26

DIPLOMACY OF RAISON D'ETAT REALISM IN 21ST CENTURY - Chapter 26 - KALKI GAUR

Chapter 26

Diplomacy of Raison d’etat Realism in 2003

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

26(0) Purport

(1) Asia is the Future and Europe is Old

One. There is neither a Catholic world power in the world nor theee is any likelihood of any Catholic nation joining the ranks of world powers any time in the 21st Century. 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. 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.

Two. 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. India is a natural leader of Asia, as Japan has grown old and faced demographic decline and Communist China led by corrupt Han politicians and may break up into feuding fiefdoms.

Three. There is no Islamic world power in the world. Neither Saudi Arabia, nor any other Islamic oil power is a world power. 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.

 

Four. United States, China and India are destined to be the leading world powers throughout the 21st Century and no other power can gatecrash in to the ranks of he top three world powers. The clash of civilizations in the 21st Century requires Troika of USA, China and India to lead the world, as by 2050 the GNP of top 4 economies in the world shall be: China, USA, India and Japan, and the GNP of India shall be four times the GNP of Japan.

 

(2) Sustainable Balance of Concert of Asia

One. The de Richelieu Raison d’etat advocates the Balancer to enter into an alliance with Second Power in the continental balance of power. United States cemented strategic ties with India, the power next to China in the triangular balance of power. The de Richelieu Raison D’etat Concert of Asia, seeking a sustainable triangular continental Asian Balance of Power, among China, India and Japan with United States as the maritime Balancer shall maintain peace in Asia and realize the dream of Century of Asia. The post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe (1815-1914) maintained peace in Europe between several European powers with Britain as a Balancer.

 

Two. The World War II became a reality because the Western powers ganged against Nazi Germany that made Feuhrer paranoid. The United States and India do not want to encircle China but want to control and check the hegemonistic tendencies in China, by convining China that USA-India side of the triangular balance is heavier than China, so China woul harbour any imperialistic dreams only at its own peril. India would not enter into any major war with China across common frontiers as China and India belong to a common Hindu-Buddhist Civilization. The strategic goal of Bush-Rice foreign policy is to create a sustainable balance of power in Asia, so Asian countries can continue to liberalize, progress and develop in the 21st Century of Asia. If the focus of USA-India strategic ties in Asia is containment of rising China vis-à-vis the United States and India, the historic model is Europe circa 1914, with China in the role of Germany.

 

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

 

Four. The Triangular Balance of power in Asia requires United States should undertake preemptive attacks to demilitarize nuke-seeking Iran. The Concert of Asia would permit all three world powers, namely, China, India and Japan to have their own Petro-Colonial Empires to enhance their energy security and lower their oil imports bills.

 

(3) Dr. Rice follow Richelieu’s Raison D’etat

One. Secretary Condoleezza Rice is Diplomat Richelieu of the 21st Century and she rejected the misguided realism of Secretary Kissinger. Secretary Kissinger was the Vietnam era Richelieu working for Papacy, who put Richelieu’s Raison D’etat upside down. While Richelieu used Raison D’etat principle to counterbalance Pope’s designs to undermine secular authority of Kings, Secretary Kissinger misused Richelieu’s Raison D’etat to secretly promote Pope’s agenda through foreign policy apparatus of the White House camouflaged as balance of power realism. Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretary Madeleine Albright continued to misuse Richelieu’s balance of power doctrine to implement inverse Raison D’etat to promote Pope’s hidden agenda misusing the foreign policy apparatus of the White House.

 

Two. Republican Neo-Conservatism rejects former Secretary Dr. Henry Kissinger’s claim that the diplomacy he pursued represented realism as defined by Richelieu’s Raison D’etat, because Secretary Kissinger implemented the hidden religious agenda of amoral iconoclast patriarchy in garb of Realism. While Cardinal Richelieu opposed Papal designs in the 30-year Counter Reformation Wars and subordinated the Papal Catholic interests to the national interests of France, Secretary Kissinger promoted anti-Buddhism Papal interests in Cambodia, Laos and South Vietnam to the detriment of national interests of the United States. Secretary Zbigniew sacrificed national interests of the United States to promote Papal monotheist interests by overthrowing Shah of Iran to impose the theocracy of Ayatollah Khomeini. Secretary Madeleine Albright sacrificed the national interests of the United States when she promoted Papal interests to disintegrate Slave Orthodox Yugoslavia to engineer the secession of Catholic Slovenia and Catholic Croatia from Yugoslavia.

 

Three. The diplomacy of Kissinger-type Realism, pursued by Secretary Kissinger, Secretary Brzezinski and Secretary Albright during the administrations of Presidents Ford, Carter and Clinton promoted the national interests of the iconoclast patriarchal Vatican at the cost of the national interests of the United States. Secretary Condoleezza Rice is a true Realist in terms of the Richelieu’s Raison D’etat. Secretary Rice’s Realism rejected the Kissinger-type Realism, because the realism of Raison D’etat requires that Diplomat must not use the foreign policy to promote any hidden iconoclast patriarchal religious agenda. Raison D’etat requires that foreign policy conduct of a Diplomat must only promote the national interests of a nation, and must never use the foreign policy apparatus of a nation for promoting the interests of a Church or Papacy, even when the interests of Papacy may coincide with that of the State. Secretary Kissinger followed the policy of Balance of Power but misinterpreted the Realism. Secretary Kissinger put upside down the Richelieu doctrine of Raison D’etat and used it to promote the religious interests of the Papacy and religious right conservative conspiracy but justified it in terms of the balance of power interests of the United States. In nutshell the foreign policies of Secretary Kissinger, Secretary Brzezinski and secretary Albright used the Richelieu’s doctrine of Realism to promote the religious interests of the Papacy and religious right conservative conspiracy, but used the Richelieu’s doctrine of Balance of Power to justify the implementation of hidden religious agenda through the foreign policy apparatus of the White House. In short Secretary Kissinger, Secretary Brzezinski and Secretary Albright acted as the agents of the Pope inside the White House and caused great harm to the national interests of United States defined in terms of secular power. When policies of Secretaries Kissinger-Brzezinski-Albright judged in terms of secular national interests defined in terms of national power then they might have inadvertently committed high treason against the United States, as they misused the infrastructure of the United States to promote the hidden agenda and interests of the religious right conservative conspiracy and Papacy. These are the arguments author makes in this chapter.

 

26(1) Talk Points

 

(1) SUSTAINABLE CONCERT OF ASIA: One. The post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe (1815-1914) maintained peace in Europe between several European powers with Britain as a Balancer. The strategic goal of Bush-Rice foreign policy is to create a sustainable balance of power in Asia, so Asian countries can continue to liberalize, progress and develop in the 21st Century of Asia. If the focus of USA-India strategic ties is containment of rising China vis-à-vis the United States and India, the historic model is Europe circa 1914, with China in the role of Germany. If the geopolitical balance of power focus is widened out to include Hindu India and Buddhist Japan along with Buddhist China, then the more congenial Asian balance of power might be Europe circa 1815, with a stable balance of power between several Asian world powers, throughout next 100-years of the 21st Century and the Protestant United States as balancer as Britain was during Concert of Europe (from 1815 to 1914), with very little cost to Christian United States.

 

(2) RAISON D’ETAT AND BALANCE OF POWER: Two. With the concept of unity under Papacy, the emerging states of Europe needed some principle to justify their foreign policy independent of Papacy. Cardinal de Richelieu, the First Minister of Catholic France found it in the concepts of Raison d’etat and the balance of power. Each depended on the other. Raison d’etat asserted that the well being of the state justified whatever means were employed to further it. The national interest supplanted the medieval papal notion of universal Catholic morality. The state need not formulate the foreign policy to promote the religious interests of Roman Catholicism and Christianity. The purpose of the Diplomats pursuing the raison d’etat is to pursue national interests of the State neither the ideological goals nor the papal religious Christian interests. The Raison d’etat principles made the diplomats free from any obligation to the Pope and Roman Catholic Church. Richelieu came into office in 1624, when the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II was attempting to revive Catholic Universality, stamp out Protestantism, and establish Holy Roman Empire’s control over the Protestant princes of Central Europe. Cardinal de Richelieu was the First Minister of Catholic Kingdom of France from 1624 to 1642, during the period of Counter Reformation Thirty years Wars (1618-1648). Richelieu’s 18-year reign as First Minister of France blunted the Pope and Habsburg Holy Roman Empire’s attempts to destroy Protestant Reformation and Lutheran Movement, during 30-year religious war in Europe, in which more than one-third population of Germans died. The Counter Reformation War was one of the most brutal and destructive wars in the history of the mankind. By 1618, the German-speaking territory of Central Europe was divided into two armed camps, namely the Protestant Camp and Catholic Camp. In the crucible of this conflict, Cardinal Richelieu grafted the principle of Raison d’etat on French foreign policy, a principal that the other European states adopted in the century that followed.

 

(3) 20th Century of Raison d’etat

Soviet Premier Khrushchev was the Richelieu of the Cold War. During second half of the 20th Century Khrushchev employed Richelieu’s policies to come to the rescue of the Non Aligned Nations. The superpower bilateral relations hyped the ideological contest of the Cold War, and historians would look at the Capitalism Vs Communism ideological conflict that explained the relationship between United States and the Soviet Union as no different than the Catholicism Vs Protestantism conflict of the Counter Reformation Wars of 1618-1648. During Cold War United States like the Hapsburg Holy Roman Empire and Papacy sought to bring the former colonies of the European Colonial Powers under the hegemony of the American Empire. The Soviet Union employed Richelieu’s Raison d’etat to defend the rights of Third World Non Aligned Nations led by India against encroachments by imperial America and Papacy. Just as Richelieu deployed the power of France to support the anti-Papacy and anti-Habsburg policies of Protestant German princes, similarly Soviet Premier Khrushchev supported the freedom of the Non Aligned Nations to weaken the United States, NATO and European Colonial powers to engineer the breakup of the colonial empire and emergence of new independent states.

 

(4) 21st Century Raison d’etat

Richelieu’s Raison d’etat shall reign supreme as the guiding principle of diplomacy, statecraft and world politics in the 21st Century. President Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder are the Richelieu of the 21st Century, who would lead France and Germany to hold in check the United States, the 21st Century version of Habsburg Holy Roman Empire. Chirac-Schroeder Esquire like Richelieu would deploy the power of Euro and European Union to weaken and isolate hegemon United States. Chirac and Schroeder, France and Germany would cement strategic ties with Putin of Russia to bring about France, Germany and Russia strategic alliance to unite the diplomatic, economic and military resources of Europe to hold America in check. Cardinal Richelieu representing the Catholic King of France secured the alliance of Catholic France with Protestant German Princes to weaken Catholic Habsburg Holy Roman Empire. Similarly, President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder representing Western Christianity would cement strategic ties with Orthodox Russia to weaken Western Christian American Empire. Catholic France and Lutheran Germany would enter into strategic alliance with Orthodox Russia to weaken and isolate Protestant WASPs United States throughout 21st Century.

 

(5) Raison d’etat Diplomacy of India & China

The Great Game of Asia during 18th, 19th and early 20th century meant that Indian Empire and British Empire should not allow Russian Empire access to the war water ports of Arabian Sea. Napoleon Bonaparte sold large tracts of lands in North America to land power United States for the paltry sum of $15 million to weaken sea power Britain. Napoleon Bonaparte supported the interests of the land power Russia against the sea power Britain in the Great Game of Asia. The guiding goal of the Great Game of Central Asia in 21st Century is to deny the sea powers United States, European Union and NATO from developing permanent military foothold in the oil-rich Caspian Central Asia. It is in the national interest of Russia that either China or India acquired military and economic control over oil-rich Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan rather than allow Caspian basin come under the control of United States or European Union. The land powers of Asia should not allow sea power United States develop foothold in Caspian Muslim Central Asian Republics, Buddhist Tibet, Mongolia and Nepal, and Chinese province of Xinjiang Sinkiang.

 

(6) Raison d’etat of Sino-India Detente

Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee visited China in June 2003, the first visit of Indian leader to China in 10 years, and cemented Sino-Indian détente by agreeing for quid pro quo on Tibet and Sikkim. India declared Tibet is a part of China and that India would not support American move to destabilize Tibet. Tibet is India’s land gateway to the oil-rich Caspian basin, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The national interests of Russia, China and India coincide in Caspian oil basin Central Asian Republics.

 

(7) National Interests Determine Diplomacy

Diplomat practicing of Raison d’etat diplomacy formulate foreign policy to promote the national interests of the nations defined in terms of power. The Church and religion doesn’t influence the policy-making as in the eyes of the diplomats the interests of the State and the King overrides the interests of the Religion, Church, the Pope or priest. The rise of the god of oil as the dominant political force in the world caused the decline of ideology and decline of religion as the instrument of foreign policy and diplomacy especially after the American colonial occupation of Iraq in 2003. In the age dominated by god of Oil the role of religion declined and Richelieu’s Raison d’etat became the dominant diplomatic ideology of the world.

 

(8) Raison d’etat Principle

With the concept of unity under Papacy, the emerging states of Europe needed some principle to justify their foreign policy independent of Papacy. Cardinal de Richelieu, the First Minister of Catholic France found it in the concepts of Raison d’etat and the balance of power. Each depended on the other. Raison d’etat asserted that the well being of the state justified whatever means were employed to further it. The national interest supplanted the medieval papal notion of universal Catholic morality. The state need not formulate the foreign policy to promote the religious interests of Roman Catholicism and Christianity. The purpose of the Diplomats pursuing the raison d’etat is to pursue national interests of the State neither the ideological goals nor the papal religious Christian interests. The Raison d’etat principles made the diplomats free from any obligation to the Pope and Roman Catholic Church. Richelieu came into office in 1524, when the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II was attempting to revive Catholic Universality, stamp out Protestantism, and establish Holy Roman Empire’s control over the Protestant princes of Central Europe. This process, the Counter Reformation, led to Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), which turned into one of the most brutal and destructive wars in the history of mankind. Richelieu ‘s Raison d’etat shall be the guiding principle of India’s foreign policy. The state has no immortality its salvation is now or never. States do not receive credit in any world for doing what is right. States are only rewarded for being strong enough to do what is necessary.

 

(9) Goals Raison d’etat Diplomats Seeks

What is the ideal that diplomats should seek to realize in the post-Cold War world? Diplomats should seek to enhance their national interests defined as national power, and apply the principle of Raison d’etat to promote national interests and balance of power. Interests, not the ideology nor the religious proselytizing should be the objective of the diplomats in the new world order. Pursuit of proselytizing interests and theological objectives harmed United States in the Vietnam War. Church should have no say in the formulation of the foreign policy and the conduct of Diplomacy.

 

(10) National Interest or Ideology

The end of the Cold War and the end of the Second Millennium heralded the end of the age of Ideology. The ideology of Marxism, Communism, Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism stands discredited, and its practitioners indulged in human sacrifice of 30 million Orthodox Russians, 60 million Chinese Buddhists and 2 million Cambodian Buddhists. Bolshevism, Leninism and Stalinism were farce doctrines designed to justify Soviet imperialism in the garb of the transnational ideology. China has also rejected the Communist ideology and proceeding on the path of capitalism under the leadership of new generation.

 

(11) Wilsonianism Camouflage Exposed

The Americanism the Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic approach of US foreign policy, which sought to disguise naked American imperial interests in the garb of ideal of democracy and freedom, also stands discredited in the post-Cold War era. In the 21st Century under the gaze of Raison d’etat and balance of power, the Americanism the corner stone of Atlantic Alliance NATO turned out to be even more menacing in undermining the diplomatic freedom the former colonial powers, than the Bolshevism and Brezhnev Doctrine that Soviet Union used to impose Soviet imperialism over Soviet Bloc. While Soviet Union enslaved smaller weaker nation states of Eastern Europe, the Americanism and USA-led NATO succeeded in taming, castrating and forcing into voluntary bondage the mother countries of the Colonial Empires, even when British, French, Portuguese and Belgium Empires emerged intact after Allied victories in the Second World War.

 

(12) Non Aligned European Union

The application of the Raison d’etat and balance of power doctrines obliges post-Cold War United Germany and France to adopt Non Aligned foreign policy, to assert their independence of the United States, to create European alternation to the American pole. In the absence of the Russian threat, there is no reason why Germany and France should continue to play second filled to United States in global diplomacy. United Germany the world’s fifth largest economy is a serious challenger to the United States. United Germany can effectively seal a coalition of great powers to challenge the hegemony of the United States. It is not in the national interest of United Germany to act subservient to the Untied States. Descendants of Bismarck cannot but become great powers.

 

(13) Non Alignment by Great Powers

India should formulate its foreign based on raison d’etat to promote India’s national interests and the religious interests of Hindu and Buddhist civilizations. India should abandon its non-Alignment policy, which rejects the idea of multiple alliances among great powers. India and Germany should reformulate the “Policy of Non Alignment of Great Powers,” which great powers and regional powers adopt to emerge as major players in international diplomacy.

 

(14) Foreign Policy in Medieval Dark Age

The European balance-of-power system emerged in the 17th century from the final collapse of the Papacy’s medieval aspiration to universality- a concept of world order that represented a blending of the traditions of Roman Empire and the Catholic Church. The world was conceived as mirroring the Heavens. Just as one God ruled in Heaven, so one emperor would rule over the secular world, and one pope over the Universal Catholic Church. In this spirit, the feudal states of Germany and Northern Italy were grouped under the rule of the Holy Roman Emperor. In the 17th Century the Holy Roman Empire had the potential to dominate Europe. France and England were periphery to it. Had Holy Roman Emperor ever succeeded in establishing central control over Germany and Northern Italy, the relations of France and England to it might have been similar to those of China’s neighbors to the Middle Kingdom, with France comparable to Vietnam or Korea, and England to Japan. For most of the medieval period, however, the Holy Roman emperor never achieved that degree of central control over feudal Germany and Northern Italy. (Kissinger, Diplomacy, p. 56-9) At the fringes of Europe, France, England, and Spain did not accept the authority of the Holy Roman Empire and Papacy, though they remained part of the Roman Catholic Church. In the first half of the sixteenth century, emperor Charles V revived the imperial authority to a point, which raised the prospect of a Central European Empire, composed of what is today Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Eastern France, Belgium, and the Netherlands- a grouping so potentially dominant as to prevent the emergence of anything resembling the European balance of power. However, the Reformation Movement and rise of Protestantism weakened the Papacy and thwarted the prospect of a hegemonic European Empire. It meant the end of the Papal medieval aspiration to universality, a concept of the world order that represented that one Holy Roman Emperor would rule over the secular world, and one Catholic pope would rule over the Roman Catholic Church.

 

(15) Imperialist United States

United States invaded Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Haiti not to promote the national interests of the United States but to promote the religious interests of Christianity and Papacy. United States destroyed the Buddhist monarchies in China, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to undermine Buddhism, not to promote US national interests. United States allowed Mao Tse Tung (Mao Zedong) to take over China without any opposition from United States, at the suggestion of Christian missionaries in China, who preferred iconoclast Judeo-Communist Mao over the other Buddhist claimants to power in China after the downfall of Chiang Kai sheik. United States and specially Henry Kissinger pursued pro-China and anti-India policies simply because China is anti-Buddhist and India is Hindu and pro-Buddhist. The essential characteristic of the Medievalism and Dark Age is the subordination of the national interests to the religious interests of Christianity and Papacy. United States in conspiracy with Maoist China overthrew the Buddhist monarchy of Norodom Sihanouk and allowed Judeo-Communist Pol Pot who every body knew would massacre Buddhists in Cambodia as a prelude to Christianize Cambodia. Even after the genocide Untied States and papacy have consistently opposed the war crime trial of Khmer Rouge leaders who have become leaders of the Cambodian Christian Church.

 

(16) Geopolitical Balance of Power

New World Order is still in a period of gestation, and its final form will not be visible until around 2005 and it would mature as stable world order around 2012. New world order will be part extension of the past, resurfacing the balance of power system and colonial coexistence prevailing in the 18th & 19th Century European world order, and retain many salient features of the bipolar world system. The new world order will be part unprecedented, result of the entry of India and China as new entrants to the top-4 world power club. Out of the top four economies of the world in terms of size, United States, China, Japan and India, there is only one white Christian nation, one yellow Buddhist states, one yellow Communist state and one brown Hindu state. New world order is no longer White Christian Club. The center of gravity of the power has shifted from Europe to Asia.

 

(17) NATO Heading for Definitive End

In the post-Cold War new world order the Atlantic alliance is as irrelevant for the Western Bloc states as was the Warsaw pact for the Eastern Bloc. To France and Germany the Americanism is as much an anathema as was the Bolshevism for the Poland and East Germany. To the intended victims of the Bush Doctrine, it is no better that what the Brezhnev Doctrine, was for its victims. Soviet Union disintegrated because buoyed by the Vietnam War it promulgated the Brezhnev doctrine that overextended the reach of the Soviet Empire. Would “Bush Doctrine 2002” result in the similar overextension of the diplomatic, military and economic power of the United States? Would United States collapse due to the Bush Doctrine, just as Brezhnev Doctrine caused the destruction of the Soviet Union?

 

If Germany, France, Canada and Japan were to formulate national policies in the post-Cold War, post-German Unification era by Richelieu’s raison d’etat, national interests and balance of power, then faced by the hegemony of United States and decline of Russia, they will decide to align with less-strong Power Russia to contain the hegemon United States.

 

The USA-Canada relations should be similar to India-Pakistan relations. Secretary of State Seward in President Andrew Johnson’s administration dreamed of an American empire including Canada and much of Mexico. Canada would renew military ties with United Kingdom and develop nuclear weapons to check the hegemony of the United States. Canada should join Commonwealth Common Market and increase immigration from Commonwealth nations to increase its population to 50 million within 10 years.

 

(18) Hidden Sino-Soviet Rift of ‘70s

President Nixon and Secretary Henry Kissinger identified strategic opportunity in the hidden simmering Sino-Soviet rift, deeply hidden under the façade of Communist solidarity and exploited it to develop triangular balance of power among United States, Soviet Union and China. Similarly, President Putin can exploit the hidden widening USA-European Union rift to develop détente and entente with France and Germany to develop Triangular balance of power among United States, Russia and European Union.

 

(19) USA USSR India of 1950’s

United States, Soviet Union and India were three truly independent actors in diplomatic arena in the 1950-1965-period. French Richelieu undermined Ferdinand’s Habsburg Holy Roman Empire and Roman Catholic Church by supporting Protestant princes and the Germany remained divided for two centuries. Similarly, former colonial powers could not wean newly independent countries away from their commitments to the Non Alignment Movement. Jawaharlal Nehru after the Second World War pursued the Richelieu’s raison d’etat to develop independent foreign policies for the Third World nations. The Non Aligned nations periodically supported the Soviet Union, the less strong Power to balance the dominance of the United States. Like Richelieu the Nehru-led Non Alignment drained the resources of the United States in the Vietnam War and soviet resources in the Afghanistan War.

 

(20) Raison D’etat of Non Alignment

France under Richelieu led by the Catholic King supported Protestant princes in Counter Reformation War launched by Catholic Habsburg Empire. Richelieu would have opposed the Warsaw pact as well as Atlantic Alliance, because Soviet Union and United States promoting foreign policies based on ideologies, Bolshevism and Americanism respectively. On the other hand the Non Alignment Movement led by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru opposed the rival ideology-based camps in favor of free and independent foreign policy based on Raison d’etat, national interests to curb the predominance of the two super powers.

 

“Americanism” the presiding philosophy of the Atlantic Alliance was as hollow as the “Bolshevism” the presiding Bolshevik communist philosophy. The concept of “Atlantic Solidarity” no less farce than “Communist Solidarity.” The “Bush Doctrine 2002” promoted after the collapse of the Soviet Union, no less opportunistic than the “Brezhnev Doctrine” promoted by the Soviet leader after the American defeat in the Vietnam.

 

(21) Demise of Monroe Doctrine

The first casualty of the end of the Cold War shall be the Monroe Doctrine. Monroe Doctrine had no raison d’etre even during Atlantic Alliance. How could United States prohibit Europe’s economic and military ties with Hispanic America and Brazil, when United States established military bases on European soil? Spain, Portugal, France and Britain would like to renew closer military ties with countries in the new world. France wants to establish closer military ties with Quebec, Haiti and French Guinea. Britain would like to renew military ties with Canada, Guyana, Trinidad & Tobago and West Indies. Spain would like to establish military ties with Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, Argentina and Bolivia. Monroe Doctrine lost its relevance in the 21st Century. Any attempt by the United States to reassert American right to exclude Europeans from the Hispanic America would make United States pariah in Western Europe and Asia.

 

(22) USA-India Ties a Turning Point

Most striking event of the 21st century is that Hindu India seeking strategic securities ties with United States. India gave Non-Alignment to the world, and now India actively seeks alignment with United States. India has wholeheartedly supported president Bush’s War on Terrorism. India has supported president Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. India may also support America’s drive to create Pax Americana, just as India had created Pax Britannia for British Empire.

 

(23) Four Greatest Powers Civilizations

The four greatest military powers of the world are: (1) USA, (2) Russia, (3) China, and (4) India. The three largest populous nation of the world are: (1) China (1,250 million), (2) India (1,000 million), and (3) USA (273 million). The population of pre-partition India, South Asia (1,329 million) exceeds that of China. The nuclear weapon powers of the world are ranked as: (1) Russia, (2) USA, (3) China, (4) United Kingdom, (5) France, (6) India, and (7) Pakistan. The leading Civilizations of the world are: (1) Yellow Buddhist Chinese Civilization, (2) Brown Hindu Indian Civilization, (3) White Christian European Civilization, and (4) Brown Arab Muslim Civilization. The major races of the world ranked by population are: (1) Brown race, (2) Yellow race, (3) White race, (4) Black race of Africa, and (5) Brown Mestizo race of South America.

 

(24) India Equal to China

India is equal to China economically and militarily. The recent leap China made over India resulted from the Most Favored Nation Status it enjoyed with United States. United States promoted China to meet the challenge of Japan. Unprecedented foreign direct investments (FDIs) in China and unfettered access to American markets allowed China to pull ahead of India, but India would soon catch up. In 1990 the Goss Domestic Product of China was 109.9% of India’s GDP, and India’s GDP was 91% of that of China. Then China leaped ahead of India, in 1999 the GDP of China was 215.6% of India’s GDP, as China’s GDP increased by 279.5% during 1990-1999 period. India’s GDP in 1999 was 46.38% of China’s GDP in 1999, and India’s GDP increased by 142.5% during 1990-1999 period. In 2002 China’s GDP is 191.8% of India’s GDP, and India’s GDP in 2002 is 52.14% of China’s GDP.

 

(25) Commonwealth is Great Power

Member countries of Commonwealth of Nations represent one-fourth 25% of the world’s population, and one-seventh 14.7% of the world’s GNP at PPP, and around one-fourth (22.74%) of the world’s surface landmass. There are three nuclear weapons powers in the Commonwealth countries, namely, Britain, India and Pakistan. Sun never sets in the Commonwealth of Nations. If Commonwealth countries allow India to lead the Commonwealth, then Commonwealth would challenge the dominance of the United States as the sole super power of the world. India should attempt creating the Commonwealth Common Market, with or without Britain and Canada. The GNP at PPP of members of Commonwealth of Nations (4,609B) exceeds that of China ($4,112B) the second largest economy in the world after United States. The GNP of India ($2,144 Billion), United Kingdom ($1,234 Billion), Canada ($726 Billion), Australia ($426 Billion), South Africa ($350 Billion), Pakistan ($236.8 Billion), Bangladesh ($188 Billion), Nigeria ($92.2 Billion), New Zealand ($63.3 Billion)

 

(26) India & China are One third of World

Twenty-first, the two biggest countries in the world, India and China –who represent one-third of humanity- more than 2.4 billion people, have decided that opening their economies to trade in goods and services is the best way to lift their people out of poverty and are now focused simply on how to globalize in the most stable manner. Globalization fatigue is very much in evidence in Europe and America, while in places like China and India you find a great desire for participation in economic expansion processes.

 

(27) India Pole of Pax Britannia before 1947

Twenty-second, Delhi rivaled London as the Second Pole of the British Empire. Indian empire provided the military foundation of the British Empire. Delhi paid the salaries of all British soldiers and British officers worldwide. British Army financed by Indian Empire. India was the second pole of the British Empire. Indian troops were used to fight all over the world. In the First World War India sent and paid for a million men to fight for Britain and a further 2 million men were sent to fight in the Second World War. Had Indian Naval Mutiny of 18 February 1946, been successful, Yemen, Singapore, Kuwait would have become part of independent United India. Delhi was an independent player in the British Empire and Delhi paid for the salaries of all British officers and soldiers worldwide. Indian Empire decided on its own, even when fiercely opposed by London, to colonize Aden and Singapore. Indian Empire waged opium War on China. Indian Empire exercised control over British sphere of influence over Southern China.

 

(28) India can help Rise of Europe

India could seek closer ties with Germany and France to help European Union emerge as a world power to balance the America’s predominance. In the emerging Triangular balance of power among European Union, Russia and United States, president Putin could develop special ties with German Chancellor, to develop special German-Russia strategic ties to wean European Union away from abject dependence on the United States in the aftermath of the Bush doctrine, and to clip the wings of hegemon United States.

 

(29) Balance of Power helps Peace

Twenty-fourth, only time in the history of the world that we have had any extended periods of peace is when there has been balance of power. It is when one nation becomes infinitely more powerful in relation to its potential competitor that the danger of war arises. It will be a safer world and a better world if we have a strong healthy United States, China, Russia, India, Japan, and United Europe, each balancing the other, not playing one against the other, an even balance.

 

(30) India like USA in formative years

In fact, India’s conduct during the Cold War was not so different from that of the United States in its formative years. Like the US founding fathers, India’s leaders believed they would protect their young country best by staying aloof from quarrels not affecting its vital interests. And again, like the United States, India did not apply its rejection of power to the region affecting its immediate security interests. Whatever the United States proclaimed in the nineteenth century about European power politics, it did not shrink from using force against Mexico or in Caribbean. Nor did India hesitate to insist on its power in Sikkim, Goa, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. And India for at least twenty-five years worked on a nuclear weapons program culminating in weapons tests in 1998.”

 

(31) India-China-Japan Triangular Balance

In the region between India and Singapore, as China grows in strength and Japan in assertiveness, a three-cornered rivalry is likely to develop among China, India and Japan in Asia. The dominant American interest is to prevent hegemony by any of the participants; it is a classic balance-of-power problem.

 

(32) India in European Balance

India should develop closer securities ties with Russia, the lesser strong power of Europe, to develop permanent military bases at Kaliningrad to make India a geopolitical player in European balance of power. India should develop close ties with less strong power Greece to stabilize Mediterranean balance of power between Greece and Turkey. India should develop closer military ties with France, the less strong Power, to stabilize the internal balance of power within the European Union to check the preponderance of Germany.

 

(33) Bismarck as Incarnation of Evil

India in the 21st century should follow the foreign policy perspective similar to that of British Prime Minister in the 19th century and criticize Kissinger’s foreign policy during Nixon-Ford Administrations; similar to the way of Gladstone viewed the foreign policy of Bismarck. Bismarck viewed the concert of Europe as an enforcer of the status quo. To Gladstone Concert of Europe was the revolutionary tool designed to bring about an entirely new world order. To an Indian mind, Kissinger’s anti-Buddhist, anti-India, anti-democracy, pro-Communism, and pro-China policies were revolutionary policies, which renewed détente of Judeo-Communism and Judeo-Christianity to pursue iconoclastic proselytizing agenda. Kissinger pursued Realpolitik agenda in the triangular balance of power among United States, Soviet Union and China, by developing security ties with less strong power China to contain main adversary Soviet Union. However, in the Indo-China triangle among Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, and China, Kissinger chose to destroy the weakest country Buddhist Cambodia, against all logic of the classical balance of power.

 

(34) Burden of Sins of Bolshevik Jew Beria

Jews had to bear the burden of the sin of the murder of Jesus Christ and Apostle James the elder brother of Jesus. Similarly, the burden of the Russian deaths under Lavrenti Beria and Buddhist deaths in Cambodia stained the Jewish race in the 20th Century. Judeo-Communism became an evil cult due to the actions of Bolshevik Jew Lavrenti Beria. Bismarck’s Real Politik proved to be an evil cult in the hands of Secretary Kissinger and many of his successors. Nazism became an evil cult due to the actions of Eichman.

 

(35) Likely Demise of Small States

The explosion of small states should be curbed. A number of smaller states should merge with their neighbors to form larger regional states. European Union is a modern organism. The nation states should merge into regional groupings of states. Just as European states have merged to form the European States, similar regional groupings should form mega-states in East Asia, South Asia, Middle East, North Africa, sub-Sahara Africa, Central America, Andean America, and South America. India, China and Japan should lead Asia and Africa to form Confederation of Afro-Asia.

 

(36) Complex Asian Balance of Power

The Asian balance of power is more differentiated and therefore more complex. Twenty-first century is the century of Asia. Asia is predominantly the continent of Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic civilizations. All religions of the world have taken birth in Asia. This is the argument author makes in this chapter.

 

26(2) Richelieu’s Raison D’etat Diplomacy

(1) Raison d’etat Principle

With the concept of unity under Papacy, the emerging states of Europe needed some principle to justify their foreign policy independent of Papacy. Cardinal de Richelieu, the First Minister of Catholic France found it in the concepts of Raison d’etat and the balance of power. Each depended on the other. Raison d’etat asserted that the well being of the state justified whatever means were employed to further it. The national interest supplanted the medieval papal notion of universal Catholic morality. The state need not formulate the foreign policy to promote the religious interests of Roman Catholicism and Christianity. The purpose of the Diplomats pursuing the raison d’etat is to pursue national interests of the State neither the ideological goals nor the papal religious Christian interests. The Raison d’etat principles made the diplomats free from any obligation to the Pope and Roman Catholic Church. Richelieu came into office in 1524, when the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II was attempting to revive Catholic Universality, stamp out Protestantism, and establish Holy Roman Empire’s control over the Protestant princes of Central Europe. This process, the Counter Reformation, led to Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), which turned into one of the most brutal and destructive wars in the history of mankind. By 1618, the German-speaking territory of Central Europe, most of which was part of the Holy Roman Empire, was divided into two-armed camps- the Protestants and the Catholics. By the time the war ended in 1648, Central Europe had been devastated and Germany had lost almost a third of its population. Catholic Cardinal de Richelieu supported the Protestant princes of Germany and opposed the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor in the Counter Reformation War from 1624 to 1648. French First Minister de Richelieu grafted the principle of raison d’etat onto French Policy, a principle that the other European states adopted in the century that flowed.

 

(2) United States Promoted Christian Interests

Under the influence of Christian Religious Right Conservative Conspiracy United States became the Core of the Axis of Medieval, when American diplomats and foreign policy of the State Department formulated US foreign policies not to promote US national interests but the Christian and Papal proselytizing interests. United States invaded Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Haiti not to promote the national interests of the United States but to promote the religious interests of Christianity and Papacy. United States destroyed the Buddhist monarchies in China, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to undermine Buddhism, not to promote US national interests. United States allowed Mao Tse tung (Mao Zedong) to take over China without any opposition from United States, at the suggestion of Christian missionaries in China, who preferred iconoclast Judeo-Communist Mao over the other Buddhist claimants to power in China after the downfall of Chiang Kai sheik. United States and specially Henry Kissinger pursued pro-China and anti-India policies simply because China is anti-Buddhist and India is Hindu and pro-Buddhist. The essential characteristic of the Medievalism and Dark Age is the subordination of the national interests to the religious interests of Christianity and Papacy. United States in conspiracy with Maoist China overthrew the Buddhist monarchy of Norodom Sihanouk and allowed Judeo-Communist Pol Pot who every body knew would massacre Buddhists in Cambodia as a prelude to Christianize Cambodia. Even after the genocide Untied States and papacy have consistently opposed the war crime trial of Khmer Rouge leaders who have become leaders of the Cambodian Christian Church. United States pursued iconoclast Christian interests in favoring Pakistan over democratic India. United States should reject the medieval dark age diplomacy, which promoted Christian interests, but focus on promoting US national interests determined by the principle of Raison D’etat.

 

(3) New Geopolitical Balance of Power

New World Order is still in a period of gestation, and its final form will not be visible until around 2005 and it would mature as stable world order around 2012. New world order will be part extension of the past, resurfacing the balance of power system and colonial coexistence prevailing in the 18th & 19th Century European world order, and retain many salient features of the bipolar world system. The new world order will be part unprecedented, result of the entry of India and China as new entrants to the top-4 world power club. Out of the top four economies of the world in terms of size, United States, China, Japan and India, there is only one white Christian nation, one yellow Buddhist states, one yellow Communist state and one brown Hindu state. New world order is no longer White Christian Club. The center of gravity of the power has shifted from Europe to Asia.

 

The post-Cold War new world order, like Bipolar World it succeeds, will emerge as an answer to three questions: What are the basic units of post-Cold War new world order? What are the means of interacting of the major players of the new world order? What are the goals on behalf of which, these major actors of the new world order interact in global diplomacy? Who are the major world powers in the new world order?

 

What are the basic units of the new international order? Part of the turmoil associated with the emergence of a new world order results from the fact that since the end of the Second World War, nearly a hundred new nation states have come into being out of the disintegration of the colonial empires, and the collapse of the communism in the multi-ethnic Soviet Union and the breakup of multi-ethnic Yugoslavia spawned another twenty nations, which share few of the nation-states’ historic attributes. Henry Kissinger forecasts that continental-type states, will probably represent the basic units of the new world order. Smaller states have no future in the 21st Century. Smaller States should merge into regional confederations or federations to form continental-type states. Otherwise the regional preponderant powers would forcibly occupy them forcing them to join regional groupings. Colonial empires if they reemerge in 21st Century, would represent the basic unit of the new international order.

 

What are the goals on behalf of which the basic units of the new international order interact? What shall be the diplomatic and strategic goals of the continental-type states seek in the new world order? Whether continental-type states shall promote by diplomacy national interests or religious ideological interests in the new world order? Major powers in the new world order shall guide their diplomacy by Richelieu’s Raison d’etat, national interests and balance of power. Ideologies, whether religious or political, would have less success in influencing world politics. Former Communist states would neither conduct diplomacy to promote the interests of International Communism, nor give any credence to Communist, Marxist and Socialist ideology? Even Muslim states would not surrender any of their national interests in the pursuits of any intangible Islamic solidarity? In the name of Islam, Saudi Arabia would not open its doors to Muslims from Bangladesh, though it may finance terrorists since terrorism promotes Saudi national interests. States of Western Christendom would not accept servitude to the United States in name of Christianity, democracy and freedom. United States will not avoid developing ties with military dictators or stop overthrowing democratically elected governments in the Third World. The Americanism the underlying goal of the Atlantic Alliance, is no less a hypocrisy than the Bolshevism the underlying goal of the Soviet Alliance. In the eyes of the world Bush Doctrine 2002 like the Brezhnev Doctrine, represents the ideology of the hegemon powers, which nation states would oppose to promote their national interests and to restore the balance of power system, which had atrophied during the Cold War.

 

(4) National Interests in New World Order

In the post-Cold War new world order the Atlantic alliance is as irrelevant for the Western Bloc states as was the Warsaw pact for the Eastern Bloc. To France and Germany the Americanism is as much an anathema as was the Bolshevism for the Poland and East Germany. To the intended victims of the Bush Doctrine, it is no better that what the Brezhnev Doctrine, was for its victims. Soviet Union disintegrated because buoyed by the Vietnam War it promulgated the Brezhnev doctrine that overextended the reach of the Soviet Empire. Would “Bush Doctrine 2002” result in the similar overextension of the diplomatic, military and economic power of the United States? Would United States collapse due to the Bush Doctrine, just as Brezhnev Doctrine caused the destruction of the Soviet Union?

 

If United Germany launches the Non Aligned Great Power Club, then India and Germany could induce some other Great powers to join it. Non Alignment Movement Great Power Club is highly relevant in the post-Cold War new world order.

 

If Germany, France, Canada and Japan were to formulate national policies in the post-Cold War, post-German Unification era by Richelieu’s raison d’etat, national interests and balance of power, then faced by the hegemony of United States and decline of Russia, they will decide to align with less-strong Power Russia to contain the hegemon United States. The foreign policies of France and Germany in the post-Cold War new world order would be based on principles of Raison d’etat, national interests and balance of power, which may oblige them to foster closer military, political and economic ties with the less strong powers, namely, Russia, China or India to contain and balance the hegemon United States in the global balance of power.

 

USA-Canada relations should be similar to India-Pakistan relations. Secretary of State Seward in President Andrew Johnson’s administration dreamed of an American empire including Canada and much of Mexico. Canada would renew military ties with United Kingdom and develop nuclear weapons to check the hegemony of the United States. Canada should join Commonwealth Common Market and increase immigration from Commonwealth nations to increase its population to 50 million within 10 years.

 

President Nixon and Secretary Henry Kissinger identified strategic opportunity in the hidden simmering Sino-Soviet rift, deeply hidden under the façade of Communist solidarity and exploited it to develop triangular balance of power among United States, Soviet Union and China. Similarly, President Putin can exploit the hidden widening USA-European Union rift to develop détente and entente with France and Germany to develop Triangular balance of power among United States, Russia and European Union.

 

(5) Richelieu’s Non Aligned Movement

One. What Richelieu did to the “Thirty Years War” India did to the Cold War by the concept of Non Alignment. India gave smaller newly independent countries hope to remain independent of the two hostile super power camps. Richelieu gave hope and help to the Protestant princes against Catholic oppression in the Holy Roman Empire. During the Pontificate of Pope John Paul II, the Northern Alliance powers under the influence of Christian Religious Right conservative conspiracy imposing Christian proselytizing interests and Christian religious interests as a form of Neo-Counter Reformation War under way. The genocide of 2 million Buddhists in Cambodia and 30 million Buddhists in China during Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution are two manifestation of the 20th Century’s Thirty Years War, unleashed by the Roman Catholic Church. Papacy played greater role as great power in the diplomacy than Germany and Japan during 1980s and 1990s. However, the Richelieu’s raison d’etat would organize global Protestant coalition to tame the Papal expansionism in the 21st Century. In the 21st Century it is considered a moral sin to formulate foreign policies to promote the religious interests. State should promote secular national interests not the religious interests. Promoting religious interests by force is known as terrorism.

 

Two. India under Nehru and Indira Gandhi made a mistake of not transforming the Non Aligned Movement into a Defense Pact and a Common market. Marshall Tito wanted to make Non Aligned Defense Pact. France stood on the sidelines while Germany was devastated until 1635 in the seventeenth year of the war Richelieu advocated the necessity of entering the fray on the side of the Protestant princes to exploit France’s growing power. To engage in open warfare when your allies can no longer exist without you is a sign of courage and great wisdom. India should have intervened in Tibet to defeat Communist occupation forces. India should have entered the war in son the side of Prince Sihanouk in Cambodia to eliminate Khmer Rouge and to protect Hindu culture of Laos and Cambodia. India should have also entered war in Afghanistan to defeat Islamic fundamentalism. India should have intervened to restore Shah of Iran into power in Iran. India should have intervened in Congo, Angola, and Ethiopia to main pro-Non-Aligned Movement governments. Had Nehru developed military bases in Yugoslavia in alliance with Marshal Tito then India would have emerged as European power. India should have developed military bases in socialist Southern Yemen (Aden), socialist Syria, socialist Libya and Algeria.

 

Three. United States, Soviet Union and India were three truly independent actors in diplomatic arena in the 1950-1965-period. French Richelieu undermined Ferdinand’s Habsburg Holy Roman Empire and Roman Catholic Church by supporting Protestant princes and the Germany remained divided for two centuries. Similarly, former colonial powers could not wean newly independent countries away from their commitments to the Non Alignment Movement. Jawaharlal Nehru after the Second World War pursued the Richelieu’s raison d’etat to develop independent foreign policies for the Third World nations. The Non Aligned nations periodically supported the Soviet Union, the less strong Power to balance the dominance of the United States. Like Richelieu the Nehru-led Non Alignment drained the resources of the United States in the Vietnam War and the resources of the Soviet Union in the Afghanistan War.

 

Four. France under Richelieu led by the Catholic King supported Protestant princes in Counter Reformation War launched by Catholic Habsburg Empire. Richelieu would have opposed the Warsaw pact as well as Atlantic Alliance, because Soviet Union and United States promoting foreign policies based on ideologies, Bolshevism and Americanism respectively. On the other hand the Non Alignment Movement led by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru opposed the rival ideology-based camps in favor of free and independent foreign policy based on Raison d’etat, national interests to curb the predominance of the two super powers.

 

(6) Rooseveltian National Interests Realism

One. The foreign policy of any nation based either on national interests or ideologies. Either idea or interests determine the behavior of the states. President Theodore Roosevelt and President Woodrow Wilson had opposite philosophies regarding the way America should play in the world affairs.

 

Two. Roosevelt was a sophisticated analyst of the balance of power. He insisted on an international role for America because its national interests demanded it, because global balance of power was inconceivable to him without American participation. No other president defined America’s world role so completely in terms of national interest, or identified the national interest so completely with the balance of power.

 

Three. In the world regulated by power, Roosevelt believed that the natural order of things was reflected in the concept of “spheres of influence,” which assigned preponderant influence over large regions to specific powers. Roosevelt subordinated America’s commercial interest to his geopolitical view.

 

Four. In Europe, Roosevelt considered Germany the principal threat. Roosevelt gradually came to see Germany as a threat to European balance and began to identify America’s interest with those of Great Britain and France. A few months after the outbreak of the First World War, Roosevelt regarded German victory as both possible and dangerous for the United States. A victory for the Central Powers would have forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy, permitting German imperialism to assert itself in the Western Hemisphere. He feared that if Germany won the war, smashed the English Fleet and destroyed the British Empire, within a year or two she would insist on taking the dominant position in South and Central America. Roosevelt considered British naval control of the Atlantic safer than German hegemony.

 

Five. In Asia Roosevelt was concerned with Russian aspirations and thus favored Japan, Russia’s principal rival.

 

(7) Napoleon’s 1803 Louisiana Sale

Napoleon Bonaparte, who in Louisiana Purchase of 1803, sold territory west of Mississippi River advanced an Old World explanation for such a one-sided transaction: “this accession of territory affirms forever the power of the United States, and I have just given England a maritime rival that sooner or later will lay low her pride.”

 

(8) Wilsonian Messianic Idealism

One. For Woodrow Wilson, the justification of America’s international role was messianic: America had an obligation not to the balance of power, but to spread its principles, which marked a revolutionary departure for Old World diplomats. These principles held that peace depends on the spread of the spread of democracy that the national interest consists of adhering to a universal system of law.

 

Two. Roosevelt gave the Monroe Doctrine its most interventionist interpretation, identifying it with imperialist doctrines of the period. In the “Corollary to Monroe Doctrine” on Dec. 6, 1904, he proclaimed for United States a general right of intervention by some civilized nation, which in the Western Hemisphere, the United States alone had a right to exercise. In the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe doctrine, may force the United States to the exercise of an international police power. “More and more, the increasing interdependence and complexity of international political and economic relations render it incumbent on all civilized and orderly powers to insist on the proper policing of the world.

 

Three. To veterans of European diplomacy based on balance of power, Wilson’s views about the ultimately moral foundations of foreign policy appeared strange, even hypocritical. United States, having established a dominant position in the Americas, began to make its weight felt as a world power, and sought strategy to undermine the dominance of the erstwhile European Colonial powers in the European continent itself.

 

(9) Yalta Summit enslaved West Europe

One. United States promoted Atlantic alliance during Cold War to force Britain, France and Germany into servitude of the United States, by promoting the Soviet menace. United States had agreed at Yalta Summit to hand over entire Eastern bloc to the Soviet Union so that Soviet Union would not tempt Germany to become independent of the Atlantic Alliance.

 

Two. Just as Soviet Union was malevolent imperial occupation force or colonial ruler over Eastern bloc, similarly United States acted as if it were benevolent imperial occupation force over Western Europe. Soviet Union was never great power and the CIA hyped the military prowess of the Soviet Army to browbeat any European dreamer who dared to define its foreign policy based on national interests.

 

Three. “Americanism” the presiding philosophy of the Atlantic Alliance was as hollow as the “Bolshevism” the presiding Bolshevik Communist philosophy. The concept of “Atlantic Solidarity” no less farce than “Communist Solidarity.”

 

Four. The “Bush Doctrine 2002” promoted after the collapse of the Soviet Union, no less opportunistic than the “Brezhnev Doctrine” promoted by the Soviet leader after the American defeat in the Vietnam. However in the New World Order the European nation states would formulate foreign policies based on their national interests.

 

Five. Whether America pursued national interests under Theodore Roosevelt or pursued messianic ideals under Woodrow Wilson, Monroe Doctrine or “Corollary to Monroe Doctrine” the basic objective of the United States have been to undermine the national interests of Britain, France, Germany, Spain and Russia. United States hyped the Soviet threat to brow beat fellow Western states with velvet glove into servitude to the United States, not unlike what Russian bear did to the Soviet bloc countries with brute force. During Cold War United States and Soviet Union develop conspiratorial schemes to hype tensions, to keep their allies in line.

 

Six. Rambo Yankee and Russ bear stage-managed war games to force western and eastern Queens and Princesses as concubines in the Western harem and Eastern harem, respectively. However, after the end of the Cold War and decline of Russia, the Western bloc would expel the American influence no less severely than the manner Eastern bloc expelled the Russian influence. West European nation states and East European nation states may create a new Non Alignment Club for big powers to war of the interference of United States.

 

Seven. During the Cold War bipolar world, the white Europeans had joined either of the two warring blocs, led by two super powers, and no European power except France sought it prudent to plot an independent third path, or join the Non Aligned Movement led by Indian Prime Minister Nehru.

 

Eight. The former colonial power exhausted by the Second World War mistakenly overawed by the military and economic dominance of the United States. Faced wit the threat of the looming threat of Communism and Soviet expansionism, and threat of the loss of private property under the Communist rule, howsoever short it may be, terrorized European powers, even when their colonial empires had escaped unscathed after the War, to accept the satellite status under USA-led NATO. The reigning Colonial Monarchs that caused awe and fear in their colonies, agreed to become concubines in the Yankee Harem, for no gain except for some aid and protection against future rape by Soviet Communist Bear. European Monarchs agreed to be raped by Yankee Eagle as advance payment for protection and insurance against potential rape by Soviet Bear. What a good bargain United States got.

 

(10) Demise of Monroe Doctrine

The national interest of Spain conflicts with that of United States in Hispanic America, Mexico, Central America, Peru, Ecuador and Argentina. The national interest of France conflicts with that of United States in Algeria and French West Africa. The national interest of Britain conflicts with that of United States in Canada, Australia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman. The national interest of Canada differs from that of United States, as United States is hegemon in south of its borders. United States is to Canada and Mexico what hegemon India is to Pakistan. United States has expanded westward at the cost of Canada, and expanded southward and westward at the cost of Mexico. National interest of Portugal conflicts with that of United States in Brazil, Madagascar, and Angola. The national interest of Belgium conflicts with that of Untied States in Congo.

 

The first casualty of the end of the Cold War shall be the Monroe Doctrine. Monroe Doctrine had no raison d’etre even during Atlantic Alliance. How could United States prohibit Europe’s economic and military ties with Hispanic America and Brazil, when United States established military bases on European soil? Spain, Portugal, France and Britain would like to renew closer military ties with countries in the new world. France wants to establish closer military ties with Quebec, Haiti and French Guinea. Britain would like to renew military ties with Canada, Guyana, Trinidad & Tobago and West Indies. Spain would like to establish military ties with Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, Argentina and Bolivia. Monroe Doctrine lost its relevance in the 21st Century. Any attempt by the United States to reassert American right to exclude Europeans from the Hispanic America would make United States pariah in Western Europe and Asia.

 

26(3) India as World Power

(1) India as 2nd Super Power in 21st Century

Most striking event of the 21st century is that Hindu India seeking strategic securities ties with United States. India gave Non-Alignment to the world, and now India actively seeks alignment with United States. India has wholeheartedly supported president Bush’s War on Terrorism. India has supported president Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. India may also support America’s drive to create Pax Americana, just as India had created Pax Britannia for British Empire.

 

India led Non-Alignment Movement after the Second World War, to lead the newly independent nations of Asia and Africa to a new path of Non-Alignment, which meant refusal to join the caps of either United States or the Soviet Union. The West succeeded in destroying leaders of the Non Alignment movement, namely, Patrice Lumumba of Congo, Sukarno of Indonesia, Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia, Emperor Haile Selaisie of Ethiopia, President Gamel Abul Nasser of Egypt, Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of Bangladesh, Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Prime Minister Nawaj Sharief of Pakistan.

 

India is the world’s fourth largest economy by size and GNP at PPP, the Gross Domestic Product. The seven largest economies are United States, China, Japan, India, Germany, France and Britain.

 

GEO-POLITICAL ROLE OF INDIA: In spite of all problems the democratic India in 2002 is the fourth largest economy of the world in size, and with second largest population. World Bank recognizes India to be the world’s fourth largest economy, after USA, Japan and China. The World Bank’s “World Development Report 2000/2001” ranks the world’s leading economies in terms of Gross National Product (GNP) measured at Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) as follows: (1) United States ($8,350 Billion), (2) China ($4,112 Billion), (3) Japan ($3,042 Billion), (4) India ($2,144 Billion), (5) Germany ($1,838 Billion), (6) France ($1,294 Billion), (7) United Kingdom ($1,234 Billion), (8) Italy ($1,196 Billion), (9) Brazil ($1,062 Billion), (10) Russia ($929 Billion). The leading economies in terms of GNP ranking are: (1) USA ($8351 Billion), (2) Japan ($4,079 Billion), (3) Germany ($2,079 Billion), (4) France ($1,427 Billion), (5) UK ($1,338 Billion), (6) Italy ($1,136 Billion), (7) China ($980 Billion), (8) Brazil ($743 Billion), (9) Canada ($591 Billion), (10) Spain ($506 Billion), (11) India ($442 Billion). This is caused by the artificially devalued currency of India. One Indian Rupee valued in terms of US $ valued in 1965 ($0.21), 1975 ($0.12), 1985 ($0.08), 1990 ($0.06), 1991 ($0.03) and in 1999 ($0.023). One US Dollar valued in Indian rupees in 1965 (Rs. 4.70), 1975 (Rs. 8.40), 1985 (Rs. 12.33), 1990 (Rs. 17.49), 1995 (Rs. 32.41), 1999 (Rs. 43.13), 2000 (Rs. 45.00), and 2001 (Rs. 47.04). The Rupee, the Indian currency is highly undervalued, and it gets reflected in lower estimation of GNP.

 

The four greatest military powers of the world are: (1) USA, (2) Russia, (3) China, and (4) India. The three largest populous nation of the world are: (1) China (1,250 million), (2) India (1,000 million), and (3) USA (273 milion). The population of pre-partition India, South Asia (1,329 million) exceeds that of China. The nuclear weapon powers of the world are ranked as: (1) Russia, (2) USA, (3) China, (4) United Kingdom, (5) France, (6) India, and (7) Pakistan. The leading Civilizations of the world are: (1) Yellow Buddhist Chinese Civilization, (2) Brown Hindu Indian Civilization, (3) White Christian European Civilization, and (4) Brown Arab Muslim Civilization. The major races of the world ranked by population are: (1) Brown race, (2) Yellow race, (3) White race, (4) Black race of Africa, and (5) Brown Mestizo race of South America.

 

India would reestablish in 21st century India’s historical dominance in the world economy, which it enjoyed until 1750 AD. India had been the richest nation in the world, throughout history as late as 1750 AD. India produced one fourth of the world’s manufactured output in 1750, one-fifth in 1800 and one-sixth in 1830. It is only when India came under British crown in 1857 that India’s share fell precipitously. England is responsible for India’s poverty. India’s share of the world manufacturing output was in 1750 (24.5%), 1800 (19.7%), 1830 (17.6%), 1860 (8.6%), 1880 (2.8%), 1900 (1.7%), 1913 (1.4%), 1928 (1.9%), 1938 (2.4%), 1953 (1.7%), 1963 (1.8%), 1973 (2.1%) and 1980 (2.3%).

 

The World’s GNP at PPP in 2001 ($38,805 Billion), and India ($2,144 Billion) represents 5.53% of the world’s GNP at PPP. South Asia’s GNP at PPP ($2,695 Billion) represents 6.95% of world’s GNP. South Asia poised to overtake Japan as the third largest economy of the world during this decade. Of the four largest economies of the world, three are non-white nations of Asia, namely China, Japan and India. The combined GNPs at PPP of China, Japan and India ($9,299 Billion) and that of USA ($8,350 Billion GNP at PPP of South Asia ($2,695 Billion) exceeds the combined GNPs of Middle East & North Africa ($1,338 Billion) and Sub-Sahara Africa ($929 Billion) as well as that of Europe & Central Asia ($2,654 Billion).

 

The Combined GNPs at PPP for South Asia, China & Japan is $9,850B, more than NAFTA’s GNP $9,828 Billion the combined GNPs of USA ($8,350 Billion), Canada ($726B) and Mexico ($752 Billion). The India’s GNP ($2,144 Billion) exceeds the combined GNPs of 10 European nations ($2089 Billion), of Spain ($659 Billion), Portugal ($151 Billion), Belgium ($277 Billion), Switzerland ($196 Billion), Austria ($193 Billion), Denmark ($129 Billion), Finland ($110 Billion), Norway ($118 Billion), Sweden ($184 Billion), and Ireland ($72 Billion). The South Asia’s GNP ($2,695 Billion) exceeds the ($2,528 Billion) combined GNPs of France ($1,294 Billion) and United Kingdom ($1,234 Billion), and also ($2,498 Billion) combined GNPs of Germany ($1,839 Billion) and Spain ($659 Billion). Combined GNP ($6,256 Billion) of India ($2,144 Billion) and China ($4,112 Billion) exceeds ($6,222 Billion) combined GNPs of Germany ($1,839 Billion), France ($1,294 Billion), United Kingdom ($1,234 Billion), Italy ($1,196 Billion) and Spain ($659 Billion), the five largest economies in the European Union.

 

In 1990 the GNP of China ($355 Billion) not significantly more than that of India ($323 Billion), and India had higher per capita GNP. However, in 1999 the GNP of China ($991 Billion) leaped over that of India ($460 Billion), primarily because of Most Favored Trading Nation (MFN) Status accorded by United States. India’s GNP in 1999 was 46.4% of China, and 52.1% of China in terms of India’s (2,144 Billion) GNP at PPP. Pre-Partition India, the South Asia’s ($2,695 Billion) GNP at PPP in 1999 was 65.5% of China. The population of South Asia is (1.329 Billion) more than that of China (1.250 Billion).

 

(2) India Equal to China

India is equal to China economically and militarily. The recent leap China made over India resulted from the Most Favored Nation Status it enjoyed with United States. United States promoted China to meet the challenge of Japan. Unprecedented FDIs foreign direct investments in China and unfettered access to American markets allowed China to pull ahead of India, but India would soon catch up. In 1990 the Goss Domestic Product of China was 109.9% of India’s GDP, and India’s GDP was 91% of that of China. Then China leaped ahead of India, in 1999 the GDP of China was 215.6% of India’s GDP, as China’s GDP increased by 279.5% during 1990-1999 period. India’s GDP in 1999 was 46.38% of China’s GDP in 1999, and India’s GDP increased by 142.5% during 1990-1999 period. In 2002 China’s GDP is 191.8% of India’s GDP, and India’s GDP in 2002 is 52.14% of China’s GDP. (World Development Report, 2000/2001, Attacking Poverty, World Bank, p. 296-97) China overtook India only because of Most Favored Trading Nation’s (MFN) status with United States and by the merger of Hong Kong into China and that too only during 1990’s. India has all potential to catch up with china to eventually overtake China. Economically and militarily India and China are equal and shall play equal role in the world politics.

 

No other nation other than India can overtake China in GNP at PPP in first half of the 21st Century, to become the 2nd largest economy in the world. No doubt Hindu India, Brown Aryan India, the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious secular India is the major player in the Global Clash of Races, the Clash of Civilizations and the Clash of World Religions in the 21st Century.

 

(3) Potential of Commonwealth of Nations

India should attempt creating the Commonwealth Common Market, with or without Britain and Canada. The GNP at PPP of members of Commonwealth of Nations (4,609 Billion) exceeds that of China ($4,112 Billion) the second largest economy in the world after United States. The GNP of India ($2,144 Billion), United Kingdom ($1,234 Billion), Canada ($726 Billion), Australia ($426 Billion), South Africa ($350 Billion), Pakistan ($236.8 Billion), Bangladesh ($188 Billion), Nigeria ($92.2 Billion), New Zealand ($63.3 Billion), Sri Lanka ($58 Billion), Ghana ($34 Billion), Kenya (28.7 Billion), Zimbabwe ($29.4 Billion), Uganda ($24.4 Billion), Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize ($1.1 Billion), Botswana ($9.6 Billion), Brunei, Cameroon ($21 Billion), Cyprus ($14 Billion), Dominica ($0.4 Billion), Fiji ($3.6 Billion), Gambia ($1.9 Billion), Grenada ($0.6 Billion), Guyana ($2.8 Billion), Jamaica ($8.5 Billion), Kiribati ($0.3 Billion), Lesotho ($4.3 Billion), Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives ($0.9 Billion), Malta ($5.7 Billion), Mauritius ($10.1 Billion), Namibia ($9.1 Billion), Nauru, Papua New Guinea ($10.6 Billion), St. Kitts-Nevis ($0.4 Billion), St. Lucia ($0.8 Billion), St. Vincent and the Grenadines ($0.5 Billion), Seychelles, Sierra Leone ($2 Billion), Singapore ($87.1 Billion), Solomon Islands (($0.8 Billion), Swaziland ($4.3 Billion), Tanzania ($15.7 Billion), Trinidad & Tobago ($9.4 Billion), Tuvalu, Vanuatu ($0.5 Billion), Western Samoa, and Zambia ($6.8 Billion). India is destined to be `the leader of the Commonwealth common Market. India’s GNP exceeds the combined GNP ($2,023 Billion) of Britain, Canada and New Zealand as well as the combined GNPs ($2,139 Billion) of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nigeria. India is the dominant elephant in the Commonwealth of Nations.

 

The landmass in thousand sq. kms of leading Commonwealth countries totals (30,375 K sq. kms.) are, India (3,288K sq km), Britain (245K sq km), Canada (9,971K sq km), Australia (7,741K sq km). South Africa (1,221K sq km), New Zealand (271K sq km), Nigeria (924K sq km), Pakistan (796K sq km), Bangladesh (144K sq km), Sri Lanka (66K sq km), Ghana (239K sq km), Kenya (580K sq km), Zimbabwe (391K sq km), Uganda (241K), Botswana (582K sq km), Cameroon (475K sq km), Guyana (215K sq km), Namibia (824K sq km), Papua New Guinea (463K sq km), Tanzania (945K sq km), Zambia (753K sq km), totals (30,375 K sq. kms, which of world total land area of 133,572K sq. kms comes to 22.74% of the world’s surface landmass.

 

The GNP at PPP of leading Commonwealth nations comes to $5,711B, which is 14.7% of the world’s total GNP at PPP ($38,805 Billion). The GNP at PPP are India ($2,144 Billion), Britain ($1,234 Billion), Canada ($726 Billion), Australia ($426 Billion), South Africa ($350 Billion), New Zealand ($63 Billion), Nigeria ($92 Billion), Pakistan ($237 Billion), Bangladesh ($188 Billion Lanka ($58 Billion), Ghana ($34 Billion), Kenya ($29 Billion), Zimbabwe ($24.4 Billion), Uganda ($29.4 Billion), Botswana ($9.6 Billion), Cameroon ($21.2 Billion), Papua New Guinea ($10.6 Billion), Tanzania ($15.7 Billion), Namibia ($9.1 Billion), Guyana ($2.8 Billion) and Zambia ($6.8 Billion).

 

In general members of Commonwealth of Nations represent one-fourth 25% of the world’s population, and one-seventh 14.7% of the world’s GNP at PPP, and around one-fourth (22.74%) of the world’s surface landmass. There are three nuclear weapons powers in the Commonwealth countries, namely, Britain, India and Pakistan. Sun never sets in the Commonwealth of Nations. If Commonwealth countries allow India to lead the Commonwealth, then Commonwealth would challenge the dominance of the United States as the sole super power of the world. Traitors have led Britain that conspired Britain to abandon the leadership of the Commonwealth, to play a second fiddle to Germany and France in the European Union. Indians love the glory of British Empire, which was built by the wealth of Indian Empire and Indian soldiers and Indian empire paid the salaries of English officers worldwide. It greatly pains Indians, to see British Monarch the head of the Commonwealth, act as maid to the German Chancellor in the European Union.

 

The two biggest countries in the world, India and China –who represent one-third of humanity- more than 2.4 billion people, have decided that opening their economies to trade in goods and services is the best way to lift their people out of poverty and are now focused simply on how to globalize in the most stable manner. Globalization fatigue is very much in evidence in Europe and America, while in places like China and India you find a great desire for participation in economic expansion processes. Even those who are suspicious now want to find a way to participate, but in a way that manages the risks and the pace. So they are finding ways to “Globalize”, to so it in their own way. It may mean a little slower growth to manage the social stability, so be it.

 

Information technology has made millionaires out of ordinary people in India, because of their brainpower alone – not caste, not land, not heredity. India is just beginning to realize that this process of globalization is one where Indians have an inherent advantage. The image of India changed from a third-world country of snake charmers and rope tricks to the software brainy guys.

 

(4) India Pole of Pax Britannia

Delhi rivaled London as the Second Pole of the British Empire. Indian empire provided the military foundation of the British Empire. Delhi paid the salaries of all British soldiers and British officers worldwide. British Army financed by Indian Empire. India was the second pole of the British Empire. Indian troops were used to fight all over the world. In the First World War India sent and paid for a million men to fight for Britain and a further 2 million men were sent to fight in the Second World War. Had Indian Naval Mutiny of 18 February 1946, been successful, Yemen, Singapore, Kuwait would have become part of independent United India. Delhi was an independent player in the British Empire and Delhi paid for the salaries of all British officers and soldiers worldwide. Indian Empire decided on its own, even when fiercely opposed by London, to colonize Aden and Singapore. Indian Empire waged opium War on China. Indian Empire exercised control over British sphere of influence over Southern China. India was the 'brightest jewel in the imperial crown' of the British Empire. India's balance of payments surplus with every industrial country except Britain saw the transfer of foreign currency earnings supporting British finance capital. It was not just trade that made India a second pole of the British Empire but also the provision of men. Indian troops were used to fight all over the world. In the First World War India sent and paid for 1,500,000 men to fight for Britain and a further 3,500,000 men were sent to fight in the Second World War. India provided the British with the muscle to sustain and extend the empire. The decisions to colonize Singapore, (fiercely opposed by London) and Aden, to establish hegemony over the Persian Gulf, to conquer Burma and the attempt to conquer Afghanistan were all taken in India.

 

In 1860 India accounted for five percent of the world exports, and in 1914 India’s share of the world trade was 4 percent. In 1860, James Wilson, India's first Finance Member in the British Parliament, lauding India's thriving exports in his budget speech, said, "almost everything produced in India was in constant demand and almost every article of importance required in Europe is found increasing in India. So varied are her products. There is great security for the future. Let cultivation be extended ever so much because there is no fear of a no market for Indian goods." Those days India accounted for a share of four to five percent in the global exports. Even on the eve of the First World War, India had a share of about four percent in the export market.

 

(5) India’s Role in Global Balance of Power

India should seek closer ties with Germany and France to help European Union emerge as a world power to balance the America’s predominance.

 

(6) Triangular Balance of Power

In the emerging Triangular balance of power among European Union, Russia and United States, president Putin could develop special ties with German Chancellor, to develop special German-Russia strategic ties to wean European Union away from abject dependence on the United States in the aftermath of the Bush doctrine, and to clip the wings of hegemon United States. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Eastern bloc and end of the Cold War, Russia presents no threat to France and Germany. It is the replay of the Kissinger’s diplomacy in the aftermath of the defeat in the Vietnam War, when Nixon exploited the hidden fear of China against hegemon Soviet Union in the aftermath of the Brezhnev Doctrine, to drive a wedge in Sino-Soviet ties. President Putin by courting German ambition and French independent deterrent could succeed in making European Union led by Germany and France less friendly and less dependent on United States. India could also become a player in European balance of power, by developing permanent military bases at Kaliningrad in partnership with Russia. India should also develop closer economic and defense ties with Greece to restore balance in Greece-Turkey balance of power.

 

In the Asian balance of power India should develop defense ties with Japan and Taiwan, the less strong Powers to contain China. The rise of North Korea as nuclear power necessitates that India develop closer economic and diplomatic ties to severe North Korea transfers of missile technology to Pakistan. It would be in the long-term national interests of India to develop closer defense ties with North Korea to contain China. Just as Secretary Kissinger developed ties with China to drive a wedge in Sino-Soviet relations, similarly India should develop ties with North Korea to drive a wedge in China-North Korea ties.

 

How was the anguishing process of extricating white America from the ignominy of Vietnam defeat accomplished, while maintaining America’s standing in the world? Even without the Vietnam purgatory, the age of America’s nearly total dominance of the world stage was drawing to a close in late 1960s. America’s nuclear superiority was eroding, Soviet arsenal was catching up, and America’s economic dominance was being challenged by Europe and Japan. Problem was to find some sustainable ground between the abdication and overextension, to redefine the America’s role in the Non-Aligned Third World. Secretary Henry Kissinger used the media hype of diplomatic opening with China to take media glare away from Vietnam. The Real Politik Kissinger’s diplomacy reinvented defeated America as the foremost player in the Triangular geopolitical diplomacy among, United States, China and Soviet Union. Just as Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright attacked Kosovo to steal the media spotlight away from the damaging Cox Report on Chinese nuclear espionage, similarly Kissinger’s stealth meeting with Mao Zedong redirected media spotlight from defeat.

 

The future of the world in 21st century should be decided by six great powers, namely, United States, China, Russia, India, Europe and Japan pursuing their own national interests. The world is divided between friends and antagonists, between arenas for cooperation and arenas for competition in which national interests clashed. Peace and harmony are not the natural order of things but temporary oases in a perilous world where stability of balance of power could only be preserved by diplomatic vigilance. If the major powers, including India and Japan, pursued their self-interests rationally and predictably, the equilibrium would emerge in Asia from the clash of competing interests. India and Japan should count on the balance of power to produce stability, and a strong nuclear India is essential to the global equilibrium.

 

We must remember the only time in the history of the world that we have had any extended periods of peace is when there has been balance of power. It is when one nation becomes infinitely more powerful in relation to its potential competitor that the danger of war arises. It will be a safer world and a better world if we have a strong healthy United States, China, Russia, India, Japan, and United Europe, each balancing the other, not playing one against the other, an even balance.

 

(7) Realpolitik of India’s Non Alignment

One. Hindu India does have a geopolitical destiny, to give something more to the world simply than Non Alignment, which no great power in the history have been able to give, an example of moral leadership and idealism which no material strength or military power could provide. The Non Alignment Movement led by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru created a Triangular balance of power, USA, USSR & NAM. NAM nations led by India chose the less strong Power USSR to counter balance preponderant power United States, which continued from 1947 to 1965.

 

Two. The Triangular balance of power reverted to bipolar balance after India’s defeat in India-China war of 1962, and death of Indian Prime Ministers Nehru and Lal Bahadur Shastri and ouster of Sukarno. “During the Cold War, India proclaimed itself the neutral arbiter of world affairs, and many American intellectuals accepted that it was pursuing a higher moral standard than the super powers. But the ultimate rationale for India’s rejection of what it described as the power politics of the Cold War was that it had no national interest in the disputes at issue. “ (Kissinger, 2001, p156)

 

Three. “In fact, India’s conduct during the Cold War was not so different from that of the United States in its formative years. Like the US founding fathers, India’s leaders believed they would protect their young country best by staying aloof from quarrels not affecting its vital interests. And again, like the United States, India did not apply its rejection of power to the region affecting its immediate security interests. Whatever the United States proclaimed in the nineteenth century about European power politics, it did not shrink from using force against Mexico or in Caribbean. Nor did India hesitate to insist on its power in Sikkim, Goa, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. And India for at least twenty-five years worked on a nuclear weapons program culminating in weapons tests in 1998.” (p. 156-7)

 

(8) Parallel Interests of India and America using Kissinger’s analysis

One. United States sought to destroy the triangular balance of power by assassination and military coup targeting leading NAM leaders, Sukarno, Patrice Lumumba, etc. For fifth years, Non alignment idealism had enabled Indian prime ministers to conduct their global role with missionary vigor. But India of the 2002 requires a more complex and nuance definition of its international enterprise, and lies in the Asian balance of power between China, India and Japan. India should declare its point of departure from Indian exceptionalism of Non Alignment, and world powers consider Indian national interests more reliable than altruism. India should operate on two tracks simultaneously: invoking Non Alignment rhetoric to explain its goals while appealing to national interest to sustain its tactics.

 

Two. “Indian foreign policy can best be understood by analogy to the one that had been conducted when Britain governed the country. And 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 no 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 fundamentalist Islam dominates the region even as motives for this attitude differ.” (Kissinger)

 

Three. “It is true in the region between India and Singapore. There, as China grows in strength and Japan in assertiveness, a three-cornered rivalry is likely to develop among China, India and Japan in Asia. “The dominant American interest is to prevent hegemony by any of the participants; it is a classic balance-of-power problem. Thus, the conditions for close cooperation exist between United States and India, provided India does not get carried away by its growing military strength.”  (Kissinger) Also provided the United States is capable of formulating a policy of equilibrium for the region between India and Singapore.

 

Four. “In the north, in the Himalayas, the United States has no national interest to let itself be drawn into border disputes between Chin and India as long as neither side seeks to achieve its objective by force. This is an issue for which America should not risk its relations with either country. It is a classic case of the need to understand the limits of American interests.” (Kissinger, 2001, pp 157-8)

 

Five. “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.” (Kissinger, p. 160)

 

Six. America’s national interest in Asia is to prevent domination of the continent by any single power, especially an adversarial one. Like USA-China and USA-Japan dialogue, a similar dialogue is needed with India, especially for the region form Singapore to Aden. America’s interest is primarily geopolitical; India is as much concerned about the impact of Islamic developments on its own population. The United States is mostly concerned about Iran and Iraq; India is more focused on Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the conditions for a constructive strategic dialogue exist, in India USA relations. World order or an Asian order cannot emerge from a strategy of equilibrium of balance of power alone. But neither can it be achieved without the equilibrium. And maintaining the balance of power in Asia requires a coherent American view of the future of the Asian region.

 

Seven. The United States must maneuver among three major powers of Asia, China, Japan and India, with subtlety, and a firm long-range geopolitical perspective. America must be present in Asia without appearing to dominate, as it would rekindle the memory of the US invasions of the Vietnam. America can no longer afford to neglect Hindu India to court atheist China. The democratic United States and totalitarian China, the most technologically advanced nation and the country with largest population, have a special obligation to adjust their differences and to identify parallel interests. The Protestant United States and Hindu India, the world’s richest democracy and the world’s largest democracy, have a special obligation to adjust their differences and to identify parallel interests. The challenge is not to invent words to describe the dialogue but to give it content relevant to the future. The Asian nations should play diplomatic role in recognition of the size of their economies. The top four economies of the world in terms of GDP the GNP at PPP are United States, China, Japan and India.

 

26(4) USA Europe Russia Polity

(1) USA-Russia-Europe Balance of Power

After the defeat in the Vietnam War, Kissinger exploited the simmering rifts between Communist allies to develop closer ties with China to contain the Soviet Union, which had embarked upon diplomatic expansionism, armed with the Brezhnev Doctrine. After the loss of the Eastern bloc and disintegration of the Soviet Union, President Putin should similarly cultivate closer ties with France and Germany, to empower them compete with United States. China took the bite and sought alliance with United State, as it enhanced the power and prestige of China as global player. Similarly, Russian President Putin should cultivate German Chancellor to sow the seed of independent German power as leader of the European Union. Germany would develop closer ties with Putin’s Russia, to checkmate American assertiveness after the declaration of the Bush Doctrine, just as Mao’s China developed closer ties with Nixon’s America to contain Soviet assertiveness in the aftermath of Brezhnev’s Doctrine. Germany and France would develop closer ties with Russia to check hegemon United States’ hegemony. India should support the less strong Power European Union to stabilize the triangular balance of power in Europe among European Union, Russia and United States. What Nixon did to Brezhnev Doctrine by developing closer ties with China, Putin can do to Bush Doctrine by developing with Germany and France.

 

India should develop closer securities ties with Russia, the lesser strong power of Europe, to develop permanent military bases at Kaliningrad to make India a geopolitical player in European balance of power. India should develop close ties with less strong power Greece to stabilize Mediterranean balance of power between Greece and Turkey. India should develop closer military ties with France, the less strong Power, to stabilize the internal balance of power within the European Union to check the preponderance of Germany.

 

If the balance of power is taken seriously, then the very prospect of geopolitical upheaval must be resisted; by the time the change has occurred, it may be too late to oppose it. At a minimum, the cost of resistance will go up exponentially. If the Brezhnev doctrine had been applied to China after the Vietnam War, meant that Moscow would try to make the government in Beijing as submissive as Czechoslovakia’s had been obliged to become. The world’s most populous nation would then be subordinate to a nuclear superpower. It would be an ominous combination, which would have restored the dreaded Sino-Soviet bloc, the monolithic nature of which had inspired such fear in the 1950s. Thus Nixon-Kissinger team exploited the emerging Sino-Soviet rift after the declaration of Brezhnev Doctrine to develop USA-China rapprochement to contain Soviet Union.

 

Similar diplomatic opportunity exists in USA-European Union relationship after declaration of Bush Doctrine. The Europe seeks to assert itself, just as China wanted to assert after the Brezhnev doctrine. China and India should explore security ties with European Union, to allow European Union balance Russia against United States. In Euro-Asian geopolitical balance of power, European Union needs security ties with India to reduce its dependence on United States. The major players of the Euro-Asian continental balance of power are, European Union, Russia, China, India and United States.

 

In the post-Cold War world, the United States is the only remaining superpower with the capacity to intervene in every part of the globe. By 1990, the communist ideological and Soviet geopolitical challenges had been overcome simultaneously. The geopolitical task of resisting Soviet expansionism merged with the moral opposition to Communism. President George H.W. Bush redefined the Atlantic partnership in post-Cold War as a partnership united by principle and supported by an equitable sharing of both cost and commitment. For the third time in 20th century, America proclaimed its intention to build a new world order by applying its domestic values to the world at large. For the third time America seemed to tower over the international stage in the 20th century. In 1918, President Wilson had overshadowed Paris Peace Conference. After Second World War President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and President Truman were in a position to recast the entire globe on the American model. President Bill Clinton developed the doctrine of Humanitarian intervention. In a new era of peril and opportunity, America’s purpose must be to expand and strengthen democracies. After the First World War, Second World War and Cold War America seemed to tower over the international stage.

 

After the Berlin Wall was built in 1961, Charles de Gaulle explored the possibility of negotiating with Moscow independently of the United States, by proclaiming a policy of “Détente, Entente and Cooperation.” Charles de Gaulle’s hope was that, if Moscow perceived Europe as a free agent rather than as an American satellite, the Kremlin leaders, given their problems with China, might be induced to relax their hold on Eastern Europe. De Gaulle wanted West Germany to separate itself to some extent from Washington and to follow France’s lead in its demarche to the Soviets. De Gaulle’s concept was not lost on Brandt, who came to believe that the Germany might possess the bargaining chips, which France lacked, while the General De Gaulle was playing out his gambit. Brandt put forward in 1969 the thesis that, since reliance on the United States had produced stalemate, German Unification could be sought through German rapprochement with the communist world. He sought to abrogate the Hallstein Doctrine, by which Germany broke diplomatic ties with any government that did grant recognition to East Germany.

 

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War, Russia has ceased to be a threat to Western Europe. Germany and France find Russia could be an ally in the event of any hostile move by the United States on Western Europe. Russia’s response to German nuclear weapons would be lukewarm different from the violent response of the United States. Nuclear Germany would make European Union independent of United States, and thus not against the national interest of Russia.

 

(2) Turning Points in World Order

The order that grew out of the Peace of Westphalia lasted 150 years. The international system created by the Congress of Vienna maintained itself for a hundred years. The international order characterized by the Cold War after 1950 ended in 1990 after forty years.

 

The Thirty Year’s War (1618-1648), the Counter Reformation War was in large part about the transition from feudal societies based on tradition and claims of universality to the modern state based on raison d’etat. The Wars of the French Revolution marked the transition to the nation-state defined by common language and culture. The wars of the 20th century were caused by the disintegration of the Habsburg Empire, disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, and the challenge to the dominance of European colonial powers.

 

In these transitions, the multinational states became anachronistic in the nineteenth century. The colonialism became anachronistic in the twentieth century. The European Union seeks to reverse the trend of history and seeks to recreate multinational state in the 21st century to placate Papacy, seeking to nullify the lessons of the French Revolution. The European Union and Bush doctrine seeks to recreate the Colonial empires in the 21st century. European Union is a doomed attempt to recreate the Holy Roman Empire that grew out of the dead body of imperial Roman Empire.

 

“Europe, the part of the modern world ever to operate a multistage system, namely, Holy Roman Empire, Habsburg Empire and Ottoman Empire, invented the concepts of the nation-state, sovereignty, and the balance of power. These ideas dominated international affairs for the better part of three centuries. But none of the Europe’s erstwhile nations practitioners of raison d’etat are no strong enough to act as principals in the emerging international order. They are attempting to compensate for this relative weakness by creating a unified Europe, an effort, which absorbs much of their energies. But even if were to succeed, no automatic guidelines for the conduct of a unified on the global stage would be at hand, since such a political entity has never existed before.” (Kissinger, Diplomacy, p. 24)

 

Will Russia shift its center of gravity eastward and become more active participant in Asian diplomacy? Will Russia seek to return to its historical rhythm and restore the lost Empire? In the inevitable turmoil associated with answering these questions, Russia will be a potential menace to world order. Russia will always be essential to world order.

 

Russia arrived late on the European scene. Rise of Orthodox Russia from the tax collector of Buddhist Mongol Empire to the Russian Empire was a great feat. Bordering on three different cultural spheres- Western Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, Orthodox Russia contains populations of each. For most of its history, Russia has been a cause looking for opportunity. Post communist Russia finds itself within borders, which reflects no historical precedent. Like European Union, it will have to devote much of its energy to redefining its identity.

 

Nuclear India is world’s fourth largest economy in terms of GDP, the GNP at PPP at $2.144 trillion after USA, China & Japan and ahead of United Germany. India’s “foreign policy is in many ways the last vestige of the heyday of European imperialism, leavened by the traditions of an ancient culture. But it (India) has yet to assume a role commensurate with its size on the international political scene. (Kissinger, “Diplomacy, p. 26)

 

In the post-Cold War world, the traditional European nation-states of Europe lack the resources for a global role. United, Europe will continue as a Great Power; divided into nation states, it will slide into secondary status. Only European Union can rival China and India as world powers. The global balance of power in the 21st century determined by five world powers, namely, United States, China, Russia, India, and Europe. The civilizations have replaced the nation states as major determinant of the global balance power. The size of the economy and the population has become important determinant in the balance of power game. Small nations have no future as major powers in the world in the 21st century.

 

The continental size civilization-nation states may consolidate their hold over the smaller nations in their immediate region, to create civilization-wide colonial empires. China may takeover yellow Buddhist nations, Malaysia and Indonesia, and Eastern Siberia or Australia to recreate Neo-Mongol Empire. Russia may takeover Central Asia. European Union may takeover Middle East, Arabian Peninsula and North Africa to recreate Neo-Roman Empire. United States may takeover Canada, Australia, Brazil and Argentina to create American Empire. Mexico may confederate with Central America, Venezuela, Colombia to form Neo-Maya Empire. Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and Chile may confederate to form Neo-Inca Empire. India may takeover Indian Ocean Rimland countries in Africa and Arabian Gulf to recreate Neo-Indian Empire.

 

The “Four Policemen” of the 21st Century is namely, USA, China, India and European Union. In 1943, Roosevelt had envisioned China as one of the “Four Policemen.”

 

American role is the key to helping Japan and China coexist despite their suspicions of each other. India should develop close security ties with Japan, the less great Power to stabilize the Asian balance of power. “Japan, faced with an aging population and a stagnating economy, might decide to press its technological and strategic superiority before China emerges as a superpower and Russia recovers its strength. Afterward, it (Japan) might have recourse to that great equalizer, nuclear technology.” (Kissinger, 1995, p. 828)

 

Of all the great, and potentially great powers, India is the most ascendant. The United States already is the most powerful. European Union must work to forge greater unity and remove what Romano Prodi, president of European Commission, calls “stupid” rules. Russia is a staggering giant. Japan is wealthy but, so far, timid, and its banking and financial sector heading for total disaster and meltdown. China, with high economic growth, shows great sense of national cohesion and even more muscular military, and will show great relative increase in status vis-à-vis Europe and Russia. However, Communist Party’s rule could meet the fate of the rule of the Soviet Communist Party, because Buddhist religious organizations gaining strength at the expense of the Communist Party. Buddhist Falun Gong has more than 100 million followers in China. If India decides to support Buddhists in China, the Communist government will fall in China. India will overtake China in population by 2050 AD. India is a democracy and guarantees freedom of religion, and India is the birthplace of Buddhism. In spite of the Vietnam defeat and the expansionism of the Brezhnev’s Doctrine, the Soviet Union collapsed, when communist ideology couldn’t face the opposition of religion, capitalism, freedom and democracy. Totalitarian atheist Communist ideology would fail to stem the popular tide in favor of Buddhism, Taoism in China. India would overtake China and Japan in the 21st century.

 

Chinese communism will self-destruct like that of the Soviet communism, without any hostile foreign intervention. At one moment, at the beginning of the 1980s, it was as if Soviet communist momentum might sweep all before it. At the next moment, as the history measures time, communism was self-destructing. Within a decade, the Eastern European satellite orbit dissolved and the Soviet Union fell apart, disgorging nearly all the Russian acquisitions since the time of Peter the Great. No world power had ever disintegrated so totally or so rapidly without losing a war. The capitalism and Buddhism of Hong Kong would bring about the similar disintegration of the communist system in China. India is far greater a power than China-politically, democratically, culturally. The Communist China will fail because Chinese people have realized that Communists are out to destroy the Buddhist religion in China. Chinese people realize that Communist party leadership damn care about Communist ideology. Chinese Buddhist capitalists wonder, why shouldn’t China bring down the Communist system itself and become a Buddhist Capitalist China?

 

26(5) Balance of Power

(1) Bismarck as Incarnation of Evil

One. India in the 21st century should follow the foreign policy perspective similar to that of British Prime Minister in the 19th century and criticize Kissinger’s foreign policy during Nixon-Ford Administrations; similar to the way of Gladstone viewed the foreign policy of Bismarck. Bismarck viewed the concert of Europe as an enforcer of the status quo. To Gladstone Concert of Europe was the revolutionary tool designed to bring about an entirely new world order. To an Indian mind, Kissinger’s anti-Buddhist, anti-India, anti-democracy, pro-Communism, and pro-China policies were revolutionary policies, which renewed détente of Judeo-Communism and Judeo-Christianity to pursue iconoclastic proselytizing agenda. Kissinger pursued Realpolitik agenda in the triangular balance of power among United States, Soviet Union and China, by developing security ties with less strong power China to contain main adversary Soviet Union. However, in the Indo-China triangle among Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, and China, Kissinger chose to destroy the weakest country Buddhist Cambodia, against all logic of the classical balance of power.

 

Two. Prime Minister Gladstone called Bismarck “the incarnation of evil.” (Kissinger, Diplomacy, p. 163) Gladstone judged foreign policy by moral instead of geopolitical criteria. Morality is the only basis for a sound foreign policy. Decency and respect for human rights ought to be the guiding lights of foreign policy. “Remember that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan is as inviolable in the eye of Almighty God as can be your own,” declared Gladstone in 1879. Far from viewing the Concert of Europe as an enforcer of the status quo, Gladstone assigned it the revolutionary role of bringing about an entirely new world order. To Bismarck, such views were pure anathema. Bismarck considered Gladstone part humbug, part menace.

 

Three. From Indian perspective, ruthless real politics of Secretary Henry Kissinger represented “the incarnation of evil.” Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Secretary Henry Kissinger cordially detested each other. Indians equate Nixon-Ford Administrations with Henry Kissinger’s ruthless Real politik, just as genocidal Stalin’s regime equated with Bolshevik Jew Lavrenti Beria’s secret police. Indians feel that Henry Kissinger refused to restrain Pakistani Army and indirectly consented to the rape of Bangladeshi women at hands of Pakistani occupation troops before India Pak War of 1971. In the eyes of the Hindu Indians, massacre of 2 million educated Buddhists at hands of Christian Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge won’t have taken place without consent of Mao Zedong and Secretary Kissinger. Indians view Secretary Kissinger, no different from the view of Prime Minister Gladstone about Bismarck. The amoral ruthless real politik of Secretary Kissinger caused the genocide of Buddhists in Cambodia. Similar amoral ruthless real politik of Lavrenti Beria did cause genocide of 30 million Russians. The amoral real politik of Eichman caused the Holocaust of 6 million Jews in Nazi Germany. The amoral real politik of Mao Zedong caused the deaths of 60 million Buddhists in China. The diplomat students of Bismarck should be called, “the incarnation of evil,” whenever ruthless diplomacy resulted in genocide. It is high time to remember the words of Gladstone, “Remember that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan is as inviolable in the eye of Almighty God as can be your own.” Jews had to bear the burden of the sin of the murder of Jesus Christ and Apostle James the elder brother of Jesus. Similarly, the burden of the Russian deaths under Lavrenti Beria and Buddhist deaths in Cambodia stained the Jewish race in the 20th Century. Judeo-Communism became an evil cult due to the actions of Bolshevik Jew Lavrenti Beria. Bismarck’s Real Politik proved to be an evil cult in the hands of Secretary Kissinger and many of his successors. Nazism became an evil cult due to the actions of Eichman.

 

Four. Rather than condemn the Crimes against Humanity perpetrated by Pakistani Army in Bangladesh, Secretary Henry Kissinger had threatened India with nuclear weapons, were India to attack West Pakistan after the victory in 1971. No balance of power doctrine or Bismarck’s diplomacy could justify the India policy of Secretary Kissinger, raising doubt whether Secretary Kissinger adopted anti-India, anti-Laos, anti-Cambodia, anti-Buddhist diplomatic posture to placate proselytizing interests of Catholic religious right wing conservative conspiracy. Did Kissinger’s anti-India policy result of Judeo-Christian aversion of pagan Hinduism, not influenced by Realpolitik considerations?

 

Five. It is surprising that in the 909 pages book “Diplomacy” Dr. Kissinger does not even mention Prime Minister Indira Gandhi his contemporary. Henry Kissinger’s writings represent the works of publicist working for Chinese government, though clothed in the finest academic insight, seeks to portray China as the major player in the world, while belittles India. Dr. Kissinger undermines India, not because he came to this conclusion by his study of Bismarck’s Realpolitik, Geopolitics, or study of balance of power, but because of his religious beliefs. Dr. Kissinger formulated Nixon Administration’s foreign policy towards Hindu India, Buddhist Cambodia, Buddhist Laos, and towards communist repression of Buddhists in China, guided not by geopolitics to promote national interests of WASPs United States, but to promote the religious, proselytizing agenda of the religious right conservatism, to the detriment of the national interests of the United States. Since neither President George W. Bush nor Secretary Colin Powell belong to the religious right conservative conspiracy, it is high time that Protestant America develop closer religious and strategic ties with Hindu India, in the global clash of races and clash of civilizations, where eclectic Protestant Reformed Christians and Hindus will be on the same side of the battle lines.

 

(5) European Union’s Balance of Power

India and Russia should cultivate France the less strong Power in European Union to check the dominance of Germany in European Union. France is more likely to develop security ties with Hindu India and Orthodox Russia against the wishes of Catholic religious right wing conservative conspiracy, because of the Richelieu’s Raison d’etat tradition in France. Even when Germany is more powerful than France, predominantly Catholic France would join forces with Protestants, Hindu India, and Orthodox Russia to curb the neo-conservatism of Pope John Paul II.

 

European balance of power system emerged in the seventeenth century. The feudal states of Germany and Northern Italy were grouped under the rule of the Holy Roman Empire. Into the seventeenth century, Holy Roman Empire had the potential to dominate Europe, and England and France were peripheral states with respect to it. Unlike pharaoh or a Caesar, the Holy roman Emperor was not deemed to possess divine attributes. Everywhere outside Western Europe, religion and government were unified. The potential and actual conflict between Pope and Emperor established the conditions for constitutionalism and separation of power. England, France and Spain did not accept the authority of the Holy Roman Empire, though they remained part of the Roman Catholic Church. Not until the Hapsburg dynasty had lain near permanent claim to the imperial crown in the 15th century, did it become possible for the Holy Roman Emperor to aspire to translate his universal claims into a political system. In the first half of the 16th century, Emperor Charles V created the Central European Empire, composed of present day Germany, Austria, Northern Italy, the Czech Republic, Slovakia Hungary, Eastern France, Belgium and the Netherlands. At that moment, the weakening of the Papacy under the impact of Reformation harmed the prospects of the hegemonic European empire. Strong Papacy had been a rival to Holy Roman Emperor. But in the 16th century, the emperor came to be perceived in Protestant lands as a Viennese warlord tied to a decadent Pope. The Reformation gave rebellious princes a new freedom of action in both the religious and political spheres.

 

(6) Raison d’etat Diplomacy of Richelieu

Raison d’etat asserted that the well being of the state justified whatever means were employed to further it. The national interest supplanted the medieval notion of Christian morality. The balance of power replaced the nostalgia for universal monarchy. Each state in pursuing its own selfish interests, would also contribute to the safety and progress of all the other states. The earliest formulation of this new approach came from France, which was also one of the first nation states in Europe. France was the country that stood to lose the most by the reinvigoration of the Holy Roman Empire. The principal for Raison d’etat and the balance of power was the Cardinal de Richelieu, First Minister of France from 1624 to 1642. Richelieu put the French national interest above Catholic religious goals, and supported the rebel Protestant Princes, to oppose the Hapsburg attempt to re-establish the Catholic empire as a geopolitical threat to France’s security. To Richelieu it was not a religious act but a political maneuver by Austria to achieve dominance in Central Europe and thereby to reduce France to second-class status. Salvation might be his personal objective to Richelieu, the Cardinal, but to Richelieu, the statesman, it was irrelevant. The man is immortal his salvation is hereafter. The state has no immortality its salvation is now or never. States do not receive credit in any world for doing what is right. States are only rewarded for being strong enough to do what is necessary. Richelieu argued that success of Counter Reformation would reduce France to an appendage of Holy Roman Empire. Richelieu’s Raison d’etat opposed the imperial ambitions of Hapsburg Counter Reformation Wars as the geopolitical threat to France. Similarly present day France and Germany would view Bush Doctrine as the geopolitical threat to France and Germany respectively.

 

Richelieu thwarted the Habsburgs and the Holy Roman Empire was divided among more than 300 sovereigns. Germany failed to become a nation-state, absorbed in petty dynastic quarrels. As a result Germany developed no national political culture and calcified into a provincialism from which it did not emerge until late in the 19th century when Bismarck unified Germany.

 

The present day European Union is the repeat of the Bismarck’s unification of Germany, and would result in World War three. Like Richelieu, United States, Russia and India should apply the policies of Raison d’etat and help disintegrate European Union. European Union like the Hapsburg Counter Reformation War presents great danger to the world. Germany-led European Union seeks to recreate European Colonial Empires in 21st Century. Germany-led European Union, if embarks upon colonial expansionism would make France a mere appendage of Germany-led European Union. European Union led by imperialist Germany shall cause war. The national interests of France and Germany differ from the national interests of United States, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Weak Russia is a friend not an enemy of France and Germany. Germany and France may enter into closer security ties with Russia to become independent of United States. President Putin could develop closer ties with France, to weaken USA-European Union ties, just as President Nixon developed ties with China to drive a wedge in Sino-Soviet ties.

(7) Principles to Restrain Self Interest

The issue is whether the post-Cold War world can find some principle to restrain the assertion of power and self-interest?

 

Agreement on shared values inhibits the desire to overthrow the international order. The balance of power inhibits the capacity to overthrow the international order. The world’s top economic powers, namely, USA, China, Japan, India, Germany, France, Britain and Russia, are legitimate “Eight Policemen” of the World. World top eight world powers should be responsible for maintaining balance of power in selected regions of the world. India as the home of one-sixth of the mankind and world’s fourth largest economies should become the Permanent Member of the UN Security Council.

 

Balance of power cannot be left to the aftermath of the collision of the states, and there should be some principles to curb the excessive assertion of power and national interests. The terrorism should be outlawed. The acts of terror cannot become legitimate instruments of national power. The religious fundamentalism can result in massive retaliation, if fundamentalists target women for persecution. The attacks of Iconoclast religions on pagan nations should be outlawed.

 

The explosion of small states should be curbed. A number of smaller states should merge with their neighbors to form larger regional states. European Union is a modern organism. The nation states should merge into regional groupings of states. Just as European states have merged to form the European States, similar regional groupings should form mega-states in East Asia, South Asia, Middle East, North Africa, sub-Sahara Africa, Central America, Andean America, and South America. India, China and Japan should lead Asia and Africa to form Confederation of Afro-Asia.

 

(8) Designing New World Order

The question is whether the maintenance of the new world order can turn into a conscious design, or whether it will grow out of a series of tests of strength?

 

The emergence of the European balance of power in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries parallels certain aspects of the post-Cold War world. In 21st Century, as in 19th and 18th century, the collapse of the Soviet Union gave birth to a multitude of states pursuing their national interests, without any clear definition of national interests, and they were groping for some definition of their international role.

 

National Power is too difficult to assess. Balance of power works best if it is buttressed by an agreement on common civilization’s values. Barbarians cannot expect restrained retaliation, if the aim of the barbarians is to overthrow the civilizations. Armed forces of the Civilizations have a moral duty to undertake preemptive strikes against forces of barbarians, to annihilate barbarians’ homeland and home base. Civilizations cannot afford to give barbarians the chance to make devastating first strike, because the goal of the barbarians is not new balance of the power, but the destruction of the very balance of power. The Civilizations have the moral duty to use massive retaliation to annihilate the human, economic and social power of the barbarians. The barbarian nations cannot expect any mercy from civilized nations. Total destruction of the barbarian societies is the moral imperative of the modern age. The world leaders cannot risk the future of civilizations at the hands of barbarians.

 

President Bush is justified in undertaking massive strikes against Muslim terrorist targets in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, so long as the invasions result in establishing the civilized norms and culture in the barbarian terrorist homelands.

 

26(6) India’s Raison d’etat Diplomacy

Richelieu ‘s Raison d’etat shall be the guiding principle of India’s foreign policy. The state has no immortality its salvation is now or never. States do not receive credit in any world for doing what is right. States are only rewarded for being strong enough to do what is necessary. This shall be the purpose of Indian diplomacy

 

(1) Asia’s Geopolitical Complexity

The Asian balance of power is more differentiated and therefore more complex. Twenty-first century is the century of Asia. Asia is predominantly the continent of Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic civilizations. All religions of the world have taken birth in Asia.

 

Three of the world’s four largest economies are in Asia. The GDPs are: USA ($8.350 Trillion), China ($4.112 Trillion), Japan ($3.043 Trillion), India ($ 2.144 Trillion), Germany ($1.838 Trillion), France ($1.294 Trillion), and Britain ($1.234 Trillion). Six of nine nuclear weapon countries are in Asia, namely, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Two largest population countries are in Asia, namely, China (1.25 billion) and India (1 billion). Indonesia (207 million) has the largest Muslim population of any country. These are 1999 figures.

 

The nations of Asia view one another as strategic rivals even as they cooperate on many economic matters. Wars between them are not likely, but neither are they excluded. International order of Asia therefore resembles that of nineteenth-century Europe more than that of 20th century North Atlantic. Nations of Asia have never acknowledged a common danger. Asian nations have quite differing views about what threatens their security. China, Japan and Korea have historically feared Russia. Taiwan, India, Burma, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Korea and Japan historically fear China. South Korea, North Korea, China and Russia re concerned about a resurgent and expansionist Japan. Laos, Cambodia, Thailand consider Vietnam the principal danger. China considers Vietnam the principal rival in Indo-China, India the principal rival in South Asia and Indian Ocean, and Japan the principal rival in East Asia. India and Pakistan are each obsessed with the threat of the other. Any increase in strength by one country produces compensatory adjustments by all other nations in the region, if their economy so allows.

 

(2) Tanaka Memorial

The wartime Prime Minister Tanaka of Japan produced Tanaka Memorial to define Japan’s strategy during Second World War. “Tanaka Memorial” states: “He who controls Korean Peninsula controls the Manchuria. He who controls the Manchuria controls the China. He who controls China, controls the destiny of the world.”

 

(3) Balance of Power in Korean Peninsula

America and India must not lose sight of the fact that Korean Peninsula is where the interests of five major powers intersect, namely, China, Japan, Russia, United States and India. Neither China nor Japan is eager for unification of Koreas, especially if a unified Korea were to inherit North Korea’s nuclear and missile technology. Both China and Japan have vivid memories of invasions launched against their territories from Korean soil. India has cultural stake in Korean Buddhism. Korean Mahayana Buddhism is 90 percent similar to Hinduism. Any democratic government in North Korea will seek unification with South Korea. Any authoritarian government will repeat the existing dilemmas. It will be no more possible to keep Korea divided by the actions of outside powers than proved to be the case in Germany. The economic challenge of unifying Korea is far more daunting than the challenge of unification Germany faced for a decade.

 

United States as well as India has no reason to oppose Korean Unification and every motive to support it. If North Korea succeeds in establishing itself as the legitimate representative of the Korean national interest, South Korea would be marginalized as an American Ally. North Korea seeks to demoralize South Korea by discussing the future of the Korean Peninsula directly with Washington.

 

“But far more is at stake for America than the future of Korea, for the future of Asia will importantly depend on what happens to American forces now stationed along the 38th parallel. Nor will the future of American troops in Korea depend entirely on the leaders of the two Koreas. Were tensions to ease dramatically, the presence of American troops could become highly controversial within South Korea, regardless of the wishes of the incumbent president. In turn, with the departure of these forces, the future of American bases in Japan would become problematical. And if American troops leave the rim of Asia, an entirely new security and above all, political situation would arise all over the continent. Were this to happen, even a positive evolution on the Korean peninsula could lead to a quest for autonomous defense policies in Seoul and Tokyo and to a growth of nationalism in Japan, China, and Korea. The United States may not be able to arrest such trends, but it should not slide into them through preoccupation with the tactics and headlines of the moment.” (Kissinger, 2001, p 133-34)

 

In 1993, then Prime Minister Kiichi Myazawa replied with emphatic “No” when asked whether Japan could accept a North Korean nuclear capability. Japan might take countermeasures. Would Japan develop its own nuclear capability if all else failed? It is likely that in due course, these questions will be answered by Japan deciding to chart its own autonomous course. Japanese nuclear capability would not be against India’s national interests. Japanese nuclear arsenal would curb Chinese expansionism and protect the sovereignty of Taiwan. However, no Asian nation except Pakistan and South Korea, gains by North Korean nuclear capability and missile technology. North Korean threatens China more than it harms Indian interests.

 

Korea has been a focal point of Asian crisis for the last one-hindered years. 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, when Stalin brought in Kim II Sung to establish North Korean regime. In 1950, Korean War started and US intervention prevented communist takeover. Since then, the 38th parallel has demarcated on of the most absolute dividing border in the world.

 

(4) Containment of China

Henry Kissinger’s much-hyped diplomatic breakthrough with China was just hot air a camouflage to maintain America’s self-confidence amidst the painful Vietnam defeat and Watergate scandal. Chinese went through the Diplomatic Soap Opera because Chinese got all free goodies and gave nothing in exchange. Mao acted like a difficult beauty because he realized that China held all the cards. Except for the media glare Kissinger’s China policy was sheer loss for the United States and all gains for China. President Richard Nixon made submissive Kow tow to Chinese Emperor Mao Zedong. Kissinger’s détente with Mao Zedong resulted in the later day genocide of 2 million Buddhists in Cambodia. Nixon Administration’s China policy was a net loss for United States, except perhaps campaign donations, which Cox Report noted resulted in the large-scale theft of American nuclear weapon design secrets by Chinese spies. It is high time to jettison the influence of Kissinger’s China policy.

 

In the early 1990s, America’s approach to China heavily influenced by Catholic missionaries and traders. Americans idealized China as a heroic democratic ally and as a victim of Japanese aggression, during the 1930s and during the Second World War. America’s diplomatic contact was restored with China in 1971. In 1990s the idea of confrontation between the two countries gained momentum again, threatening to return the relationship to the tensions of half a century before.

 

Communist China is a morally flawed “inevitable adversary” of United States and India. China is the inevitable adversary of the United States, at the moment 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.” United States should create an alliance of Asian states to contain China. United States should build up Japan to help America share the burden of the defense of Asia and the containment of China.

 

United States should treat Taiwan as an independent country and a military outpost of the United States. United States should scrap the “one-China” policy.

 

The much hyped “strategic partnership” of USA and China never functioned. The view of the Clinton administration was summed up in the slogans “engagement” and “strategic partnership.” The approach of the Clinton administration avoided the geopolitical challenge of the relationship with China.

 

United States should treat China as a permanent adversary. In Asia, the United States should conduct the containment policy of China and use India and Japan to contain China. Vietnam would be willing to join United States in the containment of China.

 

Faced with a threat of hegemony in Asia-whatever the regime- America would resist as it did Japan’s in the Second World War and the Soviet Union’s in the Cold War. It is in the American national interest to resist, foil and oppose the effort of any power to dominate Asia. A hostile Asian bloc led by China would be incompatible with the American national interest and Indian national interest. It is in the American national interest to resist the effort of China to dominate Asia, and in the extreme, the United States should be prepared to do so without allies. China intends to dominate Asia. United States should nurture cooperative relations with all the major powers of Asia, namely, India, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, and Pakistan to keep open the possibility of joint military action against China, should circumstances require it. America’s confrontation with China is the strategic choice and strategic necessity and suitable preparation made to acquire the capability to confront China.

 

Geopolitically the emergence of China is comparable to the emergence of Germany in the nineteenth century, which ultimately led to World War I, in the twentieth century.

 

In 1971 and 1972, president Richard Nixon and Chairman Mao Zedong reestablished contact, not because of their respective geopolitical necessities, but because Kissinger wanted the media to forget the Vietnam defeat and hype the prospects of creating new world order by triangular balance of power of USA, China, and the Soviet Union. United States rewarded China with Most Favored Nation and got virtually nothing in return from China, except large Chinese campaign donation for all major party candidates. Cosigner’s shuttle diplomacy between Moscow and Beijing was just a ploy to let American public forget Vietnam trauma and to take the spotlight away from Watergate scandal. United States had earlier made the great mistake of allowing Communist Maoists takeover China without a fight in 1949.

 

Under the impact of the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon recognized the role China might play in establishing a new Asian balance of power. In geopolitical terms, there were reasons for a rapprochement with China to balance the Soviet Union, either to restrain the Soviet Union or to induce it to negotiate seriously. Nixon’s rapprochement to China sought to isolate Hanoi and thereby spur an end to the Vietnam War and to maintain America’s self-confidence amidst the painful withdrawal from Indochina.

 

Detente with China was an attempt to publicize American diplomatic finesse to demonstrate America’s undiminished capacity to master an international environment that was turning multipolar, from USA-USSR bipolar balance of power. The new links between China and United States flourished so long it 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. The weakening of presidential authority in the United States due to the Watergate and its aftermath reduced Beijing’s confidence in America’s ability to resist Soviet pressure.

 

America’s perception of China changed by three events. The first was the collapse of the Communism, starting with 1989 with revolutions in Eastern bloc and culminating in 1991 in the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The second was the bloody repression of the students in Tiananmen Square. American public realized that so-called reformer Deng Xiaoping was no better than Bolshevik Jew Lavrenti Beria of Stalin’s gang. The third was the April 2001 American reconnaissance plane incident that landed on Chinese soil.

 

(5) Indian Role in Balance of Power

In so far as Indo-American relations can be shaped by American policy, they should be based on the recognition that India, by virtue of its population, history, culture and geographic position, is an indispensable component of a constructive Asian policy, and this requires a settled policy, not a slogan. A constructive relationship between the United States and China is not a favor either country does for the other, and it will withstand the stress of time only if it is based on some conception of a common interest. A sustained geopolitical dialogue between India and the United States is therefore imperative, to create a safer international order. The challenge is not to invent words to describe the India-USA geopolitical dialogue but to give it content relevant to the future.

 

The United States and India, first being the most technologically advanced nation and world’s richest democracy and second the country with the second largest pool of English-speaking highly skilled engineers, technicians and with the second largest population in the world, and world’s largest democracy, have a special geopolitical obligation to adjust their religious and cultural differences and to identify parallel interests. Though neither Protestant USA nor Hindu India has much experience in long-term dealings with great powers of equivalent nature and on the basis of equality, they have no better option. For as Hindu India develops and extends the range of its international concerns, the United States and India will be obliged to interact with each other in such regions as Central Asia, the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Guyana, Fiji Islands, Surinam and Venezuela. The USA-India confrontation sought by Dr. Henry Kissinger and his successors, who looked India from the goggles of Christian religious right conservative conspiracy, either on Kashmir or nuclear proliferation will create a situation in which both sides lose. American has nothing to gain by engaging in confrontation preemptively.

 

United States must realize that India supplied 3,500,000 soldiers during Second World War and 6,500,000 soldiers during First World War to help Allied Powers win two world wars. India has not been paid by Allied powers for supplying total of eleven million soldiers during First and Second World Wars.

 

America’s future alliance with India has the potential to become the bedrock of America’s Asian policy. Special care must be taken to ensure that Indian leaders understand that India’s security concerns would not be sidelined in Asia and that India will have a reasonable voice in the design of American policy in Asia. America should undertake Intensive geopolitical dialogue with India in the Indian Ocean Region, especially for the region from Singapore to Aden. America and India have similar geopolitical interests in the arc that extends from Singapore to Aden. World’s oil passes through this lane. Neither USA nor India wishes to see a fundamentalist Islam dominates the region. India should draft its foreign policy on the broad outline of the foreign policy of British Indian Empire, that policy was formulated in Calcutta and after 1934 from New Delhi, and it covered the foreign policy of British Empire in China, Africa, Middle East and Southeast Asia. The maritime United States as a Sea Power has the similar geopolitical perception as that of Sea Power Britannia in the Indian Ocean region. India dominates the sea-lanes from Aden to Singapore. United States would accept the India’s primacy as a regional sea power in the Indian Ocean region, and especially in the Indian Ocean Coastlands extending as arc from Singapore to Aden. United States should help India base its security on naval supremacy in the Indian Ocean, on friendly or at least non-threatening regimes in the area from Singapore to Aden.

 

United States accepts that three-cornered rivalry exists in Asia, China-Japan-India rivalry for spheres of influences in Asia’s coastlands and sea-lanes extending from Sea of Japan to Red Sea. The dominant American interest is to prevent hegemony by China in Asia. Judging by balance of power doctrine enunciated by Bismarck, Churchill and 400 years of English Diplomacy, United States should join forces with India, the less strong Power, to stabilize the triangular balance of power in Asia among China, Japan and India. The wisdom of Bismarck, Churchill and maritime England demands that maritime United States should develop geopolitical ties with India, to contain China and to manage Japan to create stable triangular balance of power in Asia, among China, Japan and India.

 

There is no Christian state of any significance in Asia, other than Orthodox Russia. Russia’s Eastern Siberia is thinly populated and Russia is the leading Orthodox Civilization on earth. White Russia do not consider themselves part of Europe not Asia. Asia’s leading Islamic nations, namely, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia outnumber rest of the Muslims of the world.

 

(vi) Raison D’etat in 21st Century

(1) Principal Diplomats of 20th Century

Let us identify the main events and major diplomats and major politicians that determined the 20th Century. The real major players of the 1800-1920 era have been: (a) Napoleon, (b) Bismarck. The real major players of the 1920-1950 era have been: (a) Lavrenti Beria-Stalin, (b) Eichman-Hitler, (c) Winston Churchill. The real major players of the 1950-1965 era have been: (a) John Foster Dulles, (b) Nikita Khrushchev, (c) Jawaharlal Nehru. The real major players of the 1965-2000 era have been: (a) Henry Kissinger, (b) Pope John Paul II. The real major events of the 1945-2002 era have been: (a) Explosion of Atom Bomb on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, (b) Genocide of 2 million Buddhists in Cambodia, (c) Terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001.

 

We focus on these events and players to develop the historical perspective to evaluate the 20th century. The real major events of the 1945-2000 era has been: (a) Cold War, Nuclear Weapons, (b) Decolonization, Non Alignment, (c) Korean, the Vietnam, Yugoslav & Afghan Wars, (d) Disintegration of Soviet Union, Decline of Germany, France & Britain, Rise of India, China & Japan.

 

(2) New Nuclear Age

The new Age is the Nuclear Age. The Americans developed nuclear weapons and missiles with the help of German Jews and Hitler’s scientists. American communists sold the Atom bomb secrets to Soviet Union. With the Atom Bomb started Cold War and Bipolar system. After the decolonization Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru launched Non-alignment Movement and transformed the Bipolar world order into Tripolar world of Bipolar super power system in the world where most of the independent nations had joined Non-Alignment Movement. Then onwards even in 2002 main job of the Western and American diplomats has been to win over selected third world nations away from Non-Alignment. India as the principal force behind Non Alignment has been a principal adversary of the United States in 1945-2001 period, in the eyes of the White House. United States promoted China as power to take away India’s leadership in the Third World Non Alignment. India is the real voice of the Third World Non Alignment. It is in this light that three real world-players of the 1945-1965 Era have been John Foster Dulles, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Nikita Khrushchev. As the leader of the Non Aligned world, as late as 1962, India represented the Third Pole of the bipolar world system. The Western diplomacy’s principal focus in the 1945-2000 period had been to erase Non Alignment Movement’s Third Pole. After 1998 nuclear explosions Nuclear Hindu India emerged as the Third Pole in the new world order. Nehru had been a real major player of the 1950-1965 era.

 

(3) 21st Century of Asia

The 21st Century is the Century of Asia not Europe. West Europe would not play any major role in the 21st Century. The Western Christendom and white race in 21st Century represented by United States, Hinduism and brown race by India, Buddhism and yellow race by Japan and China. No Islamic nation would become a world power, unless nuclear Pakistan, as new Caliph of Islam occupies Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. In the 21st Century the classical European nations, namely, Germany, France and Britain do not have the economic and military resources to play any great power role separately, outside the European Union framework.

 

Economic power determines military power and political power in the 21st Century. United States, China, India, and Russia are the world’s “Four Policeman” of this new century. United States, China, Japan and India represent the world’s four largest economic powers in terms of size. World Banks “World Development Report 2000-2001” ranks world’s top Seven largest economies in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GNP at PPP) at 1999 dollars as follows: (1) United States ($8.350 Trillion), (2) China ($ 4.112 Trillion), (3) Japan ($ 3.043 Trillion), (4) India ($ 2.144 Trillion), (5) Germany ($ 1.838 Trillion), (6) France ($ 1.294 Trillion), (7) United Kingdom ($ 1.234 Trillion), (10) Russia ($ 929 Billion). The problem of the 21st Century is: How to integrate China, Japan and India to play legitimate Great Power role commensurate with their economic status as world’s top four economic power in terms of the size of the economy. The principle problem of the diplomacy is how to integrate India and China into the Super Power Club. Germany, France and United Kingdom would never be able to match India and China in terms of the size of the economy and military capability.

 

INDIA EQUAL TO CHINA: India is equal to China economically and militarily. The recent leap China made over India resulted from the Most Favored Nation Status it enjoyed with United States. United States promoted China to meet the challenge of Japan. Unprecedented FDIs foreign direct investments in China and unfettered access to American markets allowed China to pull ahead of India, but India would soon catch up. In 1990 the Goss Domestic Product of China was 109.9% of India’s GDP, and India’s GDP was 91% of that of China. Then China leaped ahead of India, in 1999 the GDP of China was 215.6% of India’s GDP, as China’s GDP increased by 279.5% during 1990-1999 period. India’s GDP in 1999 was 46.38% of China’s GDP in 1999, and India’s GDP increased by 142.5% during 1990-1999 period. In 2002 China’s GDP is 191.8% of India’s GDP, and India’s GDP in 2002 is 52.14% of China’s GDP. (World Development Report, 2000/2001, Attacking Poverty, World Bank, p. 296-97) China overtook India only because of Most Favored Trading Nation’s (MFN) status with United States and by the merger of Hong Kong into China and that too only during 1990’s. India has all potential to catch up with china to eventually overtake China. Economically and militarily India and China are equal and shall play equal role in the world politics.

 

India and China have historically been the leading economies and richest nations of the world from the time immemorial. It is no accident that India and China are fourth and second largest economies of the world in 2002, respectively. Even in 1750 AD India produced 24.5% of the world’s total manufactured goods, and China produced 31.5% of the world’s total manufactured goods. The Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, the entire Western Christendom in 1750 produced only 18.2 percent of the world’s total manufactured goods. (Paul Bairoch “International Industrialization Levels from 1750 to 1980,” World Bank Report) India and China have regained what has historically been role status and role in the world. The problem of the diplomacy is how to reform world institutions to recognize the role of China and India.

(4) Dulles Khrushchev Nehru

The history during 1950-1965 defined by the acts of three major players, namely Dulles, Nehru and Khrushchev. The real major players of the 1950-1965 era have been: (a) John Foster Dulles, (b) Nikita Khrushchev, (c) Jawaharlal Nehru. Secretary John Foster Dulles influenced the American foreign policy just as Secretary Henry influenced the American policies. The major American player that influenced the history after the Second World War had been Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and Henry Kissinger, more than any elected President of the United States. Dulles and Kissinger created the ideological basis of US foreign policy that their successors copied and implemented. The US foreign policy pursued by Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretary Madeleine Albright bear distinct Kissinger’s stamp and promoted the foreign policy interests of Catholic Religious Right Conservatism in total negation of the Realpolitik foreign policy of John Foster Dulles. Catholicism and Judaism replaced eclectic Protestantism as the driving force in Department of States during and after Secretary Henry Kissinger. Kissinger’s role in history is that he integrated the victims of Holocaust and the 2nd class citizens of 1950’s into the dominant social, political, and economic power in United States. The selection of Senator Joseph Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew as vice Presidential running mate of Al Gore in 2000 elections, election victory of Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and multitudes of Jewish Senators and Congressmen indirectly own their exalted status in United States, no to insignificant extent to Henry Kissinger. There has never been a Jew in 20th century more powerful and influential than Secretary Henry Kissinger during Nixon and Ford Administration, except Bolshevik Jew Lavrenti Beria, head of Joseph Stalin’s secret services. Lavrenti Beria and Henry Kissinger have left indelible imprints on Russian and American societies respectively. Lavrenti Beria brings out the true image of the Stalin’s Communist regime. Eichman brings out the true image of Hitler’s Nazi Third Reich. Henry Kissinger brings out the true image Nixon & Ford administration.

 

(6) Major Events of 1945-2002 Era

One. Hiroshima’s Atomic Bomb, genocide of Cambodian Buddhists, and Arab Muslim terrorist attacks on Pentagon and twin towers, represent three defining acts of violence in 1945-2002 era. The real major events of the 1945-2002 era have been: (a) Explosion of Atom Bomb on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, (b) Genocide of 2 million Buddhists in Cambodia, (c) Terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001. The Atom Bomb created a new world and changed the nature of war. The nuclear age began. The question is whether white Christian United States would have dropped Atom Bomb on Christian Germany under similar circumstances.

 

Two. The failure of the West and the United Nations to prosecute Christian executioners of Khmer Rouge, for war crimes under jurisdiction of International Criminal Court, raises doubt that America invaded Vietnam not to fight Communist menace, but to militarily undermine Buddhist civilizations of Asia. The Vietnam War was not the Capitalism Vs Democracy War, but Christianity Vs Buddhism War, where Judeo-Communists and Judea-Christians were allies not enemies. The question is whether United States and the Vatican continue to wage wars against Buddhists, Hindus and pagans to promote the proselytizing conservative religious agenda in the 21st Century?

 

Three. Before the 9/11 attacks Americans used to defend Muslims for conducting terrorist attacks on Hindu India, especially in Kashmir. The American perspective has changed drastically after 9/11. Hindu India is the unabashed supporter of President Bush on America’s war on global Islamic terrorism. The Arab Muslim terrorist attacks on the citadel of Protestant Christian power at Pentagon and World Trade Center on Sept 11, 2001, highlighted the dangers of religious terrorism. Suddenly Protestant Americans realized the folly of Christian CIA training Sunni Muslim terrorists for destabilizing liberal Muslim nations worldwide. President Jimmy Carter legitimized Islamic fundamentalism arguing the Ayatollah’s fundamentalist Islam preferable to the secular, eclectic liberal modern regime of Shah of Iran. President Carter forced military generals and democratically elected Prime Minister Bani Sadr to bow down, so that continuation of secular Iran under military dictatorship or Presidential democracy was rule out. President Carter can be recognized as father of Islamic political Fundamentalism. The pro-Shariah policy of the West continues to this date. It is a good fortune of the Unite States that President Bush was the president on 9/11/2002 and that he had gone out to Florida. Had President Clinton been the president on 9/11 then his response would have been similar to what he took after the bombing of US embassies in Nairobi and Bombing of Destroyer Cole. Interestingly, President Clinton had rewarded Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in 1995 with the dominion over Afghanistan. Were Bin Ladens and Wahhabi terrorists expecting rewards for 9/11 attacks just as they were rewarded for Nairobi US Embassy attacks?

 

Four. President Kennedy hinted after his nomination that he would not be Pope’s President in the White House. Catholic religious right wing conservative conspiracy scored its first victory after the election victory of the Washington outsider, one-time governor of the small state. What has been the extent of influence of Vatican and Catholic religious right conservative conspiracy played in the formulation of American foreign policy? In the opinion of foreign observers and Hindu-Buddhist writers Republican President Richard M. Nixon, Democratic President Lynden B. Johnson, Republican President George H.W. Bush, Republican President George W. Bush, Secretary Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Attorney General Ashcroft do not belong to Christian religious right conservatism. However, Democratic President John F. Kennedy, Democratic President Jimmy Carter, Democratic President Bill Clinton, Secretary Henry J. Kissinger, Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski, Secretary Madeleine Albright may belong to the Christian religious right conservative conservatism.

 

Five. What America does to other democracies during elections, other nations can also do during America’s presidential Election to influence the results. America could buy out the allegiance of Yugoslav politicians by distributing $35 million to politicians during elections, and after election they arrested and handed over Slobadan Milosevic to the International Criminal Court at The Hague. Cox Report documented the role China and Chinese campaign donations may have played in stealing nuclear weapon designs from Los Alamos Labs. What United States doing in Yugoslavia, the Vatican does in the US elections. American politicians are forced to sell their soul to the religious right conservative conspiracy, as it greatly influences the primary nomination process in both Democratic and Republican Parties, especially in primaries for presidential nominations of major parties. The Vatican, Evangelical and Catholic religious right conservatism and pro-life movements have become very powerful politically, because of their influence over political campaign donation, grass root politics and soft money donation. In the electronic age, the TV Media buying determines the fate of the election. Totalitarian organized religions, like Vatican and Wahhabi Islam have emerged as the major political players in the democratic elections.

 

Six. Should totalitarian religious Church, which deny laity right to elect priests, be allowed to influence democratic elections in the Christian societies to promote the conservative agenda. Unless the Catholic laity vote and approve ultra-conservative agenda of Pope John Paul II, the resources of the Catholic Church and the pulpit may not be used to influence the secular political elections in the United States. The Church should not attempt to break the wall that separates Church and State in the United States.

 

Seven. Do the politicians have the right to demand the Americanism and democratization of the Papacy? If the recent controversy of pedophile Catholic priests any guide, the Catholic laity determined to reform the Papacy. Are Christian Church and Christian Democracy on a collusion course? Did Pope John Paul II because of his ultra-conservatism policy and long tenure Pontificate became the single most important influence in world politics in the late 20th Century? Is Papal ultra-conservatism good or bad for United States and Italy?

 

Eight. The Christian religious conservatives wield disproportionate influence in the 4000+ County Canvassing Boards that supervise and conduct the entire election process in the United States, for local, state and federal elections. Well, United States as a democracy has freedom to replace the democratic system by theocracy. The selection of President Ford and Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, none being elected by the people, raises the specter that Christian Religious right may succeed in future to select the Emperor Theodosius I (d. 395 AD) type leader as the President of the United States, who may bring about the end of the American Empire, just as what Theodosius I did. Shouldn’t Americans guard against such possibility? Selection of a Papal agent as Emperor of Rome brought down the Great Roman Empire, destroyed the Roman Civilization, resulted in the barbarian conquest of Rome in 410 AD and medieval Dark Age fell on the civilized Mediterranean Europe, in the Old World. Similar fate may fall on Western Christendom and United States in the New World, if the ultra-conservative fundamentalist nominee of the religious right conservative conspiracy succeeds in occupying the Oval Office in the United States. Hindus and Buddhists would never like that this should happen to United States, ever.

 

Nine. In the War on Islamic terrorism and global Clash of Religions, American Protestant Christians, Hindu Indians shall be on the same side of the battle lines in the Clash. The anti-women ultra-conservative European Catholics and anti-women ultra-fundamentalist Wahhabi Sunni Arab Muslims and their supporters may join forces to fight and check the neo-Reformation of religions and to fight the pro-women liberal eclectic Protestants, Hindus and Buddhists organized on the other side of the battle lines in the Clash. The Buddhists may remain on the sidelines, so long as China remains a Communist nation. The Orthodox Christians and Mystic Sufi Shiite Muslims may join the Clash on the side of Protestants and Hindus against Sunni Arabs and European Catholics. The Clash of Races and the Clash of Religions and the Clash of Civilizations not likely to escalate into all out Third World War, but it has the potential to slide into a World War, which is likely to remain conventional war only.

 

26(7) Five Power World Order

(1) India is One of Top Five World Powers

India is one of top five major world powers in 2002. In the 21st Century New World Order the major powers will be- United States, European Union, China, Russia, India and Japan. The purpose of the author is to provide guidelines for Indian statesman to articulate Hindu Indian national interests and worldview to the world powers. “In the post-Cold War world, the traditional European nation-states- the countries which formed the Concert of Europe until the First World War- lack the resources for a global role. United Europe will continue as a Great Power; divided into national states, it will slide into secondary status.” (Kissinger, Diplomacy, p. 807)

 

(2) 21st Century Is Colonial 18th 19th Century

The post-Cold War Europe is more like the 18th and 19th Century Europe, where the Raison D’etre and balance of Power determined the diplomacy. The cardinal principal of the Balance of Power is that the nations align with the less strong Power, preferably the number two power to balance the hegemony of the predominant power. France and Germany would view United States as hegemon, thereby an adversary, requiring the closer ties with the less strong power, namely, nuclear Russia.

 

(3) Simmering Sino-Soviet Conflict

President Nixon and Secretary Henry Kissinger identified the geo-political simmering Sino-Soviet rift, beneath the façade of the international communist solidarity and used it to develop USA-China strategic relationship to the detriment of the Soviet Union. Similarly, President Putin should exploit the present weakness of Russia to overcome the historic suspicions of Germany and France to exacerbate the France-USA conflicts to widen the wedge between European Union and United States.

 

(4) Germany seeks to Contain Hegemon

In the recent German elections 2002, German minister of Justice compared President Bush to Hitler. This chance statement determined the outcome of the election in Germany. It is an indicator that Germany could view United States as hegemon thereby encourage Germany to explore closer ties with Russia to create a new balance of power in Europe. Germany would cultivate Russia, the less strong Power to counter balance hegemon United States in the post-Cold War balance of power in Europe. Billy Brandt launched the Ostpolitik to woo Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc and East Germany, independent of the United States, after realizing that only Soviet Union can help the Unification of Germany. Egypt had expelled the Russian advisers, when it realized that though Soviet Union can provide weapons, only United States could arrange peace for Egypt. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the decline of Russia as an economic and military power, and the Unification of Germany, the historic Germany-Russia special relationship will resurface.

 

(5) Return to 19th Century Balance of Power

The post-Cold War and post-German Unification diplomacy of Western Europe would be like the balance of power diplomacy of 18th & 19th Century, and United States would be one among the equals. It is likely that European powers may gang against United States if it continues to flaunt its hegemony and attempts to militarily freeze its military superiority vis-à-vis other major powers. “Victory in the Cold War has propelled America into a world which bears many similarities to the European state system of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The absence of both an overriding ideological or strategic threat freed nations to pursue foreign policies based increasingly on their immediate national interest. In an International system characterized by perhaps five or six major players and a multiplicity of smaller states, order will have to emerge as it did in past centuries from a reconciliation and balancing of competing national interests.” (Kissinger, Diplomacy, p 805) “On the level of the relations among states, the new order will be more like the European state system of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries than the rigid pattern of the Cold War. It will contain at least six major players- the United States, Europe, China, Japan, Russia, and probably India- as well as a multiplicity of medium-sized and smaller countries.” (Kissinger, Diplomacy, p23) “India dabbled in the nonaligned movement during the Cold War. But it has yet to assume a role commensurate with its size on the international political stage.” (Diplomacy, p26)

 

(6) USA is Adversary of Europe

United States had been adversary of Spain, France, Britain and Canada during 18th and 19th centuries. European powers, namely, France and Germany would take into consideration the role of the United States as the adversary of 18th & 19th Century, while deciding foreign policies for restoring balance of power in post-Cold War Europe. But for the brief 40-year Cold War period the national interests of France and Germany, have historically been defined in anti-American terms. America was considered as the greatest challenge by European nation states in the New World. During Cold War, United States imposed the pro-domination diplomacy in the Old World, to repeat its pro-domination 19th Century as applied to the New World.

 

(7) USA was second rank power

In nineteenth century, “America did not participate in international conferences and was treated as a second-rank power.” (Diplomacy, p. 37) By 1885, the United States had surpassed Great Britain then considered the world’s major industrial power, in manufacturing output. By 1900, United States was consuming more energy than Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Japan and Italy combined. President Andrew Johnson’s Secretary of State, Seward, dreamed of an American empire including Canada and much of Mexico and extending deep into the Pacific. Throughout the nineteenth century, Great Britain was considered the greatest challenge to American interests, and the Royal Navy the most serious threat. In 1895, secretary of State Richard Olney invoked the Monroe doctrine to war Great Britain with a pointed reference to the inequalities of power. By 1902, Great Britain had abandoned its claims to a major role in Central America. President Theodore Roosevelt declared in 1902, that complexity of international political and economic relations renders it incumbent on all civilized and orderly powers to insist on the proper policing of the world. The America’s westward expansion had been at the cost of Spain, France and Britain.

 

(7) Demise of Warsaw Pact and NATO

The Soviet threat disappeared in post-Cold War era, and with it the core reason for the Atlantic unity. “When there is no longer a single threat and each country perceives its perils from its own national perspective, those societies which had nestled under American protection will feel compelled to assume greater responsibility for their own security. Thus the operation of the new international system will move toward equilibrium even in the military field, though it may take some declares to reach that point. These tendencies will be even more pronounced in economics, where American predominance is already declining and there it has become safer to challenge the United States.” (Kissinger, diplomacy, p. 23)

 

(8) Overextension Caused Soviet Demise

The Soviet Empire failed in part because Russia’s own history had tempted it inexorably toward overextension, and the Slav Russian population growth couldn’t keep pace with the population growth of its non-Russian peoples. No power had ever disintegrated so totally or so rapidly without losing a war. The Soviet empire collapsed even more suddenly than it had erupted beyond its borders. However, the preeminence of the United States is not due to any increase in its absolute power, but because of the collapse of its sole opponent, the Soviet Union and the decline of Russia in the two-superpower world. Russia failed. It raises doubt whether Russia was ever a great power in the past. Could it be that western propaganda machine invented the power of the super Power Soviet Union just to consolidate its hold over European allies. Did two rapists who agreed at Yalta to partition the world, conspired to project the menace of the Communist nuclear Soviet Union giving Soviet Union colonial control over Eastern Europe, primarily to force former European colonial powers accept servitude to benevolent United States. United States and Soviet Union misused their nuclear prowess to force into servitude the former colonial powers of Europe. Soviet Union after the massacres by Bolshevik Jew Lavrenti Beria and deaths of Second World War was never a great power. The media hype of Cold War, which hyped the power and menace of the soviet Union, could be fake conspiracy to tame the Former Colonial Queens of Western Europe become the concubines of Yankee President. India led by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru turns out be a He-man like the Soviet Union and United States, because he had the courage to lead the Third World in the Non-Alignment Movement.

 

(9) Challenges to Preeminent Powers

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

 

(10) 2003 Concert of World Powers

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

 

26(8) China as World Power

(1) Chinese Invasions of Australia

In the post-Cold War new world order the paramount national objective of United States is the containment of Chinese expansionism. China determined to conquer Australia to resettle 500 million Chinese in Australia. China determined to create Han World Empire based on Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia and Malaysia. Author makes the argument that Chinese espionage of most advance nuclear weapon warhead designs from US weapons research labs, emboldens China to occupy the empty lands of Australia and New Zealand to make new homes for 1.2 billion Chinese people. Overpopulated Hindu India, Muslim Pakistan, Muslim Bangladesh, Buddhist Japan, Buddhist Korea would support Chinese invasions of Australia, New Zealand and Brazil on civilization’s grounds.

 

(2) China Stole US Nuclear Warhead Secrets

Chinese spy Wen Ho Lee transferred the design secrets of U.S. nuclear weapon warheads, along with the input data, that helped China develop Trident-II type MIRV intercontinental ballistic missiles. The United States lost its military edge in nuclear weapon technology. China is recognized the vulnerability of the United States. The United States will no longer be able to exercise nuclear deterrent against China, in case China decides to occupy Australia.

 

(3) Buddhist Government of China:

Buddhist China and Hindu India would be closest friends and allies in the Age of Civilization’s wars. India played a decisive role in overthrowing the Communist regime of China and installed the Buddhist government. India trained one million Chinese to become Buddhist monks. India arranged the merger of Mahayana Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism. Chinese Buddhism and Taoism got recognition. Buddhists head the Chinese government in the post-communist era. China emerges as the leader of the Buddhist world. Chinese flood the world with Buddhist scriptures. Over a billion copies of the Buddhist scriptures, Dhammapada, printed with red cover distributed, all over the world. Fights break out among Buddhists and Christians in China. Buddhists desire to take revenge, for alleged Christian insults hurled at Buddhists during the Christian rule of Sun Yatsen and Chiang Kai sheik. Many Chinese Christians reconverts to Buddhism and Taoism. China launches the Organization of Buddhist States (OBS), an international economic and political alliance of Buddhist nations of the world. The OBS includes China, India, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Burma, and Sri Lanka. Chinese leadership of the Buddhist world changes the global balance of power of the religions.

 

(4) Chinese President of Indonesia & Malaysia:

Overseas Chinese community represents one third of population in Malaysia. The Indian community votes in favor of a Chinese Prime Minister of Malaysia. Under the leadership of a Chinese origin Prime Minister of Malaysia, the region becomes a very vibrant economy. Chinese control the economy of Indonesia and Bhumiputras become jealous of prosperous Malaysia under a Chinese Prime Minister. Hindus, Christians, and Buddhists join hands to get an ethnic Chinese elected as the President of Indonesia. Indians support Chinese President and Indonesia becomes very prosperous under Chinese leadership. China resettles 20 million Chinese in the sparsely populated Jaya Irian and make considerable investments in the neighboring Papua New Guinea, replacing Australia as the main trading partner. China bribes the Prime Minister of Australia to grant special status to Chinese immigrants to Australia.

 

(5) Chinese Invasions of Siberia:

In 1995, the illegal Chinese immigrants in Siberia numbered 5 million compared to 7 million Russians in Eastern Siberia. Illegal Chinese immigrants in Eastern Siberia continually rise, and it alarms Russian authorities. Russian authorities decide that only by allowing Indian emigration to Siberia would Russia be able to defend Siberia against Chinese incursions. Ten million Indian youths move into Siberia and it results in unprecedented prosperity in Eastern Siberia. Indian troops man Russia’s frontiers with China, and it scares China. China realizes that India will oppose Chinese invasions of Siberia, and result in India’s counter strikes against Tibet and Xinjian. China realizes its vulnerability in Tibet and Xinjian. United States had transferred latest nuclear weapons warhead designs, MIRV, and Satellite technology to China to goad Chinese northward expansion.

(6) China's Opium War

Catholic proselytizing has strong links with drug trade. China had no use for any European manufactured goods and Chinese silks and ceramics were in great demand in European markets. European trade with China became a drain on European gold. Export of Opium soon became the profitable commodity sold to China for a profit. Indian Empire launched Opium War (1839-42) in China. House of Tatas, the first major industrial House of India made huge profits in Opium Trade to China. Yunnan Province of Southern China has historically been conduit for Opium. Catholics control the Opium-Heroin trade in Burma, Laos, Cambodia, and the Golden Triangle of Asia.

 

(7) Empty Lands of Australia & Siberia Causing World War III

China is the overcrowded giant-power surrounded in the north by the empty continental size Eastern Siberia, which had been part of the Mongol Empire. China eyes the empty lands of Siberia and Australia. Henry Kissinger opened up China offering to Mao Tse tung American support in the event of Sino-Soviet conflict escalates into open war in Siberia. United States exploits the simmering Sino-Russian clash across Eastern Siberia. Russia can similarly exploit the Sino-Australian Clash by offering Russian support, in the event China decides to conquer Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Stalin signed the no war pact with Adolf Hitler to redirect Nazi expansion towards Europe, while Britain cultivated Hitler to direct Hitler’s fury towards Soviet Union. Yellow peril to Siberia is as real as yellow peril to Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia. Whether China expands northward or southward, only time would tell.

 

(8) Redistribution of World's Continents

Conquest of empty rich landmass caused major wars throughout history. Australia is an empty continent, home of 25 million Anglo Saxons, waiting to fall under the invasions of yellow hordes. Australia could be a home of more than 500 million Asians. China has emerged as the preponderant Asian power. Asia would welcome Chinese invasions of Australia and New Zealand. Asia has three nuclear weapon powers, China, India and Pakistan. It is inconceivable that Australia could remain White man's continent beyond 2015 AD.

 

While colonial powers continue to occupy four of six continents of the world, and it is the principal cause of the World War. After the fall of the Apartheid in South Africa, it is the turn of Australia. In the Twentieth Century Australia cannot remain the White land. China would either invade Siberia of Australia. United States transferred nuclear technology to China to embolden China to undertake Siberian invasions. The rise of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin as the next President of Russia, China would be foolish to contemplate the Siberian invasions. Russia under the leadership of Vladimir Putin would turn the tables against United States by encouraging Chinese invasions of Australia and New Zealand. Asian nations would either support Chinese invasions of Australia and New Zealand, or remain neutral in China-Australia War. Only India has the military capability to check Chinese invasions of Australia. However, India gains nothing by opposing Chinese invasions of Australia. India would deploy 5 million troops in Siberia to check Chinese invasions of Siberia, provided Russia allows unlimited immigration from India to Siberia. India would be willing to send troops to defend Australia provided Australia allows unlimited open immigration to South Asians.

(9) Would China Invade Siberia?

National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger developed strategic relationship with Mao Zedong by disclosing that Soviet Union Premier Kosygin had sought the consent of the United States for Soviet preemptive nuclear strikes against China. In 1971, Chinese nuclear arsenal was primitive. Dr. Kissinger secured USA-China strategic alliance by arranging the transfer of military, satellite, missiles and nuclear weapon technologies to China to give Chinese military and nuclear capability a quantum jump. Dr. Kissinger argued that the transfer of American military and nuclear technologies would embolden China undertake invasions of Eastern Siberia. China has learnt the strategic mistakes made by Napoleon, William Kaiser, and Hitler in undertaking invasions of Russia. China has already secured every known American nuclear, missile and military technology, so why would China risk the existence of China by invading Siberia. It could provide Russia the opportunity to launch devastating nuclear attack on China, which Premier Kosygin had planned, which President Nixon scuttled.

(10) China to Rule Indonesia Malaysia Philippines

Ethnic Chinese control the economy of Malaysia and Indonesia. West has been promoting Italian Catholic Sonia Gandhi as the Prime Minister of India. Chinese Buddhists and Chinese Christians are demanding their right to lead Malaysia and Indonesia. India fully endorsed that ethnic Chinese leaders become the Prime Minister of Malaysia and the President of Indonesia. Only when Malaysia and Indonesia are led by Chinese leaders with business acumen that Southeast Asia become prosperous again. If it is OK for an Italian to become Prime Minister of Hindu India, then United States and United Europe should also encourage Chinese take over reigns of power in Indonesia and Malaysia. It is the right of China as the paramount power of Asia to rule Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei.

(11) Chinese Invasions of Australia New Zealand

White Anglo Saxons have no right to continue occupying Australia and New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand do belong to White race. Australia and New Zealand belong to Asia and to Asians. China and Japan have rights over Australia and New Zealand. India would not oppose Chinese and Japanese invasions of Australia and New Zealand. Stupid Japanese Emperor failed to occupy Australia and New Zealand immediately after the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor. English defenders of Australia and New Zealand would have surrendered to Japanese troops the manner they surrender in Singapore. Japan should have occupied Australia and New Zealand immediately after Pearl Harbor and encouraged 100 million Chinese to move to Australia on foot and by Junks. Had Japan invaded Australia and allowed Chinese to relocate to Australia, then before the end of the Second World War, more than 50 million Chinese would have landed in Australia and New Zealand. Million of Chinese resettled in Australia would have permanently brought Australia and New Zealand under sphere of Chinese Civilization. China is equal to the United States in nuclear weapons warhead designs, miniaturization of nuclear warheads, neutron bombs, and MIRVs nuclear warheads. Chinese Precision Guided Munitions would sink every American aircraft carrier battle groups. US Navy would be powerless to stop Chinese invasions of Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand. No Asian State would oppose Chinese invasions of Australia and New Zealand. India would be neutral in China-Australia Wars, as China enjoys strategic alliance and Most Favored Trading Nations (MFN) status in United States. However, after China consolidates is occupation of Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia and Malaysia then India would demand open immigration of Indians to Australia and New Zealand, to permanently change the demographic character of Australia and New Zealand. However, India should be willing send 5 million troops to defend Australia and New Zealand against Chinese invasions, provided 20 million South Asians are allowed immigration to Australia and New Zealand.

 

26(9) China Tames Vatican

On Jan 6 2000, China made a history in taming Papacy and Vatican by challenging their right to appoint New Catholic Bishops. China's state-sanctioned Catholic Church known as Patriotic Catholic Association, consecrated five new Catholic Bishops in Beijing, just hours before Pope John Paul II consecrated 12 bishops at St. Peter's Basilica. The two-hour ceremony, on a wintry morning in the unheated Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Beijing, adhered closely to the rites of a traditional Catholic consecration. The Chinese Bishops, who range in age from 35 to 73, appointed not by the Vatican, but by the Patriotic Catholic Association, a sort of parallel Church that answers to the Chinese government. (NYT, Jan 7 2000)

Pope's Right to appoint Bishops Challenged

China has not recognized the Pope's right to appoint bishops since Chinese Communist leaders broke ties with the Vatican after taking power in 1949. The Vatican has recently tried to re-establish relations with China, but its recognition of Taiwan have been a sticking point. China brushed aside the consecration. The Chinese authorities seemed well aware of the sensitive of the ceremony. Inside, the congregation of 300, including representatives of the communist Party, shivered in the cold as the presiding bishop, Liu Yuanren of Nanjing, bestowed miters and golden staffs on the new bishops.

Chinese Slap in the Face of Pope

The Patriotic Catholic Association says China has four million members who worship at 5,000 churches. However, the Roman Catholic Church remains a potent force here in China, with as many as 10 million members who worship secretly, risking arrest. The sticking point between the two churches is the appointment of bishops, which is why this consecration seen as a slap in the face to the Pope. During 1999, China rejected a visit to Hong Kong by the Pope.

 

 China has unleashed a war against the White domination of Christianity. China refused Pope's visit to Hong Kong. In the new Millennium China declared that Chinese Church, not the Vatican is authorized to appoint Bishop for Chinese Catholic Church. China has challenged Papal claim to represent the Catholics of the world. Communist China reorganized Chinese Christian Catholic Church, allowing Patriotic Chinese Catholic Church authorities to train, appoint and fire Catholic Priests, Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals. China has declared that Vatican is a political entity, not a religious entity. China has banned any Vatican and Papal influence over Chinese Catholic officials. China is worried that Chinese Catholic priests may be conspiring with CIA, just as Polish Catholic Church officials collaborated with CIA to overthrow Communist regime in Poland.

 

INDIA SUPPORTS CHINA IN TAMING VATICAN: India should join forces with Communist China to tame the Papacy. India and China should set up Asian Christian Church (ACC), as the supreme authority to control all Christian Church properties, and all Church appointments. Asian Christian Church should challenge the white domination of Catholic and Protestant Churches. India and China shall lead the Christians of all denominations in Asia and Africa to propagate True Christianity. Under the leadership of India and China, the Christians of Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Egypt would join Asian Christian Churches and ban Vatican's influence over Catholic Christian Churches in Asia and Africa. India should support China is liberating Chinese Christians from the domination of White Christians. It is insulting that the Delhi Archbishop is a white man. Indian government should form Indian Christian Church authority to take over all Church properties of all Christian Churches in India. Indian Christian Church Authority should be responsible for the training, appointments, and transfers of all Protestant and Catholic Church officials. Christian Churches in Asia shall be led and managed by non-white church officials and clergy.

 

VATICAN'S THREATS TO ASIA: Roman Catholic Pontiff's visit to India reiterated the Christian threats to Asia. The Philippines was a Hindu nation before the Spanish conquest. United States colonized Philippines during the first decade of 20th century that resulted in more than 100,000 Filipino lives. President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill hated French President De Gaulle. United States intervened in French Indo-China to eliminate French influence in Asia and to destroy Hindu influence in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. West had been conspiring to impose Christian leadership over Buddhist Sri Lanka and Buddhist Burma. Christian Pol Pot and Christian Khmer Rouge massacred 2 million Buddhists in Cambodia to impose Christianity over Cambodia and Laos. United States imposed Christian leadership in Vietnam to impose the domination of one million North Vietnamese Christians expelled from North Vietnam over South Vietnam. United States directly conspired to overthrow the Buddhist monarchy in Vietnam. United States imposed Sun Yat Sen as the father of nation in Buddhist China. United States encouraged Christian military leaders to stage a military coup in South Korea in early 1960s, to expedite the Christianizing of South Korea. United States supported the military coup by Christian military leaders in early 1960's to overthrow the Buddhist government of U Nu. The NATO and USA conspiring to Christianize Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Burma, China, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan and Japan. India and China shall join forces to reconvert Christians in Asia to Buddhism and Black Gnostic Arian Christianity. India and China shall lead Asian Christians to expel White Christian priests from Asia. It shall appoint non-White Church Priests, Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals to lead Asian Christians. Asia has been civilized at least 50,000 years before White Western Europe became civilized. Asia does not need White Europeans to teach religion to Asians. India whole heatedly supports Communist China, in banning Vatican role over appointments of Church clergy, Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals in Chinese Catholic Church. India and china shall lead the Christians from Asia to elect a Brown or Yellow Asian as the Pope of all Christians of the world.

 

26(10) Eurasian Balance of Power

(1) Neo-Colonial Empires of 21st Century

Would white races invade non-white civilizations during 21st century to reestablish new Colonial Empires? During post-1500 wars, the European powers aligned with indigenous Indians in North America and South America and with Indians in South Asia to secure Indian troops for their wars with hostile European powers. French and English secured alliances with Indians in India and North America to wage French-English Wars. However, neither Britain nor France would allow Indians to throw out the Europeans from Indian lands. France, England, Spain, and Portugal would compete for colonial territories, but would never empower Indians to expel European invaders. Christian Mao Zedong and Christian Chiang Kai sheik would compete with each other, but neither side would allow Buddhists acquire power in China. Similarly, pro-American Christian rulers of South Vietnam conspired to accept defeat in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia allowing Communist takeover of Buddhist Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. However, this understanding among white colonial European powers has shattered in the aftermath of the NATO air war on Yugoslavia in 1999. Now onwards, white European powers would align with non-white Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists in order to undermine geopolitical hegemony of Europeans in the Third World. White Roman Catholics aligned with Ottoman Turks to destroy Byzantine Empire. White Catholics and Protestants aligned with Muslims to desecrate Christian Holy sites in Kosovo. Now Orthodox Russia and France would align with Hindu India to permanently damage hegemony of the Christian United States.

(2) US-French Conflict of Interests

Orthodox Russia and Hindu India would exploit growing rift between France and United States. The national interests of United States conflict with those of Western Europe and France in American hemisphere of North America and South America. United States has consistently followed the anti-French policies that began with the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, which added 827,987 square miles (2,144,476 square kilometers) of land to the United States. Part or all of 15 States formed from the area. America can credit its success of its 19th -century foreign policy to Haiti. A slave revolt erupted in the Haiti, then the richest colony of the world, owing to its sugar production. A slave leader, son of the black slave, follower of Voodoo tribal religion, Toussaint L'Ouverture (1743-1803) defeated Mulattos and French soldiers and became the ruler of Haiti. Napoleon attempted to suppress the revolt and failed. France's financial loss was America's diplomatic gain. Idiot Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, short of cash and having lost Haiti, the pearl of the French Empire in America, hoodwinked by his Vatican advisers to sell United States most of the rest of French American Empire in form Louisiana Purchase. In 1801, President Jefferson learned that France had taken over from Spain a large area between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains called Louisiana. The Constitution of the United States did not authorize the U.S. government to buy foreign territory. In terms of law, the Louisiana Purchase was illegal. Neither Spain nor France had any sovereign rights over the lands of Red Indians.

 

Catholic advisers to Emperor Napoleon preferred the invasions of Russia to further Vatican's religious interest in overthrowing Orthodoxy in Russia. Foolish Catholic Napoleon sold 827,987 square miles of American territories for $15 millions. Stupid Emperor Napoleon should have created Empire in Louisiana. Sale of Louisiana territories weakened French hold in Canada and Quebec. Vatican Spies impersonating as Catholic Advisers to Emperor Napoleon destroyed the French Power by Louisiana Sale. America undermined French security by sabotaging French influence over defeated Germany after First World War and Second World War. United States undermined French colonial influence in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. United States engineered the coup against pro-French Prince Sihanouk. United States evicted Spain from Philippines to colonize Philippines. Similarly, United States entered Vietnam War to undermine French language and influence in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. United States overthrew Shah of Iran regime in French-speaking Iran to undermine French influence in Iran. United States eliminated French influence in Lebanon and Syria by destabilizing Lebanon. United States is destabilizing Algeria by supporting the Islamic terrorists in Algeria. United States destabilized Congo by engineering coup against Patrice Lumumba. United States has undercut French influence in French-speaking Africa by intervening in Rwanda, Burundi and Congo. United States is undermining the just demand of French-speaking Quebec to secede from English-speaking Canada. After the rise of United Europe, France realized that United States is the principal enemy of France. Nuclear France should align with nuclear India and nuclear Russia to check over-bearing United States. Quebec after secession from Canada would develop nuclear weapons and join United Europe. France, India, Quebec, and French-speaking Africa could join forces to challenge American dominance.

(3) USA European Union Russia Triangular Balance of Power

The disintegration of the Soviet Union, the rapid decline of Russian economy, the eastward expansion of NATO, and the European military weaknesses revealed during NATO air war on Yugoslavia has opened a new chapter in United Europe. Germany and France would challenge the Monroe doctrine and the American preponderance in South America. United Europe would play more assertive role in South America and Quebec to counter-balance United States. United Europe would develop strategic relations with weaker Russia to curb rising influence of the United States in Europe. Henry Kissinger exploited the rumor of impending Soviet preemptive nuclear strikes on China to wean China away from Soviet Union. Russia would play a similar card to exploit German fear of American preemptive nuclear strikes against revived militarist Germany to develop closer strategic alliance with United Europe. United Europe is heading towards the policy of equidistant from United States and Russia. India could provide nuclear umbrella over United Germany against American preemptive nuclear strikes. Rise of United Europe and independent United European military capability would limit role of United States and Pentagon in NATO and cause fissures in trans-Atlantic strategic relationship. India should develop close military relationship with France, Germany and Greece to check the preponderance of the United States.

(4) Challenging Monroe Doctrine

President James Monroe feared Russia colony of Alaska. Troubling moves by Moscow in the Pacific persuaded President Monroe to issue the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, which warned European states not to consider American hemisphere, including North and South America, any longer open to colonization. When Russia offered to sell Alaska and leave the hemisphere permanently. United States paid $7.2 million in 1867 to remove another powerful rival. President Kennedy in 1962 threatened to use nuclear weapons, unless Soviet Union removes the alleged nuclear missiles from Cuban soil. The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis diffused only when Khrushchev agreed to remove Soviet military hardware. President Putin could deploy Russian nuclear weapons in Cuba to deter NATO's eastward expansion. United States had deployed thousands of nuclear warheads worldwide, outside the United States during Cold War. Would America risk a nuclear war, if President Putin establishes nuclear and military bases in Yugoslavia and Cuba?

(5) European Union Challenges Monroe Doctrine

Monroe Doctrine perpetuated the Catholic domination of South America. It banned and restricted the southward spread of Protestantism. France resents America for opposing the secession of French-speaking Quebec from Canada. United States had threatened Britain in 1895, to agree for arbitration between Venezuela and British Guyana. London ceded to the American demand and Washington had achieved its century-long quest- total domination in its own hemisphere. United Europe would demand open access to South America. United Europe would align with Russia to secure uninterrupted entry into South America. Monroe Doctrine establishes that United States is the principal adversary of United Europe in South America. United Europe would expedite the secession of Quebec and establish military bases in South America.

 

(6) Will Communist Party Lose China

The 16th Congress of the Communist Party during Nov 2002 Congress transferred power to the Hu Jintao, and Premier Wen Jiabao, and Zeng Qinghong. The triumvirate of Jun Jintao, Wen Jiabao and Zeng Qinghong will guide the destiny of China in the 21st Century.

 

Marxist-Leninist ideology has lost appeal to the Chinese people. More Chinese prefer to have Buddhist government in China, rather than Communist party rule in China. China would become a Buddhist nation before 2020 AD. In the hinterland of China, Buddhism is stronger in China than Hinduism in India. The 21st Century would herald the rise of the Buddhist China.

 

The deeper problem for the Communist party is that it offers no convincing philosophy or vision for the nation’s future. A communist future is no longer believable as Chinese Marxist-Leninist ideology has been diluted beyond recognition in contemporary China. Mr. Jiang Zemin’s “Three Represents” theory- an effort to open the party to entrepreneurs, technocrats and the intelligentsia certainly does not stir nation. A remarkable public opinion survey released in November 2002, by a research center associated with the prestigious Chinese Academy of Social Sciences found that 91 percent of the respondents said the justice system was unfair while 80 percent said they wanted to elect their officials directly. The ability of Chinese Communist Party to maintain its power will only continue to decline.

 

The most important impact on the new world order shall be the impact of the new ‘fourth generation’ leaders of modern China. New generation of leaders took command of the 65 million member Chinese Communist Party and 1.3 billion citizens of China at the Communist Party’s 16th Congress in November 2002. Chinese Communist Party faces dual crisis of identity and legitimacy. Chinese party apparatus is increasingly hollow shell, feigning rule rather than exerting authority. Widespread alienation and cynicism exist at all levels of society about politics and the party. The growth of market economy has led to high levels of social instability, growing dissent and challenges to party doctrine. Rampant corruption has laid bare the insufficiency of the legal system, the lack of political checks on power and inadequate commercial transparency.

 

Rural incomes have been stagnant for a decade forcing about 100 million people to roam the country looking for work in the cities. Significant parts of the society have been left behind as others have benefited from market reforms. One of the principal lessons that the Chinese Communist party leadership seems to have drawn from the overthrow of the Communist parties in Eastern Europe a decade ago is that allowing independent labor unions, autonomous churches and other civic organizations to exist is to create a foundation fro organized political opposition. So the party has opted for a mixture of suppression and co-optation of such social groups. Chinese labor unions would prefer Buddhist government in China to Communist government. China is heading for Buddhist revolution. Whenever Communist Party lose control over power in China, Buddhism will triumph in China and. It is no accident that out of four largest economies of the world, there are Protestant Christian USA, Buddhist China & Japan and Hindu India.

 

One of the principal lessons that the Chinese Communist Party leadership under the leadership of Mao Zedong seems to have drawn from the role President Kennedy and Roman Catholic Church played during the Vietnam War is that Catholic Religious Right Conservatives feel affinity with Judeo-Communism more than with capitalist democratic Buddhism. Mao Zedong concluded that organizing the massacre of 2 million Buddhists by pro-China Judeo-Communist Christian Khmer Rouge revolutionaries would cement closer strategic ties with Western Christendom as the Buddhist genocide paves the way for Christian proselytizing drives. Genocidal Judeo-Communism could develop close strategic ties with the Christendom in Asia, as Vatican is anti-Buddhist as much as Mao Zedong was anti-Buddhist. Mao Zedong could develop common grounds with Henry Kissinger, because of their common animosity towards Buddhism. It pleased Mao Zedong a lot to learn that President John F. Kennedy invaded Vietnam not to crush Chinese Communist expansionism but to destroy pagan idolaters’ Buddhist Civilization in Indo-China. United States rewarded China with Most Favored Trading Nation (MFN) Status for organizing the murder of 2 million Buddhists in Cambodia through its henchmen Khmer Rouge. Mao Zedong used this lesson of common Communist and Christianity Front for the destruction of Buddhism in Asia, to organize the murder of 60 million Buddhists in China during Cultural Revolution. Maoist Cultural Revolution of Communist China no different than the Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge Revolution. Iconoclast Judeo-Communism and Iconoclast Judeo-Christians developed Theo-political strategic understanding to justify and camouflage genocide of pagan idolaters Buddhists in Cambodia, Laos and China under the garb of revolutionary Communism of Maoism and Khmer Rouge.

 

“Mao was the visionary, ruthless, pitiless, occasionally murderous revolutionary.” (Diplomacy, p. 727) Mao Zedong killed 60 million Buddhists, while Bolshevik Lavrenti Beria killed 30 million Orthodox Russians and Hitler killed 6 million Jews. Should the future Buddhist government of China, prosecute the Chinese Communist Party leaders for crime of genocide. Should future Buddhist leadership demand death sentences for all leaders and operatives that conspired the genocide of Buddhists in China, Laos and Cambodia, under War Crime Tribunal? Would the future Buddhist rulers of China ban the ideology of Communism and Marxism and ban the Communist Party of China as happened in Russia?

 

(7) National Interests or Religion’s Interests

United States formulated its policies on China primarily to Christian interests. United States allowed Communist Mao Tse tung to take over China, when Christian Chiang kai sheik failed to hold over China, arguing that Judeo-Communist China would promote the interests of Christianity more than government of Buddhist China. Christian Mao Tse tung and Christian Chiang Kai sheik were part of the Christian coalition developed by Christian Sun Yat Sen. In the 21st Century, American leaders will have to articulate for their public concept of the national interest and explain how that interest is served in Hindu and Buddhist Asia. Under the influence of Catholic religious right conservatism, United States promoted iconoclast Judeo-Communist China and opposed pagan idolater Hindu India, to promote the Christian interests in Asia. Looking through the tunnel vision of Christian missionary interests, USA-China strategic ties succeeded in subverting pagan Hinduism and Buddhism in Asia. However, the nuclear China has emerged as the hegemon in Asia. Chinese dominate the economies of Malaysia and Indonesia.

 

(8) India will Overtake China

India is equal to China economically and militarily. The recent leap China made over India resulted from the Most Favored Nation Status it enjoyed with United States. United States promoted China to meet the challenge of Japan. Unprecedented FDIs foreign direct investments in China and unfettered access to American markets allowed China to pull ahead of India, but India would soon catch up. In 1990 the Goss Domestic Product of China was 109.9% of India’s GDP, and India’s GDP was 91% of that of China. Then China leaped ahead of India, in 1999 the GDP of China was 215.6% of India’s GDP, as China’s GDP increased by 279.5% during 1990-1999 period. India’s GDP in 1999 was 46.38% of China’s GDP in 1999, and India’s GDP increased by 142.5% during 1990-1999 period. In 2002 China’s GDP is 191.8% of India’s GDP, and India’s GDP in 2002 is 52.14% of China’s GDP. (World Development Report, 2000/2001, Attacking Poverty, World Bank, p. 296-97) China overtook India only because of Most Favored Trading Nation’s (MFN) status with United States and by the merger of Hong Kong into China and that too only during 1990’s. India has all potential to catch up with china to eventually overtake China. Economically and militarily India and China are equal and shall play equal role in the world politics. In 1999 China had the population of 1.25 billion and India 1 billion. In 2001 China’s GDP at PPP is $4.1 trillion and India’s GDP was $2.1 trillion, and Japan’s GDP $3 trillion. India Japan’s alliance overtakes China as military and economic power. India does not consider China as enemy as Hindu and Buddhist Civilization are part of the same Oriental Civilization. It is matter of pride that there are three Oriental Asian countries, China, Japan and India among the top four economies of the world in terms of size. India can easily destabilize Communist China by providing military aid to the Buddhists in China, including the followers of Falun Gong in China.

 

(9) India is Agricultural Food Power

Among the top eight largest economies of he world in the declining order, namely, United States, China, Japan, India, Germany, France, Britain, and Italy, only United States and have surplus cereals, wheat, rice and meats, rest all import the food products. India has some of the largest surplus of the wheat and rice surplus in the world, the 58.1 million tons on Jan 1, 2002. China is net importer of rice. Population density in India is 442.2 persons per sq. km, compared t 134 persons per sq. km in China, 30 persons per sq. km. For United States, 2 persons per sq. km for Australia, and 20 persons per sq. km for Brazil. India is able to feed 1.1 billion people, even when it has 16.7 percent of the world’s population and only 2.46 percent of the world’s land. This fact alone justifies India’s place as the super power of the 21st century. China has 20.9 percent of world’s population and 7.18 percent of world’s land surface. United States has 4.6 percent of the world’s population and 7 percent of the world’s lands. Australia has 0.3 percent of world’s population and 5.8 percent of the world’s lands. In spite of the inequitable distribution of the world’s lands and continents, India has world’s largest wheat surplus.

 

Surplus from year 2002’s wheat harvest, bought by the government from farmers, sits moldering in muddy fields here in Punjab State. Some of the previous year’s wheat surplus sits untouched, too and the year’s before that, and the year’s before than. The existing Wheat surplus and Rice surplus in millions of tons, Data for Jan. 1 of each year is surplus at Jan 1 1998 (18.2 million tons), 1999 (24.4 million tons), 2000 (31.4 million tons), 2001 (45.7 million tons) and surplus on Jan 1 2002 (58.1 million tons). (Sources: Government of India; national Family Health Survey of India) The Indian government is sitting on wheat surpluses- now at 53 million tons that would stretch to the moon and back at least twice if all the bags were lined up. More than two decades after a green revolution made India, the world’s second-most populous country, self-sufficient in grain production. (Amy Waldman, Poor in India Starves as Surplus Wheat Rots. New York Times, Dec. 2, 2002, p. A3)

 

After a devastating famine in 1943, while India was under British rule and had huge foreign exchange reserves, the famine killed three million people and India suffered humbling food scarcities in the 1960’s, Indian government has been determined to ensure that the country could feed itself. A nationwide system was set up to distribute food. The green agricultural revolution quadrupled staple food production, from 50 million tons in 1950 to 209 metric tons by 2000. The fruits of those efforts can be witnessed nowhere more vividly than in Punjab. Today it is India’s only state, along with Haryana, which was carved out of Punjab that derives more than 40 percent of its income from agriculture. Until recently Punjab had the highest per capita income. Punjab has 1,600 wholesale grain markets, including in one in Khanna, the largest in Asia. Support price paid to the farmers went up to $129 a metric ton, 2,200 pounds, for wheat in 2002 from about $99 in 1997. Today the Indian government has run out of warehouse space and has taken to storing the grain in fields rented from farmers.

 

(10) Pakistan-North Korean Nuke Axis

Few countries have improved their standing in American eyes as dramatically as Pakistan has in the past two years. Long shunned by Washington for its links to terrorism, its nuclear weapons program and autocratic military rule, Pakistan became a valued ally, mainly by abandoning its support of the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. Now the Pakistan’s reputation is threatened once again. American intelligence agencies have recently confirmed that Islamabad provided indispensable help to North Korea’s secret nuclear weapons program. Pakistan secretly developed nuclear weapons in the 1980’s and 90’s, but lacked the longer-range missiles required to threaten India’s main cities and military bases with nuclear attack. North Korea had such missiles, but it needed nuclear bomb-making technology that could be easily concealed underground to prevent American satellite detection. Pakistan provided Pyongyang with the perfect solution by sharing design plans for the uranium enrichment technology it had stolen from the West and used in its own secret nuclear weapon program. In return for the uranium enrichment technology, North Korea provided the component for nuclear missiles. (Nuclear Duplicity from Pakistan, New York Times December 2, 2002 Editorial page)

 

India’s nuclear weapon program and nuclear missile program is indigenous and India had abstained from nuclear weapon programs after the 1974 underground nuclear explosion test. India has no option to but to expand its nuclear arsenal to acquire nuclear deterrent equal to the combined nuclear arsenals of Pakistan, China and North Korea. Permanent solution of the Islamic nuclear weapons would be the federation of India and Pakistan. Failure to de-nuke Islamic bomb or failure to force Pakistan form a federation with India, the menace of Islamic Nuclear weapons could devastate Mediterranean coast metropolitan cities in Europe. It is in the national security of Western Europe that United States should impose India-Pakistan federation. Unification of India and Pakistan automatically eliminates the menace of Islamic Nuclear Bomb. To rid the world of Islamic Atom Bomb, Pakistan must be forced to federate with India.

 

26(11) Conclusion

(1) Unification of Subcontinent

One. Unification of the Subcontinent would be an effective tool for the nuclear counter-proliferation. Only when Pakistan federates with India that the West would feel safe that Pakistan’s nuclear technology would not fall in the hands of the Semite Wahhabi terrorists. It is in the national security of Western Europe that United States should impose India-Pakistan federation. Unification of India and Pakistan automatically eliminates the menace of Islamic Nuclear Bomb. To rid the world of Islamic Atom Bomb, Pakistan must be forced to federate with India.

 

(2) Big 4 Power Policemen Club

Two. The new world order will be part unprecedented, result of the entry of India and China as new entrants to the top-4 world power club. Out of the top four economies of the world in terms of size, United States, China, Japan and India, there is only one white Christian nation, one yellow Buddhist states, one yellow Communist state and one brown Hindu state. New world order is no longer White Christian Club. The center of gravity of the power has shifted from Europe to Asia.

 

(3) America Promoted Religious Interests

Three. United States invaded Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Haiti not to promote the national interests of the United States but to promote the religious interests of Christianity and Papacy. United States destroyed the Buddhist monarchies in China, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to undermine Buddhism, not to promote US national interests.

 

Henry Kissinger forecasts that continental-type states, will probably represent the basic units of the new world order. Smaller states have no future in the 21st Century. Smaller States should merge into regional confederations or federations to form continental-type states. Otherwise the regional preponderant powers would forcibly occupy them forcing them to join regional groupings. Colonial empires if they reemerge in 21st Century, would represent the basic unit of the new international order.

 

(4) Americanism Hoax like Bolshevism

Four. The Americanism the underlying goal of the Atlantic Alliance, is no less a hypocrisy than the Bolshevism the underlying goal of the Soviet Alliance. In the eyes of the world Bush Doctrine 2002 like the Brezhnev Doctrine, represents the ideology of the hegemon powers, which nation states would oppose to promote their national interests and to restore the balance of power system, which had atrophied during the Cold War.

 

(5) Align with Less Strong Power

Five. If Germany, France, Canada and Japan were to formulate national policies in the post-Cold War, post-German Unification era by Richelieu’s raison d’etat, national interests and balance of power, then faced by the hegemony of United States and decline of Russia, they will decide to align with less-strong Power Russia to contain the hegemon United States. The foreign policies of France and Germany in the post-Cold War new world order would be based on principles of Raison d’etat, national interests and balance of power, which may oblige them to foster closer military, political and economic ties with the less strong powers, namely, Russia, China or India to contain and balance the hegemon United States in the global balance of power.

 

(6) Europe-Russia Detente

Six. In the emerging Triangular balance of power among European Union, Russia and United States, president Putin could develop special ties with German Chancellor, to develop special German-Russia strategic ties to wean European Union away from abject dependence on the United States in the aftermath of the Bush doctrine, and to clip the wings of hegemon United States. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Eastern bloc and end of the Cold War, Russia presents no threat to France and Germany. It is the replay of the Kissinger’s diplomacy in the aftermath of the defeat in the Vietnam War, when Nixon exploited the hidden fear of China against hegemon Soviet Union in the aftermath of the Brezhnev Doctrine, to drive a wedge in Sino-Soviet ties. President Putin by courting German ambition and French independent deterrent could succeed in making European Union led by Germany and France less friendly and less dependent on United States.

 

(7) Big 3 of Cold War: USA USSR India

Seven. United States, Soviet Union and India were three truly independent actors in diplomatic arena in the 1950-1965-period. The United States, Soviet Union and the former colonial powers could not wean newly independent countries away from their commitments to the Non Alignment Movement. Jawaharlal Nehru after the Second World War pursued the Richelieu’s raison d’etat to develop independent foreign policies for the Third World nations. The Non Aligned nations periodically supported the Soviet Union, the less strong Power to balance the dominance of the United States.

 

(8) NATO Chaperoned Germany France

Eight. United States has historically pursued the policy of Geopolitical Dominance of Europe to undermine the colonial and great power aspirations of the European powers. United States promoted Atlantic partnership and NATO to Chaperon Germany, France and Italy. Whether America pursued national interests under Theodore Roosevelt or pursued messianic ideals under Woodrow Wilson, Monroe Doctrine or “Corollary to Monroe Doctrine” the basic objective of the United States have been to undermine the national interests of Britain, France, Germany, Spain and Russia.

 

(9) India is Super Power

Nine. In spite of all problems the democratic India in 2002 is the fourth largest economy of the world in size, and with second largest population. World Bank recognizes India to be the world’s fourth largest economy, after USA, Japan and China. The five top independent world powers are: United States, Russia, China, India and Europe. No other nation other than India can overtake China in GNP at PPP in first half of the 21st Century. India should attempt creating the Commonwealth Common Market, with or without Britain and Canada. Commonwealth of Nations represent one-fourth 25% of the world’s population, and one-seventh 14.7% of the world’s GNP at PPP, and around one-fourth (22.74%) of the world’s surface landmass. There are three nuclear weapons powers in the Commonwealth countries, namely, Britain, India and Pakistan. Sun never sets in the Commonwealth of Nations. If Commonwealth countries allow India to lead the Commonwealth, then Commonwealth would challenge the dominance of the United States as the sole super power of the world.

 

(10) Indian Army Created Pax Americana

Ten. America cannot create Pax Americana by leading the war coalition of weakling nations. India alone would be enough to create Pax Americana for America, provided the price is right. Delhi rivaled London as the Second Pole of the British Empire. Indian empire provided the military foundation of the British Empire. Delhi paid the salaries of all British soldiers and British officers worldwide. British Army financed by Indian Empire. India was the second pole of the British Empire. Indian troops were used to fight all over the world. In the First World War India sent and paid for a million men to fight for Britain and a further 2 million men were sent to fight in the Second World War. Had Indian Naval Mutiny of 18 February 1946, been successful, Yemen, Singapore, Kuwait would have become part of independent United India. India can also create Pax Americana. Pentagon should realize that Oval Office would create Pax Americana only with the support of India, which has a track record of having created Pax Britannia in the 19th Century. European Union emerged as the principal adversary of the Yankee Oil colonialism. India can sabotage America’s dreams of Pax Americana as well as create Pax Americana for Americana, provided India gained more by supporting Pax Americana than what would expect to gain by opposing it.

 

(11) Raison d’etat of Oil Colonialism

Eleven. The principle of Raison d’etat would no oppose American oil colonialism so long as American occupation of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait didn’t disturb the global balance of power and weakened the secured energy supplies of the rival world powers. The natural response of the rival world powers to American oil colonialism would be to create rival oil colonialism to keep pace with the expansion of the American oil Empire. The principle of Raison d’etat would not support the deployment of rival military powers to defend the territorial rights of the targeted oil-producing nations. The principle of raison d’etat accepts the right of President Bush to create a new age of oil colonial empires, so long rival world powers also established rival colonial empires of their own, to balance the American Empire. The principle of raison d’etat would defend the oil-colonies against imperial aggression, only if the targeted nation agreed to become the colony of the rescuer. The principle of raison d’etat would not exhaust the resources of the colonial powers to undermine the colonial hold of the colonial powers, as United States did in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in 1980s. France, Germany, Russia, China, India and Japan would support American oil colonialism in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait so long as they profit by establishing their own colonies, say in Brunei, Angola, Nigeria or Indonesia. Rest of the world powers would gang up against American oil colonialism, if president Bush refused to share the Iraqi oil loot with rival world powers.

 

 

 

 

© 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