The USA, World Hegemony
and Cold War II
The Double Triangle: USA/NATO/AMPO versus RUSSIA,
CHINA and INDIA
by Johan Galtung, dr hc mult, Professor of Peace Studies Director,
TRANSCEND: A Peace and Development Network, TFF Associate
Paper presented at the International Conference
October 11-13, 1999 in Seoul, Korea
A Super Power in the Making: The Russia-China-India triangle
(Press excerpts from late summer 1999)
· "NATO MOVE MAY BRING RUSSIA CLOSER TO CHINA,
Washington. - In an attempt to forge military cooperation
with non-member states, NATO is spreading its wings eastwards
to the Caucasus and Central Asia which may bring Russia closer
to India and China," the weekly Defense News said.
"The move builds on a four-year-old project 'Regional
Initiative' to install modern, harmonised Air Sovereignty and
Operations Centres (ASOCs) in countries belonging to Partnership
for Peace - funded by the US /which/ provides about five million
dollars for each ASOC. Installations have opened in 10 countries
across the Baltic region and Central and Eastern Europe, including
in NATO's three new member nations - Poland, Hungary and the Czech
Republic - where ASOCs became fully operational in March last.
NATO working groups have identified airspace management as
a top priority for -Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Albania, Macedonia,
Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia - even though they are not yet
members of Partnership for Peace.
A second regional airspace management working group for Georgia,
Azerbaijan and Armenia is being set up, which could form the blueprint
for an even greater expansion of NATO's influence into the former
Soviet territory, it said."
(From Times of India 29/07/99 http://www.timesofindia.com/290799/29worl16.htm)
· NATO's DOOR IS OPEN, Cohen TELLS GEORGIA
"Tbilisi. - The US Defense Secretary, Mr. William Cohen,
sent a clear message to Georgia today that it is welcome-in term-to
join NATO. The remark came in the backdrop of increasing Russian
unease over NATO extending its influence in the Caucasian region,
which Moscow sees as very much its own sphere of influence. Moscow
has already criticized Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary
NATO, and has warned of serious consequences for East-West
relations if former Soviet republics also join. In Ukraine earlier,
Mr Cohen had talks in Crimea on the participation of Ukrainian
troops in the Kosovo KFOR peacekeeping force. The first of - -
about 800 Ukrainian troops is expected in Kosovo soon.
Observers said one immediate aim in - - promoting Ukrainian
and Georgian disengagement from Russian influence is the destruction
of Ukrainian-based ex- Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles."
(Hindustan Times, 02/08/ - http://www.hinduonline.com/today/stories/0302000b.htm)
· CHINA KEEN ON TRIANGULAR AXIS
"Beijing. - China is keen to strengthen its ties with
India to facilitate the establishment of a triangular relationship
between Beijing, New Delhi and Moscow which could guarantee regional
security, said a senior Chinese media official, vice-president
of China's official Xinhua news agency, Gao Qiufu.
The idea of establishing a strategic triangle between Russia,
China and India was first mooted by former Russian prime minister
Yevgeny Primakov during a visit to New Delhi last year, Gao said.
Diplomatic sources said China has re-evaluated it foreign policy
after the US-led NATO alliance undertook unilateral military action
against Yugoslavia and the subsequent bombing of the Chinese embassy
(From Times of India, 12/08/999 http://www.timesofindia.com/today/12worl4.htm)
· MOSCOW AND CHINA CEMENT ANTI-NATO PACT
"Moscow. - President Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin, the Chinese
leader, will begin a rare summit meeting today that will underline
the hostility in Moscow and Beijing to NATO's hegemony in Kosovo--a
meeting of the "Shanghai Five" - a loose alliance of
Russia, China and the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan
and Kyrgyzstan - - the real importance lies in reinforcing the
Moscow-Beijing axis, and the growing determination of Russia and
China to confront what they see as American world domination.-
- China, like Russia, saw Kosovo as a dangerous precedent that
could be used to justify other Western interventions around the
world without authorisation by the UN."
(From Sunday Times, 25/08/99, http://www.sunday-times.co.uk:80/news/pages/TIMES/frontpage.html?999)
· SINO-RUSSIAN DEFENCE TIES STRENGTHEN
"Moscow. - Russia and China are on the threshold of a
breakthrough in defence and strategic ties - - Mr Ilya Klebanov,
a Deputy Prime Minister responsible for Russia's defence industry
and arms trade, told Russian television on Sunday night upon his
return from Beijing. - - The two sides reached a deal on the sale
of advanced SU-30 MKK fighter jets to China. Russian media said
the deal could be worth $ 2 billion, which suggests China could
get up to 60 jets (at an estimated price of $30-35 million per
jet). - - The jets will be similar to the SU-30 MKI Russia has
sold India-- Beijing has also already purchased 50 SU-27 jets
and acquired a license for the manufacture of 200 more planes
Media reports said that the Russian and Chinese leaders had
agreed to jointly develop a regional air defense system if the
United States went ahead with its plans for a Theater Missile
Defense covering Japan, Korea and Taiwan."
(From Hindustan Times, 31/08/99; http://www.hinduonline.com/today/stories/03310009.htm)
· RUSSIA, CHINA AND INDIA: DO CLOSER TIES BODE U.S.
"Washington. - U.S. specialists in international affairs
are closely monitoring signs of increased cooperation among Russia,
China and India--the analysts remain concerned about a potentially
grave threat: an alliance that would bring together about 2.5
billion people, formidable might and a vast stockpile of nuclear
weapons, all held together by the goal of countering America's
global dominance.--"if the relationships progress, Mr. Maynes
/president of the Eurasia Foundation in Washington/said, then
you basically have the world's heartland-2 billion people in China
and India-allied with a formidable technological power in Russia.
That would be a disaster for the United States."
China's acquisition of Russian SSN-22 anti-ship missiles,
for example, could quickly become a worry for the U.S. 7th fleet
in any confrontation with Beijing. International Herald Tribune,
(From International Herald Tribune, September 28, 1999, http://www.iht.com)
East and West war expansion - a pincher movement
At this surface level of analysis we are dealing with a conventional,
however tragic, drama: actio-reaction in two basic aspects of
militarization: alliance-formation and arms race. Both sides are
performing their roles in the state-system. When NATO expansion
and AMPO deepening was a clear fact about three years ago, the
present author made a rather obvious prediction in the eastward
NATO expansion: the beginning of Cold War II? (1):
To start with, it should be noted that discourses trying to
capture the NATO expansion tend to be Euro- or Atlanto-centric;
in other words misleading from the very beginning. A global perspective
is hardly necessary to understand the Washington perspective:
the USA borders on two oceans, not only one, so it stands to reason
that the USA has not only a Europe/Atlantic strategy but also
one for Asia/Pacific. The major strategic partner in Asia/Pacific
is Japan, the treaty being AMPO.
Corresponding to the eastward NATO expansion there is now
a westward AMPO expansion both in terms of the definition of the
theater of joint US-Japan commitments and of the scope of those
commitments. Thus we can talk about a coordinated pincer move
aiming at the Eurasian landmass and Russia/China in particular.
Potential enemies are designated by expanding to the perimeter
of Russia, China and Islam, but not beyond. The former are big
enough to be interesting as enemies, one for its nuclear arsenal
with delivery systems, the other for its army. But in addition
there is the Muslim world, the major producer of what the USA
sees as "rogue states" (Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran)
and gives pariah status in the world system.
The message is classical: any big power is supposed to be
jealous of any other big power. Originating as a Christian fundamentalist
state the Christian/Muslim split can be invoked. The former is
presented as a law of political science, the latter of theology.
USA, Russia, China are striving for world hegemony, so are Christianity
and Islam. Only one can be No. 1.
The West/USA has many problematic relations, one of them with
China, where Prince Charles "forgot" to apologize for
colonialism and drugging a whole country. Russia could be clever
enough to solve problems, not to talk about human rights, and
to point to the pincer movement obviously directed at them both.
Together they could draw the obvious conclusion: if the USA sees
us separately as their problem, (2). how about the two of us operating
Not to be forgotten: ex-Soviet Union had good relations with
India. They may one day be revived, and the "Eurasian landmass"
might muster about one half of humanity against that Western/US
pincer movement. But even if that should not happen, what definitely
will be revived will be the Russian arms industry, also in order
to compete with the West economically...
The Second Cold War?
A glance at the map is sufficient to make such predictions,
using the basic law of social (and natural) reality, the dialectical
principle of actio-reactio (a push in one direction will sooner
or later generate a counterpush, not necessarily of the same size;
that is Newton's Third Law). A high level, not only of arrogance
x ignorance is needed not to make them, but also of Piaget's absolutism:
what "they" do is not generated by what "we"
do, theirs is only actio, not reactio, we need proactio. Well,
that proactio has consequences.
In a speech in the Slovenian parliament September 1998 the
present author developed this theme a little further:
To have NATO expand eastward, and at the same time AMPO westward,
in terms of the support, logistical and otherwise, given by Japan
to the USA, will easily be perceived as a pincer movement. In-between
is the Eurasian continent, the source of geopolitical evil in
US strategic thought (Latin America being an easily controlled
backyard, Africa being insignificant). The Middle East is a key
part of Eurasia, so is South Asia after the nuclear explosions
of India and Pakistan, so is Central Asia with its oil, so is
Southeast Asia. And so are, indeed Russia (with Ukraina and Belarus)
and China, not to mention the highly problematic Eurasian peripheries,
Korea and the Balkans.
Thus, a global superpower has its reasons. What will be the
A reaction of (about) same size, and with (about) opposite
direction. Russia and China will settle grievances (e.g. over
the Ussuri river) and start exchanging military information; China
might like to reinforce agreements with Pakistan and Russia to
reinstate agreements with India; in addition Russia will pick
up what the USA defines as pariah states, Serbia, Libya, Syria,
Iraq, Iran and support them in the UN. The whole region may cohere
against the USA. Welcome to Cold War II?
It could be a welcome to something more. These could be the
opening moves for a World War III more devastating than anything
known to humanity, with three "recognized" nuclear powers
on one side and four on the other after India and Pakistan came
out of the closet. Not a "clash of civilizations" -
both triangles are too diverse for that - but a clash of the three
richest regions in the world (USA-Canada, EU and Japan + (3),
in short OECD) and the possible Number 2: the rest of Eurasia.
How did we get into this situation?
No doubt the key actor, indeed pro-actor, is the United States,
in turn a product of its birth as a state, and as a nation, very
courageous, very self-righteous, very violent.
After a trial run in the First world war the Second world
war gave real birth to the USA as a world actor, provoked by German
nazism, Italian fascism and Japanese militarism, with direct links
to the present situation:
Planning for post-war bases began in 1942, barely a year into
the Pacific War, when Franklin D. Roosevelt requested the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to prepare a global study of bases for an "International
Police Force". The military complied by presenting JCS (Joint
Chiefs of Staff) 570/2 to the President in the autumn of 1943.
Prepared by the Joint Strategic Survey Committee, JCS 570/2
divided the world into three areas: (- -) "participating
or reciprocal military rights;" Atlantic locations (- -)
-"exclusive military rights" (Alaska, the Philippines,
Micronesia, Central America, and the Caribbean) and "participating
rights" as one of the Great Powers enforcing peace: Indochina,
Eastern China, Korea and Japan." (4)
The "three areas" correspond, roughly, to the NATO
system of April 1949, expanded in scope and domain 50 years later;
the TIAP system (Tratado Interamericano de Paz) or Rio de Janeiro
system, of 1947; and the AMPO system based on the U.S.-Japan Peace
Treaty of 1951. The foundation was JCS 570/2 1943, and "by
late 1945, the military high command had come to the consensus,
reflected in the Joint Chiefs of Staff document 570/40, that bases
in the Philippines, Marianas, and the Ryukyus would be the most
vital in the Pacific." (5)
A modest beginning, in the early postwar period to a large
extent engineered by then Chief of Planning of the US State Department,
George Kennan. For a continuation, let us use a representative
article by a highly representative member of the US foreign policy
establishment, Zbigniew Brzezinski: "A Geostrategy for Eurasia."
(6) The title reflects a US/Western tendency to think big, and
to be arrogant.
A collection of his basic points:
"Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive
and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power
originated in Eurasia. The world's most populous aspirants to
regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all
the potential political or economic challengers to America's primacy."
(italics ours, p. 50). Comment: What does it mean to us/US is
the only perspective.
"A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive
influence over two of the world's three most economically productive
regions, Western Europe and East Asia." (p.50). Comment:
A clearly expressed ambition by the third region. (8)
"What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian
landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy
and historical legacy." (p. 51). Comment: Code words: a)
Global primacy = world hegemony; b) Historical legacy=manifest
"In the short run, the United States should consolidate
and perpetuate the prevailing geopolitical pluralism on the map
of Eurasia. This strategy will put a premium on political maneuvering
and diplomatic manipulation, preventing the emergence of a hostile
coalition that could challenge America's primacy, not to mention
the remote possibility of any one state seeking to do so."
(p. 51). Comment: Codewords: perpetuate pluralism = split and
rule. Political maneuvering and diplomatic manipulation = Machiavellianism.
This type of article will rather engender a "hostile coalition"
"--the only real alternative to American leadership is
international anarchy" (pp. 51f) Comment: Not one word wasted
on the equity/egality option
"In a volatile Eurasia, the immediate task is to ensure
that no state or combination of states gains the ability to expel
the United States or even diminish its decisive role." (p.
52) Comment: US presence an occupation? Also against popular will?
"Its /careful strategic calculus/ goals should be to
divert Chinese power into constructive regional accommodation
and to channel Japanese energy into wider international partnerships."
(p. 68) Comment: China should behave well in the region; Japan
should engage in wider partnership /above all with the USA/. And
"China's aspirations to regional preeminence and global
status would be diminished" (p. 59).
"Japan should not be America's unsinkable aircraft carrier
in the Far East, nor should it be America's principal Asian military
"A disoriented Japan, whether lurching toward rearmament
or a separate accommodation with China, would spell the end of
the American role in the Asia-Pacific region - - " (p.63).
"Unlike China, which can seek global power by first becoming
a regional power, Japan can gain global influence only if it eschews
the quest for regional power".
Comment: Who, then, is America's principal Asian military
partner? China? - then better not bomb China's Belgrade embassy.
"--Americans and Japanese must first set in motion a
triangular political-security dialogue that engages China. Such
three-way American-Japanese-Chinese security talks could eventually
involve more Asian participants, and later lead to a dialogue
with the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe.
That, in turn, could eventually pave the way for a series of conferences
by European and Asian states on security issues. A transcontinental
security system would thus begin ta take shape". (pp. 63f).
Comment: With the United States at both sides of the table.
"Geostrategic success in that venture would be a fitting
legacy to America's role as the first and only global superpower."
(p. 64). Comment: Any effort to manage, even micro-manage, others
(Russia should become a confederation of European Russia, a Siberian
Republic and a Far Eastern Republic; Ukraine should see herself
as a part of Central Europe; the European Union must admit Turkey,
etc.) without giving them the same realistic chance to micromanage
the USA is known as hegemony, certainly fitting to "America's
role as the first and only global superpower".
But it carries the seeds of its own destruction because of
the counterforces it will produce. Any effort to conceive of the
world in terms of regions and states as if human beings did not
matter also carries the seeds of own destruction because of the
popular forces it will generate - like for WTO and MAI. To have
a geostrategy is already questionable, to do so treating a major
part of humanity as objects for own security and enhancement is
beyond the questionable.
Our geopolitical predicament after the war on Yugoslavia
Not only Russia/China/India, 40% of humanity - the only 3
out of the UN Security Council 15 members that voted against the
US/NATO war on ("on" because it was the coward's war,
from the air, not the traditional war, on the ground, "in")
Yugoslavia - but most analysts would see the war as foreboding
things to come, like the Gulf war in 1991 was seen at the time.
The minor conflict, in and around Kosovo, is now developing
more or less as expected: the trilateral low intensity war (NATO-KLA-Serbs)
is there and will probably escalate much further. It will drag
on for decades, generations, centuries as No. 4 of a succession
of Serbian-Albanian fights only since 1878 (the other three being
on conjunction with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in that
region, leading up to and including the First world war, Mussolini's
Greater Albania in connection with the Second world war).
It is also very tragic because the crisis of 1998-99 could
probably have been solved by (for more see http://www.transcend.org):
- expanding the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission by a factor
of 10, up to 12-20,000;
- verifying that the observers are there to dampen, even eliminate
acts of ethnic cleansing, not for other purposes;
- closing the border between Albania and Kosovo/a to prevent
UCK infiltration (as was done between Serbia and Macedonia);
- open negotiations on the status of Kosovo/a with republic
within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as one option;
- open negotiations about the status of Southern Balkans with
confederation as one option;
- guaranteed and protected return of displaced persons including
Serbs back to Krajina/Slavonija and to Bosnia and Hercegovina.
The first three measures of peacekeeping would provide space
for the next three to start meaningful peacemaking/peacebuilding.
Consequences of the war
Instead of any real effort to solve the conflict we got the
following "Consequences of NATO's War on Yugoslavia":
- NATO state terrorism against Yugoslavia destroyed 300 factories
and refineries, 190 educational establishments, 20 hospitals,
30 clinics, 60 bridges, 5 airports;
- to the estimated 2,000 deaths (600 military) and 6,000 wounded
come those who die from destruction of health infrastructure;
- only 12-15 tanks (of 300 main battle tanks) were destroyed;
- almost all destruction was to public, not private enterprises;
- the US hatred of nonaligned/neutral countries may have been
a factor in targeting Yugoslavia;
- some countries join NATO as an insurance against being bombed;
- remember that between November 1998 and March 1999 there
was no evidence of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo; Germany sent back
11,000 Kosovar refugees;
- the Spanish pilot Adolfo Luis Martin de la Hoz, in Articulo
20, 14 June 1999: "They are destroying the country, bombing
it with novel weapons, toxic nervous gases, surface mines dropped
with parachute bombs containing uranium, black napalm, sterilization
chemicals, sprayings to poison the crops and weapons of which
we even still do not know anything. The North Americans are committing
one of the biggest barbarities that can be committed against humanity".
He refused to bomb, so did his superior, a colonel. Both were
A parallel with the world around 1930
But how about the major conflict, NATO/AMPO/TIAP againstthe
world? What does this remind us of? How many years have we been
set back by this war by "19 democracies" (NATO)/"democratic
totalitarianism" (Zinoviev)? Possible answer: 65 years.
The parallel that comes to mind, mentioned by Solzhenitsyn,
is Hitler's use of the national conflict between Sudeten/Germans
and Czechs, the pressure on Czechoslovakia (with the support of
England). Japan's attack on Manchuria 1931-45 and Italy's attack
on Ethiopia 1935-41 were also against the Kellogg-Briand Pact
of 1928 (Briand got the Nobel Peace Prize in 1926, Kellogg in
1929): 62 states, among them all major powers, agreed to renounce
war as political instrument and to settle all international disputes
by peaceful means.
The exceptions were wars of self-defense or miliary obligations
from the League Covenant, the Monroe doctrine or alliance obligations
- similar to the UN Charter Article 2(4), with exceptions. Both
valid international law, with holes.
The three dictatorships were above the law and the League.
They brushed all resolutions aside, lifted by their visions of
a New Order: Neuordnung/Nuovo Ordine/dai-to-a. Their propaganda
was as massive as the NATO propaganda with its insulting "apologies"
for "collateral damage" that so obviously was intended
by those on top from the very beginning. (The world did not have
Internet at the time, that helps today).
But the power was on the side of those "above the law"
because of a criterion of their own choice - although there was
probably more popular will behind what those dictatorships did
than for the sneaky action by the "democracies"). The
dictatorships followed up what they started: the Second world
war. The USA, using NATO-AMPO-TIAP, is probably tempted to do
the same, starting with North Korea and Colombia(?), to implement
their New World Order.
Unfortunately, this kind of politics is accompanied by a general
attitude of self-righteousness and self-appointment. To the present
President, William Jefferson Clinton, America has become the world's
"indispensable nation". Since JCS has been drawn upon
to show the political/military tradition enacted, it is worth
pointing out that to one recent Chairman of the JCS, Colin Powell,
"America was created by divine providence to bring order
to the world", and to his successor, John Shalikashvili,
the USA is nothing less than a "global nation with global
interests". To such a nation world hegemony is not a right.
It is a duty to be "international police force", whether
others agree or not.
The US/UK-NATO attack: What could be the real motives?
When two countries with a very belligerent track record, able
to legitimize their belligerence, launch a war, we have to identify
motives in the subtext rather than in published texts.
Here is a list of possible (not mutually exclusive) motives;
the list may serve to identify motivations in other conflict arenas:
The wish to help the Kosovars
· A sincere wish to stop Serbian violence against the
Kosovars and to secure for the Kosovars a safe future. The means
include acceptance of the Rambouillet diktat after the pain limit
has been reached, withdrawal of Serbian forces, a NATO protectorate
in Kosovo, safe return of the refugees, and, possibly, independence.
However, there are problems: the Rambouillet diktat does not
give the Kosovars independence, the protectorate may last long
given guerrilla warfare, the Kosovars may also terrorize the population
and fight among themselves, Kosovo may be close to uninhabitable.
Given that the means chosen may be neither efficacious, nor efficient.
The goal may be laudable, the means stupid.
Could there be some other, less honorable goals that would
make the means chosen look more intelligent? How to judge NATO
in general, the US/UK in particular and the USA even more in particular:
as honorable but stupid, or criminal but bright?
We see four different motives:
1) Punish the Serbs for their past action, with the two goals
of punishment: individual prevention (the Serbs will never try
ethnic cleansing again) and general prevention (scare others).
The Iraq treatment is a model: destroy military infrastructure,
and then civilian infrastructure, as it can also be used by the
military (a truism). Add to this economic sanctions, and Serbian
children will soon die like Iraqi children do.
2) Destroy Serbia, by at least bombing it back to 1945 when
Tito started reconstruction after the Second world war; detaching
from Serbia Kosovo (mineral resources, cultural identity), Vojvodina
(bread basket) and Montenegro (access to Adria), leaving a small
country to eke out a mediocre existence.
3) Secure the Western control post for the Eurasian continent,
the Eastern post being in Japan-Taiwan-South Korea.
4) The New World Military Order, substituting NATO/AMBO/TIAP
for the UN Security Council, securing automatic US leadership
for bombing Russia, North Korea, Colombia with obedient "allies".
1) Corridor 8, the idea of a Muslim/Russian-free oil pipeline,
through Georgia, from Sukhumi/Socii to Varna/Burgos by ship, then
pipeline through Bulgaria-Macedonia -Kosovo/a-Albania to Duerres/Flora;
from the Black Sea to Adria; used to bribe and as pressure on
the British (and the Norwegians?) as it competes with North Sea
oil, appealing to their interest in flow control.
2) Reconstruction contracts, presumably proportionate to the
destruction wrought. Alternative model: USA destroys, Europe pays
for the reconstruction, including to US companies.
3) The very rich mines in Kosovo/a, estimated at $ 5 billion.
4) Collection of Yugoslav debt that Yugoslavia is unable to
1) Testing old and new weapons.
2) Sales promotion for old and new weapons.
3) Testing the will and capacity of NATO allies.
1) The cosmic drama: our God against theirs, whose is stronger?
2) Humiliating the enemy into submission.
The US instruments: NATO and Japan
The Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the North
Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C. on 24th April 1999 issued
a communique with the Alliance's Strategic Concept; among other
interesting things, it states:
"24. Any armed attack on the territory of the Allies,
from whatever direction, would be covered by Article 5 and 6 of
the Washington Treaty. However, Alliance security must also take
account of the global context. Alliance security interests can
be affected by other risks of a wider nature, including acts of
terrorism, sabotage and organised crime, and by the disruption
of the flow of vital resources. - -
29. Military capabilities effective under the full range of
foreseeable circumstances are also the basis of the Alliance's
ability to contribute to conflict prevention and crisis management
through non-article 5 crisis response operations. - -
31. In pursuit of its policy of preserving peace, preventing
war, and enhancing security and stability and as set out in the
fundamental security tasks, NATO will seek, in cooperation with
other organisations, to prevent conflict, or, should a crisis
arise, to contribute to its effective management, consistent with
international law, including through the possibility of conducting
non-Article 5 crisis response operations."
What is stated here is very clear: all issues, all places,
"with all necessary means", and within NATO's interpretation
of international law.
How about Japan? Some parts of an article in Der Spiegel (9)
deserve to be quoted here:
"Against the danger there is only one remedy: Japan needs
her own atomic weapons" (interview with Shingo Nishimura,
The government of Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi made available
$ 1.7 billion to build Japan's own spy satellite". Nishimura:
"We need our own aircraft carrier, cruise missiles and nuclear
warheads. Japan must become a normal country".
Japan has today and army of 243,000 men, and pays for this
around $ 42 billion annually.
Parliament decided to appoint, for the first time for 52 years,
a committee for possible revision of the /1947/ Constitution.
Taku Yamasaki, possible successor to Prime Minister Obuchi: "Article
9 must go" /A9 denies Japan the right to go to war."
Tomohide Murai from the National Defense Academy: "The
Chinese understand only the language of military threat".
Add to that the relegitimation of the Hinomaru (flag) and
the Kimigayo (hymn) as official symbols, and the picture is ominous.
What can we do about it?
1) Politico-legal offence
Andre Gander Frank <email@example.com> placed
an essay on the Internet May 30, 1999, entitled "The Best
Defense Against NATO is Political Offense at Its Weakest Links."
His proposal is composed of three related parts:
1- Political: Attack and break the weakest link in and among
NATO member countries and thereby weaken NATO itself.
2- Moral: Take the moral high ground and deny it to NATO leaders
by indicting them for war crimes in the courts and before public
3- Legal: Resuscitate the United Nations for peace and prevent
NATO from exercising military rule in the Balkans under the 'legitimizing'
cloak of the same UN that NATO itself has strangled.
Tribunals indicting NATO for the war on Yugoslavia would belong
among these proposals. One should not underestimate the role of
the Bertrand Russell Tribunals and the work done by a Jean-Paul
Sartre against whom de Gaulle said, "Monsieur, Sartre, you
cannot stand in judgment of the State". That is exactly what
must be done: states and statesmen are not sacred. Sacred is life.
2. Protest in time
But beyond that we need to address the present situation,
the most serious the present author, who lived through the Second
world war and the Cold war, has experienced. We have to learn
to protest against a war that is foretold but has not
(yet) taken place, not like the governments wait till major
violence has already occurred.
3. NGO coalitions and new links
This calls for NGO-coalitions disseminating information (the
old triangle is most ignorant), organizing hearings, demanding
and proposing conflict resolution policies if there is conflict,
denouncing maneuvering for world hegemony.
A major task of NGOs in the OECD region would be to establish
links with the official level in Russia-China-India (and Belarus-Ukraine,
Iran-Iraq-Syria and the Central Asian republics).
4. Challenge OECD governments
Another task is to challenge the governments in the OECD region
to question the USA-NATO-AMPO policy which is also accepted:
[a] because the USA as the leader presumably knows best, and
[b] because if distrusted the USA may not help in a crisis, and
[c] because fallen clients are in for the harshest treatment (Saddam
Hussein, Pol Pot, Noriega, Aidid, Osama bin Laden).
Among 19 NATO members there must be one non-lapdog member!
5. Challenge conventional thinking and official rhetoric
Finally, an effort to answer a question that troubles some
people, and also to rebut a rhetoric very often engaged in precisely
by those Americans who seek world hegemony: Is this type of analysis
Not at all! It is perfectly possible to be:
· anti-slavery/colonialism without being anti-English
· anti-nazi without being anti-German · anti-fascist
without being anti-Italian · anti-militarist hegemony without
being anti-Japanese · anti-Quisling without being anti-Norwegian
· anti-stalinist without being anti-Russian · anti-poststalinist
socialism without being anti-socialist · anti-jungle capitalism
without being anti-market · anti-zionist without being
anti-semitic, and · anti-hegemony without being anti-American.
The present author is all ten. In no way does this mean that
we should not explore the relation between slavery/colonialism
and something English (I would say deep culture/structure) all
the way down the list to the relation between hegemony and something
American. (10) But the relation is never that unambiguous, "something
English" etc. is much broader, there are other roads that
could have been travelled.
Our task, together with anti-hegemonical, pro-peace Americans,
is to explore those alternative roads - and travel them.
1. First presented at the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute,
Copenhagen, September 1996.
2. And China goes further than that: "Seeking to rally
Southeast Asian support, China on Friday sharply intensified pressure
on Japan to reject moves to have strengthened military alliance
with the United States cover Taiwan.--several /countries/ were
privately concerned that it was unnecessarily provocative to China
and could become a serious source of instability in the Asia-Pacific
region (International Herald Tribune, 23-24 August, 1997).
3. By + is meant South Korea/Taiwan.
4. From Hayes, Zarsko and Bello, American Lake: Nuclear Peril
in the Pacific (New York: Penguin, 1986), p.19, among other sources
drawing on E. Converse, United states Plans for a Postwar Overseas
Military Base System 1942-1948 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
5. Op. cit., p. 23.
6. Foreign Affairs September/October 1997, 75th Anniversary,
Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 50-64.
7. And a reflection of the old geopolitical adage "who
controls the world island /Eurasia/ controls the world".
8. The title of an important conference in London 26 June
1999 highlighted what is mentioned in the text.
9. Wieland Wagner, "Die Fahne hoch", Der Spiegel,
33/1999, pp. 128-29.
10. Global Projections of Deep-Rooted U.S. Pathologies, Fairfax:
ICAR, George Mason University, 1996, 52pp.
The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future ResearchVegagatan
25, S - 224 57 Lund, Sweden Phone + 46 - 46 - 145909, Fax + 46
- 46 - 144512 http://www.transnational.org, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org