Garbis Altınoğlu
20-22 April 2003
The “New” Strategy of American imperialism
A great many people would agree on US imperialism being the main enemy
of the workers and peoples of the world. But, apart from this somewhat
too general statement, one should carefully consider the present course
of American imperialist strategy and try to understand its specific
dynamics.
The January 26, 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton from the Project
for the New American Century prepared by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and
Kristol, the May 29, 1998 letter prepared once again by these people and
sent this time to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate
Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott and the January 23, 2003 letter
written by Kristol, Woolsey and others to President George W. Bush were
milestones in the evolution of this strategy. In all these letters, the
recipients were urged to topple Saddam Hussein regime, to greatly
increase military spending, to bypass the UN and act in a more arbitrary
and brutal way, to station ”a strong US military presence in the region,
and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the
Gulf” and to adopt a “preemptive” and more aggressive strategy “that
would secure the interests of the US and our friends and allies (that
is, of Israel-my note) around the world.”
We are also aware of a March 2002 document, the so-called Defense
Planning Guidance. This document asserted that “America’s political and
military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure that no
rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the
territories of the former Soviet Union.” It was this document, which
would lay the basis for the so-called “national security strategy” of US
imperialism released in September 2002.
It would, of course, be a great mistake to attribute this more
aggressive orientation of American monopoly capital just or mainly to
the work of some very influential figures and to “the Bush
administration.” It should be born in mind that, US imperialist policy
was already evolving in this direction during the whole period following
the fall of revisionist/ social-imperialist Soviet Union. Despite the
liberal-imperialist rhetoric of the Clinton era, this new turn in the
strategy of US imperialism was becoming visible as far back as 1992. In
February 1992, US “Defense” Department issued its draft “Defense
Planning Guidance.” This plan frankly stated:
“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival
either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that
poses a threat of the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.”
But, this “new” direction was not very clearly formulated and actively
embraced during the Clinton administrations, which represented the
somewhat more cautious approach of the earlier period characterizing
less aggressive sections of American monopoly capital. This, of course,
does not mean that Clinton era was moderate, with regard to the
practical stand of US imperialism. The massacre of Somali people under
the pretext of “humanitarian assistance”, intervention in Haiti, pursuit
of policy of “dual containment” against Iraq and Iran, systematic
bombing of Iraqi military and civilian targets, maintenance of the
silent genocide of Iraqi people through UN sanctions, continuing support
to the criminal Jewish state, bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan in
retaliation for the bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,
approval of the so-called “Iraqi Liberation Act” and financing of the
puppet Iraqi National Congress, US aggression against Yugoslavia without
even a formal authorization from the UN, political and military support
for various fascist and reactionary states, such as Indonesia, Pakistan,
Turkey etc. were hallmarks of the Clinton era.
* * *
* *
The important thing now, is to try to analyze the present situation
under the light of historical experience and in comparison with the rise
of fascism on the eve of the Second World War, assess the prospect of
revolutionary struggle of workers and peoples against US imperialist
domination of the world and draw the necessary conclusions with regard
to political and organizational work. Here, I intend to make only some
introductory remarks on this very broad subject, bearing in mind the
fact that historical analogies have always had a limited value.
Paralels With the Pre-World War II Era
It can be rightly said that, the US is playing a similar role to that of
Germany (or the axis of Germany, Japan and Italy) in the 1930s. But,
there are significant differences as well. Let’s try to make a
historical comparison to get a proper perspective.
1. In a way the US is even more dangerous than Nazi Germany. This is so,
because, the level of military technology and destructive capacity of
the weapons at its disposal far surpass those of Nazi Germany. Rapid
advance of military technology has increased the comparative superiority
of the strike capacity of imperialist countries vis-a-vis that of less
developed ones and popular revolutionary forces. And the “wars” in
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq have amply demonstrated the growing
military-technological gap between the US and its actual and potential
victims. (1)
2. Relatively speaking, the US is bigger and more powerful than the
pre-Second World War Germany with reference to population and land mass
and also seems to be more self-sufficient with respect to natural
resources. Besides, the geographical isolation of the US and the
presence of a friendly and another almost Anglo-Saxon country to the
north (that is, Canada) provides it with further protection from its
potential rivals and enemies.
3. During the previous confrontations and crises, the economic,
political and military strength of different imperialist countries were
more or less balanced. At present, however, the US is much more powerful
than its rivals, especially in the military field. Together with the
relative economic decline of the US in accordance with the law of uneven
development of capitalism (2), this is another factor inciting US
imperialists to resort to brute force for the protection and promotion
of their interests. In fact this whole doctrine of “preemptive war”
appears to be targeting other imperialists as well, who shall be in a
more advantageous position vis-a-vis the US, if inter-imperialist
competition is allowed to progress in a “peaceful way”. However, both
the laws governing the development of capitalism and the historical
record of imperialism show the impossibility of peaceful resolution of
disagreements and rivalry among imperialist powers. (3)
So, the so-called Bush doctrine is not so irrational as it seems at
first glance. Apart from intimidating the workers and peoples, the US
wants to preempt its rivals by an attempt to gain greater control over
oil and other resources and vital strategic regions, by strengthening
Israel, its close ally and by its military presence and threats.
4. The absence of a strong socialist country (such as the USSR of the
1930s and 1940s) and that of an extensive and influential world
communist movement, makes the position of workers, progressive masses
and movements opposing imperialism still more difficult and complicated.
This is so, because, especially in more advanced countries, the mass
actions of workers and youth are in general led by bourgeois-democratic
or petty-bourgeois groups, whom the monopoly bourgeoisie and its state
apparatus can easily manipulate or deceive. Under these conditions, it
is somewhat more difficult to mobilize the mounting anger of the masses
at the arrogance and aggression of US imperialism, and even more
difficult to sustain this struggle, to conduct it in an effective manner
and to provide the masses with clear and correct objectives.
There are, of course, significant countervailing factors at work as
well. Let’s enumerate and consider them.
1. The US is a far less monolithic power than the Nazi Germany (or
imperial Japan) of the second half of the 1930s. This is not a reference
to the presence of a quite extensive and definitely not insignificant
mass opposition to imperialist war in the US, which might prove quite
weak in the medium term. Historically the US has been much less
centralized (or more federalist) than Nazi Germany, which was burdened
with a tradition of feudal-military Junker reaction. To this, one might
add, the widespread –and not essentially progressive- distrust
entertained towards the federal government by almost all sections of the
population, growing ethnic diversity of American society, gradual waning
of the influence of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite and maybe the
rifts in the ranks of American monopoly capital conveniently hidden for
the moment thanks to the “easy” victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. (4)
2. The workers and peoples of the world have lived through First and
Second World Wars; they have also lived through the accompanying and
following social upheavals. Although the memory of these struggles have
faded to some extent, especially in Europe and the US, even in these
privileged regions there still exists at least a widespread and strong
anti-militaristic and latent anti-fascist sentiment. Moreover, the
present course of events is reviving the collective memory of workers
and peoples and educating them in the heat of the struggle. The global
resistance against mounting and unbridled US aggression and attack on
civil liberties in the wake of the events 11 September are merging with
the resistance against the ongoing neo-liberal attack of the bourgeoisie
on the the working class and the movement against corporate
globalization. All these factors contribute to the sharpening of already
matured class contradictions. So, we can expect this mass movement
against war and fascism to assume a more radical and maybe
anti-capitalist form and content in paralel with the growth of US-led
aggression.
3. The workers and peoples of semi-colonial and colonial countries, have
experienced the atrocities of imperialists and their puppets before and
since 1945 and have conducted extensive struggles against their
imperialist and capitalist masters. This is especially true for the
peoples of the Middle East, Central Asia and Southern/Southeastern Asia,
who remain the target of US imperialism at the moment. They watch the US
with feelings of intense hostility and deep suspicion, which are further
strengthened by the events in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq.
US-British plans to extend their aggression to Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia
etc. are deepening and will continue to deepen both the hostility
towards and determination to resist invaders and will, no doubt lead and
already is leading to the emergence and consolidation of more radical
resistance organizations.
4. Both the very much advanced level of degeneration of capitalism in
imperialist countries and the present relatively high standards of
living, in addition to the unjust character of imperialist wars, make
ordinary soldiers very reluctant to put their lives in harm’s way.
(Incidentally, this is another reason why, the ratio of poor workers and
those of Negro and Latin origin is so high in the US armed forces.)
Therefore, though equipped with high-tech weapons and therefore able to
inflict very high losses on the armies and civilian populations of
target countries, rank and file and lower ranks of US imperialist armed
forces lack the motivation and determination to conduct a long and
bloody war. Besides, both immediate family members and public in general
are very sensitive to casualties. That’s the reason why since the war in
Vietnam, US blood is rarely shown and very few US wounded or dead appear
on American TV screens. (5)
5. On the other hand, in the medium term, overstretched US imperialists
will find themselves encircled in several countries by hostile masses,
who will be waging a “low intensity war” against them. Under these
circumstances, they cannot successfully maintain their aggression and
achieve a so-called “full-spectrum dominance” without the extensive use
of weapons of mass destruction, including mini and regular nuclear
weapons. However, as the recent experience of “wars” in Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan and especially Iraq has shown, not only world progressive
public opinion, but world public opinion in general would be very much
opposed to the widespread use of so-called weapons of mass destruction
and especially to that of nuclear weapons by the US. This has been
proved by the fact that the influence of the events of 11 September on
the general public in the West waned rapidly, especially in the wake of
the American aggression against Afghanistan, despite extensive
chauvinist and militaristic propaganda. Even a second Pearl Harbour-type
event will not be sufficient to secure real and sustained domestic
support for a war of aggression of significant proportions. So, perhaps
together with Engels we can speak of the play of “… those inherent
dialectical laws of motion on the basis of which militarism, like every
other historical phenomenon, is being brought to its doom in consequence
of its own development.” (Anti-Dühring, Moscow, Progress Publishers,
1978, p. 213)
6. Notwithstanding the liquidation of the world communist movement and
the absence of true vanguard parties of the proletariat in a great
majority of countries, the world is objectively nearer to a socialist
revolution than ever. Forces of production are in open rebellion against
capitalist relations of production.Rapid growth of income equalities
both between the “rich” and “poor” countries and within the “rich”
countries themselves, universal attack on formerly won social and
economic rights of workers, progressive destruction of the environment
and depletion of natural resources, fostering of fascist, racist,
militarist and anti-democratic tendencies and violation of the norms of
bourgeois “rule of law” even in traditionally bourgeois-democratic
countries, exposure of inhuman characteristics of capitalism (silent
genocide of African toilers at the hands of AIDS related diseases,
savagery of imperialist war machines, including the establishment of
concentration camps and systematic killing of civilians and prisoners of
war, as in Jenin and Mazar-i Sharif, preparations for the military
control of most basic necessities, such as water etc.) further erode the
fictious legitimacy of bourgeois society and demonstrate more clearly
than ever the bankruptcy of capitalism and the necessity of a socialist
revolution to solve the basic problems of humankind.
* *
* * *
Here I have to underline another significant difference between the
pre-World War II era and the present. At that time, apart from the
existence of a strong socialist country (that is, the U.S.S.R.), the
might of opposing imperialist powers were more or less evenly matched.
At present, however, the US enjoys overwhelming, though temporary,
superiority vis-a-vis all other powers especially in the military field.
This state of affairs forces second rate imperialist powers to follow a
policy of appeasement and more or less rules out the likelihood of
direct war among imperialist countries in the near future. (6) It,
however, does not in any way diminish the gravity and sharpness of
inter-imperialist contradictions. Although cowed and seemingly
submitting in the face of the overt and covert threats of the US, other
imperialist powers are trying to and shall continue to try to undercut
the hegemony of Washington neo-fascists and contain them. So, conflicts
and contradictions among imperialist powers, not to mention the
conflicts and contradictions among imperialism led by the US on the one
hand and semi-colonies on the other, shall continue to act as “indirect
reserves” of the proletariat and other toilers in their struggle for
democracy and socialism. It can even be said that the growing aggressive
posture of US imperialism increases the importance of these “indirect
reserves” rather than the opposite.
Two Further Points
I’ll reflect on two further points which seem to cut both ways, but in
the final analysis favor the workers and peoples of the world. The first
is the ongoing revolution in media communication. On the one hand, this
revolution enables the imperialist bourgeoisie to manipulate public
opinion on a scale unprecedented in the history of mankind before,
witness the effect of corporate media in forming or rather deforming
public opinion in the US. However, we should also point out the fact
that despite a continuous barrage of lies and brainwashing going on for
years and decades, US imperialists have not been able to generate solid
and reliable support even among American people for their warmongering
policies. On the other hand, the establishment of different and rival
national TV stations with the ability to broadcast on a regional or
global scale and the growth of an opposition media with the help of
rapidly growing local radio stations and the internet may more than
counterbalance the abovementioned advantages of the ruling classes.
The second point relates to the crusader motif and clash of civilizations approach imparted by US neo-fascists to their wars of aggression. Apart from Muslim workers and peoples, to some extent, US imperialism also targets the bourgeois strata and states, who do not fully “cooperate” with American overlords, prompting the so-called rogue states to “oppose” US hegemony. At this historical moment, characterized by the feebleness of the influence of socialist ideals and the absence of true Communist Parties with extensive ties to the toiling masses, this policy of the US inevitably contributes to the strengthening of radical Islamist trends and imparts an Islamist color to the resistance against US-led aggression on the Muslim world. The result of this state of affairs can be described as a mixed blessing.
On the one hand, the logic of the struggle in the Muslim world against US imperialism is pushing and shall push the yet very weak vanguards of the proletariat into close cooperation with Islamic resistance organizations, notwithstanding the fact that these allies will prove to be temporary, unreliable and vacillating and maybe even treacherous. But more importantly, the present situation in the Muslim world, provides vanguard of the proletariat with the opportunity to tap the immense revolutionary potential of hundreds of millions of Muslim toilers. On the other hand, by stirring feelings of religious confrontation and therefore serving the non-compradore sections of Muslim bourgeoisie to consolidate their hold on workers and toilers, the rise of Islamic radicalism is damaging and shall damage the prospects of development of consistent revolutionary-democratic and anti-imperialist struggles of Muslim masses. (7)
As the example of Iranian Islamic revolution of 1979 has
demonstrated, these forces will not hesitate to turn their guns on the
vanguard of the proletariat (and other revolutionary groups) right after
(and maybe even before) any meaningful victory over imperialist invaders
and their lackeys. They also will try to defraud the revolutionary
masses of their gains after the defeat of imperialist invaders and/or
overthrow of puppet regimes. This, however, cannot be taken as a pretext
to promote a sectarian line and reject temporary alliances with Islamic
(or other) forces, so long as they fight against the main enemy. To do
otherwise, would mean isolating oneself from the fighting masses,
shedding all claim to establish the hegemony of the proletariat and lead
the workers and other toilers in the struggle for democracy and
socialism. In speaking about Marxist tactics and the importance of
gaining mass allies, Lenin said:
“It is possible to conquer the more powerful enemy only by exerting the
utmost effort, and by necessarily, thoroughly, carefully, attentively
and skilfully taking advantage of every, even the smallest ‘fissure’
among the enemies, of every antagonism of interest among the bourgeoisie
of the various countries; by taking advantage of every, even the
smallest opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally be
temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional.” (“
‘Left-Wing’ Communism, An Infantile Disorder”, Selected Works, Vol 10,
London, Lawrence & Wishart, 1938, p. 112)
A Note of Caution
However, it maybe necessary to add a note of caution here. Application
of flexible tactics and working together with temporary, vacillating,
unstable, unreliable and conditional mass allies, presupposes the
presence of a true vanguard party of the proletariat, firmly based on
Marxism-Leninism and with at least some ties to the advanced sections of
the working class. Without the fulfillment of this precondition, all
talk or attempts at following a flexible tactical line and working
together with allies will prove to be empty talk and/or result in
khvostism. The awakening and organization of working class, both in
semi-colonial and advanced capitalist countries, its socialist education
and elevation to the leading position of the mass movement remains the
sole guarantee for the evetual defeat of warmongering activity
imperialism led by criminal US imperialists and their allies and
puppets.
And without the overthrow of capitalism, victory of socialist revolution
and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat in at least
some of the most advanced and decisive countries, danger of fascism,
militarism and imperialist war shall continue to remain on the agenda of
humanity. Emergence of a powerful global peace movement targeting US
imperialism and its allies, growth of radical Islamic and other
resistance movements in the Muslim world and elsewhere serve more and
more to expose, isolate and arrest the imperialist aggression led by
Washington neo-fascists. However, although these movements can at times
deal hard blows at aggressors and foil their plans, they cannot
eliminate the danger of imperialist war. Discussing the prospects of the
peace movement in his “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”,
Stalin said:
“What is most likely is that the present day peace movement, as a
movement for the preservation of peace, will, if it suceeds, result in
preventing a particular war, in its temporary postponement, in the
temporary preservation of a particular peace, in the resignation of a
bellicose government and its supersession by another that is prepared
temporarily to keep the peace. That, of course, will be good. Even very
good. But, all the same, it will not be enough to eliminate the
inevitability of wars between capitalist countries generally. It will
not be enough, because, for all the successes of the peace movement,
imperialism will remain, continue in force- and consequently, the
inevitability of wars will continue in force.
“To eliminate the inevitability of war, it is necessary to abolish
imperialism.” (Bruce Franklin, The Essential Stalin, New York, Anchor
Books, 1972, pp. 472-73)
NOTES
(1) From the point of view of states or non-state actors, this state of
affairs should be expected to decrease the importance of conventional
methods and tactics of warfare and increase that of guerilla-type
warfare in the widest sense of the word and across the board. This may
be one of the reasons, why US imperialists rail very strongly against
suicide bombings and similar actions and try to disgrace them. On the
other hand, it would be a very grave mistake for revolutionary forces to
ignore the implications of and the opportunities offered by the
development of military technology, including the field of cyber war.
(2) Although China, Japan, Russia or an alliance of two or more
imperialist countries may challenge the supremacy of the US, in the
foreseeable future the real threat to the economic dominance of the US
may be coming from the European Union. Over the next couple of years,
the US will be struggling to cope with huge amounts of military
expenditures, which will rapidly increase in line with its growing
aggression all around the world and will slowly be crushed under the
almost unbearable weight of its military commitments and that of the
military-industrial complex. And the EU should be expected to become a
major rival power in the coming decades, despite its short-term
difficulties, which have been blown up out of all proportion. In his
article “The End of the West”, published in the November 2002 issue of
The Atlantic Monthly, Charles Kupchan had made the following essentially
correct analysis:
“The EU’s annual economic output has reached about $8 +trillion,
compared with America’s $10 trillion, and the euro will soon threaten
the dollar’s global dominance. Europe is strengthening its collective
consciousness and character and forging a clearer sense of interests and
values that are quite distinct from those of the US. The EU’s member
states are debating the adoption of a Europe-wide constitution (a move
favored by two thirds of the union’s population), building armed forces
capable of operating independently of the US military, and striving to
project a single voice in the diplomatic arena. As the EU fortifies its
governmental institutions and takes in new members (Poland, Hungary, the
Czech Republic, and at least four other countries are expected to join
in 2004), it will become a formidable counterweight to the US on the
world stage. The transatlantic rivalry that has already begun will
inevitably intensify. Centers of power by their nature compete for
position, influence, and prestige.”
However, it would be a grave mistake to suggest, as some writers do,
that a more civilized alternative to the savage imperialism of the US
can be found inside the framework of capitalism. Throughout the history
of 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, all major capitalist powers have shown
times and again that they can be as ferocious as the US.
(3) A study conducted by the CIA in January 2002 (“Global Trends 2015: A
Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernmental Experts”) considers four
different scenarios for the future and ends with a negative and
pessimistic note:
“In all four scenarios, US global influence wanes.”
(4) As the growing resistance in Afghanistan shows, US aggressors are
far from having won a victory even in this impoverished country. Anthony
Davis, in his article to Jane’s Intelligence Review (“Afghan security
deteriorates as Taliban regroup”) has stated:
“After a winter punctuated by scattered attacks, March and April saw
the closest to a co-ordinated offensive the anti-Kabul opposition has
yet achieved. This left no doubt that the predominantly Pashtun forces
aligned against the western-backed government of President Hamid Karzai
had used the winter to regroup, train and achieve a far greater degree
of organisational cohesion than was evident in 2002. An ad hoc alliance
comprising Taliban remnants, the Hizb-i-Islami Afghanistan (HIA) faction
of former mujahideen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and groups of Al-Qaeda
stragglers now appears increasingly to be co-ordinating its command
structures and support and logistics networks…
“Rocket attacks have gained both in frequency and intensity. Whereas
last year one or two missiles was the norm, salvos are now being fired.
There have also been barrages of mortar fire.
“Rocket attacks targeted US bases in the provinces of Kunar, Nangahar, Paktia, Khost, Paktika, Kandahar and Uruzgan. On 29 March, two US military personnel, a Special Forces soldier and a National Guard airman, were killed in an ambush near Girishk in Helmand province. The following evening, the headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in central Kabul was hit by a 122mm rocket, while another missile landed near the Kabul Military Training Centre on the eastern edge of the city.
“At the same time, the opposition has displayed greater aggressiveness both in attacking US Special Forces beyond their bases, and in concentrating larger numbers of fighters. The planting of mines on roads used by US patrols, which was begun last year, continues; but is now being reinforced with close-in ambushes.”
(5) This state of affairs also highlights the growing importance of
revolutionary and anti-militarist work in the ranks of the armed forces
of imperialists and their puppets, with an eye to the neutralization and
disintegration of this bastion of the exploiting classes. At the moment,
one of the most important tasks of advanced workers and Communist
Parties is to organize such work and to encourage the more militant
sections of the anti-war movement to do likewise. This work should also
cover the promotion of resistance of workers and youth to the transfer
war materiel for imperialist armies and that of the movement for
conscientious objection.
As far back as 1920, Lenin had stressed the importance of conducting
revolutionary work inside the military. In “The Conditions of
Affiliation to the Communist International” Lenin said:
“4. Persistent and systematic propaganda and agitation must be carried
on among the armed forces and Communist nuclei must be formed in every
military unit.” (Selected Works, Cilt 10, Londra, Lawrence & Wishart,
1938, p. 202)
(6) There may be other reasons behind the appeasement and collusion
policies of Germany, France, China, Russia and Japan, than the relative
weakness of these imperialist wolves. At least, some of these powers may
be eagerly watching the arrogant and almost military-imperialist US to
get itself bogged down in the quagmire of a series of unwinnable wars.
At the moment, apart from having stationed its troops in dozens of
countries all around the world, the US imperialists are actively engaged
in combat operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia, the Philippines and
are getting prepared to attack Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and maybe North
Korea and others. Both the historical experience of the era of
colonialism and imperialism and the recent experience of US aggression
in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrates and will continue to demonstrate
the fact that, despite all their bluster and disinformation campaign,
they are fighting losing battles.
(7) In the medium term, this may even provide a revitalized, united and
more self-confident imperialist Europe with an opportunity to make
inroads into the Muslim world. One might conveniently remember the
example of German imperialism led by Kaiser Wilhelm II, at the beginning
of the 20th century, which under the guise of friend of Islam, tried
somewhat successfully to turn the decrepit Ottoman Empire into its
dependency and to weaken the position of British colonialism in Africa,
the Middle East and India. But, apart from that, the attempt of the US
to turn the whole world into its own backyard is already meeting
resistance from other imperialist powers and this trend is on the rise.
Referring to G. W. Bush’s argument as to American intentions to prevent
the formation of any power blocs opposing the might of the US, Stanley
Kober, in his article in China Morning Post, said:
“Foreign governments have taken note. Some have decided to bind
themselves closely to the United States, seeing American power as the
guarantee of their security. But other countries have adopted a
different approach. In November of last year the People’s Daily stressed
the growing importance of the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO)
and boasted that ‘China-Russian relations remain better than
Russian-U.S. ties.’
“India has also indicated a desire to join the SCO, which would then
unite the major countries of Eurasia in a common security organization.
As P. B. Mehta, professor of law and philosophy at India’s Jawaharlal
Nehru University, recently explained, ‘This war will almost certainly
result in a greater anti-Americanism around the world and may even
occasion a more concerted effort to build coalitions to challenge
American hegemony.’ ” (“The Realignment of the World”, China Morning
Post, April 3, 2003)