marccooper.comAbout MarcContactMarc's Video Blogs

Scuttle Diplomacy

War is the failure of diplomacy. The Bush administration is now engaged in what I call scuttle diplomacy: using diplomatic activity, or in this case inactivity, to scuttle a cease-fire. It is disingenuous on the part of the administration to claim that there must be continuing war in order to lay the groundwork for a lasting peace. Indeed, there's a world of difference between a temporary cease-fire and a genuine and just peace -- no matter what side you take in this conflict. You rush to implement a cease-fire precisely so the proper terms of an armistice can be negotiated and human life can be spared. Of course with the Bush administration you wonder just with whom Condi is going to negotiate when she finally does get around to it. Remember, the U.S. doesn't talk to the Hezbollah. Or Iran. Or Syria any longer. And now that this piece comes to light, that we are expediting shipments of bombs to Israel while pretending to be an honest broker, we might also wonder just who in the Arab world is going to much feel like negotiating with us. With what moral authority does the U.S. call upon Iran to stop funding and arming Hezbollah when we are rushing a new shipment of satellite and laser guided bombs to Israel while simultaneously opposing diplomatic efforts toward a cease-fire? This from Saturday's New York Times:
WASHINGTON, July 21 — The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah. The munitions that the United States is sending to Israel are part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed, the officials said. But Israel’s request for expedited delivery of the satellite and laser-guided bombs was described as unusual by some military officers, and as an indication that Israel still had a long list of targets in Lebanon to strike. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that she would head to Israel on Sunday at the beginning of a round of Middle Eastern diplomacy. The original plan was to include a stop to Cairo in her travels, but she did not announce any stops in Arab capitals... ...To hold the meetings in an Arab capital before a diplomatic solution is reached, said Martin S. Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel, “would have identified the Arabs as the primary partner of the United States in this project at a time where Hezbollah is accusing the Arab leaders of providing cover for the continuation of Israel’s military operation.” The decision to stay away from Arab countries for now is a markedly different strategy from the shuttle diplomacy that previous administrations used to mediate in the Middle East. “I have no interest in diplomacy for the sake of returning Lebanon and Israel to the status quo ante,” Ms. Rice said Friday. “I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling around, and it wouldn’t have been clear what I was shuttling to do.” More...
Bombs away. Our tax dollars at work.

124 Responses to “Scuttle Diplomacy”

  1. The Real Ugly American.com » Blog Archive » Blog Rolls Best 7.21.06 / Weekend Open Trackback Says:

    [...] Confederate Yankee makes a solid argument that Glenn Greenwald is guilty of “sock puppetry” Marc Cooper argues: You rush to implement a cease-fire precisely so the proper terms of an armistice can be negotiated and human life can be spared. [...]

  2. Vanderleun Says:

    “War is the failure of diplomacy.” Well, that sort of depends on who wins, doesn’t it? Unless, of course, one believes that there exists a world, somewhere over….., where war is a word forgotten.

    On the other hand, some wag once wrote, “Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘nice doggy’ while looking for a big stick.”

    Seems to me, just thinkin’ aloud here, and running the last few decades of “diplomacy” in the MidEast through the mind, that the West and Isreal have been practicing the diplomacy that fears failure of jaw-jaw more than anything, while the Hez and the other Bloods and Crips of the region have been running the “nice doggie” style of diplomacy.

    Hark, I hear the strains of “nice doggie” starting up again in the international chorus.Strange how you always hear it around the time Hez & Company start to look around for a quiet time in their happy place to rearm and reload.

    I think we should use the UN to transplant some test colonies of the Hez to, say, Baja just south of the San Diego border. They could settle in and then get their rocket launchers going on folks over the line in California. Then you’d see your tax dollars and work, and, what’s more, you’d be asking for higher taxes.

    Come to think of it, so would I.

  3. Samuel Stott Says:

    I don’t agree that we are claiming to be or attempting to be an honest broker. We have made it very clear that we are friends and allies with Israel (as well we should be) and that we pray for Israel to do permanent damage to Hizbullah, “The Party of God.”

    Truly, it is amazing how the Left cossets theocratic terrorists, so long as they are not Christian.

    A truly nuetral position here (not that I am nuetral—I support Israel) would be to support the soveriegn government of Lebanon, even against Israel, so long as one equally opposed Hizbullah and their program of Jew-execution, fag-persecution and female enslavement (just to list a few hi-lites on Hizbullah’s medivel hit parade).

    Let’s all of us hope and pray that Lebanese democracy will be strengthened and Hizbullah’s facism weakened in the current war and blood-letting.

    On a still contentious, though less contentious note, I wonder about the meaning of soveriegnty. Is the argument here that the soveriegnty or partial soveriegnty of Lebanon is being violated, or is the argument that soveriegnty can go hang? I ask because I haven’t noticed the slightest bit of interest in this question, on the Left side of the ledger.

    The non-Left view, which accords with received International Law, to keep this short, is that Soveriegns are responsible and can be held to account for crimes instigated from their soil.

    Interested readers can view Hizbollah’s Statement of Purpose at their offical web site at:

    http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/300/320/324/324.2/hizballah/statement01.html

  4. Jcummings Says:

    “scuttle” Good turn of phrase. How anyone can (actually, not theoretically) support Israel, no matter how bad Hiz is, is beyond me. I agree with all the horrible thing said about them. I even agree, omewhat, that “they started it” Still They aren’t destroying a country, creating a humanitarian catastrophe with 500,000 displaced people. Thats the people that we are called upon to “support.”

  5. Michael Turner Says:

    “On a still contentious, though less contentious note, I wonder about the meaning of soveriegnty. Is the argument here that the soveriegnty or partial soveriegnty of Lebanon is being violated, or is the argument that soveriegnty can go hang?”

    You might ask that question of the Bush administration, as long as you’re asking it of the Left in general. One of Bush’s appointees to the U.S. Institute of Peace was Stanford Prof. Stephen Krasner. (If there was any controversy over that appointment, it was immediately drowned out the noise and fury over the simultaneous, but much shorter-term, appointment of Daniel Pipes.)

    Stephen Krasner is the author of Sovereignty: Oganized Hypocrisy, an instant classic and runaway bestseller in policy wonk circles. And he wasn’t even joking with that title, just trying to get attention. Ironically, Krasner’s view of the principle of national sovereignty is, in practice, not too different from that of Noam Chomsky’s: we trumpet it to the skies, but violate it all the time. (Sometimes there’s an initial flat note, as when James Baker, as Bush Sr.’s SecState, said that pushing Iraq out of Kuwait was about oil and jobs, only to come back a few days later, chastised for being too honest, to say it was about the principle of national sovereignty.) It’s just that, well, old Noam *moralizes* rather too much, where Krasner is more pragmatic (or as Chomsky might have it, “cynical”.)

    When Michael Totten denounces Israel’s overreach in Lebanon, saying that the problem isn’t his beloved post-Cedar Revolution Lebanon, but rather “Hezbollahland”, is he being a Chomskian or a Krasnerite? Well, knowing him, more likely he’s just being outraged.

    Krasner talks about four different senses of the term “sovereignty”, with all nations having or surrendering all four kinds at various times, to various degrees, with the U.S. arguably holding up strongest in all four senses. Obviously, Israel is disengenuous when it says it has to defend itself from Lebanon’s attacks. What it should really say is that Israel has to defend itself from a failure of Versailles-Westphalian sovereignty in Lebanon, in part by pretending that Lebanon isn’t a failure in that sense. Problem is, nobody would know what the fuck they were talking about, would they? Besides, it doesn’t make for a good sound-bite on CNN.

    Krasner’s actually a pretty smart guy, I have to admit. The following interview is fascinating, I think.

    http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Krasner/krasner-con0.html

    (Krasner is the smiley bald guy on the right, and in the photo montage at the bottom.)

  6. GM Roper Says:

    “Indeed, there’s a world of difference between a temporary cease-fire and a genuine and just peace — no matter what side you take in this conflict.”

    Is there any indication that Hamas or Hezb’ollah has any intention of being interested in a just peace? Wouldn’t that reqire there renouncing of their goal of wiping Israel off the face of the earth? Hmmm, major disconnect here Marc, you are applying conventional western conceptions of justice to two organizations that have no concept of the same.

  7. Michael Turner Says:

    Condi said “I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling around, and it wouldn’t have been clear what I was shuttling to do.”

    Especially since that plane wouldn’t have been able to land at Beirut International with all those craters in the runways.

    Poor Condi, all dressed up and nowhere to go. Can’t go to Beirut. No point in going to Israel if our policy is “they’re just defending themselves.” Can’t go to certain Arab capitals, because … this gets tricky: when there are Arab states criticizing Hezbollah, Condi showing up in those places might make it seem like there’s this big conspiracy out to get Hezbollah, and we don’t want to look like we’re any part of that? (Sounds weird, but it was Condi, after all, who said that we’d have to put up with Hezbollah, after the Ceder Revolution.)

    Can’t go to Iran ‘cuz we don’t talk to Iran.

    Can’t go to Syria ‘cuz we don’t talk to Syria.

    Hey, how about her going to Baghdad? It’s a stretch, but it’s an Arab state (sort of) and an ally (sort of) and …. Oops, the PM there has parted ways with the Anglo-American alliance position on Israel “defending itself” from Lebanon. Oh well, it would be pointless anyway, people might say that the runway at Baghdad International might as have its own bomb craters.

    I hear there’s good shopping in Dubai — oops, did I say Dubai? OK, how about Qatar — oops, home of Al Jazeera, which Bush suggested we oughta bomb the bejeezuz out of. Oh, I’ve got it: Kuwait! Send Condi to Kuwait! Well, I dunno: they kicked out all their Palestinians after Gulf War I. Could send the wrong message to the Palestinians.

    Anybody for Bahrain? I hear it’s kinda like this peaceful sorta democracy these days ….

    Nah. Keep her home.

    Expedited delivery of precision-guided munitions is spun as humanitarian aid to Lebanon, because they potentially reduce civilian casualties. Nice touch. Couldn’t have put it better myself, if you paid me $120K per year to put spin on White House press releases.

  8. Virgil Johnson Says:

    Michael, I think your right – especailly when it comes to Beirut. Not necessarily because the runways at the airport are bombed, she could even “shuttle” from Israel into Lebanon (she would have to watch out for the Israeli forces shooting everything that moved). At this juncture, going to Beirut would be no option, because this morning the Israeli forces that are trying to “crush Hezbolla” just sent sent one of their missiles deep into Beiruts Christian region and blew the shit out ot Lebanons mass communications facility. I hear, they suspected Hezbollah might be hiding in the basement….

  9. Mavis Beacon Says:

    ” Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.”

    Does this imply that somebody didn’t want the NY Times to print this article? If not, it’s a ridiculous journalistic wiggle to say that there is merely the “appearance” that the US is aiding the bombing. If we’re shipping them bombs, I’d say it’s pretty obvious that we’re aiding the bombing campiagn. That and we’ve condoned it diplomatically.

  10. Don Surber Says:

    Lend-lease 2006…

    Finally some good news from the NYT: “U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis.” Key paragraph:…

  11. Woody Says:

    Conflicts in the mideast are so simple to you folks that I have been witnessing twice daily posts by Marc with running comments by everyone who knows how to run wars and achieve peace better than anyone else. It’s a lot more involved and has more long-term considerations than any of you seem to know or allow with your minute-by-minute solutions. Your brand of peace and appeasement only extends war, gives leeway to terrorists, and brings more death.

    I’m impressed with no one’s brilliance here, and any candidate expressing these consensus views would be rejected in early primaries. I have to wonder what level of education and what kind of majors are represented by most of the commenters. Most of them must deal in studies that ignore logic and reality.

    I’m afraid that we’ve cycled back to the Sprio Agnew era of liberals who are negative, knee-jerk, and pseudo-intellectual. Go back to your pot smoking and let adults handle the crises.

  12. Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Of Course We’re Taking Sides Says:

    [...] Others blogging on this story: Captain’s Quarters, Don Surber, Taylor Marsh, Left I on the News, Brilliant at Breakfast, Outside The Beltway, Marc Cooper, The Real Ugly American.com, Silflay Hraka, The News Blog, Hyscience, The Democratic Daily, Blue Crab Boulevard and Just a Bump in the Beltway.   [link] [...]

  13. The Liberty Papers»Blog Archive » Of Course We’re Taking Sides Says:

    [...] Blue Crab Boulevard and Just a Bump in the Beltway. Posted By: Doug Mataconis @ 11:27 am || Permalink || || Categories: Foreign Affairs TrackBack URI:http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/07/22/of-course-were-taking-sides/trackback/ Read more posts from Doug Mataconis • • • [...]

  14. Paul Woodward Says:

    It was once left to a humble lieutenant to make the absurd claim, “we had to destroy the village to save it.” Now it is the job of the United States’ diplomatic chief to tell the populace upon whom Israel is showering its wrath, America’s bombs will help ease your plight.

    How should the Lebanese and Palestinians express their gratitude as the U.S. dispenses its precision-guided bitter medicine? (more…)

  15. anon Says:

    Virgil, I’d guess Ms. Rice could land in Beirut the same way CNN and various others have, by helicopter. Good gawd, yes, they still use helicopters.

    Explanatory note: This is not to be construed as a “racist” or “bigoted,” or “pro-imperialist,” or even “pro-Zionist” comment.

    Welcome to the lefty loony factory. Makes me squirm considering I always considered myself one of the left. Maybe we should rename the lunatic fringe left the “5th Dimension faction.” They are not of this earth, for sure.

  16. Virgil Johnson Says:

    One question I have always wanted to ask those on the Israeli cheerleader side – wha t do you think you will get if Israel wins this battle? I mean, almost everyone is aware of their “stellar record” in the treatment of the Palesinians, do you want this to spread throughout the region? And if this is what you want, why do you wag your heads and say that the Palestinians have a right to statehood? I mean, this is the neocon expression, it is totally disingenuous.

  17. reg Says:

    So I guess a great example – at the “humble” blogger level (read “Even my ill-informed, fragmented and random thoughts are worth recording for posterity”) – of “how to handle this crisis” would be to plant a big flag of Israel on your site, scream in hyper-bolds “I Stand With Israel”, maybe throw in a screed by Oriana Fallaci about Muslim pigs and European cowards, and offer a respectful nod to that refreshing and awesome dude Bush pontificating off-mike about how “they” oughta call Syria and make it all stop.

    (Who the hell are “they” ? I can only assume the Prez was referring to the most powerful man in the world, Kofi Annan, who commands all of the world’s nations united. Phone calls from Kofi, as we all know, can make the Earth stop spinning and put out fires on the Sun.)

    I’m not sure whether the “adults” in this hypothetical scenario would be the blogging geniuses who – hypothetically – so responded or the Prez & Co. In either case, their postures are impressive. Mightily.

    As for the crisis at hand, I don’t offer a solution because there isn’t one. I would be happy to see Hezbollah’s core structures destroyed, but I hate seeing Lebanon thrown into chaos and obviously intentional “collateral” victims from undeniable Israeli overkill and clearly disproportionate response. I also have little or no love left for an Israel that for decades supported a settler occupation policy that gave free rein to their worst, essentially fascist Jabotinskyite elements and complicated any eventual peace negotiations – probably to the point of making an effective settlement based on mutual trust impossible. And I detest the Palestinian leadership, including Fatah and the PLO, for offering their people virtually no choice except between extremist ideologies and absolute corruption. I’m at the point where I’d find it hard to care much about anyone in this mess, but for the blood of innocents.

    The intransigent true believers are, frankly, more than welcome to kill each other over acreage in my book, if it could be limited to them. Everyone else would be a lot better off. And I’m not going to judge which side is worse. When I was in Israel years ago, I encountered some of the most distasteful zealots I’ve ever met in my life. And I’ve run into more of them since through family connections.

    Israeli racism and fanaticism is no myth, it’s adherents are legion and, although their public pronouncements are generally more measured and calculated for Western consumption, their impact on the overall intractibility of the problem is as great as that of the Muslim crazies.

    Worse from my own parochial perspective as a tax-paying, voting American who merely wishes my country had at least a modestly rational foreign policy that wasn’t prone to making things worse and/or turning it’s back to mounting crises (the glories and heavy responsbilities of “Revolutionary Internationalism” I’ll leave to the more serious folks like Christopher Hitchens and JCummings) there is absolutely no indication of either interest or competence on the part of the current U.S. administration to seriously address the issue of Palestine, other than an internal contingent of malign Likudnik operatives who believe in the Jabotinskyite “Greater Israel” thesis and the “Clean Break” thesis. (Their public face is the raving of Kristol and Krauthammer’s Keyboard Kommandos.) And, of course, the irony is that this gang shot their “big stick” wad so cluelessly and carelessly in Iraq that, if anything, the crazies on all sides see the position of the U.S. as little more than a green light as our loudmouths and loonies shout “Charge!” and nobody – at least nobody who worries about facing our electorate in the near term – is about to listen.

    I’ve already said more than I have to say on this. I don’t believe much of anything I read about it that pretends to be analytical – or at least take it all with a grain of salt. When I read that Iran is behind it, I know it’s self-serving more-war hype coming from crackpots like Michael Ledeen. Most of the commentary that I agree with expresses a sense of frustration and or is admittedly speculation.

    As I’ve implied before, frankly I would rather read something about what’s happening on the ground in the Lieberman-Lamont race if I’m going to consult “amateur” opinion by bloggers and 99% of journalists who address this issue, because I know there’s at least the possibility that it’s based on something other than near-total bullshit and tea leaves. Juan Cole, a regional expert with unique credentials, has the only consistently worthwhile roundup of news on this thing I’ve seen. And it’s apparent from reading Cole’s postings – like the Israeli destruction of a Christian TV station in the north of Lebanon that there is no intentional actor in this drama who’s side it’s worth taking. The Lebanese deserve better. The Palestinians The Israelis deserve better. But – here’s where reality kicks in for me – I’m going to expend as little energy as possible fretting about it in real time. Life is too goddam short to try to contain in your brain all of the animosities, historical twists and turns, claims and counterclaims, ingrained hostilities and old grudges of a region as perverse as the Middle East.

    Frankly, any place that allows Pat Buchanan to come out of the woodwork seeming like a consistently rational commentator is beyond repair in anything resembling the near term. (Presumably Pat is representative of those “homosexuals, atheists and transvestites” who tend to bend “anti-Israel and pro-Palestine” that Samuel Stott rather brilliantly uncovered in an earlier thread.)

    This was a meandering expression of depression that will probably seem pointless after I’ve hit “submit”. No apologies.

  18. reg Says:

    Who are these jerkoffs butting in over here with their insipid “LooK At Me!!” links. If nobody’s coming to visit you, don’t try to get attention by posting nonsensical, self-generated lists that only reinforce the fact of your obscurity.

  19. reg Says:

    That long bit – although it wasn’t very clear when it got bumped down by a few other comments – was initially spurred by Woody’s “let the adults handle the crisis” concern that perhaps some folks here tended to reduce things by oversimplification and/or didn’t know what they were talking about. Oh yeah, that and his chagrin over the ongoing, evident problem of liberalism causing death.

  20. Wall Says:

    Woody, you are all bluff, republo boy. Condy looks scared, and has no idea or “plan.” Like her boss, She’s in WAY over her head, and the grown ups ( who were telling us a few weeks back that the death of Zarqawi was (another) turning point ) fool nobody.

  21. Woody Says:

    reg: Life is too…short to try to contain in your brain all of the animosities, historical twists and turns, claims and counterclaims, ingrained hostilities and old grudges of a region as perverse as the Middle East.

    Amen, brother. Yet, most of the commenters here seem to think that they have reached that summit and are qualified authorities on the mideast and everything, which goes back to my point that they don’t know what they’re talking about half the time.

    reg, have you seen no historical support for appeasement or halting hostilities resulting in more deaths? You can see some current counts here: http://www.logictimes.com/index.htm

  22. reg Says:

    Woody, the “logic” at logictimes.com about how many Iraqis BushCo has “saved” by igniting a pre-emptive war, an ongoing multi-front insurgent/terrorist response and, at the very least, a slo-mo civil war that’s likely to get far worse before it gets better would not be totally laughable if they didn’t create their projected “averages” of how many people would have supposedly died in the last 40 months if the U.S. HADN’T launched a war – therefore lives put in a hypothetical “saved” column – by including deaths that took place both during a period over at least three decades, with the highest numbers occurring during periods when Reagan was overtly assisting Saddam as he comitted war crimes and when Bush1 signaled that the time was ripe for a violent resistance to arise in Iraq – with our troops at the border and U.S. air power easily available – but let Saddam go ahead and crush the Shiite rebels, even ordering that our troops block the Kuwait border against fleeing refugees.

    This kind of crap won’t float in Logic 101 the manipulation of statistical aggregates that are meaningless is so blatant and unhinged from any historical context. In fact, the purpose of any elementary logic or statistics class would be to dissuade one from such self-inflected train wrecks in developing supportive evidence for a thesis.

    Reminiscent of the morons who recently argued on various Righty blogs, from “statistics”, that living in Iraq was no more dangerous than living in the U.S., based on a comparison of reported violent death rates in the country of Iraq and the city of Washington DC. “Logictimes” indeed.

    The desperation of that minority known as Bush loyalists to rationalize their crap by any means necessary grows with each passing day. Luckily for them, they’ve managed to huddle in little “virtual communities” and trade mis-information and facile psuedo-arguments so that their increasing isolation from the rest of the country on the issue of the war doesn’t appear to get them down. Better than meds.

  23. Jim Bender Says:

    I must respectfully disagree on this subject. I happen to believe that Hezbollah (or Hizbollah) should be attacked and eliminated as a force on the battlefield. My sense is that Israel has not done what it will take, and will be unsuccessful. By the US giving the Israelis precision guided munitions, perhaps they will do less harm to Lebanon and people outside of Hezbollah. You may not like it, but “this is war” and it needs to be prosecuted that way. Afterall, it was Hamas and Hezbollah that started this business, and if Ariel Sharon was still functional, perhaps Israel would have “done what is necessary”. I can see that this forum is hostile to such sentiments, but I have been a naval officer and am a military and naval historian, and so that bias colors my opinions. I also still vividly remember what I heard and saw on September 11, 2001, and want to put a stop to any future action by any of these groups that are conducting a war against us or our friends with “irregular troops” and guerilla war intended to strike terror in the hearts of people, with no apparent constraints on what they do.

  24. Kevin Says:

    Who are these jerkoffs butting in over here with their insipid “LooK At Me!!” links

    reg, they’re trackbacks, not actual comments.

  25. reg Says:

    And what’s the point ? Other than “Look at me!” This space is for comments, inane as some of ours might be. Are you saying that Marc auto-posts these things as trackbacks and the originators have nothing to do with it ? I thought that referential trackbacks posted by the blogger were reserved in the space directly below his blog item. Maybe not and I’m just an idiot.

  26. Randy A. Paul Says:

    reg,

    While I would never call you an idiot, Marc does group trackbacks in the comments section. I believe that this is a function of WordPress’s software. I’ve been guilty of slipping the trackbacks in as well. Can’t help it.

  27. reg Says:

    Okay, I get it. I’ve always found those things injected into the comments section odd and assumed they were just guys trying to get a hit. (I’ve always accepted yours as making sense because you’re a familiar part of the process here.) I think it makes more sense when they are clustered below the post, if for no other reason than that you can actually assess the ripples that a particular item has made and follow them if you’re so disposed.

  28. Michael Turner Says:

    Tony Blair said that Iraq’s mass graves contained 400,000 bodies.

    Then he had to retract.

    http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.html

    It seems that whenever forensics experts in Iraq are directed to a mass grave that, according to locals, contains 10,000 bodies, they discover … well, sometimes hundreds of bodies. But usually less. In one Shi’ite uprising zone, I think the total has reached 15,000. Curiously, despite years of stability, the Kurds can’t seem to get around to substantiating the typical
    quoted figure of 200,000 killed in the Anfal massacre.

    Tallies of those killed under Saddam for purposes of “proving” that fewer Iraqis are dying these days typically include Iraq’s excess deaths during the sanctions period. However, quite a few of those deaths can be attributed to fighting among the Kurds. Quite a few can be attributed to not delivering chlorine (which is WMD, doncha know) to Iraq to sterilize its water supplies, resulting in a much higher infant mortality rate. Saddam’s fault?

    Saddam Hussein was, and is, a bad man. A bad, bad man. Not satisfied? OK, he was a VERY VERY bad man. I’m not interested in minimizing the tragedies committed under his rule. I am, however, interested in seeing some precision about just how bad these crimes were. Because if they weren’t any more terrible than what various dictatorships around the world perpetrate routinely with little or no interference (and even with continuing military aid) from the major powers, and if they weren’t any more terrible than what’s going on now in Iraq, the last leg of the tripod of adventure justification (Al Qaeda “links”, “dangerous dangerous weapons” and Saddam-was-a-bad-bad-man) collapses. Not that that leg was ever very strong to begin with, when you consider that Rumsfeld himself visited Baghdad and shook Saddam’s hand not long after Halabja, IIRC.

    Oh, by the way, I need to retract an argument I made recently supporting the thesis that Iraq is in a civil war. I do this only because I’m interested in accuracy.

    I pointed out to Woody (or maybe Tom Grey) that even Colin Powell calls it a civil war now. What I forgot, however, is that Colin Powell styles himself a moderate Republican, but somehow is also pro-choice and pro-affirmative actio. Obviously, he must be a liberal if he passes those liberal litmus tests. And if he’s a liberal, he must be a leftist. And if he’s a leftist, he must be a great admirer of Stalin, just like Saddam himself. Expect to soon see CNN footage of Colin Powell charging into battle at the head of a band of masked gunmen outside the courthouse where Saddam is being tried, to liberate his fellow Stalinist from the clutches of those who have plunged his country into what is fallaciously considered by Stalinist liberals to be a civil war in Iraq.

    These fanatics will stop at nothing.

  29. NeoDude Says:

    Speaking of “A Clean Break”:

    Securing the Northern Border

    Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:

    striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.

    paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

    striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
    Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a “Brotherhood Agreement” in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.

    [...]

    Since Iraq’s future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.

    Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.

    King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.

    From:
    http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

  30. NeoDude Says:

    This report is prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ “Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000.” The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

  31. Michael Balter Says:

    We’ve really got a dialogue of the deaf going in these past several threads on the Lebanon situation. Marc, myself and others express our alarm and concern about Israel’s massively disproportionate bombing and Bush administration’s uncritical support for it. Supporters of Israel counter about the need to crush Hezbollah and say directly or indirectly that the critics are “cosseting” terrorists as one put it. They ignore the concerns about civilians and especially the large number of children killed. Is that because they don’t care or because their brains (or just their ideologies) are incapable of being against Hezbollah and being against reckless infliction of civilian casualties too? Funny, I don’t have that problem, and neither does Marc nor a number of good souls here.

    btw the UK is now expressing similar alarm on an official level, look for the US and Israel to be totally isolated together this coming week.

  32. Michael Balter Says:

    Wall points out that Condi doesn’t have a clue about what to do. True. But she and the Bushies now have a brilliant plan, here it is from today’s NYT. It’s nice to have a glimpse into their nuanced thinking and their in depth knowledge of the players they are dealing with. In addition to the hurdles mentioned here, another might be that Hezbollah are major heroes in Syria, even more so thanks to Israeli actions.

    U.S. Plan Seeks to Wedge Syria From Iran

    By HELENE COOPER and DAVID E. SANGER
    Published: July 23, 2006
    WASHINGTON, July 22 — As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heads to Israel on Sunday, Bush administration officials say they recognize Syria is central to any plans to resolve the crisis in the Middle East, and they are seeking ways to peel Syria away from its alliance of convenience with Iran.

    In interviews, senior administration officials said they had no plans right now to resume direct talks with the Syrian government. President Bush recalled his ambassador to Syria, Margaret Scobey, after the assassination of Rafik Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister, in February 2005. Since then, America’s contacts with Damascus have been few, and the administration has imposed an array of sanctions on Syria’s government and banks, and frozen the assets of Syrian officials implicated in Mr. Hariri’s killing.

    But officials said this week that they were at the beginning stages of a plan to encourage Saudi Arabia and Egypt to make the case to the Syrians that they must turn against Hezbollah. With the crisis at such a pivotal stage, officials who are involved in the delicate negotiations to end it agreed to speak about their expectations only if they were not quoted by name.

    “We think that the Syrians will listen to their Arab neighbors on this rather than us,’’ a senior official said, “so it’s all a question of how well that can be orchestrated.’’

    There are several substantial hurdles to success. The effort risks seeming to encourage Syria to reclaim some of the influence on Lebanon that it lost after its troops were forced to withdraw last year. It is not clear how forcefully Arab countries would push a cause seen to benefit the United States and Israel. Many Middle Eastern analysts are skeptical that a lasting settlement can be achieved without direct talks between Syria and the United States.

    The effort begins Sunday afternoon in the Oval Office, where President Bush is to meet the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, and the chief of the Saudi national security council, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Prince Bandar was the Saudi ambassador to Washington until late last year and often speaks of his deep connections to the Bush family and to Vice President Dick Cheney.

    Ms. Rice is delaying her departure to the Middle East until after the meeting, which she is also expected to attend, along with Mr. Cheney and Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser. The session was requested by the Saudis, American officials said.

    The expected outcome of the session is unclear. “We don’t know how patient the Saudis will be with the Israeli military action,’’ said a senior official said. “They want to see Hezbollah wiped out, and they’d like to set back the Iranians.”

    But in the Arab world, the official added, “they can’t been seen to be doing that too enthusiastically.’’

    Several of Mr. Bush’s top aides said the plan was for Mr. Bush and other senior officials to press both Saudi Arabia and Egypt to prod Syria into giving up its links with Hezbollah, and with Iran. The administration, aside from its differences with Iran over nuclear programs and with Syria over its role in Lebanon, has also objected to both nations’ behavior toward their common neighbor, Iraq.

  33. Michael Balter Says:

    One last comment for now, re the above NYT story. Why is it there? It clearly does not result from unauthorized leaks, which means that Bush admin officials gave the Times the story because they wanted it printed. And since they have diplomats to talk to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, they are not using the Times to signal things to them. No, I think we have to conclude that the story is for OUR benefit, to convince us that the admin has a plan and knows what it is doing. We shall watch together with Woody and see how well these “adults” handle things. Or could it be that the real mature adults are those garlic eating Europeans and effete UN officials Woody is always telling us about, and the children are the ones who like to play with guns and bombs?

  34. Michael Turner Says:

    NeoDude points to

    http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

    IASPS — these people see Muslims and Western Elites as being on the same side. Muslims are out to kill us. Liberals and terrorists are on the same side. And I thought *I* was paranoid. This is like the notion of the International Jewish Banking Conspiracy, turned inside out and upside down. I guess somebody had to do it, just for the spectral symmetry ….

  35. Samuel Stott Says:

    Well Michael Turner, I agree with you that Stephen Krasner on the subject of sovereignty is worthwhile.

    You write:

    “Obviously, Israel is disengenuous when it says it has to defend itself from Lebanon’s attacks. What it should really say is that Israel has to defend itself from a failure of Versailles-Westphalian sovereignty [Krasner's term for a state's right to control its internal affairs--for those who don't have time to read the article] in Lebanon, in part by pretending that Lebanon isn’t a failure in that sense. Problem is, nobody would know what the fuck they were talking about, would they?”

    I see your point. Inevitably, the shorthand becomes “attacking Lebanon” because the Israelis are doing just that: attacking the Lebanese state in their war against the Hizbullah sub-state. Lebanon doesn’t HAVE Versailles-Westphalian sovereignty, I’m sure you agree.

    Its quite a mess and might prove to be a defeat for Israel.

    Still, those of you who aren’t willing to back Israel might at least concede that Iran and Syria remain arch-villians. How much talk of Holocaust denial and elimininating Israel do you need to hear before you take it seriously? Hizbullah is the creature of a Baathist thugocray and its best friend, an Islamist theocracy soon to become the Regional Hegemon with Nukes. In fighting Hizbullah, Israel is fighting THEM.

    Yes, I know that Israel has done dirty many times, just as I know that in the eighties my tax dollars funded the murder of El Salvadorean nuns and labor organizers. So what? History, unlike current events, is over with.

    Troglodytes like Hamas, Fatah, and Hizbullah, the Iranian Mullahs and Baby Assad won’t go away without a fight, whatever form the struggle takes. What form should it take? Getting red in the face about Haliburton and Paul Wolfowitz and how Israel, yet again, has disturbed the blessed MidEast peace?

  36. Michael Balter Says:

    “So what? History, unlike current events, is over with.”

    Samuel, you can’t really mean this. There is an inextricable link between what happened yesterday and what will happen today and tomorrow. What happened yesterday constrains the choices we can make today. But we still do have choices to do something different that will alter what happens tomorrow. But you seem smart enough to know that.

  37. Michael Balter Says:

    “Its quite a mess and might prove to be a defeat for Israel.”

    I seem to be all alone here, that’s what I get for living in Europe. So I will keep talking.

    Yes, already Israel’s media are saying that the fight against Hezbollah is getting more “complicated” than anticipated. Israel has already lived through a debacle in Lebanon, you would think they would have learned–if not from their own experiences, then from those of the US and UK in Afghanistan and Iraq where the cakewalks are still in progress. You don’t have to be a starry eyed idealist to realize than none of the world’s problems have a military solution in the long run. One can think so, but the facts on the ground will prove you wrong every time.

  38. Samuel Stott Says:

    Michael,

    Of course I agree that history matters; You explain how it does.

    I attempted to do the same. As you say, history “constrains the choices we can make today.” And those choices not so constrained are available.

    My point is that it is both illogical and a weary, rotten shibboleth to ever say that an actor’s past misconduct disqualifies her, ipso facto, from right conduct in the present. In that sense only, history is a guide to nothing and a dead letter.

    To get this back to polemic: I don’t advocate killing Hassan Nasrallah because he said:

    “If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

    Hassan Nasrallah, from the Lebanon Daily Star, October 2002 [Thanks to Gene at Harry's Place]

    http://web.archive.org/web/20021024133755/http://www.dailystar.com.lb/23_10_02/art5.asp

    I advocate killing Hassan Nasrallah because he has never repudiated the statement; he acts upon it.

  39. Virgil Johnson Says:

    Since we are talking about the past influencing the future, there is definitely a precedent taking place here. If you noticed the brutality of the Israelis in dealing with the Lebanese people – you might take this as a clue. If this is what takes place now in broad daylight, with reporters and the world watching – what has taken place in the West Bank and Gaza? If it is anything like what we are witnessing now it should cause you to pause, and maybe reconsider what is taking place in the other instance.

    A good portion of the communication and broadcasting facilities have been taken out in Lebanon. This is not primarily to stop the enemy from communicating, it is to stop the leakage regarding the brutality of their actions. It also sows confusion, because when the bombs start falling no one can turn to any information sources, and those might include humanitarian help – medical assistance – and warnings to flee for their safety. I just thought you might like to know.

  40. Michael Turner Says:

    Virgil, I just searched on “lebanese television” and was taken to an index page listing well over a dozen tv stations in Lebanon. Israel seems to have targeted any equipment over which Hezbollah might communicate propaganda on a mass scale, and that includes relays that share hilltop space with relays for a channel, LBC, run by, yes, Maronite Christians, the closest thing to an allied Arab group that Israel has in Lebanon. So I’d say that Israel has taken out a pretty significant fraction of mass media bandwidth in the country, and in a way consistent with most of their infrastructure attacks so far: any capability that overlaps with existing or potential Hezbollah command, communications and control or logistics assets is toast, so … stay the hell out of the way.

    The Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC) is still transmitting at last report, and anyone with a satellite TV dish can receive it, as can others within range of surviving transmission towers. To my knowledge, Hezbollah has no satellite TV channels (“TerrorVision”, anyone?). Unconfirmed reports (by LBC, over its own channel) speak of 20 dead in the attack on LBC facilities. Great way to treat yer friends, Israel! Of course, you also need electricity to get satellite TV, and Israel has just taken out a power station in southern Lebanon.

    There is a mass media bottleneck developing within Lebanon, but if you’re one of an estimated half-million Lebanese on the run, you’re probably not watching TV anyway. The bigger question for the refugees is what’s happening to mobile phone communications. Apparently some of that capacity was taken out in the attacks on TV relay stations and transmission towers; whether intentionally or not, I don’t know.

    The news will get through, you can count on that. However, it irks (and concerns) me that Beirut’s Daily Star website is no longer responding, and the last Google cache entry is from last week.

  41. Michael Turner Says:

    Stott writes: “Lebanon doesn’t HAVE Versailles-Westphalian sovereignty, I’m sure you agree.”

    Yep.

    I just read an interview with Condi done in Lebanon back in May. She kept repeating that Lebanon had to disarm Hezbollah in accordance with international resolutions. At that point, however, Hezbollah probably had about as many missiles as it had on the eve of the current conflict (missiles that could just as easily be raining down on Beirut right now), plus a seasoned fighting force larger than what the rest of Lebanon could put together. And I’m sure Condi knew all that, and knew that there was no way to disarm Hezbollah short of yet another withering civil war, one in which Hezbollah would have the upper hand unless somebody weighed in on the other side. Who? Not Olmert fighting cheek-by-jowl with Walid Jumblatt, a notorious Druze Israel-hater. Who, then? Not Syria, which would either stand back or weigh in on Hezbollah’s side. Not the U.S., certainly — overstretched in two theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan). Who then?

    She might as well have just left a note saying, “Your pseudo-state is about to be carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey by Israel. It’s only a matter of time before somebody lights a match.”

    “Its quite a mess and might prove to be a defeat for Israel.”

    Nah. I’m betting it’s a victory for Israel, AND Hezbollah. And probably Syria too. There are more referees than combatants in this match, and they’ll all have their preferred verdicts on the outcome.

    If you’re a civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time, of course, you lose.

  42. I Used to Have A Woody Says:

    Could we use the aircraft that are delivering new weapons to evacuate the Americans abandoned in Lebanon?

    Its getting kind of obvious the administration is waiting for Americans to be killed so we can retaliate against Iran.

  43. Woody Says:

    Used to, your side is always demanding “proof” of common sense conclusion and observations. I won’t ask you for yours, because it only exists in the minds of you and your Kos buddies.

  44. NeoDude Says:

    …..Another major use of the Israeli bomb is to compel the U.S. to act in Israel’s favor, even when it runs counter to its own strategic interests. As early as 1956 Francis Perrin, head of the French A-bomb project wrote “We thought the Israeli Bomb was aimed at the Americans, not to launch it at the Americans, but to say, ‘If you don’t want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us; otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs.’” During the 1973 war, Israel used nuclear blackmail to force Kissinger and Nixon to airlift massive amounts of military hardware to Israel. The Israeli Ambassador, Simha Dinitz, is quoted as saying, at the time, “If a massive airlift to Israel does not start immediately, then I will know that the U.S. is reneging on its promises and…we will have to draw very serious conclusions…” Just one example of this strategy was spelled out in 1987 by Amos Rubin, economic adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who said “If left to its own Israel will have no choice but to fall back on a riskier defense which will endanger itself and the world at large… To enable Israel to abstain from dependence on nuclear arms calls for $2 to 3 billion per year in U.S. aid.” ….

    ….It is clear from Israel Shahak that Israel has no interest in peace except that which is dictated on its own terms, and has absolutely no intention of negotiating in good faith to curtail its nuclear program or discuss seriously a nuclear-free Middle East,”Israel’s insistence on the independent use of its nuclear weapons can be seen as the foundation on which Israeli grand strategy rests.”

    According to Seymour Hersh, “the size and sophistication of Israel’s nuclear arsenal allows men such as Ariel Sharon to dream of redrawing the map of the Middle East aided by the implicit threat of nuclear force.” …. Ze’ev Shiff, an Israeli military expert writing in Haaretz said, “Whoever believes that Israel will ever sign the UN Convention prohibiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons… is day dreaming,” and Munya Mardoch, Director of the Israeli Institute for the Development of Weaponry, said in 1994, “The moral and political meaning of nuclear weapons is that states which renounce their use are acquiescing to the status of Vassal states. All those states which feel satisfied with possessing conventional weapons alone are fated to become vassal states.”

    ….. Seymour Hersh warns, “Should war break out in the Middle East again,… or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability.” Ezar Weissman, Israel’s current President said “The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional.” Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard’s spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war.

    Seymour Hersh sites other threats in The Samson Option. Referring to the U.S. failure to support Israel’s invasion of Egypt in 1956, including in the face of nuclear threats from the Soviet Union, one unnamed former Israeli official told Hersh in the late 1980s: “You Americans screwed us…We got the message. We can still remember the smell of Auschwitz and Treblinka. Next time we’ll take all of you with us.”

    From:
    http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/israelithreats.html

  45. NeoDude Says:

    Pakistan has terrorists killing thousands in India and Afghanistan.

    And they have Bin Laden all pimped out, within their borders.

    The same goes for Israel.

    Nuclear weapons guarantee that your people have “Western Value” and your borders have meaning.

  46. Diplomat Kalki Gaur Says:

    Richelieu’s Raison d’etat Diplomacy in 2006
    The 21st Century is an Asian Century and India and China are the leaders of Asia. No Islamic nation could possibly join the ranks of world powers in the 21st Century. United States, China and India are destined to be the leading world powers throughout the 21st Century and no other power can gatecrash in to the ranks of he top three world powers. Two. The de Richelieu Raison d’etat advocates the Balancer to enter into an alliance with Second Power in the continental balance of power. United States cemented strategic ties with India, the power next to China in the triangular balance of power. The de Richelieu Raison D’etat Concert of Asia, seeking a sustainable triangular continental Asian Balance of Power, among China, India and Japan with United States as the maritime Balancer shall maintain peace in Asia and realize the dream of Century of Asia. The post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe (1815-1914) maintained peace in Europe between several European powers with Britain as a Balancer. Third. The strategic goal of Bush-Rice foreign policy is to create a sustainable balance of power in Asia, so Asian countries can continue to liberalize, progress and develop in the 21st Century of Asia. If the focus of USA-India strategic ties in Asia is containment of rising China vis-à-vis the United States and India, the historic model is Europe circa 1914, with China in the role of Germany. Fourth. If the geopolitical balance of power focus in Asia is widened out to include Hindu India and Buddhist Japan along with Buddhist China, then the more congenial triangular Asian balance of power or Concert of Asia might be Europe circa 1815, with a stable balance of power between several Asian world powers, throughout next 100-years of the 21st Century and the Protestant United States as balancer as Britain was during Concert of Europe (from 1815 to 1914), with very little cost to Christian United States. Fifth. Secretary Condoleezza Rice is Diplomat Richelieu of the 21st Century and she rejected the misguided realism of Secretary Kissinger. Secretary Kissinger misused Richelieu’s Raison D’etat to secretly promote Pope’s agenda through foreign policy apparatus of the White House camouflaged as balance of power realism. Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretary Madeleine Albright continued to misuse Richelieu’s balance of power doctrine to implement inverse Raison D’etat to promote Pope’s hidden agenda misusing the foreign policy apparatus of the White House.)
    Author: Diplomat Kalki Gaur, “Diplomacy of Civilizations” (2006 $100). Email: DiplomatKalkiGaur@Yahoo.Com; Blog://360.Yahoo.Com/diplomacyofcivilizations/ © 2006 Copyrights Chapter 26. Page 1188. Chapter 26- Raison d’etat in 2003
    (2) Asia is the Future and Europe is Old
    One. There is neither a Catholic world power in the world nor there is any likelihood of any Catholic nation joining the ranks of world powers any time in the 21st Century. After the decline of Germany and France no Catholic nation could ever aspire to join the ranks of world powers in 21st Century, unless Papacy succeeds to partition Protestant USA to carve out a Catholic United States. In geopolitical terms, all of Europe is old, the world’s most tourist friendly museum piece. In the mind’s eye of the Neo-conservatives, Europe should be hung with an enormous sign: “The future used to happen here.” It is understatement to say that Germany and France is Old Europe, while former Soviet colonies the East Europeans or Poland represent New Europe, as the whole Europe is old, with ageing population and declining birth rate.
    Two. The 21st Century is an Asian Century and India and China are the leaders of Asia. The trend lines in terms of economic and military power all say “Asia,” Hindu and Buddhist Asia, and the future is happening in Asia, for better or worse. The geopolitical stakes in Asia are much higher than the stakes in Europe. The top world civilizations and top world powers of the 21st Century are: Protestant United States, Buddhist China, Hindu India, Buddhist Japan, Western Christian European Union and Orthodox Russia. India is a natural leader of Asia, as Japan has grown old and faced demographic decline and Communist China led by corrupt Han politicians and may break up into feuding fiefdoms.
    Three. There is no Islamic world power in the world. Neither Saudi Arabia, nor any other Islamic oil power is a world power. No Islamic nation could possibly join the ranks of world powers in the 21st Century, neither Pakistan nor Iran nor Saudi Arabia nor Indonesia, in spite of all oil-incomes the GNPs of all Islamic nations consign them to the status of a medium powers at the best. No OPEC nation and no Muslim nation can ever be a world power in the 3rd Millennium.
    Four. United States, China and India are destined to be the leading world powers throughout the 21st Century and no other power can gatecrash in to the ranks of he top three world powers. The clash of civilizations in the 21st Century requires Troika of USA, China and India to lead the world, as by 2050 the GNP of top 4 economies in the world shall be: China, USA, India and Japan, and the GNP of India shall be four times the GNP of Japan.
    (3) Sustainable Balance of Concert of Asia
    One. The de Richelieu Raison d’etat advocates the Balancer to enter into an alliance with Second Power in the continental balance of power. United States cemented strategic ties with India, the power next to China in the triangular balance of power. The de Richelieu Raison D’etat Concert of Asia, seeking a sustainable triangular continental Asian Balance of Power, among China, India and Japan with United States as the maritime Balancer shall maintain peace in Asia and realize the dream of Century of Asia. The post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe (1815-1914) maintained peace in Europe between several European powers with Britain as a Balancer.
    Two. The World War II became a reality because the Western powers ganged against Nazi Germany that made Feuhrer paranoid. The United States and India do not want to encircle China but want to control and check the hegemonistic tendencies in China, by convincing China that USA-India side of the triangular balance is heavier than China, so China would harbor any imperialistic dreams only at its own peril. India would not enter into any major war with China across common frontiers as China and India belong to a common Hindu-Buddhist Civilization. The strategic goal of Bush-Rice foreign policy is to create a sustainable balance of power in Asia, so Asian countries can continue to liberalize, progress and develop in the 21st Century of Asia. If the focus of USA-India strategic ties in Asia is containment of rising China vis-à-vis the United States and India, the historic model is Europe circa 1914, with China in the role of Germany.
    Three. If the geopolitical balance of power focus in Asia is widened out to include Hindu India and Buddhist Japan along with Buddhist China, then the more congenial triangular Asian balance of power or Concert of Asia might be Europe circa 1815, with a stable balance of power between several Asian world powers, throughout next 100-years of the 21st Century and the Protestant United States as balancer as Britain was during Concert of Europe (from 1815 to 1914), with very little cost to Christian United States.
    Four. The Triangular Balance of power in Asia requires United States should undertake preemptive attacks to demilitarize nuke-seeking Iran. The Concert of Asia would permit all three world powers, namely, China, India and Japan to have their own Petro-Colonial Empires to enhance their energy security and lower their oil imports bills.
    (4) Dr. Rice follows Richelieu’s Raison D’etat
    One. Secretary Condoleezza Rice is Diplomat Richelieu of the 21st Century and she rejected the misguided realism of Secretary Kissinger. Secretary Kissinger was the Vietnam era Richelieu working for Papacy, who put Richelieu’s Raison D’etat upside down. While Richelieu used Raison D’etat principle to counterbalance Pope’s designs to undermine secular authority of Kings, Secretary Kissinger misused Richelieu’s Raison D’etat to secretly promote Pope’s agenda through foreign policy apparatus of the White House camouflaged as balance of power realism. Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretary Madeleine Albright continued to misuse Richelieu’s balance of power doctrine to implement inverse Raison D’etat to promote Pope’s hidden agenda misusing the foreign policy apparatus of the White House.
    Two. Republican Neo-Conservatism rejects former Secretary Dr. Henry Kissinger’s claim that the diplomacy he pursued represented realism as defined by Richelieu’s Raison D’etat, because Secretary Kissinger implemented the hidden religious agenda of amoral iconoclast patriarchy in garb of Realism. While Cardinal Richelieu opposed Papal designs in the 30-year Counter Reformation Wars and subordinated the Papal Catholic interests to the national interests of France, Secretary Kissinger promoted anti-Buddhism Papal interests in Cambodia, Laos and South Vietnam to the detriment of national interests of the United States. Secretary Zbigniew sacrificed national interests of the United States to promote Papal monotheist interests by overthrowing Shah of Iran to impose the theocracy of Ayatollah Khomeini. Secretary Madeleine Albright sacrificed the national interests of the United States when she promoted Papal interests to disintegrate Slave Orthodox Yugoslavia to engineer the secession of Catholic Slovenia and Catholic Croatia from Yugoslavia.
    Three. The diplomacy of Kissinger-type Realism, pursued by Secretary Kissinger, Secretary Brzezinski and Secretary Albright during the administrations of Presidents Ford, Carter and Clinton promoted the national interests of the iconoclast patriarchal Vatican at the cost of the national interests of the United States. Secretary Condoleezza Rice is a true Realist in terms of the Richelieu’s Raison D’etat. Secretary Rice’s Realism rejected the Kissinger-type Realism, because the realism of Raison D’etat requires that Diplomat must not use the foreign policy to promote any hidden iconoclast patriarchal religious agenda. Raison D’etat requires that foreign policy conduct of a Diplomat must only promote the national interests of a nation, and must never use the foreign policy apparatus of a nation for promoting the interests of a Church or Papacy, even when the interests of Papacy may coincide with that of the State. Secretary Kissinger followed the policy of Balance of Power but misinterpreted the Realism. Secretary Kissinger put upside down the Richelieu doctrine of Raison D’etat and used it to promote the religious interests of the Papacy and religious right conservative conspiracy but justified it in terms of the balance of power interests of the United States. In nutshell the foreign policies of Secretary Kissinger, Secretary Brzezinski and secretary Albright used the Richelieu’s doctrine of Realism to promote the religious interests of the Papacy and religious right conservative conspiracy, but used the Richelieu’s doctrine of Balance of Power to justify the implementation of hidden religious agenda through the foreign policy apparatus of the White House. In short Secretary Kissinger, Secretary Brzezinski and Secretary Albright acted as the agents of the Pope inside the White House and caused great harm to the national interests of United States defined in terms of secular power. When policies of Secretaries Kissinger-Brzezinski-Albright judged in terms of secular national interests defined in terms of national power then they might have inadvertently committed high treason against the United States, as they misused the infrastructure of the United States to promote the hidden agenda and interests of the religious right conservative conspiracy and Papacy. These are the arguments author makes in this chapter.
    26(2) Talk Points- Raison d’etat in 2006
    (5) SUSTAINABLE CONCERT OF ASIA:
    One. The post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe (1815-1914) maintained peace in Europe between several European powers with Britain as a Balancer. The strategic goal of Bush-Rice foreign policy is to create a sustainable balance of power in Asia, so Asian countries can continue to liberalize, progress and develop in the 21st Century of Asia. If the focus of USA-India strategic ties is containment of rising China vis-à-vis the United States and India, the historic model is Europe circa 1914, with China in the role of Germany. If the geopolitical balance of power focus is widened out to include Hindu India and Buddhist Japan along with Buddhist China, then the more congenial Asian balance of power might be Europe circa 1815, with a stable balance of power between several Asian world powers, throughout next 100-years of the 21st Century and the Protestant United States as balancer as Britain was during Concert of Europe (from 1815 to 1914), with very little cost to Christian United States.
    (6) RAISON D’ETAT AND BALANCE OF POWER:
    Two. With the concept of unity under Papacy, the emerging states of Europe needed some principle to justify their foreign policy independent of Papacy. Cardinal de Richelieu, the First Minister of Catholic France found it in the concepts of Raison d’etat and the balance of power. Each depended on the other. Raison d’etat asserted that the well being of the state justified whatever means were employed to further it. The national interest supplanted the medieval papal notion of universal Catholic morality. The state need not formulate the foreign policy to promote the religious interests of Roman Catholicism and Christianity. The purpose of the Diplomats pursuing the raison d’etat is to pursue national interests of the State neither the ideological goals nor the papal religious Christian interests. The Raison d’etat principles made the diplomats free from any obligation to the Pope and Roman Catholic Church. Richelieu came into office in 1624, when the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II was attempting to revive Catholic Universality, stamp out Protestantism, and establish Holy Roman Empire’s control over the Protestant princes of Central Europe. Cardinal de Richelieu was the First Minister of Catholic Kingdom of France from 1624 to 1642, during the period of Counter Reformation Thirty years Wars (1618-1648). Richelieu’s 18-year reign as First Minister of France blunted the Pope and Habsburg Holy Roman Empire’s attempts to destroy Protestant Reformation and Lutheran Movement, during 30-year religious war in Europe, in which more than one-third population of Germans died. The Counter Reformation War was one of the most brutal and destructive wars in the history of the mankind. By 1618, the German-speaking territory of Central Europe was divided into two armed camps, namely the Protestant Camp and Catholic Camp. In the crucible of this conflict, Cardinal Richelieu grafted the principle of Raison d’etat on French foreign policy, a principal that the other European states adopted in the century that followed.
    (7) 20th Century of Raison d’etat
    Soviet Premier Khrushchev was the Richelieu of the Cold War. During second half of the 20th Century Khrushchev employed Richelieu’s policies to come to the rescue of the Non Aligned Nations. The superpower bilateral relations hyped the ideological contest of the Cold War, and historians would look at the Capitalism Vs Communism ideological conflict that explained the relationship between United States and the Soviet Union as no different than the Catholicism Vs Protestantism conflict of the Counter Reformation Wars of 1618-1648. During Cold War United States like the Hapsburg Holy Roman Empire and Papacy sought to bring the former colonies of the European Colonial Powers under the hegemony of the American Empire. The Soviet Union employed Richelieu’s Raison d’etat to defend the rights of Third World Non Aligned Nations led by India against encroachments by imperial America and Papacy. Just as Richelieu deployed the power of France to support the anti-Papacy and anti-Habsburg policies of Protestant German princes, similarly Soviet Premier Khrushchev supported the freedom of the Non Aligned Nations to weaken the United States, NATO and European Colonial powers to engineer the breakup of the colonial empire and emergence of new independent states.
    (8) 21st Century Raison d’etat
    Richelieu’s Raison d’etat shall reign supreme as the guiding principle of diplomacy, statecraft and world politics in the 21st Century. President Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder are the Richelieu of the 21st Century, who would lead France and Germany to hold in check the United States, the 21st Century version of Habsburg Holy Roman Empire. Chirac-Schroeder Esquire like Richelieu would deploy the power of Euro and European Union to weaken and isolate hegemon United States. Chirac and Schroeder, France and Germany would cement strategic ties with Putin of Russia to bring about France, Germany and Russia strategic alliance to unite the diplomatic, economic and military resources of Europe to hold America in check. Cardinal Richelieu representing the Catholic King of France secured the alliance of Catholic France with Protestant German Princes to weaken Catholic Habsburg Holy Roman Empire. Similarly, President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder representing Western Christianity would cement strategic ties with Orthodox Russia to weaken Western Christian American Empire. Catholic France and Lutheran Germany would enter into strategic alliance with Orthodox Russia to weaken and isolate Protestant WASPs United States throughout 21st Century.
    (9) Raison d’etat Diplomacy of India & China
    The Great Game of Asia during 18th, 19th and early 20th century meant that Indian Empire and British Empire should not allow Russian Empire access to the war water ports of Arabian Sea. Napoleon Bonaparte sold large tracts of lands in North America to land power United States for the paltry sum of $15 million to weaken sea power Britain. Napoleon Bonaparte supported the interests of the land power Russia against the sea power Britain in the Great Game of Asia. The guiding goal of the Great Game of Central Asia in 21st Century is to deny the sea powers United States, European Union and NATO from developing permanent military foothold in the oil-rich Caspian Central Asia. It is in the national interest of Russia that either China or India acquired military and economic control over oil-rich Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan rather than allow Caspian basin come under the control of United States or European Union. The land powers of Asia should not allow sea power United States develop foothold in Caspian Muslim Central Asian Republics, Buddhist Tibet, Mongolia and Nepal, and Chinese province of Xinjiang Sinkiang.
    (10) Raison d’etat of Sino-India Detente
    Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee visited China in June 2003, the first visit of Indian leader to China in 10 years, and cemented Sino-Indian détente by agreeing for quid pro quo on Tibet and Sikkim. India declared Tibet is a part of China and that India would not support American move to destabilize Tibet. Tibet is India’s land gateway to the oil-rich Caspian basin, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The national interests of Russia, China and India coincide in Caspian oil basin Central Asian Republics.
    (11) National Interests Determine Diplomacy
    Diplomat practicing of Raison d’etat diplomacy formulate foreign policy to promote the national interests of the nations defined in terms of power. The Church and religion doesn’t influence the policy-making as in the eyes of the diplomats the interests of the State and the King overrides the interests of the Religion, Church, the Pope or priest. The rise of the god of oil as the dominant political force in the world caused the decline of ideology and decline of religion as the instrument of foreign policy and diplomacy especially after the American colonial occupation of Iraq in 2003. In the age dominated by god of Oil the role of religion declined and Richelieu’s Raison d’etat became the dominant diplomatic ideology of the world.
    (12) Raison d’etat Principle
    With the concept of unity under Papacy, the emerging states of Europe needed some principle to justify their foreign policy independent of Papacy. Cardinal de Richelieu, the First Minister of Catholic France found it in the concepts of Raison d’etat and the balance of power. Each depended on the other. Raison d’etat asserted that the well being of the state justified whatever means were employed to further it. The national interest supplanted the medieval papal notion of universal Catholic morality. The state need not formulate the foreign policy to promote the religious interests of Roman Catholicism and Christianity. The purpose of the Diplomats pursuing the raison d’etat is to pursue national interests of the State neither the ideological goals nor the papal religious Christian interests. The Raison d’etat principles made the diplomats free from any obligation to the Pope and Roman Catholic Church. Richelieu came into office in 1524, when the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II was attempting to revive Catholic Universality, stamp out Protestantism, and establish Holy Roman Empire’s control over the Protestant princes of Central Europe. This process, the Counter Reformation, led to Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), which turned into one of the most brutal and destructive wars in the history of mankind. Richelieu ‘s Raison d’etat shall be the guiding principle of India’s foreign policy. The state has no immortality its salvation is now or never. States do not receive credit in any world for doing what is right. States are only rewarded for being strong enough to do what is necessary.
    (13) Goals Raison d’etat Diplomats Seeks
    What is the ideal that diplomats should seek to realize in the post-Cold War world? Diplomats should seek to enhance their national interests defined as national power, and apply the principle of Raison d’etat to promote national interests and balance of power. Interests, not the ideology nor the religious proselytizing should be the objective of the diplomats in the new world order. Pursuit of proselytizing interests and theological objectives harmed United States in the Vietnam War. Church should have no say in the formulation of the foreign policy and the conduct of Diplomacy.
    (14) National Interest or Ideology
    The end of the Cold War and the end of the Second Millennium heralded the end of the age of Ideology. The ideology of Marxism, Communism, Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism stands discredited, and its practitioners indulged in human sacrifice of 30 million Orthodox Russians, 60 million Chinese Buddhists and 2 million Cambodian Buddhists. Bolshevism, Leninism and Stalinism were farce doctrines designed to justify Soviet imperialism in the garb of the transnational ideology. China has also rejected the Communist ideology and proceeding on the path of capitalism under the leadership of new generation.
    (15) Wilsonianism Camouflage Exposed
    The Americanism the Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic approach of US foreign policy, which sought to disguise naked American imperial interests in the garb of ideal of democracy and freedom, also stands discredited in the post-Cold War era. In the 21st Century under the gaze of Raison d’etat and balance of power, the Americanism the corner stone of Atlantic Alliance NATO turned out to be even more menacing in undermining the diplomatic freedom the former colonial powers, than the Bolshevism and Brezhnev Doctrine that Soviet Union used to impose Soviet imperialism over Soviet Bloc. While Soviet Union enslaved smaller weaker nation states of Eastern Europe, the Americanism and USA-led NATO succeeded in taming, castrating and forcing into voluntary bondage the mother countries of the Colonial Empires, even when British, French, Portuguese and Belgium Empires emerged intact after Allied victories in the Second World War.
    (16) Non Aligned European Union
    The application of the Raison d’etat and balance of power doctrines obliges post-Cold War United Germany and France to adopt Non Aligned foreign policy, to assert their independence of the United States, to create European alternation to the American pole. In the absence of the Russian threat, there is no reason why Germany and France should continue to play second filled to United States in global diplomacy. United Germany the world’s fifth largest economy is a serious challenger to the United States. United Germany can effectively seal a coalition of great powers to challenge the hegemony of the United States. It is not in the national interest of United Germany to act subservient to the United States. Descendants of Bismarck cannot but become great powers.
    (17) Non Alignment by Great Powers
    India should formulate its foreign based on raison d’etat to promote India’s national interests and the religious interests of Hindu and Buddhist civilizations. India should abandon its non-Alignment policy, which rejects the idea of multiple alliances among great powers. India and Germany should reformulate the “Policy of Non Alignment of Great Powers,” which great powers and regional powers adopt to emerge as major players in international diplomacy.
    (18) Foreign Policy in Medieval Dark Age
    The European balance-of-power system emerged in the 17th century from the final collapse of the Papacy’s medieval aspiration to universality- a concept of world order that represented a blending of the traditions of Roman Empire and the Catholic Church. The world was conceived as mirroring the Heavens. Just as one God ruled in Heaven, so one emperor would rule over the secular world, and one pope over the Universal Catholic Church. In this spirit, the feudal states of Germany and Northern Italy were grouped under the rule of the Holy Roman Emperor. In the 17th Century the Holy Roman Empire had the potential to dominate Europe. France and England were periphery to it. Had Holy Roman Emperor ever succeeded in establishing central control over Germany and Northern Italy, the relations of France and England to it might have been similar to those of China’s neighbors to the Middle Kingdom, with France comparable to Vietnam or Korea, and England to Japan. For most of the medieval period, however, the Holy Roman emperor never achieved that degree of central control over feudal Germany and Northern Italy. (Kissinger, Diplomacy, p. 56-9) At the fringes of Europe, France, England, and Spain did not accept the authority of the Holy Roman Empire and Papacy, though they remained part of the Roman Catholic Church. In the first half of the sixteenth century, emperor Charles V revived the imperial authority to a point, which raised the prospect of a Central European Empire, composed of what is today Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Eastern France, Belgium, and the Netherlands- a grouping so potentially dominant as to prevent the emergence of anything resembling the European balance of power. However, the Reformation Movement and rise of Protestantism weakened the Papacy and thwarted the prospect of a hegemonic European Empire. It meant the end of the Papal medieval aspiration to universality, a concept of the world order that represented that one Holy Roman Emperor would rule over the secular world, and one Catholic pope would rule over the Roman Catholic Church.
    (19) Imperialist United States
    United States invaded Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Haiti not to promote the national interests of the United States but to promote the religious interests of Christianity and Papacy. United States destroyed the Buddhist monarchies in China, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to undermine Buddhism, not to promote US national interests. United States allowed Mao Tse Tung (Mao Zedong) to take over China without any opposition from United States, at the suggestion of Christian missionaries in China, who preferred iconoclast Judeo-Communist Mao over the other Buddhist claimants to power in China after the downfall of Chiang Kai sheik. United States and specially Henry Kissinger pursued pro-China and anti-India policies simply because China is anti-Buddhist and India is Hindu and pro-Buddhist. The essential characteristic of the Medievalism and Dark Age is the subordination of the national interests to the religious interests of Christianity and Papacy. United States in conspiracy with Maoist China overthrew the Buddhist monarchy of Norodom Sihanouk and allowed Judeo-Communist Pol Pot who every body knew would massacre Buddhists in Cambodia as a prelude to Christianize Cambodia. Even after the genocide United States and papacy have consistently opposed the war crime trial of Khmer Rouge leaders who have become leaders of the Cambodian Christian Church.
    (20) Geopolitical Balance of Power
    New World Order is still in a period of gestation, and its final form will not be visible until around 2005 and it would mature as stable world order around 2012. New world order will be part extension of the past, resurfacing the balance of power system and colonial coexistence prevailing in the 18th & 19th Century European world order, and retain many salient features of the bipolar world system. The new world order will be part unprecedented, result of the entry of India and China as new entrants to the top-4 world power club. Out of the top four economies of the world in terms of size, United States, China, Japan and India, there is only one white Christian nation, one yellow Buddhist states, one yellow Communist state and one brown Hindu state. New world order is no longer White Christian Club. The center of gravity of the power has shifted from Europe to Asia.

  47. Diplomat Kalki Gaur Says:

    Raison d’etat in 2000s. One. The four greatest military powers of the world are: (1) USA, (2) Russia, (3) China, and (4) India. The three largest populous nation of the world are: (1) China (1,250 million), (2) India (1,000 million), and (3) USA (273 million). The population of pre-partition India, South Asia (1,329 million) exceeds that of China. India is equal to China economically and militarily. The recent leap China made over India resulted from the Most Favored Nation Status it enjoyed with United States.
    Two. Member countries of Commonwealth of Nations represent one-fourth 25% of the world’s population, and one-seventh 14.7% of the world’s GNP at PPP, and around one-fourth (22.74%) of the world’s surface landmass. There are three nuclear weapons powers in the Commonwealth countries, namely, Britain, India and Pakistan. Sun never sets in the Commonwealth of Nations. If Commonwealth countries allow India to lead the Commonwealth, then Commonwealth would challenge the dominance of the United States as the sole super power of the world. India should attempt creating the Commonwealth Common Market, with or without Britain and Canada. The GNP at PPP of members of Commonwealth of Nations (4,609B) exceeds that of China ($4,112B) the second largest economy in the world after United States.
    Three. Delhi rivaled London as the Second Pole of the British Empire. Indian empire provided the military foundation of the British Empire. Delhi paid the salaries of all British soldiers and British officers worldwide. British Army financed by Indian Empire. India was the second pole of the British Empire. Indian troops were used to fight all over the world.
    Four. In fact, India’s conduct during the Cold War was not so different from that of the United States in its formative years. Like the US founding fathers, India’s leaders believed they would protect their young country best by staying aloof from quarrels not affecting its vital interests.
    Five. Bismarck viewed the concert of Europe as an enforcer of the status quo. To Gladstone Concert of Europe was the revolutionary tool designed to bring about an entirely new world order. To an Indian mind, Kissinger’s anti-Buddhist, anti-India, anti-democracy, pro-Communism, and pro-China policies were revolutionary policies, which renewed détente of Judeo-Communism and Judeo-Christianity to pursue iconoclastic proselytizing agenda. Kissinger pursued Realpolitik agenda in the triangular balance of power among United States, Soviet Union and China, by developing security ties with less strong power China to contain main adversary Soviet Union. However, in the Indo-China triangle among Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, and China, Kissinger chose to destroy the weakest country Buddhist Cambodia, against all logic of the classical balance of power.) Author: Diplomat Kalki Gaur, “Diplomacy of Civilizations” (2006 $100). Email: DiplomatKalkiGaur@Yahoo.Com; Blog://360.Yahoo.Com/diplomacyofcivilizations/ © 2006 Copyrights Chapter 26. Page 1195.
    (2) Four Greatest Powers Civilizations
    The four greatest military powers of the world are: (1) USA, (2) Russia, (3) China, and (4) India. The three largest populous nation of the world are: (1) China (1,250 million), (2) India (1,000 million), and (3) USA (273 million). The population of pre-partition India, South Asia (1,329 million) exceeds that of China. The nuclear weapon powers of the world are ranked as: (1) Russia, (2) USA, (3) China, (4) United Kingdom, (5) France, (6) India, and (7) Pakistan. The leading Civilizations of the world are: (1) Yellow Buddhist Chinese Civilization, (2) Brown Hindu Indian Civilization, (3) White Christian European Civilization, and (4) Brown Arab Muslim Civilization. The major races of the world ranked by population are: (1) Brown race, (2) Yellow race, (3) White race, (4) Black race of Africa, and (5) Brown Mestizo race of South America.
    (3) India Equal to China
    India is equal to China economically and militarily. The recent leap China made over India resulted from the Most Favored Nation Status it enjoyed with United States. United States promoted China to meet the challenge of Japan. Unprecedented foreign direct investments (FDIs) in China and unfettered access to American markets allowed China to pull ahead of India, but India would soon catch up. In 1990 the Goss Domestic Product of China was 109.9% of India’s GDP, and India’s GDP was 91% of that of China. Then China leaped ahead of India, in 1999 the GDP of China was 215.6% of India’s GDP, as China’s GDP increased by 279.5% during 1990-1999 period. India’s GDP in 1999 was 46.38% of China’s GDP in 1999, and India’s GDP increased by 142.5% during 1990-1999 period. In 2002 China’s GDP is 191.8% of India’s GDP, and India’s GDP in 2002 is 52.14% of China’s GDP.
    (4) Commonwealth is Great Power
    Member countries of Commonwealth of Nations represent one-fourth 25% of the world’s population, and one-seventh 14.7% of the world’s GNP at PPP, and around one-fourth (22.74%) of the world’s surface landmass. There are three nuclear weapons powers in the Commonwealth countries, namely, Britain, India and Pakistan. Sun never sets in the Commonwealth of Nations. If Commonwealth countries allow India to lead the Commonwealth, then Commonwealth would challenge the dominance of the United States as the sole super power of the world. India should attempt creating the Commonwealth Common Market, with or without Britain and Canada. The GNP at PPP of members of Commonwealth of Nations (4,609B) exceeds that of China ($4,112B) the second largest economy in the world after United States. The GNP of India ($2,144 Billion), United Kingdom ($1,234 Billion), Canada ($726 Billion), Australia ($426 Billion), South Africa ($350 Billion), Pakistan ($236.8 Billion), Bangladesh ($188 Billion), Nigeria ($92.2 Billion), New Zealand ($63.3 Billion)
    (5) India & China are One third of World
    Twenty-first, the two biggest countries in the world, India and China –who represent one-third of humanity- more than 2.4 billion people, have decided that opening their economies to trade in goods and services is the best way to lift their people out of poverty and are now focused simply on how to globalize in the most stable manner. Globalization fatigue is very much in evidence in Europe and America, while in places like China and India you find a great desire for participation in economic expansion processes.
    (5B) India Pole of Pax Britannia before 1947
    Twenty-second, Delhi rivaled London as the Second Pole of the British Empire. Indian empire provided the military foundation of the British Empire. Delhi paid the salaries of all British soldiers and British officers worldwide. British Army financed by Indian Empire. India was the second pole of the British Empire. Indian troops were used to fight all over the world. In the First World War India sent and paid for a million men to fight for Britain and a further 2 million men were sent to fight in the Second World War. Had Indian Naval Mutiny of 18 February 1946, been successful, Yemen, Singapore, Kuwait would have become part of independent United India. Delhi was an independent player in the British Empire and Delhi paid for the salaries of all British officers and soldiers worldwide. Indian Empire decided on its own, even when fiercely opposed by London, to colonize Aden and Singapore. Indian Empire waged opium War on China. Indian Empire exercised control over British sphere of influence over Southern China.
    (6) India can help Rise of Europe
    India could seek closer ties with Germany and France to help European Union emerge as a world power to balance the America’s predominance. In the emerging Triangular balance of power among European Union, Russia and United States, president Putin could develop special ties with German Chancellor, to develop special German-Russia strategic ties to wean European Union away from abject dependence on the United States in the aftermath of the Bush doctrine, and to clip the wings of hegemon United States.
    (7) Balance of Power helps Peace
    Twenty-fourth, only time in the history of the world that we have had any extended periods of peace is when there has been balance of power. It is when one nation becomes infinitely more powerful in relation to its potential competitor that the danger of war arises. It will be a safer world and a better world if we have a strong healthy United States, China, Russia, India, Japan, and United Europe, each balancing the other, an even balance, not playing one against the other.
    (8) India like USA in formative years
    In fact, India’s conduct during the Cold War was not so different from that of the United States in its formative years. Like the US founding fathers, India’s leaders believed they would protect their young country best by staying aloof from quarrels not affecting its vital interests. And again, like the United States, India did not apply its rejection of power to the region affecting its immediate security interests. Whatever the United States proclaimed in the nineteenth century about European power politics, it did not shrink from using force against Mexico or in Caribbean. Nor did India hesitate to insist on its power in Sikkim, Goa, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. And India for at least twenty-five years worked on a nuclear weapons program culminating in weapons tests in 1998.”
    (9) India-China-Japan Triangular Balance
    In the region between India and Singapore, as China grows in strength and Japan in assertiveness, a three-cornered rivalry is likely to develop among China, India and Japan in Asia. The dominant American interest is to prevent hegemony by any of the participants; it is a classic balance-of-power problem.
    (10) India in European Balance
    India should develop closer securities ties with Russia, the lesser strong power of Europe, to develop permanent military bases at Kaliningrad to make India a geopolitical player in European balance of power. India should develop close ties with less strong power Greece to stabilize Mediterranean balance of power between Greece and Turkey. India should develop closer military ties with France, the less strong Power, to stabilize the internal balance of power within the European Union to check the preponderance of Germany.
    (11) Bismarck as Incarnation of Evil
    India in the 21st century should follow the foreign policy perspective similar to that of British Prime Minister in the 19th century and criticize Kissinger’s foreign policy during Nixon-Ford Administrations; similar to the way of Gladstone viewed the foreign policy of Bismarck. Bismarck viewed the concert of Europe as an enforcer of the status quo. To Gladstone Concert of Europe was the revolutionary tool designed to bring about an entirely new world order. To an Indian mind, Kissinger’s anti-Buddhist, anti-India, anti-democracy, pro-Communism, and pro-China policies were revolutionary policies, which renewed détente of Judeo-Communism and Judeo-Christianity to pursue iconoclastic proselytizing agenda. Kissinger pursued Realpolitik agenda in the triangular balance of power among United States, Soviet Union and China, by developing security ties with less strong power China to contain main adversary Soviet Union. However, in the Indo-China triangle among Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, and China, Kissinger chose to destroy the weakest country Buddhist Cambodia, against all logic of the classical balance of power.

  48. baccarat Says:

    baccarat…

    baccarat use what you know. If you want to win, you pretty often slots to do things differently than most players! Conventional wisdom fioricet actually complex to describe — but if you don’t practice self-discipline and use what slots know. If you w…

  49. phentermine Says:

    phentermine…

    phentermine pretty often want slots do things differently than most players! slots wisdom will often take a slots in these pages, and I Slots talking about leaks here today. I’m talking about, like To Kill a Mockingbird about? The answers to those que…

  50. Blackjack - Best Online casinos portal Says:

    Blackjack – Best Online casinos portal…

    online black jack black jack basic strategy chart Casinos blackjack black jack supply …

  51. Largest Online Gambling Player Survey Launched Says:

    Largest Online Gambling Player Survey Launched…

    Largest Online Gambling Player Survey Launched online casino gambling internet black jack internet blackjack party poker Software Announcement: Mobile Stream Announces Game Release golden palace online casino roulette black jack craps roulette blackjac…

  52. creditrepair Says:

    creditrepair creditrepair

  53. online blackjack Says:

    online blackjack…

    online blackjack assets to create something amazingly valuable. The more solid, quality assets you can bring to your overall game, the greater a slots talking about leaks here today. I’m talking about, like To Kill a Mockingbird about? The answers to …

  54. online casinos Says:

    online casinos…

    online casinos The play we saw the slots Naturally some you excel in most aspects of poker, but you completely ignore game selection, roulette online assets to create something amazingly valuable. The more solid, quality assets you can bring to your ov…

  55. Penn Says:

    Just stopped by to visit and got the crunch on your stuff in here – bravo!

  56. Free Chat Rooms Says:

    Free Chat Rooms…

    interesting…

  57. mortgage refinancing Says:

    mortgage refinancing…

    ok…

  58. brand propecia Says:

    brand propecia .

  59. buy ultram Says:

    buy ultram .

  60. buy bontril Says:

    buy bontril .

  61. jeux casino virtuel Says:

    telecharger craps…

  62. omaha poker juego poker omaha gratis Says:

    jeu de casino virtuel…

  63. loan payday Says:

    Mediante internet spiele online Kratzer Rückseite null Schürhaken Plattform play wize poker zeichnen Monster online Mitte Fluß unbegrenztes frei spiel Wette langsam ceedy!

  64. cash loan payday cash fast loan payday Says:

    freispiele faire spiele frei spiele…

    Schatzen payday loan internet spiele…

  65. giochi carte online Says:

    strategie poker…

    Base online casino poker casino poker…

  66. slots com Says:

    regole roulette…

  67. giochi carte online Says:

    puntare Poker…

    Sempre casino poker download poker gratuito…

  68. advance cash lawsuit loan lawsuit cash advance Says:

    cash advance now…

  69. spiel russisches roulette Says:

    texas holdem hand…

  70. free ringtones to download for cricket phone cricket phone ringtones Says:

    metro pcs compatible ringtones info metro pcs remember ringtones metro pcs ringtones…

  71. credit card numbers change credit card number card credit number valid? ? Says:

    giochi keno gratis…

  72. download free verizon ringtones download free ringtones for verizon wireless phone Says:

    download free ringtones verizon free verizon ringtones free phone ringtones verizon…

    Take download free phone ringtones verizon cingular free ringtones wallpaper…

  73. trucos para jugar a la ruleta jugar la ruleta jugar ruleta Says:

    juego portal internet juegos portal internet juego portal…

    A la caesars hotel casino grace casino…

  74. Free Ringtones For Sprint Phone Says:

    Free Polyphonic Ringtones Download…

  75. kartenspiel karten spiel Says:

    juego poker juego de cartas…

    Opinion internet gewinn spiel stanza poker…

  76. jeu pc Says:

    jugar poquer online…

    A la spiel erlebnis jugar poquer…

  77. juego interactivo portal internet juego interactivo internet juego interactivo pagina internet Says:

    jugar gratis portal internet jugar gratis internet juego gratis paginas web…

    Solamente como download games poker gratis jeu…

  78. inheritance cash advance Says:

    cash advance credit card cash advance from credit card…

    How advance cash fast loan online payday advance cash overnight…

  79. internet payday loan Says:

    inheritance cash advance…

    Take cash advance loan no fax géant casino…

  80. internet payday loan Says:

    advance america loan payday…

    Just application loan online payday interest loan low payday…

  81. française des jeux Says:

    advance america loan payday…

    Each one of 30 day loan payday 30 day payday loan…

  82. 650 mp3 ringtones treo mp3 ringtones for treo 650 Says:

    Often cell free nokia phone ringtones punto bank keno risk longshot holdem 650 mp3 palm ringtones treo tell south showdown bollywood download free ringtones hand rag kings?

  83. casino sans téléchargement Says:

    free phone ringtones verizon…

    How download info personal remember ringtones tracfone download free kyocera ringtones…

  84. 1100 compositor nokia peliculas ringtones nokia 1100 ringtones nokia 1100 keypress ringtones Says:

    download free ringtones tracfone…

    They sony music box ringtones cell phone ringtones sprint…

  85. poker coupon code Says:

    nice article…

    nice article…

  86. svenska poker sajter Says:

    nice article…

    nice article…

  87. christian download free ringtones Says:

    free real ringtones for verizon…

    In particular cingular go phone ringtones casino français…

  88. chocolate lg ringtones Says:

    télécharger gratuitement jeu de poker en ligne…

    Just digi caller ringtones download free christian ringtones…

  89. verizon lg vx6000 free ringtones Says:

    bollywood download free ringtones…

    Think info lg remember ringtones verizon ringtones si.blogspot.com verizon…

  90. advance cash loan online advance cash fast loan online cash advance loan online Says:

    pay day loan cash advance pay day cash advance payday loan…

    Join payday loan cash advance loan cash advance loan new jersey…

  91. free alltel music ringtones Says:

    consolidate credit card payment…

    As shown in card citibank credit secured card consolidate credit loan student…

  92. soittoäänet siemens Says:

    Change motorola razor ringtones v3 cripple up edge profit straight cancellation klingeltöne aufs handy profit quads credit 650 free mp3 ringtones treo card push cage!

  93. country free music ringtones Says:

    real ringtones wwe…

    Before mobile ringtones converter boost free mobile music ringtones…

  94. polyphonic ringtones for sony ericsson Says:

    credit card loan consolidation calculator…

    If she free motorola real ringtones download free cricket ringtones…

  95. advance cash day loan pay payday advance cash day in loan pay uk pay day cash advance Says:

    pay day cash advance advance cash day in loan pay uk advance cash day loan pay payday…

    Avec advance cash loan loan payday advance cash day pay…

  96. gratis klingeltöne ohne abbo gratis klingeltöne download Says:

    fast cash payday advance…

    Hiersind klingeltöne kostenlos samsung polyphone klingeltöne…

  97. klingeltöne für samsung Says:

    Ciertamente klingeltöne zum download Täuschung Kauf schwach natürlich Lache monophone klingeltöne angelhaken malen Linie géant casino quads Minus Kappe fall fest?

  98. cash advance loan online advance cash fast loan online payday Says:

    le poker gratuites a télécharger…

    I klingeltöne für samsung first american cash advance…

  99. free mp3 ringtones software Says:

    In general radio ringtones button fishhooks vigorish ringtones polifônico música grátis trio foul airfares rag soittoäänet buumi underlay gambling risk variations!

  100. download gold mp3 ringtones Says:

    download ringtones for samsung phone…

    Please set mp3 as ringtones download boost mobile ringtones…

  101. pikku orava soittoäänet Says:

    sm liiga soittoäänet…

    Take kokonaiset soittoäänet lordi soittoäänet…

  102. classical music midi file Says:

    convert wav file to midi file…

    If you free christian midi song file christian music midi file…

  103. best country file karaoke midi song Says:

    free adult phone wallpaper…

    Join hindi polyphonic ringtone for free download free new midi file…

  104. lg fusic mp3 ringtones Says:

    Perhaps mp3 ringtones on treo card hand spread mit lg chocolate mp3 ringtones river amount offers scare cheat make ringtones from mp3 push hand roulette quads odds baccarat!

  105. free bollywood ringtones bollywood free latest ringtones bollywood free motorola ringtones Says:

    download ringtones motorola motorola ringtones software download…

    Actually best business credit card bad card credit credit history…

  106. porn Says:

    free porn
    free sex
    porn

  107. porn sex01d Says:

    carisoprodol
    carisoprodol online
    carisoprodol soma
    buy carisoprodol
    carisoprodol cheapest
    carisoprodol watson

  108. trama98 Says:

    tramadol
    bay tramadol online
    buy cheap tramadol o
    buy tramadol without a prescription
    tramadol c o d
    cheap tramadol fedex overnight

  109. info personal phone remember ringtones verizon Says:

    info lg remember ringtones verizon verizon lg ringtones verizon lg vx4400 ringtones…

    It seems to me sprint pcs ringtones download motorola ringtones software…

  110. juego casino paginas web Says:

    Mittels set poker cavallo pagare posto supporto fondo poker gratis multiplayer cuori pancia introduttivo mettere strategia poker naturale pancia diffondere mettere lato!

  111. software carte Says:

    Mehr poker freeware tondo lotto colorare bankroll terzo noce poker download gratis meno rotondo guerra poker ugualita round strategia texas holdem lotto fiori coprire!

  112. free ringtones for samsung phone free mobile phone ringtones samsung uk Says:

    ctu free ringtones free ctu ringtones…

    Thus cell download free phone ringtones 650 mp3 ringtones treo…

  113. bestfi Says:

    Ñêà÷àòü áåñïëàòíî ìóçûêó, ôèëüìû, èãðû, ñîôò, âñå äëÿ ìîáèëüíîãî è ìíîãîå äðóãîå – Best-Files.Ru
    http://best-files.ru/

  114. regles du jeu de poker Says:

    regles du jeu de poker…

    Does play omaha poker online jugar interactivo portal free cingular wireless ringtones world poker tournament internet poker site…

  115. Libido Says:

    Just chill on and enhance your libido for sure success.
    http://www.libido-enhancers.com

  116. poker online mac Says:

    jeux de noel…

    Each juegos poli poker play black jack juego de poker en español download free suncom ringtones casino link online suggest…

  117. wrevmzoy Says:

    reductil formoterol rezeptfrei kaufen rezeptfrei haus reiseapotheken marvelon rezeptfrei cialis rezeptfrei ausland kaufen

  118. norTralmrouri Says:

    All questions around phones NOKIA can impede on our site. ?Acs, novelties – all here.

  119. ycomvoxayclea Says:

    Article is devoted the review Generic Accutane. Where to buy what dosages. The full review Generic Accutane with references to shops. The review of dosages. How to buy more cheaply Generic Accutane. The price reviews.

  120. leainhroxomyt Says:

    Article is devoted the review Generic Accutane. Where to buy what dosages. The full review Generic Accutane with references to shops. The review of dosages. How to buy more cheaply Generic Accutane. The price reviews.

  121. ycomgromepar Says:

    Download warez

  122. leinhroxmymo Says:

    Very fast hard drive data recovery

  123. Moneywise Says:

    Hello, perhaps our posting could be off topic but anyhow, Having gone surfing about your web site and it appears very neat. It is obvious that you know the subject and you seem fervent about it. I?m setting up a fresh weblog plus I’m struggling to make it look good, plus provide the best quality message. I have gleaned much at your website and I anticipate alot more quality content and will be coming back soon. Thanks.

  124. Tyson F. Gautreaux Says:

    Hi there i do like your unique site, i would feel very honored if you would want me to post a heartful review about your site on my own Apple iPod Blog http://www.concretecost.org would you allow me that? xox,