ON KISSINGER'S PASSING

 I happened to have a brief exchange of views with Kissinger about China in 2000. At the time, I was alarmed by the laxity of the Clinton administration in policing the exports of dual-use high techology to China, which I deemed reckless. Kissinger asked his director of Kissinger Associates, Paul Bremer III – the future governor of Iraq – to answer on his behalf . In it, Bremer wrote that Kissinger told him that he shared my concerns, which were not however shared by the Washington elite at the time.

Whilst in my view he was less important and competent – among US top foreign policy experts – than George Kennan, Kissinger knew how to successfully make the transition from academic life to the corridors of power in Washington DC. I say that he was less competent than Kennan because he never really understood the USSR as Kennan did, nor could he get the better of Soviet diplomats the way he did with Zhou Enlai or Mao of China.

The book that launched his career was not about Metternich, but his 1957 " Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy”, in which he made the case for the feasability of limited nuclear wars among superpowers. The book made him one of the darlings of the military-industrial complex and impressed both Kennedy and Richard Nixon.

Kissinger also knew how to deal with political leaders -from Ceaușescu to Nixon- who had oversized egos, if not downright megalomania, like the Romanian dictator. Nixon did not like Kissinger much, he just used him. For his part, Kissinger was singing praises to Nixon during working hours, whilst calling him unstable and a drunk in evening meetings with his friends.

Kissinger honestly acknowledged that at the origin of his success in China was the chief of the Czechoslovak secret service, which was the first to bring to his attention the existence of the Sino-Soviet split. Chancellor Adenauer of Germany also helped, giving him a book on the subject written by a German intelligence official.

Kissinger was an enormously ambitious individual. He wanted a big success in China and to get it, he made the error of agreeing to the demands of the Chinese to formally consider Taiwan as part of China. He did so without informing Nixon first or indeed without having his approval. Critics contend that he did in effect hand over Taiwan to China.

Finally, unlike Kennan, Kissinger was not known to oppose NATO’s eastern expansion, nor advocate for its dissolution . His last proposal was not to keep Ukraine neutral, but to convince Kiev to give up part of Ukraine’s territory in exchange for NATO membership. Sad but true.

Why NATO is now a zombie alliance

 With the exception of the Delian League and NATO, no other politico-military alliance has been kept operational after all its objectives were met. It is highly regrettable that the American political elite refuses to see NATO for what it really is: a zombie alliance that has become a menace to European and world peace.

*

Ever since the first city-states appeared in ancient times, most countries felt compelled to enter into military and political alliances. The most common reason for doing so was that of deterring conquest by a more powerful state that would force them to lose their military and economic independence. Other alliances sought to maintain their members' political status quo and, especially in the modern era, to prevent the spread of liberalism in their lands (the Holy Alliance between 1815-1822; the Concert of Europe until  1914 ). Some European powers, during the 19th and 20th centuries, entered into alliances aimed at preventing the emergence of a single power as sole hegemon on the Continent.

The 20th century saw its fair share of political and military alliances, starting with the Triple Alliance between imperial Germany, Austro-Hungary and Italy, which was directed against British hegemony. This alliance was followed in 1904 by the Franco-British Entente, aimed at containing Germany's expansionist drive in Europe and Africa, and joined by Russia in 1905. With American help, this coalition of states succeeded in defeating imperial Germany during World War I. 

In 1940 a new alliance, the Tripartite Pact, was concluded between Nazi Germany, imperial Japan and fascist Italy, with the objectives of defeating Britain with its European and American allies and of establishing themselves as the new hegemonic world powers. In order to thwart their plans and subsequent military expansionism, the US entered into an alliance with Soviet Russia between 1941-1945, which Great Britain also joined. Known as the Allied Powers, the Americans, the Soviets and the British succeeded in decisively defeating Germany, Japan and Italy.

In the aftermath of World War II, the world became bi-polar and witnessed the ideological confrontation between the USSR with its allies from Central and Eastern Europe and the Western European powers, allied this time under the leadership of the United States.

In order to preserve the ideological status quo in Western and Central Europe and to prevent a potential military invasion by the USSR, the Americans inaugurated the NATO alliance in 1949, in which Germany was also included as a member. Soon thereafter the Soviets created their own alliance coordinated by Moscow, the Warsaw Pact, with all the satellite countries from Central and Eastern Europe which -after 1945 - had been forced to adopt the communist system of government and accept the presence of troops on their territories. 

By 1989 the Soviets decided that the military occupation of satellite countries and the enforcement of communist orthodoxy there had become counterproductive. Accordingly, they decided to call back their troops, to give up their political monopoly within the satellite countries of Central and Eastern Europe and to dissolve the Warsaw Pact. Furthermore, in 1991 the USSR imploded and the emerging Russia abandoned its centrally-planned economy, adopting a version of a market-oriented capitalist system.

Finding itself victorious against Soviet communism and having successfully prevented a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, the United States made the bizarre decision, however, to maintain the NATO alliance even after its objectives had been fully met. Moreover, although Russia ceased to be the military threat it had once been to Western Europe, NATO expanded eastwards in 2 waves, in 1997 and 2004, via the inclusion of former Soviet satellites (Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria) or territories (the Baltic States), to the great disquiet of Moscow. 

In truth, over the past 3 decades NATO has become a veritable zombie alliance, which is highly detrimental to most of its European allies and -since 2014- a menace to peace in Europe. Its planned expansion to Finland and Sweden cannot hide for long its true character or the need to replace it with a pan-EU security organisation, as consistently requested by France since the Iraq invasion of 2003.

In the 21st century new military and political alliances have appeared. In Eurasia the most important is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), which includes China, Russia, four of the five Central Asian "stans" and India. The main focus of this alliance is that of preventing or defeating Islamic extremism or terrorism in the region.

A few years ago the Japanese, the US, Australia and India have agreed to create the Quad, an organisation aimed at containing China, which - like CENTO and SEATO before it - would not live up to its objectives. 

Finally, the Americans, the Australians and the British decided to form the AUKUS alliance two years ago, aimed at managing the decline of US hegemony and at preventing its members from being attacked or defeated militarily (after the dissolution of NATO it is highly likely that Canada will join it as well). AUKUS is, therefore, one of the few new security alliances that are highly cohesive internally and it has all the chances of becoming one of the leading security organisations of this century.

WHY I DON'T TAKE SIDES IN THE WAR IN GAZA

 It may come as a surprise to readers of my geopolitics blog  that I have avoided - and will continue to avoid - taking sides in the conflict pitching Israelis against Palestinians in Gaza. 

The reasons are however quite simple. As a Romanian-Australian historian having specialised in Toulouse in international relations and geopolitics, my professional interests are exclusively focused on developments happening around Romania and, by extension, in Eurasia. This is why I have devoted most of my professional attention to the war in Ukraine in the past twenty months, as well as before that, since 2014. Sadly, Romania still has more than half a million ethnic Romanians living, or dying on the battlefields in Ukraine, and unfortunately it has been flooded with hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees since February 2022. 

As Romania was for more than two decades a satellite of China during the Ceausescu regime, I have also paid special attention to China's spreading influence in Eastern Europe, before and after 1989.

By the same token, Russia was an important actor in the evolution of the Romanian principalities during the Middle Ages, as well as a leading power involved in the major developments affecting the history of the modern Romanian state since the unification in 1859. 

My professional interest in the major events happening within the EU has  deepened since 2007, when Romania was admitted as a member. 

My acquired knowledge of events from parts of the Arab world dates back to 2010-2011, when I was studying for my masters degree at Sciences Po in Toulouse. My research thesis then was concerned with the evolution of the EU's relations with the Maghreb countries. My thesis did not include research or references to events in the Mashreq ,nor did I acquire the necessary in-depth historical information about these areas.

After World War II, the US replaced European powers - the British and the French- in the Middle East, becoming its sole peace and security provider. Consequently, I have usually paid only scant attention to developments there. I have always considered it a huge mistake,for example,  and an illustration of his megalomania the fact that Ceausescu had cultivated political leaders from the Middle East, like Yasset Arafat , or that he tried - albeit unsuccessfully - to play the role of peacemaker between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

A comparative analysis of the way major powers have governed the Arabs from the Middle East over the past few hundred years reveals the fact that the Ottomans were by far much more adept at keeping the peace among Arabs than the West has over the last  hundred years. Naturally, having the same religion as the Arabs in the Middle East or North Africa has helped the Ottoman Turks keep the peace in those regions until 1918 when the Sultanate imploded. Unfortunately, the skills of various Western administrators, including the Americans, were not up the task of keeping the Middle East stable and the Arabs pacified .

This above comment, however, should not be understood as an endorsement of President Erdogan's latest speech in Istanbul on behalf of the Palestinians from Gaza. Although his first decade in power was very successful, Erdogan has slowly but surely torpedoed his main achievements during his second decade at the helm. Trying to bask in the glory of his Ottoman predecessors, or of that of Kemal Ataturk, will not help the efforts to stabilise the Middle East or put an end to the conflict in Gaza. 

A FAREWELL TO THE REPUBLIC OF ARTSAKH

It is generally assumed that international relations graduates from IEP in Toulouse contribute little, if at all, to the management of international crises or their resolution. As always, there are exceptions to this rule.

The decision of the Armenian leaders of the Nagorno Karabakh enclave (Azerbaijan) to evacuate the province and relocate the entire population from there to the interior of the Armenian state is a step in the right direction. It brings to an end several decades of military confrontation between the Azeri Muslim majority and the Armenian Christian minority.

On August 4, 2023, I commented on an article about Armenians in the Azeri province signed by Srdja Trifkovic (Chronicles Magazine), stating that :

" Now, returning to the dire situation of the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, I must say that I do not believe that there are any diplomatic or military solutions to this geopolitical problem. I also believe that the absorption of the 150,000 Armenians living there into the Armenian state proper is a much more logical and practical solution. After all, this is what the state of Israel has been doing for decades: absorbing Jews from countries where their ordinary life and religion are threatened."

I am now happy to hear that the Armenian authorities have reached the same conclusion and reacted accordingly.

Incredibly as this might sound, however, the bureaucrats of the US State Department would like Azerbaidjan to create the conditions for the RETURN of the 100,000 Armenians who already fled Nagorno Karabakh for the safety of Armenia. Their stance calls into question their ability to conduct American foreign affairs in Eurasia.

What is BRICS' Global Agenda ?

 BRICS is putting together the world's biggest balance of power mechanism to date.

*

By now we all know who was the ‘godfather’ of BRICS. In 2001 as chief economist at Goldman Sachs, Jim O’Neill used the acronym BRIC in a research paper. At the time, grouping together Brazil, Russia, India and China made a lot of sense, as Western capitals were eager to invest in faster-growing developing economies. 

The launch of BRICS unfortunately coincided with the launch of America’s Athenian-styled informal empire, which aimed to become the sole global hegemon economically, politically and militarily. 

Such hubristic ambitions greatly alarmed most emerging economic powerhouses, like China and Brazil, as well as India and Russia. Two decades later, BRICS’ combined share of global GDP is already higher than that of the G7 nations. The US, the leader of G7 , has these days a share of only 16 percent of global GDP, a far cry from the 50 percent it enjoyed back in 1945. 

Undaunted, the Americans are willing to risk an all-out war with the leading members of BRICS, China and Russia, in the hope of clinging to the self-appointed position of global hegemon. With this objective in mind, the US is dragging along both G7 and the members of the NATO alliance, a fact which actually elevates the importance of BRICS even more, according to the same Jim O’Neill:

“I think if I go right back to my initial paper, I cannot believe how narrow-minded or naïve leaders in the G7 countries are. The whole idea that this group of seven “industrialised” or “more developed” or “earlier developed” countries can run the world is embarrassing. Because, first of all, their share of the world GDP has declined. Japan’s not shown any net increase in its GDP for 20 years. Italy virtually never grows. So, this idea that they are some kind of thing for the whole world to follow is erroneous.

And then on top of it, G7 is effectively a hostage to whatever Washington wants. So how do you solve the mammoth global issues of our time with just those guys ? I mean, it’s embarrassing and that’s quite depressing, because the whole reason why I created the BRICS was to suggest we needed a better form of global governance than the G7.” (interview in African Business, June 1st, 2023)

After more than 20 years, from an economic grouping meant to rival the G7, BRICS morphed into an alliance of countries determined to thwart, in any way possible, the US’ drive for global hegemony. 

Not too many experts are clear about this, and quite possibly not even most BRICS members realise the fact that they actually helped put together a classic, European-style balance of power mechanism, meant to contain and defeat America’s global leadership ambitions.

Sure, there are many differences and even frictions among the leading BRICS countries. These, however, do not interfere with the main item on the 

BRICS’ agenda, namely that of stopping American hegemonism in its tracks. 

This is the key to understanding why more than 20 countries on all continents have expressed a desire to join the group at the recent BRICS summit in Johannesburg. Tired of being bullied by the US and to have their sovereignty diminished, these aspiring countries have decided to side with the BRICS in its quest to contain and defeat America’s hegemonic designs. 

To be sure, the size of this balance of power mechanism put together by BRICS under own eyes is unprecedented as far as size goes and is global in scope, as well. It includes not only Russia and China – the world’s largest and the world’s most populous countries, but also leading countries from Africa and South America. 

With its great economic and human resources , BRICS is fully able - economically and militarily - to tilt the balance in favour of developing countries for good, and thus put a stop to the absurd hegemonic ambitions of the US and its Western allies.

Europe for Europeans

Two hundred years years ago, President Monroe asked the European powers of the time to stop interfering in the affairs of their former colonies, in the Americas. It is now time Europeans ask the US to reciprocate, in order for the EU to be able to build its own security architecture on the continent.

*

In his speech before the US Congress on the 2nd of December 1823, US President Monroe outlined what has since become known the "America for Americans" doctrine:

"It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course..."

By and large, European powers heeded Monroe's call. Now it is  European leaders who need to call on the Americans to reciprocate and to dissolve the NATO alliance,  thus enabling European countries to make their own security arrangements.

At the end of the Cold War, German Foreign Minister Genscher, French President Mitterrand and Soviet leader Gorbachev fully expected NATO to be dismantled, as the Warsaw Pact was. They intended to create a new European security architecture, which would have included Russia, but excluded NATO and the United States. The project was rejected out of hand by American leaders, who decided to not only keep NATO going, but opted for its eastward expansion after the implosion of the USSR.

Since 1999, NATO ceased to be a guarantor of peace on the European continent. It started a series of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now, by proxy, in Ukraine.

As of two years ago, NATO even intends to drag European nations into military confrontations in the Indo-Pacific with China, a drive which leading European nations oppose. 

Although most leading IR specialists believe that the current war in Ukraine is a result of NATO's expansion, the fact remains that this is but a consequence of not dismantling NATO in 1991.

Accordingly, today's European leaders should collectively push for the dissolution of the Alliance and for its replacement by a collective security arrangement, not only autonomous but independent of the United States.

In truth, stopping NATO's expansion and the neutrality of Ukraine will not address the root cause of Europe's security woes and will not guarantee that Europe can become again a peaceful continent.

As matters now stand, European nations are captive to a military alliance  emulating  Athens' ancient Delian League, which has become toxic to most of its members. It is therefore not in the interest of Europeans to continue to be part of an alliance that has been redefined after 2000 as an instrument of American global hegemonism.

IS PENTAGON'S PRESENCE GOOD FOR AFRICA ?

 " We entered the region in force. We were looking, in particular, at how the U.S. strategy toward the Sahel is working. That's a strategy that we put in place about a year ago to try to bring more coherence to our efforts to support increased security," ( Victoria Nuland, 2022 )

After the start of the "war against terrorism", the Pentagon also appeared in Africa, managed until then by Europeans. The "results" were not long in coming: in the last 15 years, there have been 7 coups, led by local officers trained in the United States by the Pentagon (in Mali, Mauritania and Burkina Faso),eight if we include the recent military coup from Niger.

" Technically, the United States is not at war in Africa. But the practice and terminology of the US-led War on Terror has changed, making the US military’s involvement more difficult to trace. In the past 15 years, the US government has quietly expanded its military footprint across the African continent, engaging in “special operations” with African troops in the name of security. Since the 2007 establishment of the Africa Command (AFRICOM), the defense department’s regional combatant command for Africa, the US has adopted a military-first approach to securing its interests on the continent. This has had disastrous effects. Whether it’s the seemingly endless (undeclared) war against the militant group Al-Shabaab in Somalia or the wave of coups (in many cases led by US-trained officers), AFRICOM has contributed to the very instability it claims to address." ( Samar al-Bulushi)

In other words,  according to Nuland, all the coups mentioned above - directed against democratically elected governments - have had the objective of "bringing more coherence" in supporting "security efforts" in the Sahel region. In reality, the US military presence by proxy in Africa was the root cause for the spread of military anarchy in  Sahel.