27

WORLD BALANCE OF POWER IN 21ST CENTURY - Chapter 27 - KALKI GAUR

Chapter 27

World Balance of Power In 21st Century

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

27(0) Purport

(1) Asia is the Future and Europe is Old

Thesis: In the post-1945 bipolar world only the United States and the Soviet Union mattered and Germany and Italy didn’t play any significant role. After the defeat in the Second World War, neither Germany, nor Italy nor Japan ever became great military powers. In geopolitical terms, all of Europe is old; it is the world’s most tourist friendly museum piece. In the mind’s eye of the Neo-conservatives, Europe should be hung with an enormous sign: “The future used to happen here.” It is understatement to say that Germany and France is Old Europe, while former Soviet colonies the East Europeans or Poland represent New Europe, as the whole Europe is old, with ageing population and declining birth rate. After the decline of Germany and France no Catholic nation could ever aspire to join the ranks of world powers in 21st Century, unless Papacy succeeds to partition Protestant USA to carve out a Catholic United States.

One. The 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. President Bush in 2006 recognized India as a Global Power.

Two. No Islamic nation could possibly join the ranks of world powers in the 21st Century, neither Pakistan nor Iran nor Saudi Arabia nor Indonesia, in spite of all oil-incomes the GNPs of all Islamic nations consign them to the status of a medium powers at the best. No OPEC nation and no Muslim nation can ever be a world power in the 3rd Millennium.

Three. The clash of civilizations in the 21st Century requires Troika of USA, China and India to lead the world, as by 2050 the GNP of top 4 economies in the world shall be: China, USA, India and Japan, and the GNP of India shall be four times the GNP of Japan.

 

(2) Sustainable Balance of Concert of Asia

Thesis: 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. India is a key actor, a continental player in the triangular balance of power in Asia, alongside China and Japan. No European power other than Russia would have any significant role in the triangular balance in Asia.

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

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

Three. The Triangular Balance of power in Asia requires United States should undertake preemptive attacks to demilitarize nuke-seeking Iran. These are the arguments the author makes in this Chapter.

 

27(1) Talk Points

(1) 21st Century of Asia

Dr. Henry Kissinger has convincingly argued that the international system of the 21st Century would be similar to the colonial international system of the 18th and `19th Century, where great powers would compete with one other and gang against the preeminent power to establish stable balance of power. France and Germany would formalize closer ties with Russia, China and India to hold America in check. The basic objective of the Great Power Game in Asia shall be to deny sea power and air power United States permanent military and economic bases in oil-rich Caspian Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The top four world powers are: 1United States, 2China, 3India, and 4Russia. India and China joined the ranks of the super Powers, overtaking Russia after President Bush’s War on Iraq. United States lost its status as sole superpower of the world, when United States had to request foreign countries to contribute towards peacekeeping operations in Iraq, even when President Bush had unilaterally invaded Iraq, against the advice of the world. The emergence of Asian Common Market, the free trade association of India, China and Japan would usher in the Century of Asia. The combined GNP of China, Japan and India, exceeded the combined GNP of USA and Canada, and also exceeded the combined GNPs of 15 members of the European Union plus Russia’s GNP. Among four largest economies of the world only United States is white Christian nation and other three economies of China, Japan and India are Asian economies. India and China would assert their legitimate roles as new super powers in the 21st Century balance of power alongside United States the top super power of the world.

 

Asia is the Future and Europe is Old

President Bush’s wise Asian outreach approach based on the principles of realism and de Richelieu’s Raison D’etat, as Asia is where the future is. 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 wrong 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. The trend lines in terms of economic and military power all say “Asia.” 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.

 

(2) Alliance with Second Strongest Power

The guiding principle of the Balance of Power is that great powers join in alliance with the second strongest power to counterbalance the preponderance of the preeminent power. France was the preeminent power in the 19th Century and Germany was the preeminent power of the early 20th Century. United States is the preeminent power of the 21st Century. The principles of Balance of Power implied that great European powers joined in alliance against Napoleonic France in the early 19th Century and against imperial Germany in later 19th Century and early 20th Century. The principle of balance of power obliges France and Germany, the leading powers of the European Union, to develop strategic alliances with less stronger powers, namely, Russia, China and India to isolate, hold in check and neutralize the preponderance of the United States, the preeminent power and the sole superpower of the 21st Century. The principle of Balance of Power obliges the leaders of Eurasian great powers, France, Germany, China, India, and Russia to enter into strategic alliance to hold preeminent United States in check to impress upon the president the limits of American power.

 

Sustainable Balance of Concert of Asia

Diplomat Condoleezza Rice, the Richelieu of the 21st Century, brought India into the American camp, as India is the Second Strongest military and economic Power in Asia next to China. 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.

 

 

 

(3) NATO is Dead

The NATO Alliance died in the rubble of Baghdad and the emerging alliance of France and Germany with Russia caused irreparable damage to America’s relationship with Western Europe. America’s growing alliance with Poland and Britain permanently alienated Germany and France. Germany and France would formalize a continental pact with Russia as well as the maritime pact with India to weave Eurasian Alliance to hold preeminent power United States into check, so that it might not repeat the Iraq-like adventurism in Iran and other parts of the world. Bolshevism and Communism cemented ties among nations of the Socialist Second World during the Cold War. The Capitalism and democracy cemented the ties among First World nations. The Richelieu’s Raison D’etat and Balance of Power became the dominant ideology and diplomatic policy guidelines in the post-Iraq War world.

 

(4) Anti-US Coalition in the Making

The Raison d’etat defines the cardinal principal of balance of Power as the diplomats’ moral imperative to seek alliances with the less-dominant power to check, tame, and balance the dominant hegemony in every region. Germany and France have no option but to develop alliance with Russia, the less-dominant power in Eurasia to check the hegemony of the United States.

 

(5) Diplomacy in Post-Cold War Age

In the post-Cold War new world order the art and craft of diplomacy has taken a rebirth, and the diplomats would again become important movers and shakers of the world. The decline of Ideology has exposed the hollowness of the Wilsonianism, Americanism, Bolshevism, Communism, Catholic Conservatism, and Islamic Fundamentalism. Second, the decline of the West led to the rise of China, India and Japan as world powers. The eight powers of the 21st Century Concert of World Powers are United States, China, Russia, India, Germany, Britain, France and Japan. The Unification of Germany resulted in the rise of Germany power, independent of American Alliance. The top ten economies of the world in declining order are: (1) United States ($8.4 trillion), (2) China ($4.1 trillion), (3) Japan ($3 trillion), (4) India ($2.2 trillion), (5) Germany ($1.8 trillion), (6) France ($1.3 trillion), (7) Britain ($1.2 trillion), (8) Italy ($1.2 trillion), (9) Brazil ($1 trillion), and (10) Russia ($926 billion). The special alliance of United States and Britain is the alliance of first and seventh largest economy. The decline of Russia the tenth largest economy didn’t increase any lead of the United States over China, Japan and India. United States no longer enjoyed the preponderant hegemony it claimed it had. In the China-Japan-India Asian balance of power, India and Japan are likely to come closer, when China moves closer to the United States.

 

(6) Eurasian Balance of Power

The national interests of France, Germany, Russia, Japan and India coincide in the Eurasian balance of power. Their national interests coincide, because of the disturbing impact of 26-member Nato and Sino-US Alliance. Germany, Russia, Japan and India need one another to balance the preponderance of triple alliance of Nato, USA and China. The doctrine of Raison d’etat and Balance of Power obliges major world powers to cement new alliances with one another to balance the preponderance of the United States. The expanded Nato intends to recreate European colonial empires in the 21st Century, would not harm India’s national interest, provided India also gets its fair share spheres of influence.

 

(7) NATO Chaperon of West Europe

United States promoted during the Cold War the Soviet Union as the super power to intimidate and coerce fellow West Europeans accept the bondage of the Atlantic Alliance. In the post-Cold War age the United States promoted China as the super power to coerce and intimidate Southeast Asian countries to accept the bondage and leadership of America. United States historically followed the policy of geopolitical dominance of Europe. The United States established NATO to Chaperon, control and check Germany, Italy and France and to keep Germany divided. President Bush’s War on Iraq brought NATO to a definitive end and created permanent rifts of Germany and France with Britain and United States.

 

(8) Containment of China

India Japan Russia Alliance would neutralize China’s predominance in Asia. India, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam Alliance would neutralize Chinese menace in Southeast Asia. India, Germany, France, Russia and Japan Alliance will neutralize the hegemony of the United States China Alliance in Eurasia.

 

(9) Non Aligned France & Germany

The concept of the Non-Alignment is valid for the major world powers, namely, France, Germany and Japan, who seek to develop foreign policy independent of the United States, to promote their respective national interests determined by the principle of Raison d’etat and balance of power. The Non Aligned Members of the UN Security Council, namely, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea made United States and Britain eat a humble pie. The Non Aligned Movement and United Nations is relevant because it refused to bend under American pressure.

 

(10) Putin’s Russo-French Detente

Secretary Henry Kissinger and President Nixon widened Sino-Soviet rift by developing closer Sino-American ties, similarly President Putin can widen rifts in the German-American, French-American, and Japan-America ties by offering military technologies to them. Russia can do to America in Japan and Germany what Kissinger did to Soviet Union in China. After the demise of the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact and the Cold War, United States has emerged as the principal adversary of Germany, France and Japan, and Russia emerged as their potential ally to restore equilibrium in the post-Cold War new world order. Eight, Monroe doctrine is the first casualty of the demise of Warsaw Pact. South America would become the bone of contention between Atlantic partners, as Brazil, Venezuela and Peru would explore closer ties with Europe. These are the arguments author makes in this chapter.

 

27(2) Geopolitical Hunt of Siberia

(1) Maritime Hunter Cornered Sick Bear

Geopolitical Hunt has begun. The maritime Hunter has cornered the sick Giant Bear into the tight corner. The Hunter has got hold of 10 Cubs, who have joined the hunt on the side of the Hunter. The Nato in 1999 admitted Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic. The Nato in November 2002 formally invited Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia the former parts of the Soviet Union, and Slovenia, Romania, and Bulgaria the former members of the Warsaw Pact to join Nato. The former satellites of the Soviet Union, the wounded bear have voluntarily become the new satellites of the adversary United States, the hunter, and may be looking forward for war with Russia to settle old scores. Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic and Slovakia bear grudge against Russia, which may prove costly to Russia in the event of any future Russia’s war with enlarged Nato. Nato has developed bases in the southern frontiers of Russia in Georgia, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. United States and China may enter into long-term strategic pact in near future. United States, China, and Britain pact would create the First Bloc in Asia and threaten Russia’s hold over Eastern Siberia. Under Mongol Empire Russia and East Europe was part of Mongol Empire. Russia usurped Siberia, which should have gone to China after the collapse of the Mongol Empire. Siberia has the population of 14 million, bordering overpopulated China, with the population of 1,250 million. Russia’s population is in decline and it would decline from present 147 million to 141 million in ten years. Militarily, short of nuclear war, Russia cannot hold on to Siberia. The land of Siberia can easily become home to more than 300 million Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and Indians. What diplomatic and geopolitical options nuclear but weakened Russia has, in face of the tightening noose in Siberia? Should brown India support the continued white occupation of Asian Siberia? Would liberation of Asian Siberia from the clutches of white Christians, and its subsequent occupation by yellow Buddhists in the religious interests of Hindu India? What would India gain by militarily opposing the Chinese invasions of Siberia? If the West fails to partition Russia to break its hold over Siberia before 2010 AD, then resurgent Russia may embark upon the territorial expansion, and the Siberia would never get the chance again to secede. Chinese invasion of Russia is not in the national interests of India, Japan, Germany and France. In response to the threat posed by the Maritime First Bloc, the continental land powers would organize the Continental Bloc.

 

27(3) Maritime Vs Continental Powers in 21st Century

(1) France Germany Russia Alliance

President Putin would develop closer ties with President Chirac and Chairman Schroeder to develop Russia, Germany and France Alliance to undermine NATO, to hold United States in check. Secretary Henry Kissinger and President Nixon widened Sino-Soviet rift by developing closer Sino-American ties, similarly President Putin can widen rifts in the German-American, French-American, and Japan-America ties by offering military technologies to them. Russia can do to America in Japan and Germany what Kissinger did to Soviet Union in China. After the demise of the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact and the Cold War, United States has emerged as the principal adversary of Germany, France and Japan, and Russia emerged as their potential ally to restore equilibrium in the post-Cold War new world order.

 

(2) Rival Blocs in the New World Order

The Post Cold War new world order would consolidate into two rival blocs: Maritime Bloc and Continental Bloc. United States, China, Britain and Australia will be the Maritime First Bloc, and Germany, Japan, France, Russia and India may be the Continental Second Bloc. The purpose of the America-led coalition shall be to further partition Russia and to expedite the secession of Siberia from Russia. France and Germany would realize that the national interests of European Union conflicts with that of USA-led NATO. United Germany has come into age. Germany is no longer willing to play second fiddle to Yankee America. German minister compared the tactics of President Bush to that of Adolf Hitler, to announce that new Cold War has begun, between United States the dominant power of the New World, and the dominant economic power of the European Union. The Atlantic Alliance will also split as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. After the decline of Russia the NATO has lost its raison d’etre. The expansion of Nato signals to the world that geopolitical hunt to cut up the lame sick Giant Russian Bear has begun. How would the cornered nuclear Russian Bear respond to the American hunting party, which has already captured its 10 cubs? Should India, France and Germany and Japan join the USA-China Bloc to end the white man’s colonial occupation of Asian Siberia? Or should India, Germany, Japan and France come to the rescue of Russia and for reasons and for what benefits?

 

(3) Nixon’s Sino-US Detente

Like a Hawk spotting a crack in the armor of the International Communism, on the Sino-Soviet land frontier, Secretary Kissinger and President Nixon gave the bait of Most Favored Trading Nation (MFN) status to Communist China to tear open the Sino-Soviet rift to bring down the International Communist Solidarity. Similarly, President Putin can give the bait of nuclear and space technology to United Germany to tear apart the Atlantic Alliance by winning over Germany. Soviet Union agreed for the unification of Germany, without getting a penny in return. United Germany has a moral obligation to return the favor. Without the consent of the Soviet Union, Germany would have remained partitioned. United Germany would never join the USA-China coalition conspiring Chinese invasions of Siberia to bring about the further partition of Russia. In the early part of 21st Century, German-Russian relationship may solidify into Continental Euro-Asian Bloc, to blunt the colonial designs of the maritime NATO.

 

(4) Putin Exploits Atlantic Rift

President Nixon blunted the Brezhnev doctrine by its diplomatic initiative on China. Similarly, President Putin can blunt Bush Doctrine 2002, by developing closer military ties with Germany, Japan and France. Secretary Kissinger and President Nixon had warned President Brezhnev that American would not permit any Soviet preemptive nuclear strikes on China. By extending nuclear umbrella over Communist China, President Nixon neutralized the Brezhnev Doctrine, which justified the use of Soviet force to discipline fellow Communist regimes. President Putin may provide similar nuclear umbrella over Germany and Japan to protect them against any American pre-emptive strikes, in the event that Germany and Japan decide to develop nuclear deterrent and ask America to vacate its bases on German and Japanese soil respectively. What United States did to the Sino-Soviet relations, President Putin of Russia can do to the US-Germany, US-Japan and US-France ties. Russian gambit is to widen the rifts of Germany, France, European Union and Japan with United States, by accepting Germany and Japan as world powers. Applying the principles of Raison d’etat and Balance of Power, the diplomats of Germany, France and Japan would realize that to secure strategic ties with less-strong nuclear power Russia is a moral imperative, in order to balance the preponderance of the United States.

 

(5) Replay of WWII Alliances

The military alliances in the Third World War may be replay of the alliances of the Second World War. Germany and Japan would oppose America’s predominance. United States, China and Britain would form the First military Bloc, and it shall drastically shift the military balance in favor of United States and China. To redress in the preponderance, Germany, France, India, Japan and Russia should form Eurasian Continental Bloc to balance the Maritime Asia Pacific bloc led by the United States and China. German race would be biggest challenge to the preponderance of the American race in the 21st Century. In the post-Cold War new world order, the United Germany would compete headlong with hegemon United States. Germany will be the principal adversary to United States in 21st Century. Germany has historically been the dominant power of the Europe. Germany scientists developed nuclear weapons and missiles for United States and the Soviet Union. Germany is the fifth largest economy of the world in terms of GDP (GNP at PPP). Would United States Germany conflict provide the basis for New Cold War as United States and China likely to form anti-Russia strategic alliance? United States, China, Britain and Australia would form the First Bloc, and it would focus on the further disintegration of Russia. United States wants China should invade Eastern Siberia to expedite the secession of Eastern Siberia from Russia. The continental size Siberia has the population of 14 million. German minister compared President Bush to Hitler during elections, and President Bush didn’t congratulate Gerhard Schroeder on his reelection. During 2002 NATO Summit there is no Bush-Schroeder meeting took place. The descendants of Adolf Hitler and Bismarck would not accept the bullying of Yankee America and demand that United States should vacate bases in Germany. In reaction to the USA-China bloc, Germany, India, France and Russia may form the Second Bloc to contain Chinese invasions of Siberia. Chinese invasions of Siberia or Australia would ignite the Third World War.

 

27(4) Post-Cold War Balance

(1) 21st Similar to 18th & 19th Century

Which would be World Powers in the Age of Neo-Colonial Empires? Dr. Henry Kissinger forecasts that 21st Century new world order shall be strikingly similar to the European colonial international system of the 18th and 19th centuries, where West European white Christian colonial powers ruthlessly competed with each other in pursuit of colonial expansions. United States went to war against Spain over Cuba, Philippines and Puerto Rico at the turn of the Century during McKinley Administration. Woodrow Wilson warned maritime Britain and claimed America’s domination of the Seas. The Westward expansion of United States was at the expense of England, Canada, France, Spain and Mexico. Maritime Britain replaced Spain and France as the dominant colonial power of the world. Similarly, maritime United States competed with and replaced European colonial powers, namely, Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and Germany as the dominant power of Europe, after the Second World War. The great power rivalry between West European powers suppressed by United States lied dormant throughout the Cold War will resurface in its fury during the post-Cold War era.

 

(2) Dynamic Fluid Raison d’etat Alliances

In the multiple great power system would, every European power would employ Raison D’etat diplomacy to restore balance of power, and seek new alliances with the less-strong Power in the respective balance of power triangles, to check, contain and balance the regional dominant hegemon, which would require constant monitoring, and result in overlapping coalitions and alliances. The rigid fixed static diplomacy of the fixed two-camp Cold War world, would give way to the dynamic, changing diplomatic alliances in the post-Cold War world system. The world powers of the new world order shall be: United States, European Union, China, Russia, India and Japan.

 

This rigidity of the two hostile blocs of the cold War era will be replaced by the “Great Power Non Aligned System” where India, China, Germany, Japan and France would explore new alliances with major regional players in South America, Asia and Africa to tame, check, contain and balance the dominant hegemon United States.

 

The 18th & 19th centuries witnessed intense rivalries among West European colonial powers, was forcibly curbed by the fact of overwhelming superiority of the United States in the NATO and the constant menace of the expanding Communism and the ever-creeping Soviet Union. The twin menaces of Bolshevism and Soviet Empire induced West European powers become the satellite of the United States in NATO and curb European rivalries. However, after the end of Cold War, disintegration of Soviet Empire, the decline of Russia and the Unification of Germany, the former Great Powers of Western Europe have no need to play second fiddle to the former colony of Britain an upstart that joined the Aristocratic club of European great powers only after the First World War. There is no reason that Germany and France should feel inferior to United States. In the new world while former adversaries Russia and China may join as allies to the United States, the former Atlantic Allies, may become adversaries and compete headlong in the New World and Southeast Asia. In the post-Cold War new world order United States and China may constitute the First Bloc. The Second Bloc would comprise India, France, Germany, Canada and Japan.

 

(3) Expansion Undermined NATO

With the expansion of NATO to include new East European members, NATO expands to 26-member Alliance. United States-led NATO with 26 members, no longer needs the continued support of France and Germany to station troops in Europe. It may be in the interest of Germany and France to leave NATO and to focus on creating and independent European military capability. The military interests of European Union are in direct conflict with the national interests of the United States that leads NATO. European Union wants to use its enhanced economic power to become independent of the United States. However, the expansion of European Union to include East European states harmed military ambitions of the European Union. The East European countries have affinity with Unified Germany, but the fear of the future Russian imperialism would keep them firmly in the USA-led NATO, as they have scant regard for the military capability of the European Union. European Union has committed hara-kiri by allowing expansion of the European Union, and permitting the East European states to join European Union as well as NATO. The solidarity of the Western Christendom under USA-led NATO, NAFTA and Organization of American Unity (OAU) is weakened after the end of the Cold War, simply because France, Germany, Spain, Portugal and Italy would compete rather than cooperate with United States in the New World and Hispanic America. In the new world order France and Germany would seek military alliances with India and Japan to enhance the independent deterrent of Western Europe. France, Germany and Japan would conclude by applying principles of Raison D’etat that only after lowering or severing military ties with United States would they become Great powers in their own right and succeed in carving out specific spheres of influence in certain specific geographic region. So long as Japan and Germany remain tied to the Untied States and American occupation troops remain on their soil, neither Japan nor Germany can become Great Powers. In the eyes of most of Germans and Japanese nationalists the presence of American military bases on their soil symbolizes American colonial troops, stationed to keep Germany and Japan under check, respectively.

 

27(5) Raison d’etat or Ideology

(1) Use of Force in Bush doctrine 2002

The Raison d’etat defines the cardinal principal of balance of Power as the diplomats’ moral imperative to seek alliances with the less-dominant power to check, tame, and balance the dominant hegemon in every region. The United States is the dominant hegemon in the world. Bush Doctrine 2002 declares as the principle objective of the Untied States to militarily and otherwise foil the attempt of any power, hostile of friendly, to equal or surpass the military power of the United States. President Bush wants to use force to maintain the present military, social, political and economic preponderance of the United States, which United States achieved simply because its adversary the Soviet Union collapsed. In reality it was not the victory of the United States, rather the defeat of the fellow white Christian Super Power Soviet Union. India accepts that United States has all rights in the world to force fellow West European powers, including European Union to attempt equaling or surpassing the military, economic and cultural might of the United States. The Bush Doctrine 2002, openly challenged European Union that if EU continued to set its goal to become equal or surpass the military and economic capability of the United States, then United States would use military force to force EU back down. Bush Doctrine 2002 declares emphatically that any power, whether friendly or hostile, that dreams to either equal or surpass United States in military and economic, then the military capability of the USA-led NATO which now has 26 members including former members of the Eastern Bloc, then the NATO would use force against it. The Bush doctrine is an advance warning to the European Union, not to dream equality with United States.

 

(2) USA Not Preponderant Power

India, China and Japan do not accept that United States enjoys such preponderance in military and economic power of the world, as no other country would be able to overtake it in any foreseeable future. While it is true that no white, European Christian European nation would ever be able to match United States or present any serious challenge to the United States, it is not true for China, Japan and India. World Bank Report 2002 lists the world’s top four largest economies by size in terms of GDP (GNP at PPP) as: United States, China, Japan and India. China has set its economic goal of quadrupling its GNP in ten years, to reach the GDP of $16 trillion in 1999 dollars by 2012, which would be double the present day GDP of United States. China is likely to overtake United States as dominant economic power of the world before 2012 AD. Experts of Geopolitics and war do not accept the Pentagon thesis that the American military technology revolution has given unprecedented lead to the American Armed forces, which is not likely to decline or lessen the lead over other potential adversaries. Geopolitics dismisses this claim of Pentagon. The brilliant military technology innovation of Precision Guided Munitions, which resulted in the development of $12,500 GDAM Kit that made all Vietnam era dull bombs into smart bombs, which guided the flight of the bomb while falling gravity to the changing targets, guided by GPS technology. PGMs made US Air Force powerful and it has demoralized ground-based troops, which lack any protection against smart bombs dropped 36,000 feet high. Geopolitical argument is that the military technology of Precision Guided Munitions is a double edged sword, which while enhancing the power of US Air Force has also made US Navy and US Aircraft Carriers highly vulnerable to the Precision Guided Munitions and GPS technology equipped anti-ship cruise missiles, which can track the changing mobile target after its launch. India and Russia jointly mass producing Supersonic Brahmos Anti-Ship Cruise Missile with a range of 300 miles, which can sink aircraft carriers. India does not accept the American assertion that white Christian United States has any just right to use military force against India, China, Japan, France and Germany, if these countries form military, economic or political coalitions seeking to challenge the hegemony of the United States. The very principle of Raison d’etat and balance of power obligates every diplomat of the great powers to seek alliances to check, tame and balance the dominant hegemon, which is Untied States, present sole super power of the world. The forcible enactment of the Bush Doctrine to punish nations, which seek to equal United States in terms of military and economic power, would make it more likely that anti-US coalition would form to overthrow the domination of the Untied States.

 

(3) Non Aligned Great Power Bloc

The recent decline of Russia and Unification of Germany makes it the moral imperative of the diplomats of Germany and France to forge a 2nd force, the “Non-Aligned Great Power Bloc,” which is neither aligned to the United States nor to the Soviet Union, the staple definition of the Non-Aligned Movement. Joseph Stalin had sent a Peace Note to the West after the outbreak of the Korean War, which offered the Unification of West and East Germany, provided the rearmed United Germany declares itself to be a Non-Aligned Nation, neither part of the Western bloc nor part of the Eastern bloc. United States, France and Britain rejected this idea, fearing that it Germany as Non-Aligned nation would give great boost to the Non-Alignment. Had United Germany joined the ranks of the Non Aligned Nations in 1950s, the Non-aligned Bloc led by Germany, India, Yugoslavia, Egypt, and Indonesia would have become the major force in world politics.

 

(4) America Dreams World Conquest

The unchallenged one-superpower system could tempt United States dream world conquest. United States used the bogey of soviet menace and threatening onward march of the Communism to browbeat West Europeans into servitude and bondage of the United States. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, United States may use Bush doctrine to impose American hegemony worldwide, just as Brezhnev Doctrine used by Soviet Union to impose Soviet hegemony throughout Soviet Empire. It is very arrogant for United States to claim that White America is the sole military power of the world, when it had lost the Vietnam War and White Soviet Union lost the Afghanistan War. The failure of the American Armed Forces to capture Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan casts doubts upon the military capability of the United States. United States buoyed by the Bush doctrine 2002, might overextend itself and disintegrate just as Soviet Union over-extended itself after it declared Brezhnev Doctrine after the America’s defeat in the Vietnam. The principles of Raison d’etat and balance of power requires that great powers, namely, France, Germany, India, and Japan seek military and political ties with regional powers to balance the predominance of the hegemon America, so that United States may no dream world conquest. It is no accident that German minister compared President Bush to Hitler during German elections 2002.

 

It is likely that United States, China, Britain and Australia would formalize long-term security ties to create USA-China bloc. United States wants China to invade Siberia, and this had been the principal goal of Secretary Henry Kissinger. United States wants China to expand northward to avert Chinese invasions of Australia and New Zealand. East European Allies would come solidly behind United States to protect their freedom against future German or Russian expansion. Secretary Kissinger developed strategic ties between Judeo-Communism and Judeo-Christianity, iconoclast Christianity and iconoclast communism to undermine Buddhism in China, and Indo-China and this alliance continues till today, as evidenced by West’s acceptance of the Communist suppression of Falun Gong Buddhist movement in China. The Western Christendom’s Alliance is cemented by common anti-Buddhism objectives.

 

(5) India China Alliance

The two Asian giants Japan and India would be forced to take counter-measures to form the anti-China coalition in Asia, which would include besides India and Japan, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Taiwan. Germany, France and Russia may also join the India-Japan Bloc to check Chinese invasions of Eastern Siberia, and it would form a 2nd Bloc. Germany and Japan would demand that America vacates its military bases from German and Japanese soil. Hindu India and Buddhist Japan would play a leading role in organizing the Buddhist nations of Asia. India and Japan would form the Organization of Buddhist States to include India, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Taiwan, Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka to create a common Hindu-Buddhist front against iconoclast the West and iconoclast Communism. The main objective of this coalition would be to help Buddhists overthrow the communist regime in Communist China. 

 

27(6) Raison d’etat or Religion

(1) Wilsonianism Camouflaged Colonialism

American Wilsonian foreign policy during Truman and Eisenhower administrations camouflaged naked colonialism in Europe. Yankee Eagle tamed the shrew Britannia and caged the hurt German giant and put into solitary confinement the Gaullist France. However, Wilsonian foreign policy during Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton administrations Wilsonian foreign policy camouflaged the religious interests of Christian Church not the national interests of the United States. The Atlantic Alliance NATO though justified in noble Wilsonian ideals of democracy and freedom, nonetheless represented the cage that former colonial power accepted as lesser evil than Soviet occupation. How could foolish Britain, France and Germany believe that Soviet Union could dare to conquer West Europe, when United States nuclear monopoly? The containment of Communism in Vietnam camouflaged the Christian religious interests, which sought to undermine Buddhism in Asia by force of secular American arms. Secretary Henry Kissinger’s diplomatic opening of China cemented the long-term strategic alliance between Judeo-Communism and Judeo-Christianity for the joint destruction of Buddhism in Indo-China and China. Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski’s pro-Ayatollah Khomeini and anti-Shah of Iran cemented the strategic ties between Islamic fundamentalism and Christian conservatism to destabilize moderate liberal Islamic regimes.

 

(2) Religions Defined National Interests

Diplomats of sovereign Christian and Muslim States in the 20th century defined their nations’ interests in terms interests of their dominant religions. The Thirty Years Wars, Counter Reformation Wars aligned Protestant powers against domineering Roman Catholic Church. What would the realignment of religious forces in the Third world War, in the aftermath of the Protestant Bush’s War on Wahhabi Arab terrorism. The Protestant powers would join forces with Hindu forces to wage wars on Islamic terrorism. Catholic forces would either stay on the sidelines and work towards sabotaging the Protestant’s war on Islamic terrorism, or join the war on the side of Islamic fundamentalist forces. Muslim nations define foreign policies primarily in terms of Islamic religious interests. Catholic nations, except France also define foreign policy in terms of the Catholic religious interests. The Protestant Evangelicals and American Christian religious right conservatism seeks to implement the Christian religious agenda through American foreign policy. It is acceptable in the 21st century that diplomats of the civilized nations promote the national interests defined in religious terms.

 

Should secular India follow the example of United States and Germany and promote the interests of Hindu Buddhist civilizations through Indian diplomacy? Should Hindu India support Christians in Christianity-Islam conflict, arguing that any war between Christian and Islamic world is good for the Hindu and Buddhist worlds? Should Hindu India align with Protestant United States and Richelieu’s France to develop common front against any resurgence of Holy Roman Empire after the end of the Cold War and the Reunification of Germany? The role played by Vatican in the disintegration of multi-ethnic secular Yugoslavia suggests that the same religious forces are employing the Richelieu’s instruments of subsidizing the enemies of the enemies, bribery, fomenting insurrections and causing dissensions to destabilize multi-ethnic democratic India. Should Hindu India employ Richelieu’s strategy to divide anti-women fundamentalist forces, to undermine their control of their heartlands the home bases?

 

(3) Return of 18th Century World Order

“The post-Cold War new world order bears may similarities to the European state system of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.” (Kissinger, Diplomacy, p. 805) The diplomacy of the 21st Century shall be similar that in Europe of 18th & 19th centuries, where Protestant nations Britain and Catholic France defined national interests in terms Raison d’etat to check the messianic zeal of the Holy Roman Empire and Roman Catholic Church. Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany employed the ideology of Nazism to launch World War II, just as Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand launched Thirty Years War to impose supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church over Protestant infidels. United Germany freed from Russian threats because of the decline of Russia, would reassert the imperial traditions of Germany of Holy Roman Empire, by redefining the national interests of predominant Protestant Germany as political representative of Papacy. Adolf Hitler had close theo-political ties with Pope Pius XII. Pope John Paul II played very significant role in overthrowing Communist regime in Poland and German Unification. Germany would oppose the political dominance of Protestant hegemon United States in European Union and NATO. Catholic France would revert back to the policies of Cardinal de Richelieu, First Minister of France (1624-1642) to secure alliances with Protestants and non-Christian India and China, and Orthodox Russia to check the rise of Vatican as world power with the help of United Germany. France though predominantly Catholic would lead the global realignment of forces to foil the attempts of Catholic religious right conservative conspiracy to promote Papal agenda in world politics. United Germany would become increasingly anti-United States and anti-Britain in the first decade of the 3rd Millennium. Guided by Richelieu’s Raison d’etat, modern France would thwart the Germany and the Vatican, to divide the Roman Catholic Churches Empire, among multitude sovereigns, just as Richelieu divided the Habsburgs and the Holy Roman Empire among more than 300 sovereigns.

 

(4) Medieval Religious Interests

The single most important fact that separates the modern age from the Medieval Age is that in the modern age nation states formulate foreign policies to promote their national interests not the religious interests of the Church. The Christian Religious right conservative conspiracy undermining the security of eclectic United States by promoting foreign policies that promoted the interests of the universal Catholic Church during invasions of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Haiti.

 

(5) Traditional Conservatism

The American term ‘Conservatism’ is the euphemism for the implementation of the ideas and policies that promote the religious interests of the Catholic Church and Protestant Evangelicals camouflaged as American national interests. American conservative movements have become powerful political force in elections in America because religious issues stir emotions. The religious right conservatism based on the universalistic tradition founded on the primacy of moral law and Christian scriptures.

 

(6) Richelieu’s Raison D’etat

“The constant national wars of eighteenth century Europe, in pursuit of Raison d’etat and Balance of Power did not lead to the devastations of the religious wars for two reasons. Paradoxically, the absolute rulers of the eighteenth century were in a less strong position to mobilize resources of war, than was the case when religion or ideology or popular government could stir the emotions.” (Diplomacy, p 70) The Thirty years War (1618-1648), which ended with the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, devastated Germany and resulted in the death of one-third of German population, because Catholic Protestant religious controversy could stir emotions and justify the massacre of the non-believers. The seventeenth century Habsburg Emperor Ferdinand of Holy Roman Empire, caused the death of more than one third of its people, by his religious fanaticism, and his rejection in 1629, the offer of German Protestant Princes that they are ready to accept Habsburg political preeminence provided Protestants remained free to pursue their religion.

 

Catholic Cardinal de Richelieu, the First Minister of France (1624-1642), under the French Catholic King adopted the policy of Raison d’etat and balance of power, to subsidize the Protestant King of Sweden, Gustavus Adolphus, to make war against the Holy Roman Emperor, Habsburg Emperor Ferdinand. Richelieu’s objective was to end the encirclement of France, to exhaust the Habsburgs and to weaken Germany. Richelieu subsidized the enemies of the enemies, bribed, fomented insurrections, and mobilized an extraordinary array of dynastic and legal arguments. Richelieu thwarted the Habsburgs and the Holy Roman Empire was divided among more than 300 sovereigns, each free to conduct an independent foreign policy.

 

27(7) Italian Monarch & Papacy

(1) Victor Emmanuel II’s Italian Raison D’etat

Catholic King Victor Emmanuel II in 1870 replicated the raison d’etat policies of Cardinal Richelieu and invaded Vatican and divested the Pope of all secular powers and made Pope prisoner of the Vatican. Popes remained prisoners of the Vatican from 1870 to 1929.

Perhaps a Fascist leader in Italy would rise and repeat the valiant act of King Victor Emmanuel II. On Sept. 20, 1870 King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel II, entered Rome, and stripped Pope of all temporal power. Pope lived in seclusion, as prisoner of the Vatican, from Sept 20, 1870 to 1929. Perhaps India, China and Russia should finance Fascist political parties in Italy, who declare to abolish the financial, political and temporal powers of Papacy. Fascist or Nazi Italy would tame the extra-territorial powers of Papacy. Why should Rome vaporize in Catholic-Orthodoxy nuclear war? Roman Empire fell to the sword of barbarians in 410 AD, when it allowed Christian Emperor Theodosius (d. 395) use Roman military power, to impose Christianity throughout Hindu Roman Empire.

 

(2) Christian Religious Right Conspiracy

The Catholic religious leaders have entered into Theo-political alliance with fundamentalist Wahhabi Sunni Muslims to harness the support of the Muslim fundamentalists to undermine pagan religions in Africa south of Sahara, as in Nigeria, by replacing western laws currently in place by anti-women Shariah laws. The Raison d’etat and national interests would oppose the imposition of the Shariah law in Commonwealth nations, which are governed by English laws.

 

Secretary Henry Kissinger representing the interests of the Catholic religious right conservatism and protestant Evangelicals cemented the ties with the Judeo-Communist Mao Zedong, identifying common civilization’s interests between iconoclast Judeo-Communism and iconoclast Judeo-Christians, namely the destruction of idolatrous Buddhism in Cambodia, China and Indo-China by iconoclast joint Communist-Christian forces. Emboldened by the realization that Western Christendom would reward than punish the massacre of Buddhists, the Maoists in China and Cambodia massacred more than 60 million Buddhists in Cambodia under Khmer Rouge and in China during Cultural Revolution. The failure to prosecute Khmer Rouge by United Nations raises doubts about the existence of anti-Buddhism joint Communist-Catholic conservative conspiracy.

 

(3) Interests of Indian Civilization

Diplomacy of Hindu India should also promote the interests of Indian Civilization and Hinduism in Asia. It is the conventional wisdom at the start of the 3rd Millennium that diplomats should define the national interests of the states and civilization in terms of the interests of the religion. What should be the response of Hindu India to the Communist-Christian onslaught on Buddhism in Southeast Asia? Hindu India should develop closer military, cultural and economic ties with Laos, Cambodia and Thailand to protect Hindu Buddhist heritage of Southeast Asia. Historically, South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia opposed Chinese culture and openly assimilated Indian cultural influences. India should focus its Southeast Asia policy by developing closer ties with Buddhist Asian nations, namely, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan and Japan. Hindu India should also promote Buddhism in China. Whenever Communist Party loses its grip on political power in China it would become a Buddhist State and greatest civilization’s ally of Hindu India. Hindu India should undertake all it can do to bring about the political change in China to make China Buddhist again. Hindu India should redefine its national interests in Buddhist Asia in terms of Hindu-Buddhist civilizations’ interests. India should organize Global Organization of Buddhist States, a regional grouping of 16+ states, namely, India, China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, Mongolia, Myanmar (Burma), Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Sikkim and Tibet. India should also promote the religious interests of Hinduism in Bali, Laos, Cambodia, Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Guyana, Trinidad & Tobago, Suriname, Fiji Islands, Mauritius, South Africa, and East Africa.

 

27(8) End of the Age of Ideology

(1) Rebirth of Diplomacy

In the post-Cold War new world order the art and craft of diplomacy has taken a rebirth, and the diplomats would again become important movers and shakers of the world. The decline of Ideology has exposed the hollowness of the Wilsonianism, Americanism, Bolshevism, Communism, Catholic Conservatism, and Islamic Fundamentalism.

 

(2) Wilsonianism Camouflaged Interests

One. Wilsonian camouflaged the Roosevelt's Realpolitik national interests under false clothing of idealism. The Americanism the ideology that allowed America to tame the former colonial powers into bondage of American bloc, was no more idealistic than the Bolshevism that Soviet Union used to brow beat East Europeans into the Communist bloc.

 

Two. Ideology of Bolshevism camouflaged traditional Russian imperial interests. Ideology of Americanism, democracy and freedom camouflaged traditional anti-European American imperialism, and it extended the Monroe doctrine to deny former colonial powers the great power role even in European continent, by hyping the threat of Soviet bear, which was weak and gasping for air.

 

Three. The fall of the Marxism and Communism as ideologies has heralded the end of the age of ideology. The 21st Century is the age of End of Ideology. By the beginning of the 1990 American ideology seemed triumphant. The Soviet ideology and Soviet geopolitical challenge had been overcome simultaneously because the threat and menace of the Soviet Bolshevik ideology, Soviet economy and Soviet military might had been hyped by the CIA, so scare the former colonial powers of Atlantic Alliance into submission.

 

Four. United States Soviet Union conflict was a scam perpetrated by the White House to consolidate the stronghold of the United States over Western Europe. United States at Yalta Summit handed over the Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union, simply because it would allow America exercise predominance over European colonial powers. It is an irony of history that Britain after 1945 had its Empire intact, and the combined resources of British Empire exceeded than that of the United States and Soviet Union. Why the hell British Prime Ministers agreed to act as the humble servants to the Yankee presidents? Commonwealth overshadowed United States in terms of economic resources, military technology and size of the market. Soviet Union would never have dared to invade Germany, France or Britain.

 

Five. The colonial empires of Britain, France, and Portugal remained intact at the end of the Second World War. American ideology that dominated the post-1945 Atlantic Alliance is as shallow and misleading as was the Soviet ideology that dominated the Warsaw Pact. Soviet experience proves that Karl Marx was a prostitute philosopher hired by Vatican to produce the shit-philosophy to justify the massacre of Orthodox Christians and pagan Buddhists. American ideology, which dominated the Atlantic Alliance, was no different than the imperial Nazi policy of Adolf Hitler, in the eyes of Germany and France. The German minister of Justice, compared American President Bush to Hitler, to express the hatred Germans have traditionally felt towards the Americans. German minister either tried to legitimize Hitler by comparing him to Bush, arguing that Hitler was after all not so bad. Otherwise, the anti-Nazi Germany minister had expressed German’s hatred of America by comparing him with the evil Hitler. Either way, it reflects that United States and Germany would go separate ways. Historically, Germany had closer ties with Russia. Germany would develop special relationship with Putin’s Russia to contain the hegemon America.

 

27(9) EU Balance of Power

(1) Germany & France to Tame America

The power distribution between European Union and United States is a zero sum game. Any gains of the United States in terms of national power results in the corresponding decline of the power of the former European colonial powers. In the global balance of power any net gains to the United States results in the net loss to the Europeans. The overall population of the White race is stagnant, so any increase in the white European immigration to United States results in the net decline of the white population in Europe, Central America and South America. If America succeeds in creating American Colonial Empire, it would put brake on any European dream to recreate European Colonial Empires in the 21st Century. The United States’ early foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere was essentially one of Great Power interventionism to weaken European colonial powers. During the Cold War United States hyped the non-existent Soviet menace to seduce West European colonial powers into servitude. Nuclear Yankee hand-in-glove with Soviet bear, raised the nuclear specter of the Cold War to force the East European maidens into the Bear’s harem, and the West European maidens into the Yankee harem. The national interests of United Germany and de Gaulle’s France demand that United States should decline like the Russia. Hegemon America is against the national interests of United Germany and independent France and independent European Union. If European Union can’t tame hegemon United States, then European Union loses its Raison D'etre.

 

United States, the sole super power of the world, threatens the world peace. Third world had freedom due to the Cold War and Non Aligned Movement. United States scuttled the International Criminal Tribunal, of the United Nations to set up the Permanent International Criminal Court, to protect American War Criminals. Justice in the world will not serve unless an independent prosecutor allowed pursuing indictments without having to consent to the wishes of the United States. The long and arduous process of establishing another international criminal tribunal shows the need for a permanent international criminal court. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court would provide such an institution. If ratified, this court would have jurisdiction over the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. A permanent court would provide security for the future as it upholds justice not in selective situations, but on a universal scale, even against the sole super power of the world. War Crimes of the United States in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Burundi, and Congo. United States is distorting International Law by selectively targeting Serbs in Yugoslavia. United States undermines the credibility of International Law. European Union and Russia should join forces with India to balance United States. France and India should join forces to check the preponderance of the United States.

 

(2) Coalition with Less Strong Power

The Balance of Power doctrine’s underlying principle is to organize a wider coalition of powers with less-strong Power to tame and balance the preponderant Power. The Raison d’etat doctrine and balance of Power doctrine obliges European diplomats to seek closer diplomatic, military and economic ties with Putin’s Russia to check the hegemony of the United States. Atlantic Alliance between maritime United States and the Western Europe lost its raison d’etre after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. West Europe no longer needs NATO. However, NATO is very relevant for former satellites of the Soviet Union, namely, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic, because they are scared that resurgent Russia would expand to take over East Europe and west Europe would not lift a finger to protect the independence of East Europe. Western Europe, Russia and NATO would create equilibrium in Euro-Asia. West Europe should leave NATO and East Europe should become major players in NATO. The European Union should develop European military capability to become independent of the United States. The equilibrium between Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Russia would stabilize Europe. Western Europe, especially Germany and France would oppose United States, Eastern Europe and China Coalition to undertake the end-game to kill or cut up the wounded Russian Bear. The partition of Russia and secession of Siberia is in the national interests of Eastern Europe, China, United States and the Roman Catholic Church. Secession of Siberia and partition of Russia is not in the national interests of United Germany, France, Japan and India. Secession of Siberia is in the religious interests of Buddhism and Shamanism religions. Secession of Siberia from Russia would make Vatican the undisputed leader of Christianity. Vatican had hired the prostitute-philosopher Karl Marx to custom design a devil’s philosophical concoction Communism to justify the destruction of Orthodox Christianity in Russia. Any failure of the United States and China to engineer the secession of Siberia, when sick wounded Russian Bear is at its weakest point, allows Russia to reclaim its lost empire in not so distant future. It is in the national interest of China and United States to further partition Russia to engineer the secession of Asian Siberia. How should Hindu nuclear India respond to the Chinese invasions of Siberia?

 

(3) USA-Poland Axis to Tame Germany

United States led NATO may use its new East European members to tighten the noose over Germany, lest United Germany dreams to develop nuclear deterrent and dares to demand the closure of American military bases on German soil. The 26-member NATO can dare to use European troops to discipline and tame militarist Germany. Germany and Japan have realized that the occupation purpose of American troops on their soil. German minister compared President Bush to Hitler, the vilest insult a German can make on anyone. The comment could mean that Fuehrer Adolf Hitler was no worse than president Bush hence Germans should begin honoring Adolf Hitler and assert the military potential of United Germany. The comment could also mean that Bush-led United States presents a threat to the Europe and European Union no less than the threat posed by militarist Nazi Adolf Hitler, at the start of his world conquest. It is very likely that German-USA conflict could start new Cold War. Nuclear Germany and Nuclear Japan would become formidable military power, with global reach. German-American conflict is not against the national interests of India, Russia, Japan and China.

 

(4) Role of India in European Balance

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.

 

(5) US-French Conflict of Interests

Thirty-second, 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 the territories it sold to United States in the Louisiana Sale. 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.

(6) USA-United Europe-Russia Triangular Balance

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.

 

(7) 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?

(8) EU Challenging 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.

 

27(10) Neo Colonial Empires

(1) 21st Similar to 18th & 19th Century

Victory in the Cold War and the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the decline of Russia has propelled America into a world, which bears many similarities to the European state system of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The absence of the overriding ideological and strategic threats frees France and Germany to pursue foreign policies based increasingly on their immediate national interest. United States hyped the overriding strategic threat from Soviet nuclear sources to browbeat the former colonial powers into the servitude to the new rising Christian power, the United States.

 

After the German Unification, Germany’s NATO ties would get weakened. Traditionally land of Germany had been the Seat of the Catholic Holy Roman Empire. The national interests of United Germany would reflect the national interests of the Habsburg Empire and Holy Roman Empire. Germany would join forces with transnational Roman Catholic Church to lay the foundation of an Universal Christian Empire based on the principles of Catholicism, even when Germany had been the birth place of Reformation and Protestantism. Germany would foster closer ties with Greater Germany in the Central Europe to the detriment of Atlantic Alliance.

 

In the post-Cold War new world order, Germany would demand that United States vacate its military bases in Germany. Germany would find that NATO harms the national interests of European Union, because NATO controlled by Pentagon. Germans resent that President Truman and Acheson rejected the Stalin’s Peace Note, because it specified that Unified Germany was to be neutral though armed, with all foreign troops withdrawn from Germany within a year. For American occupation force the answer was fairly clear, there was, in fact no sustainable geographic base in Europe, for redeployment of American occupation troops. In the 1950s, France might have been prepared to accept a major American force, but not for long and not without restrictions. Truman and Acheson rejected the Stalin’s Peace Note and rejected the chance for German Unification in 1950s, because it would have necessitated redeployment of American occupation forces, when a neutral buffer zone had been created between Soviet and American forces. Germany realized that American bases in Germany impeded German Unification. President Truman made a mistake by not accepting Stalin’s Peace Note for German Unification. One of the major foreign policy moves of the new German government could be to seek the dismantling of the American military bases in Germany. United States will be forced to vacate its military bases in Germany, just as it vacated military bases in the Philippines and Panama. The decline of present-day Russia and the rise of Unified Germany as the 5th largest economy of the world make the American military bases in Germany counter-productive for the European balance of power.

 

West Germany realized that though Atlantic Alliance can deter Soviet invasions of Germany, it cannot further the agenda of German Unification. Stalin would have agreed for the German Unification, had United Germany agreed to exit the Atlantic Alliance and joined the Non Aligned Movement. Non Aligned Germany would have given greater credibility to the Non Alignment. Stalin was prepared to explore an overall settlement and keeping his option open to Western responses to his Peace Note. The three Western occupying powers-France, Great Britain, and the United States returned identical replies to bring the discussion of German Unification to an end. Three big powers accepted the principle of German Unification but rejected the idea of neutrality. Had Stalin offered the so-called Peace Note four years earlier, before the Berlin blockade, the Czech coup, and the Korean War, it almost certainly would have stopped German membership in NATO in its tracks. Indeed, it is quite possible that German membership in the NATO would never have been considered. Stalin’s Peace Note implied the sort of future of Europe that Winston Churchill had been urging both during and after the war.

 

The Geo-Politics of United Germany demands that Germany redefines the national interests of Germany, in collusion with the Papacy. The foundation of German nationalism is rooted in the historical experience of Holy Roman Empire. There is no Catholic world power in the world, which promotes the religious interests of the universal Catholic Church. In the post-Cold War United Germany defines German national interests in terms of the interests of the Universal Catholic Church, just as Habsburgs defined the interests of the Holy Roman Empire in light of the interests of the Catholicism. Germany the set of the Protestantism would join forces with Vatican, the underlying guiding force in the European Union. During Nazi era, Pope Pius XII and Adolf Hitler had identified common body interests, which defined Catholic religious interests in light of German national interests. The principal opponents of Germany had been Protestant Britain and Protestant United States. The Catholic France has historically sided with German Protestants to weaken Germany. In the 21st Century, Germany would promote Catholic religious interests camouflaged as German national interests. Germany had been the first two countries that recognized the secession of Catholic Slovenia and Catholic Croatia from multi-ethnic secular Yugoslavia, even when it harmed the national interests of Germany. How could Germany the victim of forced partition of Germany by occupation forces, could justify joining the coalition that used military force to partition Yugoslavia? Germany may lead neo-Counter Reformation Wars of 21st Century that may be as destructive as the Thirty years Wars of 1618-1648. United Germany, rearmed and economically dominant, would project its world role as the Pope’s lieutenant and German Army would fight the wars as Pope’s Army in the neo-Counter Reformation War underway, between Catholics and the Protestants. Germany and Italy would join the Third World War as Pope’s Army, primarily to promote the Christian religious interests.

 

27(11) Unification of Germany

(1) Impact of Reunification of Germany

The movement of European integration had its origin in two propositions: that, unless Europe learned to speak with one voice, it would gradually slide into irrelevance, and that a divided Germany must not be placed in a position where it would be tempted to float between two super powers and play the two sides of the Cold War off against each other. The premises on which European Union was founded have been shaken by the unification of Germany. The premise on which NATO was founded has been shaken by the collapse of the Soviet Union and decline of Russia’s power and economy.

 

The emergence of unified Germany compounds the traditional fears of German hegemony in the minds of Europeans. European nations are acutely aware that the two Continental giants, Russia and Germany, have historically either carved up their neighbors or fought battles on their territory, the countries located between Russia and Germany, dread the emerging security vacuum; hence their intense desire for American protections, is expressed in their desire for NATO membership. American is pleased with the prospect of stationing American on East European lands, if ever Germany ask America to give up its bases in Germany.

 

The European Union faces the new reality of a reunified Germany, which threatens the tacit bargain that has been at the heart of the European Integration. The Federal Republic of Germany accepted the French political leadership in the European community in return for a preponderant German voice on economic matters. The Federal Republic of Germany was thus tied to the West through the American leadership on strategic maters within NATO, and French leadership on political issues within the European Union. The apple cart of the tacit understanding allowing for German leadership on economic issues, French leadership on diplomatic issues, and American leadership on military issues, is threatened by the reunification of Germany. After the decline of Russia, Western Europe will not feel the previous need for American military protection, and European Union will pursue its economic, and political national interests more aggressively guided by raison d’etat. United Germany will insist on the political influence to which its military and economic powers entitle it. United Germany will no longer be emotionally dependent on French political and American military support. The new generation in Germany has no personal recollection of the war and has no emotional reason to defer to European Union or to subordinate German views either to France or to America.

 

Germany has become so strong that existing European Union institutions cannot by themselves strike a balance between Germany and its European partners. East European members of the European Union would align with Germany, with which it shares the common linguistic and historical bonds, to tilt the balance against France and Britain.

 

Nor can European Union, even with reunified Germany, manage by itself either the resurgence or the disintegration of Russia. Russia’s historic tendencies to re-establish the former empire have reawakened historic fears of Russian expansionism, especially in the former satellite states of Eastern Europe and former soviet republics in Central Asia. No neighbor of Russia has any faith in Russian conversion as the key to its country’s security. It is in no country’s interest that Germany and Russia should fixate on each other as either principal partner or principal adversary. If Germany and Russia become too close, they raise the fear of condominium. If Russia and Germany quarrel, they involve Europe in escalating crises. America and France have a common national interest in avoiding unbridled German and Russian national policies competing over the center of the European Continent. The “Visegrad countries” of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary, will become a no-man’s land between Germany and Russia. Visegrad countries need Germany to become economically and politically viable. For securities Visegrad countries look either towards NATO or to Germany. European Union has based its decision to expand the European Union eastward on Realpolitik. Care should be taken to avoid creating a strategic and conceptual no-man’s land in Eastern and central Europe, which had been the source of many of European conflicts.

 

Without United States, Britain and France cannot sustain the political balance between Russia and Germany in Western Europe. Germany would be guided by patriotism, nationalism and national interest. Russia would be untamed without a super power acting as interlocutor. If Russia and Germany could develop détente policies, similar to Sino-American détente developed by Secretary Henry Kissinger that would compromise the national interests of United States?

 

Unified Germany in the post-Cold War new world order may decide to become Non Aligned Germany and ask American troops to vacate its bases in Germany. Stalin wrote a Peace Note immediately at the start of the Korean War, suggesting that Germany could be reunited and rearmed, provided it become neutral and Non Aligned nation. Kremlin was afraid that abandoning East Germany might unravel the Soviet satellite orbit, as it did a generation later. The United States was concerned that opening up discussions might wreck NATO and in effect trades the NATO for a conference. Americans were scared that a Non Aligned Germany would have posed either a danger to Western Europe or an invitation to blackmail by Soviet Union. America wasn’t prepared for the diplomatic experiment of German unification because failure invited irreversible gains. If the Non-Aligned German territory embraced all of Germany, NATO would be emasculated and Central Europe would either turn a vacuum or a United Germany would turn into a potential threat to the United States and Western Europe. Precisely this is the impact of the reunification of the Germany at the end of the Cold War. In the age of German reunification and decline of Russia NATO shall be emasculated and Central Europe would come under German umbrella. Germany may develop nuclear weapons and become a third force in Europe and Germany-France may create a joint-third force in Europe to neutralize American influence in European Union and NATO.

 

Was the Soviet Union ever really been a threat? Was the Cold War been the invention of the overwrought American policymakers and the CIA, who were interested in faking the Soviet menace to browbeat the West European states into bondage to America? The CIA had bribed politicians in post world war Britain and France to engineer the political wilderness of Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle. While Churchill sat on the Opposition Benches in British and French Parliaments, America could bulldoze its political and military dominance of Western Europe unopposed. By the time Churchill and De Gaulle returned to power in Britain and France, the Britain and France had bartered away its strategic assets to play a second fiddle to the Yankee dominance. By the time Churchill became the Prime Minister again, Britannia had already joined the Yankee Harem. The Soviet Empire had never been an actual threat to the Western Europe. United States handed over Eastern Europe to Bolshevik Bear primarily to enhance the menacing image of the lame bear, so that the European Queens may become mortally scared of the rapist Soviet bear, to willingly join the Yankee harem for their personal safety. United States succeeded in putting European colonial Lions into the Yankee-NATO cage, without firing any shot, just by scaring them of the looming threat of nuclear Russian bear. In a nutshell, the Soviet Union had never been a threat. The United States enjoyed the nuclear monopoly and the injured Russian Bear was in no position to conquered and occupy France, Germany and Britain. The Cold War had been the invention of the overwrought White House policy makers and the CIA who hyped the menace of the evil Soviet bear to put former Colonial powers into bondage to America in Atlantic Alliance. The Soviet system had needed the specter of a permanent outside enemy to justify the suffering it was imposing on its people. American wanted to become a specter in the eyes of the Eastern bloc nations, so that Soviet Union might consolidate its stronghold over Eastern bloc. America projected the Soviet stronghold over Eastern bloc, which was a gift from United States in Yalta Agreement, to pain the future of France, Germany and Britain were Europe to attempt a Non Aligned future for Europe outside of the Atlantic Alliance. By painting the other adversary as a menace, both Soviet Union and United States profited by consolidating their stronghold over their respective bloc. America has not won the Cold War but that the Soviet Union has lost it and its successor Russia has lost all hope of ever catching up with the United States. With the death of the Soviet Union has died the Soviet as well as Russian specter, in the minds of the West Europeans, and so ended the justification of NATO and United States in European Union.

 

27(12) France’s Raison d’etat

Roosevelt and Churchill both hated Charles de Gaulle, simply because de Gaulle was a patriot and willing to fight for the national interests of France. The CIA undermined the political comeback to power for Charles de Gaulle in France and that of Winston Churchill in Britain, after the end of the Second World War to eliminate two determined patriots of Europe. The post-Cold War order confronts the NATO with three sets of problems. The perennial tug-of-war between the American and French views of Atlantic relationship imperils NATO. France extolling European independence has shaped the European Union. For France, the America’s role in the NATO is too dominant in the military field to promote a European political identity. France has been insistent on European political autonomy to promote the cohesion of NATO.

 

The raison d’etat concepts of Richelieu believe foreign policy as a balancing of interests of the nation states. In the Wilsonian foreign policy diplomacy is an affirmation of an underlying harmony of universal empire or universal Church. American faked the Soviet menace the Europe, so make European nation states too scared to promote their national interests. Ultimately the scared European Queens sought the safety of the universal American Empire built around NATO. France has seen through the America’s uneasiness about an independent European military role, and unearthed the American attempt at domination of Europe in the name of protecting Europe from the domination by Soviet Union. France is heir to the European style of diplomacy, Realpolitik, which indeed it gave birth to over 300 years ago. France continues to stand for the policies of raison d’etat, and for the precise calculation of interests rather than the pursuit of abstract harmony under universal empire or universal Church. America has insisted that European autonomy is both unnecessary and dangerous and that American and European interests were identical under universal West Christian hegemony.

 

In the new world order, the integration of unified Germany into European Union and the relationship of the NATO to President Putin’s Russia cannot be dealt with by a literal application of the statecraft of either Richelieu or Wilson. The Richelieu raison d’etat statecraft fosters the nationalism and national interests of the individual European countries and leads to Europe under constant tension searching for balance of power. Richelieu’s Europe would not favor United States, while seeking alliance with less-strong Power in Europe, either Russia or Germany, to contain hegemon United States. Undiluted Wilsonianism would weaken or destroy the European sense of destiny and impose American Universal Empire on Western Europe. Both united Germany and hegemon American seeks to promote Wilsonian idealistic harmony of the Holy Roman Empire over recalcitrant Europe, in pursuit of the universal Christian harmony at the cost of the independent national aspirations and independent nationhood. United Germany may become a deadly foe of the hegemon United States, as Germany had historically been the exponent of the Holy Roman Empire. It is ironic that Germany and United States are predominantly Protestant nations, and still they promote the universal harmony of the universal Catholic Church throughout the Western Christendom. On the contrary, the predominantly Catholic nations, namely, France, Spain and Italy oppose both the Germany-led Holy Roman Empire, and its new form America-led Holy American Roman Empire. The attempts to build European institutions based on the opposition to the United States, to promote separate national interests would wreck NATO and transform United States into an adversary of Western Europe. If the Richelieu’s raison d’etat determines European foreign policies after the unification of Germany in the post-Cold War period, then United States stands to lose all what it gained after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Then perhaps United States would the Soviet Union to conquer the former Soviet Republics so that the CIA could again hype the new menace of the Imperial Russia, hoping European Queens would again find solace in the Yankee Harem NATO. Would United States crate the menace of Communist China to keep Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Brunei, Malaysia and Indonesia under the protection of Yankee Harem? In the post-Cold War world order Japan and South Korea would demand the closure of American military bases on Japanese and South Korean soil respectively.

 

27(13) Asian Balance of Power

The decline of the West led to the rise of China, India and Japan as world powers. The eight powers of the 21st Century Concert of World Powers are United States, China, Russia, India, Germany, Britain, France and Japan. The Unification of Germany resulted in the rise of Germany power, independent of American Alliance. The top ten economies of the world in declining order are: (1) United States, (2) China, (3) Japan, (4) India, (5) Germany, (6) France, (7) Britain, (8) Italy, (9) Brazil, and (10) Russia. The special alliance of United States and Britain is the alliance of first and seventh largest economy. The decline of Russia the tenth largest economy didn’t increase any lead of the United States over China, Japan and India. United States is not the preponderant hegemon it claimed it was. In the China, Japan and India Asian balance of power, India and Japan are likely to come closer, when China moves closer to the United States.

 

The nations of Asia view themselves as distinct and competitive. The relations of the principal Asian nations to each other bear most of the attributes of the European Balance-of-Power system of the nineteenth century. Any significant increase in strength by one of them is almost certain to evoke an offsetting maneuver by the others. Wilsonianism has few disciples in Asia. China is on the road to superpower status. China’s political and military shadow will fall over Asia and will affect the calculations of the other powers. The other Asian nations are likely to seek counterweights to an increasingly powerful China as they already do to Japan. Though they will disavow it, the nations of Southeast Asia included feared Vietnam in the ASEAN largely in order to balance China and Japan. And that too is why ASEAN is asking the United States to remain engaged in Southeast Asia. And that is too why Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam asking India to join ASEAN and to sign defense pacts with individual Southeast Asian countries. Southeast Asian countries realize that only India can fight a long drawn war with China.

 

Japan

During Cold War Japan a determined economic competitor paid for the freedom of maneuver in the economic field by subordinating its foreign and security policies to Washington’s policies. So long as the Soviet Union could be perceived as the principal security threat by both countries, it made sense to treat Japanese and United States national interests as identical, which justified the presence of American military bases in Okinawa. That pattern is not likely to continue. With the decline of Russia and the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea and China, Japanese long-range planners will no longer accept that Japanese and American national interests are identical. Japan’s perspective with respect to Asian mainland differs from America’s because of Japan’s geographic proximity and history of expansionism. Japanese defense budget has been creeping upward until it has become the third largest in the world, and given Russia’s internal problem, perhaps the second most effective. Japan spends more on defense than China and India. A considerable amount of unreported Japanese defense spending may be concealed under bank grants to the Japanese industrial giants like Mitsubishi who build missiles for the government. The real Japan’s defense could be much higher than the official report. Japan has hinted that it could develop nuclear weapons in response to the North Korean nuclear threat.

 

27(14) Role of History

“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.” (Diplomacy, p. 805) “The relations of the principal Asian nation to each other bear most of the attributes of the European balance-of-power of the nineteenth century. Any significant increase in strength by one of them is certain to evoke an offsetting maneuver by the others.” (Diplomacy, p 826)

 

“International system live precariously, though every ‘world order’ expresses an aspiration to permanence, the very term has a ring of eternity about it. With each century, the duration of the international systems has been shrinking. The European world 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 Versailles Settlement never operated as a system and it was little more than an armistice between two world wars. Never before have the components of world order, their capacity to interact, and their goals all changed quite so rapidly, so deeply, or so globally, as in the post-Cold War new world order. The Thirty Years Wars was in large part about the transition from feudal societies based on tradition and claims of universality to the modern state system 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 First World War was caused by the disintegration of the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires. The Second World War caused the end of the European Colonial Empires. The Nuclear Bomb created the Cold War. Since the Congress of Vienna, foreign policy has related nations to each other- hence the term “international relations.” The End of the cold War and the disintegration of the Soviet Union caused the permanent death of the cannibal Karl Marx’s shit-philosophy of Marxism, Leninism, Maoism and Communism.

 

Diplomats cannot refuse to learn from history. Americans fear that those who are obsessed with history produce self-fulfilling prophecies is wrong. History is cyclical. Any claim that a new ideology has transformed history has proved wrong. Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. Wilsonianism will not be relevant in the post-Cold War new world order as the Wilsonian system based on legitimacy is not possible. American will have to learn to operate in a balance-of-power system. The foreign policy guidelines of President Theodore Roosevelt and President Richard M. Nixon, which defined the foreign policy objectives of the national interests of the United States, would guide the American diplomats better than the propagandist Wilsonianism.

 

27(15) International Criminal Tribunal

United States scuttled the United Nations Permanent War Crimes Tribunal fearing that the independent UN Tribunal would prosecute the officials of the USA for war crimes. United States does not want US War Crimes Tribunal to try American offenders, but it want to enforce the indictments of War Crime Tribunals on Yugoslavia. United States Senate has rejected the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), absolving United States of limitations under CTBT, however United States wants other nations to adhere to the limitations imposed by CTBT. United States imprisoned President Noriega of Panama for laundering $2 million of Colombian drug cartels. However, United States would object if India were to invade Burma, and imprison the ruling elite in Burma, for laundering billions of dollars incomes generated by Burmese Opium and Heroin.

(1) American War Crimes

WAR CRIMES IN KOSOVO: Abraham Lincoln once said that Americans should be firm in their resolve that right makes right. In World War I and especially World War II, the United States fought foreign wars on the side of Freedom, Democracy and Righteousness, and won. However, not every battlefield encounter is so clearly justifiable. So it may come as a shock that Americans be called to face an international tribunal on charges they committed War Crimes. Now, America faces accusations of war crimes in Kosovo last year. The top war-crimes prosecutor for the United Nations, Carla Del Ponte, is weighing evidence provided by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. In addition, because many UN members- including Russia - were hostile to NATO's Kosovo operations, Del Ponte's review may garner some support. NATO's mission in Kosovo was technically illegal under international law, as Yugoslavia had not invaded any NATO member. The levers of international justice no longer dominated by Washington this investigation may precede in ways that Americans dislike. Prosecution of United States for war crimes in Kosovo would remind Washington that, even in the post-Cold War world, it could not throw its weight around without carefully assessing the consequences.

 

VIETNAM WAR CRIMES: United States was an imperialist bad guy in Vietnam. Christian President Diem and his brothers backed by US troops committed war crimes against Buddhist South Vietnamese. United States committed war crimes by spraying Yellow Orange to destroy forest cover in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Lt. William Calley, who ordered the massacre of civilians in My Lai in 1968, convicted of war crimes in the U.S. military courts.

 

KOREAN WAR CRIMES: United States committed war crimes by massacring unarmed South Vietnamese civilians under the bridge. United States and South Vietnamese troops massacred 1,200 prisoners fearing they would be set free by approaching North Korean troops.

(2) Cambodian War Crime Tribunal

Despite the United States and United Nations concerns, the Cambodian government gave on Jan 6, quick approval to a plan to try surviving Khmer Rouge leaders on charges of genocide with limited international oversight. Christians played very prominent role in the massacre of 2 million Cambodian Buddhists by Christianized Khmer Rouge, as it was an attempt towards Christianizing of Cambodia. Most of the Khmer Rouge mass killers have joined as officials of Christian Churches in Cambodia to win reprieve from sure death sentences. Christian organizations have financially supported the suspected Khmer Rouge figures suspected for war crimes. Cambodian War Crime Tribunal expected to indict many senior Christian leaders. Cambodian Plan, backed by Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, approved by the Cabinet, faces a ratification vote in Cambodian Parliament. In 1979, the Khmer Rouge fell from power after Vietnamese invaded. Western media had purposefully blocked the news of genocide by Khmer Rouge, because the victims were Buddhists and the culprits were Christians. More than two million Cambodian Buddhists died at the hands of Christian Khmer Rouge from starvation, and executions. United States and the United Nations are involved in desperate attempts to shield Christian war criminals. Prime Minister Hun Sen has pledged to convene the Cambodian War Crime Tribunal before April 2000. Two senior Khmer Rouge figures Ta Mok, a high-ranking commander, and Kaing Khek, commander of the main torture center, are in custody awaiting trial. The Cannibal Pol Pot the supreme Khmer Rouge is living under Church protection in Sweden. Cambodian War Crime Tribunal could expose the role of Christian Churches in master minding the genocide of 2 million Buddhists in Cambodia, as a part of the Christian conspiracy to Christianize Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam by massacring Buddhists and Hindus. It should be noted that South Vietnam, Thailand, Laos and Cambodia had historically been part of Indian Hindu civilization, and China failed to bring them under Sinic civilization. It is likely that US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Chairman Mao Ze Dong conspired to militarily support Khmer Rouge to acquire power in Cambodia. Perhaps Kissinger and Mao approved the Khmer Rouge plans that resulted in the deaths of more than 2 million Cambodian Buddhists. Cambodian War Crime Tribunal should pass its opinion on the role of Henry Kissinger and Mao Ze Dong in Cambodian genocide. Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge were born out of strategic alliance of Mao Ze Dong and Kissinger. Cambodian War Crime Tribunal should study the war reparation claims against China and United States for the disaster caused in Cambodia that resulted by the extension of Vietnam War in Non-Aligned and Neutralized Cambodia and Laos.

(3) Christian Tutsi War Crimes

Cannibal Idi Amin hired Rwandan Christian Tutsi tribes in Ugandan Army to massacre one-fourth population of Uganda that worshipped tribal gods, to wipe out tribal indigenous religions from Uganda. Massacre by Christian Tutsi tribesmen expedited the Christianizing process in Uganda, during 1971-1999 period. Christian Tutsi tribes overthrew Hutu rulers in Rwanda and Burundi with direct Western military support, to repeat the massacre of Hutu tribesmen that worship indigenous tribal pagan religions. Christian Tutsi rulers in Rwanda and Burundi are repeating the war crimes of Christian Pol Pot of Cambodian Khmer Rouge notoriety. Christian Tutsi rulers are massacring pagan Hutu tribes that worship ancient Egyptian gods and goddesses.

(4) Forced Relocation of Pagan Hutu Burundians

Christian President Diem forced Buddhists in South Vietnam to relocate to Christian dominated resettlement communities, to hand over the lands of Buddhists to Christians. Christian Pol Pot forced the evacuation of Phnom Phenh, and forced relocation into agricultural camps expedited the massacre of 2 million Buddhists in Cambodia. Similarly, the Christian Tutsi rulers of Burundi have embarked upon a sinister plan to massacre pagan Hutu tribes in Burundi, by forced relocation of a third of a million Hutu into disease-ridden AIDS infected internment camps outside Bujumbura, the Burundian capital. It allowed Christian Tutsis steal the women, cattle and lands of interned Hutus. Forced relocation of Hutus allows Christian Tutsi rape and kidnap virgin Hutu girls to entice them convert to Christianity. Many of the young Hutu girls in the internment camps escape malnutrition and diseases by becoming concubines of Tutsi overseers. As many as 150,000 Hutu Burundians have died in five years of fighting. The bulk of Burundi's Hutu casualties occurred in 1993, when the Burundi's first democratically elected leader, Melchior Ndadaye, a Hutu, was assassinated in a coup by Christian officers of Burundi's notorious Tutsi-dominated army, supported by Western powers and Christian Church. The patriotic Hutu Burundians opposed military coup engineered by Christian Tutsi military leaders. The Christian Tutsi Army supported by Western powers and United States carried out massive reprisal killing that may result in the genocide of pagan Hutu civilization. Christian Tutsi Army is determined to depopulate pagan Hutu race to impose Christianity over Rwanda and Burundi. In the last three months of 1999, Burundi's Christian Tutsi military-led government has herded more than 300,000 impoverished Hutu into grimly regrouping camps, where thousands a month are dying of cholera, dysentery and malnutrition. The move is intended to deprive pagan Hutu rebels of their main source of food and shelter, thereby blunting their ability to attack the capital. The regrouping camps have allowed Christian Tutsi steal the property, cattle and girls of Hutu to permanently put them into disadvantage. Burundi's war like Rwanda's is rooted in a history of Christian Tutsi domination dating back to the Belgian colonial era. In the classic pattern of indirect rule, the Belgians elevated Christian Tutsi, who makes up barely 15 percent of Burundi's population of six million, to a position of privilege, using them as instruments of colonial domination. Compromises may be necessary, but a sustainable settlement will have to include a process of accountability that establishes finally that the massive killing of civilians has consequences. (NYT Editorial, Jan 10, 2000). United Nations should set up a War Crime Tribunal to put on trial the Christian Tutsi military leaders that assassinated in a coup the Burundi's first democratically elected leader, Melchor Ndadaye, a Hutu. Christian Tutsi military leaders prosecuted for depopulating pagan Hutu tribes, aiming to Christianize Rwanda and Hutu. The partitioning of Rwanda and Burundi into Hutu and Tutsi states and Christian and pagan states is the best solution for the Christian-pagan civil war. Tutsi Rwanda and Burundi shall get only 15% of the land of Rwanda and Burundi. Pagan Burundi shall be the President of Hutu Rwanda and Hutu Burundi that shall own 85 percent of the lands of Rwanda and Burundi. South Asian states should send military delegation to overthrow Tutsi-led military governments in Rwanda and Burundi, so that democratic elections be held to elect Hutu leaders in Rwanda and Burundi. Since, pagan Hutu represents 85 percent population of Rwanda and Burundi, only pagan Hutus should lead Rwanda and Burundi. Christian Tutsi militia deserves prosecution for committing war crimes in Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda against pagan populations. Western Christendom protected Christian Khmer Rouge while they massacred Buddhist Cambodians. Western Christendom should not support the ongoing genocide of pagan Hutus by Christian Tutsis in Rwanda and Burundi, lest War Crime Tribunal indict them for their complicity in ongoing war crimes in Rwanda and Burundi.

(6) Mexico's Crimes against Humanity in Chiapas on Zapatistas

White Mexican Spaniards have waged wars on Zapatistas rebels in the southern Chiapas State. The indigenous people of Chiapas, the Zapatistas and Mayas are victim of genocide and Crimes against Humanity by White Mexicans. India supports the secession of indigenous Indians in Chiapas.

(7) Turkish War Crimes on Kurds Armenians

Turkey massacred more than 400,000 Armenians after First World War and no Western nations criticized the genocide of Armenians. Turks commit blatant Crimes against Humanity against Kurds, the original inhabitants of the lands, and United Europe refuses to indict Turkey for War Crimes.

 

27(16) USA Historical Adversary of European Colonial Powers

(1) Louisiana Purchase of 1803

Napoleon was the greatest fool the world ever produced, when he sold for $15 million the 827,987 square miles (2,144,476 square kilometers) of land to the United States to finance the French military expeditions in Africa and Europe. The part or all of the 15 States were formed from the area. Emperor napoleon should have created French Empire in North America. Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado were carved out of the land sold by foolish Emperor Napoleon to the United States for $15 million.

De Gaulle Bitter Foe of Britain & USA

Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt plotted to remove Charles de Gaulle as leader of the French resistance at a critical moment in World War II. They found him boastful, conceited and deeply biased against Britain and the United States. Churchill said that de Gaulle hated England and left a trail of Anglophobia behind him everywhere.

Churchill described de Gaulle as vain and even malignant and with fascist tendencies. Roosevelt labeled de Gaulle as well nigh intolerable. British Public Record office recently released documents that it kept secret for 5 years. It explains why Charles de Gaulle refused to join NATO. It also explains that United States undermined French influence in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. It explains that CIA arranged the death of Patrice Lumumba the elected father of nation of Congo, the part of French speaking Africa. It explains why French-speaking Quebec seeks secession from English-speaking Canada. (NYT, Jan 6 2000)

(2) Separatist Quebec Premier Bouchard Wins Reelection

French-speaking Quebec will secede from English-speaking Canada before 2005 AD, to rejoin in union with nuclear France and join United Europe. Overwhelming French speaking people demand sovereign status for Quebec. Premier Lucien Bouchard would demand substantial changes in the Canadian federation, forcing Ottawa to give back more powers over social programs not just to Quebec but also to all 10 provinces. English-speaking Canada attempts to dilute the separatist movement by immigration and demographic change. The modern separatist movement began about 30 years ago and based on deeply rooted feelings that Quebec has not been treated fairly by English speaking Canada. Separatist movement is very popular among young voters, and seeks to preserve and strengthen Quebecois culture. Only Quebec would vote in a referendum, but would have to negotiate the terms of secession. The Cree Indians who live in northern Quebec may insist on the partition of Quebec province. Premier Bouchard's party has committed to holding a third referendum on separation. India should support the secession of Quebec from Canada. Nuclear Quebec aligned with nuclear France, and part of the European Union would check imperial tendencies in the United States. Nuclear India would prefer a nuclear Pact with nuclear Quebec and nuclear France to deter American preemptive nuclear strikes.

 

27(17) Weak United Europe

Ten years after the end of the Cold War, the United States, unchallenged as a superpower, faces a different challenge in NATO. Led by France and Germany, the NATO Allies insist on seeing the world from their own perspective and setting their own defense priorities instead of following Washington's lead. France and Germany could gain geopolitical advantages by developing close military relations with Russia and India to trim the wings of arrogant United States. France realizes that the United States presents the principal threat to the ex-French colonial world. United States is systematically undermined French influence over Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Quebec and Madagascar. Germany realizes that United States could use nuclear weapons against Germany in future world war. Germany and France realized that though there were around two million people in the European armies in uniform, and yet the European Allies had to struggle hard to get 40,000 to go and serve in Kosovo. Kosovo War exposed the military weaknesses of Western Europe. By reorganizing and cooperating more closely with one another, the Europeans could give both the European Union and NATO the stronger European defense pillar. The European allies thought that they won the lasting peace they yearned for when the cold war ended. Some of the European allies cut military spending by up to half. But the two wars in the Balkans, and the Europeans' obvious military shortcomings in this year's war in Kosovo, convinced them that they still depended far too much on the United States to handle trouble in their own backyard. France and Britain who spend 2.8 and 2.6 percent of gross domestic product on defense. Even France and Britain will not soon catch up to the United States at those rates in precision-guided weapons technology, battlefield intelligence, command-and-control systems, heavy-lift air transport and other assets the Europeans find they lacked in Kosovo. France is concerned that the world's only superpower is crashing around the world like a bull in a China shop. France is concerned that Europe might actually be more exposed to possible rogue missile attacks if the United States proceeded alone with a anti ballistic missile defense, that would be barred by the 1972 antiballistic missile treaty. France demands that United States must avoid questioning of the ABM treaty that could lead to disruption of strategic equilibrium and a new nuclear arms race. France worries that China might decide to deploy hundreds of ICBMs. France worries that with the US Senate having rejected Test Ban Treaty, India and Pakistan might begin testing nuclear weapons. A three-stage missile, the Taepo Dong-2, which North Korea develops could devastate, targets in al of the United States and most of Europe with a nuclear payload. France and Germany realized that Serbian Army could have defeated NATO forces in land warfare had USA decided to stay out of the Kosovo war. Pentagon is worried about the appearance of a new political partner, the European Union. At the moment, inside the Atlantic alliance, there are only dispersed European States, and the only common, cohesive element is NATO itself. The military staff of the European Union would set up in Brussels, down the road at General's Clark's headquarters in Mons. The new European defense structure would also include a military committee of chiefs of national defense staffs to advise European leaders. The European leaders would decide when and where to send forces. The 60,000 troops earmarked for European use in a crisis would be the same ones NATO could use if it decided to get involved. Pentagon is concerned that resentment at American strategic, technological and economic superiority could bring a resurgence of anti-Americanism. Washington does not see France as trustworthy in handling defense secrets as Britain is. Eight NATO members are not members of the European Union- the United States, Canada, Turkey, Norway, Iceland, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Pentagon is concerned that a European military arm could grow away from NATO, splitting the alliance. It is likely that France and Germany might use Russia to check world's only superpower that is crashing around the world like a bull in a China shop. Confident European Union and powerful military wing of European Union could mean the end of United States influence in NATO. France and Germany could profit by aligning with nuclear India and Russia to check Rambo America. Nuclear India could provide nuclear umbrella over German against American preemptive nuclear strikes.

India-France Military Pact

The recently released documents by British Record office has convinced French people that United States had been the principal adversary of France during Presidency of Charles de Gaulle. India-France defense pact has the potential to dethrone United States as the sole super power of the world. India and France should join forces to develop Madagascar, Zaire-Congo, Algeria and Quebec to develop a counter-force to check United States. Indian manpower could develop Madagascar, Zaire-Congo, Algeria to develop a powerful military-industrial power base.

 

27(18) Europe Hostile to USA

Noel Mamare's new book, "No thanks, Uncle Sam," argues that America is a worrisome society in 21st Century. America embraces the death penalty, turns the poor away when they need medical care and its Senators have failed to approve a nuclear test ban treaty. Yet, the United States throws its weight around and would have the entire world follow its steps. It is appropriate for French, or European to be downright anti-American. Europeans deplore American way as a society ruled by profits. America has become the unchecked force on its way to ruling the world. More and more often Europeans talk about America as a menacing, even dangerous force intent on remaking the world in its image. European political, cultural and intellectual elite are using moral calculator to deplore American society as seriously wanting. Poking fun at America has always been a European and French pastime. Now it has virulence and an element of fear never seen before. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, America was left as the only super power. There is a great deal of fear among the French that the strength of the strength of the American economy will impose cultural and social changes in Europe. Europeans fear that America has the ability to impose on Europeans the American values that the Europeans do not believe in, which unless checked would Americanize European civilization.

 

Most Europeans see America's involvement in air war on Kosovo as American manipulation of NATO. In addition, the humiliating fact that the NATO's intervention would not have been possible without American Air Power only rammed home the perception of America's military superiority and of European inferiority. Even China can conquer NATO nations if United States refuse to involve in the war.

 

The Europeans read menace in the Clinton Administration's repeated description of United States as being the "indispensable nation" in NATO. In Europe, these days, the World Trade Organization is routinely dismissed as a tool of American interests.

European Union is worried that the United States is using its vast satellite and spy networks, Echelon electronic surveillance, to undermine European sovereignty.

 

Europeans have discovered that United States sees its global role not only in the military area but also in setting the rules of globalization through the IMF. In April 1999, 68 percent of the French said they were worried about America's status as a superpower. Sixty-three (63) percent French said they did not feel close to the American people. Germans, Spanish, Italian, and British also have French-like deep reservations against Americans. Around 56 to 62 percent Italians said that Italians should not look to America for inspiration on their way of life or their culture.

 

French bemoan that America has no more Russia as enemy. United States through NATO directs European affairs. France cannot say that it is on the side of the United States, as there is no counterbalance. Globalization has an American face on it and a danger to the European and French view of society. Europeans fear that America is such an extraordinary power that it can crush everything in its way. France and United Europe negate the notion that American interest can also be in the interest of Europe and France. French thinkers are convinced that only the weakening of United States can be good for France and Europe.

 

America Empire Imperils European Union

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

27(19) Chinese Yellow Peril

India Japan Russia Alliance would neutralize China’s predominance in Asia. India, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam Alliance would neutralize Chinese menace in Southeast Asia. India, Germany, France, Russia and Japan Alliance will neutralize the hegemony of the United States China Alliance in Eurasia.

 

(1) Chinese Invasions of Australia, Indonesia

Greater China is thus not simply an abstract concept. It is a rapidly growing cultural and economic reality and has begun to become a political one. The economy of East Asia is increasingly China-centered and Chinese-dominated. Chinese from Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore have supplied much of the capital responsible for the growth of the mainland in the 1990s. Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia dominated the economies of their countries. In the early 1990, Chinese made up 1 percent of the population of the Philippines but were responsible for 35 percent of sales of domestically owned firms. In Indonesia in mid 1980s, ethnic Chinese population was 2-3 percent of the total population, but owned roughly 70 percent of the private domestic capital. Seventeen of the twenty-five largest businesses were Chinese controlled. In early 1990s, the ethnic Chinese populations was 10 percent of the population of Thailand, but owned nine of the ten largest business groups, and were responsible for 50 percent of its GNP. Chinese are about one-third of the population of Malaysia but almost totally dominate the economy. Outside Japan and Korea, the East Asian economy is a Chinese economy. (S.P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilization, p.170)

 

India should support Buddhist Chinese become the Prime Minister of Malaysia as ethnic Chinese is 33 percent of the population. India should support ethnic Chinese Buddhist, to become the President of Indonesia and the President of the Philippines. Chinese control the economy of Southeast Asia so it is natural that ethnic Chinese should acquire political power in Southeast Asia. The Vatican is conspiring to implant White Catholic Sonia Gandhi as the future prime minister of India. India should retaliate by supporting ethnic Chinese as the head of governments in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. India should retaliate by promoting a Muslim or Hindu Prime minister of Italy or mayor of Rome.

(2) China is Threat to World Peace

The rise of China is the potential source of a big inter-Civilization’s war of core states. The history of Western Civilization is a history of the hegemonic wars between rising and falling powers. The missing hegemonic war in Western history is that between Great Britain and the United States. Presumably, the peaceful shift from Pax-Britannica to the Pax-Americana was in large part due to the close cultural kinship of the two societies. The absence of such kinship in the shifting power balance between the West and China does not make armed conflict certain but does make it more probable. While bandwagoning may be more common a characteristic of Asian civilizations, the rise of Chinese could generate balancing efforts from states in other civilizations, such as the United States, India and Russia. (S.P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilization, p.209)

 

(3) Chinese Invasions of Siberia:

The economic dynamism of China has spilled over to Siberia. Russians in Siberia increasingly see their economic future connected to East Asia rather than to European Russia. More threatening for Russia is Chinese immigration into Siberia, with illegal migrants there purportedly numbering in 1995 three (3) millions to five (5) millions, compared to a Russian population of about seven (7) millions. The Chinese are in the process of making a peaceful conquest of Russian Far East, Russian Defense Minister Pavel Grachev warned. Russia must resist Chinese expansionism, warn Russian immigration officials. Chinese expansion via immigration could also become expansion by the military, if China decided that it should attempt to reclaim Mongolia, which the Russians detached from China after World War I, and which was for decades a satellite. At some point, the yellow hordes, which have haunted Russian imagination since the Mongol invasions, may again become a reality. (S.P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilization, p. 243)

 

United States is goading China to invade Siberia to divert Chinese invasions of Australia. United States has transferred sensitive nuclear weapon designs of neutron Bombs, Trident II missile warheads to China to help China upgrade its nuclear weapons, nuclear missiles at par with that of the United States. Chinese nuclear deterrent would now deter Russian nuclear retaliation for Chinese conventional invasions of Siberia. United Sates wants that China should use stolen American nuclear weapon warhead technology, to launch massive invasions of Eastern Siberia. Only India could help Russia check Chinese invasions of Siberia. Russia should immediately allow the immigration of more than five (5) million Indians in Eastern Siberia, to match more than five (5) millions migrant illegal Chinese workers in Siberia. Russia should deploy five (5) million Indians, mercenary soldiers as well as workers, in Mongolia and Eastern Siberia along Chinese frontier.

 

(4) China Plan Hegemony in Asia

Every major power Britain and France, Germany and Japan, the United States and the Soviet Union, are engaged in outward expansion, assertion, and imperialism, coincidental with or immediately following the years it underwent rapid industrialization and economic growth. No reason exists to think that the acquisition of economic and military power will not have comparable effects in China. For two thousand years, China was the preeminent power in East Asia. Chinese increasingly assert their intention to resume that historic role and to being to an end the overlong century of humiliation and subordination to the West and Japan that began with British imposition of the Treaty of Nanking in 1842. (S.P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilization, p.229)

 

(5) Containment of China

The conflicts between the United States and China also involved fundamental issues of power. China is unwilling to accept American leadership or hegemony in the world. The United States is unwilling to accept Chinese leadership or hegemony in Asia. For more than two hundred years, the United States has attempted to prevent the emergence of an overwhelmingly dominant power in Europe. For almost a hundred years, beginning with Open Door policy toward China, the United States has attempted to do the same in China. To achieve these goals it has fought two world wars and a cold war against Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Communist Soviet Union and the Communist China. China as the dominant regional power in East Asia challenges American interests. The underlying cause of conflict between America and China is their basic difference over what should be the future balance of power in East Asia. (S.P. Huntington, The Clash of civilization, p.228-9)

(6) Cold Peace

Civilizations are the ultimate human tribes, and the clash of civilizations is a tribal conflict on a global scale. Connections between states of different civilizations inherited from the past, such as Cold war military alliances, are likely to attenuate or evaporate. Hopes of inter-Civilization’s partnerships will remain unrealized. Emerging inter-Civilization’s relations would approximate a condition of Cold Peace that Boris Yeltsin warned could be the future of relations between Russia and the West. Cold peace, cold war, trade war. Quasi war, uneasy peace, troubled relations, intense rivalry, competitive coexistence, and arms races: these phrases are the most probable descriptions of relations between entities from different civilizations. Trust and friendship will be rare, (S.P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilization, p.207)

 

(7) India-China Defense Pact:

India wants to pursue the foreign policy of Indian Civilization. India should explore a defense pact with China. India and China should join hands to promote Chinese Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism and Taoism in the world. India and China are the core states of Asia, Buddhist and Hindu world. Hindu world and Buddhist worlds should support Orthodox World, to reestablish the Civilization’s balance of power between Western Christendom and Eastern Orthodoxy. India should devote more resources on developing relations with nations it has Civilization’s links than with nations it does not share Civilization’s links. Looking from the perspective of common civilizations, India and China would be close friends and allies in near future. Civilization’s links would determine India-China relationship in the age of civilization’s wars. Common Civilization’s links brought Germany into military alliance with France and Germany. Chinese Buddhism the Mahayana Buddhism is 85% similar to Hinduism, its scriptures were written in Sanskrit, and it grew as a Hindu Brahamanical challenge to the Theravada Buddhism.

 

India should focus on developing relations with nations that link common civilizations. India should cultivate close relations with Pakistan and other south Asian nations. India should develop close relations with fellow Aryan nations, Iran, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyztan, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan. India should develop close relations with Buddhist nations of Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Singapore, Taipei, South Korea, North Korea and Japan. India should develop close relations with Kurds who are of Aryan origin and speak Indo-Iranian language. India should also develop close relations with nations having sizeable Indian origin population, namely Fiji, Guyana, Trinidad & Tobago, etc.

 

27(20) Kissinger Harmed America

Dr. Henry Kissinger’s policy recommendations regarding Sino-American relations may be tainted because of the consulting assignments Kissinger Associates does for government of China and Chinese companies doing business with United States.

 

Just as Eduard Sheverdnadze, Foreign Minister of Soviet Union harmed the national interests of the Soviet Union to promote the national interests of the United States. The foreign policy of Secretary Henry Kissinger under Clinton and Ford administrations harmed the national interests of United States.

 

Secretary Kissinger was the principal architect of the defeat of America in the Vietnam War and the subsequent genocide of Buddhists in Vietnam. Administration of President Nixon was anti-Semite in principal, because of the experience of Richard Nixon as prosecutors of the Soviet Atomic espionage case involving Jewish scientists. Persons of German descent dominated the Nixon’s Cabinet. Secretary Kissinger gratuitously expanded the war into Cambodia, and that, in the process, Kissinger’s policy came to bear principal responsibility for the genocide carried out by the Judeo-Communist Christian Pol Pot after they were imposed on Cambodia by the joint efforts of Mao Tse-tung and Henry Kissinger. Secretary Kissinger made the tactical decision to attack the sanctuary areas in Laos and Cambodia by air in 1969 and o the ground in 1970.

 

Secretary Kissinger’s China’s policy pursued by Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski in Carter Administration, and Secretary Madeleine Albright was one-sided affairs, where United States gave a lot to China, and in exchange got nothing in return, except face saving gestures. Secretary Kissinger made diplomatic opening to China to camouflage Kissinger’s policy failures in the Vietnam and Cambodia. In the process of containing Soviet Union, Secretary Kissinger created China as the hegemon of Asia. Presently Chinese companies give substantial consulting dollars to Kissinger Associates, Inc., so it is reasonable to argue that Dr. Henry Kissinger is de facto China’s Ambassador to United States. White House under Bush Administration should take the advice of Dr. Kissinger with a pinch of salt, as he brilliantly articulates and promotes the national interests of Communist China, disguised in pro-American terminology. The writing of Dr. Henry Kissinger seeks to promote the national interests Communist China at the cost of American national interests. Dr. Kissinger’s advice harms the long-term national interests of Protestant United States and promotes the national interests of Communist China.

 

Kissinger’s Wrong Assessment of China

America’s capacity to shape events will therefore, in he end, depend primarily on its bilateral relations with major countries of Asia. This is why America’s policies towards China, Japan and India assume such critical importance. America and India’s role is key to helping Japan, China and India co-exists despite their suspicions of each other.

 

Dr. Kissinger says, “Japan might have to recourse to that great equalizer, nuclear technology.” Japan has been torn between admiration and fear, between the desire for friendship and the urge to dominate China. Dr. Kissinger wrongly argues that “Sino-American tensions tempts Japan to dissociate from the United States in an effort, if not to enhance its influence in China, at least not to diminish it by following the American lead too closely. At the same time, a purely national Japanese approach runs the risk of being interpreted in Beijing as an expression of the Japanese appetite for domination. Good American relations are therefore the prerequisite for good long-term relations with Japan, as well as good Sino-Japanese relations.” (Diplomacy, p. 828-829)

 

It is wrong to argue that Japan dissociates from United States in the times of Sino-American tensions. It is wrong to argue that America’s good relations with China are prerequisite for good long-term American relations with Japan.

 

Dr. Kissinger wrongly argues that “Of all the great, and potentially great, China is the most ascendant. The United States already is the most powerful, Europe must work to forge greater unity, Russia is a staggering giant, and Japan is wealthy but, so far, timid. In 1943, Roosevelt had envisioned China as one of the ‘four Policemen.’ A policy of confrontation with China risks America’s isolation in Asia. No Asian country would want to be-or could afford to be-supportive of America in any potential conflict with China. In such circumstances, the vast majority of Asian nations would dissociate from America to a greater or lesser degree. For every country looks to America to create a stable, long-term framework, which will integrate both China and Japan- an option, which is forfeited vis-à-vis both countries by Sino-American confrontation. China welcomes American involvement in Asia as a counterweight to its feared neighbors Japan and Russia and to a lesser degree India. What China seeks from the United States is a strategic relationship to balance neighbors it considers to be both powerful and covetous. The key to Sino-Soviet relations is a tacit cooperation on global, and especially Asian strategy.” (Diplomacy, p 830-31)

 

Dr. Kissinger wrongly discounts India as the challenger to China. The Maoist China, which emerged after the civil war, was intent on being an independent great power, but was frustrated by its ideological blinkers, which made it dependent on Bolshevik Soviet Union. Maoist China after diplomatic opening with United States became dependent on American nuclear umbrella, lest Soviet Union attack it under Brezhnev Doctrine. On the contrary Nehru’s India, leader of the Non Alignment Movement, was an independent actor in world politics and led the multitude of newly independent nations in a third path away from joining any bloc. Kissinger is wrong in arguing that any American policy of confrontation with China runs the risks of American isolation in Asia. On the contrary, American policy of confrontation with China will make America the darling of Asia, especially India, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. The ASEAN nations courting United States for access to the Vast American markets as well as for American protection in case China decides to takeover Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Australia. Every Asian nation fears Asia’s hegemon the Communist China.

 

Kissinger agrees that China fears its Asian neighbors, Japan, Russia and India. Thereby, Sino-American tensions would improvise America’s relations with other Asian giants, namely, Japan, India and Russia. Kissinger wrongly argues that Sino-American tensions would undermine the option of the American-Japanese integration. The Opium War of the early nineteenth century forcibly opened up China. Bombay and Calcutta and Indian empire led the Opium War on China. China hated Indian Empire, as the entire British sphere of influence in southern China was controlled and influenced by Indian Empire from Delhi. India and Japan are fully capable of meeting the threat of China. United States must not agree for a strategic relationship with China to balance China’s neighbors it considers to be both powerful and covetous, namely, Japan and India. China realizes its weakness that is why it seeks strategic relationship with United States to balance India and Japan. Without the strategic relationship with America, China can dominate neither Japan nor India. China is a paper monster that would fail the test of major war in third World War.

 

27(21) Raison d’etat Not Religion

Almost as if according to some geopolitical law, in every century there seems to emerge a country with the power, the will, and the intellect and moral impetus to guide the new world order. In the seventeenth century, France under First Minister Cardinal Richelieu, working for a Catholic King introduced Raison d’etat as new approach to international relations, to curb the role of Catholic Church in European politics. It dominated French diplomacy for 200 years. It delayed German unification by some two centuries. Richelieu thwarted the Habsburg Dynasty and the Holy Roman Empire was divided among more than 300 sovereigns, each free to conduct an independent foreign policy. In the century following the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, ending the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), the doctrine of raison d’etat grew into guiding principle of European diplomacy. Cardinal Richelieu, the First Minister of the Catholic King of Catholic France tamed Roman Catholic Church and Holy Roman Empire to preserve the honor and national interests of France, and defeated Counter Reformation War and guaranteed the freedom of religion for German Protestants. In the post-Cold War new world order de Gaulle’s France would align with Hindu India to tame the Papacy covetous secular and temporal powers.

 

What Richelieu had been for France in seventeenth century, King Victor Emmanuel II was for Italy in the nineteenth Century. Victor Emmanuel II tamed Papacy, confiscated Papal lands and unified Italy, for the first time after the disintegration of the Roman Empire. France’s Richelieu and Italy’s Victor Emmanuel II realized that Roman Catholic Church presented great dangers to nation states of France and Italy respectively. Following Richelieu’s Raison d'etat on Sept. 20, 1870 King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel II, entered Rome, and stripped Pope of all temporal power. Pope lived in seclusion, as prisoner of the Vatican, from Sept 20, 1870 to 1929. The diplomats of predominantly Catholic nations, France and Italy have consistently adopted secular policies to curb the political and temporal aspirations of Papacy. France, Italy and Spain, though predominantly Catholic nations, have historically opposed Papal aspirations for secular, temporal and diplomatic powers. General Franco’s Spain consistently opposed Papal political aspirations. India finds comity of interests with Catholic France, Italy and Spain to curtail expanding political and diplomatic aspirations of Papacy.

 

India does not believe that it is good for the new world order if great powers like United States and European Union formulate foreign policies promoting the religious interests of the Christian Church. India, France, Italy and Spain shall form a Raison d’etat alliance to oppose Neo-Counter Reformation Wars launched by Christian Religious Right Conservatives. In the post-Cold War new world order Hindu India would find that because of the raison d’etat Catholic France, Catholic Italy and Catholic Spain are allies of Hindu India in developing global secular alliance to tame the temporal ambitions of Papacy in the 21st Century. It is an eye-opener for Hindu India that predominantly Protestant nations, namely, Protestant Germany and Protestant United States openly support the temporal and diplomatic ambitions of Papacy, while predominantly Catholic nations, namely, France, Italy and Spain oppose the temporal ambitions of the Vatican.

 

Guided by raison d’etat Hindu India and Buddhist China and Buddhist Japan could develop strategic ties with Catholic France, Italy and Spain to tame Papal temporal expansionism and End of Time Apocalyptic Eschatology Teleology.

 

27(22) Balance of Power Balancer

In the eighteenth century, Great Britain elaborated the concept of the balance of power, which dominated European diplomacy for the next 200 years. The operating principle of the British balance of power doctrine was that Britain purposely aligned with the less-strong Power to contain and balance the more dominant power in the balance of power. Britain maintained its maritime supremacy to act as the Balancer, so that whenever Maritime Britain aligns with the less-strong Power, the fulcrum of balance would shift in favor of the side Britain aligns with.

 

On the level of relations among states, the post-Cold War new world order will be more like the European state system of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries than the rigid pattern of the Cold War. The new world order will contain at least six major powers- the United States, European Union, China, Russia, Japan and India.

 

Britain & Australia Federation

Australia cannot remain independent in 21st Century. Either United States or China would take over Australia. Britain cannot become a major world power based on the resources of the British Isle. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should federate with Australia and set up a unitary state. The British Parliament should move to Canberra. The Buckingham Palace should relocate to Canberra. Only by relocating the seat of British government and British monarchy to the continental-size Australia, can Britain hope to become a Super Power. Rather than join European Union and lose British sovereignty, Britain should leave European Union and form Federation with Australia, to have the single Parliament representing the citizens of England, Wales, Scotland, and Australia. Around 30 million residents of Britain should relocate to Australia. The new federation should be named “United Kingdom of England, Australia, Scotland, and Wales.” Failure of England to confederate with Australia, shall force Australia to join as the 53rd State of the United States of America. Australia with only 20 million people cannot remain independent and free in the 21st Century.

 

27(23) Eurasian Balancer India

India has yet to assume a role commensurate with its size on the international political scene, says Henry Kissinger (Diplomacy, p 26) Since India inherited the legacy of British Indian Empire in the Indian Ocean Region, so India shall replicate British traditions as Balancer in the Indian Ocean Region, as Britain has abdicated this role after Harold Wilson decided to withdraw from all territories east of Suez.

 

(1) India Balancer in Asian Balance of Power

India is the classical Balancer in the Asian Balance of Power. Like Balancer Britain of the 18th and 19th centuries, India would act as the Balancer in the 21st Century. In the China, Japan and India triangle, the Maritime Asian balance of power, China is militarily dominant, and India is the Balancer, as India and Japan militarily balance and neutralize China in Asia’s military balance of power. Japanese Navy and Indian Army can effectively contain Chinese military adventurism in Taiwan, North Asia and Southeast Asia. In the Russia, China and India triangle, Continental Asian balance of power, India is the balancer, as India and Russia militarily balance China in conventional warfare in Sino-Russian borders. India Army and Russian weapons would defeat any Chinese military adventurism in Eastern Siberia. In the China, Australia and India triangle, the Maritime Asian balance of Power, India is the Balancer as Indian Army and Australian Navy can defeat and neutralize any Chinese military adventurism in Australia, and New Zealand. In the China, Indo-China and India triangle, the Asian Balance of Power, India is the balancer, as Indian Army aligned with Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Burma (Myanmar) can defeat and neutralize Chinese military adventurism in Indo-China. India is the balancer in the China, Indonesia/Malaysia, India triangular balance of power, as Indian Army aligned with Malaysia and Indonesia could defeat and neutralize Chinese conventional invasion of Malaysia and Indonesia. India is the balancer in the China, Philippines, India triangular balance of power, as Indian Army and Indian Navy aligned with Philippines can effectively neutralize and defeat Chinese invasions of Philippines. India is the balancer in the Malaysia, Indonesia and India triangle, as India aligned with Malaysia neutralizes Indonesia’s preponderance in Sunda Seas. India is the balancer in Timor, Indonesia and India triangle, as India aligned with East Timor, neutralizes Indonesia’s preponderance. India is the balancer in the China, Vietnam and India triangle, as India and Vietnam can effectively contain and neutralize any Chinese designs on Vietnam and Indo-China. Nuclear India can neutralize Chinese invasions of any country in Asia, whenever India aligns with the intended victim of the Chinese aggression.

 

(2) India as Balancer in Middle East Balance

India is the preponderant balancer in the Middle East. India is the preponderant balancer in the Pakistan, Afghanistan India triangle. India army based in Afghanistan can neutralize any Pakistani designs on Afghanistan. India is the preponderant balancer in the Iran, Afghanistan, India triangle, as India aligned with Afghanistan can neutralize any Iranian designs on Afghanistan. India is the preponderant balancer in the Iran, Iraq and India triangle, as India can shift the balance decisively for the side it aligns with. India is the preponderant balancer in the Shiite Iran, Sunni Saudi Arabia and Hindu India triangle, as India aligned with Iran can shift the military balance against Wahhabi Sunni Arab world. India is the balancer in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and India triangle, as India aligned with Yemen neutralizes the preponderance of Saudi Arabia in Arabian Peninsula. India is the balancer in the Jewish Israel, Muslim Arabs and Hindu India triangle, as India aligned with Israel neutralizes the numeric, economic and military preponderance of the Islamic world. India is the balancer in Algeria, Morocco and India triangle, as India aligned with Algeria neutralizes the dominance of Morocco in Western Sahara. India is the balancer in Syria, Saudi Arabia, India triangle, as India aligned with Syria neutralizes the preponderance of Saudi Arabia. India is the balancer in United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and India Triangle as India aligned with UAE neutralizes the preponderance of Saudi Arabia.

 

(3) India Balancer African Balance of Power

India is the balancer in the Egypt, Libya and India triangle, as India aligned with Libya neutralizes the preponderance of Egypt. India is the balancer in Sudan, Egypt and India triangle, as India aligned with Sudan neutralizes the preponderance of Egypt. India is the balancer in Mozambique, South Africa and India triangle, as India aligned with Mozambique neutralizes the preponderance of South Africa. India is the balancer in Congo (Zaire), Rwanda/Burundi, India triangle, as India aligned with Congo neutralizes the Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda and Vatican Axis. India is the balancer in Zimbabwe, South Africa and India triangle, as India aligned with Zimbabwe neutralizes the preponderance of South Africa.

 

(4) India as Balancer in European Balance

India should develop permanent military bases in Greece and Kalninigrad, to play an effective role in the European balance of power. India can act as the balancer in Greece, Turkey and India triangle, as India aligned with Greece neutralizes the preponderance of Turkey. India can be a balancer in the France, Germany and India triangle, as India aligned with France neutralizes the preponderance of Germany. India can be a balancer in European Union, Russia and India triangle, as India aligned with European Union can neutralize potential Russian expansionism in Western Europe. With the partial decline of NATO solidarity after the unification of Germany and decline of Russia, India could raise its stakes in the European balance of power to restore balance of power between France and Germany, Greece and Turkey, European Union and Russia, Germany and Russia.

 

(5) India-led Non Aligned Movement Relevant

The concept of the Non-Alignment is valid for the major world powers, namely, France, Germany and Japan, who seek to develop foreign policy independent of the United States, to promote their respective national interests determined by the principle of Raison d’etat and balance of power. The Non Aligned Members of the UN Security Council, namely, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea made United States and Britain eat a humble pie. The Non Aligned Movement and United Nations is relevant because it refused to bend under American pressure.

 

27(24) Turkey & Demise of EU

Whenever Turkey joins European Union, it would result in the decline of the France, Germany and Britain in the European Union. France would no longer remain the political leader of the European Union, Britain no longer the military leader of the European Union and Germany no longer the largest country in the EU. Overextension of European Union would hasten the decline of Western Europe, especially France and Germany. The entry of Muslim Turkey could choke European Union to death. The Vatican and United States encouraging the senseless expansion of European Union, to eliminate France and unified Germany as the leaders of European Union. After the extension of the European Union and NATO, the European Union would economically choke to death, while America-led NATO would become militarily stronger and Germany and France would become marginal players in NATO.

 

American wants the European Union to expand so that NATO is able to expand Europe–wide and eastward towards Central Asia. However, after the inclusion of Eastern Europe the leadership role of former colonial powers would get diluted. The new comers would look forward leadership of United States rather than that of Germany and France. The new comers would prefer joining NATO to protect them against Soviet aggression and also against German aggression. The East European new comers would erode the economic and military potential of Western Europe. Enlarged European union would fail to become independent military power, independent of the United States-led NATO. Whenever Turkey becomes a full-fledged member of the European Union, the Ottoman’s would be getting a direct access to the center of Europe and Ottomans would not longer be stopped at the gates of Vienna. Expansion of European Union would enhance the military role of United States in Europe and undermine the military potential of France and Germany. It is very likely that whenever Germany or France opt out of the NATO, the new member states of Eastern Europe would love to use American Arms to browbeat Germany and France into submission in the Third World War.

 

“If Turkey is allowed to join the European Union, it would mark the end of the Union as we know it,” said former president of France, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Chair, Convention on the Future of Europe. Mr. Giscard d’Estaing deserves credit as he has brought a debate into the open that is often avoided. French views on Turkey undoubtedly shared by many political leaders in Europe. Europeans fear that Turkey is too big and too alien to join the European Union. European Union is founded on Christian values and it would be destabilizing to admit a Muslim state, even a secular one. Turkey is too big, it will soon have a larger population than Germany, and too economically backward to be accommodated. The enlargement of the European Union is going to transform the nature of the West European bloc. The new member states admitted at the Copenhagen Summit in December 2002 are not as big as Turkey, but they are closer to Turkey economically. A 25-member EU will be more fluid and varied than the present club of 15. New members should become easier to absorb.

 

The EU is a club that an awful lot of outsiders want to join, all the way from Ukraine to Kyrgyzstan. Hitherto most enlargement of the European Union has been driven by political rather than economic or geographic argument. Greece, Portugal, and Spain were all welcomed as a reward for democracy. East European countries were admitted as a reward for democracy. All have complied with the so-called Copenhagen criteria for democratic behavior. The enlarged European Union is going to be a different club from one they are seeking to join. For the start, it is going to have much less money to go around. There will be no more Greece or Spain, who received lavish cash transfer from Brussels. There will be no cash cow for Turkey or Eastern Europe.

 

United States in an unusually direct move into the politics of European integration, is campaigning vigorously to advance turkey’s prospects for entering the European Union, so that European Union could die a natural death by admitting a large Muslim state, which would soon overtake Germany as the most populous state in the European Union. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz urged European Union nations to set a date fro initiating negotiations on Turkey’s eventual membership. “The decision on European Union members is of course Europe’s to make, but history suggests that a European Union that welcomes Turkey will be even stronger, safer and more richly diverse than it is today. The alternative, exclusionary choice is surely unthinkable,” said Paul D. Wolfowitz. America indirectly criticized that European Union is less richly diverse today and the alternative to the Turkey’s inclusion shall be an exclusionary choice, which is surely unthinkable.

 

Europeans realize that it is in the national interest of United States to sabotage the European and Christian character of the European Union by forcing the entry of Muslim Turkey into the European Union. Turkey would always promote the interests of the United States in the European Union. The entry of Turkey would erode the preponderance of France and Germany in the European Union. Mr. Giscard d’Estaing, reflecting a sentiment in Western Europe, told Le Monde that Turkey was not a European country and that inviting it into the European Union would mean ‘the End of Europe.’ Mr. d’Estaing is heading an effort to draft a constitution for a newly integrated Europe. France realizes that the real motive of the United States is to sabotage the future of Christian United States, by forcing the entry of populous Muslim Turkey as the Trojan horse of the United States in European Union.

 

In a political defeat for Muslim turkey, the 15 leaders of the European Union rejected on 13th December 2002, the Turkey’s demand to set a date to begin negotiations for its eventual admission to their exclusive club. The European Union’s leadership rejected a compromise fashioned by France and Germany under which the leaders of the European Union would meet at the end of 2004 to decide whether Turkey had met the criteria necessary to begin negotiations. If so, negotiations would have opened six months later. Under the agreement, Europeans agreed to decide to meet in December 2004 to decide whether Turkey, a Muslim country of nearly 70 million people was democratic enough and respectful enough of human rights to begin negotiations. But no date for possible negotiations was set. The EU decision was deeply disappointing to turkey’s new Muslim government of Prime Minister Abdullah Gul, who had insisted for negotiations to begin in 2003, well before 10 new countries, most of them poor and from Eastern Europe are scheduled to become members of the EU.

 

The rejection of the Turkey’s demand is also a defeat for President Bush, who along with Secretary of State had thrown the weight of the United States behind turkey and lobbied for a fixed date to begin for the turkey’s eventual membership. President Bush had recently meet Recep Tayyip Endogen, the popular leader of the turkey’s new governing Islamist party, and pledged that United states would work side by side with Turkey as it seeks membership. Mr. Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party swept turkey’s parliamentary elections. But current Kemalist Turki laws bars him from serving as prime minister because of his conviction for reciting a combative poem in 1997, when he was a mayor of Istanbul. In 1997, Mr. Erdogan’s Islamic –centered positions alarmed Turkey’s secular parties and the army generals allied with them. By giving Mr. Erdogan the prestige of a white House visit, Mr. Bush earned his goodwill on the issue of American military bases in Turkey.

 

Kemalist Turkey has long stood out in the Islamic world. Founded in 1923 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Kemalist Turkish republic imposed strict limits on the role of religion in public life. It current leaders, including Recep Tayip Erdogan, flirted with doctrinaire political Islam in the past. Turkey is effectively a military dictatorship and democracy only in name, as its military has repeatedly intervened against elected governments. Turkish torture in jails and brutal treatment of the Kurdish minority make Turkey unfit for membership of European Union as it fails the Copenhagen Criteria.

 

The genocide of Kurds that Kemalist Turkey periodically undertook throughout 20th century violates the Copenhagen criteria, adopted in Copenhagen in 1993, under which a candidate state must by judged to fully respect human rights. The candidate state must also be well on its way to meeting certain economic and institutional standards before it can begin negotiations to join. Turkey must first carry out the reforms before it seeks the date for accession talks. Unless a Christian elected as the Prime Minister of Turkey, turkey should not be allowed to join the Christian Club of European Union. Europeans must not be shy about calling European Union an exclusive Christian Club. Why should European Christians feel shy in declaring that Christianity is superior to Islam, especially when Islamic Holy Koran declares that Christians have lost the original Bible? Allowing Muslim Turkey become the member of Christian European Union would embolden Islamic terrorists worldwide. Just as Church of Rome had supported Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople, United States, Britain and the Vatican supports the entry of Muslim Turkey in to Christian European Union, to allow Ottomans gain by diplomacy what they failed to secure by force of arms in the siege of Vienna in 1529.

 

The lobbying by Bush administration on behalf of Washington’s key Muslim ally in NATO did not help Muslim Turkey’s cause. The leaders of the European Union saw it as a cynical ploy to push for turkey’s admission to the European Union in exchange for Turkish political support and access to military bases in the likely war against Iraq. The Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the current President of the European Union made clear that the United States had no role to play, and said, “I would like to stress that this is a European decision.” Mr. Rasmussen added that when Mr. Bush called him to plead Turkey’s case, “I made it clear to him that this is an EU decision,” and then repeated for a third time, “this is a European decision.”

 

Ignoring the urgings of American President Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and newly elected pro-Islamism pro-fundamentalism Turkish government European Union chose to wait two more years before even deciding whether to pursue membership talks with Muslim Turkey of nearly 70 million people, the descendants of Ottoman Empire, European Union saved itself from possible disaster, otherwise what Ottoman Sultan Suleyman failed in 1529 conquest of Vienna. Kemalist Turkey massacred 400,000 Christian Armenians after the First World War and had massacred Christian Byzantine Emperor and Christians during conquest of Constantinople. European Union followed the advise of Giscard d’Estaing that inviting Muslim Turkey into European Union would mean the End of Europe. Obviously United States and Britain wanted the entry of Muslim turkey into Christian European Union to sabotage the European Union from within. Thank god, European Christians are not foolish enough to invite the Muslim conqueror the Christian Byzantine Empire and murderers of Christian Armenians to subvert the growing aspirations of the European Christians to become militarily independent of the Yankees. European leaders remembered that in 1526 Ottoman Sultan Suleyman at Mohacs encountered and destroyed the flower of the Kingdom of Hungary, the last Christian power capable of resisting Muslims in the Balkans. Sultan Suleyman order the slaughter of King of Hungary, two archbishops, five bishops, bulk of aristocratic leadership of Hungary and all the prisoners of the 30,000 Hungarian troops that didn’t die on the battlefield, as the Ottoman victors took no Christian prisoners. European Union realizes that it is likely that on orders of United States and NATO the Muslim Turkish troops may use their arms in 21st Century to massacre and conquer France and Germany if the need so arises. Would Christian European Union become someday powerful enough to punish Muslim Turkey for the massacre of Christians at hands of Ottomans and Kemalist Turkey?

 

European Union on December 14, 2002, formally invited 10 European Christian countries to join in 2004: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia during the historic meeting in which the European Union celebrated the largest expansion in its history. No one questions that this is a historic moment. Not quite all of Europe, but most of it from the Atlantic Ocean, to the Russian border, fulfill a decades-long dream and fuse itself into a single entity in the name of Rise of white Christian Europe. The trouble is that few people either in the 15 nations already in the European Union or in the 10 other nations being invited in 2002 to join by 2004, are entirely sure that this is a good thing. The European Union’s commissioner for enlargement correctly warned that it was nor or never for the planned expansion. Given the huge ambition of this project, to swallow in one gulp Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Cyprus. It genuinely is historic moment. This is the de facto unification of Christian Europe under conditions of democracy and the rule of law. The 25-member expanded European Union does finally bury any prospect of war in Europe.

 

What is good for Europe? If ones long-term ideal objective is to see Christian Europe as a united entity, then it is an extraordinary move. There will be serious problems from a short-term perspective, and from European Union’s emerging military conflict with US-led NATO. The rubble fro the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 in huge piles of hope. But the reality of the European integration and German integration is proving more complicated than ever, as reality is always more complicated than the hope. The current relatively wealthy members of the European Union are facing fears of being overwhelmed by the new members in the Eastern Europe that are far poorer and that may send waves of immigrants westward, taking jobs and creating new pressures on German and French economies that are far from robust in 2002.

 

While the leaders of the 10 prospective new members, most from the former Soviet Bloc, largely support the European Union, the lower-middle class German and French public fear that they would lose control over the European Union and become second class their own country, serving the letter educated immigrants from Eastern Europe, which had the advantage of free subsidized education. Joining the European Union is a romantic aspiration of the excluded East Europeans, but a hard-nosed evaluation by Germans and French of benefit of the East European markets versus the cost the loss of jobs of the lesser educated Germans and French to the better-educated East Europeans.

 

The 15 members of the European Union in 2002 approved to take 75 million more people, almost half of them in Poland in 2004. The expansion of European Union upholds more grandly idea, of “Zone of security and prosperity and thus prevent another war, half a century after the last terrible war in Europe. For east Europeans there has been no option other than the European Union. The European Union is not the Garden of Eden, but certainly it is a better option than any other option available to the East Europeans. However, many East Europeans fear that European Union may turn out to be another Austro Hungarian Empire jointly dominated by the descendants of Napoleon and Hitler, as the center of power in European Union located far away from the Eastern Europe, as had been their case when under rule of Soviet Union, Austro Hungarian Empire and Ottoman Empire. Did descendants of Hitler succeed in creating Third Reich by bribing East Europeans with carrot of future farm subsidy? The big test will come in 2003, when the applicant 10 countries hold referendum on whether to join the European Union in 2004.

 

The Germans and French fear that America has more friends relatively speaking in central and eastern Europe in 2002 than in Germany and France. The expansion of 15-member European Union in 2004 to 25-member European Union would political harm the leadership of Germany and France as East and Central Europeans, would take financial help from the European Union, but militarily favor America’s domination of NATO and oppose the rearmament of Germany or deployment of German nuclear weapons. 

 

27(25) Euro Balance of Power

The national interests of France, Germany, Russia, Japan and India coincide in the Eurasian balance of power. Their national interests coincide, because of the disturbing impact of 26-member Nato and Sino-US Alliance. Germany, Russia, Japan and India need one another to balance the preponderance of triple alliance of Nato, USA and China. The doctrine of Raison d’etat and Balance of Power obliges major world powers to cement new alliances with one another to balance the preponderance of the United States. The expanded Nato intends to recreate European colonial empires in the 21st Century, would not harm India’s national interest, provided India also gets its fair share spheres of influence.

 

After German Unification and decline of Russia and expansion of NATO to 26 members, the Britain, France and Germany triangle, the traditional great power rivalries have resurfaced. Maritime Britain now considers continental France and Germany rivals. Britain would develop closer ties with East European members of NATO to develop anti-France and anti-Germany coalition, to balance the European dominance of united Germany. Britain would be mad to join the Euro. It is the misapprehension that France and Germany are Britain’s “partners” a weasel word used in business by people who want to take advantage of you. In fact, in the inter-governmental model, Germany and France are Britain’s allies and rivals. It is a misapprehension that Britain must placate France and Germany. The inconsistency is clear: Were France and Germany partners of Britain then there no need for Britain to placate France and Germany. If Germany and France are rivals then there is no sense for Britain to placate France and Germany. After the expansion of NATO to 26 members, Britain would employ traditional balance of power diplomacy to court the eastward neighbors of Germany to contain and balance the dominance of France and Germany in the European Union and NATO. The European Union would grow into a form of nineteenth century Europe, where maritime Britain would seek alliances in the continental Europe to curb the dominance of France and Germany. Britain again emerges as serious adversary and challenger of Germany and France in European balance of power, albeit within the framework of European Union. European Union has lost its raison d’etre after its unbridled overextension, and in the process signed its own death warrant and made its two principal founders, Germany and France, irrelevant in the military affairs of the European Union.

 

Euro-train-spotters will talk to you about the European parliament and three commissioners with unlikely titles. Forget it. Franco-German engine is bad for Britain as well as bad for Europe. Like the downward wage adjustments commonly seen in US, the European Union has no adjustment mechanism then and none now, except for ruinous unemployment. The Fiscal room for maneuver is stymied in EU by national debts and the stability and growth pact, which must urgently be reformed or replaced. For Britain to join the Euro at this juncture, even to think about it, would not merely be risky but stark staring mad. Friends of the British national interest would shun it. The Euro is in too much of a mess to make British entry feasible at any time in the foreseeable future. Euroskeptics have proved right that euro would fail.

 

27(26) On Expansion of NATO

The seven countries to join the US-led military alliance, the second largest enlargement sine the end of the cold war in 1990, are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined the NATO in 1999. Technically the entire Eastern bloc has become part of the USA-led NATO. Pentagon has suggested that Washington should think again bout inviting Latvia, Slovenia and Bulgaria. Pentagon named Latvia and Bulgaria because they are far from satisfied with security arrangements on joining the alliance. Slovenia was singled out, because the government in Ljubljana didn’t do enough to change public opinion for NATO, which is fewer than 50 per cent in favor of NATO Slovenia. On practical issues, the pentagon is unsure what benefits NATO would gain from increasing the alliance from 19 to 26. After the expansion of NATO to 26 members, encompassing the whole of Europe, West as well as Eastern Europe, United States no longer needs the continued support of France and Germany to maintain its military bases in Europe. Germany and France are no longer relevant for NATO after the expansion of NATO to 26 members.

 

France employing raison d’etat would soon conclude that France would gain more credibility as an independent world power, only after it resigns from NATO membership, in the post-Cold War new world order, because NATO expansion reestablished overwhelming predominance of United States in the NATO. After the NATO expansion to 26 member states, United States no longer needs the continued support of France and Germany to maintain its hegemony in Western and Eastern Europe. India should explore special ties with nuclear France, whenever France decides to go alone seeking independent European military deterrent.

 

United Germany would come to conclusion similar to that of France, employing raison d’etat reasoning. United Germany would realize that in the absence of Russian threat and after the unification of Germany, the American military bases and American nuclear missiles located on German soil represent post-second world war American occupation forces. The moral imperative of German foreign policy would be the peaceful withdrawal of American troops and closure of American bases from German soil. So long as American troops remain stationed on Germany based American bases, Germany may not be fully independent and free. The raison d’etat requires Germany to leave NATO and demand the closure of NATO and American bases on German soil. India should welcome Germany to become Non Aligned Nation. India and Germany should develop closer military and economic ties. In the global USA, Germany/France and India triangle, India can play a role of the balancer to equalize the joint Germany France bloc with that of United States, by joining the side of Germany and France. Germany and France would soon realize that they have become irrelevant to America-led NATO after the expansion of NATO to 26 members. France should develop independent military capability in alliance with India and develop Non Aligned Foreign Policy.

 

27(27) Monroe Doctrine Demise

India should explore closer ties with Brazil, Peru, and Venezuela, as Monroe Doctrine would become the casualty of the President Bush’s War on Iraq. Venezuela became a target for American imperialism. Monroe doctrine is the first casualty of the demise of Warsaw Pact. South America would become the bone of contention between Atlantic partners, as Brazil, Venezuela and Peru would explore closer ties with Europe. The expansion of NATO to 26 members could mean the demise of the Monroe Doctrine that prohibited European Colonial powers from exercising influence in Central and South America. How can United States possibly refuse the defense ties that Spain and Portugal may develop with Hispanic countries in Central America and South America? India should seek military ties with Spain to foster joint military ties with Hispanic nations in South America, namely, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina and Nicaragua. India should seek military ties with Portugal to develop military ties with Brazil. India should seek military ties with France to develop military ties with French Guinea. India should seek military ties with Belgium to develop military ties with Suriname. India should seek military ties with Britain to develop military ties with Guyana, Trinidad & Tobago.

 

27(28) Wilsonian Doctrine

On January 8, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson put forward America’s War Aims before the joint session of Congress, presenting them in the form of Fourteen Points. The Eight Points were obligatory, and they included, (1) open diplomacy, (2) freedom of seas, (3) general disarmament, (4) the removal of trade barriers, (5) impartial settlement of colonial claims, (6) the restoration of Belgium, (7) the evacuation of Russian territory, and (8) the establishment of a League of Nations. The remaining six points were, (9) restoration of Alsace-Lorraine, (10) autonomy for the minorities of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, (11) readjustment of Italy’s frontiers, (12) evacuation of the Balkans, (13) Internationalization of the Dardanelle’s, (14) creation of an independent Poland with access to the sea.

 

Never before had such revolutionary goals been put forward with so few guidelines as how to implement them. The world Wilson envisaged would be based on principle, not power; on law, not interest- for both victor and vanquished; in other words, a complete reversal of the historical experience and method of operation of the Great Powers. Wilson had the aversion to the word “ally”. America had joined “one side” of one of the most ferocious wars in history, and Wilson was acting as if he were the principal mediator. American was fighting the First World War not to achieve certain specific conditions but to engender a particular attitude on the part of Germany. Hence the America’s role in the First World War had been about conversion, not geopolitics.

 

After the 1918 Armistice, Woodrow Wilson explicitly condemned the balance of power as unstable and based on jealous watchfulness and antagonism of interests. The Allied soldiers fought to do away with an old order and to establish a new one. The center and characteristic of the old order was that unstable thing which we call the “balance of power” a thing in which the balance was determined by the sword, which was thrown in one side or the other. Balance of Power was a balance, which was determined by the unstable equilibrium of the competitive interests. The Allied men who have fought this war have been the men from free nations who were determined that sort of thing, balance of power, should end now and forever. Woodrow Wilson proposed a world order in which resistance to aggression would be based on moral rather than geopolitical judgments. Nations would ask themselves whether an act was unjust rather than whether it was threatening.

 

Woodrow Wilson was surely right about the European nations having made a mess of balance of power concept. However, it was not so much the balance of power doctrine as Europe’s abdication of the balance of power diplomacy that had caused the debacle of World War I. The leaders of pre-World War I Europe had neglected the historic balance of power and abandoned the periodic adjustments, which had avoided final showdowns in the past. The bipolar world at the eve of the First World War was much less flexible than even the Cold War bipolar order of the post-Second World War world. The pre-First World War bipolar world lacked the cataclysmic inhibitions of the nuclear age. Before the First World War, the leaders of Europe had catered to the most nationalistic elements of their public opinion, while giving lip service to the balance of power. Neither their political nor their military arrangements allowed for any flexibility, and there was no safety valve between the status quo and conflagration. This led to crises that could not be settled and to endless public posturing that in the end permitted no retreat.

 

Though America’s European allies in the First World War had zero faith in Wilsonian idealism they felt too weak to challenge it. America’s European allies knew or thought they knew how to calculate equilibrium based on power; they had no confidence that they, or anyone else, knew how to assess equilibrium on the basis of moral precepts. Before America’s entry into the First World War, the European democracies never dared to express openly their doubts about Wilson’s ideas and indeed made every attempt to enlist Wilson’s support in the War by humoring him. The combined forces of Great Britain, France and Russia had not been sufficient to overcome Germany. In the aftermath of Russian Revolution, they feared that America’s entry into the war might do no more than offset Russia’s collapse. Fear of German victory kept Britain and France from debating war aims with their idealistic American partner Woodrow Wilson.

 

France in 18th and 19th century had struggled to achieve the mastery of Europe, but in the aftermath of First World War, it no longer had confidence in its ability to protect even its frontiers against a defeated enemy. France, which had fought for its existence, now struggled for its identity. France dared no stand alone against Germany. France alone knew just how weak it had become in comparison with Germany. In 1880, the French had represented 15.7 percent of Europe’s population, and by 1900, that figure declined to 9.7 percent. In 1920, France had a population of 41 million and Germany a population of 65 million. In 1850, France had been the largest industrial nation on the European Continent. By 1880, German production of steel, coal, and iron exceeded that of France. In 1913, France produced 41 million tons of coal compared with Germany’s 279 million tons. By late 1930s, France produced 47 million ton coal to Germany’s total of 351 million tons. The residual strength of the defeated enemy marked the essential difference between the post-Vienna and post-Versailles international orders.

 

Victors of First World War and the Second World War failed to partition Germany, because Bismarck had built Germany too well. The Germany Bismarck created retained its sense of unity through defeats in two world wars, through the French occupation of the Ruhr area in 1923 and the Soviet imposition of a satellite state in Eastern Germany for a generation after the Second World War. When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, French President Mitterand briefly toyed with the idea of cooperating with Gorbachev to obstruct German unification. But Gorbachev was too preoccupied with domestic problems to undertake such an adventure, and France was not strong enough to attempt it alone. United Germany should be properly rewarded in the post-Cold War new European order, and any failure to do so would destabilize Europe, European Union and expanded NATO.

 

The Versailles Peace concluding the First World War to end all wars did not include the two strongest nations of Europe-Germany and Russia- which, between them, contained well over half of Europe’s population and by far the largest military potential. That fact alone would have doomed the Versailles settlement. President Bush should learn from the experience of Versailles Treaty, that excluding India and Russia from the rewards to be distributed at the end of the War on Islamic terrorism would destabilize the world more than the terrorism itself. Unlike the Congress of Vienna, the Paris Peace Conference did not include the defeated powers. The hypocrisy of Wilson’s Fourteen Points exposed when the harsh terms of the Versailles settlement revealed in June 1919. The Big Four of the Paris Peace Conference- Woodrow Wilson, Georges Clemenceau, David Lloyd George, Vittorio Orlando-were dominant figures, but they could not control the proceedings in the same way that the ministers of Great Powers had dominated the Congress of Vienna a hundred years later. Congress of Vienna had concentrated above all on establishing a new balance of power. The Paris Peace Conference failed because of the hypocrisy of Wilsonian idealism, that United States propagated to hide its imperial ambitions. Similarly, President Bush’s noble idealism of War on Islamic terrorism, must not be a euphemism for NATO’s eastward expansionism, otherwise it would result in the Paris Peace Conference type catastrophe, and plunge the world into Third World War. Failure of president Bush to share the spoils of war on terrorism with Russia and India and any diplomacy of deception in the America’s war on Islamic terrorism would plunge the world in to Third World War. Pentagon used the 9/11 attacks to justify the expansion of NATO to 26 members.

 

Bolshevik idealism was no greater a hypocrisy than the Wilsonian idealism as basis on diplomacy. Woodrow Wilson sought to outlaw balance of power, because he knew that the practitioners of the diplomacy of balance of would be obliged to seek alliance with less-strong Powers to contain and check the hegemony of the United States. President Abraham Lincoln had justified the wars on Confederate States in the name of abolition of Slavery. However, the real purpose of Lincoln was to retain the White domination of the United States, by stopping the Slave trade, as black slaves would have outnumbered the whites in United States, in not so distant future. The French Revolutionaries had striven to change the character of the state. The Bolsheviks, going a step further, proposed to abolish the state altogether. Once the state had withered away, in Lenin’s phrase, there would be no need to diplomacy or foreign policy. Wilsonianism sought to establish the American empire, no less than Bolshevism sought to establish the Soviet empire. America’s failure to capture even a single leader of Taliban and A Qaeda in Afghanistan War may expose the Bush’s War on terrorism, as Wilsonian diplomacy of deception, hyped to create America’s control over Islamic oil in Middle East and Central Asia. Is America’s war on global Islamic terrorism, just diplomacy of deception, newspeak or doublespeak? Diplomacy in the 21st Century should reflect the national interests, balance of power, not the hypocrisy of idealism. Wilsonian idealism’s hypocrisy caused the Second World War. The Third World War may result if the world’s diplomats find out in future that President George W. Bush’s war on Islamic terrorism, in 2001 had been just the traditional Wilsonian diplomacy of deception, newspeak and doublespeak.

 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s reluctance to jeopardize postwar cooperation with the Soviet Union by prematurely discussing war aims may have a strategic as well as Wilsonian rationale. Roosevelt may have been aware of the possibility of Soviet post war expansionism but may have felt trapped between the looming strategic peril of Soviet expansionism and American people’s idealistic convictions. To maintain the American war efforts, Roosevelt needed to appeal to American Wilsonian ideals, which deplored spheres of influence and balance of power. Roosevelt under the garb of Wilsonian idealism was preparing a fallback position: a great army, a network of overseas bases, plans for peacetime universal military training, and the Anglo-American monopoly of the Atomic Bomb. Roosevelt tentatively legitimized Stalin’s postwar expansionism so as to gain legitimacy of America’s post-war enhanced imperial role in post-War Europe. Roosevelt using Wilsonian idealism built American military capability to match post-war Soviet expansionism, to preempt the former colonial powers from playing any great power role in the post-War world order. Roosevelt’s Wilsonian idealist foreign policies hoodwinked Britain and France that they would remain world powers after the end of the world war. American had planned in advance that at some time in future France and Britain would be told that their time is up and they are no longer great powers. The Suez Canal crisis allowed United States to expose the military weaknesses of Britain and France. Just as Stalin used Bolshevism to force East European states into bondage and servitude, Roosevelt and Truman used Wilsonian idealism to force Western Europe into bondage and servitude to United States in Atlantic Alliance. Atlantic Alliance was custom designed Wilsonian cage to house the former West European colonial powers, while Warsaw pact was the crude Bolshevik cage to imprison East European surrogates. However, both NATO and Warsaw pact had been the cage designed to weaken the spirit and curtail the freedom of its occupants. To a slave or a caged animal it doesn’t matter whether it is enslaved under Wilsonian or Bolshevik idealism. NATO and Warsaw pact equally curtailed the diplomatic freedom and initiative of the West Europeans and East Europeans respectively. The modern NATO cage that restrained diplomatic options of former great powers Britain and France, turned out to be more painful for these great powers, than the pain felt by the second rate powers of Eastern Europe in the Warsaw Pact’s cage. It is amazing that even when the British Empire was intact at the end of the Second Word War: Why did an incompetent labor prime minister of post war Britain agreed to confine British Monarch into American cage, to force Her Majesty become a Yankee Concubine? How could the Lion Winston Churchill, as the leader of the Opposition agree for such a demise of British honor? In 1941, Stalin’s primary issue had been frontiers; by 1945, it had become political control of territories beyond these frontiers. Similarly, at the Pearl Harbor Roosevelt’s primary issue had been defeat of the Axis Powers; after the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s death on April 12, 1945, Truman’s primary issue had become political control of former Colonial Powers and political control of territories under European colonial empires.

 

Yalta Conference

Winston Churchill understood what was taking place, but Great Britain had become too dependent on the United States. In October 1944, Churchill undertook an almost quixotic enterprise to settle the future of Eastern Europe directly with Stalin. During a visit to Moscow, which lasted eight days, Churchill jotted down a spheres-of-influence arrangement and handed it to Stalin. In it, Churchill envisaged a delineation of spheres in terms of percentages, with Great Britain obtaining 90 percent in Greece and the Soviet Union 90 percent in Romania and 75 percent in Bulgaria. Hungary and Yugoslavia were divided according to 50-50 bases, into spheres of influence. Stalin accepted on the spot. However, influence was defined by the presence of the contending armies. In this manner, Greece fell into British sphere, while all the other states, except Yugoslavia, became Soviet satellites. Yugoslavia’s freedom of action resulted from the fact that under eldership of Marshal Tito, Yugoslavia had liberated itself from German military occupation through a major guerrilla effort of its own. By the time of the Yalta Conference in February 1945, nothing remained of the Churchill-Stalin agreement. Churchill was concerned with the European balance of power. Churchill wanted to restore France to Great power status. Churchill wanted to resist the dismemberment of Germany and to reduce exorbitant Soviet demands for reparations. In the end, Churchill and Roosevelt accepted Russia’s 1941 borders, a painful step for Churchill, whose country had gone to war to preserve Poland’s territorial integrity. In April 1945, Churchill pressed Eisenhower, as Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces to seize Berlin, Prague, and Vienna ahead of the advancing Soviet Armies. Eisenhower refused this request. On the contrary, General Eisenhower wrote directly to Stalin on March 28m 1945, to inform him that he would not advance on Berlin, and proposed that American and Soviet troops meet near Dresden. Eisenhower wanted Soviet Union to gain control over Berlin, so as to legalize the partitioning of Germany.

 

United States had entered into secret pact with Stalin to allow Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, to wet soviet appetite so that American Empire in Western Europe could be justified in terms of Wilsonian idealism as valid response to Soviet expansionism, which was in principle approved in advance by Americans. America objected to the solitary diplomatic initiative of Churchill with Stalin. Roosevelt had made it quite clear to Churchill that “British have been told with force and authority that the American mood can change as mercurially as the English weather if the American people get once the idea that this war is just another struggle between rival imperialism.” Roosevelt had made it quite clear that American public’s favorable disposition toward post-war Anglo-American cooperation was fragile. America refused to defend Europe against Soviet imperialism. British attempts to defend Europe by acting alone were labeled as imperialist. Roosevelt never tired of telling his fellow Allies that neither American troops nor American resources would be available to restore Europe, and that preserving the peace had to be a British and Russian task. United States waited long enough to enter Europe, only when the spheres of influences had solidified along the demarcation line, which Wilsonian foreign policy had denigrated.

 

Why Indian not in Four Policemen?

Roosevelt’s concept of Four Policemen included United States, Russia, Britain and China. China was less capable than India of carrying out the mission Roosevelt had assigned to it. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s concept of “Four Policemen” would have succeeded had he included Indian Empire as one of the Four Policemen, instead of China. Indian empire contributed 3,500,000 soldiers for Allied Powers in the Second World War and 6,500,000 soldiers for Allied Powers in the First World War. China didn’t contribute a single soldier for the Allied Powers. At the time of Yalta conference Indian empire was a world power not China. In 1945, Indian Empire was the world’s sixth largest industrial power in the world. At Yalta, Roosevelt told his colleague that American troops would not stay longer than two years in occupation duty, to encourage Soviet Union expand Soviet expansionism. Churchill’s geopolitical analyses proved far more accurate than Roosevelt’s. Roosevelt refused to see the world in geopolitical terms, because he wanted to use the camouflage of Wilsonian idealism to impose American Empire over Western Europe in name of opposition to Soviet expansionism and menace. Had Roosevelt followed Churchill’s’ prescriptions, he would have improved America’s bargaining position and Soviet Union would have failed to consolidate its hold over Eastern Europe, which would have denied America an opportunity to impose American imperialism over Western Europe. The Second World War ended with a geopolitical vacuum in Europe. The balance of power had been destroyed, and the comprehensive peace treaty remained elusive. It was the precisely the military objective of the United States, to divide the world into two divided ideological camps, ruthlessly ruled by the two monsters, Wilsonian monster no less ruthless than the Bolshevik monster. Roosevelt and Truman did not accept Churchill’s geopolitical prescriptions, because it would restored the balance of power in Europe, allowing British Empire and French Empire, to regroup and emerge as serious challenger to United States and The Soviet Union. After the Yalta Conference both Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle concluded that United States and not Soviet Union is the principal adversary of Great Britain and France, respectively. After Churchill lost the elections, the Labor prime minister sold the honor of Britain to serve as footman of the America in Atlantic Alliance.

 

The collapse of Nazi Germany and the need to fill the resulting power vacuum led to the disintegration of the wartime partnership, between United States and Britain and between United States and Soviet Union. United States and Soviet Union to become two menacing adversaries, the two giants at the periphery in the World War, were now facing off against one another in the very heart of Europe, kicking any local pretenders to the great power status. Truman encouraged Stalin to carve out the Eastern Europe and both conspired to destroy the political power of Britain and France, by destroying their power base in British Empire and French Empire. As victors of the Second World War, British Empires, French Empires, and Portuguese Empires had emerged unscathed. Britain, Indian Empire, Canada and Australia were greater power than Soviet Union in military, political and economic capability. The CIA and Soviet Communist parties conspired to defeat the political aspirations of Britain’s Winston Churchill, France’s Charles de Gaulle, and India’s Netaji Subash Chandra Bose. Had Churchill, de Gaulle and Bose not lost their grip over political power in Britain, France and Indian Empire then Britain, France and India would have created a “Third Force” in Europe to challenge the hegemony of United States and the Soviet Union.

 

The diplomatic challenge facing president Harry S. Truman in 1945 was: How to seduce Great Britain and France, to accept the position of servitude and bondage in the Atlantic Alliance, as British Empire and French Empire had escaped unscathed after the Second World War? Upon becoming President, Harry Truman had a far less emotional commitment to Allied unity and Anglo-American cooperation than Roosevelt had had. Truman inherited a world order whose dividing lines were inchoately based on the position of armies advancing from east and west. The political fate of the countries liberated by Allied Armies had not yet been resolved. France was prostrate, but French Empire in North Africa and West Africa was intact. Great Britain was victorious, though exhausted, and British Empire was intact and Indian Empire as well as Dominions of Canada and Australia as vibrant as ever. Indian Empire was the world’s sixth largest industrial power in 1945. India, Canada, Australia and Britain in 1945, were greater an economic power than United States and Soviet Union. British Empire led by India would have challenged the leadership of United States in 1945. The CIA and the KGB conspired the election defeats of the party of Churchill and de Gaulle, hoping that the lesser competent British and French political leadership would succumb to the Yankee blackmail and surrender the Great power status of Britain and France by default.

 

Truman inherited Roosevelt’s top advisers, and began his presidency intending to pursue his predecessor’s conception of the “Four Policemen,” namely, United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain and China. Four days after taking office, Truman saw no alternative to America-led Atlantic Alliance, to reinforce America’s dominance in post-War Europe, to check the menace of advancing Soviet expansionism. He declared that the Soviet Union had the designs like that of Axis Powers to dominate the world. Despite the high-flown Wilsonian rhetoric, hard geopolitical facts were shaping conditions on the ground. Stalin returned to his old ways of conducting foreign policy, and demanded payment for his victories in territorial control, and he might have been willing for compromise, but only so long as they involved precise quid pro quos, such as spheres of interest or trading limits on communist influences in Eastern Europe for specific economic assistance. Stalin had seen through the hypocrisy of American Wilsonian rhetorical idealism, as ingenious camouflage for naked American colonial aspirations in Europe and elsewhere. Stalin, as master practitioner of Realpolitik, had expected America to resist the new geopolitical balance established by the Red Army’s presence in the center of the European continent. Stalin realized that Truman wanted the Red Army to take over the Central Europe, so that America could expand its Empire to the Western Europe as Wilsonian response to the Soviet menace. Stalin realized that Truman allowed the Red Army to seduce East Europe, so that American occupation troops may force West Europe into servitude and bondage of the American Alliance, allegedly to keep Soviet rapists at bay. Stalin loved this tacit understanding with Truman. President Harry Truman had asked Prime Minister Winston Churchill to hand over half of the British Empire as full payment for the British War Debts it owed to the United States. Churchill refused to comply with the request of Truman. Stalin interested it as expression of underlying American colonial dreams camouflaged in Wilsonian idealism. Roosevelt had agreed to legitimize Stalin’s empire in the Eastern Europe. In return Stalin helped American consolidate its hold over Western Europe, by scuttling the great power dreams of Britain and France. Stalin and Truman conspired to transform Europe into the satellites of United States and Soviet Union.

 

Truman administration was no more hospitable to British Realpolitik than Roosevelt’s had been. Truman was not yet willing to accept at the Potsdam Summit Churchill’s suggestion that the way to deal with Stalin was to assemble rewards and penalties in order to produce desired result. Truman Administration told Churchill that days of balance-of-power diplomacy were irrevocably past.

 

Allied and Soviet Army had met farther east than Dresden, and as a result Allied forces were in command of nearly a third of the area assigned to the Soviet zone of occupation in Germany, including most of the industrialized portion. Churchill proposed using this territory as leverage in the forthcoming negotiations. At the end of June, less than a month before the planned Summit, American forces withdrew to the agreed demarcation line, leaving Great Britain no other choice than to follow American example. Truman Administration envisaged itself in the role of mediator between Great Britain and the Soviet Union, to Churchill’s chagrin. Truman rejected an invitation to stop in Great Britain on the way to Potsdam to celebrate the Anglo-American victory in the Second World War. Roosevelt’s dream of the Four Policemen came to an end at the Potsdam Conference, which lasted from July 17 to August 2, 1945.

 

27(29) Truman Doctrine

United States promoted during the Cold War the Soviet Union as the super power to intimidate and coerce fellow West Europeans accept the bondage of the Atlantic Alliance. United States historically followed the policy of geopolitical dominance of Europe. The United States established NATO to Chaperon, control and check Germany, Italy and France and to keep Germany divided. President Bush’s War on Iraq brought NATO to an definitive end and created permanent rifts of Germany and France with Britain and United States.

 

Like the Bush Doctrine of 2002, the Truman Doctrine of 1945 redefined the traditional geopolitical rationale in the Wilsonian non-balance-of-power ideological terms to hype the preponderance of America’s military might and to distort the geopolitical rationale in terms of idealism and clash of two hostile ways of life.

 

In the winter of 1946-47, the Attlee government Washington that Britain could no longer support Greece and Turkey, economically as well as militarily. Truman was prepared to take over Great Britain’s historic role of blocking a Russia advance toward the Mediterranean, but the Congress could not countenance the traditional British geopolitical rationale. Truman had to justify the resistance to Soviet expansionism on Wilsonian idealism. In the Spring of 1946, Truman launched a “get-tough” policy towards Soviet Union within the Wilsonian mold. The Greek Turkey program was portrayed as part of the global struggle between democracy and dictatorship. The Truman Doctrine marked a watershed because, once America had thrown down the moral gauntlet, the kind of Realpolitik Stalin understood best would be forever at an end, and bargaining over reciprocal concessions would be out of the question. President Bush’s War on Terrorism has similar ring about the Truman doctrine. Like Truman’s doctrine’s traditional terms of a struggle between two ways of life, president Bush declared that every country has to decide, whether you are with the terrorists or with us. In spirit of the noble rhetoric of Truman, American was imposing American Empire on Europe, using Truman Doctrine. Truman doctrine did not lead to any violent military action against Soviet Union.

 

Similarly, Bush’s War on terrorism and War on Afghanistan did not result in arrests or deaths of any number of Al Qaeda Wahhabi terrorists. Like the historical Wilsonian rhetoric, President Bush’s war on terrorism may turn out to be diplomacy of deception to camouflage American imperial ambitions to control Central Asian oil.

 

Bush Doctrine 2002, mistakenly claims America’s military preponderance, and doesn’t recognize the rising power of India and China. After the Second World War America similarly proclaimed that only two great powers existed, even when British Empire, Indian Empire and Canada had greater economic and military capability than the Soviet Union. In early 1950s Canada was far ahead of United States in aerospace technology. Bush Doctrine 2002, like the Truman Doctrine of 1945, unilaterally declares the preponderance of American military capabilities and discounts the military capabilities of other great powers like Indian Empire of 1945, and nuclear India of 2002.

 

Even when British Empire, Indian Empire and Indian Empire had been intact and had great power and economic capability, United States hyped that there are only two great powers, namely, United States and the Soviet Union. Why? Dean Acheson argued during Greece-Turkey issue, that only two great powers remained in the world, United States and the Soviet Union. World had arrived at a situation unparalleled since ancient times, as not since Rome and Carthage had there been such a polarization of power on this earth. Britain and France were taken back by the decisiveness with which America threw itself into filling the power vacuum in Western Europe, while Roosevelt had parroted that American occupation troops would not stay longer than two years. President Truman was determined to browbeat Western Europe into America-led Atlantic Alliance to impose America’s will on former colonial powers of Europe.

 

In 1947, George F. Kennan raised the Soviet challenge to the level of philosophy of history. He explained the ways in which hostility to the democracies was inherent in the Soviet domestic structure, and why that structure would prove impervious to conciliatory Western policies.

 

President George W. Bush declared America’s war on terrorism, in terms of a policy of firm containment designed to confront the barbarian terrorists with unalterable counter-force at every point where they show signs of encroaching upon the interests of the civilizations. President Bush distinguished his war on Islamic terrorism, as the age-old American dream of a peace achieved by the conversion of the adversary, who he said are a minority of Muslims of the world. Bush explained the ways in which hostility to the American way of life and freedom was inherent in the Islamic fundamentalist social structures, and why these terrorism-producing social structures would prove impervious to conciliatory Western policies. Bush has charged America with combating Islamic terrorist pressures and quest for weapons of mass destruction for the indefinite future all around a vast periphery that embraced the cultures of Middle East, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia.

 

President Bush’s doctrine of perpetual struggle against Islamic terrorism commits America to endless contests with Islamic terrorist threats, which leaves the initiative to the Muslim adversaries and confines America’s role ion strengthening the Muslim countries already on its side of the dividing line on the war on terrorism, a classic policy of spheres of interest. The Bush Doctrine’s Wilsonian idealism seeks to set up the spheres of influence, more rigorously, even when Wilsonian rhetoric denounces the balance of power and spheres of interest. Bush doctrine like Truman doctrine declares that the best protection against aggression is having overwhelming power and the willingness to use it. Truman doctrine promoted Atlantic Alliance NATO. Bush doctrine promotes the anti-Saddam alliance and anti-terrorism alliance.

 

President Truman scuttled the “Pact of Brussels” of April 1948, a defensive pact promoted by European powers designed to repel any forcible attempts to topple democratic governments. American scuttled the European alternative to Atlantic Alliance by exposing the weakness of West Europeans, whose power did not add up to have sufficient strength to repel a Soviet attack. President Truman wanted to market USA-led NATO only and though pact of Brussels as hostile competitor. Similarly, President Bush does not support India-led anti-terrorism Pact and did not invite India to participate in the War on terrorism in Afghanistan. It raises the doubt: Whether American misusing 9/11 attacks to consolidate America-led coalition, not so much to fight terrorism but to promote American imperialism. Americans have erroneously pronounced the balance of power dead in 1949, saying that the old veteran, balance of power was given a blue discharge when the United Nations was formed, and out went the old balance of power. “The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations happily accepted this conceit.” (Kissinger, Diplomacy, p. 458)

 

Similarly, President Bush’s war on terrorism could be just a camouflage of the traditional balance of power approach to control the oil reserves of the world. President Bush’s war on terrorism is designed to create America-led military alliances to control the flow of oil in the Islamic world.

 

President Bush’s coalition against terrorism in the Middle East uses America’s overwhelming preponderance to convert it into rigid alliance, with very little maneuvering for the subservient Arab Allies. In 1949, four years after the unconditional surrender of the Axis Powers, the international order contained many similarities to 1900’s, the period just before the First World War: two rigid alliances with very little diplomatic maneuvering between them faced each other. However, while the pre-World War I alliances had been held together by each side’s fear that a switch in alliances by one of the partners could unravel the edifice with which they had identified their security. During the Cold War, the two nuclear superpowers had overawed their allies into submission, who had no choice to leave the coalition. The Cold War coalitions, NATO as well as Warsaw Pact, were satellites of United States and Soviet Union and they had little freedom. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar can expect no more freedom than European Allies enjoy in USA-led NATO. Saudi Arabia would be forced to toe American line, whatever President Bush decides.

 

27(30) Europe Is US Satellite

Why did European powers agreed to become the surrogate of United States after their victory in the Second World War even when British Empire, French Empire, and Portuguese Empire remained intact after the War? Why did Britain, France and Portugal agreed to become American satellite, even after they had won the War, under US-Led NATO euphemism of American Colonial Empire? Maritime European powers agreed to become the satellite of the maritime United States, because the land power Soviet Union threatened the very home base of the European powers in the continent of Europe itself. The maritime powers had historically been defenseless against determined continental attack of land powers. Though Belgium, Portugal, France and Britain retained their overseas colonies, the land-based threat of nuclear Soviet bear threatened the very survival of their homeland in Europe. Maritime West Europeans preferred subordination to the United States over subjugation to Soviet Union. Whenever hostile land powers destroys or threatens the homeland core, the maritime power become defenseless.

 

European colonial empires based on the maritime technology of Cannon-equipped ships, which allowed the cannon to be removed and moved offshore. The cannon-equipped ships allowed Vasca da Gama sink all the coastal vessels in the Arabian Sea and declare Portuguese domination of the Arabian Sea trade. Europeans didn’t invest the cannons, but they improvised the heavy cannons useful for fort demolition to develop lightweight cannon for dual use as Ship-cannon and infantry cannon. It was the revolution of war ships equipped with removable cannons that allowed even smaller nations, Portugal, Belgium create colonial empires.

 

China during Ming Dynasty had developed powerful Navy and built big flotilla of ships, much larger than the ships used by Columbus. Chinese Naval flotilla sailed to Southeast Asia, India and East Coast of Africa full century before the Columbus and Vasca da Gama. The land-based policies and threats dissuaded China to pursue maritime colonial policy. China had invented gunpowder and maritime compass. Had land-based threats not undermined Chinese Navy, China could have established colonial empires in the New World.

 

South Indian empires maintained colonies in had thousands of years long colonial rule in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, and Burma. However, the Allauddin Khilji and Aurangzeb’s invasion of South India destroyed the Hampi, the homeland base of the Sri Vijaya Empire and thus Hindu India lost control over the Hindu-Buddhist colonies in Southeast Asia and it resulted in Indonesia and Malaysia converting to Islam. The Muslim Mughal Empire based in Delhi invaded maritime Hindu South Indian Kingdoms from its open land frontiers, where its Naval power could not be useful to repel aggression.

 

American propaganda machine hyped the military capability of the wounded Soviet Bear, primarily to scare the European Queens inducing them to seek the protection of Yankee Harem. America succeeded in colonizing Western Europe without firing any shot, simply by hyping the menace of Soviet Bolshevism. United States similarly used the future threat of resurgent Russia to force former Warsaw Pact members join NATO. United States promoting Communist China as super power so that ASEAN members become scared of Chinese expansionism and agree to become the colonies of United States.

 

The European colonial powers collapsed after the Second World War, when they realized the danger the land power Soviet Union presented to their core homeland, against which their Naval power was defenseless. Just as Indian land power was defenseless against the maritime powers of Western Europe, similarly Maritime European colonial powers were unable to bring to the land front their advantages of maritime supremacy.

 

European colonial powers had used Christianity to destroy the indigenous Inca, Maya and Aztec civilizations to destroy them permanently. Similarly, the Soviet Union could have used Bolshevism and Communism to justify the destruction of the French, Belgium, Italian and Portuguese societies and cultures. Faced with the possibility that their very culture and society could become extinct like the demise of the Russian Orthodox Tsar culture and civilization, the Western colonial powers agreed to become satellite power of the United States. The hostile land power’s military base in the geographical proximity of the maritime power is the Achilles Heel of the maritime power. West European colonial powers agreed to become the satellite of United States, because Communism and Soviet Army could potentially permanently destroy the core of the homeland of these maritime powers.

 

The vulnerability of the maritime power to land-based attacks of the hostile land powers which succeeds in securing a permanent base on the continent the maritime power is located, is the Achilles Heel of the sea powers. Greek maritime power lost its war to Roman land power, when Roman Army could control the coastlands and thus threaten the core home base of the Greek maritime powers. Eastern /roman empire lost to the Ottoman Turks when land power Ottoman Muslim Army’s cannon could demolish the mammoth Byzantine Fort in Constantinople. Byzantine Navy could cope with the infantry attacks of the Persia, by using Byzantine Navy behind the enemy to disrupt its supply line.

 

European colonial empires though great maritime powers had become small land powers in the European continent. The soviet Army could at will march and conquer France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Belgium. There was no possibility of the Soviet invasions of the Western Europe, but Pentagon and American media hyped the evil intentions of the evil empire to induce timid European nations accept the bondage of America-led Atlantic Alliance, an euphemism of American Empire

 

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. 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 Yankee United States got, all Queens of the Western world rushed to join Yankee Harem, just because they were mortally scared of the impending rape by Communist Bear. Yankee cried Bear not in vain as it got all the Queens rushing to seek protection in Yankee Harem.

 

The European powers though great colonial powers, were relatively small land powers on the continent of Europe. The Soviet Army at will could march and conquer France and Germany at will, had American nuclear weapons not deterred such an action. However European colonial powers were mistaken in their assessment that it would be in the interest of Soviet Union to take over Western Europe. Russia was itself too big and it didn’t need any more lands. However, if we look at Bolshevism Communism as a new world religion, then Western Christendom had great to fear. The landed aristocracy in Britain preferred to accept the loss of colonial empire than the prospect of Communism creeping across the English Channel, which would abolish private property.

 

Canada or Mexico is the geopolitical Achilles’ Heel of Maritime Masterland of United States. Whenever Canada or Quebec decides to cast their lot with France and Germany, then United States becomes vulnerable. Nuclear Canada would check the military preponderance of the United States. Nuclear Canada would immediately join the ranks of World Powers. Britain, France, Germany and European Union should especially target Canada for closer military and strategic ties. The geopolitics and national interest of Canada demands that it should protect its southern frontiers by fostering closer military ties with Britain and France. English-speaking Canada should consider having federation with United Kingdom. French-speaking Quebec should secede from Canada and seek federation with France. Canada and Quebec should join forces with European Union, to create European military capability, independent of the United States. Geopolitics of Canada and Mexico is similar to that of Pakistan. Why should Canada and Mexico trust hegemon neighbor United States, if Pakistan cannot trust hegemon neighbor India? Should Canada and Mexico seek military ties with Germany, France, Spain and India to protect their sovereignty in case their beloved hegemon neighbor decide to gobble their lands sometime in future, how so ever distant it may be? To promote global equilibrium Canada, Germany and France should develop nuclear weapons and sign defense pact with India to promote stable world order. The national interests of Germany, Japan, India, France, and Canada demand that new global coalition should check the preponderance of USA-China Coalition. Great Powers in the 21st Century would demarcate the separate spheres of influence in the world. United States should agree to let other great powers share influence over oil-producing nations.

 

However the decline of Russia in 21st Century removes any threat of Russian invasions of Western Europe. In the absence of the common Russian menace of the hostile land power the traditional rivalry among maritime former colonial powers would resurface. France and Germany would compete with United States for influence in the world, in Middle East, South America and Eastern Europe. Germany and France would not allow United States to dominate the oil-supplies of the world, as the very livelihood of Europe depends upon the secured imports of crude oil. Germany and France would compete with United States in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Libya, Nigeria, Iraq, Brunei, Venezuela and Colombia. Germany and France realizes that their continued membership of NATO hampers their independent role as great powers. It is in the national interest of Germany and France to develop common European policy to challenge American influence over oil-producing countries.

 

United States promoted during the Cold War the Soviet Union as the super power to intimidate and coerce fellow West Europeans accept the bondage of the Atlantic Alliance. In the post-Cold War age the United States promoted China as the super power to coerce and intimidate Southeast Asian countries to accept the bondage and leadership of America. United States historically followed the policy of geopolitical dominance of Europe. The United States established NATO to Chaperon, control and check Germany, Italy and France and to keep Germany divided. President Bush’s War on Iraq brought NATO to an definitive end and created permanent rifts of Germany and France with Britain and United States.

 

27(31) South Atlantic Treaty Organization (SATO)

(1) South Atlantic Treaty Organization

Since Russian menace no longer exists, European great powers, Germany, France, Spain and Portugal would form South Atlantic Treaty Organization (SATO) to develop European military capability independent of the United States-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The SATO would secure military ties of South American powers, namely, Mexico, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, Chile and Argentina with West European powers, namely, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal and Italy. The SATO would also have military ties with Asian powers, namely, nuclear India and economic superpower Japan. The SATO led by Brazil, Germany, Spain, France, Japan and India would compete headlong with NATO for spheres of influence in the world. Australia and Canada would also join SATO at some time.

 

(2) Organization of Buddhist States (OBS)

India and Japan should take the lead and formalize the multinational treaty to set up the Organization of Buddhist States (OBS), the organization to include the states of Japan, India, North Korea, South Korea, Mongolia, Communist China, Taiwan, Singapore, Laos, Cambodia, Burma, Vietnam, Thailand, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and non-state entities, Tibet, Sikkim, Laddhak, Siberia, and Bali Islands. The Organization of Buddhist States would compete with Organization of Islamic States to represent the interests of Asia. Asian Buddhist Common Market (BCM) would be the world’s largest economic organization, larger than the European Union and NAFTA.

 

(3) Commonwealth Common Market (CCM)

India should take the lead to organize former British Empire, the members of Commonwealth of Nations to form Commonwealth Common Market, the duty free trading regime to promote trade and commerce among them. The members of the Commonwealth Common Market (CCM) shall include Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Trinidad & Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Western Samoa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. India should promote Commonwealth Common Market without the involvement of United Kingdom. Australia, India and South Africa should be the leaders of the Commonwealth Common Market. Commonwealth Common Market (CCM) has the potential of being bigger economic community than European Union (EU) and North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA).

 

27(32) China Invading Siberia

NATO Hunting for Russian Bear’s Siberia

United States has disclosed its intention to encircle and hunt Russia to expedite the secession of Siberia in the first decade of the new Millennium. What are the options of the wounded sick Russian Bear in Siberia, faced with the USA-China coalition in the south and NATO-East Europe coalition in the West? Would the West succeed in further partitioning of Russia? Would India profit or lose if Russia breaks up and Orthodox Russia forced to toe the diktat of the Western Christendom? Should India demand open immigration of 10 million Indians to Siberia in exchange for India’s military support to Russia to ward of the USA-backed Chinese invasions of Siberia?

 

American Hunters Geopolitical Hunt has begun. The maritime Hunter has cornered the sick Giant Bear into the tight corner. The Hunter has got hold of 10 Cubs, who have joined the hunt on the side of the Hunter. The NATO in 1999 admitted Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic. The NATO in November 2002 formally invited Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the former parts of the Soviet Union, and Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, and Bulgaria the former members of the Warsaw Pact to join NATO. The former satellites of the Soviet Union, the wounded bear have voluntarily become the new satellites of the adversary United States, the hunter, and may be looking forward for war with Russia to settle old scores. Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic and Slovakia bear grudge against Russia, which may prove costly to Russia in the event of any future Russia’s war with enlarged NATO.

 

To goad China to invade Eastern Siberia had been the long-term goal of Secretary Henry Kissinger when he started diplomatic dialogue with China. The overpopulated Dragon China borders with empty continental size Siberia with population of just 14 million towards the south across the seas lies the empty continent of Australia with a population of just 19 million. Siberia and Australia could easily become home for more than 300 million peoples. Would China expand southward towards Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Indonesia? Or would China expand northward to invade Eastern Siberia? It had been the standard policy of Britain and United States to goad the regional hegemon to dream the conquest of Russia, to ward of immediate threat towards the West. France’s Napoleon, Weimer Republic’s William Kaiser, Third Reich’s Adolf Hitler chose to invade Russia. It is likely that the present hegemon of Asia with the help of United States may launch the invasion of Siberia, against which Russia has no military capability to match except resorting to the nuclear weapons. It is possible that regional leaders of Siberia may chose to secede with the blessing of United States, as lesser evil than the conquest by yellow China. It is inevitable that Russia would lose Siberia, whether by the political secession hatched by the Siberian politicians or by the direct conquest by China. However, the independent Siberia would become favorite target of Chinese imperialism, as Siberia after secession would have no chance against Chinese Armies.

 

America would encourage China to invade Siberia otherwise America fears that China would invade and take over Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand. China would get all material and military help from United States for Siberian campaign. However, China would expand southward not northward, because United States less likely to use nuclear weapons against China for Chinese invasions of Malaysia, and Indonesia. Whenever China able to settle down 200 million Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia, then Chinese invasions of New Zealand would become a mere formality. For a Chinese mind the Chinese occupation of Malaysia, Indonesia and New Zealand is more feasible, less risky than the invasions of Siberia. What would be the responses of Japan, India, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia over Chinese invasions of Malaysia and Indonesia?

 

The extension of European Union to include the former Warsaw Pact members would erode the basic Western Protestant Catholic Anglo-Saxon Latin foundations of the West European solidarity. The entry of Turkey, the Muslim Aryan country would mean the end of the West Christian European Union. The entry of the Slav Orthodox Romania and Bulgaria drastically changes the racial and religious character of the European Union. Only Germany profits by the entry of the East European countries that were part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The entry of Orthodox Slav nations guarantees that European Union would not be able to undertake measures against Orthodox Christian nations to placate the Catholic religious interests. The extension of the NATO to include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic has transformed the 26-member NATO into expansionist imperial coalition for the world conquest. The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) the coalition of 20 non-NATO members seeking military ties with NATO portends great danger to the world. The expansion of NATO and European Union would either make these organizations unwieldy by overextension, or warring coalitions to threaten multi-ethnic continental size countries like Orthodox Russia and Hindu India. Overextension of Non Aligned Movement destroyed the very character of the Non Alignment. Pakistan and Singapore the stooges of the United States joined the Non alignment Movement to destroy it from within.

 

Germany and France have become less important in the enlarged NATO. The national interest of NATO after the expansion significantly differs from that of the European Union, France and Germany. After the expansion of NATO and European Union to include former Soviet Satellite states, the gravity of the European Union and NATO has shifted toward European Union. Bolshevik Bishop of Poland could conspire with President Reagan and the CIA to bring down the Communist regime of Poland. Similarly, the former Bolshevik East Europeans may join forces with foreign secret services to bring down the domination of France and Germany in the European Union. Western Europe has lost significantly by the eastward expansion of European Union, as it is paying for the entry of the former Warsaw pact countries into NATO. European Union subsidizing the economies of the Eastern European countries for United States and NATO to profit by the increased economic prowess of the Eastern Europe. The expansion of European Union (EU) and NATO would expedite the decline of the Western Europe. It could be the diplomatic stratagem of American diplomats to choke the military capability of the European Union by expanding to include the East European countries. The amount of subsidy that European Union would dole out to the East European members could have been better used to develop independent military capability of the Western Europe.

 

Germany would soon realize that the American troops in German soil are the occupation troops, sent to keep Germany under Allied Occupation. The diplomats of Germany and France would soon realize that principles of Raison d’etat and Balance of Power makes it moral imperative for France and Germany to develop military ties with less-strong Power on the Continent, namely Russia to check, tame and balance the hegemon United States. The growing rift between German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and president George Bush may be the indicator that Germany-America conflicts and rivalries could become the new Cold War in the post cold War age. America, China, Britain and NATO would be the First Maritime Bloc. The Second Continental bloc may include Germany, France, India, Japan and Russia. The decline of Russia and the expansion of NATO to include 10 East European countries transform the geopolitical balance of power in Eurasian continent. Germany, France, Russia, Japan and India realize that 26-member NATO became an imperialist coalition seeking domination of the world. Bush Doctrine 2002 declares that United States would use military force against nation or group of nations that attempt to equal or surpass America’s military capability.

 

27(33) German Realpolitik without Reality

Germany’s Worldview in 2006

German worldview reflects the state of the collective German consciousness. In Germany, its Nazi past is always quietly present and the most conspicuous feature of Germany is: an intense and abiding desire for moral high ground, to do the right thing. Germans have this abiding desire for high moral ground so that the world may believe that Germany has cast away its hidden Hitlerian devil from the collective German consciousness. That desire also seems to be behind the diplomatic moves of Germany. The intensity with which the Germany has propagated its stand on Iraq conflict seems inseparable from Germany’s preoccupation with moral politics. German diplomats frequently indulge in the acts of unadulterated hypocrisy, and German people frequently oppose these diplomatic acts, as they feel that German diplomats shouldn’t abandon their preoccupation with moral politics, if Germany is to erase the Hitlerian devil lurking in the collective German consciousness.

 

The Germans have a worldview, and in 2006 the main part of the German worldview is that the Bush Administration is evil and that Germany is a voice for reason and morality. The irony is that Germans think of themselves as practitioners of realpolitik, focusing on practical self-interest rather than morality, and yet their attitude in many diplomatic moves is divorced from reality. Germans practice realpolitik and give the impression that German realpolitik diplomacy is without reality.

 

The cornerstone of the Germany’s Social Democrats, under Willy Brandt and Gerhard Schroeder was that it was a Peace Party. The degree of pacifism is deeply ingrained in Germany, whose collective horror of war is connected with the lacerating memories both of German aggression and of German suffering in World War II. As Chancellors Willy Brandt won a Nobel Prize for engineering rapprochement with East Europe and for German Unification and Gerhard Schroeder campaigned against the Iraq war. It was propagated as a holy writ that Social Democrats would keep Germany out of war, which is why many Germans voted for Gerhard Schroeder in the election in 2005. Germans didn’t cooperate with Americans in Iraqi war, as it would have threatened the very identity of the Social Democrats as the peace party.

 

German diplomats practiced realpolitik when they opposed the President Bush’s war on Iraq, as Germany and Social Democrats wanted to regain its identity as the peace party, and Germany as a peace nation, which had come under great clouds because of evil role Catholic Germany played along with Papacy, Catholic Austria and United States in fomenting secession of Roman Catholic Slovenia and Roman Catholic Croatia from Yugoslavia federation around June 1991. Germany, Austria and Papacy had engineered the secession of Slovenia and Croatia and had directly armed the Slovenes and Croatians and mobilized the collective diplomatic might of the European Union to dismember secular liberal multi-ethnic Yugoslavia. The collective German consciousness has never been able to eras the guilt for Germany’s direct involvement in aiding and abetting the civil war in secular Yugoslavia to engineer the secession of the Catholic Slovenia and Croatia in June 1991. Germany opposed America’s Iraq war, because Germany realized that oil-rich Iraq would become the colony of the United States rather than of Germany. Germany, Austria and Papacy had manipulated President Clinton to engineer the secession of Catholic Slovenia and Croatia, and United States did it to gain foothold over Kosovo, which geopolitically was the gateway of the Caspian oil pipeline to the outlet on the sea for delivery to the West. German realpolitik diplomats opposed Bush’s invasion of Iraq to erase imperial moves that Germany made in 1991 to 1999 in the Balkan conflict and also to erase the Nazi past, which is always quietly present. Hitler’s soul is alive and residing in the hearts of every patriotic German even in 21st Century. The role Germany played in fomenting religious civil war in secular Yugoslavia Federation, reminded world diplomats the role Germany played during 30-years Catholic-Protestant Counter Reformation Wars of Holy Roman Empire in the name of Papacy. The role played by Catholic Germany, Austria and Papacy in directly aiding and abetting and causing Catholic-Orthodoxy civil war and Orthodoxy-Muslim civil war in secular Yugoslavia reminded the world of the role German Emperor of Holy Roman Empire played in Counter Reformation Wars. Germany opposed United States in Iraq war to regain its lost image nation of peace and to regain for Social Democrats its image as the peace party, in collective German consciousness, to cast away the Nazi past, which is always quietly present.

 

27(34) Conclusion

(1) Post cold War New World Order

In the post-Cold War new world order the art and craft of diplomacy has taken a rebirth, and the diplomats would again become important movers and shakers of the world. The decline of Ideology has exposed the hollowness of the Wilsonianism, Americanism, Bolshevism, Communism, Catholic Conservatism, and Islamic Fundamentalism. The decline of the West led to the rise of China, India and Japan as world powers. The Unification of Germany resulted in the rise of Germany power, independent of American Alliance. After the demise of the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact and the Cold War, United States has emerged as the principal adversary of Germany, France and Japan, and Russia emerged as their potential ally to restore equilibrium in the post-Cold War new world order. Monroe doctrine is the first casualty of the demise of Warsaw Pact. South America would become the bone of contention between Atlantic partners, as Brazil, Venezuela and Peru would explore closer ties with Europe.

 

(2) USA China Britain Bloc

United States and China may enter into long-term strategic pact in near future. United States, China, and Britain pact would create the First Bloc in Asia and threaten Russia’s hold over Eastern Siberia. Under Mongol Empire Russia and East Europe was part of Mongol Empire. Russia usurped Siberia, which should have gone to China after the collapse of the Mongol Empire. Siberia has the population of 14 million, bordering overpopulated China, with the population of 1,250 million. Russia’s population is in decline and it would decline from present 147 million to 141 million in ten years. Militarily, short of nuclear war, Russia cannot hold on to Siberia. The land of Siberia can easily become home to more than 300 million Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and Indians.

 

United States promoted during the Cold War the Soviet Union as the super power to intimidate and coerce fellow West Europeans accept the bondage of the Atlantic Alliance. In the post-Cold War age the United States promoted China as the super power to coerce and intimidate Southeast Asian countries to accept the bondage and leadership of America.

 

(3) Germany France Japan India Pact

The Post Cold War new world order would consolidate into two rival blocs: Maritime Bloc and Continental Bloc. United States, China, Britain and Australia will be the Maritime First Bloc, and Germany, Japan, France, Russia and India may be the Continental Second Bloc. The purpose of the America-led coalition shall be to further partition Russia and to expedite the secession of Siberia from Russia. France and Germany would realize that the national interests of European Union conflicts with that of USA-led NATO. United Germany has come into age. Germany is no longer willing to play second fiddle to Yankee America. German minister compared the tactics of President Bush to that of Adolf Hitler, to announce that new Cold War has begun, between United States the dominant power of the New World, and the dominant economic power of the European Union. The Atlantic Alliance will also split as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. After the decline of Russia the NATO has lost its raison d’etre. India Japan Russia Alliance would neutralize China’s predominance in Asia. India, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam Alliance would neutralize Chinese menace in Southeast Asia. India, Germany, France, Russia and Japan Alliance will neutralize the hegemony of the United States China Alliance in Eurasia.

 

(4) 3rd World War like 2nd World War

The military alliances in the Third World War may be replay of the alliances of the Second World War. Germany and Japan would oppose America’s predominance. United States, China and Britain would form the First military Bloc, and it shall drastically shift the military balance in favor of United States and China. To redress in the preponderance, Germany, France, India, Japan and Russia should form Eurasian Continental Bloc to balance the Maritime Asia Pacific bloc led by the United States and China. German race would be biggest challenge to the preponderance of the American race in the 21st Century. In the post-Cold War new world order, the United Germany would compete headlong with hegemon United States. Germany will be the principal adversary to United States in 21st Century.

 

(5) Colonial Rivalry in 21st Century

Dr. Henry Kissinger forecasts that 21st Century new world order shall be strikingly similar to the European colonial international system of the 18th and 19th centuries, where West European white Christian colonial powers ruthlessly competed with each other in pursuit of colonial expansions. United States went to war against Spain over Cuba, Philippines and Puerto Rico at the turn of the Century during McKinley Administration. Woodrow Wilson warned maritime Britain and claimed America’s domination of the Seas. The Westward expansion of United States was at the expense of England, Canada, France, Spain and Mexico. Maritime Britain replaced Spain and France as the dominant colonial power of the world. Similarly, maritime United States competed with and replaced European colonial powers, namely, Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and Germany as the dominant power of Europe, after the Second World War. The great power rivalry between West European powers suppressed by United States lied dormant throughout the Cold War will resurface in its fury during the post-Cold War era.

 

(6) Expansion of NATO

With the expansion of NATO to include new East European members, NATO expands to 26-member Alliance. United States-led NATO with 26 members, no longer needs the continued support of France and Germany to station troops in Europe. It may be in the interest of Germany and France to leave NATO and to focus on creating and independent European military capability. The military interests of European Union are in direct conflict with the national interests of the United States that leads NATO. European Union wants to use its enhanced economic power to become independent of the United States. However, the expansion of European Union to include East European states harmed military ambitions of the European Union. The East European countries have affinity with Unified Germany, but the fear of the future Russian imperialism would keep them firmly in the USA-led NATO, as they have scant regard for the military capability of the European Union. European Union has committed hara-kiri by allowing expansion of the European Union, and permitting the East European states to join European Union as well as NATO.

 

The national interests of France, Germany, Russia, Japan and India coincide in the Eurasian balance of power. Their national interests coincide, because of the disturbing impact of 26-member Nato and Sino-US Alliance. Germany, Russia, Japan and India need one another to balance the preponderance of triple alliance of Nato, USA and China. The doctrine of Raison d’etat and Balance of Power obliges major world powers to cement new alliances with one another to balance the preponderance of the United States.

 

(7) Raison d’etat

The Raison d’etat defines the cardinal principal of balance of Power as the diplomats’ moral imperative to seek alliances with the less-dominant power to check, tame, and balance the dominant hegemon in every region. The United States is the dominant hegemon in the world. Bush Doctrine 2002 declares as the principle objective of the Untied States to militarily and otherwise foil the attempt of any power, hostile of friendly, to equal or surpass the military power of the United States.

 

(8) America Not Preponderant

India, China and Japan do not accept that United States enjoys such preponderance in military and economic power of the world, as no other country would be able to overtake it in any foreseeable future. While it is true that no white, European Christian European nation would ever be able to match United States or present any serious challenge to the United States, it is not true for China, Japan and India. World Bank Report 2002 lists the world’s top four largest economies by size in terms of GDP (GNP at PPP) as: United States, China, Japan and India. China has set its economic goal of quadrupling its GNP in ten years, to reach the GDP of $16 trillion in 1999 dollars by 2012, which would be double the present day GDP of United States. China is likely to overtake United States as dominant economic power of the world before 2012 AD. Experts of Geopolitics and war do not accept the Pentagon thesis that the American military technology revolution has given unprecedented lead to the American Armed forces, which is not likely to decline or lessen the lead over other potential adversaries. Geopolitics dismisses this claim of Pentagon. The brilliant military technology innovation of Precision Guided Munitions, which resulted in the development of $12,500 GDAM Kit that made all Vietnam era dull bombs into smart bombs, which guided the flight of the bomb while falling gravity to the changing targets, guided by GPS technology. PGMs made US Air Force powerful and it has demoralized ground-based troops, which lack any protection against smart bombs dropped 36,000 feet high. Geopolitical argument is that the military technology of Precision Guided Munitions is a double edged sword, which while enhancing the power of US Air Force has also made US Navy and US Aircraft Carriers highly vulnerable to the Precision Guided Munitions and GPS technology equipped anti-ship cruise missiles, which can track the changing mobile target after its launch. India and Russia jointly mass producing Supersonic Brahmos Anti-Ship Cruise Missile with a range of 300 miles, which can sink aircraft carriers. India does not accept the American assertion that white Christian United States has any just right to use military force against India, China, Japan, France and Germany, if these countries form military, economic or political coalitions seeking to challenge the hegemony of the United States. The very principle of Raison d’etat and balance of power obligates every diplomat of the great powers to seek alliances to check, tame and balance the dominant hegemon, which is Untied States, present sole super power of the world. The forcible enactment of the Bush Doctrine to punish nations, which seek to equal United States in terms of military and economic power, would make it more likely that anti-US coalition would form to overthrow the domination of the Untied States.

 

(9) India-Japan Anti-China Asian Alliance

The two Asian giants Japan and India would be forced to take counter-measures to form the anti-China coalition in Asia, which would include besides India and Japan, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Taiwan. Germany, France and Russia may also join the India-Japan Bloc to check Chinese invasions of Eastern Siberia, and it would form a 2nd Bloc. Germany and Japan would demand that America vacates its military bases from German and Japanese soil. Hindu India and Buddhist Japan would play a leading role in organizing the Buddhist nations of Asia. India and Japan would form the Organization of Buddhist States to include India, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Taiwan, Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka to create a common Hindu-Buddhist front against iconoclast the West and iconoclast Communism. The main objective of this coalition would be to help Buddhists overthrow the communist regime in Communist China.

 

(10) Wilsonianism Camouflages Realpolitik

American Wilsonian foreign policy during Truman and Eisenhower administrations camouflaged naked colonialism in Europe. Yankee Eagle tamed the shrew Britannia and caged the hurt German giant and put into solitary confinement the Gaullist France. However, Wilsonian foreign policy during Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton administrations Wilsonian foreign policy camouflaged the religious interests of Christian Church not the national interests of the United States. The Atlantic Alliance NATO though justified in noble Wilsonian ideals of democracy and freedom, nonetheless represented the cage that former colonial power accepted as lesser evil than Soviet occupation. How could foolish Britain, France and Germany believe that Soviet Union could dare to conquer West Europe, when United States nuclear monopoly? The containment of Communism in Vietnam camouflaged the Christian religious interests, which sought to undermine Buddhism in Asia by force of secular American arms. Secretary Henry Kissinger’s diplomatic opening of China cemented the long-term strategic alliance between Judeo-Communism and Judeo-Christianity for the joint destruction of Buddhism in Indo-China and China. Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski’s pro-Ayatollah Khomeini and anti-Shah of Iran cemented the strategic ties between Islamic fundamentalism and Christian conservatism to destabilize moderate liberal Islamic regimes.

 

(11) Decline of Wilsonian Ideology

In the post-Cold War new world order the art and craft of diplomacy has taken a rebirth, and the diplomats would again become important movers and shakers of the world. The decline of Ideology has exposed the hollowness of the Wilsonianism, Americanism, Bolshevism, Communism, Catholic Conservatism, and Islamic Fundamentalism. During Cold War Wilsonian camouflaged the Roosevelt's Realpolitik national interests under false clothing of idealism. The Americanism the ideology that allowed America to tame the former colonial powers into bondage of American bloc, was no more idealistic than the Bolshevism that Soviet Union used to brow beat East Europeans into the Communist bloc. Ideology of Bolshevism camouflaged traditional Russian imperial interests. Ideology of Americanism, democracy and freedom camouflaged traditional anti-European American imperialism, and it extended the Monroe doctrine to deny former colonial powers the great power role even in European continent, by hyping the threat of Soviet bear, which was weak and gasping for air. The fall of the Marxism and Communism as ideologies has heralded the end of the age of ideology. The 21st Century is the age of End of Ideology. By the beginning of the 1990 American ideology seemed triumphant. The Soviet ideology and Soviet geopolitical challenge had been overcome simultaneously because the threat and menace of the Soviet Bolshevik ideology, Soviet economy and Soviet military might had been hyped by the CIA, so scare the former colonial powers of Atlantic Alliance into submission. United States Soviet Union conflict was a scam perpetrated by the White House to consolidate the stronghold of the United States over Western Europe. United States at Yalta Summit handed over the Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union, simply because it would allow America exercise predominance over European colonial powers. It is an irony of history that Britain after 1945 had its Empire intact, and the combined resources of British Empire exceeded than that of the United States and Soviet Union.

 

(12) 21st Century like 18th Century World

Victory in the Cold War and the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the decline of Russia has propelled America into a world, which bears many similarities to the European state system of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The absence of the overriding ideological and strategic threats frees France and Germany to pursue foreign policies based increasingly on their immediate national interest. United States hyped the overriding strategic threat from Soviet nuclear sources to browbeat the former colonial powers into the servitude to the new rising Christian power, the United States.

 

(13) Impact of German Unification

After the German Unification, Germany’s NATO ties would get weakened. Traditionally land of Germany had been the Seat of the Catholic Holy Roman Empire. The national interests of United Germany would reflect the national interests of the Habsburg Empire and Holy Roman Empire. Germany would join forces with transnational Roman Catholic Church to lay the foundation of an Universal Christian Empire based on the principles of Catholicism, even when Germany had been the birth place of Reformation and Protestantism. Germany would foster closer ties with Greater Germany in the Central Europe to the detriment of Atlantic Alliance. Germany has become so strong that existing European Union institutions cannot by themselves strike a balance between Germany and its European partners. East European members of the European Union would align with Germany, with which it shares the common linguistic and historical bonds, to tilt the balance against France and Britain. Nor can European Union, even with reunified Germany, manage by itself either the resurgence or the disintegration of Russia. Russia’s historic tendencies to re-establish the former empire have reawakened historic fears of Russian expansionism, especially in the former satellite states of Eastern Europe and former soviet republics in Central Asia. No neighbor of Russia has any faith in Russian conversion as the key to its country’s security.

 

(14) Germany Russia Balance

It is in no country’s interest that Germany and Russia should fixate on each other as either principal partner or principal adversary. If Germany and Russia become too close, they raise the fear of condominium. If Russia and Germany quarrel, they involve Europe in escalating crises. America and France have a common national interest in avoiding unbridled German and Russian national policies competing over the center of the European Continent. The “Visegrad countries” of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary, will become a no-man’s land between Germany and Russia. Visegrad countries need Germany to become economically and politically viable. For securities Visegrad countries look either towards NATO or to Germany. European Union has based its decision to expand the European Union eastward on Realpolitik. Care should be taken to avoid creating a strategic and conceptual no-man’s land in Eastern and central Europe, which had been the source of many of European conflicts.

 

(15) Roosevelt Churchill anti-de Gaulle

Roosevelt and Churchill both hated Charles de Gaulle, simply because de Gaulle was a patriot and willing to fight for the national interests of France. The CIA undermined the political comeback to power for Charles de Gaulle in France and that of Winston Churchill in Britain, after the end of the Second World War to eliminate two determined patriots of Europe. The post-Cold War order confronts the NATO with three sets of problems. The perennial tug-of-war between the American and French views of Atlantic relationship imperils NATO. France extolling European independence has shaped the European Union. For France, the America’s role in the NATO is too dominant in the military field to promote a European political identity. France has been insistent on European political autonomy to promote the cohesion of NATO. The recently released documents by British Record office has convinced French people that United States had been the principal adversary of France during Presidency of Charles de Gaulle. India-France defense pact has the potential to dethrone United States as the sole super power of the world. India and France should join forces to develop Madagascar, Zaire-Congo, Algeria and Quebec to develop a counter-force to check United States. Indian manpower could develop Madagascar, Zaire-Congo, Algeria to develop a powerful military-industrial power base. The United States established NATO to Chaperon, control and check Germany, Italy and France and to keep Germany divided.

 

(16) Hippocratic Wilsonianism Bolshevism

The decline of Ideology has exposed the hollowness of the Wilsonianism, Americanism, Bolshevism, Communism, Catholic Conservatism, and Islamic Fundamentalism. Bolshevik idealism was no greater a hypocrisy than the Wilsonian idealism as basis on diplomacy. Woodrow Wilson sought to outlaw balance of power, because he knew that the practitioners of the diplomacy of balance of would be obliged to seek alliance with less-strong Powers to contain and check the hegemony of the United States. President Abraham Lincoln had justified the wars on Confederate States in the name of abolition of Slavery. However, the real purpose of Lincoln was to retain the White domination of the United States, by stopping the Slave trade, as black slaves would have outnumbered the whites in United States, in not so distant future. The French Revolutionaries had striven to change the character of the state. The Bolsheviks, going a step further, proposed to abolish the state altogether. Once the state had withered away, in Lenin’s phrase, there would be no need to diplomacy or foreign policy. Wilsonianism sought to establish the American empire, no less than Bolshevism sought to establish the Soviet empire. America’s failure to capture even a single leader of Taliban and A Qaeda in Afghanistan War may expose the Bush’s War on terrorism, as Wilsonian diplomacy of deception, hyped to create America’s control over Islamic oil in Middle East and Central Asia. Is America’s war on global Islamic terrorism, just diplomacy of deception, newspeak or doublespeak? Diplomacy in the 21st Century should reflect the national interests, balance of power, not the hypocrisy of idealism. Wilsonian idealism’s hypocrisy caused the Second World War. The Third World War may result if the world’s diplomats find out in future that President George W. Bush’s war on Islamic terrorism, in 2001 had been just the traditional Wilsonian diplomacy of deception, newspeak and doublespeak.

 

(17) Wilsonianism Camouflages Imperialism

The raison d’etat concepts of Richelieu believe foreign policy as a balancing of interests of the nation states. In the Wilsonian foreign policy diplomacy is an affirmation of an underlying harmony of universal empire or universal Church. American faked the Soviet menace the Europe, so make European nation states too scared to promote their national interests. Ultimately the scared European Queens sought the safety of the universal American Empire built around NATO. France has seen through the America’s uneasiness about an independent European military role, and unearthed the American attempt at domination of Europe in the name of protecting Europe from the domination by Soviet Union. France is heir to the European style of diplomacy, Realpolitik, which indeed it gave birth to over 300 years ago. France continues to stand for the policies of raison d’etat, and for the precise calculation of interests rather than the pursuit of abstract harmony under universal empire or universal Church. America has insisted that European autonomy is both unnecessary and dangerous and that American and European interests were identical under universal West Christian hegemony.

 

(18) National Interests of Japan

With the decline of Russia and the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea and China, Japanese long-range planners will no longer accept that Japanese and American national interests are identical. Japan’s perspective with respect to Asian mainland differs from America’s because of Japan’s geographic proximity and history of expansionism. Japanese defense budget has been creeping upward until it has become the third largest in the world, and given Russia’s internal problem, perhaps the second most effective. Japan spends more on defense than China and India. A considerable amount of unreported Japanese defense spending may be concealed under bank grants to the Japanese industrial giants like Mitsubishi who build missiles for the government. The real Japan’s defense could be much higher than the official report. Japan has hinted that it could develop nuclear weapons in response to the North Korean nuclear threat.

 

(19) Wilsonianism Irrelevant Now

Diplomats cannot refuse to learn from history. Americans fear that those who are obsessed with history produce self-fulfilling prophecies is wrong. History is cyclical. Any claim that a new ideology has transformed history has proved wrong. Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. Wilsonianism will not be relevant in the post-Cold War new world order as the Wilsonian system based on legitimacy is not possible. American will have to learn to operate in a balance-of-power system. The foreign policy guidelines of President Theodore Roosevelt and President Richard M. Nixon, which defined the foreign policy objectives of the national interests of the United States, would guide the American diplomats better than the propagandist Wilsonianism.

 

(20) International Criminal Court

United States scuttled the United Nations Permanent War Crimes Tribunal fearing that the independent UN Tribunal would prosecute the officials of the USA for war crimes. United States does not want US War Crimes Tribunal to try American offenders, but it want to enforce the indictments of War Crime Tribunals on Yugoslavia.

 

(21) USA and EU Zero Sum Game

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

 

(22) Greater China Imperialism

India Japan Russia Alliance would neutralize China’s predominance in Asia. India, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam Alliance would neutralize Chinese menace in Southeast Asia. India, Germany, France, Russia and Japan Alliance will neutralize the hegemony of the United States China Alliance in Eurasia.

 

Greater China is thus not simply an abstract concept. It is a rapidly growing cultural and economic reality and has begun to become a political one. The economy of East Asia is increasingly China-centered and Chinese-dominated. Chinese from Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore have supplied much of the capital responsible for the growth of the mainland in the 1990s. Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia dominated the economies of their countries. In the early 1990, Chinese made up 1 percent of the population of the Philippines but were responsible for 35 percent of sales of domestically owned firms. In Indonesia in mid 1980s, ethnic Chinese population was 2-3 percent of the total population, but owned roughly 70 percent of the private domestic capital. Seventeen of the twenty-five largest businesses were Chinese controlled. In early 1990s, the ethnic Chinese populations was 10 percent of the population of Thailand, but owned nine of the ten largest business groups, and were responsible for 50 percent of its GNP. Chinese are about one-third of the population of Malaysia but almost totally dominate the economy. Outside Japan and Korea, the East Asian economy is a Chinese economy.

 

(23) Kissinger Yielded to China

Secretary Kissinger’s China’s policy pursued by Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski in Carter Administration, and Secretary Madeleine Albright was one-sided affairs, where United States gave a lot to China, and in exchange got nothing in return, except face saving gestures. Secretary Kissinger made diplomatic opening to China to camouflage Kissinger’s policy failures in the Vietnam and Cambodia. In the process of containing Soviet Union, Secretary Kissinger created China as the hegemon of Asia. Presently Chinese companies give substantial consulting dollars to Kissinger Associates, Inc., so it is reasonable to argue that Dr. Henry Kissinger is de facto China’s Ambassador to United States. Dr. Kissinger wrongly argues that “Of all the great, and potentially great, China is the most ascendant. The United States already is the most powerful, Europe must work to forge greater unity, Russia is a staggering giant, and Japan is wealthy but, so far, timid. In 1943, Roosevelt had envisioned China as one of the ‘four Policemen.’

 

(24) King of Italy- Richelieu of 19th Century

What Richelieu had been for France in seventeenth century, King Victor Emmanuel II was for Italy in the nineteenth Century. Victor Emmanuel II tamed Papacy, confiscated Papal lands and unified Italy, for the first time after the disintegration of the Roman Empire. France’s Richelieu and Italy’s Victor Emmanuel II realized that Roman Catholic Church presented great dangers to nation states of France and Italy respectively. Following Richelieu’s Raison d'etat on Sept. 20, 1870 King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel II, entered Rome, and stripped Pope of all temporal power. Pope lived in seclusion, as prisoner of the Vatican, from Sept 20, 1870 to 1929. King Victor Emmanuel II. Catholic King Victor Emmanuel II in 1870 replicated the raison d’etat policies of Cardinal Richelieu and invaded Vatican and divested the Pope of all secular powers and made Pope prisoner of the Vatican. Perhaps a Fascist leader in Italy would rise and repeat the valiant act of King Victor Emmanuel II. Pope lived in seclusion, as prisoner of the Vatican, from Sept 20, 1870 to 1929. Perhaps India, China and Russia should finance Fascist political parties in Italy, who declare to abolish the financial, political and temporal powers of Papacy. Fascist or Nazi Italy would tame the extra-territorial powers of Papacy.

 

(25) Decline of Expanded European Union

Expansion of European Union would enhance the military role of United States in Europe and undermine the military potential of France and Germany. It is very likely that whenever Germany or France opt out of the NATO, the new member states of Eastern Europe would love to use American Arms to browbeat Germany and France into submission in the Third World War. If Turkey is allowed to join the European Union, it would mark the end of the Union as Europeans know it.

 

(26) India as Balancer in European Balance

India should develop permanent military bases in Greece and Kalninigrad, to play an effective role in the European balance of power. India can act as the balancer in Greece, Turkey and India triangle, as India aligned with Greece neutralizes the preponderance of Turkey. India can be a balancer in the France, Germany and India triangle, as India aligned with France neutralizes the preponderance of Germany. India can be a balancer in European Union, Russia and India triangle, as India aligned with European Union can neutralize potential Russian expansionism in Western Europe. With the partial decline of NATO solidarity after the unification of Germany and decline of Russia, India could raise its stakes in the European balance of power to restore balance of power between France and Germany, Greece and Turkey, European Union and Russia, Germany and Russia.

 

(27) Indian Balances African Power Balance

India is the balancer in the Egypt, Libya and India triangle, as India aligned with Libya neutralizes the preponderance of Egypt. India is the balancer in Sudan, Egypt and India triangle, as India aligned with Sudan neutralizes the preponderance of Egypt. India is the balancer in Mozambique, South Africa and India triangle, as India aligned with Mozambique neutralizes the preponderance of South Africa. India is the balancer in Congo (Zaire), Rwanda/Burundi, India triangle, as India aligned with Congo neutralizes the Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda and Vatican Axis. India is the balancer in Zimbabwe, South Africa and India triangle, as India aligned with Zimbabwe neutralizes the preponderance of South Africa.

 

(28) India’s rightful Place Under the Sun

India has yet to assume a role commensurate with its size on the international political scene, says Henry Kissinger (Diplomacy, p 26) Since India inherited the legacy of British Indian Empire in the Indian Ocean Region, so India shall replicate British traditions as Balancer in the Indian Ocean Region, as Britain has abdicated this role after Harold Wilson decided to withdraw from all territories east of Suez.

 

(29) India Balances Asian Balance of Power

India is the classical Balancer in the Asian Balance of Power. Like Balancer Britain of the 18th and 19th centuries, India would act as the Balancer in the 21st Century. In the China, Japan and India triangle, the Maritime Asian balance of power, China is militarily dominant, and India is the Balancer, as India and Japan militarily balance and neutralize China in Asia’s military balance of power. Japanese Navy and Indian Army can effectively contain Chinese military adventurism in Taiwan, North Asia and Southeast Asia. In the Russia, China and India triangle, Continental Asian balance of power, India is the balancer, as India and Russia militarily balance China in conventional warfare in Sino-Russian borders. India Army and Russian weapons would defeat any Chinese military adventurism in Eastern Siberia. In the China, Australia and India triangle, the Maritime Asian balance of Power, India is the Balancer as Indian Army and Australian Navy can defeat and neutralize any Chinese military adventurism in Australia, and New Zealand. In the China, Indo-China and India triangle, the Asian Balance of Power, India is the balancer, as Indian Army aligned with Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Burma (Myanmar) can defeat and neutralize Chinese military adventurism in Indo-China. India is the balancer in the China, Indonesia/Malaysia, India triangular balance of power, as Indian Army aligned with Malaysia and Indonesia could defeat and neutralize Chinese conventional invasion of Malaysia and Indonesia. India is the balancer in the China, Philippines, India triangular balance of power, as Indian Army and Indian Navy aligned with Philippines can effectively neutralize and defeat Chinese invasions of Philippines. India is the balancer in the Malaysia, Indonesia and India triangle, as India aligned with Malaysia neutralizes Indonesia’s preponderance in Sunda Seas. India is the balancer in Timor, Indonesia and India triangle, as India aligned with East Timor, neutralizes Indonesia’s preponderance. India is the balancer in the China, Vietnam and India triangle, as India and Vietnam can effectively contain and neutralize any Chinese designs on Vietnam and Indo-China. Nuclear India can neutralize Chinese invasions of any country in Asia, whenever India aligns with the intended victim of the Chinese aggression.

 

(30) Demise of Monroe Doctrine

Monroe doctrine is the first casualty of the demise of Warsaw Pact. South America would become the bone of contention between Atlantic partners, as Brazil, Venezuela and Peru would explore closer ties with Europe. The expansion of NATO to 26 members could mean the demise of the Monroe Doctrine that prohibited European Colonial powers from exercising influence in Central and South America. How can United States possibly refuse the defense ties that Spain and Portugal may develop with Hispanic countries in Central America and South America? India should seek military ties with Spain to foster joint military ties with Hispanic nations in South America, namely, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina and Nicaragua.

 

(31) Why Europeans Became US Satellites?

Why did European powers agreed to become the surrogate of United States after their victory in the Second World War even when British Empire, French Empire, and Portuguese Empire remained intact after the War? Why did Britain, France and Portugal agreed to become American satellite, even after they had won the War, under US-Led NATO euphemism of American Colonial Empire? Maritime European powers agreed to become the satellite of the maritime United States, because the land power Soviet Union threatened the very home base of the European powers in the continent of Europe itself. The maritime powers had historically been defenseless against determined continental attack of land powers. Though Belgium, Portugal, France and Britain retained their overseas colonies, the land-based threat of nuclear Soviet bear threatened the very survival of their homeland in Europe. Maritime West Europeans preferred subordination to the United States over subjugation to Soviet Union. Whenever hostile land power destroys or threatens to destroy the homeland core, the maritime power become defenseless.

 

(32) Colonial Powers became US Satellites

European colonial powers had used Christianity to destroy the indigenous Inca, Maya and Aztec civilizations to destroy them permanently. Similarly, the Soviet Union could have used Bolshevism and Communism to justify the destruction of the French, Belgium, Italian and Portuguese societies and cultures. Faced with the possibility that their very culture and society could become extinct like the demise of the Russian Orthodox Tsar culture and civilization, the Western colonial powers agreed to become satellite power of the United States. The hostile land power’s military base in the geographical proximity of the maritime power is the Achilles Heel of the maritime power. West European colonial powers agreed to become the satellite of United States, because Communism and Soviet Army could potentially permanently destroy the core of the homeland of these maritime powers.

 

United States promoted during the Cold War the Soviet Union as the super power to intimidate and coerce fellow West Europeans accept the bondage of the Atlantic Alliance. In the post-Cold War age the United States promoted China as the super power to coerce and intimidate Southeast Asian countries to accept the bondage and leadership of America.

 

(33) South Atlantic Treaty Organization (SATO)

Since Russian menace no longer exists, European great powers, Germany, France, Spain and Portugal would form South Atlantic Treaty Organization (SATO) to develop European military capability independent of the United States-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The SATO would secure military ties of South American powers, namely, Mexico, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, Chile and Argentina with West European powers, namely, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal and Italy. The SATO would also have military ties with Asian powers, namely, nuclear India and economic superpower Japan. The SATO led by Brazil, Germany, Spain, France, Japan and India would compete headlong with NATO for spheres of influence in the world. Australia and Canada would also join SATO at some time.

 

(34) Organization of Buddhist States (OBS)

India and Japan should take the lead and formalize the multinational treaty to set up the Organization of Buddhist States (OBS), the organization to include the states of Japan, India, North Korea, South Korea, Mongolia, Communist China, Taiwan, Singapore, Laos, Cambodia, Burma, Vietnam, Thailand, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and non-state entities, Tibet, Sikkim, Laddhak, Siberia, and Bali Islands. The Organization of Buddhist States would compete with Organization of Islamic States to represent the interests of Asia. Asian Buddhist Common Market (BCM) would be the world’s largest economic organization, larger than the European Union and NAFTA.

 

(35) Commonwealth Common Market (CCM)

India should take the lead to organize former British Empire, the members of Commonwealth of Nations to form Commonwealth Common Market, the duty free trading regime to promote trade and commerce among them. India should promote Commonwealth Common Market without the involvement of United Kingdom. Australia, India and South Africa should be the leaders of the Commonwealth Common Market. Commonwealth Common Market (CCM) has the potential of being bigger economic community than European Union (EU) and North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA).

 

(36) Germany’s Worldview in 2006

German worldview reflects the state of the collective German consciousness. In Germany, its Nazi past is always quietly present and the most conspicuous feature of Germany is: an intense and abiding desire for moral high ground, to do the right thing. Germans have this abiding desire for high moral ground so that the world may believe that Germany has cast away its hidden Hitlerian devil from the collective German consciousness. The Germans have a worldview, and in 2006 the main part of the German worldview is that the Bush Administration is evil and that Germany is a voice for reason and morality. The irony is that Germans think of themselves as practitioners of realpolitik, focusing on practical self-interest rather than morality, and yet their attitude in many diplomatic moves is divorced from reality. Germans practice realpolitik and give the impression that German realpolitik diplomacy is without reality. It is German finesse that Germany in 2006 practices realpolitik diplomacy, apparently without reality, to camouflage the role Germany played during 1991 to 1998 in Balkan Civil Wars, and secession of Catholic Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia, which reminded the world the role German Emperor of Holy Roman Empire during 30-year Counter Reformation Wars between Catholics and Protestants. Germany opposed America’s Iraq war, because Germany realized that oil-rich Iraq would become the colony of the United States rather than of Germany. Germany, Austria and Papacy had manipulated President Clinton to engineer the secession of Catholic Slovenia and Croatia, and United States did it to gain foothold over Kosovo, which geopolitically is the gateway of the Caspian oil pipeline to the outlet on the sea for delivery to the West. Germany opposed United States in Iraq war to regain its lost image nation of peace and to regain for Social Democrats its image as the peace party, in collective German consciousness, to cast away the Nazi past, which is always quietly present. Present day Germany’s Realpolitik diplomacy, apparently without reality, is just a camouflage to hide the pro-Papacy Holy Roman Empire type goals of Nazi imperial Germany under the guise of Confederal European Union.

 

 

© 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