Having trouble viewing this email?
Click herehttp://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=o8b4necab&v=001v2e...
The Logic of Imperial Insanity and the Road to World War III
By Andrew Gavin Marshall
URL of this article:www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22781
Global Research, January 14, 2011
Defining the Imperial Stratagem
In the late 1990s Brzezinski wrote up the design for Americas
imperial project in the 21st century in his book, The Grand Chessboard.
He stated bluntly that, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger
emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging
America, and then made clear the imperial nature of his strategy:
To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age
of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy
are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the
vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the
barbarians from coming together.[1]
He further explained that the Central Asian nations (or Eurasian
Balkans as he refers to them):
are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical
ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful
neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling
an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian
Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize:
an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located
in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.[2]
Brzezinski emphasizes that America's primary interest is to help
ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space
and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic
access to it.[3]
Obama as a Rabid Imperialist
Obama wasted no time in rapidly accelerating Americas imperial
adventures. While dropping the term War on Terror from usage, the
Pentagon adopted the term, overseas contingency operations.[4] This
was to be the typical strategy of the Obama administration: change
the appearance, not the substance. The name was changed, but the
War on Terror remained, and not only that, it was rapidly accelerated
to a level that would not have been possible if undertaken by the
previous administration.
The current expansion of American imperialism globally has been
rapidly accelerated since Obama became President, and seems intent
on starting and expanding wars all over the world. When Obama became
President, America and its Western allies were engaged in a number
of wars, occupations and covert destabilizations, from Afghanistan,
Iraq, Somalia, to the Congo, and Obama took office in the midst of
Israels brutal assault against Gaza. From the beginning of his
presidency, Obama immediately justified Israels vicious attack
against innocent Palestinians, rapidly accelerated the war and
occupation of Afghanistan, expanded the war into Pakistan, started
a new war in Yemen, and supported a military coup in Honduras, which
removed a popular democratic government in favour of a brutal
dictatorship. Obamas administration has expanded covert special
operations throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn
of Africa, and is paving the way for a war against Iran.[5] In fact,
the Obama administration has expanded Special Operations forces
into 75 countries around the world (compared with a height of 60
during the Bush regime). Among the many countries with expanded
operations are Yemen, Colombia, the Philippines, Somalia, Pakistan,
among many others.[6] Further, in recent months, the Obama
administration has been saber rattling with North Korea, potentially
starting a war on the Korean Peninsula. With the creation of the
Pentagons Africa Command (AFRICOM), American foreign policy on the
continent has become increasingly militarized.
No continent is safe, it seems. America and its NATO cohorts are
undertaking a seemingly insane foreign policy of dramatically
accelerating overt and covert military imperialism. This policy
seems to be headed for an eventual confrontation with the rising
eastern powers, in particular China, but potentially India and
Russia as well. China and America, specifically, are headed on an
imperial collision course: in East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia,
the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. The competition for
access to resources is reminiscent of the Great Game of the 19th
century, of which Afghanistan was a central battlefield.
One would think that in the midst of a massive global economic
crisis, the worst the world has ever seen, the major nations would
scale back their imperial over-reach and militarism in order to
reduce their debts and preserve their economies. However, there is
an imperial logic behind this situation, and one that must be placed
within a wider geopolitical context.
Conceptualizing the Rise of China
First, we must properly address the nature of Chinas rise in the
world order. What we are witnessing is an historically unique
situation. For the first time, the rise of a new power is taking
place not in the context of rising against the hegemonic powers of
the time, but within the hegemonic order. In short, Chinas rise has
not been a rise against America, but rather a rise within the
American world order. Thus, China has risen as much as the West has
allowed it to rise, but that does not mean that China will not seek
to serve its own interests now that it has accumulated significant
global status and power. China has risen by integrating with the
Western-dominated economic system, and in particular the Western
banking and central banking systems. China and America are economically
dependent upon one another, as America purchases Chinas cheap
products, and China funds Americas debt. In effect, China is also
funding Americas imperial adventurism.
Thus, we are presented with a unique situation: one of mutual
dependence and competition. While China and America are dependent
upon one another, they are also each others greatest competitors,
specifically in terms of access to and control over resources. For
example, China supports both Iran and Sudan. These two nations are
major targets of American imperial ambitions, not because of any
humanitarian or anti-terrorism concerns (although that is the
propaganda espoused most often), but because of the significant
resources and strategic relevance of these nations. As they are not
subservient to the West and specifically America, they are considered
enemy nations, and thus the media focus on demonizing these nations
so that the public is supportive of military or other means of
implementing regime change. China supports these nations because
of its access to their resources, and as a counter to American
influence.
Global Governance
To add another complex feature to this story, we must place this
conflicting relationship in the context of the global economic
crisis and the world response to it. The G20 is the principle forum
for global governance, in which the nations of the world are working
together to increasingly integrate their governance approaches on
a global scale. The economic crisis has provided the impetus to
spur on calls for and the implementation of plans to construct a
system of global economic governance: a global central bank and
global currency. So, as China and America are seeking to further
integrate economically and globally, they are also competing for
access to and control over resources.
The logic behind this is that both powers want to be able to negotiate
the process of constructing a system of global governance from a
more secure standpoint. While it is generally acknowledged that the
world is witnessing the rise of the East, in particular with China
and India, we see the center of global power moving from the Atlantic
to the Pacific. Several commentators for years have been analyzing
and discussing this issue; however, the fact that power has been
centered in the Atlantic for the past 500 years means that it will
not be so easily moved to the Pacific. In fact, the Western powers
not only acknowledge the rise of the East, but that the East has
risen because they have allowed it to and aided it in this process.
The Western powers have done this not out of some benevolent design,
but because the organized intellectual powers of the West (namely,
the principle think tanks and banking interests) have sought to
create a perfect global system of governance, one in which power
does not sway from nation to nation, or West to East, but rather
that power is centralized globally. This is obviously a long-term
project, and will not (if ever) be realized for several more decades.
Yet, it is through crises economic, political, and social that
this process of global governance can be rapidly accelerated.
See: Crisis is an Opportunity: Engineering a Global Depression to
Create a Global Government
Understanding Imperial Dynamics
There is another dynamic to this complicated relationship that must
be addressed, that of the internal dynamics between the political,
economic and military elite of the dominant nations. For the sake
of time, I will focus on the two principle nations: America and
China. Americas national security apparatus, namely the Pentagon
and intelligence services, have long worked in the service of the
economic elite and in close cooperation with the political elite.
There is a network that exists, which President Eisenhower called
the military-industrial complex where the interests of these three
sectors overlap and thus America is given its imperial impetus.
It is within the major think tanks of the nation, specifically the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), where cohesion between these
sectors is encouraged and managed. The think tanks, and the CFR
most especially, are the policy-makers of the American Empire. Think
tanks bring together elites from most power sectors of society the
military, political, corporate, banking, intelligence, academia,
media, etc. and they discuss, debate and ultimately produce strategy
blueprints and recommendations for American foreign policy. Individuals
from these think tanks move in and out of the policy-making circles,
creating a revolving door between the policy-planners and those
that implement them. The think tanks, in this context, are essentially
the intellectual engines of the American Empire.
Still, we must not assume that because they are grouped together,
work together, and strategize together, that they are identical in
views or methods; there is significant debate, disagreement and
conflict within and between the think tanks and policy-making
circles. However, dissent within these institutions is of a particular
nature: it focuses on disagreement over methods rather than aims
and objectives. To elaborate, the members (at least the powerful
members) of think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations do
not disagree on the cause of empire and supporting American hegemony,
that is a given, and is not often even discussed. That is the
environment in which the elite operate.
What is up for debate and discussion is the methods used to achieve
this, and it is here where significant conflicts arise between
elites. Bankers and corporations seek to protect their financial
and economic interests around the world. Military officials are
concerned with preserving and expanding American hegemony, and are
largely focused on potential rivals to American military power, and
tend to favour military options of foreign policy over diplomatic
ones. Political representatives must be concerned with the total
influence and projection of American power economically, militarily,
politically, etc. and so they must weigh and balance these multiple
interests and translate it into a cohesive policy. Often, they lean
towards the use of military might, however, there have been many
incidents and issues for which political leaders have had to reign
in the military and pursue diplomatic objectives. There have also
been instances where the military has attempted to reign in rabidly
militaristic political leaders, such as during the Bush administration
with the neo-conservatives pushing for direct confrontation with
Iran, prompting direct and often public protests and rebuttals from
the military establishment, as well as several resignations of
top-ranking generals.
These differences are often represented directly within administrations.
The Kennedy years, for example, saw a continual conflict between
the military and intelligence circles and the civilian leadership
of John Kennedy. His brief term as President was marked by a constant
struggle to prevent the military and intelligence services of America
particularly the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA from starting
wars with Cuba, Vietnam and the Soviet Union. The Cuban Missile
Crisis was resolved only after Robert Kennedy, JFKs brother and the
Attorney General, convinced the Russians that Kennedy was at risk
of being overthrown in a military coup, which would result in a
direct nuclear war against the USSR.
See: The National Security State and the Assassination of JFK
Thus, within the key policy circles namely the think tanks and
presidential cabinets there is always a delicate balancing act of
these various interests. Fundamentally, with American power, they
all rest and support American corporate and banking interests.
Diplomacy, especially, is concerned with supporting American corporate
and financial interests abroad. As the Wikileaks diplomatic cables
have revealed in a number of cases, diplomats directly intervene
on behalf of and work with various corporate interests. US diplomats
acted as sales agents to foreign governments promoting Boeing planes
over European competitors, they pressured the government of Bangladesh
to reopen a widely-opposed mine in the country operated by a British
company, they lobbied the Russian government directly on behalf of
the interests of Visa and Mastercard, engaged in intelligence sharing
with Shell in Nigeria, and in the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan,
US diplomats worked with major British business interests and British
Prince Andrew, who stated that, the United Kingdom, Western Europe
(and by extension you Americans too, were back in the thick of
playing the Great Game, and that, this time we aim to win![7]
The military, in turn, acts in the interests of the corporate and
financial elite, as those countries that do not submit to American
economic hegemony are deemed enemies, and the military is ultimately
sent in to implement regime change. Strategic concerns are de facto
economic concerns. The military is concerned with preserving and
expanding American hegemony, and to do so they must be focused on
threats to American dominance, as well as securing strategic locations
in the world. For example, the war in Yemen, a country with very
little to offer economically, has a lot to do with strategic-economic
interests. The threat in Yemen is not in the form of al-Qaeda,
though that is what is most propagandized, but rather it is the
fact that the long-supported dictatorship of President Saleh, who
has been in power since 1978, is threatened by a rebel movement in
the North and a massive secessionist movement in the South, as the
central government controls barely one-third of the country. In
short, Yemen is on the verge of revolution, and thus, Americas
trusted ally and local despot, President Saleh, is at risk of being
usurped. Thus, America has heavily subsidized Yemens military, and
has even directly launched cruise missiles, sent in Special Forces
and other forms of assistance to help Yemens dictator suppress,
repress and ultimately crush these popular peoples movements for
independence and liberty.
Now why is this a strategic-economic concern to America, for a
country that has little dwindling resources to offer? The answer
is in Yemens geographic location. Directly below Saudi Arabia, a
revolutionary government that would be highly antagonistic towards
Americas trusted Saudi proxy state would be a threat to Americas
interests throughout the entire Middle East. It would be likely
that Iran would seek to ally itself and aid such a government,
allowing Iran to expand its own political influence in the region.
This is why Saudi Arabia is itself taking direct military action
in Yemen against the rebels in the North, along its border. The
Saudi elite are fearful of the rebellious sentiments spreading into
Saudi Arabia itself. No wonder then, that America recently signed
off on the largest arms deal in U.S. history with Saudi Arabia,
totaling $60 billion, in an effort to support operations in Yemen
but principally to act as a counter to Iranian influence in the
region. Further, Yemen sits atop the Gulf of Aden, directly across
from the Horn of Africa (namely Somalia), connecting the Black Sea
to the Arabian Sea, which is itself one of the major oil transport
routes in the world. Strategic control over the nations lining the
Gulf of Aden is of primary interest to American imperial strategists,
whether they are military, political or economic in nature.
Yemen is also directly across the water from Somalia, another country
ravaged by the American war machine. As the diplomatic cables
confirmed, in 2006, the Bush Administration pushed Ethiopia to
invade Somalia with an eye on crushing the Union of Islamic Courts,
which is exactly what happened, and Somalia has been a failed state
mired in civil war ever since.[8] The piracy that has exploded in
the waters off of Somalia are a result of the massive toxic waste
dumping and over-fishing done by European and American and other
major shipping lines, and have served as an excuse for the
militarization of the waters. In this context, it would be unacceptable
from a strategic standpoint to allow Yemen to fall from American
influence. Thus, America is at war in Yemen.
See: Yemen: The Covert Apparatus of the American Empire
China, alternatively, does not have such direct cohesion between
its political, economic and military sectors. Chinas military is
intensely nationalistic, and while the political elite are more
cooperative with U.S. interests and often work to achieve mutual
interests, the military sees America as a direct challenge and
antagonistic (which of course, it is). Chinas economic elite,
specifically its banking elite, are heavily integrated with the
West, so much so that it is very difficult to separate the two.
There is not such an integration between the Chinese and American
military establishments, nor is there an internal dynamic within
China that reflects the American system of empire. The divisions
between military, political and economic circles are more pronounced
within China than in America. The Chinese political leadership is
put into a very challenging situation. Determined to see China
advance economically, they must work with America and the West.
However, on key political issues (such as with Taiwan), the political
leadership must adhere to an intensely nationalistic approach, which
is counter to U.S. interests, and supportive of Chinese military
interests. Increasing military superiority is seen as a key aspect
and objective of Chinas increasing political dominance in the world
scene. As one top Chinese general stated in 2005, China should use
nuclear weapons against the United States if the American military
intervenes in any conflict over Taiwan. The General cited war logic
which dictates that a weaker power needs to use maximum efforts to
defeat a stronger rival. His view suggested that elements within
the Chinese military are determined to respond with extreme force
if America intervenes in any potential conflict over Taiwan, saying
that, We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all
the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be
prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.[9]
The Logic of Competitive Co-Operation
The Chinese military must be ready to protect its economic interests
abroad if it is to have control over its own economic growth and
thus maintain international power. Thus, Chinas political impetus
to support and increase its international influence is very
conflicting. On the one hand, this means actively cooperating with
America and the West (primarily in economic matters, as we see with
the G20, where China is engaging in the dialogue and the implementation
of global governance arrangements); and on the other hand, China
must also challenge America and the West in order to secure its own
access to and control over vital resources necessary for its own
economic and political growth. China is placed in a paradoxical
situation. While working with the West to construct the apparatus
of global governance, China does not want to be dictated to, and
instead wants a strong negotiating position in these arrangements.
So while engaging in discussions and negotiations for the construction
of a system of global governance, China must also actively seek to
increase its control over key strategic resources in the world in
order to strengthen its own negotiating position. It is often the
case that when warring parties come to the table for negotiations,
the on-the-ground operations are rapidly accelerated in order to
strengthen the negotiating position of the respective party.
This was the case during the Rwandan Civil War, where throughout
the Arusha Peace Process, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), heavily
supported by America against the Rwandan government (which was
supported by France and Belgium), rapidly accelerated its military
campaign, thus gaining the upper hand during negotiations, which
worked in its favour, ultimately resulting in the Rwandan genocide
(which was sparked by the RPFs assassination of the Rwandan president),
and the RPF usurped power in Rwanda. This is also the case in
Israel-Palestine peace negotiations, such as during the Oslo process,
where Israel rapidly accelerated its expansion of settlements into
the occupied territories, essentially ethnically cleansing much of
the Palestinian populations of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This
expanded process of ethnic cleansing is what the Western political
leaders and media call a peace process. Thus, when Palestinians
react to this ethnic cleansing and expansion of the settlements
(which is an inherently violent process), or a suicide bombing or
mortar attack takes place in reaction to this expansion of settlements,
Western political leaders and media blame the Palestinians for
breaking a period of relative peace or relative calm. Apparently,
it is considered to be relative peace if only Palestinians are being
killed. Thus, Israel always ensures that through any negotiation
process, its interests are met above all others.
So we see this logic with China and America today. While not directly
at war with one another, they are each others greatest competition.
This competition is prevalent in Central Asia, where America is
seeking dominance over the regions enormous natural gas reserves,
thus depriving China of access to and control over these vital
strategic resources. It is also heavily present in Africa, where
China has presented an alternative to going to the World Bank and
IMF for African governments to get loans and support in exchange
for resource access. In this context, America established its newest
Pentagon command, Africa Command (AFRICOM) to merge American
diplomatic, civil society and military policy in Africa under command
of the Pentagon. In the Middle East, America is primarily dominant,
thus leaving China pushed to ally itself with Iran. In South America,
China is allying itself with the somewhat progressive governments
which rose in opposition to American military and economic hegemony
over the region.
This logic holds for both America and China. Both seek to secure a
dominant position while engaging in discussions and the implementation
of a global governance apparatus. This leads both powers to seek
cooperation and mutual benefit, yet, simultaneously, compete globally
for control of resources. This is magnified by the global economic
crisis, which has revealed the weaknesses of the global economy,
and indeed the global monetary and banking systems. The world economy
is on the verge of total collapse. The next decade will be scarred
by a new Great Depression. This provides a further impetus for both
of these powers to rapidly accelerate their control over resources
and expand their military adventurism.
The American Empire is in decline, and is utterly bankrupt; however,
its elites, which are in fact more global than national in their
ideology and orientation, are seeking to not simply have American
power disappear, or be replaced with Chinese power, but rather to
use American power to construct the apparatus of a new global
structure of authority, and that the American Empire will simply
fade into a global structure. This is a delicate balancing act for
the global elite, and requires integrating China and the other
dominant powers within this system. It also inherently implies the
ultimate domination of the global south (Africa, Latin America, and
parts of Asia). This is an entirely new process being undertaken.
Empires have risen and fallen throughout all of human history. This
time, the fall of the American Empire is taking place within the
context of the rise of a totally new kind of power: global in scope,
structure and authority. This will no doubt be one of the defining
geopolitical events of the next several decades.
Historically, periods of imperial decline are marked by a rapid
acceleration of international conflict and war, as the declining
power seeks to control as much as it can as fast as it can (thus
we see Americas seemingly insane expansion of war, conflict and
militarization everywhere in the world), while rising powers seek
to take advantage of this decline in order to accelerate the collapse
of the declining power, and secure their position as the next
dominant power. Yet, in this geopolitical landscape of the 21st
century, we are faced with this entirely new context, where the
decline of one empire and the rise of a new power are taking place
while both seek to integrate and construct an entirely new system
and structure of power, yet both seek to secure for themselves a
dominant position within this new structure. The potential for
conflict is enormous, possibly resulting in a direct war between
America and China, or in a mass of global proxy wars between them.
This new century will indeed be an interesting one. The prospects
of a new global war are increasing with every accelerated military
adventure. The primary antagonist in this theatre of the absurd is
without a doubt, the United States. If the world is headed for World
War III, it is because America has made such a situation inevitable.
One cannot preclude that for many global elites, such a result may
be desirable in and of itself. After all, World War I provided the
impetus for the formation of the League of Nations, and World War
II provided the push for the United Nations to secure peace between
nations. In a world largely run by global strategists, it would be
naove to assume that it has not occurred to some that a new world
war could be precisely the event they need to convince the people
of the world to accept their desired system of global governance;
no doubt to secure world peace. At least, I am sure it will be sold
under that pretense.
Notes
[1] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page
40
[2] Ibid, page 124.
[3] Ibid, page 148.
[4] Scott Wilson and Al Kamen, 'Global War On Terror' Is
Given New Name, The Washington Post: 25 March 2009:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR200...
[5] MARK MAZZETTI, U.S. Is Said to Expand Secret Actions in
Mideast, The New York Times, 24 May 2010:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/world/25military.html?_r=1
[6] Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe, U.S. 'secret war' expands
globally as Special Operations forces take larger role, The Washington
Post, 4 June 2010:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR201...
[7] Eric Lipton, Diplomats Help Push Sales of Jetliners on
the Global Market, The New York Times, 2 January 2011:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/business/03wikileaks-boeing.html?_r=2;
Fariha Karim, WikiLeaks cables: US pushed for reopening of Bangladesh
coal mine, The Guardian, 21 December 2010:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/wikileaks-cables-us-bangl...
Luke Harding and Tom Parfitt, WikiLeaks cables: US 'lobbied Russia
on behalf of Visa and MasterCard', The Guardian, 8 December 2010:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-russia-visa-...
David Smith, WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state
revealed, The Guardian, 8 December 2010:http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell...
Borzou Daragahi and Alexandra Sandels, CENTRAL ASIA: WikiLeaks
dispatches reveal a Great Game for the 21st century, Babylon &
Beyond: LA Times Blog, 14 December 2010:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/12/great-game-wiki...
[8] Rob Prince, WikiLeaks Reveals U.S. Twisted Ethiopia's
Arm to Invade Somalia, Global Research, 26 December 2010:http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22512
[9] JOSEPH KAHN, Chinese General Threatens Use of A-Bombs
if U.S. Intrudes, The New York Times, 15 July 2005:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/international/asia/15china.html
Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for
Research on Globalization (CRG). He is co-editor, with Michel
Chossudovsky, of the recent book, "The Global Economic Crisis: The
Great Depression of the XXI Century," available to order at
Globalresearch.ca. He is currently working on a forthcoming book
on 'Global Government'.
Please support Global Research Global Research relies on the financial
support of its readers.
Your endorsement is greatly appreciated
Subscribe to the Global Research e-newsletter Disclaimer: The views
expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on
Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility
of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not
be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements
contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research
articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title
are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be
displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or
other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
crgedi...@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.cacontains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available to our readers under the
provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding
of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If
you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair
use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgedi...@yahoo.com
Copyright Andrew Gavin Marshall, Global Research, 2011
The url address of this article is:www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22781
Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx
Multimedia ) Copyright 2005-2007