今年，俄中两国分别于5月和9月举行了反法西斯战争和抗战胜利70周年纪念，这标志着日新月异的国际局势进入了另一个新阶段。尽管西方国家持反对态度，但国际体系的多极化不断加强，这得益于时代发展的趋势以及世界范围内人民对于和平与发展的渴望。
中国的崛起和俄罗斯的复苏成为新时期国际局势的重要影响因素。金砖四国和上海合作组织所扮演的促进国际团结与合作的角色也功不可没。不论是中国对于一带一路的勇敢设想还是俄罗斯对欧亚发展的大胆展望都表达了北京政府和莫斯科政府的自信力。以上两种概念和发展过程是互补的，且必将对世界的和平与发展作出有力贡献。
西方国家的反对及北约的影响
然而美国及其欧洲联盟国家对于世界发展的构想却有不同的期望。他们企图在变化的国际环境中维持西方的主导地位。这显然是一种消极的办法，且最终会使所有相关国家陷入僵局。
西方国家的帝国主义殖民政策早在5个世纪之前就已出现。二战的结束也宣告那个时代的完结。反殖民地化使得被压抑的殖民地民众获得自由，近年来中国和印度也逐渐崛起。事实上，不仅中国印度发展迅速，整个亚洲都在崛起，这也就结束了西方长达5个世纪的统治。
跨大西洋实行寡头政治统治的美国及欧洲国家意图通过强化美欧关系以及北欧组织的国际化维持全球范围内的主导地位。北约的国际化是美国奥巴马当局亚太轴心政策的一部分，反映出了美国几十年来政策的连续性。
尽管很多人认为北约已成为昨日黄花，其使命早在冷战结束后就已消失，然而强有力的跨大西洋组织却维持其运作并寻找北大西洋以外的新的使命和领域。如国际恐怖主义和中国的崛起，都能成为其存在的正当理由。
北约如何发生历史性的演变？北约于1949年成立，作为一种冷战机制，其主要目的是针对苏联。1991年冷战结束后，美国便出现了关于北约组织未来的激烈辩论。
批评者认为北约时代已经过去，美国应当逐渐停止参与。毕竟这对于美国来说也是一笔巨大的财政负担。欧洲已完全从二战中恢复，并且已成为美国在经济外交领域的竞争者。
欧洲多年来都坐享渔翁之利，因为他们对于防卫和北约的投入远不及美国。因此，承担防卫负担的关系本身就处于不平衡状态，美国的纳税人始终为这种不合理买单，在未来也会如此。
辩论的重心在于北约的使命所在。占主导地位的跨大西洋精英提倡“跨区”使命，也就是希望突破北大西洋的地理界限。阿富汗就是该使命的一个先例，反映出北约对于中亚的顾虑。
为扩大控制范围，北约建立了新的机制，如和平伙伴关系、地中海对话以及伊斯坦布尔合作倡议。1992年北约与日本及一些新兴中亚国家建立联系。中亚国家开始参与北大西洋合作委员会，之后改名为欧洲-大西洋伙伴委员会。此外，中亚国家开始参与北约国防部长组织。
针对亚太地区，北约提出了与日本、澳大利亚、新西兰、新加坡和韩国的针对性合作项目。这直接导致这些国家参与阿富汗战争并将北约的势力范围从中亚发展到亚太地区。
那么如今局势如何？北约倡导正式扩大安全机制在亚太地区的影响，这样就可以涵盖更多的“民主”国家。至于扩大亚太安全机制的办法有很多设想。例如，一些人希望将东南亚国家联盟的中心更多地放在安全问题上，之后倾向于和北约的关系。也有人相信新的跨太平洋伙伴会发展成为北约的军事伙伴。
总地来说，相当一部分观察者认为美国政府的政策旨在分阶段地包围中国，以“掌控”欧亚和亚太的安全环境，特别是考虑到中国的崛起。
一些战略家甚至开始争论，从长远来讲要使该战略概念更加有效就必须阻挠莫斯科政府与北京政府的密切联系。他们相信切断莫斯科政府在欧亚的选择有助于从长远范围牵制中国的崛起。
随着战略概念和机制的演变以及美国未来对亚太地区关注度的提高，北约作为美国全球政策的工具将发挥至关重要的作用。
西方国家的反对以及
“印度洋-太平洋地区”的概念
美国在亚太地区的轴心政策包含了一个新的“印度洋-太平洋地区”的概念。数十年来，华盛顿政府始终将重点放在中国与印度。因此这一新的战略概念对于牵制中国的倡议也极具吸引力。
早在2001年，我参加了一次美国国务院为期两天的系列简报，该会议旨在解释新乔治·W·布什总统的立场和政策。在其中一节会议上，副国务卿理查德·阿米塔基直率地指出美国外交政策面临的一个重要挑战就是应对“中国和印度的崛起”。
尽管美国政界和学术界极力否认华盛顿限制中国的企图，但美国确实明确表示要采取类似包围和压制的措施进行战略管理。
对于此类活动，批评家认定是采取军事硬实力与经济软实力相结合的方式实现的。硬实力主要出于军事战略牵制，经济软实力为压制中国的发展模式并且防止任何亚洲其他国家采用。
美国军事力量架构、部署、战略概念如积极的非必要的“海空一体战”概念，及其变体都被援引作为美国通过硬实力限制的措施。软实力跨太平洋伙伴则被认为是其压制中国经济发展模式的证据。
这些努力普遍都是针对亚太地区的，但是近期的“印度洋-太平洋”重心提倡新的方式和战略视野，这将逐渐取代其在亚太地区的固有立场。
在军事层面，此概念主要考虑了美印中形成的三角区域，特别是在海军方面。这可作为扩大美国原本注重东亚的海空一体战规划，将其更多地与印度洋盆地连接。涉及海岸线安全要害的马六甲海峡和龙目岛海峡已经被列入海空一体战概念规划中。
有人建议将澳大利亚和日本也加入到这个新的设想，因为他们已经构成了美国海空一体战设想的主要元素。
澳大利亚被认为是“印度洋-太平洋”构想中一个特殊的关键组成部分，因为它处于包括日本和印度在内的自东向西、印度太平洋轴线的战略集结点和十字路口位置。
在经济层面上，“印度洋-太平洋”地区的概念在美国国务院政策中相对稳固。美国政府的印度-太平洋经济走廊项目预示着货物将从印度金奈，运至孟加拉湾，再经缅甸进入泰国、柬埔寨和越南。
随着海上连接南亚和东亚，陆上交通线也将扮演重要角色。例如，德穆-葛礼瓦-科累马河公路的简称将连接印度的曼尼普尔区、曼德勒和仰光。另外，美国还建议修建另一条连接曼尼普尔和泰国甚至更远地区的高速路。
当时的国务卿希拉里·克林顿于2012年11月访问新加坡的时候曾解释了美国政策向南亚和东南亚倾斜的原因。她指出为了维持美国在该地区的战略领导地位，必须加强其经济领导地位。
奥巴马总统在泰国、缅甸和柬埔寨之间的摇摆也表明了美国政府在该地区的付出以及日后的战略发展。
美国人民所面临的主要挑战就是如何阻止政治家、军队和平民策略家采取适得其反的外交政策和国家战略。布什政府对伊拉克发动的不必要的战争正是美国历史上最严重的一次战略失误。
考虑到美国在亚洲的轴心政策，日后可能出现的战略失误已初现端倪。煽动美国外交政策决策精英的地缘政治上的自我陶醉不应造成挑衅性的地缘政治，这最终导致亚太和印太地区紧张局势的进一步恶化。
华盛顿当局必须调整战略
对于美国政策具有建设性的展望必须包括对于不干涉原则的履行以及中印两国共同提出的和平共处5项条约中规定。
华盛顿当局必须修改批评者所说的其针对中国的包围和压制政策。取而代之的是，美国应该采取适应日渐形成的多极化国际体系以及和平与发展要求的外交政策。
目前美国的政策只能激化紧张局势，增加不良负面竞争，破坏世界范围内的建设性合作。尽管官方一再否认，目前美国对华政策，已被视为是新一轮冷战，更不必说其对俄罗斯的政策。对中国实行战略军事包围加上具有侵略性的联结亚太其他力量敌对北京，从长远来说是不利于和平、和谐和发展的。
在冷战即将结束的1992年，华盛顿当局在其国家战略上犯了一个严重的错误。政治家和政策制定者选择争夺世界霸权而不是为下一个世纪的多极化世界做准备。
一种恰当、长远符合国家利益的外交政策应当是与主要国际力量合作，为未来国际体系从依靠冷战向依靠和平合作与发展的转变做贡献。
在国内，美国本应该采取措施将经济发展模式由冷战时期的战时模式转变为和平时期的发展模式。现实而长远的立场应当是理解未来几十年会是一个过渡阶段，美国经济和社会秩序都需要基础性的恢复和加强，这样才能在竞争激烈的全球经济中站稳脚跟。
美国本应当采取措施全面发展本国经济，包括基础设施、教育、研究以及医疗护理。然而数以亿万计的资金都无谓地浪费在了伊拉克和阿富汗的战场上。
美国在过去二十多年里缺少具有前瞻性和政治家风范的领导者。美国的领导者没能促进实体经济的发展也未能真正维护和平。相反，美国两党均对赌博资本主义和战争表示支持。
1992年冷战结束后，受到特殊利益集团和智库影响的政治家开始推崇霸权主义。美国的外交政策和军事战略仍然能反映出类似政策倾向。有人称这种政策为“统治”，也有人称它为“主导地位”，当然也有人称它为“领导”，但这些归结到底都是同一种含义：新型冷战。
华盛顿当局二战后的冷战战略是建立在全球联盟网络和军事基地的基础上的，包括北大西洋公约、澳新美安全公约，东南亚条约组织和中央条约组织等多国联盟。以美日安保条约为代表的双边联盟也为美国提供了战略基础以便对欧亚展开核战争。
除了合作，评论者认为华盛顿当局对华政策的实质仍然是包围和压制。对欧亚大陆的战略包围不过是美国亚太地区轴心政策60余年后的翻新。
一些人将这种包围委婉地称作“对冲”。华盛顿当局更新了其军事部署，提倡加强北约在全球的角色并加强了双边安全部署。
美国外交的更新是通过新型联盟结构实现的，比如跨太平洋伙伴关系等政治经济结构。
据评论者称，压制意味着压制中国模式的政治经济特征。美国的政策制定者普遍担心其他国家可能沿用这种模式，并根据本国特点加以修改。
华盛顿当局正在试图转变中国经济，使其从社会主义建设转变为全球性金融集团所倡导的的新自由主义的“规范”。与此同时，华盛顿的政策制定者也希望将中国的整体从一党执政改变为美国新保守主义者、自由国际主义者和人权激进分子所定义的“民主”。
现实来讲，美国约有10年时间来调整以适应中国的崛起和其他多极世界的兴起。华盛顿必须回到美国传统外交政策的原则，如互相尊重，互不干涉，和平的商业关系。应当在对中美关系造成长远危害以前放弃最初的包围和压制战略。
华盛顿当局必须改善与俄罗斯的关系
尽管1991年苏联解体以来，国际体系发生了彻底性的变化，美国却未能改变其冷战时的立场，也没能对于逐渐兴起的国际化世界作出调整。过去的单极化“非我即他”的零和博弈仍然主导着美国的外交政策和国家战略。陈旧的地缘政治战略中所倡导的控制亚欧大陆仍然没有改变。
尽管美国政府也作出政策上的调整，但是地缘政治的基础没有动摇。如今的“牵制”政策，尽管有很多其他说法“对冲”“重新平衡”等，但是这在很多层面上是与过去的军事、外交、经济、政治以及心理因素的力量是一致的。
莫斯科当局对于美国采取硬实力牵制俄罗斯当然忧心忡忡。很多俄罗斯分析者认为北约成员国的扩张以及北约全球使命的发展正是冷战的延续。例如，当美国政客呼吁将格鲁吉亚和乌克兰纳入北约的时候，更印证了俄方的这种担忧。
华盛顿当局具有侵略性的推动欧洲和亚洲弹道导弹防御系统，更加深了莫斯科当局的假设，坐实了美国及北约成员采取硬实力压制俄罗斯的企图。
华盛顿当局冷战式的意识形态的对抗正在以新的形式继续。俄罗斯已不再对外传播马列主义，但是美国却极具侵略性地传递着所谓的“价值议程”，包括宣传由华盛顿当局及新经济自由主义所倡导的民主和人权。
过去美国政策中所包含的政治和心理元素只是得到了翻新和重组。美国仍致力于打着“民族与非民主”的旗号宣传集团式意识形态斗争。
自1991年以来，美国政府始终企图通过各种政治和心理方式影响并改变俄罗斯内部局势。莫斯科政府自然而然采取一些模糊的行动对其他国家主权造成侵害，同时认为美国的行为实质上是在鼓吹另一次“颜色”革命。
显然，美国与俄罗斯就共同处理一系列全球事务都有很强的兴趣。但是尽管在过去20多年里他们双边关系时起时伏，双方都曾尝试寻找合作机会。
大国之间的合作在这个迅速变化并且影响深远的时代对于促进稳定与发展显得至关重要。一些迫切需要解决的问题，如核扩散、恐怖主义、组织犯罪、朝鲜问题、叙利亚危机以及伊朗困境都需要相应的解决方法。
关系的缓和在短期来看可能并不会有明显结果。奥巴马总统显然处于“跛脚鸭”状态。随着2016年大选的到来，政客们不可避免地要开始抨击俄罗斯。
尽管美俄关系存在层层迷雾，双方仍应坚持开展有效的合作。华盛顿当局应该忘记冷战直面未来，应该更用力地按下重置键。
开展国际合作打击恐怖主义
刻不容缓
中东地区形势随时可能失控，极端分子的反伊斯兰国力量给俄罗斯、中亚各国、中国及印度带来巨大威胁。东南亚目前尚未受到影响。就目前形势来讲，毫无疑问的是很多国家都对西方的政策深表担忧。
显然美国副总统约翰拜登表达了对土耳其、沙特阿拉伯以及阿联酋对恐怖主义明里暗里支持的担忧。华盛顿当局认为即便新建立的政权可能转变时局，但是美国无懈可击的政策将给它致命的一击。
华盛顿当局应当保持冷静并且与俄罗斯等其他国家一道打击国际恐怖主义。目前叙利亚所经受的灾难正是美国、法国和英国的政策失误造成的。
以基地组织和伊斯兰国组织为例，希望维吾尔族能够帮助建立泛伊斯兰国的统治区域。高加索地区的伊斯兰恐怖组织也有相同的目标。该战略目标是伊斯兰恐怖组织的一部分并且拥有非常广泛的含义。
众所周知，来自乌兹别克的伊斯兰恐怖分子与基地组织和其他恐怖组织均有联络。因此，分析者称，维吾尔族极端主义者也与乌兹别克和其他极端主义组织发展了关系。
基地组织、伊斯兰国组织和其他类似的组织公然宣布他们的泛伊斯兰立场以及地缘政治的议程。一份近期的基地组织正式出版物特别讨论了维吾尔人在将中国新疆维吾尔族自治区纳入伊斯兰国领域中所扮演的角色，该领域是由极端主义者创造的，位于中东地区。伊斯兰国组织的头目近期也宣称新疆为其管辖范围。
如果华盛顿当局没有严肃思考或政策上的调整，目前局势不会发生任何改观。考虑到白宫及国会的思维模式，带来实质性变化的可能微乎其微。
最近几周以来，俄罗斯在面临伊斯兰国威胁扩张的情况下增加了其对叙利亚的支援。在美国及其盟友醒悟之前，其他国家只能依靠自己。考虑到日益加深的多极化国际形势，这样的未来指日可待。
Multipolar World Advances
Despite West’sOpposition
By Dr. Clifford A. Kiracofe
A well-known educator, author, and consultant in U.S. Currently he isthe associate professor of the history department of military academy ofVirginia, U.S., associate professor of international research and politicalscience, visiting professor of the politics department of Washington and LeeUniversity, senior researcher of New World Research Institute, assistant oflegal affairs and foreign affairs of U.S senate, and senior staff and foreignrelations committee.
For the time being, Khrekov is specialized in the research ofinternational politics and international relations. He has paid multiple visitsto China and has done an in-depth research concerning the internationalstrategic cooperation and the overall international environment for China.
InMay in Russia and in September in China the 70th anniversary commemoration in of thedefeat of fascism and Japanese militarism marked a new phase in the evolvinginternational situation. Despite Westernopposition, the international system is becoming more multipolar because thetrend of the times embodies peoples’ desire around the world for peace anddevelopment.
The rise of China andRussia’s recovery are key factors in the new international situation. The role of international solidarity andcooperation of the BRICS group and of the SCO group is an important factor.Thebold vision of China for the One Belt One Road and the bold vision of Russiafor Eurasia express the confidence of the leadership in Beijing andMoscow.These two concepts and processes are mutually complementary andreinforcing and contribute powerfully to world peace and development.
Western Oppositionand NATO Factor
TheUnited States and its European allies, however, have a different vision ofworld development.They seek to maintain Western global dominance despite thechanging international situation.This is a negative approach and is bound toend in a dead end for the countries involved.
The West began itspolicy of colonialism and imperialism some five centuries ago. That era has cometo an end since the end of World War II. Decolonization liberated oppressedcolonial people and in recent years China and India are rising. In fact, it isnot just China and India that are rising, it is Asia overall that is risingthus ending five centuries of Western domination.
The trans-Atlanticoligarchy in the United States and in Europe attempts to maintain globaldominance by tightening relations between the United States and Europe and bythe globalization of NATO. The globalization of NATO is integral to the ObamaAdministration’s Asia-Pacific “pivot”policy and reflects continuity withseveral decades of US policy.
Although many believeNATO is an anachronism whose mission ended with the end of the Cold War,powerful trans-Atlantic circles keep it going and search for new missions andnews areas of operation outside the North Atlantic. International terrorism and the rise ofChina, for example, serve as justifications.
Howhas NATO evolved historically? NATObegan in 1949 as a Cold War mechanism aimed at the Soviet Union. At the end ofthe Cold War, in 1991, intense debate began in the US over the future of NATO.
Critics said that itstime was over and that the US should wind down participation. After all, it isa large financial burden on the US. Europe had fully recovered from World WarII and was in fact an economic and diplomatic competitor of the United States.
Europe enjoyed a freeride for its security over the years because it spent relatively less ondefense and NATO than did the US. So the relationship in terms of defenseburden was unbalanced and US taxpayers picked up the tab, and still do.
Debate focused on themission area of NATO.The dominant trans-Atlantic elite pushed for “out of area”missions which would be outside the geographic North Atlantic region.Afghanistan is an example of such mission creep reflecting NATO concern withCentral Asia.
To expand areas ofoperations, NATO created new mechanisms such as the Partnership for Peace, theMediterranean Dialogue, and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. In 1992 NATO developed ties with Japan andalso newly emerged Central Asian nations. The Central Asian nations participated in the North Atlantic CooperationCouncil later renamed the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. Additionally, Central Asian nations began toparticipate in the NATO Group of Defense Ministers.
With respect to theAsia-Pacific, NATO developed the Tailored Cooperation Program which took inJapan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea. This led to these nations cooperating in theAfghan War setting into place NATO’s reach through Central Asia to theAsia-Pacific.
What abouttoday? NATO advocates have called for aformal expanded security mechanism in the Asia-Pacific region which couldexpand to include more “democratic” states.There are several ideas forincreasing security mechanisms in the Asia-Pacific. For example, some wouldlike to turn ASEAN more toward security issues and then toward relations withNATO.Others believe the new Trans-Pacific Partnership could evolve into amilitary partner of NATO.
Takenoverall, not a few observers see Washington’s strategy as one of phasedencirclement ofChina so as to “manage” the Eurasian and Asia-Pacific security environment,especially the rise of China.
Some Westernstrategists go so far as to argue that to make such a strategic concept moreeffective in the long run it is necessary to nudge Moscow away from too closeties to Beijing. They believe thatcutting against Moscow’s Eurasian option aids the long range containment of arising China.
While strategicconcepts and mechanisms are evolving, NATO as an instrument of US global policywill play a significant role for years to come as Washington eyes theAsia-Pacific.
Western Oppositionand the “Indo-Pacific” Concept
The US “pivot” to theAsia Pacific includes the newly fashionable “Indo-Pacific” strategicconcept.For over a decade, Washington has focused on the rise of China andIndia. This new strategic concept appeals to China containment advocates.
Back in 2001, Iattended a two day series of briefings at the US State Department intended toexplain the perspective and policy of the new George W. Bush Administration. Inone session, Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage frankly pointed out that a majorchallenge to US foreign policy was to “manage the rise of China andIndia.”
US officials andacademics bend over backwards to deny any intention by Washington to containChina. But the US does give the distinct impression of taking steps akin to an encirclementand suppression campaign as a management strategy.
Such a campaign,critics argue, uses a combination of military hard power and economic softpower. The hard power aims at strategic military containment while the economicsoft power aims at suppressing the China development model and precluding itsadoption by other Asian countries.
US military forcestructure, deployments, and strategic concepts such as the aggressive andunnecessary “Air-Sea Battle” concept and its variants are cited as evidence ofhard power containment efforts. The soft power Trans Pacific Partnership iscited as evidence of the effort to suppress China’s economic development model.
Such effortsgenerally have an Asia Pacific focus. But recently the “Indo-Pacific” focus is advocatedas a new approach and strategic vision eventually to replace the Asia Pacificperspective.
On the military side,this concept considers the US-India-China triangle, particularly from a navalperspective. It can be used to expand the present East Asia focused US Air SeaBattle planning by linking more fully into the Indian Ocean basin. Security ofsea lines of communication passing through the Strait of Malacca and the LombokStrait are considerations already built into the Air Sea Battle concept.
Advocates intendAustralia and Japan to be brought into this broader new concept just as theypresently constitute core elements of the US Air Sea Battle concept.
Australia is viewedas a particularly essential component of the Indo-Pacific concept as it is seenas a strategic nodal point or crossroads between a north-south East Asian axisinvolving Japan and an east-west Indo-Pacific axis involving India.
On the economic side,the Indo-Pacific concept is already entrenched in US State Department policy.Washington’sIndo-Pacific Economic Corridor project envisions goods moving from Chennaiacross the Bay of Bengal, through Burma, then overland to Thailand, Cambodia,and Vietnam.
While sea links areenvisioned linking South Asia and East Asia, ground transport routes are toplay an essential role. For example, completion of the Tamu-Kalewa-Kaleymyoroad would link India’s Manipur state with Mandalay and Rangoon. An additionalhighway is also suggested by the US to link Manipur to Thailand and beyond.
Then Secretary ofState Hillary Clinton explained this US policy thrust into South Asia and SouthEast Asia while visiting Singapore in November 2012. She said that in order to maintain USstrategic leadership in the region it must strengthen its economic leadership.
President Obama’sswing through Thailand,Burma, and Cambodia was designed to demonstrateWashington’s commitment and forward strategy in the region.
The challenge for theAmerican people is to prevent Washington’s politicians and military andcivilian strategists from engaging in counterproductive foreign policy andnational strategy. The Bush Administration’s unnecessary war against Iraq wasthe greatest US strategic mistake in US history.
Given the US pivot toAsia the possibility for further major strategic mistakes looms. Thegeopolitical narcissism which drives Washington’s foreign policy elite must notlead to aggravation of tensions and confrontation based on unnecessary andprovocative geopolitics in the Asia Pacific and in the Indo Pacific.
Washington MustChange Strategy
A constructive visionof US policy must include adherence to the principle of non-intervention and tosharing the values put forward by China and India as the Five Principles ofPeaceful Coexistence.
Washington mustrevise what critics call its China policy of encirclement and suppression. Instead, Washington must and opt for a policysuited to the emerging multipolar international system and to peace and development.
Present US policydrives tensions, increases negative competition, and impairs constructivecooperation around the world. Despiteofficial denials, present US policy with respect to China, not to mentionRussia, is seen by critics as a new form of Cold War. Strategic militaryencirclement of China coupled with an aggressive forward diplomacy to align theAsia-Pacific region against Peking is not a policy for long term peace,harmony, and development.
At the end of theCold War in 1992,Washington made a fundamental mistake in its nationalstrategy. Politicians and policymakers opted to strive for global hegemonyrather than to prepare for the emergence of a multipolar world in futuredecades in the coming century.
An appropriate longrange foreign policy in the national interest would have been to work withmajor powers to contribute to the transformation of the international systemfrom one based on the Cold War to one based on peaceful cooperation anddevelopment.
At home, the UnitedStates should have undertaken steps to convert the economy from that of a ColdWar garrison state to that of a country at peace. A realistic long termperspective would have understood the character of the coming decades as atransition period in which the American economy and social order needed to befundamentally strengthened in order to compete effectively in a competitiveglobalized economy.
Steps that shouldhave been taken to strengthen the US economy in an all-round way should haveincluded the development of infrastructure, education, research, and healthcare. Instead, trillions of dollars were wasted forever in unnecessary warssuch as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
America lackedforward looking and statesmanlike leadership over the past two decades. Insteadof advancing the real economy and peace, US leaders of both political partiessupported casino capitalism and war.
When the Cold Warended in 1992, politicians influenced by special interests and think tankspromoted hegemony. US foreign policy and military strategy today continues toreflect this policy orientation. Some call the policy “dominance,” others callit “primacy,” and still others call it “leadership” but the meaning is thesame: Cold War in a new form.
Washington’s postWorld War II Cold War strategy depended upon a network of global alliances andmilitary bases. NATO, ANZUS, SEATO, andCENTO were among the multilateral alliances. The US-Japan Mutual SecurityTreaty, for example, was a key bi-lateral alliance providing strategic USbasing for nuclear war against Eurasia.
Cooperation aside,critics say the essence of Washington’s strategy with respect to China iscontainment and suppression. Thestrategic encirclement of the Eurasian landmass is still in place after sixdecades and the US “pivot” to the Asia-Pacific simply updates it.
Containment iseuphemistically called “hedging” by some. Washington is updating military deployments, promoting an increasedglobal role for NATO, and strengthening bi-lateral security arrangements.
America’s diplomacyis being updated through new forms of alliance structures such as the politico-economic structure called theTransPacific Partnership.
Suppression, criticssay, means suppressing economic and political features of the “ChinaModel.” There is concern among USpolicymakers that some countries may adopt this model with modifications tosuit their own local characteristics.
Washington seeks toconvert China’s economy from socialist construction to the “norms” ofneo-liberalism promoted by cosmopolitan financial interests. Parallel to this, Washington policymakersseek to convert China’s polity under a leading party to the “norms” ofWashington’s view of “democracy” promoted by neoconservatives, liberalinternationalists, and human rights activists.
Realistically,Washington has a decade or so to adjust to China’s rise and to the slowlyemerging multipolar world. Washingtonmust return to America’s traditional foreign policy principles such as mutualrespect, non-intervention, and peaceful commercial relations. It is time to drop the nascent encirclementand suppression strategy before serious long term damage is done to theUS-China relationship.
Washington MustImprove Relations with Russia
Despitesweeping changes in the international system since the end of the Soviet Unionin 1991, Washington has not been able to reset its own Cold War perspective andadjust to an emerging multipolar world. The old bipolar “us versus them” zero-sum thinking still drives USforeign policy and national strategy. Old geopolitical strategies to containthe Eurasian landmass remain in place.
While Washingtonupdates policy, the geopolitical fundamentals are unchanged. Today’s containment, although called by newnames such as “hedging” and “rebalancing”, parallels the old policy in terms ofthe military, diplomatic, economic, political, and psychological elements ofpower.
Moscow is naturallyconcerned about the use of US hard power to contain Russia. Many Russiananalysts see the expansion of NATO member states as well as the globalexpansion of the NATO mission as a continuation of the Cold War. For example, when US politicians call forthe inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, for example, this perception isreinforced.
Washington’saggressive push for new ballistic missile defense systems in Europe and in Asiaalso reinforces Moscow’s perception of the hard power containment mentality ofUS and NATO elites.
Washington’s Cold Warstyle ideological confrontation continues in new forms. Russia no longer exports Marxism-Leninism butthe US aggressively exports what is now called its “values agenda” whichincludes promotion of democracy and human rights as defined by Washington aswell as economic neoliberalism.
The political andpsychological elements of the old US policy are simply being updated andrepackaged. The US continues to promote bloc style ideological confrontationunder the guise of “democracies versus non-democracies.”
Since 1991,Washington has attempted through a variety of means to influence and alterRussia’s internal situation through various political and psychological means.Moscow naturally takes a dim view of activity which undermines statesovereignty and sees such US efforts as an attempt to promote yet another“color revolution.”
Clearly the US andRussia have a major interest in working together on a range of global issues.While their mutual relations have had ups and downs over the past twocenturies, both sides have usually found ways to cooperate.
Major powercooperation is essential to promote stability and development in this era ofrapid and far-reaching change. Pressing issues such as nuclear proliferation,terrorism, organized crime, North Korea, Syria, and Iran must be handledresponsibly.
The chill inrelations, however, may not be overcome in the near term. President Obama iseffectively in “lame duck” status. Asthe 2016 election cycle picks up, politicians inevitably will increase theirRussia bashing.
Despite frostyUS-Russia relations, both sides must strive for effective cooperation. Washington must leave the Cold War behind,face the future, and press the reset button much harder.
InternationalCooperation Needed to Fight Terrorism
The Middle Eastregional situation is spinning out of control and extremist pan-Islamic forcespose a threat to Russia, Central Asian states, China, and India. South East Asia is not outside the boundariesof such a threat. Under present circumstances it is little wonder that somecapitals express deep concern about Western policies.
It is no wonder thatUS Vice President Joe Biden expressed concern about the overt and covertsupport for terrorism by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.Washington thought that it could create and control the regime change game butinstead its reckless policy has blown up in its face.
Washington must cometo its senses and work with Russia and other countries to suppressinternational terrorism. The currentsituation in Syria is a disaster caused by the policy of the US, France, andUnited Kingdom for regime change in Syria.
Al Qaeda and theIslamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), for example, want Uighur help to createa pan-Islamic “caliphate.” The same objective is pursued by Islamic terroristsin the Caucasus region. This strategic objective on the part of Muslimterrorist organizations has wide ranging implications.
It is well known thatIslamic terrorists from Uzbekistan interface with Al-Qaeda and other terroristorganizations. In turn, analysts have said, Uighur extremists developedrelations with Uzbek and other extremist organizations.
Al-Qaeda, ISIS, andsimilar organizations make no secret about their pan-Islamic perspective andgeopolitical agenda. A recent edition of an official al-Qaeda publicationspecifically discussed the role of Uighurs to bring the Xinjiang province ofChina into the geographic caliphate being created today in the minds ofextremists and on the ground in the Middle East. The head of ISIS recently referredspecifically to Xinjiang as part of the caliphate.
Without major changesin thinking and in policy by Washington the situation will not improve. Giventhe mindset of the White House and Congress the likelihood for real andconsequential change appears dim.
In recent weeks,Russia appears to be increasing its support for Syria in the face of theexpanding ISIS threat. Until Washington and its allies come to their sense,others in the world will have to move forward on their own. Given the evolvingmultipolar international situation such a future is more likely than not.