The 18th CPC Congress Special: A Geo-Political Analysis on South East China Sea A Perfect Crisis for Int’l Crisis Group

South East China Sea; A Perfect Crisis for the Int’l Crisis Group

A geo-political analysis of the background for the developments in the South-China Sea, the region, and suggested developments towards regional security and stability.

Coauthored by Christopher Black., James Henry Fetzer, Alex Mezyaev, and Christof Lehmann

Subsequent to the  dissolution of the USSR, the peaceful transition of Hong Kong from British to Chinese sovereignty and the subsequent opening of the Chinese market for Western investors, a superficial analysis may lead to the conclusion that the international community has missed the chance to establish a geo-political climate that could have facilitated the peaceful coexistence of sovereign nations.

However, on closer inspection, it  is evident that it  is  a fallacy to speak in terms of a missed chance. The chance for peaceful coexistence between China, the USA, and to a lesser degree the E.U., has in fact never been given a real chance.

It is also a fallacy to conclude that this chance  depended on a left/right paradigm in US and Western politics.

From neo-conservative think tanks like the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) [i] , to left or liberal organizations like those funded by the multi-billionaire George Soros, which include Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group [ii], to global strategists like Zbigniev Brzezinski [iii], national security adviser for multiple US-Administrations, whose declared goal is to engage both Russia and subsequently China in a military confrontation [iv], the operand question is not whether a left/right paradigm determines the overall direction of US foreign policy but rather how the left/right paradigm manifests in strategic nuances in overall US foreign policy which has a clear propensity towards a Pax Americana and American, global, full spectrum dominance.

The term “Global”  is to be taken literally. This policy includes ambitions for a re-colonization of Africa and the Middle East,  the destabilization of Latin America, and countering recent developments such as ALBA, UNASUR and MERCOSUR, countering developments within BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization SCO, a presence in Afghanistan until 2025 and beyond, destabilization of Pakistan, the destabilization of Nepal and Burma and an increased military presence in Thailand, Vietnam and throughout the Asian and Pacific region.

It includes the destabilization of Russia´s and China´s southern borders, and an increased military footprint, in those regions and support of destabilizing influences, such as militia and terrorist organizations.[v] It includes the provocation of conflicts in South East Asia and the South East China Sea, an aggressive policy towards Northern Korea and the derailing of attempts towards reunification on the Korean peninsula.

It includes denying Russia and China access to resources necessary for the development of their economies and their partnership based trade models that are inherently opposed to Western, imperialist capitalism and denying resources and markets to a system that is far more successful, humane, just, fair and sustainable.

The failing of the  US/EU economies has required the western military doctrine to be adjusted to a return to nuclear confrontation for the containment of unmanageable military responses to NATO expansionism by Russia and China, combined with low cost mercenary warfare with the aid of Al Qaeda,  the Muslim Brotherhood, in fact any militant or terrorist organization that can be utilized in the creation of national and regional crisis which are created to destabilize nations and to justify aggression as “interventions” under pretexts like human rights, security or the the slogan “responsibility to protect”.

These two doctrines, nuclear confrontation and use of mercenaries to attack from within are what one could call the post 25^th NATO Summit military doctrine of Western powers and both are in violation of the UN Charter.[vi]

It is necessary to understand the US/NATO strategy of subversion in South East Asia and how a deterioration of national and regional security due to this subversion could be prevented, and in fact, how peaceful regional solutions to the challenge of US/NATO ambitions for global full spectrum dominance can be established.

To understand this strategy it is necessary to undertake a brief review of the developments of recent years in global security. This analysis will provide a disturbingly clear outline of what is in store for South East Asia and greater Asia unless such a solution is achieved through negotiation and then crafted and implemented.

 

 

Odyssey 2001 – A Wake Up Call.

In 2001 the world was chocked by a globally televised terror attack of unprecedented proportions and audacity. World wide, a shocked people saw the  three towers of the World Trade Center only two of which were actually hit by a plane disintegrate, the Pentagon on fire. World-wide, captive TV audiences saw supposedly hijacked passenger planes crash into buildings, people in their hundreds plummeting to certain death.

Sympathy was outpouring from even the most unexpected of places like Palestine. A visibly shocked,  shaken, and appalled PLO Secretary General, Yassir Arafat expressed his deepest condolences, sympathy and even solidarity with the nation that had for decades financed the Zionist/Israeli genocide on the people of Palestine.

It took only minutes after the second plane hit the WTC towers, however, before it transpired that something was not quite as advertized. Re-analyzing the TV-coverage archives [vii] of the day is in deed a revealing odyssey in mass manipulation.

Recycled TV images were aired and it was claimed that “Palestinians were celebrating the successful terror attack on the USA”. A “terrorism expert” declared only minutes after the initial attacks that the most likely suspect would be a “terrorist organization like the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine – DFLP”.[viii]

Soon the first planted evidence was “discovered”, like a terrorists passport that was found in almost pristine condition in the street after it supposedly had flown out of the hijackers pocket, survived the plane impact, the fireball, and landed in the streets below.[ix] The Al-Qaeda / Bin Laden narrative was born.

Those who were awake enough from day one, who realized that something was suspect, soon realized that the attacks were the new Peal Harbor, the catastrophic and catalyzing event which one year prior to the attacks had been described in a white paper of the neo-conservative think-tank PNAC, called  “Rebuilding Americas Defences”.[x]

Even though expert analysts differ with respect to whether rogue elements of the international Western deep state let it happen on purpose or if they made it happen on purpose, all serious analysts, including high level politicians, diplomats, members of the intelligence communities and scholars world wide agree that 9/11 was the initiation of the Project for Global, Full Spectrum US/NATO Dominance as described in PNAC´s white paper. (ibid.) [xi]

There were in deed signs enough from day one, and those who were trained enough in recognizing and analyzing social engineering and propaganda strategies would review the news images – without the sound of the talking heads who repeated the new mantra of global war.

“Al Qaeda – Al Qaeda – Al Qaeda – Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden”.

When the media images were analyzed without the constant stream of suggestions and when reasonable objectivity was applied one could think clearly,  use analytic skills, discernment, discrimination, and first of all, simple laws of Newtonian Physics rather than a hypnotic stream of words – Al Qaeda Bin Laden……. terrorist….. war on terror…..with us or with the terrorists …..

With a clear mind, and in many cases after getting over the initial shock, pertinent questions were raised:

•  How could a passenger plane, even if it was fully fueled, even if it was flying at impossible air-speeds for an altitude near sea level, cause other than a hole in the building, a fire, and eventually a partial collapse ?

•  How could two buildings literally be “pulverized” to hundred of thousands of cubic yards of fine dust particles, by a mechanically caused structural failure ? How could a gravity driven collapse ever produce the necessary kinetic energy ? How could a gravity driven collapse hurl steel girders vertically through the air at speeds exceeding 6o miles per second ?

•  Studies of original “official” photo images or at high resolution video images clearly shows that the building neither collapsed nor pancaked. Both WTC towers literally disintegrated in front of our eyes into pyroclastic flows that otherwise only can be observed in eruptions of volcanoes and in the most powerful explosions.[xii] How could a gravity driven collapse produce dust clouds engulfing major parts of lower Manhattan Island ?

•  The disintegration of the WTC Twin Towers were the equivalent to a tree that is being hit by a projectile. A brief fire emerges in the cavity that is caused by the projectile. For arguments sake let us say that there emerges a fire of intense heat in that cavity. Shortly afterward, however, the entire tree begins turning itself to the finest possible saw-dust, from the top and down to the roots. Gravity driven collapse ? How could even steel literally evaporate in front of our eyes ?

•  How could a passport of one of the supposed hijackers survive the inferno of the plane impact, fly out of his pocket, through the fireball, through the building that turned itself to dust, and how could it land in almost pristine condition in the streets below, where it would be found -when not even a single telephone, not a single filing cabinet, not a single PC survived the disintegration.

•  How could two planes cause the collapse of three WTC buildings ? What processes caused the disintegration and pulverization of concrete and steel while all the paper – which does not contain water – survived and littered the streets of New York ?

•  How could the Pentagon be hit by a passenger plane ? Even if one is deeply asleep, the mere words “A HIJACKED PASSENGER PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON” should wake one up in “Chock and Awe!  A man in a cave in Afghanistan, so we are supposed to believe, had succeeded at defeating the worlds mightiest, most sophisticated defense systems. Three times within one day! A cumbersome, hijacked passenger plane entering the world´s most jealously guarded and protected air-space at the Pentagon and near the White House unimpeded ?

It would be possible to add a thousand more unanswered and pertinent questions to the ones above. Many of them have in fact been answered by responsible citizens and scholars who dared to risk their tenure in countries where free intellectual inquiry does no longer exist unless the inquirer remains within the guidelines of  politicized science. All, off course, in the name of  the “freedom and democracy” which is being exported on a global scale, so the citizens of Russia and China soon also can be liberated like those poor Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans.

Thousands of questions – but it is not the purpose of this article to answer them nor even to demand answers. The most important question has long been answered by the Bush and the Following Obama Administration. The question is “What Function did the mass murder on 9/11 have?”.

The answer was provided by some of the above mentioned policy groups, PNAC. And it was provided one full year before the events that shocked the world and initiated the the push for global US, full spectrum dominance. A catastrophic and catalyzing event, a new “Pear Harbour” that would facilitate a rapid change in US domestic and foreign policy towards a Pax Americana.(ibid.) [xiii] 

“Whether You are with US or not, You are with The Terrorists”.

On 20 September 2001, nine days after 9/11 US-President G.W. Bush addressed the joint session of the US Congress, outlining the new global front-lines, stating: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”.[xiv]  Had the USA then intended to wage an honest war on terrorism, it would in fact have had the support of every nation on this world, with maybe one exception, Israel.

The government of Afghanistan, in fact, stated that it would render Osama bin Laden to the USA if the USA provided evidence for his involvement in 9/11. [xv] The USA denied. The true meaning of the words of President G.W. Bush could be described as:

“Whether you are with US or not, you are with the terrorists”.

The USA did not at any time suspend its long standing co-operation with terrorists organizations throughout the world for other than cosmetic or strategic purposes, and that included the main pretext for the “War on Terror”, Al Qaeda. As we speak, the USA is co-operating with Al-Qaeda brigades in the ongoing subversion attempt in Syria.[xvi]

A whistle blower from within the US Special Forces at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina had already in September 2011 admitted that the USA had special forces on the ground in Syria and cooperated with Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood brigades as part of a long-planned war on Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Iran.[xvii]

Meanwhile, organizations that are fighting a legitimate struggle for liberation, like the PFLP [xviii], DFLP [xix] and to a degree Al-Fatah in Palestine are designated terrorist organizations. Syria, which is the sole Arab nation that consequently and consistently has supported Palestinians legitimate struggle against the Zionist/Israeli occupation of Palestine is according to the US State Department designated a state sponsor of terrorism.[xx]

During the height of the invasion of Libya, when the Libyan military forces caused heavy casualties among the hordes of Libyan, Egyptian, Qatari, Saudi and other nations Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood associated mercenary brigades, the CIA imported 1.500 fighters from Mazare-e-Sharif, Afghanistan [xxi] , who belonged to the very Taliban which NATO is fighting there.

The US War on Terror has from the very onset been and still is a cynical part of the US low cost strategy towards global full spectrum dominance.

It is also a text book like example for why social constructionism within the language of  political discourse can be used to justify any crime as long as it serves ones own interests, how it can be used to scapegoat legitimate resistance as terrorist organizations, and why a teleological approach to the language of political discourse is the sole linguistic approach that can facilitate truth, reconciliation and conflict resolution.

The Dismantling of International Law and a Return to Global Barbarism.

In recent decades an unprecedented deterioration, one can say a “collapse” of international law has occurred. This deterioration is driven by the US and NATO, and its refusal to abide by long-established  legal principles of  international law in all its aspects; peaceful coexistence, human rights, military conduct and others, which have been established over hundreds of years.

Many of these principles and laws were implemented after unspeakable human suffering. Unless this regression into global barbarism is opposed by all necessary popular, political, diplomatic, economical, legal, and if necessary military means,  humanity will descend into a state of global barbarism and unspeakable outrages. The most serious deteriorations over the past two decades are:

The deterioration of the principles enshrined in the Treaty of Westphalia and National Sovereignty.

The treaty of Westphalia [xxii] was signed by European powers in the year 1648 a.v., after a religious and political power struggle between European empires had resulted in a war that lasted over thirty years. The treaty defines the sovereignty of national states and the principle of non-interference into the internal political affairs of sovereign nations by others.

The treaty of Westphalia was one of the international legal principles that was used as a guideline for the drafting of the Charter of the United Nations and it is by many considered as thé most important principle of international law with respect to the regulation of bi-lateral and multilateral diplomacy and politics.

The principle of non-interference into domestic affairs and the principle of national sovereignty enshrined in the UN Charter is increasingly being challenged by those who argue, that is the Americans, that the “international community”, again that is the Americans, has a “responsibility to protect” civilians in cases where the government of a sovereign state is not able to protect its citizens, or when the government of a sovereign state is committing severe violations of other principles such as human rights.

A resolution that implemented the responsibility to protect was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2009, in violation of the UN Charter.[xxiii]

This false responsibility was first termed humanitarian intervention, but it appears that that term could only be used in propaganda when a crisis was already in progress. The slogan responsibility to protect was coined in order to give this strategy more flexibility so that “intervention” could be used even before the US had succeeded in creating a crisis.

The ”responsibility to protect” (R2P)  also had the advantage of claiming to make a moral argument, of course never addressing how the USA came to claim this “responsibility” or why it operates only against its enemies and never its vassals and allies.

Although the guiding arguments for the primacy of human rights and the responsibility to protect “R2P” may sound convincing at first inspection, a closer analysis reveals that the erosion of national sovereignty based on the R2P opens a Pandora´s Box of serious problems.

The first instance where the R2P, which was then still termed humanitarian intervention, was used to override national sovereignty was NATO´s intervention into the internal affairs of Yugoslavia during the Clinton Administration in which the Secretary of State was Madeleine Albright.

It is now a well established and documented fact that the internal conflict in Yugoslavia was initially manufactured by an alliance of Slovenian and Croatian separatists with ties to WWII German National Socialism, with the covert support of the German government and the German Intelligence Service BND [xxiv], and the Vatican. The German intelligence service BND provided the first weapons, second-hand Bulgarian AK 47 assault rifles, to Slovenian and Croat separatists.

As the conflict escalated and the country was forced apart along ethnic, and religious lines, the USA and other Western powers became increasingly involved, resulting in NATO´s “intervention”  in fact its outright aggression against the Federal Republic, without approval from the United Nations Security Council and in complete violation of the UN Charter and NATO’s own Charter.

NATO member states cooperated with a wide variety of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and Bin Laden’s mujahedin.[xxv] The USA financed, trained, and was arming the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA/UCK) which was heavily supported by Al Qaeda brigades and which to a large extend was financed by Heroin trade and trafficking from Afghanistan to Europe and Northern America.[xxvi] [xxvii] 

The war on and dismemberment of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has according to retired French Brigadier General Pierre Marie Gallois been planned and prepared by European powers in unofficial meetings on a farm in Germany since 1976; more than a decade ahead of the first public Slovenian and Croatian demands for secession from Yugoslavia. Brig. Gen. Pierre Marie Gallois was the French representative to these meetings and has disclosed many of the details in a stunning interview.[xxviii] [xxix]

According to Gallois, one of the principle motivating factors for the covert and subsequent overt war on Yugoslavia was that Yugoslavia was the sole Russian ally in the Balkan region and the last functioning socialist state in Europe. Other motivating factors were that Germany wanted to re-establish its geo-political influence in the region which it had lost subsequent to world wars one and two.

Yet another factor was to define a post cold war role for NATO. In fact, so the former French Brigadier General, the war on Yugoslavia provided the model for the war on Iraq and subsequent wars.(ibid.)[xxx]

The sole correlation between the intervention in Yugoslavia and Serbia, and the still ongoing NATO occupation of Kosovo and human rights is, that a humanitarian crisis was cynically manufactured with the intention to create a pretext for a military “intervention” in fact a military attack,  based on the “R2P” the claimed responsibility to protect.

The usurpation by the United States of the role of the United Nations by arrogantly claiming to itself this invented responsibility  has resulted in the deterioration of the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia  and the UN Charter that both guarantee the sovereignty of nations and the concomitant right of the self determination of peoples.

It is is nothing less than western colonialism once again justified by the “white man’s burden”. In a recent article, Dr. Henry Kissinger discussed whether nations like Syria and other Arab nations would at all qualify for protection against interference into their internal affairs under the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia.[xxxi]

Kissinger argues, that almost all Arab nations, with the exclusion of eventually Iran, Turkey and Egypt, were nations whose borders had been more or less arbitrarily drawn by former colonial powers and that it was therefore questionable whether they could be defined as nation states that would be protected by the provisions in the Treaty of Westphalia. Iran, Turkey, and Egypt on the other hand, so Kissinger argues, had a long history as nations.

Lehmann has written an article in response to that of Dr. Kissinger. According to Lehmann, Kissinger´s interpretation is representative of the condescending, ethnocentric, colonialist attitude of Western nations towards countries world wide. It is also symptomatic for the social constructionism that guides Western foreign politics.

While Kissinger questions the national sovereignty of almost all Arab nations on the basis that their borders were arbitrarily drawn by former colonial powers, he does not mention Israel, whose borders have been arbitrarily drawn by the same former colonial powers. [xxxii]

Neither does he mention the fact that the United States itself is also an artificial creation resulting from the extermination of the native peoples, the Louisiana Purchase of the south from France in 1803, and Florida from Spain, the War of 1812 against Canada,  the war of conquest against Mexico in 1846, the war between two nations the United States and the Confederates states, known as the Civil War in the 1860s and the artificial extensions into Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

The most recent example of a successful abuse of the erosion of national sovereignty under the pretense of a manufactured Responsibility to Protect is NATO´s abuse of UNSC Resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya.[xxxiii]

It can be argued that this Resolution never existed as the UN Charter requires that resolutions have the concurring votes of all permanent members of the Security Council. Russia and China abstained. An abstention is not a concurrent vote. It may be that Russia and China expected that the abstentions were enough to kill the resolution from being passed.

Legally they were correct, but regardless whether Russia and China were taking a calculated Risk, or whether Russia, which was then under the presidency of Medvedyev was trying to appease the USA/NATO, which would have left China to deal with the impact of the US and NATO and GCC member states as well as Israel alone, will only be answered by future historical analysis.

What is certain, however, is that both the Russian and Chinese political leadership must have been aware that even though a UNSC resolution arguably is not legally valid unless all Security Council members vote in favor of it, it is a long established political practice that only a veto is sufficient for blocking an intervention.

Since the first Russian, then USSR, abstention on UNSC Resolution 4 (1946) on Spain, an abstention has interpreted as not preventing the adoption of the resolution.

The claim that the USA, France and the UK abused the UN Charter was compounded when the US and its allies exceeded even the terms of their own resolution and conducted a war of aggression against Libya. A repetition of this abuse, directed against Syria, has so far been successfully stopped by Russia and China at the Security Council who since have consequently vetoed resolutions on Syria. 

The deterioration of the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Convention[xxxiv] comprises four treaties and additional three protocols that establish standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of victims and participants of war. It was updated to it´s current version in 1949, following two wars of global reach and unspeakable violence and it is thus, like the Treaty of Westphalia, a reaction to unspeakable acts of violence and human suffering, that has affected large populations.

The Geneva Convention defines the wartime rights of both civilian and military prisoners, affords protection of the wounded, and establishes protections for civilians in war zones. It also specifies the rights and protections that are afforded to non-combatants. Since the onset of the US-led “war on terror” in 2001 the Geneva convention has been systematically undermined by the USA as well as other NATO countries.

These systematic erosion of the Geneva convention includes:

•  The illegitimate use  of the term “unlawful combatants”[xxxv] and the indefinite imprisonment of prisoners of war in places like Guantanamo and outside the required norms of the Geneva Conventions.

•  The used of the term “enhanced interrogation techniques”[xxxvi] in an attempt to legitimize unspeakable acts of torture, including water-boarding, sensory deprivation, forced positions, religious chicane, hours of forced positions during sensory deprivation together with making the prisoners subject to white noise, blindfolding, extreme temperatures as well as sheer physical brutality and even death.

•  The use of the term “Extraordinary Rendition”[xxxvii] that is the kidnapping and disappearance of both combatants and non-combatants. As in Operation Condor conducted by the USA and its vassals in South America against leftists and progressives in the 70s and 80s people simply disappear.  Extraordinary rendition is a term used to cover over the fact that people are delivered  to third countries who apply torture or “enhanced interrogation techniques” or to people who are simply murdered. Extraordinary Rendition is also covered by the provisions of the Nuremberg Principles.

•  Summary executions of prisoners of war on the battlefield and the the delivery of combatants and non-combatants alike to allied but irregular forces, knowing that the prisoners of war will be massacred as it happened in several instances in Afghanistan.

•  The delivery of prisoners of war to criminal courts, that is US military tribunals,  for prosecution for “terrorism”.

And it does not stop there. The list of outrages against the Geneva Conventions would fill volumes. The results of this systematic violation of international law are outrages like those at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

The renown social psychologist Phillip G. Zimbardo Ph.D, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University,[xxxviii] who was working as expert for the defense of some of the soldiers who committed the outrages in Abu Ghraib.  Zimbardo stated that the appalling acts of torture at Abu Ghraib were not the result of “a few rotten apples among the troops”, as claimed by former US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, but that they were the products of a carefully manufactured situation, where high level military and political cadre had to know that the outcome invariably would be torture and abuse.[xxxix]

The obvious danger of these systematic violations of international law is that it creates precedence and escalates the spiral of violence and abuse rather than defusing a conflict.

The irony is that this systematic violation of international law is being implemented by those nations who are claiming to wage wars as the vanguard of law, human rights, freedom, democracy and justice.

The Hague Conventions.

The Hague Conventions[xl] consist of two treaties and regulate among other things, legality of war, declarations of war and surrender, use of legal and illegitimate weapons, military conduct, command structures and and command responsibility for prevention and punishment of crimes by subordinates..

Article one of the first chapter of the Hague Convention of 1909 states, that the laws, rights and duties of war not only apply to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps and require those forces fulfill the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person who is responsible for his subordinates, to have a fixed distinctive emblem visible at a distance, to carry arms openly, and to conduct their operations in accordance to the customs of war. In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or part of it, they are included under the denomination “army”.

They also include inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with article one if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The coining of the term “unlawful-combatant” is designed to try to evade the provisions of the Hague Convention, which clearly specifies that a population has the right to armed resistance against an aggressor’s military forces.

The use of mercenary forces, like the use of 20,000 mercenaries of the Al-Qaeda associated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in the attempted subversion of Syria[xli] erodes the concept of  command responsibility. It provides the USA/NATO with a loophole that lets them commit the most serious acts of terrorism, massacres and military barbarism, while NATO´s military leadership as well as members of Ministries of Defense and NATO members governments enjoy “plausible deniability” for their command decisions.

Or so they think, because it is clear in international law that the fact that US officers have real command responsibility, that is effective command and control,  over these mercenaries would mean their conviction for war crimes if they could ever be brought before an international tribunal.

Let alone the fact that the USA reserves for itself the right not to make it´s citizens, including military personnel subject to the International Criminal Court at The Hague, while demanding the prosecution of citizens of nations which are in opposition to US/NATO hegemony, this illegal use of mercenary forces is a systematic circumvention of the Hague Conventions as mercenaries are forbidden by the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries from 4 December 1989.[xlii]

The use of mercenaries  has been widely implemented since the war on Yugoslavia and in both the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq and the trend is going towards an increase in their use under the euphemism “private contractors” as if they are construction workers,  to fulfill military tasks. These mercenaries do not obey the rules or customs of war.

On the other hand, members of the militia who legally resist US/NATO occupation are often being turned over to police authorities of a government that has been installed with the help of the US/NATO, and can be sentenced to long prison terms or execution because the affordance of the protection under the Hague Conventions is being circumvented.

The use of CIA personnel for military operations. The USA is increasingly making use of unmanned aerial vehicles for both observation as well as for kinetic military actions. None of the CIA´s Gameboy Killers in Langley, Virginia  is operating within a legal military command structure. Regardless if a drone attack is targeting resistance fighters, so-called terrorists, or if the Gameboy Killers at Langley blow the bride and groom of a wedding party in Pakistan or Somalia to kingdom come, any an all of these drone attacks are a circumvention of the Hague Conventions.

Chapter two of the Hague Conventions states that prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile government and not in the hands of the individuals or corps that capture them.

Both the use of private military contractors and the use of allied or state sponsored mercenary forces, including Al Qaeda brigades are a breach of  the Hague Conventions.

In Syria we are, as we are writing, witnessing the wide spread torture and summary executions of captured Syrian military personnel. Western intelligence personnel have been captured after firing into peaceful demonstrations with sniper rifles to enrage the demonstrators against the Syrian police and government. Non of them was operating under the Hague Conventions and violations against a cohort of international laws and conventions have been committed by the assassins of peaceful demonstrators.

Extrajudicial Executions and Assassinations. The corruption of the  US domestic and military legal systems and the violations of the US Constitution has resulted in the extraordinary situation that the American president not only has abolished the ancient right of habeas corpus but now claims the right of a tyrant, the claimed right to effect the extrajudicial assassination, that is the murder of both US citizens and citizens of any other nation, anywhere in the world who he claims to be a “threat”..

In fact, President Barak Obama takes pride in personally making life and death decisions by determining whether the one or the other individual shall be targeted for assassination.  Death has become his plaything, like an American Caligula.

Notwithstanding  the audacity and arrogance of signing this practice into “law”, no executive order, and no approval by the corrupted congress of the USA can establish any basis in international law for this practice. Each and every assassination is in fact nothing but premeditated murder.

These extrajudicial executions and assassinations are a stark warning of what of” human rights”, “civil liberties” “freedom”, “democracy” and “justice” now mean in the United States of America and NATO in practice as opposed to what they preach.

Plausible deniability for acts of barbarism. It would be possible to write volumes about the problems that arise. The shortest way of describing what the US is practicing by systematically circumventing international law is to sum it up as follows:

•  The systematic circumvention of international law.

•  The systematic circumvention of legal responsibility for illegal acts of war.

•  The systematic circumvention of human rights, civil liberties and the systematic implementation of torture, institutionalization of terrorism and massacres on civilian, military, combatants and non-combatants.

•  A return to barbarism in war and to wars of aggression, that is crimes against peace,  unrestrained in their ferocity and cruelty.

All that, and more, under the pretext of freedom, democracy, the responsibility to protect, human rights or war on terrorism. No act of terrorism is in fact shied away from, such as the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, the murder of Muammar Ghadafi  President Milosevic, President Saddam Hussein, President Habyrimana and countless others.

The Establishment of Illegal International Courts and Politicized Trials – A Pseudo-Legalistic Political Witch-hunt and Victors Justice.

Whereas the systematic erosion of international law is one alley that is leading towards a return to barbarism, the establishment of pseudo-legal international courts which are being used by NATO and allied nations for a pseudo-legalistic political witch-hunt and the implementation of victors justice against those who have fallen victims to NATO´s ”interventions” is an equally dangerous alley towards barbarism. In deed, it may be even be more dangerous than the outright violation of international laws and conventions because here the illegal aggression is disguised as legitimate justice.

The ICTY, ICTR, SCSL, SCL, and similar special courts and tribunals are such Quasi-Judicial Institutions. Modern international law does not provide any legal basis for the creation of any of the above mentioned institutions. Their utility is to provide ”legal” sanction to the already unlawfully achieved results of covert or overt illegal wars, aggressions, or interventions.

While these quasi-judicial tribunals are unlawful in the first place, their methodology of achieving ”desired results” is even more so, since new rules and regulations are written on an ad hoc basis to secure convictions, as was the case at the ICTY and ICTR and others.

The results of such ”International Criminal Justice” are

• the conviction of mainly Serbs through rigged show trials and the demonstrative acquittal of real perpetrators who belonged to the NATO allied, Al Al Qaeda associated Kosovo Liberation Army, also known as KLA / UCK, at the ICTY;
• the conviction of Hutus through the same rigged show trials at the ICTR which acts to protect the criminals of the RPF, and its western allies, the very ones who provoked and prosecuted the war in Rwanda,
• the conviction of Khmer Rouge members while the leaders and military officers of the USA are granted complete impunity for the devastating carpet bombing of Cambodia which destroyed the irrigation systems and led to a collapse of the society,
• so on at the other tribunals.

These tribunals all are part of a system of show trials designed to demonize the former regimes of the countries concerned, to justify the US et al aggression  both direct and indirect, against the countries concerned and to cover up the real role of the west in those wars.

The very creation of the International Criminal Court, ICC, is in fact another step towards the deterioration of international law due to the fact that the UN Security Council, notwithstanding the position of a given state to the ICC, which includes non-signatory states, can refer a case to the ICC Statute.

This creates the potential for situations where an non-signatory state to the treaty may force another non-signatory state to the same treaty to be bound by the treaty non of the two has signed. This state of affairs is an explosion of the very nature of international law at its very base.

Indeed, the USA refuses to be bound by the Rome Statute in any way and has stared that if any of its officers are ever charged and arrested by The ICC they will use forced to obtain their release. This is nothing less than gangsterism”

The results of such justice will invariably be highly politicized show trials and victors justice, and it is in deed precisely what has occurred at the ICC since it was established.

Common Denominators in US/NATO Subversion Strategies and the Institutionalization of Irregular Warfare and Subversion.

There are certain common denominators that are part of every attempted subversion:

• The establishment or presence of a foreign influence within the targeted nations.
• The use of domestic elements, such as a minority political party, the use of dissenting political organizations, organizations that represent ethnic or cultural diversity, the use of militant opposition movements, ethnic and religious minorities, exile governments, terrorist organizations, and/or any other factors that can be used to either create or aggravate internal contests or struggles.

•  The attempt to either overthrow a government or to destabilize the country sufficiently to justify an intervention under a pretext like countering terrorism or by use of perversions of international law like the responsibility to protect.

•  The co-opting of geo-politically significant locations, access to resources and markets, and the denying of access to resources and markets for antagonistic nations or those who are siding with antagonistic nations.  

Institutionalized Subversion.  As discussed above, NATO has since its 25^th Summit in Chicago in 2012, made ”interventions”, which implies cooperation with illegitimate militant organizations, an integrated part of its official doctrine. [xliii](ibid.)

The fact that NATO has made subversion the primary instrument for expansionism is further emphasized by the content of a Training Circular that is being used with the US Special Forces at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina.

The Training Circular, TC 18-01, which is so sensitive that it is provided with a destruction notice that instructs owners of the document to destruct it by any possible means to prevent unauthorized dissemination, states among other:

• ” Training Circular (TC) 18-01, Special Forces Unconventional Warfare, defines the current United States (U.S.) Army Special Forces (SF) concept of planning and conducting Unconventional Warfare (UW) operations. For the foreseeable future U.S. Forces will predominantly engage in irregular warfare (IW) operations.
• The intent of U.S. UW efforts is to exploit a hostile power´s political, military, economic, and psychological vulnerabilities by developing and sustaining resistance forces to accomplish U.S. Strategic objectives.
• Combat support includes all of the activities of indirect and direct support in addition to combat operations.

The TC 18-01 has been published on nsnbc in its entirety and downloadble PDF format. [xliv]

It is normal that a nation entertains special operations units for defense purposes. What makes the TC 18-01 and implicitly US/NATO military doctrine uniquely criminal, is that the TC 18-01 clearly states that the US will predominantly be fighting ”irregular wars” in the foreseeable future, and that it in the form of the TC 18-01 provides a step by step manual for manufacturing political opposition into dissent, dissent into resistance and terrorism, terrorism into insurgency, with the explicit goal to overthrow the legitimate government of a targeted, sovereign nation; with the explicitly expressed purpose to accomplish U.S. Strategic Objectives.

It can hardly be emphasized enough that the combination of the US/NATO´s illegal warfare, combined with interventions based a presumed responsibility to protect a targeted population from the crisis which it itself manufactures, combined with an absolute and overt disregard for international law and the institutionalization of quasi judicial instruments, constitutes a direct road towards global tyranny. Global Tyranny is merely a less euphemistic synonym for U.S. Global Full Spectrum Dominance.

This quest for global tyranny is inherently opposed to any peaceful co-existence between sovereign nations. It is, although it is making use of ethnic diversity, opposed to ethnic tolerance. It is, although it is making use of human rights and slogans about democracy, inherently opposed to human rights, justice, and self-determination.

It has, since 2010 begun to intensify the targeting of Nepal, Burma, Pakistan, Thailand, Lao, Vietnam, the DPRK, and even its presumed ally, the Philippines with the purpose to create a crisis about the South China Sea.

Intensified Implementation of US/NATO Global Full Spectrum Dominance in Asia.

Nepal – The Exemplary Destruction of a Nation State, Sponsored by Soros.

Nepal´s geo-political position, its richness in ethnic, religious, cultural and political diversity, and the fact that the targeting of Nepal is about to mature, makes Nepal a perfect model on which US/NATO subversion strategies can be explained. A closer look at Nepal lets us understand the modus operandi for US/NATO subversion so we are able to better recognize the red flags in other Asian nations.

Until 2006 Nepal was governed more or less exclusively by the King and the Nepali royal family. It was until then one of the worlds oldest functioning monarchies. The royal family of Nepal had very good ties to both British and Danish royalty. In spite of its landlocked geo-political position in Asia, it was strongly oriented towards Europe. The position of Nepal as a European aligned Asian monarchy had its basis in post-colonial times. A subsequent cold war made Nepal a front-line state between the capitalist and the socialist blocks.

Subsequent to the end of the cold war, and in tact with the transition towards a more open, joint venture based Chinese economy, the position of the royal Family and Nepal as post-colonial, cold-war front-line state became rapidly obsolete. European support for the monarchy dwindled and a long suppressed, legitimate popular demand for political, legal and social change became ever more outspoken.

From 1996 to 2006 the then illegal Maoist Party of Nepal fought a bitter rebellion against the monarchy. The rebellion succeeded due to the overwhelming support from the population in rural districts. In 2006 the rebellion resulted in political and legal reforms. After the first post-rebellion elections the Maoists held almost 40 % of the Constituent Assembly.

While the UK, other Western powers and India had responded to the rebellion with gravest concerns and somewhat ambivalent support for the old regime, the prospect of a Nepalese National Assembly in which the Maoist Party held almost 40 % of the seats and where other Communist parties were represented too provoked a much less ambivalent response.

Ethnicity.

The New Parliament embarked on the mission of re-organizing Nepal. The Maoist party envisioned a new model that was based on the distribution of power to local communities. A State Restructuring Commission was formed which should suggest how the old, centralized Nepal could delegate more political influence to the people, to regions and to communities.

Nepal is, although poor with respect to economy, extremely rich in culture and ethnicity, and until recently it also was rich in tolerance and respect for diversity. This ethnic diversity, however, was also a pure treasure trove for anyone, like the United Kingdom, the E.U., the USA, and Soros, who would not accept a Nepal that had become so self-confident that it began implementing a foreign policy that did no longer accept dictates from the traditional and mood-colonial powers.

The population of Nepal is composed of over 100 ethnic minorities and over 300 casts. It is a situation that is potentially catastrophic for a nation that is being targeted by foreign influences who have centuries of experience in colonizing the world with the aid of the ”divide and conquer” strategy. What complicated the matter for Nepal and what makes it so easy to be taken advantage of is, that it is impossible to create regions along ethnic lines without creating new minorities in each of the federations regions. It is a situation much like that in Serbia and Bosnia Herzegovina.

Federalism.

The Maoist Party originally intended to create a secular state with regions along community lines, with regional popular committees and administrations. Without focus on ethnicity, religion or casts. The question why the restructuring of Nepal went awry can be answered with two words; ”Foreign Interests”. We will even see that some of the names that were instrumental in carving up Yugoslavia and in creating ethnic violence in Bosnia have reappeared in Nepal.

Foreign Interests, Soros and the United Nations Framework Team.

The Hungarian born multi-billionaire and self-proclaimed philanthropist George Soros is the main sponsor of the United Nations Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action, short FT. The FT has since 2006 become very active in Nepal. We will hear more about Soros when discussing the South China Sea and the International Crisis Group which he also sponsors, but for now let us focus on Nepal.

In Nepal, the United Nations is active with twenty-eight UN agencies and departments who are working directly under the superintendence of the Soros sponsored Framework Team in Nepal.[xlv] Among other are represented the IMF, FAO, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNDP, UNODPC, UN-WFP, WHO, and the World Bank.

The UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action is led by the US-national Gay Rosenblum-Kumar. In Nepal it is represented by Ian Martin. Martin is known for having implemented ”Structural changes in other ”targeted nations”, including Bosnia Herzegovina and Cyrenaica, Libya. In both cases the helpful interventions of the FT and Ian Martin were correlated with considerable ethnic violence.

Besides its involvement in Bosnia and Nepal, the Framework team has over the last decade supported similar initiatives  toward ”structural reforms and change” in Ecuador, Fiji, Lesotho, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Kenya where the US is currently aggressively trying to establish a stronger military footprint, Mauritania, the Maldives, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, where President Laurent Gbagbo was ousted with the help of the UN and France in 2010, in preparation for the war on Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe implemented much needed post-colonial land reforms and who is one of the last remaining anti-imperialist African leaders.

What each and every of these nations have in common is that they are being targeted for a move towards a foreign imposed federalism that throws the doors wide open for the UN/US/NATO alliances´ divide and conquer policy.

The Soros funded NGO NEFIN is advocating indigenous Nepali peoples rights, among other with respect to ”indigenous land ownership”. [xlvi]   NEFIN is naturally advocating that every and each of the ethnic minorities in Nepal ”must” be  granted equal access to the ownership of land.

As discussed above, Nepal is a nation with over 100 ethnic groups and over 300 casts. Implementing square inch justice in ethnically based land-ownership rights is utterly impossible, regardless whether Nepal implements a six or an eleven regions model. Even if it would subdivide each of eleven regions into numerous sub-regions there would still remain a basis for conflicts.

What Nepal experiences is a cynical attempt to divide the nation along ethnic lines and to create a deadlocked situation that will be exploded into an unstoppable cycle of violence whenever it is most opportune for those who have targeted the country. The victims are national unity, diversity, tolerance and respect, and the people of Nepal who are being railroaded into massacring one another.

Some ethnic based violence has already occurred in Nepal and it is systematically being aggravated under the pretense of humanitarian principles. Unless the Soros / UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action under Gay Rosenblum-Kumanr and Ian Martin are opposed; unless the seeding of ethnic division by NEFIN, are opposed; it will merely be a question about what time would be the most convenient for the USA, UK, and NATO to aggravate a matured crisis to the extend that another ”humanitarian intervention” under the guise of an assumed ”responsibility to protect” will be ignited.

The following Asian countries are according to reliable sources also being targeted for ”balkanization” on the basis of ethnic and religious diversity by the Soros funded UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action: Burma/Myanmar, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, Sri Lanka.

Other Asian nations that are either being directly or indirectly targeted by Western power brokers, or which are being positioned into conflict with targeted nations include  among other, Afghanistan, Georgia, Ossetia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Vietnam, Lao, the Philippines.

The ongoing violent clashes between Buddhist and Muslim groups in Burma, the clashes between so called red shirts and yellow shirts in Thailand, the positioning of the Philippines for becoming a front line state in the containment of Chinese access to resources, transportation of resources and Chinese access to Asian markets. The list of subversive activities is virtually inexhaustible.

This development should raise warning flags about the volatility, vulnerability and potential dangers  the region will face, unless the US/NATO ambition for global, full spectrum dominance is challenged by the development of coherent and consistent national and regional strategies. 

The South China Sea: How could Soros and the International Crisis Group let a perfectly good Crisis be wasted without making use of it?

String of Pearls.

A 2006 study for the U.S. Army by Christopher J. Pehrson, called ”String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China´s Rising Power Across the Asian Littoral” [xlvii] demonstrates the US/NATO´s condescending, modo-colonialist and ethnocentric perception of Asia as ”their” backyard, ”their repository of resources” and ”their markets that are being threatened by China”. It analyzes Chinese markets in the region as ”China´s String of Pearls”, that threatens US/NATO modo-colonial hegemony and primacy.

The nature and content of this military commissioned study demonstrate explicitly that even nations who align themselves with US/NATO foreign policy are potential targets for aggression and subversion unless these nations actively participate in the strategic encirclement of China, in denying China access to resources and markets. So much to the situation in general terms.

Soros´ International Crisis Group, Stirring up the South China Sea.

With respect to the  territorial dispute about areas in the South China Sea, between the Philippines and China, a recent report by the European, Soros Funded, International Crisis Group, ICG, is revealing US/NATO´s strategy.[xlviii]

While the ICG is overtly claiming to be working on crisis resolution, the report has in fact to be understood as an analysis of, how the crisis can be managed to secure the best possible outcome for the modo-colonial and globalist powers.

An analysis of the report reveals that the strategy that is being discussed, among other, contains the following elements:

• Attempts to infiltrate or influence Chinese military structures to create inter-services competition.
• Attempts to influence the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to create disputes between the Foreign Ministry, Ministry of Defense, and Military Services
• Aggravating rivalry between the Chinese Maritime Forces and Law Enforcement agencies with maritime capabilities and duties, about the allocation of resources, competencies, roles, and responsibilities with respect to the South China Sea.
• If possible, the creation of conflict between the Ministries of Defense, Foreign Affairs and the Interior.
• Creation of regional rivalries by creating the above mentioned conflicts, facilitated by the fact that high level Chinese law enforcement officers, military officers, and their likes have ties to regional political structures and interests in China.
• Systematic defamation of China´s claims to sovereignty over parts of the South China Sea. The defamation will be based on referring to ”China´s Nationalist Ambitions”, on fear-mongering due to the fact that the so-called nine-dashed line that appears on Chinese maps encompasses most of the South China Sea, the interpretation of the fact that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, supports Chinese claims is denounced as Chinese nationalism.
• Creating Mistrust to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so that regional partners may perceive reassurances and negotiated settlements by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign affairs as not trustworthy. Undermining the credibility of Chinese Diplomacy by exaggerating inter ministerial conflicts or conflicts of interests between military and ministry.
• Defamation of Chinese diplomacy at ASEAN and the seeding of doubt whether China is willing, or based on domestic politics able, to implement the Declaration of Conduct in the South China Sea.
• The creation of mistrust within ASEAN, whether China is willing to, or if the Chinese government is able, to adhere to the ASEAN six-point-principles accord about the South China Sea, even though China assures that the principles are in accord with China´s policy on the South China Sea settlement.[xlix]
• Using the creation of doubts, whether the Chinese government is capable of controlling eventual unauthorized, unilateral action by regional Chinese military or law-enforcement services as pretext to increase the US/NATO military footprint in the Philippines, India, Vietnam, Lao, and Thailand.
• Using the same arguments to pressure the government of Australia to increase military spending on maritime “defense” forces.
• The positioning of China as hegemonic nation with ambitions to dominate the region politically and militarily, to prevent China´s access to markets and resources, and to create an atmosphere of mistrust towards Chinese initiatives for joint ventures, political, economical cooperation.
• The positioning of China as nationalist military power with regional ambitions for dominance to saw mistrust that subverts regional, bilateral and multilateral initiatives towards security.

Others could be added, and the International Crisis Group is far from the sole player involved in what could best be described as careful, preparatory initiatives that weaken China politically, economically and militarily in preparation of a long-planned confrontation of Russia and China.

Countering the US/NATO ambition for global full spectrum dominance and preserving peace.

Although some Asian nations alignment with Western powers is being criticized, it is important to remember, that their long standing alignment with the USA, UK, France, and other is rendering them extremely vulnerable in cases where a government attempt to implement a non-aligned policy or simply a more autonomous foreign policy that serves the nations interests.

Rather than criticizing governments who are in that quagmire, it would be more constructive to use diplomatic finesse, to make it not only attractive but feasible for countries like the Philippines to orient itself politically so it can serve it´s own and regional interests rather than those of modo-colonial powers who are seeking dominance rather than partnership.

Some initiatives could and should be taken by all Asian nations, regardless their affiliations. Mutual, bilateral and multi-lateral assurances could ease their implementation in Western aligned countries. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is one step in the right direction. Cooperation with BRICS, and Latin-American organizations like ALBA, UNASUR, MERCOSUR can  facilitate increased autonomy.

Some initiatives that could help creating an atmosphere that would facilitate a development towards regional stability, security and the peaceful coexistence would be:

• Further resolutions at the UN Security Council and General Assembly that lend apparent legitimacy to utterly illegal ”interventions” and violations of national sovereignty must be consequently and consistently opposed. Any nation that experiences political, diplomatic, economical, or other pressure in an attempt to make it comply with requests from NATO member states should enjoy the full solidarity of any other peaceful nation.
• Demands that the USA and NATO change their foreign policy and military doctrine, to comply with international law. Diplomatic, political, economic and other sanctions should be negotiated among Asian and other nations and bilateral as well as multilateral agreements about solidarity in the case of repression need to be discussed and implemented.
• Withdrawal from the International Criminal Court and other quasi-judicial, illegitimate organizations and solidarity with non-compliant nations. The fact that the USA does not recognize the ICC while abusing it, and while threatening with military action against nations that refer US citizens to prosecution at the ICC can not be withheld from the public and provides more than ample diplomatic leverage.
• The implementation of international jurisdiction for the most serious crimes recognized by mankind into national law. Bilateral and multilateral assurances of solidarity in cases where the arrest, trial, and or sentencing of a person for any of such crimes results in political, diplomatic, economic, or even military sanctions against the nation who is making use of international jurisdiction.
• The establishment of an International Bureau for Peace and Justice as a permanent, supra-national body to remedy the lack of independent investigations into the most serious crimes, the preparation of prosecutable cases, and other activities that limit the ability of criminals to travel freely. The deterioration of international law, including the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia, the Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention, the Laws that prohibit the use of mercenaries, and other international bodies of law, many of which have been established after unspeakable suffering, must be opposed. Without the establishment of an international institution that is legal, as opposed to the ICC, and just, as opposed to the ICC, the world, including the Asian region will regress into barbarism.
• Implementing legislation modeled over a recent Russian initiative, to protect the country from covert subversion attempts by foreign sponsored NGOs.[l] Monitoring of NGO´s who are inciting discord between ethnic or religious groups in an attempt to destabilize a sovereign state, such as it is the case with NEFIN in Nepal.[li]
• Monitoring United Nations agencies more closely. Holding UN Agencies, and in particular the Soros funded UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action accountable for any subversive activities. If necessary to arrest, deport, or prosecute UN members who engage in illicit, subversive activities. Bilateral and multilateral agreements and accords with respect to solidarity in the case of sanctions for holding the UN, its agencies or employees accountable for illegitimate activities. Diplomatic immunity is not a card blance  for espionage, subversion, drug trafficking, human trafficking or any of the other outrages the UN has been involved in in recent decades.
• Monitoring closely, the activities of Western Embassy personnel and members of Western Intelligence communities. Countering their abuse of their host nations territory and good-will as well as diplomatic privileges to co-operate with terrorist organization or otherwise abuse their privileges to provide political or material support to terrorist organizations or their members. Bilateral and multilateral assurances and Concords of solidarity in case of repercussions due to countering Western diplomats and Intelligence personals illicit activities.

To use a reductionist approach at closing; there are two options.

National sovereignty, diversity and peaceful coexistence, the upholding of international law, combined with resistance against the US/NATO ambition for global full spectrum dominance, or a return to anarchy, barbarism, colonialism, and tyranny.

We are in deed in a period where courage and integrity among the political leadership in Asia is more urgently needed than ever before. The challenges can seem overwhelming. The alternatives to much needed change, however, are potentially catastrophic.

Christopher Black., James Henry Fetzer, Alex Mezyaev, Christof Lehmann.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sharing is caring!