|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
China's Chance to Rule the World Lev Navrozov In 1945, the United States used against Japan, an aggressor, the nuclear weapons that Roosevelt had been developing in all earnestness after Hitler (who had also been developing such weapons) had declared war on the United States in 1941. From 1945 to 1949, when Stalin tested his first "atom bomb," the United States had a monopoly on nuclear weapons and could make any country surrender, as it made Japan surrender. In the 1980s, when I was a columnist for the New York City Tribune, a reader of mine from the family of Averell Harriman (who was U.S. ambassador in Stalin's Russia) sent me a copy of a U.S. draft ultimatum to Stalin, similar to the U.S. ultimatum to the dictatorship of Japan in 1945. The ultimatum was never presented to Stalin. Had the United States been a dictatorship, it would have owned the entire world. But it was not a dictatorship, and a majority of the American people did not want an "American world empire," still less an "American world ownership." Take the Iraq War of late as an example. Initially, there were even favorable references in the U.S. press to the "American world empire of freedom and democracy."
But the invasion had been started by the U.S. president and British prime minister on the basis of false (and absurd) reports of their intelligence services, and so far all the money spent and human lives lost in this war seem to many Americans to have been wasted. The Sunnis, involved in the guerrilla war, constitute less than one-thousandth of the population living outside the West. Imagine a global guerrilla war, a thousand times bigger, against the United States. In Soviet Russia, a Russian who resided in the Moscow Region, yet outside Moscow, could not move to reside in the more privileged Moscow. Living in New York and hence using U.S. social benefits are so many legal and illegal aliens that even years ago I happened to ask for directions in the New York subway and found that not a single passenger seated on both sides of the car spoke English.
"Is it possible that no one here speaks English?" I asked. A statuesque young girl stood up and said, "I do not speak English."
Story Continues Below
Imagine billions of inhabitants of the USW (the United States of the World) flowing into what was once the good old USA, where at least one person in the New York subway declared (in five words of English!) that she did NOT speak English. Those billions of new inhabitants would not care to learn even five words of English. I happened to speak with several Chinese living in the United States. They spoke English because they need it for their jobs. One of them said that Falun Gong practitioners should be shot because there are so many of them in China that they pose a threat to the powers that be.
My interlocutors told me that 80 percent of the Chinese living legally or illegally in the United States support the "Chinese Communist Party." I told them that possibly more than 80 percent of Germans supported Hitler before his first setback in the war in December 1941, and more than 80 percent of Russians supported Stalin up to his death, which they publicly bemoaned — they wept in the street, on buses, and in the subway.
The only way I can (and could in 2003) explain the rationale for the Iraq War is the Iraqi oil for more than 40 members of the U.S. presidential administration who had oil shares. But the war was not a quick victory, and there has been a growing movement against it. As for Israel's current war in Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah, the non-Israeli Western leaders have been talking peace as though the war were an unfortunate accident. The "general elections" in Afghanistan and in Iraq have been mentioned by the pro-war Americans as the beginning of the global march of democracy. But a majority can elect democratically the worst bigots, tyrants, dictators. We speak of a "constitutional republic" in the United States and a "constitutional monarchy" in England, while "democratic elections" may coexist with zero constitutionalism — that is, zero protection of civil rights, and hence zero freedom.
Globally significant wars in Europe were waged by tyrants of absolutism or dictators like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler. It was before the word "democracy" was applied to England in the 20th century (owing to its introduction of universal suffrage) that the territory of the British Empire surpassed more than 90 times the territory of England, but after England had become a democracy (that is, had acquired universal suffrage), the British Empire began shrinking back to the territory of England. The Russian tsars of the epoch of absolutism overthrew the Mongol Khans' yoke and built the Russian Empire, which accounted for one-sixth of the globe's land. Stalin augmented that one-sixth with Eastern Europe. It was on the eve of, and during, Yeltsin's democracy that the "Soviet Union," which had inherited the Russian Empire and conquered Eastern Europe, disintegrated, its current size sustained mainly by Siberia, being "colonialized" by Chinese illegal aliens. Since Hitler did not produce nuclear weapons because his resources were diverted by his vast conventional war, it can be said that so far the world conquerors have been lacking the weapons commensurate with their global goal. But to imagine that the development of science and technology stopped in 1945, and hence post-nuclear superweapons need not even to be mentioned, is a Western suicidal self-delusion, produced by the general aversion of most Westerners to war unless it is an instantly successful war against a small country. China's dictators do know that science and technology did not freeze in 1945. In 1945, the world could belong to whoever had a monopoly on nuclear weapons. The United States did not seize the chance. Now the world will belong to whoever develops post-nuclear superweapons, able to destroy the enemy means of nuclear retaliation, that is, to circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction, on which the peace among nuclear powers has been resting. Why should the owners of China miss THEIR chance of owning the world? They are safe in their world's deepest shelters within rocky mountains. Their ownership of the world will be a value unto itself, for which all those European conquerors, from Alexander the Great to Hitler, strove. Besides, the ownership of the world will reinforce their ownership of China and keep them safe from future Tiananmen Squares, similar to the Tiananmen Square movement in China in 1989, and from collapses of dictatorship, similar to its collapse in Soviet Russia in 1991. The desire to acquire $3 billion or $300 in cash or property is understood by Americans, but the desire to acquire the world is not. Probably no American would ask why a billionaire wants to acquire $3 billion if the money he already has satisfies all his needs. Or why an American kills a taxi driver to get $300 if as a result he can expect a death sentence.
On the other hand, the intention of China's dictators to acquire the world without any risk to their personal selves is ignored in the United States as a far-fetched fantasy, like the assertion in a remote Russian village that an American billionaire wants to acquire more money. In the articles and books of American "experts," read by officials and other American "experts," the dictatorship of China appears as an underdeveloped United States. But every reference book indicates that the population of China exceeds that of the United States more than four times. Hence, a "developed China" will be able to produce four times more of even conventional weapons than the United States. Surely one reason why the United States produces several times more conventional weapons than any European country is that the population of the United States and hence its "gross output" exceeds several times that of any European country. What is curious is that those "experts" who present China as an underdeveloped United States do not answer even the question begged by their imaginary model: What will happen when China produces four times more of even conventional weapons than does the United States? But, of course, their model of China as an underdeveloped United States is a pure figment of their imagination. In war or in peace, the dictators of China can allocate as much to the development of post-nuclear superweapons as the United States allocated to the development of the nuclear bomb after Germany declared war on the United States in 1941. Hence the realistic (and not fictitious) supposition that the "experts" should confront is as follows: Suppose China's dictators will develop, for example, molecular nanoweapons (see Major General Sun Bailin's article in the Chinese magazine National Defense of June 15, 1996, about "nanotech weapons"), while the United States will fall behind (since Eric Drexler, the founder of nanotechnology and of the Foresight Institute he founded in 1986, have not received a cent from the U.S. Congress). The response of the "experts": Believe that the dictators of China are good neighbors, just like your neighbors in Kentucky or Nebraska. Be good to your neighbors and they will be good to you. In the general atmosphere of Western appeasement (including the head of the U.S. government, the overwhelming majority in the U.S. Congress, the mainstream U.S. media, and nearly all U.S. "academic experts"), the dictatorship of China can seem to be no more dangerous than the dictatorship of Germany seemed in 1938 to the Londoners flooding the streets to welcome Hitler's "peace in our time." You can e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net
Editor's note:
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |