<b>Coming collapse of the hegemonic world</b>
By Chen Xiankui and Tang Wei (China Daily)
Updated: 2008-09-12 07:46
Comments(3) PrintMail
With the clout of China and India rising on the international arena, some people in the West, who are concerned over the already fragile, US-dominated unipolar world political structure or the Western hegemony, have rushed to offer a variety of recipes for inter-power relations in the 21st century and for the world's new power structure.
These recipes include multi-polar, non-polar or collective power models, a "democracy value alliance", a new trans-Atlantic union, and even a joint China-US governance idea.
All these concepts are in essence changed versions of the new US or Western hegemonic model that proposes maintaining the world's established power structure through absorbing some emerging powers. The model also proposes carrying out reforms of the new power structure. In all this the idea is to keep the US and Western hegemonic position intact as much as possible. The new situation emerging from the very beginning of the 21st century indicates that neither the US nor the Western hegemony will last for ever, and there will not be a transfer of the old hegemony to a new one. In the 21st century, the world will see the end of not only the US-dominated hegemony, but also of the hegemonic model that allows a few world powers to control global affairs.
The decease of the US and Western hegemony will not be caused by the challenge from such rising powers as China or other countries. It will be caused by the world's irreversible efforts for a hegemony-free political structure. As the result of this situation, we can expect a hegemony-free and harmonious world in the 21st century in which big countries will fulfill their responsibilities and obligations and small ones can enjoy equality, democracy and assistance from each other.
In the 21st century, the United States, the protagonist of the current unipolar world, will gradually evolve into a common power because of accelerated efforts of many countries which will advocate an end to the unipolar power pattern. Since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a "balance of power" has come into being among the major countries. Despite its sole superpower status, the United States cannot always succeed in solving some global issues. It is even incapable of handling some domestic issues such as the subprime crisis. All these transmit to the world a strong signal that the US hegemony and Western dominance are now in an irreversible process of decline and final disappearance.
In dealing with some global issues, today's United States not only needs substantial support from staunch allies, but also needs understanding, participation and cooperation from other key world or regional players. Sometimes, it even has to give up its leading role to other big powers in finding settlements of some intractable issues.
With the spirit of peace and democracy exercising strong restraint within their boundaries, European countries have lost the basic driving force for hegemonic wars against other countries. On the other hand, economic globalization and marketization of the world since the end of the Cold War have activated the urge for peace and development among a number of developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Especially the peaceful rise of some powers, such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, has prompted some Western countries to join the resistance to hegemonism.
<b>
Some new-generation European leaders, though, still want to maintain the Western hegemony with the US at its core. They want to do so by advocating the "values diplomacy" and setting up the so-called democracy and values alliance or by forming a new trans-Atlantic union. But all these wishes will be difficult to fulfill.</b>
The emergence of some peace-promoting powers will be an irresistible historical tide in the 21st century. Their rise will lay a solid groundwork for the final end of the long-standing hegemonism in world politics.
New Delhi has generally chosen a path of peaceful development in South Asia despite its position of supremacy in the sub-continent. China has been even more committed to a peaceful development and always condemns any use of force in solving international disputes.
The strong efforts and calls for a hegemony-free world from these new emerging powers and the massive populations of Asian, African and Latin American countries have exerted a huge pressure on hegemonic countries, prompting them to deal with others on an equal footing.
The change of the world's hegemonic pattern pushed by newly emerging powers serves the basic interest of the whole world, including the West. It will also act as the main impulse to build a conflict-free and harmonious world in the new century.
The authors are with the School of International Studies of Renmin University of China. The article is reprinted from Global Times
(China Daily 09/12/2008 page8)<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
This article will demonstrate what is in store for the world. There is a switch over that is going on in the Whitehouse.
We have got the Democrats poised to take over, with Obama. They control the senate as well. We have got Obama on one side and behind Obama we got a man named Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski.
Brzezinski:
Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski is a Polish immigrant, an aristocrat of the lower level, who became an eminent person in the Democratic Party Foreign Policy establishment. As Kissinger was for the Republicans, Kissinger being a protégé of Nelson Rockefeller, but Brzezinski, being a protégé of David Rockefeller; co-founder of the Trilateral Commission and dominant figure in the Carter Administration; National Security Council (NSC) director under Carter, and was instrumental in bringing Khomeini to power in Iran, and above all was instrumental in starting the Soviet-Afghan war. Since then he has been a professor; he dominates the CSIS Think Tank, and is very influential in any number of careers inside the Democratic Party.
The current secretary of defense, Robert Gates, is a protégé of Brzezinski; the International Crisis Group are influenced by Brzezinski and George Soros, the multi-billionaire funds for Brzezinskiâs foreign policy. Brzezinski is therefore a very powerful individual.
The Clan:
Brzezinski in this document, is referred to as a short-hand; in fact they are a clan and a faction. Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski has two sons, one of them; Ian Brzezinski is a Republican who happens to be right now the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon for Europe and NATO affairs. Ian Brzezinski was the mastermind behind NATOâs Kosovo bombing and Kosovoâs subsequent declaration as an independent republic (US was the first country to recognize Kosovo) and the Polish Missile Shield Defense plan â a huge event for geo-strategic affairs, particularly focused at Russia.
The second son is Mark Brzezinski, a veteran of the Clinton National Security Council; a democrat, and if Obama gets the Whitehouse, will find himself inheriting his fatherâs seat, the all important Director of the National Security Council.
Then there is Mika Brzezinski, daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski; anchorwoman on MSNBC TV; appears with Joe Scarborough (Morning Joe) to churn out the Brzezinski- Obama -Soros line. Ironically, she is best known for her coverage of the WTC attacks on Sept 11, 2001.
So in a nutshell, whenever this document refers to the Brzezinski Group; it is in fact a group of powerful people behind it, such as the Trilateral Commission, Rockefeller, Bilderburg Group, RAND Corporation and a group of very wealthy Wall Street financial faction, which include George Soros and Robert Rubin of Citibank. These people now rule Washington. It is therefore not a question of what happens from now till the official US polls in June 22 â as they are already in power in Washington.
The Past Era:
In the past, the neo-con era was primary assembled by people like George P. Schultz, was also the Chairman of JP Morgan Chase International Advisory Council; Schultz chose Bush, Cheney, the so-called âvulcansâ like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Stephen Hadley and Robert Blackwill - who have all gone now. They were supported by media giant, Rupert Murdoch of News Corp and billionaire investor, Warren Buffett, both of whom have subsequently distanced themselves from the failed neo-con policies. They have gravitated towards Obama.
The Switch Over:
It is apparent that the Bush-Cheney neo-conservative networks have lost all power. Their entire policy package has been swept away. This was a process which has been underway for a couple of years now. Some of the highlights being the Baker-Hamilton Commission, the Iraq study group which recommended not to attack Iran, but rather negotiate with them and Syria to come to USâs side (which effectively is done); and the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran which said there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program are evidence alluding to this.
In addition to that, all the straight-talking neo-cons were driven out of government. Rumsfeld is gone, Paul Wolfowitz is gone, Lord Conrad Black, a top neo-con is now in jail, Wolfowitz is also stepped down from the World Bank, and Scooter Libby was prosecuted, convicted, and sort of semi-pardoned. The whole neo-con faction has ended up in very bad shape, washed up and finished. The US deal with North Korea was surmised by John Bolton, another neo-con, as the final collapse of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy. Richard Perle, another neo-con, said it was the final meltdown of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy.
It is all over for the Bush-Cheney neo-con era.
The Coming Era:
We now have the Brzezinski faction â the Trilateral, Rockefeller, Bilderburg, and the Wall Street group of financiers running the show. They fundamentally have decided to turn away from the neo-con methods which were deemed to be a failure.
Brzezinski and his group rule Washington through the Principles Committee. The Principles Committee includes Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condi Rice who is a disciple of Josef Korbel (Madeline Albrightâs father); they have also got Admiral Mullen, Head of the Joints Chiefs of Staff and indeed Secretary of the Treasury, Paulson â another clear person who tell Bush what to do. As the US goes through the Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac crisis, two companies that between them represent about six trillion dollars worth of mortgages, and which we see Bush wanting to do one thing, but Paulson ordering Bush to the contrary, which sure enough becomes policy later on.
The Difference in Policy:
The neo-con world view is that US, UK and Israel are at war with the rest of the world forever. This was the primary reason for their initiation to the âWar on Terrorâ through the Sept 11 WTC attacks. The neo-cons held the view that Israel was one of the key centers of the world and therefore the neo-cons were concerned with flattening Iraq and flattening Iran. An example would be last September, when a rogue B52 bomber armed with six nuclear cruise missiles, flew from North Dakota to Louisiana and apparently was on its way to the Middle East; this at the same time Israel attacked Syriaâs nuclear power reactor on 6th September. It might have been on its way to join in some operation on that date, however It was stopped in Louisiana and as that question went up the chain in command, it turned out the US ruling elite did not want the plane to go to the Middle East. It had in fact been hijacked by Cheney and his gang as a last serious bid for power.
The Brzezinski group would say that the neo-con approach did not and wonât work, primarily because US is too weak, too isolated and all the war funding has made their banks bankrupt, creating the banking panic, hyper inflation, food prices to rise, volatility in the oil pricing and Bears Stearns to collapse, not to mention Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac going down. And above all the US has become too hated, and its armies defeated and demoralized.
Middle East:
The difference in policy is that the Brzezinski group regards the Middle East as a secondary theatre; it is a sideshow for their policy. The main question for world history is â Can the US/UK overcome Russia and China, and above all, can the US and UK smash the Shanghai Co-operation Organization which is the main poll of resistance in the world against the US & British desires of world dominion or imperialism. Brzezinski would say vis-Ã -vis Syria and Iran; as supported in the Baker Hamilton study group and the NIE report; not to attack Iran or Syria, but rather build them up and turn them against the Russian/Chinese giants which they regard as the main threat in the world (As James Baker put it in 2006, âI can get you Syria as I did during the First Gulf War, I got them to attack Iraq, given the right conditions, I can do it againâ).
Russia
What this means now is that the epicenter of world confrontation is shifting rapidly out of the Middle East, and towards the borders of Russia (Polish Missile Defense Plan, Georgia, Kosovo) and China.
As the Polish Missile Defense plan indicates, soon enough there will be something rather violent against Russia.
The presidents of Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are forming a âsanitary beltâ against Russia, much akin as the French did against Bolshevism in 1920s. They are eager to be part of EU /NATO and was famously referred to as the new Europe, by Rumsfeld but actually intended by the UK/US as expendable kamikaze puppets.
If the Brzezinski group can have a Polish missile crisis in the next couple of months, then you can cut the gas pipelines or interfere with natural gas supply going from Russia to Europe as a leverage tool for negotiations for European nations; you can begin to break economic relations and even start a new (cold) war.
At the center of it is the 10 US anti-ballistic interceptor missile setup in Poland allegedly for âdefensiveâ purposes. There is a radar station in the Czech Republic, components of it in Ukraine and Lithuania. The US have thus established themselves right up in the border of Russia.
The goal is to allow the US the possibility of a nuclear first strike, and then to suppress the Russian retaliatory strike. In other words, the second strike coming out of Russia would then be shot down with these missiles.
Georgia
The young Georgian military is effectively a branch of the US. Its armaments are heavily depended on the US and Israel. Between Aug 7th and 8th night, Georgia launched a surprise attack in Tsâkhinvali using air bombing, grad missiles, and using heavy artillery, roughly killing 2000 civilian Ossetians and destroying quite a number of Russians too, they destroyed an entire battalion of Russian Peace-Keeping troops in the process, to invite the Russians to move in.
This was done under the auspices of President Sakaashvilli, who came to power during the Roses revolution of 2003/4 which was funded by the Brzezinski group and George Soros.
China
The operations against China includes cutting off of Chinese oil, minerals, and other strategic raw materials. This is the reason for the Anglo-American campaign against Sudan, as it represents 7% of Chinese oil imports; and the Anglo-American campaign against Zimbabwe, a country which is a treasure trove of all kinds of minerals and raw materials and indeed the campaign against Pakistan.
The use of celebrities against Sudan, Tibet, and Zimbabwe, is to defend in the name of âhuman rightsâ to fight a clandestine proxy battle against their main threats.
The ultimate end game for the Brzezinski group is that once China has been completely isolated, deprived of allies, and above all cut off oil, minerals and minerals, the plan would be to influence a future weakened Chinese government to secure the Eastern Siberian plateau and thereby play China against Russia.
Pakistan
Pakistan is an interesting case. Pakistan was supposedly part of the old âWar on Terrorâ; but the goal now is to use Afghanistan as a way to destroy Pakistan. In other words, to have Pakistan fall apart into four of five separate countries, the last remnant of Pakistanâs unity: Gen. Musharraf was told by the US to relinquish his power and return to âdemocracyâ, the subsequent Benazir Bhutto assassination, and now Musharraf being driven out of power are the results of this push.
The US, British and NATO are running the Afghan war in such a way to constantly humiliate and mortify the national pride of Pakistan - by treating them as absolutely insignificant. Obama, in fact demanded the unilateral bombing of Pakistan; this was done at the Democratic Party Debate in Chicago, last July. It is highly indicative of their goal. Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and John McCain and even President Bush opposed such a move â but looking at it now, it is clear to see who won out.
The US has been bombing Northern Pakistan, killing people just about every month, killing large amounts of Pakistani paramilitary forces in the process and indeed for a while it seemed like there was going to be a cross-border invasion. Even Afghan President Karzai said he wanted NATO to cross into Pakistan to go after Bin-Laden. The goal is not Bin Laden, but to promote the collapse of Pakistan as a centralized state.
And again, the ultimate question here is why? The reason for this is Pakistan is a traditional ally of China. And in any crisis, the geo-political instinct of Pakistan is to go with China against India and therefore has to be destroyed.
Burma:
Burma is another example. Burma (Myanmar) is an area where the ruling military junta is pro-Chinese. So therefore the recommended approach is to use humanitarian cover to destroy Burma.
It is interesting to note how in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma and such places there is no mention of the âWar on Terrorâ. There is nothing about Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda; it is now purely on Human Rights, Humanitarian Concerns and this notion of Rights to National Self Determination for mini states and micro states.
Iran:
The Brzezinski group would rather have a strong Iran. If Russia considers itself the main target, then Russian and China will in no way allow any UN resolutions to be passed against Iran. There will be no more economic sanctions. Brzezinski sees Iran as the new Afghanistan. He played Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion and to some extent helped destroy the Soviet Union as a military might.
The Brzezinski group wants to play Iran against Russia, but in the same process would like to build a strong Iran. Sometimes even a nuclear Iran. For Brzezinski this is nothing new. He is the guy who started the Iran Contra (US missiles going to Khomeini) under Carterâs administration with the help of the Biritish and the BBC Farsi service.
Influence of Brzezinski thought in History:
The Iran Contra Affair:
Brzezinski was the key instrumental figure in overthrowing the Iranâs Shah under Jimmy Carterâs presidency. With his help they overthrew the Shah, he said no to a military coup, and no to a guy called Shapour Bakhtiar who tried to form a military government; he demanded Khomeini and nothing but Khomeini to be in power. Khomeini was British agent left over in the 1950s by the British against the White Revolution of the Shah (an urban development, reconstruction, and modernization plan).
The reasons were twofold: First they wanted this to radiate out from Iran into the five republics of Soviet Central Asia: Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. After all, he is the same guy who famously stated in the 70s: Islamic fundamentalism is the greatest bulwark against Soviet communism.
Secondly, Persia under the Shah was becoming too dominant a power in the Middle East, challenging the US/UK supremacy in that region. The Shah was turning to the Soviets, Italians and the Europeans for technological self sufficiency. He was making Persia into a great industrial power through the White Revolution and his time had come to be neutralized. By the time Khomeini took power, there were 20 peaceful nuclear reactors which were forcibly shut down by Khomeini and British assistance.
The Irag - Iran War:
This was another artifact of the Brzezinski tenure in office. This was again his typical method. If you have Iraq and you donât like them and you have Iran and you donât like them either, have them fight against each other.
Venezuala/ FARC and Columbia
Once again, in order to isolate the Venezuelaâs leftist president, the strategy used was to have Colombia attack Venezuela. This also explains President Hugo Chavezâs sympathy and funding for FARC rebels. The recent successful American/Israeli proxy rescue efforts at the behest of Colombia were also part of this. Interestingly the neo-con approach would have been bomb Venezuela to kingdom come, but no the clever chess play continues.
Neville Chamberlain and Hitler
<b>
Brzezinskiâs pedigree is the British network in Eastern Europe, the really relevant one being that of Hitler. The relationship of Sir Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement policy to Hitler reveals that appeasement is actually a misnomer. Appeasement meant building up Hitler and attempting to point him East against Stalin to keep the British Empire going. In other words play Hitler against Stalin and get rid of both them that way.</b>
Change You Can Believe in:
This is what is in store for the world. No matter who comes to power next year in the US. The Brzezinski group will continue to set a strong focus against Russia and China in the coming times.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By Chen Xiankui and Tang Wei (China Daily)
Updated: 2008-09-12 07:46
Comments(3) PrintMail
With the clout of China and India rising on the international arena, some people in the West, who are concerned over the already fragile, US-dominated unipolar world political structure or the Western hegemony, have rushed to offer a variety of recipes for inter-power relations in the 21st century and for the world's new power structure.
These recipes include multi-polar, non-polar or collective power models, a "democracy value alliance", a new trans-Atlantic union, and even a joint China-US governance idea.
All these concepts are in essence changed versions of the new US or Western hegemonic model that proposes maintaining the world's established power structure through absorbing some emerging powers. The model also proposes carrying out reforms of the new power structure. In all this the idea is to keep the US and Western hegemonic position intact as much as possible. The new situation emerging from the very beginning of the 21st century indicates that neither the US nor the Western hegemony will last for ever, and there will not be a transfer of the old hegemony to a new one. In the 21st century, the world will see the end of not only the US-dominated hegemony, but also of the hegemonic model that allows a few world powers to control global affairs.
The decease of the US and Western hegemony will not be caused by the challenge from such rising powers as China or other countries. It will be caused by the world's irreversible efforts for a hegemony-free political structure. As the result of this situation, we can expect a hegemony-free and harmonious world in the 21st century in which big countries will fulfill their responsibilities and obligations and small ones can enjoy equality, democracy and assistance from each other.
In the 21st century, the United States, the protagonist of the current unipolar world, will gradually evolve into a common power because of accelerated efforts of many countries which will advocate an end to the unipolar power pattern. Since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a "balance of power" has come into being among the major countries. Despite its sole superpower status, the United States cannot always succeed in solving some global issues. It is even incapable of handling some domestic issues such as the subprime crisis. All these transmit to the world a strong signal that the US hegemony and Western dominance are now in an irreversible process of decline and final disappearance.
In dealing with some global issues, today's United States not only needs substantial support from staunch allies, but also needs understanding, participation and cooperation from other key world or regional players. Sometimes, it even has to give up its leading role to other big powers in finding settlements of some intractable issues.
With the spirit of peace and democracy exercising strong restraint within their boundaries, European countries have lost the basic driving force for hegemonic wars against other countries. On the other hand, economic globalization and marketization of the world since the end of the Cold War have activated the urge for peace and development among a number of developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Especially the peaceful rise of some powers, such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, has prompted some Western countries to join the resistance to hegemonism.
<b>
Some new-generation European leaders, though, still want to maintain the Western hegemony with the US at its core. They want to do so by advocating the "values diplomacy" and setting up the so-called democracy and values alliance or by forming a new trans-Atlantic union. But all these wishes will be difficult to fulfill.</b>
The emergence of some peace-promoting powers will be an irresistible historical tide in the 21st century. Their rise will lay a solid groundwork for the final end of the long-standing hegemonism in world politics.
New Delhi has generally chosen a path of peaceful development in South Asia despite its position of supremacy in the sub-continent. China has been even more committed to a peaceful development and always condemns any use of force in solving international disputes.
The strong efforts and calls for a hegemony-free world from these new emerging powers and the massive populations of Asian, African and Latin American countries have exerted a huge pressure on hegemonic countries, prompting them to deal with others on an equal footing.
The change of the world's hegemonic pattern pushed by newly emerging powers serves the basic interest of the whole world, including the West. It will also act as the main impulse to build a conflict-free and harmonious world in the new century.
The authors are with the School of International Studies of Renmin University of China. The article is reprinted from Global Times
(China Daily 09/12/2008 page8)<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
This article will demonstrate what is in store for the world. There is a switch over that is going on in the Whitehouse.
We have got the Democrats poised to take over, with Obama. They control the senate as well. We have got Obama on one side and behind Obama we got a man named Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski.
Brzezinski:
Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski is a Polish immigrant, an aristocrat of the lower level, who became an eminent person in the Democratic Party Foreign Policy establishment. As Kissinger was for the Republicans, Kissinger being a protégé of Nelson Rockefeller, but Brzezinski, being a protégé of David Rockefeller; co-founder of the Trilateral Commission and dominant figure in the Carter Administration; National Security Council (NSC) director under Carter, and was instrumental in bringing Khomeini to power in Iran, and above all was instrumental in starting the Soviet-Afghan war. Since then he has been a professor; he dominates the CSIS Think Tank, and is very influential in any number of careers inside the Democratic Party.
The current secretary of defense, Robert Gates, is a protégé of Brzezinski; the International Crisis Group are influenced by Brzezinski and George Soros, the multi-billionaire funds for Brzezinskiâs foreign policy. Brzezinski is therefore a very powerful individual.
The Clan:
Brzezinski in this document, is referred to as a short-hand; in fact they are a clan and a faction. Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski has two sons, one of them; Ian Brzezinski is a Republican who happens to be right now the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon for Europe and NATO affairs. Ian Brzezinski was the mastermind behind NATOâs Kosovo bombing and Kosovoâs subsequent declaration as an independent republic (US was the first country to recognize Kosovo) and the Polish Missile Shield Defense plan â a huge event for geo-strategic affairs, particularly focused at Russia.
The second son is Mark Brzezinski, a veteran of the Clinton National Security Council; a democrat, and if Obama gets the Whitehouse, will find himself inheriting his fatherâs seat, the all important Director of the National Security Council.
Then there is Mika Brzezinski, daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski; anchorwoman on MSNBC TV; appears with Joe Scarborough (Morning Joe) to churn out the Brzezinski- Obama -Soros line. Ironically, she is best known for her coverage of the WTC attacks on Sept 11, 2001.
So in a nutshell, whenever this document refers to the Brzezinski Group; it is in fact a group of powerful people behind it, such as the Trilateral Commission, Rockefeller, Bilderburg Group, RAND Corporation and a group of very wealthy Wall Street financial faction, which include George Soros and Robert Rubin of Citibank. These people now rule Washington. It is therefore not a question of what happens from now till the official US polls in June 22 â as they are already in power in Washington.
The Past Era:
In the past, the neo-con era was primary assembled by people like George P. Schultz, was also the Chairman of JP Morgan Chase International Advisory Council; Schultz chose Bush, Cheney, the so-called âvulcansâ like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Stephen Hadley and Robert Blackwill - who have all gone now. They were supported by media giant, Rupert Murdoch of News Corp and billionaire investor, Warren Buffett, both of whom have subsequently distanced themselves from the failed neo-con policies. They have gravitated towards Obama.
The Switch Over:
It is apparent that the Bush-Cheney neo-conservative networks have lost all power. Their entire policy package has been swept away. This was a process which has been underway for a couple of years now. Some of the highlights being the Baker-Hamilton Commission, the Iraq study group which recommended not to attack Iran, but rather negotiate with them and Syria to come to USâs side (which effectively is done); and the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran which said there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program are evidence alluding to this.
In addition to that, all the straight-talking neo-cons were driven out of government. Rumsfeld is gone, Paul Wolfowitz is gone, Lord Conrad Black, a top neo-con is now in jail, Wolfowitz is also stepped down from the World Bank, and Scooter Libby was prosecuted, convicted, and sort of semi-pardoned. The whole neo-con faction has ended up in very bad shape, washed up and finished. The US deal with North Korea was surmised by John Bolton, another neo-con, as the final collapse of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy. Richard Perle, another neo-con, said it was the final meltdown of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy.
It is all over for the Bush-Cheney neo-con era.
The Coming Era:
We now have the Brzezinski faction â the Trilateral, Rockefeller, Bilderburg, and the Wall Street group of financiers running the show. They fundamentally have decided to turn away from the neo-con methods which were deemed to be a failure.
Brzezinski and his group rule Washington through the Principles Committee. The Principles Committee includes Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condi Rice who is a disciple of Josef Korbel (Madeline Albrightâs father); they have also got Admiral Mullen, Head of the Joints Chiefs of Staff and indeed Secretary of the Treasury, Paulson â another clear person who tell Bush what to do. As the US goes through the Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac crisis, two companies that between them represent about six trillion dollars worth of mortgages, and which we see Bush wanting to do one thing, but Paulson ordering Bush to the contrary, which sure enough becomes policy later on.
The Difference in Policy:
The neo-con world view is that US, UK and Israel are at war with the rest of the world forever. This was the primary reason for their initiation to the âWar on Terrorâ through the Sept 11 WTC attacks. The neo-cons held the view that Israel was one of the key centers of the world and therefore the neo-cons were concerned with flattening Iraq and flattening Iran. An example would be last September, when a rogue B52 bomber armed with six nuclear cruise missiles, flew from North Dakota to Louisiana and apparently was on its way to the Middle East; this at the same time Israel attacked Syriaâs nuclear power reactor on 6th September. It might have been on its way to join in some operation on that date, however It was stopped in Louisiana and as that question went up the chain in command, it turned out the US ruling elite did not want the plane to go to the Middle East. It had in fact been hijacked by Cheney and his gang as a last serious bid for power.
The Brzezinski group would say that the neo-con approach did not and wonât work, primarily because US is too weak, too isolated and all the war funding has made their banks bankrupt, creating the banking panic, hyper inflation, food prices to rise, volatility in the oil pricing and Bears Stearns to collapse, not to mention Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac going down. And above all the US has become too hated, and its armies defeated and demoralized.
Middle East:
The difference in policy is that the Brzezinski group regards the Middle East as a secondary theatre; it is a sideshow for their policy. The main question for world history is â Can the US/UK overcome Russia and China, and above all, can the US and UK smash the Shanghai Co-operation Organization which is the main poll of resistance in the world against the US & British desires of world dominion or imperialism. Brzezinski would say vis-Ã -vis Syria and Iran; as supported in the Baker Hamilton study group and the NIE report; not to attack Iran or Syria, but rather build them up and turn them against the Russian/Chinese giants which they regard as the main threat in the world (As James Baker put it in 2006, âI can get you Syria as I did during the First Gulf War, I got them to attack Iraq, given the right conditions, I can do it againâ).
Russia
What this means now is that the epicenter of world confrontation is shifting rapidly out of the Middle East, and towards the borders of Russia (Polish Missile Defense Plan, Georgia, Kosovo) and China.
As the Polish Missile Defense plan indicates, soon enough there will be something rather violent against Russia.
The presidents of Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are forming a âsanitary beltâ against Russia, much akin as the French did against Bolshevism in 1920s. They are eager to be part of EU /NATO and was famously referred to as the new Europe, by Rumsfeld but actually intended by the UK/US as expendable kamikaze puppets.
If the Brzezinski group can have a Polish missile crisis in the next couple of months, then you can cut the gas pipelines or interfere with natural gas supply going from Russia to Europe as a leverage tool for negotiations for European nations; you can begin to break economic relations and even start a new (cold) war.
At the center of it is the 10 US anti-ballistic interceptor missile setup in Poland allegedly for âdefensiveâ purposes. There is a radar station in the Czech Republic, components of it in Ukraine and Lithuania. The US have thus established themselves right up in the border of Russia.
The goal is to allow the US the possibility of a nuclear first strike, and then to suppress the Russian retaliatory strike. In other words, the second strike coming out of Russia would then be shot down with these missiles.
Georgia
The young Georgian military is effectively a branch of the US. Its armaments are heavily depended on the US and Israel. Between Aug 7th and 8th night, Georgia launched a surprise attack in Tsâkhinvali using air bombing, grad missiles, and using heavy artillery, roughly killing 2000 civilian Ossetians and destroying quite a number of Russians too, they destroyed an entire battalion of Russian Peace-Keeping troops in the process, to invite the Russians to move in.
This was done under the auspices of President Sakaashvilli, who came to power during the Roses revolution of 2003/4 which was funded by the Brzezinski group and George Soros.
China
The operations against China includes cutting off of Chinese oil, minerals, and other strategic raw materials. This is the reason for the Anglo-American campaign against Sudan, as it represents 7% of Chinese oil imports; and the Anglo-American campaign against Zimbabwe, a country which is a treasure trove of all kinds of minerals and raw materials and indeed the campaign against Pakistan.
The use of celebrities against Sudan, Tibet, and Zimbabwe, is to defend in the name of âhuman rightsâ to fight a clandestine proxy battle against their main threats.
The ultimate end game for the Brzezinski group is that once China has been completely isolated, deprived of allies, and above all cut off oil, minerals and minerals, the plan would be to influence a future weakened Chinese government to secure the Eastern Siberian plateau and thereby play China against Russia.
Pakistan
Pakistan is an interesting case. Pakistan was supposedly part of the old âWar on Terrorâ; but the goal now is to use Afghanistan as a way to destroy Pakistan. In other words, to have Pakistan fall apart into four of five separate countries, the last remnant of Pakistanâs unity: Gen. Musharraf was told by the US to relinquish his power and return to âdemocracyâ, the subsequent Benazir Bhutto assassination, and now Musharraf being driven out of power are the results of this push.
The US, British and NATO are running the Afghan war in such a way to constantly humiliate and mortify the national pride of Pakistan - by treating them as absolutely insignificant. Obama, in fact demanded the unilateral bombing of Pakistan; this was done at the Democratic Party Debate in Chicago, last July. It is highly indicative of their goal. Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and John McCain and even President Bush opposed such a move â but looking at it now, it is clear to see who won out.
The US has been bombing Northern Pakistan, killing people just about every month, killing large amounts of Pakistani paramilitary forces in the process and indeed for a while it seemed like there was going to be a cross-border invasion. Even Afghan President Karzai said he wanted NATO to cross into Pakistan to go after Bin-Laden. The goal is not Bin Laden, but to promote the collapse of Pakistan as a centralized state.
And again, the ultimate question here is why? The reason for this is Pakistan is a traditional ally of China. And in any crisis, the geo-political instinct of Pakistan is to go with China against India and therefore has to be destroyed.
Burma:
Burma is another example. Burma (Myanmar) is an area where the ruling military junta is pro-Chinese. So therefore the recommended approach is to use humanitarian cover to destroy Burma.
It is interesting to note how in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma and such places there is no mention of the âWar on Terrorâ. There is nothing about Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda; it is now purely on Human Rights, Humanitarian Concerns and this notion of Rights to National Self Determination for mini states and micro states.
Iran:
The Brzezinski group would rather have a strong Iran. If Russia considers itself the main target, then Russian and China will in no way allow any UN resolutions to be passed against Iran. There will be no more economic sanctions. Brzezinski sees Iran as the new Afghanistan. He played Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion and to some extent helped destroy the Soviet Union as a military might.
The Brzezinski group wants to play Iran against Russia, but in the same process would like to build a strong Iran. Sometimes even a nuclear Iran. For Brzezinski this is nothing new. He is the guy who started the Iran Contra (US missiles going to Khomeini) under Carterâs administration with the help of the Biritish and the BBC Farsi service.
Influence of Brzezinski thought in History:
The Iran Contra Affair:
Brzezinski was the key instrumental figure in overthrowing the Iranâs Shah under Jimmy Carterâs presidency. With his help they overthrew the Shah, he said no to a military coup, and no to a guy called Shapour Bakhtiar who tried to form a military government; he demanded Khomeini and nothing but Khomeini to be in power. Khomeini was British agent left over in the 1950s by the British against the White Revolution of the Shah (an urban development, reconstruction, and modernization plan).
The reasons were twofold: First they wanted this to radiate out from Iran into the five republics of Soviet Central Asia: Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. After all, he is the same guy who famously stated in the 70s: Islamic fundamentalism is the greatest bulwark against Soviet communism.
Secondly, Persia under the Shah was becoming too dominant a power in the Middle East, challenging the US/UK supremacy in that region. The Shah was turning to the Soviets, Italians and the Europeans for technological self sufficiency. He was making Persia into a great industrial power through the White Revolution and his time had come to be neutralized. By the time Khomeini took power, there were 20 peaceful nuclear reactors which were forcibly shut down by Khomeini and British assistance.
The Irag - Iran War:
This was another artifact of the Brzezinski tenure in office. This was again his typical method. If you have Iraq and you donât like them and you have Iran and you donât like them either, have them fight against each other.
Venezuala/ FARC and Columbia
Once again, in order to isolate the Venezuelaâs leftist president, the strategy used was to have Colombia attack Venezuela. This also explains President Hugo Chavezâs sympathy and funding for FARC rebels. The recent successful American/Israeli proxy rescue efforts at the behest of Colombia were also part of this. Interestingly the neo-con approach would have been bomb Venezuela to kingdom come, but no the clever chess play continues.
Neville Chamberlain and Hitler
<b>
Brzezinskiâs pedigree is the British network in Eastern Europe, the really relevant one being that of Hitler. The relationship of Sir Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement policy to Hitler reveals that appeasement is actually a misnomer. Appeasement meant building up Hitler and attempting to point him East against Stalin to keep the British Empire going. In other words play Hitler against Stalin and get rid of both them that way.</b>
Change You Can Believe in:
This is what is in store for the world. No matter who comes to power next year in the US. The Brzezinski group will continue to set a strong focus against Russia and China in the coming times.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->