| Zbigniew Brzezinski writes in his bestseller about the strategy of
US hegemony. He does this without any compromises. Sometimes we have -
of course - to "translate" the words he uses: e.g. when he is talking about
"human rights" or "democracy", the real meaning in a US-context is that
of a most dangerous meaning of war, precisely the fabrication of a pseudo-reason
for military intervention or any other kind of political pressures.
But this is clear to anybody anyway!
At some points of his book, describing the break-apart of former Soviet
Union, Brzezinski analyses precisly the role of "national movements for
independance", for example in Azerbaidjan or Chechnya, which "national
independance" has been stimulated by "western investors", as reported.
By the way, within only a few pages Chechnya appears in the text at least
10 times, which demonstrates the role of this country in the past - and
what role it will play even in future: in our mind a repetition of the
"case of Kosovo" (which has been created/fabricated already aas a model-case)
in relation to Russia; this means: direct american intervention under the
given reason of "protection of human rights" und "protection of international
peace".
This of course does not mean, that Washington’s New World Order haas
anything to do (or in mind) with sovereign national states, apart from
those phases of development, when the US increases its power while at thte
same time destroing any potential competitor as world-power. In such -
short - historical phases the US support of course any national movement
of those "nations", which actually are no “nation” at all - or never have
been, but which are in the unlucky situation to be located at one of the
archimedic angle-points. In such cases these countries (and their people)
"enjoy" the attention of the US, which means consequently that they become
objects of politics and will experience continuous interference, obstruction
for war or civil-war, and - instead of a possible control of the most powerful
local country/people of such a "Grossraum" (geopolitical space) - they
will be submitted definitely to the hegemony and imperialalistic power
of the US. Because of the fact that the US are governed by "economic calculus"
only, which is poor materialism, the future role of these countries is
that to provide labor-slaves - e.g. in the so called "maquiladoras" in
Latin America - or to become the supplier of commodity products at lowest
prices for the indutrialised world. Developement or increasing of living
standard is only a parole, but never ever has been yhe object of serious
policies.
Brzezinski is absolutely clear and without any camouflaging rhetoric
when he describes the objectives of US policy: these are the maintainance
of their hegomonic power over their protectorates and submitted "tributpflichtigen
Vasallen" [tributary vassals]. (This is not the phrases of the autor, but
Brzezinski original!) Of course the other aim is “not to allow any other
power to come close to such a position of challenging the US in their role
as hegemonic world power”.
He describes precisly the conditions: the control of those "Brückenköpfe"
[bridgeheads] (fortified entrypoints in hostile countries) on the eurasian
continent - which they already control today. In the West this is Europe
(EU), in the East for example South Vietnam, but as well the Japan colony!
All measures in Middle- and Estern Europe after the breakdown of USSR
(which has been induced already by political measures by the US: e.g. the
progressive run to armament, which in turn caused the crash of USSR economy
and political system), don’t serve at all "democratisation" or "human rights",
but exclusivly geopolitical objectives.
It is quite clear, that in the West (Europe) the "Einbindung" [reunification]
of Germany is only a synonym for control of a "Vasallen" of the US. We
can see the long range planning of such policy, if considering the new
"Fesselung" of Germany in the so called Weimarer Triangle, which is within
the EU/NATO a special binding of the reunited Germany in a power- and interests
- "equilibrium" on the one side with France and Poland and on the other
with Germany. Brzezinski says the reason behind openly: France alone is
not capable of controlling Germany! Not only the the Germans are sandwiched,
with Poland the US have spoiled any attempt to come to a settelment with
Russia for a long time.
Conditions for hegemony
Hegemony of a new kind is said not be be organised in a hierarchical
way. "America stands in the center of an interrelated universe, where the
power is exercised by constant negotiation, dialogue, by diffusion and
by the aim to achieve an official consensus, even if the power is finally
executed from a single source, i.e. Washington, D.C., and of course according
to American rule." - New World Order - NWO!
"The Europeans (we may add: the people of Japan) could re-establish
their social structures ans national economy and integrate it in accord
with the American one." .. "The developement of this complex system has
been designed for the purpose to "domesticate" the relations among western
countries."
World order
Here as well Brezezinski says clearly, that such aim demands the
control of certain countries as " Brückenköpfe". If for example
JApan would escape the US-influence, the american hegemony over Asia could
not be maintained any longer. The same is true for Europe and Germany in
particular. Without control over Europe, there would be no contol over
Asia.
"To summarize the geostrategical objective of the US, we may say: through
a credible transatlantic partnership the "Brückenkopf" of the US on
the European continent has to be strenghtend in such a way, that Europe
could be used as a jump-board to spread the international order, democracy
and cooperation into Eurasia."
In this respect the US are the logical protagonist of the EU to be developed
to an "political union". Brzezinski has recognised clearly, that the identity
of Germany has been found within the European Union, which means - for
the time being - it has given up its identity. Consequently Germany has
also given up its right to play a proper geopolitical role, according to
its geographic position, its economic and scientific/mental performance.
He assesses as well the conditions for a hegemonial policy for the other
ancient world power, Russia. Here he highlights the countries which are
considered to belong to the nucleus (of a continental Power), like Ukraine,
Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc. Further self-sufficiency of these countries,
more precisly: secession from Russia, would spoil any chance for a resurrection.
But what Brzezinski even considers more dangerous for the US than the continued
disintegration, would be a political axis with the uprising countries like
China - now under China’s leadership. An eurasian landbridge would be not
only a threat but the end of any primacy of US. The consequences from such
an assessment are quite clear: such constellations must not happen at all;
any attempt for such a possibility has to be prevented with all means.
Therefore the recently signed treaty between China, Russia and Iran
has been a red-light alert fot the USA. (As the NATO-"partner" Turkey signged
a treaty with the "fundamentalistic" Iran to reconstruct the railroad between
the two countries, Madeleine Albright labeled this: "...that isn’t good
business".
The near future will show how to read the various accidents happend
in recent times: the war in Yugoslavia - as said because of Kosovo
and "human rights protection", the construction of a military airport in
Turkestan by the USA, the declaration of "sovereignity" by Taiwan and the
threat to enter into war by China, if foreign powers should interfere in
this "internal" matters and acknowledge this chance of status, border conflicts
between India and Pakistan - initiated through Talibani fighters/terrorists
(which won the war in Afghanistan against Russia with the aid of the USA!),
or the recent break-out of military conflict once again in Chechnya.
But there are also certain principles and the realistic assessment of
interest: "The importance which more and more states assign to a written
constitution and the priority they give to legislation is based on the
strenght of the US-constitutionalism, however vanishing this in practical
life might be". Brzezinski obviously must consider those countries crazy,
when the former communist states now highlight the civil elements as more
important than the military ones - also a prerequisite for NATO-menbership
-, because he understands very well the new dependence of these states
connected with such change. He values the model-case of American democracy,
which is even strenghtened by the convincing power of free enterpreneurship,
which is based on unlimited world trade and non-inhibited competition.The
role of "democracy" as reason for permanent intervention in internal affairs,
we have highlighted frequently. By addressing to the attractiveness of
free enterpreneurship, he praises a fiction, which has been lost since
the beginning of the 20th century. The attractiveness of unlimited free
trade and competition are to our mind the most important key-reason for
the destruction of national economy - and for the same reason the demolition
of sovereignity of the concerned countries.
Intermezzo
We cannot provide a complete summary of the book. A few examples
should focus the interest of the reader, and demonstrate in what a direct
and arrogant way - openly and in front of us - our march towards serfdom
is organised - this time very likely irreversible. The remarkable thing
about this book is the fact of its openess about the real aims of the United
Stattes, as well as the analysis - not vetoed by us - of the status and
the assessment about the preconditions to achieve these aims, to secure
them and vice-versa the dangers to reach these objectives at all.
Our politcians are of course aware of all these facts and processes
from the very beginning. As they try to hide anything, this demonstrates
their complete delegitimation and their assessment, that people would kick
them out, in case of a more general knowledge about these things; and it
shows as well that those politicians - like criminals - are doing everything
in a hidden way, because they know that they are breaking the law and the
constituition.
Other aspects of hegemony
Besides there is of course the usual rhetoric with its different
real meaning. This is camouflage and "convention" to label in the public
debate things and processes with other names. With this arrogant and non-camouflaged
openness concerning the stated "right" to hegemony on behalf of the US,
we can only be surprised that Brzezinski tries to make us believe as if
"democracy", "one world" ... would be the only real and thinkable objectives.
But he comes back to reality immediately with the analysis of the preconditions
for Russia, in case it might try to regain "world-power". He demonstrates
that the lack of any idea on which identity could be founded is the basic
obstacle. We do believe this as well - and we think that this is also the
fundamental problem of the European Union - and likewise of the US too!
Remarkable are the ingredients - according to Brzezinski - for the success
of America in obtaining and keeping its imperial power:
"unchallenged organistion, immense economic and technical resources
for military purposes, a not clearly identified attractiveness of cultural
influence of the "american way of life" and, finally, the competitiveness
of social and political leadership".
This sounds positive - and convincing. But it might nevertheless be
uncomplete. Comes to our mind the concentrated use of financial power,
particularly the way it is used today – IMF "loans", derivative "products",
virtual money. These four reasons also hide the role of secret organisations,
when he is talking about "organisation": their interrelationship, the worldwide
network, the hierarchical structure and the central decision-power/competence.
He comes only a little bit closer to such aspects, when he describes the
role of international organisations as US means of influence, but he never
touches the real and central importance of these anonymous powers.
Concerning the cultural influence, we agree with its importance and
the impact on society, but in the case of America we are not dealing with
"culture" in an European and occidental sense, but with instrumentalisation
of all those areas, which belong to the cultural ones, but which have been
corrupted and perverted by US/Hollywood-manipulation.
The following table [omitted in the text] shows in what integrated way
globalisation happens and what role "culture" has been assigned. Indeed
it is de-culturisation. The fact that USA has demanded (and achieved) during
the GATT negotiations that "culture" be submitted to free-trade-"laws",
indicates how "culture" is strumentalised to stabilise control and governing
power.
Brzezinski draws a total strategy, including all areas of life and society,
a real universal one. From the standpoint of the US such action might be
consistent and consequent, but it is not so for the concerned peoples of
the rest of the world.
The black hole
What he analyses with respect to Russia and the alternatives for
Russia cannot hide the US perspective. He shows two of tree alternatives
as non-feasible and the remaining one - just by chance - perfectly complies
with US objectives. We are not surprised. It is the one oriented towards
Europe, which means, it is a "transatlantic" Option, which "includes" ("Einbettung"
similar to Germany) Russia. Precondition to this is, of course, that Russia
revokes all its "imperial" aspirations. To make this happen, the US are
doing anything possible.
As far as internal affairs (of what once was the USSR) are concerned,
it is support for nationalism - camouflaged as independentist movements
- in all those states which Russia needs most to survive:
1. without Ukraine the central precondition for stabilisation of power
is damaged, any "resurrection" is a fatamorgana
2. break-out of Azerbaidjan - to gain the "West" access to the rich
oil and gas resources of the Kaspian sea
3. break-out of Uzbekistan, which destabilises the southern borders
of Asia. Without a direct border with Russia, Uzbekistan is really suited
for all kinds of subversive activities against Russia.
As far as external aspects are concerned, the "Brückenköpfe"
are strenghtened:
1. in the West, the eastward expansion of NATO (including Ukraine!)
2. war against Yugoslavia to establish a "Brückenkopf" in the
Balkans
3. Gulf War to establish another one at the South-Eastern corner, an
access point to the ancient (Russian) empire
4. conflict in Kashmir and Afghanistan, as conflict areas at the Southern
border
5. Taiwan’s declaration of sovereignity builds a new front in Far East
6. in the North-West - the Baltic countrires - now all of them have
got "élites" under US influence, as Brzezinski has so nicely spelled
out.
The old and well-established "Brückenköpfe" are not even mentioned.
But there are many "protectorates” and "Vasallen", with the obligation
of paying "contributions", as Brezinski said.
But these are only geographically identified locations of power-projection.
The subtile and interrelated methods of financial and economic policies
and the transnational/global corporations/ organisations do their part,
in order to leave no other geopolitical option to Russia - which means
no option at all, but only a question of survival. American "alternatives"
are obviously of such kind, that "one cannot refuse them".
When the fox offers his friendship to the geese and highlights the advantage
to them, they will of course believe him. So do we in the American-Russian
case: "No other option can provide such rich advantage to Russia, than
a rich, modern, democratic Europe, associated to the US. Europe and America
are not on an expansionistic course and comprise no threat to Russia. They
don’t have territorial demands on Russia, what cannot be said from China,
nor do they share a border which is unsecure and potentially explosive,
like the borders with the muslim peoples in the south, which are uncertain
too. On the contrary, for Europe and the US, a national and democratic
Russia is a geopolitical objective, a source of stability within the non
calculable euro-asian complex” etc.
|
