Friday, May 26, 2006

The Euro-Asian Alliance Part 2 G.U.T.R.U.S.H. Globally United Terror Response to United States Hedgemony

“The Euro-Asian Alliance: Shifts in the Global Balance of Power”, makes the case for a cooperative effort between France, Germany, Russia and China, “to create a rival power center capable of opposing the execution of detrimental foreign policy by the United States”.
The greatest threat of such a cooperative alliance is the possibility of its expansion throughout the globe and utilization of covert terror operations to achieve its objectives. This threat concept is called GUTRUSH or Globally United Terror Response to United States Hegemony. The likelihood of a GUTRUSH initiative is strong when consideration is given to the expanding political, economic and military relationships of the Euro-Asian Alliance members with countries that pose potential nuclear and/or terror threats to U.S. interests.
Only ignorance and hubris could allow anyone to believe that countries many years older than the U.S. would not resort to cooperative terror operations if world opinion, international law and U.N. resolutions did not protect their interests. In many parts of the world, the U.S. is viewed as a deaf bully, unwilling to hear or listen to any other countries opinion. This fact and the perception that the U.S. unfairly supports Israel through a biased and prejudiced foreign policy gives America’s enemies more than one thing in common, more than one motive in common and forces them to be creative in their responses to U.S. hegemony.
Concerning the EU, the CIA’s, 2003, Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction, states the following. “Iran continued to successfully procure dual use goods and materials from Europe. In addition, several Western European countries remained willing to negotiate Advanced Conventional Weapons sales to Libya, India, Pakistan and other countries to preserve their domestic defense industries. North Korea approached Western European entities to obtain acquisitions for its uranium enrichment program.” This information makes it quite evident that Europe does not share the United States “axis of evil” philosophy.
EU members certainly consider their Islamic population and geographic proximity to Islamic countries. According to former career CIA agent, Robert Baer, in his book, “See No Evil”; “It didn’t take a sophisticated intelligence organization to figure out that Europe, our traditional ally in the war against bad guys, had become a hothouse of Islamic fundamentalism”. Spain and Turkey have already suffered significant terror attacks for their support of the US‘s war in Iraq. It is reasonable to believe other European countries have given these potentials careful consideration.
We have also seen the terrorists express their appreciation for a European policy of non-intervention in the US led war in Iraq. A blatant display of such appreciation occurred when terrorist released their hostages after learning that they were French. In the meantime, American hostages continue to be beheaded with rapidity. In these base physical actions the implied understanding between Europe and the terrorists is one of cooperation. The following facts also make a strong case for the likelihood of European involvement in Operation GUTRUSH. Much of the planning for the 9/11 attacks took place in Europe. If nothing else this indicates a level of comfort that violently anti-American terrorists feel in the European environment. No terrorist attacks have occurred in France or Germany since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. This indicates that the terrorists believe any possible statement they could make in these countries is not worth jeopardizing the current relationship, whatever that relationship may be. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks took place a French author published a number one bestseller that stated the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not an airplane. The implication is that America purposely struck its own Department of Defense for political purposes. That such an accusation reached bestseller status indicates that its theme was popular and/or was intended to be so. The challenges in US-French relations since 2001 are well documented.
We can imagine that the French are throwing temper tantrums like misbehaving children whose greatest threat is to our eardrums or we can believe that the French, who have survived two World Wars and heavy attacks by foreign troops on their own soil, have made contingency plans. If the latter is true, then GUTRUSH, a Globally United Terror Response to United States Hegemony, may be considered a viable option by the French and other EU members for protecting their interests. Once we understand how our former allies could feel pushed far enough into a corner to participate in a GUTRUSH it is that much easier to envision participation by Russia and China. The key to a effective GUTRUSH is that world powers like the EU, Russia and China, who have already voiced their displeasure, discontent, and desire to limit US hegemony, begin proactively enhancing the economic, political and military apparatus of second tier or perimeter nation states outside the Alliance.
In the CIA’s, 2003, Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the CIA expresses continuing concern about Chinese nuclear cooperation with Iran and Pakistan. China has offered significant assistance to Pakistan and Iran on ballistic missile related projects. Thanks to Chinese assistance Pakistan has moved toward domestic serial production of Short Range and Medium Range solid propellant ballistic missiles. Chinese entity ballistic missile related assistance helped Iran move toward it’s goal of becoming self-sufficient in the production of ballistic missiles. In addition, firms in China provided dual-use missile-related items, raw material, and/or assistance to several other countries of proliferation concern-such as Iran, Libya and North Korea. Chinese firms are still providing dual-use chemical weapons related equipment and technology to Iran, as well as, Advanced Conventional Weapons to Pakistan and Iran.
According to the Secretary of Defense’s, 2003, “Annual Report on the Military Power of The People’s Republic of China”, Beijing apparently believes that the US poses a significant long-term challenge. China’s leaders have asserted that the US seeks to maintain a dominant geostrategic position by containing the growth of Chinese power, ultimately “dividing” and “Westernizing” China, and preventing a resurgence of Russian power. Beijing has interpreted the strengthened US-Japan security alliance, increased US presence in the Asia-Pacific region-including Central Asia—and efforts to expand NATO as manifestations of Washington’s strategy. While seeking a stable relationship with Washington, Beijing will continue to seek opportunities to diminish US regional influence.
The PLA’s (People’s Liberation Army) strategy places a strong emphasis on surprise. Their writings indicate a number of methodologies that could enhance the success of surprise, including strategic and operational deception, electronic warfare, and wearing down or desensitizing and opponents’ political and military leadership. At least one objective would be to reduce indications and warning of military action. For there to be no indications via satellite or humint would require that the PLA does not move. Subsidizing covert terror attacks through jihaddi organization would allow for that while providing the ultimate surprise.
Most interesting in this Department of Defense report are the following sentences. “Beijing apparently believes that the US poses a significant long-term challenge. China’s leaders have asserted that the US seeks to maintain a dominant geostrategic position by containing the growth of Chinese power, ultimately “dividing” and “Westernizing” China, and preventing a resurgence of Russian power.” What’s interesting in this analysis, if accurate, is that it states clearly that China and Russia have the same geostrategic national security interests.
To prevent the resurgence of Russian power the US is determined to divide and Westernize China. That is another way of stating what the Chinese believe regarding US policy and strategy in the region. The word “divide” is a direct assault on what China considers the most essential condition for its national survival and development…”national unity”. That makes the US the number one security threat and concern of Chinese policymakers and intelligence heads. The US may want to ask itself the following question and carefully consider the answer. What are the implications of Chinese and Russian participation in a Globally United Terror Response to United States Hegemony (GUTRUSH) if China places its own sovereignty and stability second to “national unity” under a Marxist/Maoist government?
This brings us to the final and perhaps most important nation in the Euro-Asian Alliance’s push into a GUTRUSH, Russia. Many in US intelligence understand the formidability of the KGB far better than the author. With that in mind it is quite doubtful that KGB spy Vladimir Putin reflects fondly upon his Soviet Republic’s Cold War losses as he decides upon Russian foreign policy. As documented in “The Euro-Asian Alliance: Shifts in the Global Balance of Power”, the result of a 2003 meeting between Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov resulted in the following statements out of China’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
Regarding President Hu Jintao and President Putin,
“They emphasized that whatever changes the international situation may undergo, China and Russia will give priority to bilateral relations in their respective foreign policies and their policy of deepening and developing bilateral strategic coordination in various fields will remain intact, and that the mechanism of high level contacts and the cooperation between the two countries will continue to be intensified.”
Foreign Ministry Comrades Ivanov and Jintao agree on many things including “the Iraqi issue, North Korea nuclear issue and other international issues.”
Whatever Vladimir Putin is thinking in regards to the Old Cold War, the United States and the future of Russia, China is on board. Not only is China on board diplomatically and politically but there is a few billion dollars in Chinese currency getting on board every year for Russian military training and hardware.
As we continue delving into the concept of GUTRUSH and analyzing the thoughts, feelings, actions and statements of the Euro-Asian Alliance it becomes apparent that the concept may already have moved into reality. The most likely brain center for GUTRUSH would be in Russia. China’s foreign policy appears to be one of deception, especially the appearance of amicability for purposes of economic gain. The EU is an ally of the US through NATO and other institutions, thus making it to risky a location to support the GUTRUSH brain center. Russia, on the other hand, has had a head start since it has been going head to head with the US for decades. One Soviet defector, Anatoly Golitsyn, said that the dissolution of the USSR was actually a KGB operation. Thus far 139 or 94% of his 148 predictions have been verifed. It would be interesting to know exactly what he meant.
According to the CIA’s Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction, Russia is an active player. Russia has assisted Iran in building the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. In relation to ballistic missile related goods and technical know how Russia has supplied Iran, India and China. Russian entities remain a key source of equipment, chemicals and expertise for countries of concern with active Chemical and Biological Weapons programs. Russia continues to be a major supplier of conventional arms. As of November 2000 Russian officials stated that they saw Iran as potentially being Russia’s third largest conventional weapons customer behind China and India. Other customers are Libya and Sudan.
A pattern has definitely developed. The Euro-Asian Alliance of the EU, Russia and China has been established. The relationships between all of the Alliance members are far superior to any alliance member’s relations with the US. The Alliance members have all experienced financial losses as a result of US unilateral action in Iraq. The Alliance members are all supporting Iran and North Korea both of which happen to be the two remaining countries in the US’s “axis of evil”. This support includes the procurement and development of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In essence, the Euro-Asian Alliance members are doing everything in their power to support countries that the US has identified as a proliferation and/or terrorist threat. The only thing the Alliance hasn’t done is make the following announcement.
“We the Euro-Asian Alliance will begin actively and directly supporting terrorist operations against the United States of America. We will begin by providing covert financing and operational strategy to terrorist attacks on the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will then begin covertly attacking US assets throughout the Middle East and Eurasian continent. These attacks will certainly occur on Alliance members’ soil primarily impacting US interests while causing minimal collateral damage to Alliance members. This collateral damage will be small enough so as not to impact Alliance infrastructure, yet large enough to exacerbate anti-US sentiment. Initially these attacks will be carried out only through jihaddis whom the alliance will support through a multi-layered splinter cell structure. The actual executors of the attacks will have no inkling of Alliance support. Then on a selective basis attacks on US interests will be carried out by elite members of Alliance intelligence organizations within the framework and footprint of a typical jihaddi operation. As the US begins to find itself reeling to and fro from vast number of attacks on its international interests the Alliance will begin initiating Operation Nightmare Scenario (ONS) on US soil.”
The Euro-Asian Alliance may not have spoken these words and perhaps they have not even considered the thought. Nevertheless, the potential for a GUTRUSH cannot be ignored. This is especially so considering that a GUTRUSH may appear to be the most effective method for the Euro-Asian Alliance to achieve its goals while maintaining plausible deniability. These goals would be to see the United States consumed by conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Such consumption would allow Alliance members to pursue their goals with less opposition from the US. The ultimate goals of the Euro-Asian Alliance are a unified, militarily modernized EU capable of opposing unilateral US policy, a resurgent Russia, a united China, and strong nuclear powered neighbors in Iran, North Korea, India and Pakistan. These are just a few of the Alliance’s possible interests. A covert GUTRUSH could mutate into a push to get the US out of the Eurasian continent. This could further mutate into attacks on US interests in Canada, North and South America as the GUTRUSH expands. Ultimately, in Operation Nightmare Scenario (ONS), the EAA GUTRUSH will begin using the powers of space, the Galileo Satellite Network and the internet, as well as diplomatic pouches and NATO intelligence to achieve its goals.

Sunday, May 21, 2006

The Euro-Asian Alliance Part 1 Shifts in the Global Balance of Power Copyright 2003

The European Union (EU) is willfully expanding its alliances across the Asian Continent. French President Jacques Chirac’s motivation behind this unification is to create a rival power center capable of opposing the execution of detrimental foreign policy by the United States of America (US). The primary countries involved in this developing Euro-Asian Alliance (EAA) are United Nations (UN) members France, Germany, Russia and China. All of the aforementioned countries voted against the US led war in Iraq. All four countries are facing significant losses as a result of the war. Russia and China have continued making significant progress in their diplomatic relations as would be required to complete the triangular nature of the EAA. Additionally, India may be considered a peripheral member of this expanding Euro-Asian Alliance due to economic and geographical factors.


The European Union (EU) is willfully expanding its alliances across the Asian continent. French President Jacques Chirac’s motivation behind this unification is to create a rival power center capable of opposing the execution of detrimental foreign policy by the United Sates of America (US).

PM Blair warns against French President Jacques Chirac’s call for a stronger European Union to act as a counterweight to “unilateral” US foreign policy.
PM Blair warns of disaster and danger resulting from Europe and the US becoming two rival centers of power.
PM Blair says Europe will not accept anything that undermines NATO

VOA New.com
4/28/03

The aforementioned statements by Prime Minister Blair were made in regard to an EU mini-summit of four EU states: Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg. The focus of the summit was improving European defense cooperation. Great Britain was not invited.

Chinese walls between the US and Europe.
EU closer to imposing trade sanctions on US.
Washington and Brussels are currently locked on a number of bilateral trade issues.

Financial Times
FT.com
4/28/03

Mr. Blair’s grim assessment of the global situation was further evidence that divisions within Europe-caused by the French led blocking of a UN resolution authorizing military action-remained as wide as ever, despite the successful completion of the Iraq campaign.
Prime Minister Blair warns of EU split with America.

The Scotsman
4/29/03

America vs. Europe: Another Cold War? Putin laughs at Blair, while France and Germany try to set up a European Army.

Online Pravda
4/30/03

The primary countries involved in this developing Euro-Asian Alliance are United Nation members France, Germany, Russia and China.

Russia and EU to form Common European Space.
A common European territory can only be created with a common security territory. We are interested in real cooperation aimed at preventing common threats.
Russia’s policy toward Europe is natural.
Although, Russia’s labor productivity yields to Europeans, Europeans in their turn have been recently lagging behind the USA. Accordingly…both parts of this continent have a common challenge to increase their growth rates to become competitive.

Online Pravda
1/27/03

Chairman of the Federation Council’s Foreign Relations Committee-Mikhail Margelov made the aforementioned statements.

European security and New World Order to be discussed at Russia-EU Summit in St. Petersburg.
The Russia-EU Summit will be the first of European leaders since events in Iraq. Therefore, the first problem to be discussed will be about the “new world order”.

Leningrado.com
4/22/03

“Thank god our leaders finally understood that the only power who have respect for us is the Russian Federation and not the USA”
Posted by Hastur (Strasburg on of the European Capital!)
“We need a strong Russia to counteract the madness that is US imperialism. Russian membership of the EU will be of benefit to Russia and the EU”

Leningrado.com
4/22/03

A further indication of Russia-EU solidarity is their recent joint request of the US to adopt flexibility with Syria.

The primary countries involved in this developing Euro-Asian Alliance are the United Nations members France, Germany, Russia and China.

France opens door of G8 Economic Summit to China. France, on Friday, issued an unprecedented invitation to China to a prestigious world economic summit at the same time praising Beijing’s role in trying to avert the war in Iraq.
He (Jacques Chirac) told me to send you (Chinese President Hu Jintao) his best regards for the quality of the contacts you regularly had with each other during the Iraq crisis, Raffarin (French Prime Minister) said.
Corporate scandals such as the accounting scams behind the demise of the huge US energy trading company Enron had hurt investor confidence and the job now was to restore investor confidence and better functioning of financial markets, Chirac said.

Reuters
4/28/03

China-EU Association Celebrates EU Enlargement. Chen Hausu, president of the association said that EU enlargement will create greater potential for its development and expressed hope that the new members will integrate their traditional friendship with China into the EU’ future cooperation with China.

Peoples Daily Online
4/18/03

All four countries are facing significant losses as a result of the war in Iraq.

Russia and Iraq in 60bn. Deal. 10 year contract to include oil, gas, transports and communication.

Online Pravda
8/20/020

French oil deals threatened by war on Iraq. French firms account for 22.5% of all goods imported into Iraq, scooping up and annual gross profit of $ 1.5 billion from this trade. The French oil company TotalFinaElf, has negotiated oil deals that would give it control over 25%of Iraq’s oil reserves. French companies have signed 798 contracts for parts and equipment for the Iraqi oil industry.
While the capitalists in Germany lag far behind their French rivals, they still pull in some $350 million in direct trade with Iraq.
The Russian and Chinese worker states each account for 5.8% of imports. Russia has signed 62 UN approved contracts to supply oil industry equipment and parts, while China has signed 227 agreements.
These deals with Baghdad are threatened by a US led overthrow of the Saddam Hussein government.

The Militant.com
3/17/03

Iraq’s Oil Ministry had planned last year to develop 350 wells across the country under contracts with several Russian and French oil firms. Major emphasis was to be on the huge southern oil fields, as part of an ambitious plan to increase production to 6 million barrels per day.
French analysts fear that contracts between French oil firms and Saddam’s regime are moot, recalling former CIA Director James Woolsey’s warning that only if the French and Russians cooperated with the United States would US companies be inclined to cooperate with counterparts in these countries.
Russia, with $7 billion to $8 billion of aging Soviet era loans owed to it by Iraq, would have benefited significantly form exploration and production deals between Russian oil companies and Iraq as part of a larger economic agreement.
Just last year France successfully negotiated an agreement to develop the Majnoun field believed to contain 30 billion barrels of oil. This agreement is in jeopardy, as is France’s favored commercial position with Iraq for the past 30 years in which Jacques Chirac, now its president, was a prime player.

Washington Times.com
4/30/03

One of the largest private shareholders in BNP Paribas, the French Bank that holds more than $13 billion in Iraqi oil funds administered through the United Nation oil-for-food program, is an Iraqi-born businessman…critics in the United States government and elsewhere say the United Nations has not policed the program effectively, and that some funds were diverted by Iraqi officials.

New York Times.com
4/30/03


Russia and China continue making significant progress in their relations as would be required to complete the triangular nature of the Euro-Asian Alliance.

Foreign minister Li Zhaoxing Meets His Russian counterpart Foreign Minister Ivanov.
Li said…China-Russia friendly relations and cooperation of good neighborliness and mutual benefit have not only been completely inherited, but also gathered momentum. President Hu Jintao and President Putin attach great importance to the development of bilateral relations. They often exchange views on bilateral relations and major international issues and have established a good working relationship and personal relationship in the process. They emphasized that whatever changes the international situation may undergo, China and Russia will give priority to bilateral relations in their respective foreign policies and their policy of deepening and developing bilateral strategic coordination in various fields will remain intact, and that the mechanism of high level contacts and the cooperation between the two governments and relevant departments of the two countries will continue to be intensified.
Ivanov said that Russia-China relations should not only be maintained, but also develop in a rapid and comprehensive manner. He added that the development of bilateral relations would exert positive impact on the current international situation.
The two foreign ministers also discussed how to highlight the role of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Iraqi issue, DPRK nuclear issue and other international issues. They were both of the view that the two countries share the same position and objective as far as the above-mentioned issues are concerned.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Peoples Republic of China
Fmprc.gov.cn
4/29/03

Chinese-Russian relations will develop on a stable basis and rest on the joint efforts of the two countries, new premier of the PRC State Council Wen Jiabao stated at a press conference in Bejing on Tuesday.

Online Pravda
3/18/03

New great leap forward in Chinese-Russian relations and defense technology cooperation? By Dr. Alexander Nemets and Dr. Thomas Torda, Russian Defense Minister Ivanov finished his first official visit to China and left for Moscow. Both Chinese and Russian media are describing the visit as a big success. Ivanov met Chinese President Jiang Zemin, Premier Zhu Ronji, Defense Minister Chi Haotian (and of special importance) Central Military Commission (CMC) First Deputy Chairman Lt.-Gen. Zhang Wannian.
Ivanov said before his departure that “a number of important documents relating to military and military-technical cooperation” had been signed.
Ivanov said this does not only refer to deliveries of military equipment, some 200 Chinese officers undergo training in Russian military colleges and over 2,000 Chinese military have undergone training in Russia since 1991.

RIA-NOVOSTI, ITAR TASS
Newsmax.com
6/2/2

China has been a major buyer of Russian military equipment and arms systems for the past 10 years. Trade in this sphere with China accounts for over 40 percent of the entire volume of Russia’s weapon technology exports. On May 3, 2002 Rosonboron Export signed a $1.5 billion contract for the supply of eight Project 636 (kilo) submarines equipped with Klub missile systems. The contract is for 5 years.

Interfax News Agency
Newsmax.com
0601/02

Ivanov [on TV screen]: I believe that relations between Russia and China, Both in security affairs as well as on the level of interstate relations as a whole, have a huge potential for development.

Moscow-based ORT TV
Newsmax.com
06/01/02

According to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Russia exported $4.97 billion worth of arms in 2001, with the US delivering $4.56 billion worth.
China is one big client that is completely dependent on Russia for its arms imports, the SIPRI report said.
It is hard to get the precise figure, but it is possible to estimate that in 2001, from the entire official Russian weapons exports of about $4.5 billion, at least $2 billion went to China.
Who provided the additional $1 billion of weapons for China? Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Israel, the U.K… Detailed descriptions of this export for each country could not be given here).

It should be emphasized that official Russian weapons exports to China do not include.
1. The “unofficial part,” i.e. illegal supply of weapon technology to China by Russia defense plants and army units, which in 2001 came to at least $200 million (a modest estimate).
2. The “hidden technological part”, i.e., joint Sino-Russian developments of new generation weapons (both on Chinese and Russian territory), transfer of Russian weapon-manufacturing technology to China, dual use technologies export (space industry, nuclear industry, etc... How much did the hidden part constitute? At least $1 billion or even more.
It is very probable that in the environment of upgraded Chinese-Russian military technological cooperation, in 2003-2004 China will become capable of manufacturing all this weaponry in arbitrary quantities, with characteristics not inferior to international levels and with minimal or zero use of imported components. Chinese economic technological potential is on a steep rise and “digestion” of even the most sophisticated Russian military and dual-use technology is not difficult for this country any more.

Newsmax.com
07/03/02

Additionally, India may be considered a peripheral member of this expanding Euro-Asian Alliance due to economic and geographic factors.

Jiang Zemin, Chairman of the Central Military Commission of China said…India should enhance exchanges and cooperation to upgrade bilateral ties, including military ones, to a new level.

Embassy-denmark.fmprc.gov.cn
4/27/03

Despite being the world’s largest democracy, India has always neglected Taiwan, the first Chinese society to reject authoritarianism, in favor of Democracy. And yet, New Delhi continues to be extremely sensitive about what it might do or say that might offend Bejing. Having surrendered its Tibetan interests to China, India seems determined to do the same vis-à-vis Taiwan. Economic relations between the two are in sorry shape. Bilateral trade in 2002 was US$1.1123 billion. Taiwanese investment in India stands at US$114.6 million and Indian investment in Taiwan at US$4.7 million. President Chen Shui-bian has been forced to loosen the restriction of the US$50 million on individual Taiwanese investments in China, and to lift the ban on the country’s high-tech manufacturers from building semi-conductor plants on the mainland. Chen has also allowed mainland capital to enter Taiwan’s troubled property and stock markets.

However, in the process, more than 300,000 Taiwanese doing business in communist China have become Beijing’s potential hostages. There is now the clear possibility that China could absorb Taiwan economically.

Jamestown.org
2/11/03


Summary Opinion

Jacques Chirac’s overt extension of diplomatic relation to China and Russia comes with a full recognition of a strong Sino-Russo relationship that contrasts greatly with former Cold War NATO treatment of both countries. Additionally, President Chirac has recognized the economic potential of trade with China and Europe’s dependence of Russian natural resources as essential linchpins in future European prosperity. Nor has the military might of the Euro-Asian Alliance and its unified foreign policy objectives been overlooked. Rather than play the role of nephew to an American Uncle Sam; Jacques Chirac chooses to be father to a Eurasian continent. Just French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing had the vision to the G8 in 1975; French President Jacques Chirac is now inviting China to the G8. He is also working with Russia on W.T.O concerns and creating a visa-free regime by 2007. In Chirac’s eyes, his former NATO ally, the U.S., is now the burglar of French treasures.

President Jacques Chirac’s French led opposition to the U.S. war with Iraq was an opening move designed to place Europe in a place of leadership in what he perceives to be the developing power of Russia and China. EU support offers Russia and China; both of which are long maligned, validity on the globe stage. France’s willingness to put aside any xenophobic tendencies in aligning the Eurasian powers is only one indicator of the Euro-Asian Alliances formidable potential and it is a small one at that. Of greater consideration is the economic and diplomatic loss France may be forced to endure as a result of its antagonistic position toward the U.S. It must be assumed that the French made forward calculations and they considered the risk well worth the return. In essence, for France to risk $1.% billion in annual trade, with Iraq, 25% of Iraq’s oil reserves and 798 contracts for parts and equipment by blatantly opposing U.S. policy, Jacques Chirac and the majority of the EU must envision a lucrative end game that result in a checkmate of the United States of America. With this in mind the U.S. must proceed with extreme caution regarding future international activities.

A defensive estimate should be made concerning all potential military conflicts involving the U.S. and members of the Euro-Asian Alliance. These estimates should include both direst and indirect opportunities for conflict. All traditional U.S. allies, such as Canada, Mexico, Israel, and Japan should be scrutinized in regards to increase diplomatic activities with members of the Euro-Asian Alliance. Full-scale overt military action with a fully developed Euro-Asian Alliance would result in global catastrophe. The potential of failed covert military action on strengthening the Euro-Asian Alliance beyond its organic potential should be carefully considered before such strategy is applied. Therefore, the following strategy is of a diplomatic nature and focuses on maintaining America’s position as the number one superpower in the world, exponentially increasing America’s economic strength and extending America’s political influence throughout the globe.

In order to achieve these three goals, America should consider maximizing its diplomatic relationships with China. Considerations in attempting such diplomacy would include offering permanent most favored nation status, permanent peace treaties, full recognition of China in all arenas and possible concessions on Taiwan. If Chinese absorption by mainland China is likely, then the U.S. should be its pro-active coordinator. This is especially so if Taiwanese business interests believe that the economic potentials outweigh the political downside. It could be perceived as an American exportation of capitalism and democracy to China via Taiwan. Certainly, such a move, properly promoted, would create agitation among the mainland Chinese population. China needless to say, would initially find such a reunification extremely satisfactory. It is a case of “be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.” Taiwan is the trump card for entrée that only the U.S. holds. At some point, its value will severely diminish. In exchange for these incredibly diplomatic activities China should make the U.S. its number one trading partner. Development of Taiwan and Taiwanese business interests should certainly play a pivotal role in this concession. A permanent peace treaty could provide the case for maintenance of a U.S. military presence in Taiwan. With a permanent peace treaty and trade agreement in place, China would gladly accept the U.S. deliveries of superior goods and technology, including military exports which Russia is currently benefiting from to the tune of roughly $4 billion a year. The U.S. could then continue to focus on developing a high tech, high productivity society while relying on China for other goods.

What would be the effects of the aforementioned strategy? The Euro-Asian Alliance would cease to exist. The U.S. economy and business interests would prosper due to demand by an insatiable China. Increased international investments would be drawn to the U.S. America’s flexibility, diplomacy, and acuity would be reinforced worldwide. The executors of this policy would be recognized as impacting the globe on a historical scale to which the falling of the Berlin Wall and the SALT treaties would pale in comparisons. Joint U.S.-China policy decisions would be hard to ignore. America would be in a greater position to capitalize and direct China’s future. The Russian economy would probably falter due to lost trade and revenues. Europe’s influence, except for Great Britain, would be severely diminished. Newly entered Eastern Bloc countries would be rewarded for adhering to U.S. policy. North Korea would be forced to fall in line. The United States would gain a major protective ally on its Western coast.

The implementation of this New Diplomacy with China requires agreement on one concept. That concept is that’ China’s growth, development, and movement towards democracy and capitalism is inevitable and that such development will be unparalleled in the annals of history. The only question is who will be the beneficiaries. It should be the United States and merci to Jacques Chirac for opening the door.