What is Henry Kissinger Up To?
By Paul Craig Roberts
If
we take this report at face value, it tells us that Kissinger, an old
cold warrior, is working to use Trump’s commitment to better relations
with Russia in order to separate Russia from its strategic alliance with
China.
China’s
military buildup is a response to US provocations against China and US
claims to the South China Sea as an area of US national interests. China
does not intend to attack the US and certainly not Russia.
Kissinger,
who was my colleague at the Center for Strategic and International
studies for a dozen years, is aware of the pro-American elites inside
Russia, and he is at work creating for them a “China threat” that they
can use in their effort to lead Russia into the arms of the West. If
this effort is successful, Russia’s sovereignty will be eroded exactly
as has the sovereignty of every other country allied with the US.
At President Putin’s last press conference (http://www.informationclearin ghouse.info/46100.htm ),
journalist Marat Sagadatov asked if Russia wasn’t already subject to
forms of foreign semi-domination: “Our economy, industry, ministries
and agencies often follow the rules laid down by international
organizations and are managed by consulting companies. Even our defense
enterprises have foreign consulting firms auditing them.” The journalist
asked, “if it is not time to do some import substitution in this area
too?”
Every
Russian needs to understand that being part of the West means living by
Washington’s rules. The only country in the Western Alliance that has
an independent foreign and economic policy is the US.
All
of us need to understand that although Trump has been elected
president, the neoconservatives remain dominant in US foreign policy,
and their commitment to the hegemony of the US as the uni-power remains
as strong as ever. The neoconservative ideology has been
institutionalized in parts of the CIA, State Department and Pentagon.
The neoconservatives retain their influence in media, think tanks,
university faculties, foundations, and in the Council on Foreign
Relations.
We
also need to understand that Trump revels in the role of tough guy and
will say things that can be misinterpreted as my friend, Finian
Cunningham, whose columns I read, usually with appreciation, might have
done (http://www.informationclearin ghouse.info/46103.htm ).
I
do not know that Trump will prevail over the vast neoconservative
conspiracy. However, it seems clear enough that he is serious about
reducing the tensions with Russia that have been building since
President Clinton violated the George H. W. Bush administration’s
promise that NATO would not expand one inch to the East. Unless Trump
were serious, there is no reason for him to announce Exxon CEO Rex
Tillerson as his choice for Secretary of State. In 2013 Mr. Tillerson
was awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship.
As
Professor Michel Chossudovsky has pointed out, a global corporation
such as Exxon has interests different from those of the US
military/security complex. The military/security complex needs a
powerful threat, such as the former “Soviet threat” which has been
transformed into the “Russian threat,” in order to justify its hold on
an annual budget of approximately one trillion dollars. In contrast,
Exxon wants to be part of the Russian energy business. Therefore, as
Secretary of State, Tillerson is motivated to achieve good relations
between the US and Russia, whereas for the military/security complex
good relations undermine the orchestrated fear on which the
military/security budget rests.
Clearly,
the military/security complex and the neoconservatives see Trump and
Tillerson as threats, which is why the neoconservatives and the
armaments tycoons so strongly opposed Trump and why CIA Director John
Brennan made wild and unsupported accusations of Russian interference in
the US presidential election.
The
lines are drawn. The next test will be whether Trump can obtain Senate
confirmation of his choice of Tillerson as Secretary of State.
The
myth is widespread that President Reagan won the cold war by breaking
the Soviet Union financially with an arms race. As one who was involved
in Reagan’s effort to end the cold war, I find myself yet again
correcting the record.
Reagan
never spoke of winning the cold war. He spoke of ending it. Other
officials in his government have said the same thing, and Pat Buchanan
can verify it.
Reagan
wanted to end the Cold War, not win it. He spoke of those “godawful”
nuclear weapons. He thought the Soviet economy was in too much
difficulty to compete in an arms race. He thought that if he could first
cure the stagflation that afflicted the US economy, he could force the
Soviets to the negotiating table by going through the motion of
launching an arms race. “Star wars” was mainly hype. (Whether or nor the
Soviets believed the arms race threat, the American leftwing clearly
did and has never got over it.)
Reagan
had no intention of dominating the Soviet Union or collapsing it.
Unlike Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, he was not controlled by
neoconservatives. Reagan fired and prosecuted the neoconservatives in
his administration when they operated behind his back and broke the law.
The
Soviet Union did not collapse because of Reagan’s determination to end
the Cold War. The Soviet collapse was the work of hardline communists,
who believed that Gorbachev was loosening the Communist Party’s hold so
quickly that Gorbachev was a threat to the existence of the Soviet Union
and placed him under house arrest. It was the hardline communist coup
against Gorbachev that led to the rise of Yeltsin. No one expected the
collapse of the Soviet Union.
The
US military/security complex did not want Reagan to end the Cold War,
as the Cold War was the foundation of profit and power for the complex.
The CIA told Reagan that if he renewed the arms race, the Soviets would
win, because the Soviets controlled investment and could allocate a
larger share of the economy to the military than Reagan could.
Reagan
did not believe the CIA’s claim that the Soviet Union could prevail in
an arms race. He formed a secret committee and gave the committee the
power to investigate the CIA’s claim that the US would lose an arms race
with the Soviet Union. The committee concluded that the CIA was
protecting its prerogatives. I know this because I was a member of the
committee.
American
capitalism and the social safety net would function much better without
the drain on the budget of the military/security complex. It is more
correct to say that the military/security complex wants a major threat,
not an actual arms race. Stateless Muslim terrorists are not a
sufficient threat for such a massive US military, and the trouble with
an actual arms race as opposed to a threat is that the US armaments
corporations would have to produce weapons that work instead of cost
overruns that boost profits.
The
latest US missile ship has twice broken down and had to be towed into
port. The F-35 has cost endless money, has a variety of problems ( http://www.stopthef35.com/pe ntagon-f-35-wont-have-a-chance -in-real-combat/ )
and is already outclassed. The Russian missiles are hypersonic. The
Russian tanks are superior. The explosive power of the Russian Satan II
ICBM is terrifying. The morale of the Russian forces is high. They have
not been exhausted from 15 years of fighting without much success
pointless wars against women and children.
Washington,
given the corrupt nature of the US military/security complex, can arms
race all it wants without being a danger to Russia or China, much less
to the strategic alliance between the two powers.
The
neoconservatives are discredited, but they are still a powerful
influence on US foreign policy. Until Trump relegates them to the
ideological backwaters, Russia and China had best hold on to their
strategic alliance. Anyone attempting to break this alliance is a threat
to both Russia and China, and to America and to life on earth.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate
editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week,
Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many
university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide
following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.
The
views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect Information Clearing House editorial policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment