undertake preemptive strikes against state sponsors of terrorism. There is no other way in this changed world, to deter those who hate India, United States, democratic freedom and everything for which these two largest democracies stands.

 

(3) War of Ideas on Wahhabi Terrorism

India supports Bush doctrine that outlines that United States will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism. This includes supporting moderate and modern government especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and fundamentalist ideologies that promote Islamic terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation. India like United States reserves the right to wage a war of ideas in the Islamic world to win the battle against international terrorism, which is based on the terrorist subjugation of women under the garb of Wahhabi fundamentalism and Shariah. India will wage a war of ideas to convince or compel Muslim nations to realize that the brutal Wahhabi subjugation of women will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide, a behavior that all civilized nations must oppose. India accepts that United States has a right under international law to militarily intervene to compel Muslim nations replace Shariah laws with modern secular western civil and criminal law. India and United States may join forces to impose Turkish secular laws in Saudi Arabia, Arabian Peninsula and rest of the Islamic world. Since Christian culture and civilization superior to that of Islamic culture and Arab civilization, it is inevitable that under distinctly American internationalism, American value system, freedom of women and American legal system could be imposed upon semi-civilized Arab societies, to guarantee the freedom of Arab women. Just as the slavery abolished against total opposition of the slave traders and slave owners, similarly the Wahhabi subjugation of Muslim women, should be outlawed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide, a behavior that no respectable nation can condone or support and all must oppose. India and United States should join forces to militarily guarantee the freedom and rights of Arab women, to drive the final nail in the coffin of Wahhabi AlQaeda terrorism. India supports the Bush doctrine that advocates the preemptive strikes to wage a war of ideas to win the war against Islamic terrorism. Representing the religious right conservative conspiracy, President Jimmy Carter legitimized Islamic fundamentalism by engineering the fall of Pahlalvi Monarchy in Iran in 1980’s and accession of arch-fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini into power that dismantled the most modern Persian Islamic society, which had made Tehran the Paris of Asia. The “National Security Strategy of the United States” in 2002 laid the foundation of war of ideas against Islamic fundamentalism, to undo the wrongs perpetrated by President Jimmy Carter and President Bill Clinton.

 

(4) Preemptive Nuclear Counter proliferation

India accepts that Islamic Atom Bomb is the greatest threat for the Christian Civilization. India supports Bush doctrine that shifts American military strategy towards pre-emptive strikes against hostile Arab states developing weapons of mass destruction. The Doctrine of Counter-Proliferation should replace most nonproliferation treaties. India and United States should join forces to forcibly denuke Islamic nations and to forcibly dismantling Islamic nuclear weapons and their components, and nuclear-capable missiles in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Pakistan. India agrees with United States that Islamic Nuclear Weapons threatens the very survival of the human race, as Arabs are not amenable for the logic of deterrence of Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine. United States, India, and Israel should join military forces to undertake pre-emptive military strikes to forcibly dismantle Arab nuclear, biological and chemical weapons or their components, or their precursors. Arab Muslims invaded India in the history and Hindu India cannot sit idle and allow rise of any military power in the Islamic world. India would welcome the subjugation of the Islamic world by Protestant and Catholic powers to ward of the Islamic threats to Hindu world. Hindu India would militarily support Christian Coalition in their war on Islamic terrorism and Islamic Weapons of Mass Destruction. India should join forces with United States to develop National Missile Defense Shield. The military occupation of Iraq by United States, and the subsequent portioning of Iraq to carve out independent Kurdistan, and Shiite Iraq not against the national interests of Hindu India. India supports the looming US invasion of Iraq, so long as Wahhabi fundamentalists do not sneak into power in Iraq, after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. India will support United States to forcibly dismantle Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, if General Pervez Musharraf’s dictatorial regime falls, and if there is any threat of take over of power by fundamentalists in Pakistan. Even at the cost of limited nuclear exchange, India must never allow the political takeover of nuclear Pakistan by Islamic fundamentalists.

 

25(vii) US Lost Afghan War

(1) Albert Al Gore Blasts Bush on Iraq

Former Vice President Albert Al Gore correctly lamented in Sept 2002 speech at Commonwealth Club in San Francisco that president Bush was now in this high political season pushing for war in order to gain electoral ground for Republican Party and to divert attention from his Administration’s failure against Al Qaeda by attacking “some other enemy whose location might be easier to identify. President Bush is risking his presidency on a war with Iraq because it is the easy thing to do. Al Gore correctly pointed out that vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. Albert Al Gore in essence argued that United States lost the war on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. India agrees with the view of Al Gore that United States has lost the war on Wahhabi Taliban terrorism in Afghanistan. United States lost the war on Afghanistan due to the machinations of the Christian Religious Right Wing Conservative Conspiracy. Senate majority Leader Tom Daschle correctly accused President Bush of conducting a politicized Iraq policy. Robert Byrd, dean of Senate Democrats, correctly charged that Bush’s war strategy seems to have been hatched by a political strategist intent on winning the midterm election at any cost. However, one may point out that had Albert Al Gore been the President on Sept. 11, 2001, he would have rewarded Osama bin Laden rather than punish him, just as President Bill Clinton rewarded terrorist Osama Bin Laden with the Kingdom of Afghanistan in 1995, for allegedly bombing US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. President Bill Clinton overthrew the government of democratically elected Prime Minister Nawaj Sharief of Pakistan, for daring to offer to United States, Pakistan’s total support to capture and extradite Osama Bin Laden from Afghanistan.

 

However, it is wrong to condemn Al Gore’s speech as engaging in slapstick and advocating Neville Chamberlain-style appeasement of Iraq. However, we must not forget that Albert Al Gore represents Christian Religious Right Wing Conservative Conspiracy and president Bush doest not belong to that conservative conspiracy. Albert Al Gore compelled to oppose President Bush’s war on Islamic terrorism and Islamic Atom Bomb, because Christian Religious Right Wing Conservative Conspiracy declared an all out war on President Bush, to undermine Bush’s second term victory during Elections 2004.

 

It is wrong to praise British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s speech in British Parliament as echoing Winston Churchill-style wisdom, steeped in realism and responsibility and maturity. Britain as 2nd rate European power, has no option but to wag its tail at the feet of the Yankee President, simply because Germany and France overshadows Britain in European Union. It greatly pains Indians, who admire British Empire of the past, to see the British Monarch, the head of the Commonwealth of Nations, act as the maid of the German Chancellor and the Yankee President.

 

Failure of the United States to neutralize and prosecute Taliban Wahhabi Sunni terrorists allowed Wahhabi terrorists escaped sure slaughter at the hands of Northern Alliance soldiers and allowed the Taliban terrorists slip into Kashmir under the nose of Pakistan and US military troops. Wahhabi Sunni Muslim terrorist militants, belonging to the Saudi Arabia based Wahhabi religious organizations killed three young women in their homes just days after posters appeared in Thanamandi area of Rajouri district in Jammu division, ordering women to wear the burqa. Two of the women, both aged 21, were shot dead in their house in the Rajouri district on Thursday night, on December 19, 2002. The third woman, 22, was taken away and beheaded. "These killings are linked with the diktat on dress code. We have sent a police party." Posters signed by a little known group, Lashkar-e-Jabbar, an offshoot of the Lashker-e-Taiba, had been appearing in educational institutions in Rajouri district for the past one-week, asking Muslim women and girls to wear burqas and strictly follow the "purdah" system. The outfit has also asked teachers to wear sherwani and threatened to take action against those who did not follow their directions. Should Muslim women given legal powers to prosecute, punish and execute such Wahhabi fundamentalists as attempt to force Muslim women into servitude and bondage? Christian civilizations should militarily intervene throughout Islamic world, especially in Saudi Arabia and Arabian Peninsula to secure for Muslim women the rights that Christian women have in Europe. United Nations should guarantee the rights of Muslim women to convert to Christianity, if they do not want to accept the bondage and servitude that Islam imposes on Muslim women.

 

25(viii) Imperialism of Bush

(1) Germans Called Bush a Hitler

German Justice Minister Herta Daubler-Gmelin, said, “Bush wants to divert its attention from his domestic problems. It’s a classic tactic. It’s one that Hitler also used.” It demonstrated how anti-Americanism has moved to the center of national political debate in Germany. This remark should be evaluated by the underlying public opinion in Germany, which suggests that vast majority of Germans, privately love Hitler and are very proud of Nazi imperialism, and secretly awaiting an opportunity to unleash German expansionism over European Union. The European Unification brought about by German leadership, realizes the imperial goals of the Third Reich. Whenever Germany develops and deploys nuclear arsenal, it would consolidate German domination of European Union. Triumphant Germany has peacefully achieved what German armies failed to achieve in the First World War and the Second World War. Every German, whether Rightist or leftist continues to secretly harbor the ideals that catapulted Hitler into power after the defeat in the First World War. Germany is awaiting the acquisition of nuclear arsenal, before it would galvanize European Union into Empire-making frenzy. Europeans have come to realize that only imperial Germany can lead European Union, from being a concubine of United States to its rightful status as the rulers of New European Empires. Emergent Germany and United European Union heading for a frontal clash with the United States, to demand the rightful place of imperial European Union under the sun. Pro-Papacy European Union heading for a confrontation with Protestant United States, for European spheres of influence in former European colonies. There is great possibility that pro-Nazi political parties may acquire political power in Germany, France, Italy, and Austria before 2015 AD, to unite European Union against the dominance of the United States. If ever European Union becomes hostile competitor to the United States, then Russia might cast its lot on the side of the anti-American European Union.

 

Anti-Americanism will soon move to the center of the national political debate in Germany, France, and Japan, resulting in the continental unification of European peninsula to challenge the dominance of the maritime United States. Whenever continental Europe unites to challenge the dominance of the maritime United States then Russia, China and India may support Europe to clip the wings of the sole super power United States. The reported remark by a German minister comparing president Bush’s tactics over Iraq to those of Hitler envenomed Europe-USA relationship and may transform European Union into principal adversary of the United States in the post Cold War era. Proud descendents of the Nazis cannot play second fiddle to the Yankees. Germany and France are itching to demand their place under the sun. Would Protestant United States go to war against Catholic continental Europe in the looming Third World War?

 

German Catholics unwittingly may have played a big role in the Wahhabi terrorist attacks on the United States on Sept 11, 2001, as Arab Muslims launched these attacks from Hamburg Germany. Did German Catholics co-conspire these Islamic attacks to unleash the outflow of foreign capital from the Wall Street dollars to the Euro? European nations led by British Prime Minister Tony Blair have declared their desire to recreate European colonial empires in the 21st century. European Union’s attempt to recreate European colonial empires would make it principal adversary to the United States. European Union and United States are heading for headlong collision, and the recent remark of German Minster Herta Daubler-Gmelin, comparing Bush to Hitler just the opening move in the global chess played by the major powers.

 

Even Le Monde, the grand old standard-bearer of the French Media, after Sept 11, 2001 declared: “We are all Americans now.” Yet less than a year later the old tensions between the world’s two most important economic entities have resurfaced, and a disturbing degree of bitterness-and incomprehension- has crept back into the relationship.

 

America decided to admit and assume its full role as the solitary superpower. Nuclear Russia realized it had no option but to throw in its lot as the loyal ally. Nuclear China remained largely an irrelevance on the world stage, its huge potential still to be exploited. Nuclear India, the legendary leader of the Non Alignment Movement in the Cold War, dreams to join American Camp, just as it had been in the British Empire, to help create Pax Americana. The European Union is condemned to play second fiddle in an American-led international orchestra, but it does not always agree on the sheet music, let alone how to play it. Europe is torn between co-operation and competition with the US. During the cold war, co-operation was instinctive. The threat of global Islamic terrorism has reinforced the need for a common Christian response.

 

After the terrorist attacks, America made it clear that it would pick its own allies according to the task in hand. The catch phrase in Washington was “coalition of the willing”, which meant in effect “alliances of convenience”. It came as a rude awakening for the European allies. American leadership sees Europe as a rather smug and comfortable backwater in world affairs, which thinks that it has discovered the perfect peace envisioned by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Unwilling to pay for its own defense, European Union is happy to nestle behind the mighty US military shield.

 

(2) Resurgent Germany

To many Germans the Second World War ended when German minister of Justice compared Bush to Hitler, she legitimized the legacy of Adolf Hitler and imperial Third Reich as no different than the hegemon US. It ended the guilt German felt for causing Second World War. German minister of Justice succinctly compared Bush to Hitler. She lost her job in the process, but signaled the emergence of an independent voice in Berlin for the first time since Germany crumbled in World War II. Gerhard Schroeder has won a second term as Chancellor primarily because he upheld Germany’s opposition to what President Bush planned for Iraq. The language of German Chancellor is what Indians used to hear from Nehru, Nasser and Tito. A new voice is rising in Europe. History has many cunning passages, and none more cunning than the rite of passage devised in the recent German election. For the same Germany, which took the world to disaster in the 20th century, is now poised to save the humiliated Europe in the 21st century. Germany expresses the enormous resentment in the European Union over the subordinate role assigned to the EU and even NATO by Washington DC. Till now it had been an impotent rage. German people who by their vote have said a clear and uncompromising ‘No’ to the US claims as a hegemon. German ‘No’ is being echoed in every corner of Europe.

 

Gerhard Schroeder was born after the Nuremberg trials. He is also the first chancellor elected by a united Germany. Free, therefore of the complexes of both defeat and partition, he came up from behind to win an unexpected second term only because he outbid his opponent in the final phase of the campaign in voicing Germany’s warnings against incipient Hitlerism in US foreign policy across the Atlantic. It Hitler’s marching song was, ‘Deutschland uber Alles’ (Germany above everyone else), Gerhard Schroeder’s is ‘Deutschland uber Allies’ (Germany above all other NATO Allies).

 

That this has happened is no coincidence. Germany is most populous (82 million), most prosperous ($25,350 GNP per capita), with largest GNP ($2.079 trillion), third largest in terms of GNP and 5th largest GDP the GNP measured at PPP, large surface area (357,000 sq. kms.). United States and Soviet Union could develop Atom Bomb and missiles only after talented German scientists transferred Hitler’s technology and scientific knowledge to Americans and the Soviets. The new voice of resurgent Germany is a voice that is being shushed. But that it is being voiced at all is a turning point of the highest significance in the 21st Century. For even if the present German squawk does not deter the American hawk, the hegemon has been put on the notice that not all his allies are the push over that Britain is. Bush doctrine has declared that the US as hegemon has the unbridled right to wage wars where he liked, against whom he liked, for whatever cause he wished.

 

Germany under Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is no longer hemmed in, as much by its present as by its past, as it was from Konrad Adenauer to Helmut Kohl. The looming shadow of the Soviet Union has been removed and half the country is no more in hock to the enemy. Russia may turn out to be a friend in the event of any future Germany-USA clash. Germany is thus set to occupy the place for which it has been predestined by its geopolitics, geography, and economy and the immense talent of its people.

 

The Eurasian land mass is stirring. Instead of cravenly submitting to the US quest for global dominance, India now has an option to forge military ties with emerging forces in Europe. India’s diplomatic resources should be redeployed out of London to Brussels, Berlin and Paris, as London is no longer one of the significant diplomatic capitals in the world. President Charles de Gaulle failed in his ambition of making France become an alternative fulcrum of a new world order, because France lacked the economic muscle and political clout. Britain has given up any pretence to independence in foreign policy, when it fondly declared its ‘special relationship’ with Washington, which allows Britain to ride to glory piggyback on the Americans. Germany is the only hope of the Europe. Perhaps Germany would someday develop and deploy nuclear weapons. Nuclear Germany may not be bad for Europe.

 

25(ix) Treason of Globalcrats

(1) Transnational Progressivism Globalthink

The European Union has created a new class of Mandarins in Europe, who do not have any loyalty to any European nation and united by their common interest to undermine the sovereignty of the nation states. The United Nations has created a global mandarin class who are willing to betray the interests of the nations they came from. Papacy ahs developed a class of Clergy and their economic dependents who are loyal to only Pope, not to any nation state. Catholic Mafia, Catholic Cocaine Cartel and Sunni Heroin Mafia ahs developed their own Mandarin class of operatives who are united by their greed and not loyal to any nation state in the world. The growing nexus of the organized religion, organized crime, and organized transnational organizations has created a global class of mandarins who are united by their self-interests and willing to subvert the national interests of the nations they were born in.

 

Transnational Progressivism has emerged as the new menace to the nation states, as its precursor transnational Bolshevik Communism, imperial Fascism and transnational Catholic Church Inquisition of medieval age. In the debate over Iraq, the so-called allied governments of Western Europe are demanding United Nations Security Council’s endorsement of a military campaign- or they are against it. John Fonte of the Hudson Institute reveals in an eye-opening article in the September 2002 issue of the Orbis magazine that the “progressivism has been gaining at the United Nations and other undemocratic institutions. Many Western elites- even more so in Europe than in America- have so internalized this change that they now see the United Nations & Co. as more legitimate on these issues.

 

International bureaucracy emerged as Mandarins promoting the vested interests of the entrenched bureaucracy, ready to undermine the national interests of the nations they represent. The Eurocrats have conspired to undermine the national sovereignty of Britain and other European nation state to promote the vested interests of the transnational Roman Catholic Church. Just as the Catholic clergy are more loyal to the Pope than to the nations they were born in, similarly the Eurocrats of European Union, and bureaucrats of the United Nations like the Mafiosi of the global Mafia, joined forces to subvert the voice of the electorates worldwide, united by their common interests to protect their fiefdoms. Christian Religious Right Conservative Conspiracy, and the Global Drug Cartels, and the bureaucrats of the transnational organizations and religious institutions, developed transnational allegiances to subvert national interests of the nations they were born into.

 

Transnational Progressivism and bureaucratic Leftism represents a throwback to a pre-modern age in Europe, when rulers were un-elected. Today’s transnational bureaucrats, clergy and Mafiosi fill the role of yesteryear’s Kings and Aristocracy. Just as Papacy joined forces with Mafia to destabilize Italian governments, and helped elect a Mafia leader as the Prime Minister of post-war Italy seven times. Transnational Bureaucracy, present grave dangers to the world like militant Islamic terrorism, global crime cartels and global religious fundamentalism, Bolshevik Communism and imperial Fascism. Global organized crime, global organized religion, global organized bureaucracy joined forces to create a new ruling class in the world, chosen and controlled by the nexus alliance of organized crime, organized religion and organized bureaucracy. It is high time that President Bush harnessed the power of the United States to undermine the terrorism unleashed by this unholy global alliance.

 

25(x) Bush's Unilateral Actions

(1) Multilateralism harms US Interests

Today’s America, above all since September 11, is inclined to believe in the well-armed nation state, a doctrine, which underpinned the old European vision of balance of power, as the only guarantee of global stability. The Bush Administration sees the sort of multilateralism espoused by Europe not simply as a tiresome restraint, but as a positive threat to the American national interests.

 

Catholic Religious Right Conservative Conspiracy seeks to overthrow the secular regime in Iraq, to impose barbarian Wahhabi fundamentalism in Iraq. Brother of Saudi King Faisal was the king of Iraq, before Faisal Monarchy overthrown by the CIA-inspired military coup led by Saddam Hussein. Rather than punish the Wahhabi fundamentalist terrorists responsible for 9/11, perhaps President Bush intends to reward Wahhabi fundamentalists with rule over secular, liberal modern Iraq, by invading Iraq. President Clinton and Madeleine Albright under influence of Christian Religious Right Conspiracy forced to reward Wahhabi Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda with domination over Afghanistan in 1996, for their role in bombing US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, and the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Senator Ted Kennedy aptly warned that a war against Iraq could also impede the global war against terrorism. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is the only civilized, liberal, modern challenge to the barbarian, uncivilized Wahhabi Shariah fundamentalism prevailing in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran. Overthrowing secular, modern, civilized and liberal system currently in place in Iraq, would be a great victory for the forces of barbarian, uncivilized, Wahhabi fundamentalism. The real enemy of the civilized United States is Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. India, Russia and China must not allow, imposition of Wahhabi fundamentalist regime in Iraq, after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, because it would mean that United States intends to reward Wahhabi Muslim terrorists for the 9/11 attacks.

 

Clinton Administration politicized Iraq policies back in December 1998, when Bill Clinton- on the eve of the House’s vote to impeach him- suddenly launched a bombing attack against Saddam Hussein. Indeed, Democratic leaders at the time demanded- for the first time since Vietnam- unconditional support for a president’s war-making powers and his ability to launch such attacks without prior congressional approval. It raises doubt that perhaps President Bush declaring its intention to invade Iraq, just to secure electoral victory for Republicans in the Elections 2002, in the times of unprecedented Wall Street scandals. Perhaps president Bush under the pressure of Christian Religious Right Conservative Conspiracy seeks a way out of the declared war on Islamic terrorism.

 

When Senator Lieberman was asked whether President Bush was trying to please the “Far Right,” Lieberman replied he would never have said that and he didn’t believe that. Indeed he said he was grateful that president Bush wants to do this in Iraq. Beyond doubt Christian religious right conspiring to dilute or deflect the Protestant United States’ war on Islamic terrorism, by diverting America towards Iraq. Senator Lieberman is happy as he represents the Religious Right Wing Conservatism.

 

President Bill Clinton and Secretary Madeleine Albright invaded Yugoslavia to divert the media spot light away from the Cox Report that itemized Clinton Administration’s failure to check theft of nuclear weapon designs secrets by Chinese spies in the nuclear weapons labs. Similarly, President Bush invading Iraq to camouflage American failure to capture even a single high-ranking Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan. India beginning to wonder whether United States fighting a war on global Islamic terrorism, or for Islamic terrorism. Are American troops so incompetent that they can’t find and track Wahhabi Arab terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Let alone the Northern Alliance soldiers would have captured and hanged all Arab Wahhabi terrorists in Afghanistan. However, United States denied Northern alliance soldiers right to seal of the escape routes of Wahhabi Taliban terrorists to Pakistan frontiers. Did United States increase its military presence in Afghanistan to provide safe passage to Osama bin Laden and other Wahhabi terrorists? Did Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists buy their freedom and safe passage by bribing the foreign troops with drug money and Heroin? The failure to capture Osama Bin Laden and other Wahhabi terrorists in Afghanistan means either the American troops are incompetent soldiers, or vulnerable to bribes, or were ordered to provide safe passage to Osama Bin laden and other Wahhabi Saudi terrorists by Christian Religious Right Conservative Conspiracy.

 

Had United States given Indian Army the contract to hunt Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda terrorists, India would have done it at one-fifth of the cost to the US tax payers. Without the direct involvement of Indian military, United States would lose the war on Islamic terrorism. Pentagon should invite Indian Army to wage war on global Islamic terrorism to avert Vietnam type defeat in war on terrorism. Only Hindu army can help Christian army defeat the menace of Islamic terrorism. India would support Christian nations, in all their wars on Islamic terrorism, whether on Afghanistan or Iraq. However, India wonders whether United States landed troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight Osama Bin Laden or simply to force Osama bin Laden rejoin the CIA as the agent. India can’t believe that American armed forces are so incompetent that they can’t catch Osama bin Laden. Is United States indulging in diplomacy of deception in its declared war on Islamic terrorism? It would be a great misfortune, instead of overthrowing the barbaric Wahhabi system currently in place in Saudi Arabia, which gave 15 out of 19 hijackers that attacked 9/11, if President Bush decides to overthrow the civilized, modern, liberal social system currently in place in Iraq, and to replace it by Saudi Arabia or Iran type fundamentalist Islamic regime. American people would judge it as lottery fraudulently awarded to those very Wahhabi terrorists that attacked on 9/11. No body can fool American public so much. The Bush doctrine of nuclear counter proliferation, to forcibly disarm Islamic nuclear weapons, must never be misused to impose Wahhabi regimes over secular, modern, liberal Muslim nations.

 

(2) Demonising the Enemy in War

The myths we embrace in order to fight a war are unchanged from when philosopher David Hume wrote about them in 1740: the enemy is cruel and perfidious while we are equitable; the opposing general is a sorcerer who takes pleasure in death while the treachery of our generals we call policy; our cruelty we justify as an evil inseparable from war.

 

We demonize the enemy so that our opponent is no longer human. We view ourselves, our people as the embodiment of absolute goodness. Our enemies invert our view of the world to justify their own cruelty. In most mythic wars this is the case. Each side reduces the other to objects- eventually in the form of corpses. The war that loses its mythic stature, as in the case of US war on Vietnam, and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, then the war is doomed to fail, and the aggressor loses the war, because it has been exposed for the organized slaughter that it is. Semi-civilized Christian nations massacred advance Inca, Maya nations and races in the name of spreading Christian Civilization to pagans. Belgium continued to massacre blacks in Congo in the name of spreading Civilization to barbarian Africa. However, when the rapacity of the Christian colonial power exposed after the Second World War, the white race could not stop the dismantling of the European Colonial Empires.

 

Similarly underlying the 1992 Draft Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) and “ 2002 The National Security Strategy of the United States,” lies the strong belief in the US military power and a Manichean worldview that assumes the United States is fundamentally good. The failure of the United States to punish Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, which financed and provided 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 attacks, and failure to capture even a single Al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan War, makes world suspect that 9/11 even might have been conspired by the West, and the Bush’s War on Islamic Terrorism might be just a façade for a much more ambitious strategy of projecting the US military power around the world, especially in Eurasia, and for the eastward expansion of the NATO to South Asia. It is no accident that the quick military success in Afghanistan was due to the bravery of the Northern Alliance soldiers. American bombing failed to kill many Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists. Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes commented that US bombing in Afghanistan resulted in melting some ice on the mountaintops. Crucial issue is whether Saudi money or Heroin income helped Osama bin Laden and other Arab Wahhabi terrorists buy safe passage in Afghanistan, or United States consciously granted safe passage to Arab Wahhabi terrorists for their possible use to overthrow the Al Saud Monarchy in future?

 

United States could lose its War on Islamic Terrorism, just as it lost Vietnam War, if President Bush’s War on Terror loses its mythic stature, and it gets exposed for the façade for an ambitious strategy of projecting US military power around the Eurasia. The major land powers of the Eurasia, Russia, China and India cannot allow maritime West and sea power United States develop maritime and infantry foothold in South Asia and Central Asia, first time after the invasion of Greek Hindu Emperor Alexander the great.

 

(3) Militant Islam Reaches America

The Bush Doctrine should justify the Clash of Civilization and confrontation with Islam itself, if Wahhabi Arab terrorists continue o threaten United States. President Bush should declare the identity of America’s enemies as terrorist fundamentalist Wahhabi Islamism. Unless United States focuses in the War against Terror on Islamism, and especially on the Wahhabi Islamists in the United States and Saudi Arabia, the America will lose the war on Islamic terrorism.

 

The often-bitter debate that rages in the White House among national security analysts, and traditional foreign-policy practitioners is whether Wahhabi Islam, or Islamism threatened the United States. Who are the real enemy of the United States? The CIA had trained Muslim Mujahideens and Osama bin Laden and followers of Ayatollah Khomeini to impose Islamic states, ruled by Shariah law, over moderate, civilized liberal Muslim states. Wahhabi Saudi Arabia provided finances and 15 of the 19 hijackers that attacked Pentagon and Twin Towers, but United States provided safe passage to all Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists trapped by Northern Alliance troops in Afghanistan.

 

Catholic fundamentalists aligned with Wahhabi Islamism to replace modern, secular societies with theocracies. Papal theology and Wahhabi Islamism are comrade-in-arms, united in their common goals to replace secular democratic societies by priest-led theocracies, and subjugation of women. Catholic Religious Right Conservative Conspiracy even today supports the Islamism and other Islamist groups that am to replace their modern, secular liberal governments with Islamic states, that is, states ruled by Shariah, or Islamic law, as the Islamists defined it. Catholics hope that Christian nations would one day be brought under the control of Pope, just as they had been during Catholic Inquisition and European Dark Age. President Bush should not remain vague about the identity of America’s enemies. When Wahhabi Al-Qaeda Taliban and Saudi Osama bin Laden attacked on 9/11, then how can Wahhabi Saudi Arabia the, womb of evil Wahhabi, counted as friend of the United States?

 

Since the aim of all Islamists and Wahhabi states is to install autocratic, anti-Western theocracies in their quasi-secular countries, it does not matter whether they espouse peaceful or violent methods. Democracy for them is simply another means to an end. Liberal Muslim states must not allow Wahhabi Islamists misuse the democracy to end the democracy itself in their lands. Once in power, Islamists would reject democracy, oppose other theological and intellectual views, restrict rights for women and religious minorities, and ruin the economies of their countries.

 

United States must stop legitimizing the Wahhabi sect of Islam, the source of Islamic terrorism. Only 2% of the a billion Muslims in the world, less than 25 million, support fundamentalist Wahhabi doctrine of Islamism, and they are primarily located in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman. Unless the United States, the West and India focus the war on the Wahhabi Islamists, and especially the Islamists in the United States and Saudi Arabia, the militants will triumph. Complicit in the Islamism’s rise, are the moderate Muslims, who have been silenced by the Wahhabi Islamists, militant terrorists with a combination of carrots and sticks. Saudi Arabia provides financial supports to the militants that intimidate and murder several of their most articulate critics. India and United States should militarily and politically support the articulation of the moderate Islamic voices and it would play a critical role in the Islamism’s defeat.

 

The problem of Islamism and Islamic terrorism is inherent in Islam itself. The unpleasant fact is that no Muslim societies offer their people rule of law, economic development and active civil participation. The Mohajirs of Karachi, Baluchis of Baluchistan, Pathans of NWFP, and Sindhis of Sindh dream for the day Pakistan would rejoin India in a Confederation of South Asia, so that people of Pakistan may enjoy the bliss of freedom of women, democratically elected government and modern civilized laws. Given a chance ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and ex-Prime Minister Nawaj Sharief should explore the possibility of union of Pakistan with India, or otherwise the second partition of Pakistan. Baluchis and Pathans would welcome the secession of Baluchistan and NWFP from Pakistan, and join into a Confederation with Afghanistan, which would allow land-locked Afghanistan and Central Asian states direct outlet to Arabian Sea ports. The secession of Baluchistan and Pakhtunistan from Pakistan would be in the national interests of the United States, as it would allow unfettered outflow of crude oil from Central Asian oil-fields via a pipelines connected to the Baluchistan posts.

 

It is true that only 2% of the Muslims are Wahhabi Islamists, it is true that all Wahhabi Islamists are danger to the freedom of women, democracy, liberty and freedom. In the War on Islamic terrorism, all Wahhabi Muslims unfortunately are suspect. Perhaps ethnic profiling of Wahhabi Muslims may be a lesser evil than otherwise. United States cannot allow the misuse of its freedom for the destruction of the freedom itself.

 

(4) Anticipatory Self-Defense

Every nation has the right of pre-emptive strikes, enshrined in the right of self-defense, says India’s Finance Minister Jaswant Singh. Anticipatory self-defense is not a new concept. Vice President Dick Cheney has crumpled the concepts of pre-emption and preventive wars, with the ringing phrase that the cost of inaction may be greater than the cost of action. Secretary Colin Powell has insisted that there is nothing new here: American history is full of both pre-emptive and preventive military action. The concept of preventive war has often been used as an excuse for naked aggression. There have been instances of justifiable pre-emptive action. President Bush correctly argues that the pre-emptive strikes for nuclear counter proliferation purposes are justified, because the Iraq’s threat of nuclear terrorism is overwhelming. Iraq’s nuclear weapons and components could be used against American allies, including Israel, or shipped to a terrorist for delivery in the United States. Islamic Atom Bomb is an overwhelming military threat to the Western nations, and the only remedy lies in the counter proliferation pre-emptive strikes against all Islamic states that seek nuclear weapons and nuclear components. Pre-emptive military strikes against Saudi Arabia are also justified, because Saudi Arabia has bought a small number of nuclear-weapon capable ready to use missiles from China. India supports the pre-emptive strikes against all Muslim nations, to undertake nuclear counter-proliferation measures to tame and destroy Islamic capabilities to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. Israel also has a right of pre-emptive strikes against Islamic nuclear installations.

 

25(xi) How to define American national Interests?

(1) What is American National Interest?

America is confused about what constitutes US national interest in the post-Cold war age. American system of checks and balances and separation of power resulted in different perceptions about US national interests and there is no unanimity about it. Every new administration that takes office in January after the inauguration, finds itself confused about the very definition of the US national interests. What are the national interests of the United States in post-Cold War world and who defines them? Does the perception of US national interest of Republican administration differs from those of democratic administration? Does the perception of the national interest of the White House differ from that of the Congress? How Bush administration defined US national interests differently from that of Clinton administration? How the Protestants’ perception of national interests differs from that of the Catholics and the Vatican?

 

In the absence of the permanent senior diplomatic cadre at the State Department, every president formulates its own foreign policy. The foreign policy of the successor of President Bush would be different from that of President Bush. In India, Japan, Russia and Britain there is permanent Foreign Service cadre division of the civil service that maintains continuity in the foreign policy. United states follows the spoils system and every new administration brings it own team of bureaucrats and policy makers, allowing every new administration a chance to formulate new foreign policy of the United States. When Secretary of State dr. Henry J. Kissinger left office after the end of Ford administration, he removed almost every major foreign policy document from the files of the State Department, especially related to US-China relations, and it hampered the foreign policy making by Zbigniew Brzezinski. Similarly, Clinton administration didn’t inform the incoming Bush administration about the extent of the threat Bin Laden presented to United States. If the information had been passed on to the incoming administration in clear language, it is likely that 9/11 attacks could be avoided? Departing administrations do not explain the rationale underlying their major foreign policy decisions, hampering the job of the new administration. Secretary Kissinger never explained or justified the reason that United States implanted cannibal Judeo-Communist Pol Pot of Khmer Rouge into power in Cambodia, when United States and France had known about Pol Pot’s anti-Buddhist genocidal agenda from his student days in Paris. Zbigniew Brzezinski and President Jimmy carter never explained the reason for overthrowing the liberal, secular, modern regime of Shah Mohd Riza Pahlevi of Iran, replacing it with the arch fundamentalist regime of Ayatollah Khomeini.

 

Pressure groups and Interest groups help define the perception as well as the definition and articulation of the American National Interests. Foreign powers would be able to influence the definition of US national interests by grafts and campaign donations, even in post-cold war period as happened in post-Vietnam war period. Vatican, Israel, Saudi Arabia and China have perfected the art of influencing the foreign policy of the succession of Republican and Democratic administrations by judiciously controlling the campaign donations, media and simple graft and bribes. Foreign powers that understand the mechanics of American foreign policy formation process gain significant advantage and successfully promote their national interests. The Vatican and Israel influences the US policy making by the dint of the fact that many senior bureaucratic positions in the State Department are held by Catholics and Jews, who have traditionally promoted the religious interests of the Vatican and the national interests of the Israel. Jews and Catholics also control US media and they use media to propagate their interests. Jews and Catholics control the campaign donations, political campaign volunteers and vote banks, and it helped promote their cause. China and Saudi Arabia have specialized in the bribery and graft as the principal instrument for buying political influence and influence over policy making. Saudi Arabia by using grafts and favorable oil deals to American oil companies has won the affection of US State Department, and American capitalism. Vice President Dick Cheney profited by Crude Oil deals in Angola and natural gas deal in Bangladesh. China and Chinese companies doing business in USA pumps hundreds of millions in election campaign and lobbying. Former Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger paid very substantial consulting fees by Chinese companies after he left service at the end of the Ford administration, and it resulted in pro-China coup brought about by Zbigniew Brzezinski during Carter administration. Hindu India should learn from Israel, Vatican, Saudi Arabia and Communist China and learn the art of defining US national interests in pro-India terms, suing campaign donations and grafts and hire powerful Pressure groups and Lobbyists to do it for India. Democratic India handicapped in influencing the white House and the Capitol, because India’s democratic structure would hinder any attempt by the Indian government to use grafts and campaign donations for influencing US foreign policy, which non-democratic regimes could undertake relatively easily. India should set up secret service agency for overseas covert operations on lines of USA’s the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI to buy political influence worldwide, by grafts, bribes, campaign donations and vote banks. India should set up global political organizations and political movements to compete with pro-China leftist movements, pro-Pakistan Islamic movements. India should develop a global network of moderate Shiite Islamic sects, moderate Sunni sects to compete with Saudi Arabia led fundamentalist Wahhabi Sunni militant Islamism. India should study American process and identify the areas where India could influence foreign policy making at the White House. So long as India refuses to participate in the competitive foreign policy making process, White House would continue to neglect India, even when nuclear India is the world’s fourth largest economy in terms of size, and world’s fourth strongest military power.

 

25(xii) National Strategy to Combat WMDs 2002

The six-page document, dubbed "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction," is a joint report from National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge. Although the report does not single out Iraq or any other country, it says some states that support terrorism already possesses weapons of mass destruction. "For them, these are not weapons of last resort, but militarily useful weapons of choice intended to overcome our nation's advantages in conventional forces and to deter us from responding to aggression against our friends and allies in regions of vital interest."

 

President Bush warned potential enemies of United States especially Iraq in December 2002 that United States may under certain circumstances use nukes against the aggressor. United States outlined its policy of Counter Proliferation, Non Proliferation, and Consequence Management in a secret government document. U.S. warned potential enemies, especially Iraq that US Retaliation could include nukes. The policy statement in December 2002 was part of President Bush's effort to deal with threats from rogue nations and terrorists alike. The Bush administration is issuing a reminder of its policy that warns any nation using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies that it will face massive retaliation, perhaps with nuclear weapons. That policy is not new, but senior administration officials say they are laying it out for the first time formally in a strategy document on combating weapons of mass destruction. It's a stern warning at a time when the prospect of war with Iraq has prompted fears that Saddam Hussein will unleash chemical or biological weapons on the United States or its allies. "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force, including through resort to all of our options, to the use of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] by the enemy against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies," the statement reads, in part. "In addition to our conventional and nuclear response and defense capabilities, our overall deterrent posture against WMD threats is reinforced by effective intelligence, surveillance, and interdiction, and domestic law enforcement capabilities," the statement says. United States released strategy statement as part of a post-September 11 efforts to deal with threats from rogue nations and terrorists alike. "It's the first time you're seeing a complex strategy to deal with a complex threat." "What USA talking about now is a different kind of deterrence, as USA not deterring a single enemy?"

 

The strategy is comprised of three "pillars", (a) Counter-Proliferation, (b) Non Proliferation, and (c) Consequence Management. Counter-proliferation, which includes deterrence with the threat of nuclear weapons; nonproliferation, which encourages arms control and reduction; and consequence management, which seeks to prepare the United States in the event of an attack using weapons of mass destruction. The last such statement of U.S. policy was issued in 1993 but did not include an emphasis on non-proliferation or preparedness at home. The document called for improved intelligence collection and analysis, extensive research and development to create protection against weapons of mass destruction, and targeted strategies for each regime posing a threat. A few months ago, key government agencies were assigned practical tasks to carry out some of the policies. The classified directives were "substantial." India has no option but to develop the nuclear doctrine that warns of nuclear retaliation against Pakistan in the event of any nuclear adventurism by Pakistan.

 

25(xiii) Demise of NATO

(1) NATO Alliance’s Definitive End

America’s Iraq War resulted in the rejuvenation of Non Aligned Nations’ Movement and United Nations and brought the NATO Atlantic alliance to a definitive end. President Bush’s military adventurism to establish oil colony, caused the demise of the trans-Atlantic NATO Alliance between United States and Europe and now onwards the diplomatic behavior between United States and Europe would be governed by the Raison d’etat and America-Europe balance of power considerations. Pentagon’s victory in Iraq created the Neo-Concert of Europe, and now onwards Germany, France, Belgium and Russia would pool their diplomatic assets to hold America in check, India most likely would join anti-American coalition led by Germany, France and Russia, if France and Russia remained serious in their opposition to American Oil colonialism in Iraq. The post-World War II Atlantic Alliance, the NATO met with a de facto death on April 10, 2003, the Day after American forces took control over Baghdad Iraq. “Although France, Germany and Russia could not stop the war against Iraq, they ultimately denied Washington the legitimacy of UN backing, making the war in Iraq an especially risky gamble. The diplomatic divide that has opened between the US and continental Europe is bringing the Atlantic alliance to a definitive end. The central question facing European policy-makers and US is thus not how to repair the transatlantic relationship but whether the end of alliance will take the form of an amicable separation or a nasty divorce. The former is far preferable in that it keeps open the possibility of revived co-operation down the road, but it will take a great deal of hard work by Americans and Europeans alike. But now that the Atlantic alliance is expiring, an Atlanticist Europe is no longer an option. France and Germany have realized as much - one of the main reasons they are discussing with Belgium deeper defense co-operation. The European Union is currently in a no-man's-land. It is too strong to be Washington's lackey, but too weak and divided to be either an effective partner or a formidable counterweight. The Atlantic alliance now lies in the rubble of Baghdad. Before it is too late, Washington must rediscover the principles of restraint, multilateralism and alliance. Otherwise, estranged allies will become outright adversaries, and Europe will have no reason even to contemplate working on its end of a new bargain.” The Financial Times (4/10/03, p13, Professor Charles Kupchan, “The Atlantic Alliance Lies in the Rubble” Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University, Washington DC). Iraq war brought NATO to a definitive end. France, Germany and Russia revealed that they are ready for Europe without United States. It is high time that White House should cast aside NATO in spirit as well as in fact, and withdraw its troops from NATO bases in Germany and Belgium. The NATO as we know would no longer survive. If Britain, Spain and Italy continued to support United States and NATO, then it would cause irreparable damage to the European Union. Britain, Spain and Italy would have to choose between continued military Alliance with United States or European Union. The enlarged-NATO could get split into Pro-US Camp and Anti-US Camp and the European members of the anti-France pro-US camp might have to decide whether they should continue being member of the European Union.  

 

(2) Germany France as Outright Adversaries

NATO Alliance showed its true color to Germany and France that the purpose of Cold War NATO had been to disintegrate French Empire and to keep Germany divided and militarily weak and under control. United States undermined French Empire in Indo-China, Algeria and Syria. President Bush targeted Iraq to undermine the increased influence of German, French and Russian oil companies in Iraq and their fierce competition to American Oil companies in Post-Embargo Iraq. European and American security is no longer indivisible. White House should oblige, and cast aside the NATO alliance in spirit, if not also in fact. It is clear that shifting priorities necessitate a diminished US presence in Europe. Germany, France and Belgium would not endorse the entry of Poland into the European Union. Poland and many of the former Soviet satellites might decide to forego the entry of the European Union to cement their military ties with United States, because Germany and France might agree for the Second Yalta Pact with Russia, which would allow Russia to takeover Eastern Europe. Once Russia developed security ties with Germany and France, the Germany and France could be tempted to sign away the sovereignty to Russia to ward off hostile moves of the United States. It would be prudent for the former Soviet satellites to withdraw their application for Union with European and seek membership of the expanded NAFTA Agreement to increase their immigration prospects in United States and exports to United States. The Warsaw and other like-minded capitals should give primacy to the threat of Russian conquest of Eastern Europe, which only an alliance with United States would neutralize. The political, military and economic interests of extended European Union and conflict with those of the extended NATO. United States should propose the dissolution of the NATO and remove its military bases from Western Europe and replace with a new military pact with Britain and Eastern Europe and some the East European countries, Poland and others, should withdraw their application for the membership of European Union. Poland, Czech, Slovakia and Hungary should sign separate defense Pact with United States and apply for the membership of NAFTA instead. The pro-American Central and East European countries should join New NATO and act as the Buffer between Western Europe and Russia, and should give precedence to the national security over economic prosperity. Anti-European European Union led by France and Germany would never be able to deter Soviet military pressures on Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic. India should join the Eurasian Military Pact with France, Germany, and Belgium. France and Germany are discussing deeper defense co-operation with Belgium. India would bring lots of value to the Germany-France Alliance. India, Germany, France and Belgium defense pact would deter Russian adventurism in Europe and neutralize America’s preponderance in Europe. France, Germany and India Alliance would create the Second Pole in the new world order and neutralize America’s preeminence.

 

(3) World Obeyed Uncompromising Bush

The fact that almost the entire Islamic world and Western Christian readily got in line to follow the diktat of uncompromising Bush over America’s war on Iraq, should not be lost sight of just because President Chirac successfully mobilized Germany, Belgium, Russia, China and India to ultimately denied White House the legitimacy of UN backing. The entire Islamic world and the Christian world accepted the raison d’etre of the new age of Oil colonial empires. President Bush operated under the false assumption that the more powerful the US is, and the more uncompromising its leadership, the more readily the Western Europe, Russia and India will get in line. But the opposite has transpired. President Bush's swagger appeared determined at home, but in Western Europe, India, China and Russia it smacked of arrogance, pax Americana and WASPs dream of the world conquest by controlling the oil resources of Arabian Gulf and Caspian Central Asia. Far from evoking deference and abject submission to the world’s sole super power, the President Bush’s policy of pre-emption and pre-eminence invited resentment and resistance of France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, China and India. President Bush correctly believed that more powerful the US is, and the more uncompromising its leadership, the Arab world, Islamic world, Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, Britain, Spain, Italy, Central America, Hispanic America and Southeast Asia will get in line. Most of the Islamic world, Catholic world and Protestant world humbly got in line and supported President Bush’s War on Iraq. Leaders of the Islamic world, Turkey, Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Oman, Malaysia, and Brunei fully supported President Bush’s war on Iraq. Except France, Germany, Belgium, Canada and Mexico the entire Protestant and Catholic Christian world and East European and Central European Orthodox Christian world wholeheartedly supported the Christian America’s invasions of Muslim Iraq. The entire Non-Aligned world with the sole exception of India, Syria, Iran, Libya and Algeria supported the President Bush’s war on Iraq. Had France not taken the lead to oppose President Bush, the rest of the world would have consented to accord muted consent to the American colonial aggression of Iraq? But for the determined opposition of French President Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, President Bush would have established the diplomatic precedent that the more powerful the dominant superpower is, and the more uncompromising its leadership, the more readily the rest of the world will get in line. For the good of the world, president Chirac faced with the political threat of the French Far Right and the rising stature of presidential candidate Le Pen, by proving to the French public that he is good enough to face United States in the eye and lead the world in crusade against America’s invasion of Iraq. President Bush’s strategic misconceptions tore down the NATO and the Atlantic Community, and the Western Christendom split into two hostile Camps.

 

(4) Now Almost Totally Obsolete NATO

Bolshevik menace created NATO and American Oil Colonialism would cause the demise of Atlantic Partnership and NATO. Oil colonial interests would force Germany and France opt out of US-led NATO to promote French Oil colonialism as well as German Oil colonialism. The NATO became Now Almost Totally Obsolete in the age of Oil Colonialism, because the oil interests of France, Germany and Belgium directly conflicts with the oil interests of United States and Britain in the Middle East and coincide with the oil interests of Russia, China, Japan and India. Is NATO “Now Almost Totally Obsolete?” The diplomats question whether NATO, after its recent roller coaster history, can survive such a high profile public spat and whether it is going to retain any relevance if and when an Iraqi war begins or in future wars of American oil colonialism in other oil-producing countries? Can one lift NATO's political profile at a time when many despaired that the initials were coming to stand for "Now Almost Totally Obsolete?" Washington's had sidelined NATO post September 11, 2001, because America’s war on Afghanistan camouflaged American Oil Colonialism, and America didn’t want to share its oil loot with its NATO partners.

 

Henry Kissinger declared that the revolt led by France, Germany and Belgium in NATO over Iraq crisis is "the gravest in the Atlantic alliance since it was formed." NATO faces "a crisis of credibility. And there are rumbles in the Pentagon undergrowth suggesting that this could be the beginning of the end for NATO. Will it be? Certainly there is great anger among the other 16 NATO members about the conduct of the three. The internal debates in NATO had been heated.

 

(5) Oil War & NATO Demise

America’s Iraq War resulted in the rejuvenation of Non Aligned Nations’ Movement and United Nations and brought the NATO Atlantic alliance to a definitive end. President Bush’s military adventurism to establish oil colony, caused the demise of the trans-Atlantic NATO Alliance between United States and Europe and now onwards the diplomatic behavior between United States and Europe would be governed by the Raison d’etat and America-Europe balance of power considerations. Pentagon’s victory in Iraq created the Neo-Concert of Europe, and now onwards Germany, France, Belgium and Russia would pool their diplomatic assets to hold America in check, India most likely would join anti-American coalition led by Germany, France and Russia, if France and Russia remained serious in their opposition to American Oil colonialism in Iraq. The post-World War II Atlantic Alliance, the NATO met with a de facto death on April 10, 2003, the Day after American forces took control over Baghdad Iraq. “Although France, Germany and Russia could not stop the war against Iraq, they ultimately denied Washington the legitimacy of UN backing, making the war in Iraq an especially risky gamble. The diplomatic divide that has opened between the US and continental Europe is bringing the Atlantic alliance to a definitive end. The central question facing European policy-makers and US is thus not how to repair the transatlantic relationship but whether the end of alliance will take the form of an amicable separation or a nasty divorce. The former is far preferable in that it keeps open the possibility of revived co-operation down the road, but it will take a great deal of hard work by Americans and Europeans alike. But now that the Atlantic alliance is expiring, an Atlanticist Europe is no longer an option. France and Germany have realized as much - one of the main reasons they are discussing with Belgium deeper defense co-operation. The European Union is currently in a no-man's-land. It is too strong to be Washington's lackey, but too weak and divided to be either an effective partner or a formidable counterweight. The Atlantic alliance now lies in the rubble of Baghdad. Before it is too late, Washington must rediscover the principles of restraint, multilateralism and alliance. Otherwise, estranged allies will become outright adversaries, and Europe will have no reason even to contemplate working on its end of a new bargain.” The Financial Times (4/10/03, p13, Professor Charles Kupchan, “The Atlantic Alliance Lies in the Rubble” Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University, Washington DC). Iraq war brought NATO to a definitive end. France, Germany and Russia revealed that they are ready for Europe without United States. It is high time that White House should cast aside NATO in spirit as well as in fact, and withdraw its troops from NATO bases in Germany and Belgium.

 

(6) NATO promotes US Oil Colonialism

The principle military objective of the US-led NATO, after its expansion to include East European countries became the use of military power to establish American oil colonies in direct competition with the rival oil colonialism of German-French Big Oil. In the perception of American Oil Colonialism the scramble for oil colonies made France, Germany, Belgium and Italy greater a threat to the American oil interests than the Soviet threat to America during Cold War. The NATO as it existed at the end of the 2nd Millennium, with Germany and Italy as its anchor in Western Europe became anachronistic after the entry of former Soviet satellite countries into NATO and after the America’s conquest of Iraq to establish American Oil Colony over Iraq. America no longer needed the bases in Germany and Italy, when Poland, Bulgaria and other East European countries provide better bases and cheaper military personnel to serve in the NATO. France, Germany, Belgium and Italy emerged as the competitor and challengers to the American Oil colonialism, after America waged wars to establish American oil colony over Iraq. In the perception of American Big Oil the oil interests of France, Germany, Belgium and Italy presented greater threat to the American national interests than Russia and China.

 

Global Oil Interests would cement alliance of Eurasian lands powers, namely, France, Germany, Russia, China, India and Japan to tame and neutralize American Oil Colonialism in the Middle East, Caspian Central Asia and Southeast Asia. France, Germany and Belgium have all ingredients to emerge as the oil super Power and establish European oil colonies in the Middle East, and directly confront American Oil Colonialism in the Middle East, provided they gain diplomatic support of Russia, China and Japan. France, Germany, Russia and Japan would form Oil Pact to establish Oil Colonies in competition with American Oil colonialism in the Middle East and worldwide. Scramble for Oil started it all. Germany, Vincy France and Japan started the World War II to secure colonies and colonial market for their manufactured goods. The alliances for World War II would resemble the alliances of World War II. Since Germany no longer in any position to invade Russia, outflanking Eastern Europe, after East Europeans joined NATO, Russian oil interests would join forces with French, German and Japanese oil interests to create the Great Power alliance of France, Germany, and Russia to challenge the march of American Oil Colonialism in the Middle East and Caspian Central Asia. America’s greed for Iraqi oil would lead to the demise of NATO and removal of American military bases from Germany.

 

The 19th Century Anglo-French colonial Wars resurrecting in 21st Century as French German challenge to American Oil Colonialism in the new age of Colonial Empires. The Third World War would witness the coalition of the Second World War. The oil-dependent Germany, France and Japan may join their forces to challenge the onward march of American Oil Colonialism to save the oil-producing world from Yankee Oil Colonialism. NATO became the casualty of the naked American oil colonialism in Iraq. It is high time that US-led NATO is dismantled and European union established European Defense Forces independent of American presence in Europe. Germany would ask America to vacate American military bases from German soil and to remove Pershing nuclear missiles from German soil. Japan may also demand that United States vacate American military bases from Japan. Germany, Japan and France would develop credible nuclear deterrent to deter any hostile American nuclear threats to Germany, France and Japan.

 

Even before it has started, President George W. Bush's threatened war against Iraq has caused political casualties in Atlantic Alliance and European Union. It has soured relations between Washington and Gerhard Schroeder’s Berlin and Jacques Chirac’s Paris. It made nonsense of any notions of a coherent European security and defense policy. And it has raised a serious question mark over the future of NATO. France, Belgium and Germany refused to agree despite three weeks of pressure to do so that NATO should begin planning for assistance to Turkey in the event of an Iraqi war, with AWACS surveillance planes, Patriot anti-missile defenses and protection units against chemical and biological warfare.

 

France, Germany and Belgium have the oil exploration technology and required capital for establishing oil refineries and oil pipelines and fully prepared to confront American Oil Colonialism in the scramble for Oil Colonies in the 21st Century. France and Germany would work towards the demise of NATO because the US-led NATO promotes the imperial interests of American Oil Colonialism and harms the French colonial interests. NATO has faced crises before and survived, because Germany and France were not prepared to challenge the American Oil colonialism in face of looming soviet Bolshevik threat. And the row over the assistance for Turkey has to be seen in context. The challenge of France and Germany is a matter of sharing the oil loot and timing, not principle of protecting the sovereignty of oil-producing nations. All agree that the conflict in NATO is the crucial issue about sharing the oil loot with fellow European partners in Atlantic alliance. France, Germany and Belgium do not want NATO committed to a mindset of war of oil colonialism, where only American Big Oil makes all the profits, while Germany and France would lose all the lucrative oil deals they signed with Saddam Hussein. They all agree that if Western dominance of the Middle East Oil were to face a real threat Germany and France would be among the first at their fellow NATO member's side.

 

Germany and France had opposed expansion of NATO to include former Soviet satellite countries. President Bush pushed through the membership of East European and Central European countries in NATO hoping it would undermine the leadership of France and Germany in European Union, just as the selection of Bolshevik Polish Bishop as Pope John Paul II undermined the German, French and Italian influence over Vatican government and increased the role and influence of American Bishops in the Vatican. The NATO summit in Prague in November 2002 had been predicted to be a disaster. But instead it saw the alliance emerge with seven more eastern European members to add to the existing 19. America wanted the seven new members to join US-led NATO to undermine the Paris-Berlin axis that dominated the European Union. The NATO member governments, whom the U.S. has long been chivvying to beef up their defense spending, promised to step up capabilities. NATO agreed to create a 20,000-strong Rapid Response Force, a very sharp new tool in the NATO toolbox, able to go very quickly and to hit very hard where there is a security interest. But now with the prospect of an Iraq conflict looming, the NATO roller coaster seems ready for another downward plunge, which could result in the demise of Atlantic Alliance, making post Cold War world order resemble the coalition during Second World War. Cash-strapped European governments seem already to have forgotten their Prague 2002 promises and are once again raiding their defense budgets. And European military money is still not well spent. The $150 billion European defense budget is a "waste of money: There are two million troops in uniform in Europe, half a million more than the Americans, but only a fraction are deployable.

 

America Oil Colonialism wanted to use NATO to legitimize and camouflage America’s naked oil imperialism in Iraq, under the veneer of respectability, but American Oil Colonies would not share its oil profits with its allies in European Union, especially the former oil powers, namely, France, Belgium and Germany. New fears and challenges emerge. Once again, as George Bush and Tony Blair seek to prod a largely reluctant world into an assault on Saddam Hussein, questions are being raised about what NATO's role should be or whether it really has a meaningful one at all.

 

American Oil Colonialism replaced Bolshevism as the greatest menace facing France, Germany and Belgium in the 21st Century. The economic prosperity of France, Germany and Japan threatened by the American monopoly over Middle East Oil and American colonization of oil-rich Iraq. In the 21st Century the scramble for Oil Colonies determine International politics, not the Capitalism Vs Bolshevism divide of the Cold War. Its problem is that in the new world, the threat to European Union is not the fear of Soviet tanks rolling across Western Europe. It comes instead from American Oil Colonialism, and from Middle East’s insecure borders, ethnic and religious conflicts, Wahhabi terrorism and proliferation of WMDs. Individual NATO members have played their part in the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban since September 11 2001, but they go no shares of the oil loot that American Oil Colonialism takes home, because of America’s control over oil-producing OAPEC nations.

 

France, Germany and Belgium decided to carve out independent diplomacy for European Union in competition with American Oil Colonialism, to directly promote European Oil Colonies in the Middle east and Caspian region, with support of Russia, China and Japan. So the question for Gerhard Schroeder, Jacques Chirac, Tony Blair and the other leaders in Europe is: Just what is NATO to become in the age of Oil Colonial Empires? Should members of NATO alliance support American Oil imperialism without securing any share of the oil incomes that American Oil Colonies would generate after establishing American Oil Colony in Iraq, Venezuela, and Iran? Why should France, Germany and Belgium support American Oil Colonialism, when American oil colonialism would use its monopoly over oil resources to undermine French and German economic advantages over America?

 

US-led NATO in November 2002 crossed the Rubicon and declared its imperial ambitions to promote American Oil colonialism in Middle East and Caspian region, but failed to offer fellow European powers, their fair share of the oil loot that American Oil companies would make as the result of NATO imperialism. In Prague November 2002 the NATO alliance seemed finally to shed all its old inhibitions about being a defense force confined to a traditional area, and touted its imperial ambitions to patrol and occupy the oil-producing Caspian basin and Middle East. It seemed ready to take on an "out of area" worldwide role to establish American Oil colonies, and fighting terrorists or coping with failed states seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. NATO crossed the Rubicon and committed to a role in Afghanistan supporting ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force, to secure American control over Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India Oil-gas pipeline to bring Turkmenistan gas to consumers in India. And yet all the old uncertainties about what it is for seem to be creeping back, because American Big Oil colonialism not prepared to share oil profits with France, Germany and Belgium. Germany, France and Japan may go to war against United States, may be in alliance with Russia to secure direct colonial control over oil-producing Arab nations in opposition to American oil imperialism in the Middle East.

 

Will NATO develop that new dimension or from a military alliance for fighting wars? Will it turn itself into a political organization for the propagation of democracy and market economics and the extension eastward of western-style democracy? As they squabble over the best way of coping with Saddam Hussein's weapons program. Chirac, Blair and Schroeder have to decide, because the key question is whether the European nations in NATO will be willing to find and fund the special troops, the smart weapons and the heavy lift capacity, which will be required to make the new multinational rapid response force a reality over the next two years. Many doubt if they can do that at the same time as launching the new 60,000 strong rapid reaction force, which the European Union has been trying to put together. There is an obvious shortage of political will. The United States is becoming increasingly frustrated with European defense spending levels. The Europeans who used to see NATO as a useful means of keeping the United States involved in the defense of Western Europe against Soviet juggernaut, became steadily less enamored of President Bush led American Oil imperialism. France, Germany and Belgium see Bush’s White House as unilateralist and too much inclined to throw its weight around in the world, to establish American oil colonies worldwide, without offering its Atlantic partners a fair share of the Oil Booty.

 

The oil interests of Germany, France, Belgium, Russia and Japan coincide and conflicts with the oil interests of United States. Germany and France the allies of the second World War have now decided that it is high time to break ties with United States, because the oil interests and national interests of France and Germany diametrically conflicts with those of the American Oil colonialism. Main part of the motivation for the row in NATO over Franco-German efforts to postpone a war against Iraq stem from the refusal of "Old Europe" to accept American agenda and timetable of action for expanding American Oil colonialism in the Middle East, which was dictated to Paris and Berlin by Washington. United States goaded ‘New Europe’ the former Soviet colonies in the Eastern Europe, who have decided to choose United States not Germany and France as their new masters, to join forces and undermine German and French leadership of European Union. American wants to become the paramount power in European Union by bringing down the leadership of Germany and France in European Union.

 

In early 1970’s the Sino-Soviet rift was real and was expertly exploited by Dr. Henry Kissinger and President Nixon. Similarly, the clash of Oil interests caused real and permanent rift between America and its Atlantic partners, namely, France, Germany and Belgium. Russian President Putin should replicate the diplomacy of détente and entente that Kissinger and Nixon deployed to widen the Sino-Soviet rift and secure Sino-US strategic alliance, by offering France, Germany and Japan full Russian support for Eurasian Oil Pact to directly confront American Oil Colonial Empire in the Islamic oil-producing world. It does raise questions over NATO's future. But the NATO alliance has survived past rows over Suez, and over the deployment of U.S. missiles in Germany and over France's withdrawal in 1966 from the NATO integrated military command. NATO will probably survive the latest one too. But if NATO is to have a future, the initiative may have to be provided partly by those from Eastern Europe who have recently joined the alliance and those who are still queuing up to do so. They perhaps are the last remaining enthusiasts for an old-style NATO, which, with their political history, former Soviet satellite states see as an essential protection, against the future Westward march of the future Russian Empire. But East Europeans and Central Europeans do not have enough clout to do much about German and French leadership in the European Union. France has hinted that French Parliament would not approve the membership of such new East European and Central European states in the European Union that supported America and opposed France and Germany over Iraqi stalemate in NATO. Army of dogs can’t successfully attack and turn away a single lion. East Europeans and Central European nations have no military and economic power to make any material contribution to NATO.

 

It is best for Europe that NATO is given ceremonial burial and new alliance should replace NATO. Germany, France, Belgium, India and Japan should formalize Eurasian pact to establish rival Oil colonial empire to check the hegemony of American Oil colonial empire. The NATO is headed for demise and the oil interests and national interests of France, Germany and Belgium conflicts with the national interests and oil interests of American Oil Colonialism. The scramble for gold fueled the expansion of post-1500 European colonial empires. The scramble for black gold, the crude oil and natural gas shall fuel the clash of Oil colonial empires in the 21st Century. France, Germany, Belgium the Old European colonial Powers would resurrect their great power role as Oil Colonial Powers in the 21st century and Russia, China, Japan and India would join their bandwagon to jointly tame and neutralize the American Oil Colonialism, which threatens the return of the New Age of Colonial Empires in the 21st Century. The crude Oil and Natural gas would finance and legitimize the Concert of World Powers and recreate the Congress System that 1814 congress of Vienna Created, and the concert of eight world powers, namely, United States, China, Japan, India, Germany, France, Britain, Russia and Canada would create stable new world order and maintain peace during the clash of Oil Colonial empires in the 21st Century.

 

 

 

 

© 2006 Copyrights All Rights Reserved Author: KALKI GAUR

Kalki Gaur Books are as follows:

Kalki Gaur, “GLOBAL CLASH OF RACES” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “DIPLOMACY OF CIVILIZATIONS” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “MANIFESTO OF NEOCONSERVATISM” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “HINDU HOLY GITA – MOKSA VIA RELIGIOUS WARS” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “DA VINCI CODE AS CLASH OF RELIGIONS” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “GLOBAL CLASH OF RELIGIONS” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “GNOSTIC BIBLE” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “POPULIST MANIFESTO” (2006)

The complete text of 5,000 pages of Books by Kalki Gaur available for free download at following Kalki Blogs for academic and non-commercial usage.

http://360.yahoo.com/gaurkalki   ; 

http://360.yahoo.com/clashofreligions  ; 

http://360.yahoo.com/diplomacyofcivilizations  ; 

http://clearblogs.com/kalkigaur/  ; 

http://kalkigaur.blogstream.com/  ;

http://my.opera.com/kalkigaur/blog/  ;

http://my.opera.com/kalkitv/blog/  ;

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/  ;

http://diplomacyofcivilizations.blog.com/  ; 

http://kalki.newsvine.com/

http://kalkimail.googlepages.com/

http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/

© 2006 Kalki Gaur Copyrights All Rights Reserved, Email: kalkimail@gmail.com