At
the September 2000 meeting of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC), Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez characterised
the rising discontent with the US inspired New World Order when
he stated: “The 20th century was a bipolar century, but the
21st is not going to be unipolar. The 21st century should be
multipolar,
and we all ought to push for the development of such a world. So,
long live a united Asia, a united Africa, a united Europe!”
The
New World Order, a euphemism for US hegemony, is based upon a unipolar
concept of the world, meaning US superpower domination. What is
developing, however, is a multipolar world, implying many centres
of influence, including Russia. The Russian Federation considers
that social progress, stability and international security can only
be guaranteed in the framework of a multipolar world and resents
attempts by the US to marginalise Moscow in world affairs. Hence,
Russia has become a political, military and cultural thorn in the
side of the New World Order, representing an obstacle to its goals.
Following the end of the Cold War, US President George Bush declared
a New World Order, in which the heavy hand of American imperialism
would fill the post Cold War geopolitical vacuum, enabling the US
to ultimately conquer the geopolitical space of the former Soviet
Union and interpose its authority over all of Europe.
Plan
to Disempower Russia
In
his 1993 book, Out of Control, Zbigniew Brzezinski describes
the US strategy as: “An invasion… created by the dissolution
of the Soviet Union, aiming to transform the former republics of
the Soviet Union into an area of overt and exclusive preponderance
of American power.” He argues that American hegemony is unlike
any previous hegemony because it is truly global. It is based on
an unprecedented mixture of military supremacy, ideological ascendancy,
technological innovation and control of the world’s financial
system. Brzezinski says quite clearly that if America wants to control
the world, as she should, then she must establish domination over
Eurasia, especially what he calls “its Western periphery”
(i.e. the European Union) and also its ‘Heartland’, the
Middle East, Central Asia and the oil resources which flow from
there.
To coincide with the release of Brzezinski’s Out of Control,
former National Security Adviser to President Clinton, Anthony Lake,
defined the new expansionist doctrine of the United States in a
foreign policy statement, “From Containment to Enlargement”.
Lake’s statement asserted that, “the successor to the
Cold War doctrine of containment must be the doctrine and strategy
of enlargement.”
The recent past is testimony to attacks upon Russia, aimed at reducing
the great bear to pauperism and totally disempowering it in line
with US expansionist policy. The dying days of the Clinton administration
saw the release of the Cox Commission report, ‘Russia’s
Road to Corruption: How the Clinton Administration Exported Government
Instead of Free Enterprise and Failed the Russian People.’
The report accused a “troika” of Clinton administration
officials – Vice President Al Gore, Deputy Secretary of State
Strobe Talbott, and Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers – of
implementing policies that fostered corruption and criminality and
retarded Russia’s free market and democratic development.
Russian President Vladimir Putin recently acknowledged that Russia
is in the midst of one of the most difficult periods in its history.
In the aftermath of Gorbachev, Russia was seen as a state without
politics. Explaining this conception, Russian political philosopher
Alexander Dugin says, “the main postulate of the Russian ruling
elite in the liberal period was confidence in the fact that confrontation
with the West resulted from the difference of social, economic and
ideological models. On the basis of this, all the economic, political,
foreign, cultural, and defence strategy of the Russian Federation
was built. The country’s leaders seriously thought that giving
up the Marxist outlook along with the socialist economy would automatically
create a balanced system in Russia with the active and friendly
cooperation of the West. This was a fatal mistake and it took a
decade to realise it. With the obvious appearance of geopolitical
factors, everyone realised that the Cold War was not just a display
of an ideological duel, but the display of a historical constant,
not dependent on social or political up-to-dateness. It was just
one of the stages in the ‘great war of continents’.”
Russia's
Concept of the World in the 21st Century
Since
Vladimir Putin has been in charge of Russia, his initiatives have
centred upon opposition to a unipolar world, and the advocacy of
multipolarity. Rather than surrendering to the viperous aims of
the New World Order, Russia has launched a renewed effort to counter
the Anglo-American NATO domination of the world, undertaking reforms
which enable it to take part in the reality of globalisation but
in a more guarded fashion. The keystone of this new approach is
the document “Russia’s Concept of the World in the 21st
Century”, released by the Russian government on the eve of
the new millennium. The theme of the Concept is multipolarity based
on integration capabilities of the Russian regions and their interaction
in the interests of stability and security. The Concept recognises
that the movement to multipolarity reflects the will of the majority
of the members of the world community, and its real and potential
centres of influence.
In line with the multipolar view, Moscow is establishing itself
as a mediator between the West and disaffected developing countries,
which the US could never hope to represent. Vladimir Putin’s
enthusiasm for a multipolar world is reflected strongly in his diplomatic
initiatives, which have seen Russia engaging in cooperative mechanisms
to enhance international security, while also considering its own
sovereign interests. For the developing world, Putin is offering
diplomatic solutions, strategic alliances and cooperation, as opposed
to the West’s standard reactive policies of isolating ‘rogue
states’, applying sanctions and taking military action. The
US response – to what it describes as ‘Putin’s diplomatic
offensive’ – has been to quickly reassess its attitude
toward the ‘rogue states’, renaming them in more politically
neutral terms as ‘states of concern.’
So far, Putin’s diplomatic forays have been remarkably successful.
He has held talks with more than twenty world leaders, including
North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. In this area he has played an important
role in bridging the gap of information between North Korea and
the West. Putin sought and obtained a compromise from North Korea
on its missile development program, undercutting the US rationale
for the nuclear missile defense program. More recently, Putin successfully
conducted a telephone conference of Middle East leaders, bringing
Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak to the negotiating table.
Post
Cold War Attempts to Crush Russia
In
the 1990s Russia was not only perceived as a state without politics,
but also as a state without organised and disciplined defence forces.
Dissolving the Warsaw treaty organisation meant the strengthening
of NATO, as opposed to what Russia (perhaps naively) surmised would
be NATO’s demise.
The heady days of glasnost and perestroika saw the
Western media portray Russia as a shadow of its former self. One
cartoon accompanying an article in the New York Times depicted a
hopeless Russian teddy bear prostate on the ground with American
soldiers looking down on the poor creature. In the background, China
was shown as an enormous dragon whose claws were poised ready to
destroy both soldiers and teddy. With news headlines such as “Communism
is Dead” and soap drama style news analysis from the bastion
of US propaganda, CNN, Russia was reduced, in the eyes of the Western
public, to third world status.
The Russian media recklessly sang the glories of Westernism and
Liberalism, advocating an end to the Warsaw pact, trade liberalisation
and financial deregulation. Ideological TV centres (refuges for
NATO agents) instilled, day and night, an inferiority complex into
the peoples of Russia. Russian political philosopher Alexander Dugin
says the print media also played a powerful role in this process.
The propaganda machine assisted to build public support for NATO
providing America with a geostrategic basis for control of what
Brzezinski called “the Eurasian Balkans”. This area includes
the Eastern Shore of the Black Sea to China, including the Caspian
Sea and its oil resources.
The aims of NATO in the post Cold War era were clearly outlined
in a report prepared for the US Secretary of Defense by the Rand
Corporation, titled “Enlarging NATO: The Russian Factor”.
The report’s author Richard Kugler outlined the strategy or
end games of what he called American “open door-enlargement”,
with the overriding objective of destroying the possibility of an
independent, autonomous Eurasian geopolitical space, and the assumption
of that space under American control. The US approach was also outlined
in the Pentagon’s “Defence Planning Guidance” reported
by the New York Times in February 1992. The “Guidance”
set out a total blueprint for domination of the world, concluding
“we must seek to prevent the emergence of European only security
arrangements which will undermine NATO.”
Slowly, the US goal to isolate Russia by creating a NATO-dominated
buffer zone on the periphery of the former Soviet Empire emerged.
States that could act as gas and oil transit lines were subsumed
by NATO. Others, whose importance would increase as Caspian Sea
deposits were developed, were granted NATO “observer status”.
Russian
Efforts to Counter NATO
Russia’s
political elite and intellectuals gradually began to sober up to
the aims of the aggressive, domination-longing bloc. Not all Russians
slavishly surrendered their principles or agreed to NATO control
of Eurasia. Opposition was expressed through the publications Den,
Zavtra, Sovetskaya Rossia and Elementy. As vehicles for
conceptual and creative work, these publications alerted the conformist
press to the fact that the West and its ideological banner liberalism
was no more than a screen for the direct predatory and egoistic
colonial interests of “atlantist civilisation”, building
its own “new world order” to the detriment of all other
countries, nations, cultures, and traditions.
While most Russian efforts to counter US hegemony have focused upon
diplomatic initiatives, Russia’s negotiations with the European
Union have touched upon military cooperation in response to NATO’s
expansion. President Putin has supported the idea of a greater Europe,
“in which there should be no hegemonism of any kind.”
The dangers of an expanded NATO, supporting the barbarism of the
New World Order, have already been dramatically illustrated by the
US actions against Yugoslavia. For all practical purposes, NATO
took over all the essential functions of the UN, in fact, replacing
the UN. The ensuing Dayton Agreement (modelled after the Platt Amendment
in regard to Cuba) created a virtual American protectorate in Bosnia.
Last year Russia offered to join NATO, in an attempt to counter
the bloc’s growing power. However, NATO made it clear that
no one had extended such an invitation. Following the snub, Putin
stated: “If nobody expects us in NATO why should we be happy
about the expansion of NATO and its movement toward our borders?”
Seeking to counter NATO in an appropriate manner, Russia announced
in November 2000 that it was willing to consider military cooperation
with Europe, should it go ahead with plans for an international
rapid reaction 60,000 strong force aimed at defusing or preventing
conflicts. Further cooperative relationships between Russia and
Europe are developing with an agreement to open talks on how Russia
might contribute to the European Union’s new common security
and foreign policy.
Russia's Active Foreign Policy Strategy for Multipolarity
Russia
has reinvigorated its relationships with Libya, Iraq, North Korea,
India and China, pursuing an active foreign policy strategy, and
establishing economic partnerships with these nations. Putin’s
recent visit to India highlights these significant strategic shifts.
It was the first visit to India by a Russian President in nearly
eight years, and resulted in a series of seventeen agreements on
economic matters, nuclear energy and defence.
A joint statement issued during Putin’s visit indicated that
he and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee are both looking
to each other as a counter to aggressive interventions around the
world by the US. As Putin noted in an interview in India Today
magazine: “It is in our interest to have a strong, developed,
independent India that would be a major player on the world scene.
We see this as one of the balancing factors in the world.”
The joint declaration stated a preference for “a multi-polar
global structure” and opposed the “unilateral use or threat
to use force in violation of the UN charter, and intervention in
the internal affairs of other states.”
The US response to Russia’s initiatives for multipolarity has
been to identify (or invent) new ‘threats’ and to label
Russia’s diplomatic partners as ‘states of concern’
and proponents of international terrorism. India’s nuclear
status, for example, is now being quietly factored into Washington’s
latest assessments of global security. In the recent report of the
influential Trilateral Commission, titled “21st Century Strategies
of the Trilateral Countries” (North America, Europe, Japan),
a former high-ranking US State Department diplomat, Robert
Zoellnik,
includes India as “one of the three great challenges of Eurasia”
for early in the 21st Century. The others being China and Russia
itself.
Another response to Putin’s diplomacy has been the renewed
and aggressive push by the US defence establishment for the militarisation
of space. Its planned Nuclear Missile Defence Program is a revival
of President Reagan’s Star Wars program, which would see 20
nuclear missile interceptors deployed in space by 2005 at an estimated
cost of US$60 billion. The US has also continued to develop and
deploy nuclear weapons by the thousand, and the US government even
now refuses to issue a “no first use” pledge. The final
decision on the NMD program will be taken by the new US president,
undoubtedly fitting into the framework of US expansionism.
The Nuclear Missile Defence Program became a central discussion
point at the annual “Shanghai-Five” summit in 1999 when
President Putin held his first meeting with his Chinese counterpart,
Jiang Zemin. The most significant outcome of the summit meeting
was a more unified stance against the proposed NMD. Russia and China
agreed that they were “firmly opposed to the NMD” and
warned that US unilateralism would entail grave consequences not
only for the national security of Russia, China, and other countries,
but also for the security of the United States itself, and global
strategic stability.
Fight
to Protect and Strengthen Eurasian Interests
At
the summit, Russia and China also agreed upon initiatives for economic
development and cooperation, particularly in the energy sector.
In June 1997, a Russian delegation visited Beijing and signed a
governmental framework agreement between Russia and China to export
natural gas and electricity from East Siberia to China. Under the
natural gas deal, Russia would export gas from the Irkutsk region
over 30 years. The $1.5 billion electricity deal over 25 years would
supply 20 billion kilowatts of electricity from Irkutsk to either
Shenyang, Liaoning province or to Beijing. A firm basis for proceeding
with a Russian-Chinese oil pipeline has now been established with
oil and gas developments in the Irkutsk region. With relations greatly
improved between North and South Korea, it is likely that the Chinese-Russian
controlled pipeline could cut through Korea, providing huge potential
market.
The control of energy is of great strategic importance to the US.
According to Brzezinski, the chief geopolitical prize for the US
is Eurasia because “most of the world’s physical wealth
is there, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil.”
The US not only needs control of these resources for itself, but
it needs to control the economic development of Russia, China and
the developing nations (mostly the traditional enemies of the US).
For Russia, oil spells wealth, power, energy self-sufficiency and
credibility. These factors are a threat to US expansionism in the
region. Russian has already signed a number of important agreements
in relation to its energy resources. They comprise what is termed
the “strategic partnership”, whereby Russia will supply
Europe with oil, gas and electricity. In return Europe will invest
in Russia’s fuel production and transport industries.
The agreement between South Korea and North Korea to re-establish
a rail link that has been broken for half a century will enhance
Eurasian trade and economic relations, offering great economic opportunities
for Russia. The inter-Korean rail link will lay the groundwork for
overland transportation links from East Asia to Europe via Russia
and China, fundamentally changing the nature of trade and industry
in the region. The rail link will set the stage for industrial development
in a reunified Korea allowing rapid and efficient transportation
of materials, finished goods and equipment between South Korean
businesses and their affiliates and factories in the North. Further,
the new link will dramatically cut shipping time between Northeast
Asia and Europe.
Ultimately newly emerging powers in Eurasia will ask for more respect
and will assert more influence in the global arena. It is likely
that Russia’s unique, cultural, geopolitical, social and economic
characteristics will make a significant contribution to the process
of Eurasian rebirth, while the United States will have to accept
a lesser role. Such an adjustment could be difficult, forcing the
US to become, (if it is not already) a rogue superpower.
The US response to Russian diplomatic, economic and defence initiatives
has been reactionary and offensive, lacking an understanding and
sensitivity to Russia’s concept of the world in the 21st century.
The US has erroneously interpreted Russia’s initiatives as
a return to the past. According to Dugin, this is not a direct return
to the past, but is a focus upon new concepts:
“We
talk about turning to the traditional values, the ever Eurasian
constants, and also to the newest advanced technologies and systems
developing all over the world, but they all should be in a new way
re- interpreted, refreshed, and critically revised. That’s
what the epoch and history demands from us, not a new social and
cultural contract of sale. The post-liberal era is at a threshold.
What will it be? What has not yet been. Much of this issue depends
on us, our imagination, our will, our intellect, our honesty and
readiness to start everything from the beginning again.”
__________________________________________________________
Susan Bryce is an Australian journalist and publisher of the Australian
Freedom & Survival Guide. Her interests include global politics,
the new economy and the technologies of political control. The Australian
Freedom & Survival Guide, a newsletter that airs the dirty
laundry on the international surveillance regime, Transnational
Corporations, Genetic Engineering, the New World Order, Defence
& Military, WTO, IMF, World Bank, Globalisation. 6 issues per
year $45.00. Sample issue $7.50. Send cheque or money order payable
to S. Bryce, PO Box 66, Kenilworth, Qld 4574, Australia. Email:
sbryce@squirrel.com.au
