Future empires and geopolitical equilibria http://www.newmoney.gr/
Geopolitics as a game of chess

Written by Giancarlo Elia Valori  

In 1987 Allan Bloom wrote a highly appreciated book, The Closing of the American Mind, which criticised the excesses of relativism in US education - a theory which eliminated the necessary critical "viewpoint" and hence destroyed the inevitable differences existing among the various cultures. If all "cultures" are the same, analyzing and hierarchising them in a sequence of values becomes impossible. Something similar has happened in foreign policy. The United States reacted to the 9/11 attack by attacking Afghanistan - Al Qaeda’s safe haven - but they fought the visible and not the invisible. They saw terrorism, which certainly existed, but not the start of the global jihad, triggered off by Al Qaeda, which then took root in the geopolitical Islamic contrast Shiites and Sunnis, between hegemonic States expanding in the Persian Gulf, operated by Iran, and the oil and military power projection of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.

Henry Kissinger has recently written some interesting considerations on the issue, together with George Schultz. In fact, he maintains that nuclear proliferation is now widespread throughout the Middle East and, apart from the recent agreement between the P5+1 and Iran, this implies a different way of looking at deterrence and the notion of stability, which he does not see properly applied to the Middle East region, at least by the United States. It is true that agreements are not reached solely on the basis of contracting both parties’ good will, but rather by envisioning an objective balance between the parties, regardless of the governments’ stances - which change - and the geo-strategic interests, which remain the same. Another case of closing of the American mind, we might say.

In fact, the United States, led by Barack Obama seems to have left the choke points, which control the Arab-Islamic territory and the European maritime region in East Mediterranean, in favor of a power projection onto Central Asia, with the goal of attaining the following: containment of the Russian Federation and the maintenance of the status quo with China. Russia does not want to lose the belt of "friendly" countries towards the Eurasian peninsula - it needs to complete the Eurasia Project, by which its geopolitical experts; particularly close to President Putin; set great hope.

A new cold war would be useless and harmful to everybody, including the United States, which are also well aware of the fact that if China sells its assets of US government debt - they are currently worth 49.2 billion dollars – it can cause severe damage to the US economy, while the repurchase of US bonds by Japan does not equalize the Chinese potential yet. Furthermore, today’s data is not even fully reliable, considering the variety of financial spots in which securities are held in place. This all breaks into a weak US threat towards China and into tensions along the European borders towards Russia; which may respond – as it has already done - with its policy towards the Arctic and its operations in Ukraine at first, and now in Syria.

Putin has been clear and brutal when talking about the war against Daesh/Isis: "he who breaks, pays", thus reminding Americans and their European allies of the fact that if you decide to destabilize a region, you must know who and what will replace the regimes overthrown and how. A necessary power, the United States - moving away from Europe - splits it into two parts along the Russian borders and seals the space to Putin's Russia which could be an asset in the fight against the global jihad.

The traditional Atlantic project, which breaks up to favor a circular and universal US power projection which, however, implies a low level of deterrence in all the world points where US military forces can be found. The new allies of the United States; located in the countries of the former Warsaw Pact have a very scarce interest in the stability of the Mediterranean region, left to the NATO Southern Flank and to the regional allies, which are ever weaker and increasingly floundering in their economic crisis, as well as ever less suitable to counter a complex doctrine such as permanent jihad.

What about Europe? Its situation is even worse. The European Union was born with the European Coal and Steel Community, founded in 1951, following the Rome agreements which put together, under the same umbrella, the two materials. The Thirty Years War had triggered off the long-standing confrontation between the nations of the Old Continent and had finally destroyed it with two world wars which basically were "wars for European hegemony."

And we must recall that they had led to Bolsheviks’ victory in Russia - no longer a European bulwark to the East – and caused the destruction of the Ottoman Empire – a rampart of the Mediterranean region towards the Islamic world, which Istanbul’ Sublime Porte controlled fairly well. From then on, the EEC - and subsequently the EU - has progressively anesthetized its geostrategic component to become a great economic alliance between competitors, which then materialized with the entry into the force of the single currency.

According to the vision of French President Mitterand and British Prime Minister Thatcher, the euro was the German mark that Germany gave as a pledge to its allies-competitors in exchange for the possibility of reuniting with former East Germany, which was then under Soviet tutelage. From the strategic viewpoint, there was no other vision developing and operating in Europe. Not a single doctrine of economic war can be found in the EU, while even Daesh/Isis is waging an economic war against the dollar, through its recently-coined "gold dinar", other than the repetition ad nauseam of the need to "open up global markets". This is something which can be done by using force and which can be imposed with a universal currency - which is not the euro case.

The European single currency has been an obvious nuisance for the United States, which have seen it as a competitor in global transactions, without it even having the ability of really frightening the dollar. Furthermore, every European country carries out its aggressive actions on international markets on its own, by competing on the market of investment and sales of public debt to the highest bidder, but everything is inevitably denominated in euro.

In Europe, the migration crisis has been seen as a simple humanitarian problem, not as an epochal geopolitical and cultural transformation, while Germany takes the best immigrants from Syria and the other countries are left with the low-educated and low-skilled migrants from Africa. Not a single idea has been developed on the future political effects of this demographic transformation, which will imply a different configuration of democratic representation, institutions, welfare, Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies. Once again a closing of the European mind.

In the current Chinese doctrine, China, Russia – Japan, to some extents - India and developing powers, such as Brazil and South Africa, are one of the most important multilateral platforms - according to the definition of the 18th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party. China wants to turn the old world duopoly into a multipolar balance in which China - as in Mao’s intentions - is the reference point of the former "Third World".

In this multipolar framework, the United States have not yet really decided what to do, the Russian Federation wants to emerge as the Eurasian pivot, by restoring its hegemony over Central Asia, jointly with China, and conquering the space left void by the United States in Western Europe. India wants to control the Asian seas and be the broker of the peace-making and democratization process of the problematic points in Central Asia, such as the Bengal region and Afghanistan - in competition with Pakistan, which is now increasingly linked to the Chinese chariot.

Briefly, our former poles of attraction such as NATO, the EU, and all the other international agreements which followed the Second World War, are undergoing a phase of decline unless these agreements are rewritten by adapting them to the new reality.

And if we do not do so, others will set in, with all the options of unconventional warfare: mass immigration, currency war, terrorism, local wars, trade blocs, replacement economies. Let us think about all these factors before it is too late.