In no way does this suggest the USSR was somehow virtuous or represented
moral government. Far from it but a condemnation of the USSR does not
automatically indicate the USA deserves endorsement and vindication in all of
its actions. The either-or polarity that usually frames this question is a
classic case of the false dilemma.
Granted the struggle was already forming in places like
Greece and Berlin. The fall of Nationalist China in 1949 would rapidly expand
the nature of the Cold War but it was really the formation of NATO that alarmed
and really provoked the USSR to take a more overtly hostile posture to the
West. It was the final straw in a sequence of unfolding events going back to
the end of the war four years earlier. In virtually every case the USSR was
responding to perceived Western aggression.
The wartime alliance had been a relationship of convenience
and the USSR got the bad end of the deal... and they knew it. They clearly did
the bulk of the fighting, bore the brunt of the war against Germany and by far
paid the highest cost. It was also clear by the Casablanca Conference in 1943
that the US had aspirations beyond simply 'winning' the war. Unconditional
Surrender as declared by Roosevelt represented far more than a complete victory.
In the context of World War II it was a claim to re-draw the map of Europe and
Asia... essentially the world. No one in the West seems to pick up on the full
import of Roosevelt's statement. The implications were not just a tactical
declaration regarding the terms for concluding the war.
The Soviet discovery of America's plan for the atomic bomb
also changed the equation as this was understood as an absolute 'game-changer'
in terms of world geopolitics. When the US actually used the weapons on Japan
it sent a clear message to the world but especially to the USSR. The notion
that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 'necessary' in order to save American lives is
an old propaganda line that won't die. The truth is far different and certainly
paints American and Truman in a rather sinister light... thus it is de facto inconceivable and beyond the
pale. It is a thought-crime in the American system.
Some people ascribe the early development of the Cold War as
a case of miscommunication but others don't think so and neither do I. But
unlike most in the West I don't believe the Soviets were the aggressors. Though
complicated by a host of variables and tangential considerations, an argument
can be made that the United States was in fact the major aggressor, the power
determined to dominate the globe.
With regard to the regimes in Eastern Europe, these countries
had been recaptured from proxies of the Third Reich and were largely in a state
of disarray and ruin. The departure of Soviet troops would have generated
instant chaos and instability. The Soviets believed the military would have to
shepherd these nations in the formation of new regimes. Obviously for the
Soviets the stability they sought meant creating regimes in their own image and
they took steps to encourage the desired result. Like the US response to 9/11
the Russians believed 22 June, 1941 forever changed history. After losing 20
million people as a result of the German invasion, Russia could no longer
tolerate threats from Western Europe and they moved to make sure this could
never happen again. This far more than any notion of a communist international
(long abandoned by Stalin) drove the USSR's policies in Eastern Europe. The
creation of Cominform (1947-1956) was limited to states within the Soviet
sphere with two exceptions that of France and Italy. They were the only Western
European nations with significant communist parties and were thus early targets
of American manipulation and intrigue. In particular American involvement in
the 1948 Italian elections demonstrated the United States was not serious about
democracy. The American narrative was mere window dressing.
Stalin believed the Eastern European buffer had been guaranteed
at Moscow in 1944 and all but ratified at Yalta. Churchill the hero of the West
sold out Eastern Europe and to this day he is far from revered in their lands.
But by the time of Potsdam the US posture had changed. The US had a nuclear
weapon and the USSR was no longer being treated as an ally. The Russians felt
betrayed all along and this all but confirmed their fears. US intervention in
Greece, Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' speech in Independence Missouri and the
Marshall Plan were all perceived as moves against the USSR. The US rebuilding
of Germany, (remember the divisions into the FRG and GDR were not yet
formalised) looked like a move of aggression, let alone the currency
established by the West and how it was playing out in Berlin.
In addition there was the largely forgotten episode that took
place in Iran in 1946-47. The country had been occupied (conquered) by the
British and the USSR in 1941 in order to protect its oil resources from Germany
and leave open a supply route behind the Eastern Front. The USSR had grown
suspicious of British and US aggression with regard to oil concessions. The US
through Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon) was already negotiating with the
Iranian government in 1943.
What might begin as oil fields could quickly be transformed
into political proxies and military bases. Stalin did not relish the newly
aggressive and very powerful United States being on its frontiers. To the USSR
it seemed like they were being forced to withdraw from Iran while the British
and Americans would effectively take over and grab the oil, which is more or
less what they did. Taking advantage of already existing tensions between the
Persians and the Azeris and Kurds of the northwest, Stalin sought to create a
buffer but largely stood down in the face of US pressure. Ultimately his goals
were thwarted with the US backed 1953 coup and the re-establishment of the Shah.
This defeat and perceived betrayal was exacerbated by Turkey's admission to
NATO the year before in 1952. The USSR ended up with US allies (satellites) and
ultimately nuclear weapons on its frontiers.
In the spring of 1949 the US created both NATO and West
Germany. The Soviets defeated by the Berlin Airlift responded with creating the
GDR and just a few days later Mao proclaimed victory in the Chinese Civil War.
The Cold War was on and in the year following, events in Korea take things to
the next level.
West German entry into NATO in 1955 would lead Khrushchev to
form the Warsaw Pact.
The Americans continued to occupy the lands of Western Europe...
and largely still do. And rather than form openly
submissive 'satellites' the US worked clandestinely to throw elections and
manipulate the political and social systems of the various countries in order
to maintain control over its 'allies', i.e. the new order, the Pax Americana of Western Europe. The
United States was just as determined to control these Western prizes and made
the clandestine, military and economic moves to ensure this reality. The narrative
claims and veil of democracy have always meant the United States is forced to
cloak its naked and often brutal exercise of power. In the end the Western nations
were just as much 'satellites' as those in the East. Neither regime had
absolute control over them but effectively they were satrapies in the new
empires.
Both sides ultimately had their dissenters, Tito in the East
and de Gaulle in the West. Later after the Prague intervention of 1968 Hoxha
pulled Albania out of the Warsaw Pact and aligned with China. Eventually Ceausescu
also deviated and proved less than loyal to Moscow. Calculations were made by
both the USSR and USA but they often acted in different ways. In some cases
like in Greece, Turkey, France, Italy etc., coups and assassinations were in
order and the US did not hesitate to employ these means. The Soviet model was
clumsy and ultimately harmful in terms of public perception. They sent in the
tanks.
With regard to Asia we're seeing the US move aggressively
against China under false pretense and manufactured narrative. Apart from the
economic structure of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), they seek to form a
new trans-military quadrilateral alliance with Japan, Australia and India. While
Japan and Australia are already satrapies, the US seeks to incorporate India
and take the military and economic relationships to the next level.
With this established quadrilateral framework you can
ultimately look for nations like Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Sri Lanka,
Singapore and others to 'join'. There are other nations like Taiwan, Thailand
and South Korea which are already US allies but due to the particulars of their
situations would likely (at this time) avoid a more aggressive posture vis-à-vis
China. They can join economic treaties and forums but their membership in a new
Asian version of NATO would be a bit more tricky. But that could change and
their membership in a new military alliance would represent the same type of
escalation that provoked the USSR to act in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
Of course to counter similar American moves in Central Asia, China
has been working since the 1990s to form an East Asia bloc. This started as the
Shanghai Five (China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan). With the
later inclusion Uzbekistan they changed the name to the Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation (SCO).
Although the success of the SCO has been limited by
conflicting interests and US meddling it continues to function as a small check
to US aggression in the region. The fact that the SCO has agreed to take on
India and Pakistan (as observers) and yet continues to exclude the US from the
same status is an attempt by China and Russia to take over the narrative of the
region. Instead India's involvement will probably be the means of US influence
upon the group. As a less than full member India can't directly influence the
SCO but even observer status will facilitate a greater array of options and
potential back channels.
We can probably look for China and perhaps Russia to expand
the SCO into the Pacific and/or form some sort of new organisation. The problem
is... their potential allies are somewhat limited. Apart from maybe Malaysia,
Laos and Cambodia, there aren't a lot of options. North Korea is too volatile
and perhaps the most probable ally, the island nation of Sri Lanka has been all
but torn from the Chinese sphere of influence. Sometimes 'allies' have to be
convinced it would seem and every nation has its people that can be bought. The
SCO is the most likely tool China can wield as a political and economic check
on US power in Asia.
India's willingness to join the SCO may in time prove a point
of irritation to the US. While on the one hand its newly reinvigorated
relationship will help US influence with regard to the SCO bloc, India can also
use it as a point of leverage and maneuverability vis-à-vis the United States.
Contrary to the Western narrative, not all nations are thrilled to be US
allies. From their perspective it's a deal with the devil. There are benefits
but you risk losing your sovereignty and so many nations take measures to leave
a few options open. They join other organisations, sign trade deals and do
whatever they can to make sure they are not under the absolute control of the
United States.
Perhaps what is most striking about the recent outreach to
India is its blatancy and the way in which it is being overtly declared even in
the face of media scrutiny. The United States isn't even trying to be subtle.
It is unlikely any future president would completely dash these plans, yet the
Obama administration is desperately trying to establish the terms before it
exits the scene.
Indian PM Narendra Modi is riding quite high at the moment
and India's star is ascendant. These overtures may in fact be tactical, an
encouragement to Modi in order to get him to 'sign on' with US objectives... as
an 'almost' equal.
The US continues to expand its Pan-Turkic agenda in Central
Asia, by utilising Turkey, the Gulen Movement and the Grey Wolves. While partly
aimed at curbing Russian influence the real threat is posed to China and its
Turkic Uyghur population. If China is the target it makes us once again think
of Tibet. During the Cold War India played a role in facilitating US support of
the Tibetan opposition. In addition to supporting the exiled Dalai Lama, New Delhi
allowed the US access to air bases and to conduct operations in Nepal. The US
supplied the Tibetans and trained guerilla movements often airdropping them
into Tibet. This occurred even while the US and India were often less than
friendly. It was based on a common interest and one wonders if the US will not restore
and reconstitute the project. Some argue it already has and point to Western
hands at work in the 2008 Tibetan Uprising. Its scope and level of coordination
startled Beijing and led some to question its origins.
While the US media is happy to cover events that make China
look bad there is almost no coverage of US overtures and moves in the region to
counter China and establish these new alliances. There is no analysis or
contextualisation. The Chinese are simply portrayed as the 'bad guys' and the
media and entertainment industries are happy to reinforce these images. A new
propaganda machine is at work very similar to what took place during the Cold
War.
Finally if past is precedent the nations that seek to join
with the United States while certainly reaping a harvest of military/economic
benefits also place themselves in jeopardy. The United States has a long record
in some of these nations like the Philippines and Indonesia of internal
meddling, sometimes leading to death on a massive scale. An alliance invites
these types of machinations to reoccur and with East Asia being the central
theatre of the new struggle, their tempo and intensity (if it can be put that
way) is likely to increase. Once they sign on they will find it's not so easy
to depart. If they resist US subjugation they will face repression and likely
rule by a dictatorial proxy or satrap. They will bring war to their borders and
murder to their streets and they will find their militaries empowered and
emboldened to crush any internal dissent or even the voices that dare to
question the official narrative.
Already intrigue fills the back alleys, corridors of power,
shipyards, airports and corporate offices. The game is afoot and history
repeats itself. Decades from now will there be documentaries and investigative
reports about secret prisons, mass graves, lost children and secret bank
accounts? If history is any guide then we can count on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.