Dear cj,
This NWO series started out with the following statement:
The subject for today is the dramatic and rapid
consolidation of the new global regime.
That posting also contained:
Now all at once, in the space of a few short months, the NWO
hammer has come down - the final implementation of the
global military regime has occurred. Tony Blair and Bill
Clinton have announced that Yugoslavia is only the
beginning, that we can expect interventions throughout the
world as routine policy. NATO is to be the vehicle,
'humanitarianism' is to be the pretext, and
centrally-controlled wag-the-dog propaganda is to make sure
events are interpreted with the white hats and black hats
plainly assigned to the right characters.
Since then, the series has featured a review of some of the new regime's
broader features... the unfolding of the new imperialism, the emergence of
a military-industrial complex writ large, the tacit official encouragement
of child slavery in the imperialized regions.
Today I want to return to the _rapid consolidation_ theme. The 'sense' (I
won't call it a theory) I'm getting is that our esteemed global planners
have set an arbitrary date - the year 2000 - to complete the consolidation
of their global system of governance. I say this because so many of the
simmerings we've been observing over the past few years now seem to be
coming to the boil at the same time.
Almost a decade separated 'Desert Storm' from 'Operation Bomb for Human
Rights'. In 1991, we had the signing of the neoliberal Maastricht Treaty,
and the rest of the decade has brought the gradual usurpation of European
sovereignty into a corporate-controlled Brussels regime. In Clinton's
first reign we had the historic passage of NAFTA, and in '95 the Uruguay
round of GATT gave us the World Trade Organization (WTO). The nineties was
for the most part a long decade of very gradual foundation laying for the
new international order. All the time these foundations were being layed,
the West (primarily the US and Germany) were encouraging the
destabilization of Yugoslavia while the media (with its one-sided coverage)
built up a deep international resevoir of conditioned anger against the
Serbs.
The preceding 'me' decade had brought us the Regan-Thatcher revolution,
which established the NWO paradigm for the West. The denigration of
nationalism & officialdom managed to reverse centuries of vica-versa
propaganda, and to hypnotize the public into applauding the dismantlement
of the very institutions which are their only hope of representive
empowerment. The eighties brought a gradual softening up of the former
'great democracies', in preparation for their subjugation to the global
regime. The ninenties brought us the follow up - the development of the
institutions of that regime.
Just for completeness, we might recall the seventies - the decade in which
the democratic surge of the sixties was brought under control, its symbols
absorbed harmlessly into mass culture, its movements infiltrated and
neutralized, its leaders assasinated, imprisoned, fled into exile, or
marginalized.
---
There were many other threads going on during the nineties, such as the
encouragement of religious fundamentalism on a global scale, the
hypocritical war on drugs, the media-creation of terrorism-hysteria, the
revivial of the centuries-old anti-muslim 'Spirit of the Crusades', the
paramilitarization of civil society, genocidal operations against black
Africa, the destabilization of the former USSR, and so on. And in all of
these threads there was evidence of a deep game - not a frantic game -
being played. Years were devoted to shifting public opinion and
perceptions, 'slowly boiling the frog'. The game seemed to be to destroy
the old world order - without anyone noticing the overall pattern.
On an historic time scale, all of these changes come with the swiftness of
a lightning bolt - two decades is very brief, as the terminus to a
centuries-old global system. Nonetheless, in the timeframe of everyday
reality, and of the daily news, confident patience seems to have
characterized the global elite as they inexorably drew the reins of power
unto themselves.
---
But now, somewhat suddenly, we find ourselves in a new period of dramatic
and frantic consolidation. Perhaps the debut event [nominations invited]
of the new period was the all-out attack on the Southeast Asian Tigers. It
suddenly became clear that in this era of equal-opportunity capitalism,
some capitalists are more equal than others - it remains a Western world
after all. Another acceleration event was the mass introduction of
bio-engineered crops - after decades of patient research we now have
something like half the products on the shelves with gm contents. There is
also an acceleration in the consolidation of economic power under the WTO,
as evidenced by the MAI initiative, and moves toward a EU-Western
Hemisphere free-trade zone.
The most dramatic acceleration-event (thus far) was of course the invasion
of Yugoslavia. After a decade of resolute standoffishness, the US suddenly
became the Crusading Knight of the White Horse, rallied Sir Gallant NATO to
his side, and rode forth to slay the marauding Serb Dragon. Not only that,
but Sir Crusader took the handerchief of Maid Humanitarianism, publicly
pledging himself to henceforth slay all of her enemies.
If we drop my metaphors about chivalry, and drop NATO's metaphors about
humanitarianism, we are then left with the plain facts: the major Western
powers have announced that national sovereignty is no longer a sacrosanct
principle - not even in rhetoric. They will now intervene whenever they
feel like it, and their level of violence will be exceeded only by the
level of their hypocritical self-rigtheousness... 'Remember Yugoslavia and
Irag - all ye downtrodden colonies who would contentance disrespect for
your new masters - we will grind you into the dust and pour
depleted-uranium salt on your ashes, tormenting your offspring unto
countless generations'.
This last transformation happened with whirlwind speed, and it signifies a
major historical right-parenthesis - the left parenthesis being the fall of
Rome. For the first time in nearly 2000 years the West is unified, armed
to the teeth, and on the path of imperial expansion. What Alexander the
Great & Ceaser (& Hitler) failed to do, our faceless plutocrats are now
accomplishing not with heroic or demonic fanfare, but with grey-suited
cowardly stealth.
---
If my 'sense' of a final dramatic consolidation - in contrast to decades of
slow foundation building - has any validity, then it would behoove us to
identify what obstacles yet remain in the path of that consolidation. If
the symbolic date of 1/1/2000 has indeed been set as a deadline, then we
can expect something to be done in the next few months about any such
obstacles.
It seems to me that Russia and China are the two primary identifiable
obstacles to final consolidation. Russia probably posseses the more potent
nuclear arsenal of the two, while China poses the more serious long-term
'threat'. Russia has deterioriated to the point where it can barely afford
to maintain a symbolic military presence in Kosovo, while China is
blossoming economically and is rapidly pursuing a policy of military
modernization. For the Red Menace and the Yellow Peril there is
considerable evidence that we are nigh upon mop-up time.
Back in the July-August, 1997 edition of 'New Dawn' magazine, I published
"China vs. Globalization - the Final War and the Dark Millennium". The
article included the following observations:
------------------------------------------------------------
There are a pair of articles in Foreign Affairs (March/April
1997) - a Council-on-Foreign-Relations journal highly
revealing of the globalist agenda - called The China Threat
- A Debate. In the first article - The Coming Conflict with
America - Richard Bernstein and Ross H. Munro present the
case that armed conflict between the US and China may be
inevitable.
They tell us: "China's sheer size and inherent strength, its
conception of itself as a center of global civilization, and
its eagerness to redeem centuries of humiliating weakness
are propelling it toward Asian hegemony." And they pass on
an ominous sentiment attributed to General Mi Zhenyu,
vice-commandant of the Academy of Military Sciences in
Beijing: "For a relatively long time it will be absolutely
necessary that we quietly nurse our sense of vengeance. We
must conceal our abilities and bide our time" - giving fair
warning to be wary of what may appear to be softening in
Chinese behavior.
What makes these observations especially dire is the
article's evidently authoritative description of Uncle Sam's
attitude on the matter:
"China's goal of achieving paramount status in Asia
conflicts with an established American objective:
preventing any single country from gaining an overwhelming
power in Asia. The United States, after all, has been in
major wars in Asia three times in the past half-century,
always to prevent a single power from gaining ascendency."
------------------------------------------------------------
The New Dawn article went on to examine the interval between WWI and WWII,
when the US traded heavily with Japan and Germany, facilitating the
development of their military machines. Those who opposed fascism in the
thirties were ignored, and those who went to fight against fascism in Spain
were treated on their return as persons of questionable loyalty. Only
after Japan and Germany were well into their campaigns of conquest, and not
until the US was actually attacked, did the US 'discover' that a threat
existed. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, war strategies had been developed,
and when the dust had settled, Uncle Sam came out numero uno, with nary a
trace of responsibility for what had happened. Despite the fact that
US-owned manufacturing plants (eg, Ford, General Motors) built weapons in
Germany for the Nazis throughout the war.
The parallels with the current Chinese situation are chilling. Again we
have massive investment and trade with China, with the US facilitating in
every way it can China's economic and military development. This is the
'engagement' side of the policy coin. At the same time, as noted above,
there is a 'confrontation' school of policy makers. There's a kind of
carrot-and-stick game going on. On the one hand, there are Western
initiatives to further open up trade & investment, the granting by the US
of 'most-favored-nation' status, and encouragement for China to join the
'international community'. Many Chinese officials were even invited to the
most recent Bilderberger meeting.
On the other hand there have been provocative military maneuvers by
American fleets in Chinese waters, the 'accidental' bombing of Chinese
embassies on three separate occasions, and a favoring of Japan as the
designated senior Asian player. There has also been an ongoing low-level
demonization campaign against China, vis. a vis. Tibet, forced labor,
treatment of female infants, anti-democratic crackdowns, and the like. It
would take only a single sensationalized incident (an attack on Taiwan?
sinking of a carrier task force on its way to Taiwan?) for China to become
the ultimate satanic power in the eyes of Western publics. You thought you
hated Noriega, Saddam, and then Milosevic?... wait till you see them all
rolled into one, with a pinko tinge, an inscrutable asiatic mind, and
enough firepower to actually be a credible _threat to the West (unlike all
the other military targets of the nineties).
---
Enough recapitulation... let's get on to the current accleration phase of
this simmering love-hate relationship with China. The place to look, of
course, is that narrow sea that separates Taiwan from Mainland China. No
so much the physical H(2)0 straits, but more the covoluted sea of confusion
that surrounds the very defintion of 'China'. Like some modern version of
the 'magical trinity' - 'both one and three', the US has long nurtured an
ambiguous 'two China's and one' policy. In Mainland China, this policy has
been interpreted as permitting the eventual reabsorption of its wayward
province, while Taiwan has interpreted it as a promise of Western
protection. This ambiguity, it seems to me, has been intentionally
maintained, providing a potential firestorm that can be ignited at any
chosen time. The question before us is: Is that 'chosen time' now
approaching? Let's review a few recent developments...
In Foreign Affairs, November/December, 1998, we find, a report entitled
'Selling Out Taiwan'. We learn that in a (then) recent visit to Shanghai
Clinton announced a major tilt toward China. This was followed by
expressions of concern from Taiwan officials, fearing that China would
exploit the 'tilt' to bring greater pressure to bear on Taiwan. Sure
enough, Bejing officials soon put the word out that from Clinton's
annoucement Taipei would "get a clear understainding of the situation", and
that the announcement "provided favorable conditions" for resolving the
Taiwan issue.
Are the Chinese reading more into Clinton's words than is warranted? Are
they perhaps hearing what they want to hear? I can't help but being
reminded of Saddam, and how he was tricked into invading Kuwait. In
retrospect, we wonder how he could have been so stupid. At the time,
however, he had an exaggerated opinion of Iraq's military prowess, and he
genuinely felt he had received an official US go-ahead for his invasion.
He was eager to believe he had approval, and not inclined to ponder other
possibilities. When it later became clear the go-ahead was bogus, it was
too late, he had crossed the rubicon. He had no idea of the historic
strategic drama he had stumbled into.
China certainly has more diplomatic savvy than our demented Saddam, and
plays a more cautious strategic game - but China is not immune from having
an exaggerated opinion of its own military capabilities, nor from believing
what it wants to believe about American intentions. To us in the West, it
is obvious that the US would draw a firm line at any military invasion of
Taiwan. No matter what any President might say or hint, we know that an
invasion of Taiwan would be viscerely experienced in America with an impact
approaching that of Perl Harbor - the invasion of Kuwait wasn't even in the
same league. And there is no likelihood Clinton is going to play the
Chamberlain to a Chinese repeat of the German annexation of the
Sudetenland. No way, nada, nyet, it's not in the cards. For some reason,
Chinese leades do not seem to be sensitive to this unspoken but immutable
'line in the sand'.
Taiwan, having been long in the US defense orbit, has a better grasp of the
realpolitic of Washington's long-term Asian policies. Taiwan is counting
on US support if push comes to shove, not out of the goodness of American
hearts, but out of cold balance-of-power calculations. Given the
destabilization of the long-standing 'two china' policy, as articulated by
Clinton, Taiwan is now looking for a more robust formula for its long-term
survival. Possibly with the covert encouragement of Washington, and
possibly not [anyone heard anything??], Taiwan recently dropped a major
bombshell on this whole scenario. Taiwan's leader, Lee Teng-hui, announced
that the island was now a separate state!
Such a statement would have been highly incindery at any time in the past
half century, and for that long Teipei officials steered clear of any such
rhetoric. Now suddenly, in the final countdown to Y2K, a threatening
gauntlet has been thrown down. If China acquiesces to Taiwan's declaration
of independence, so soon after acquiescing to illegal Western interventions
in the Balkans, and the bombing of its embassy, it will have lost face in a
big way. Any pretensions toward Asian hegemony would have suffered a
severe setback, humiliating Chinese leaders in their own eyes and in the
eyes of Washington strategists. Meanwhile, China - as a consequence of
Clinton's not-worth-the-paper-its-printed-on encouragement - seems to think
it has received 'the nod' to assert itself across the strait.
---
Strategic warfare is often played out at the level of psychology. The side
which has the best understanding of its opponents thinking, while managing
to mislead regarding its own thinking, has a clear upper hand, other things
being equal. If the better-informed side also possesses the overwhelming
force, the the contest is a forgone conclusion. And that's precisely the
scenario we now find ourselves in. Washington has a sound understanding of
both Chinese and Taiwanese thinking, while China and Taiwan both have major
blindspots regarding Washington's overall strategic framework.
China's pollyanic acceptance of Clinton's assurances is matched by Taiwan's
failure to perceive that 'rescue' by America, in the face of Chinese
aggression, will be about the worse thing that can happen to it. America
has a bizarre history of leaving its allies in the same state of
devestation as its enemies. One need only reflect on Europe during WW II,
which underwent years of Nazi terror, under a military machine financed
heavily by the US, before the gallant GI's eventually rode in to the
'rescue'. Or we might recall South Vietnam, who the US attempted to
'rescue' from itself, or more recently Kosovo, whose population was routed
by 'helpful' bombing and who now return to a countryside littered with
NATO-dropped land mines and uranium pellets. Such a rescue Taiwan could do
better without.
A 'rescue' would mean, when it comes down to it, that major battles of WW
III would be fought in the vicinity of Taiwan. Between Chinese nukes and
Western-caused collateral damage, Taiwan is likely - even while being
counted officially on the winning side - to suffer greater proportional
damage than China itself.
---
With this background, let us turn our attention to the latest Guardian
Weekly, July 22-28. The boldest headline on the front page reads "Taiwan
faces China threat". John Gittings (dateline Shanhai) starts the piece off
with:
"China stepped up the pressure on Taiwan this week with a
presidential warning splashed across the nation's media that
force could be used against the island if it headed for
independence"
Well, we know that Taiwan _is headed for independence, its leader said so
in no uncertain terms. And now China has put the word out for all to see
that it is contemplating the use of aggressive military force. Perhaps the
most notable thing about the Guardian's coverage is the lack of any
American response.
If the Chinese announcement is allowed to stand, without a firm US
response, we are approaching very close to the scenario by which Saddam
felt empowered to invade Kuwait. A 'clear message' has been sent to
Washington by Bejing - and Washington is well aware of its import even if
the staff at the Guardian are not. And this 'clear message' comes in the
wake of an earlier 'nod' by Clinton toward greater Chinese assertiveness.
The absence of a firm US response - if that's what happens - is very likely
to be perceived by Bejing as an implicit go-ahead. Such a perception will
in the aftermath seem really stupid, but the same can be said of the recent
Chinese threat itself. For whatever reason, there is clearly a collective
mentality in charge of China that is suffering under severe,
self-endangering delusions. Like a psychopath, attention has become so
inward focused that the hard realities of the external world have become
blurred. We seem to be witnessing the Saddam-syndrome all over again.
Meanwhile, in effect, Clinton keeps whispering in their collective ear 'go
for it', 'go for it', 'trust me'. The above statement by China's president
- the one 'splashed across the nations media' - was in fact first uttered
in a phone conversation with Clinton! Clinton had called to "reassure the
Chinese that the US still adheres to the policy of 'one China'". Gittings
reports no reaction(!) from Clinton to China's threat, but goes on to
report that "Observers believe it will be increasingly difficult for the
Chinese leadership to remain passive as the 50th anniversay of th People's
Republic - October 1 - approaches."
---
Do you see what I mean about 'accelerated consolidation' of the NWO regime?
'99 was ushered in by a carefully worded statement, dutifully memorized by
quick-study Clinton, which managed to destabilize a 50-year old forumula of
'two China' fragile stability. As we pass mid-year, events have progressed
to a war-threatening flashpoint, and Clinton continues to pour gasoline on
the smoldering potential conflagration. China and Taiwan are locked in an
inward-looking deadly embrace, unaware (as was Saddam) that they are but
pawns in a higher-level game.
Is this then our timeframe for the final, world-conquering conflagration?
The opening move to occur by October 1 and the endgame to be completed by
December 31? In such a scenario, is there any possiblity that Russia would
not be drawn in, and be summarily dealt with as a side-theater?
What's the alternative? Is Taiwan going to recant its independence? Will
the People's Republic mark its fiftieth anniversary by a humiliating
sacrifice of its claims to the island? Will Washington reverse its
policies, take a firm stand against Chinese expansionism, and risk
upsetting its carefully laid trap?
Keep these questions in mind as the China situation develops - or doesn't -
in the media. If the story doesn't develop, expect the worst. If it does
develop, read between the lines for nuances which relate to the strategic
context. I'll let you know if more information crosses my desk, and you're
welcome to send in whatever you notice.
"This is the bitterest pain among men,
to have much knowledge but no power."
- Herodotus, Histories, book IX, ch 16.
yours,
rkm
========================================================================
•••@••.•••
a political discussion forum.
crafted in Ireland by rkm
(Richard K. Moore)
To subscribe, send any message to •••@••.•••
A public service of Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance
(mailto:•••@••.••• http://cyberjournal.org)
**--> Non-commercial reposting is encouraged,
but please include the sig up through this paragraph
and retain any internal credits and copyright notices.
Copyrighted materials are posted under "fair-use".
To see the index of the cj archives, send any message to:
•••@••.•••
To subscribe to our activists list, send any message to:
•••@••.•••
To sample the book-in-progress, "Achieving a Livable World", see:
http://cyberjournal.org/cdr/alpw/alpw.html
Help create the Movement for a Democratic Rensaissance!
A community will evolve only when
the people control their means of communication.
-- Frantz Fanon
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful
committed citizens can change the world,
indeed it's the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead
Share: