While Brzezinski focuses on what he regards as the nationalistic and imperialistic revivals of Russia, he refers to the USA as “the world’s premier power.” Hence, US global hegemony is to be regarded as beneficent, while any challenge is regarded as an “imperialistic” danger to the “new international system.”
No state is likely to match the United States in the four key dimensions of power – military, economic, technological, and cultural – that confer global political clout.… America’s global stewardship will be tested by tension, turbulence, and periodic conflict.… In a volatile Eurasia, the immediate task is to ensure that no state or combination of states gains the ability to expel the United States or even diminish its decisive role.… A benign American hegemony must still discourage others from posing a challenge.…[38]
The “medium-term goal” is to forge a Europe that is subservience to US interests, and to support “a regionally pre-eminent China.” Brzezinski states of these goals that “it will be success or failure in forging broader strategic relationships with Europe and China that shapes Russia’s future role and determines Eurasia’s central power equation.”[39] Hence, US global hegemony can be seen to rest on the containment of Russia through the subordination of Europe and a partnership with China.
Japan is required to place trust in China as the dominant power. “There will be no stable equilibrium of power in Eurasia without a deepening strategic understanding between America and China and a clearer definition of Japan’s emerging role.” China’s rise, which he calls “Greater China,” does not pose a challenge to US hegemony, as Brzezinski regards Chinese regional hegemony as different to that of the Russian.
A de facto sphere of Chinese regional influence is likely to be part of Eurasia’s future. Such a sphere of influence should not be confused with a zone of exclusive political domination, like the Soviet Union had in Eastern Europe. It is more likely to be an area in which weaker states pay special deference to the interests, views, and anticipated reactions of the regionally dominant power. In brief, a Chinese sphere of influence can be defined as one in which the first question in the various capitals is, “What is Beijing’s view on this?”[40]
“Greater China” does not pose a threat to US strategic interests. So far from there being a potential for geopolitical rivalry between China and the USA, there is a commonality of interests:
Greater China’s geopolitical influence is not necessarily incompatible with America’s strategic interest in a stable, pluralistic Eurasia. For example, China’s growing interest in Central Asia constrains Russia’s ability to achieve a political reintegration of the region under Moscow’s control. In this connection and in regard to the Persian Gulf, China’s growing energy needs means it has a common interest with America in maintaining free access to, and political stability in, the oil-producing regions. Similarly, China’s support for Pakistan restrains India’s ambitions to subordinate that country, while offsetting India’s inclination to cooperate with Russia in regard to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Chinese and Japanese involvement in the development of eastern Siberia can also enhance regional stability.
The bottom line is that America and China need each other in Eurasia. Greater China should consider America a natural ally for historical as well as political reasons. Unlike Japan or Russia, the United States has never had any territorial designs on China; compared to Great Britain, it has never humiliated China. Moreover, without a viable strategic relationship with America, China is not likely to continue to attract the enormous foreign investment necessary for regional preeminence.… For America, China’s regional power, co-opted into a wider framework of international cooperation, can become an important strategic asset – equal to Europe, more weighty than Japan – in assuring Eurasia’s stability.[41]
It will be noted that Brzezinski seems to base his perception of states on their relationship to Russia, and in this India, rather than Pakistan, is the problem state that needs containing. Brzezinski therefore sees India as the aggressor vis-à-vis Pakistan, to say nothing of China’s aggressive designs on Indian territory. The various states on whom “Greater China” has territorial ambitions are apparently supposed to ignore those designs, including ongoing provocations. There have been many skirmishes against Vietnam over the Bay of Tonkin, during which fishermen seem to bear the brunt of Chinese aggression.[42] India has faced confrontation with China over Arunachi Pradesh[43]. Late in 2010 there were diplomatic tensions between China and Japan over disputed islands in the East China Sea.[44] Brzezinski’s answer to territorial disputes between Japan and China seems to be that of their jointly “developing” eastern Siberia.
Soros’ attitude towards China parallels Brzezinski’s. Soros bases his perceptions of China as a super-power that has matured and has to accept global responsibilities as being co-leader of the “new world order” along with the USA. Accepting his award as “Globalist of the Year” from the Canadian International Council, the currency speculator who admits to having a messiah complex, stated of China that: “They have now got to accept responsibility for world order and the interests of other people as well.” When Soros was asked about an impending visit to China in 2009 he stated to the London Financial Times:
This would be the time because I think you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order, financial world order. I think you need a new world order, that China has to be part of the process of creating it and they have to buy in, they have to own it in the same way as the United States owns … the current order.[45]
China & Israel
Since the establishment of Israel and Red China at around the same time there has been an ongoing, although usually covert, relationship, despite the posturing of China as the friend of the Palestinians and the Arab cause. From 1949 Israel was the only independent state in the Middle East to recognize Red China and support its admittance to the United Nations. During the 1960s and 1970s China adopted a pro-Arab posture in attempting to counter Soviet influence. However, despite an attempt at alignment with the Arab states, in 1971 Zhou told Senator Henry Jackson, who was as opposed to the USSR as he was supportive of Israel, that China supported Israel in its opposition to Soviet expansion in the Middle East.[46]
However, the real significance of Sino-Israeli relations was through the covert arms deals largely arranged by Shaul Eisenberg, “Mossad’s tie-in with China.”[47] In 1979, when China was posing as the friend of the Arab people, Prime Minister Menachem Begin obtained US approval for Eisenberg to undertake a $US10 billion 10 year deal to modernize the Chinese armed forces, the Chinese insisting on “absolute secrecy.”[48] In 1999 The New York Times reported, “Israel has long had a close, secretive military relationship, with China.”[49] The Clinton Administration made some protestations to Israel about the dealings in advanced weapons technologies to placate concerns in the State and Commerce Departments, but allowed US corporations to advance classified technologies for satellite and missile launching, despite the objections of the Pentagon and others, and even while the corporations were being investigated for prior export violations.[50]
Sino-US-Israeli Alignment in Middle East
As the foregoing shows, the relations between the USA, China, and Israel have been duplicitous, and have often been far different in reality, behind-the-scenes, than the posturing on the world stage. All three have had a common anti-Russian motivation. Now, with the so-called “Arab Spring,” contrived by the same interests that brought “velvet revolutions” to the former Soviet bloc states[51] and with the worrying prospect that these new regimes in the Middle East might have unleashed forces that cannot be controlled by their money-masters and advisers in New York and Washington, Israeli sources are urging a joint Sino-American-Israeli intervention.
A Jerusalem Post op-ed by Dr Shalom Wald[52] and Dr Gedaliah Afterman[53] comments on the visit by Chinese Chief of Staff, General Chen Bingde, to Israel in August 2011, that this is an opportunity for China to have a “stabilizing” impact on the region:
Indeed, improved Israel-China ties could have a positive impact not only on Israel but on the whole region. It could signal the Iranians and their Arab followers, Hamas and Hezbollah, that notwithstanding the help that some of them may have received from China in the past, China has no time and no sympathy for wild, genocidal ranting. China’s rapid ascendance and its interest in maintaining regional stability in the Middle East means China may be more ready to play a role in regional affairs and in the Middle East peace process.
The United States’ reaction to growing Israel-China ties will be crucial. All efforts should be made to convince Israel’s closest ally that it is in its own interest to let China lend a helping hand in stabilizing the Middle East.
The Arabs and Iranians listen to China because they have to. China was their great neighbor for thousands of years before the United States was even formed, and before Europe become a power in the Middle East. Today China is their most important Asian energy market, and provides political cover because it does not ask them for political or human-rights concessions.
In his recently published book On China, Henry Kissinger continues his most important struggle – to help avoid the clash between a traditional and a rising great power which has occurred so often in history. He suggests that America can and must cope with China’s peaceful rise, but also asks the Chinese to become more involved in maintaining peace and stability on a global level. Have the Chinese already listened to him on the Middle East? Has the United States?[54]
As has been shown by the “Brzezinski Doctrine,” globalist interests in the USA have already been urging a joint Sino-US role, in the Middle East. An Israeli overture in that direction will give impetus for the Obama Administration to adopt the globalist agenda, especially given the current tumult that globalist interference has unleashed over the Middle East.
I agree with you that at the present time China and Russia have nothing in common because oil is now what makes the world go round and Russia has oil and China is it the bottom of the oil pecking order.
But the oil war has already started with the blatant attempts by US/NATO to drag Russia into war by fomenting unrest in Libya, Syria, Kosovo, placing “shield” around Russia etc .
However this week will tell whether their efforts will be successful and Russia shows its weakness by throwing away the goodwill it has generated by its principled stance in support of Libya or whether it will stand up for all those people throughout the world including America and Europe who long for a world of decency and respect where they would have the absolute right to the truth, life and ownership of property.
By the way you overlook one major country probably because it does not figure in the war scenario, India. India is in unique position because it suffered the effects of colonialism and its people are thrifty and ingenious who see no future in pointles death and destruction. Rather they see the future in the best use of technology to educate and enlighten.
It is clear that the US is not interfering in Asia,viz, avoiding selling F16s to Taiwan, staying out of the South China Sea and allowing China to have its way. These 2 countries are carving up the world into their respective hegemonies. Israel is the power behind the throne in US. Wll it do any good for the people of SEA? Time will tell. But one thing is for sure. The country that is ill treating its local Chinese will be in for a tough time.
Germany has been looking “east” since a thousands years (Teutonic knights), and France has been looking “south” since a thousands years (the Crusaders). Germany and Russia have already become de fact economic partners. France via North Africa is trying to keep control of “Afrique francophonie” and worries about U.S. Africom muscleing in! It is true, Russia is in a complicated position and nervous about ALL neighbours, but certainly aware that it is the permanent U.S. and British strategy to dismember more from its territories. Most of Latin America may now finally become independent from the U.S., and the U.S.’s geostrategic attention on China, Russia and the Near East – is seen as a fortunate diversion. China is aware that American Jews hold a unique spell over U.S. geopolitical strategies – and that no genuine triple-alliance U.S.-Israel – China would ever exist, but rather a combine of U.S.-Israel converging on China. China will be remain the reserved “Middle Kingdom” and avoid involvements which history has shown them as transitory.
Geopolitical realignments today shows an unhealthy competition among states for power. This is where the UN should step in.
But in reneigueing in its stated purpose recently the UN is being judged by its refusal to protect all humanity’s right to the truth, life and ownership of property which have formed the bedrock of ordered societies for thousands of years. The UN sanctioned attack on Libya which has been based on lies, murder and robbery shows that the UN has lost all credibility and is only relevant in that it has to be rendered powerless which is what has already happened in the cavalier attitude to it by the US and NATO, and anyone who still believes they should go along with its decrees is very foolish indeed.
So as the UN is irrelevant we now see a scramble by the nation states because they have realised that history has taught us that once an aggressor starts a war it has to keep going until it is defeated.
M. Bolton u should write Science Fiction Books. This will never happen. It is very unrealistic, not to say totally brainless.
WRONG!!!
1. Jacob Schiff, a Jewish Zionist international Banker, funded the Soviet revolution.
2. Stalin’s USSR was built and armed by the USA throughout up till the 1970s, See:
2.1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PqM-CMoa9M
“The Best Enemies Money Can Buy – Prof. Antony C. Sutton”
2.2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4
“Yuri Bezmenov: Deception Was My Job (Complete)”
3. The Holodomor was a Genocide in order to reduce the christian presence and power: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
4. The recent generation Oligarchs in Russia are MI6-backed Zionists.
5. China’s rise to power has been enabled by Germany.
First of all the article only focuses on China-US relations and China-Russia relations despite the title.
I would be convinced if the situation wouldn’t be that on a broad scale European countries and the USA tend to be blocked together and practically the European foreign policy coordinations failures show that it is a more diversified picture since instead of the USA perhaps the term anglo-saxon countries might be more accurate. At the same time I do not see the clear relations between Europe and Arabia. In terms of the EuroRussian relations it is mostly true that despite differences they are economically haevily dependent on each other which is always the best of alliances.
In my view while we might talk about Europe as a whole in a title in terms a foreign policy unfortunately it is impossible to do so. Just look at the case of Palestine, no common ground exists on that, great example for Euro-Arab relations too.
Last, but not least do not forget that China is heavily investing in Africa and thus creating strong relations with muslim countries economically.
Lol what are you smoking dude?
Triple lol. What are you smoking dude ?