Watch Out For The Gang Of Three

Yesterday India, China, and Russia made a joint announcement. The foreign ministers of all three countries jointly called for a "more just and rational" world order.

Let us all applaud the idea. It does sound so nice. Kind of like the Commander Guy's statement way back when--way back before Adventures in Regime Change and The Global War On Terrorism--that the US would lead with "humility."

Yeah. Right.

The three foreign ministers hurriedly added that the declaration was not "aimed at any country."

Yeah. Right. Sure it's not.

But, you gotta love the platitudes in which the not-so-veiled attack on American "hegemony" was couched. India's Pranab Mukherjee, China's Yang Jiechi, and Sergei Lavrov of Russia "emphasized that they would continue to promote democratization of international relations and evolution of a more just and rational international order."

The joint statement went on to assert that ties between the three nations would be, "beneficial to the process of global multi-polarity."

That doesn't sound nearly so peace, love and flower-power, does it?

Now, let's cut to the chase.

Russia wants the US as a plausible external threat. There are a couple of reasons for this. One is immediate and future oriented. The other is historical and also future oriented.

"Give it over, Geek!" You demand.

OK. The immediate reason first. Russia is after influence over its "near abroad." Casting the US and, by implication, NATO, in the role of villain helps this with the Caspian Sea states including Iran.

The historical reason extends from today back through the Commissars to the Czars. Russia needs the justification of external threat to assure acceptance of an authoritarian regime. Vladimir Putin has shown great skill in acquiring centralised power. His future ambitions in Russian politics is obscure as to details but quite obviously ambitious in form.

(Think Power Behind The Throne if not on the throne.)

The Geek won't use soft words about the Peoples' Republic of China. The PRC is hostile to the US. It has near term goals such as re-acquiring Taiwan which run counter to American policy. It is afraid (with reason) that the US might extend anti-missile technology to Taiwan, perhaps by way of Japan or South Korea.

Longer range, PRC has at least regional hegemonic ambitions. To achieve this, the authority and influence of the US must be reduced. American freedom of action must be limited.

"But," you protest, "the Chinese have worked with us in North Korea."

Sure they have. It was in their national interest to do so. Just as it was in Russia's, Japan's, and South Korea's.

Ask yourself, just who would want a nuclear equipped rogue regime next door?

India has been anti-American almost since Day One. Much of the reason stems from US support for Pakistan. The validity and utility of this tilt to Pakistan is open to debate as is Indian motivation for our tilt.

Still, the fundamental orientation of key segments of the Indian politically articulate population is anti-US. That won't change just because India has been enjoying profound economic success recently in large measure because of sales of Indian products to US markets.

Some Americans might believe that a multi-polar world is almost as good as a unified global government. History shows the contrary. Whenever there has been a multi-polar environment, as in the 1930's, the arrangement has been both inherently unstable and risky.

A bi-polar world such as that which existed during most of the Nineteenth Century and the Cold War period after 1945 may seem risky but is inherently stable. That was particularly true during the Cold War. The potential of nuclear destruction limited the ambitions of both sides. It induced caution (particularly after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when fingers on both the hither and further sides of the Iron Curtain came ever-so-close to the Big Button.)

India's ForMin stated to the press that his country would never participate with the US in a ballistic missile defense system as if that was a guarantee of India's peaceful intentions and inherent security. It may be symbolic of the first although the Pakistanis might be forgiven for not believing so. It is not a symbol of the second.

Arguably, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction worked during the Cold War. We're all still here. This historical reality might not hold true in the multi-polar world, particularly considering that nuclear arms have already spread beyond the first (and second) nuclear club.

Missile defense is as George H.W. Bush used to say, "prudent." A limited system helps deter and defend against either a small scale attack by a country with few delivery systems. It also protects against the straggle strike launched by the recipient of a first strike.

China and India have neighbors with a nuclear capacity. These two countries have had their clashes in the past. Recent past and distant past. These two massively overpopulated countries might find themselves at daggers drawn again--in the not too distant future.

What about the uni-polar alternative?

There is only limited historical experience with a truly unipolar world. The handful of years between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the present time. The experience has been, at best, mixed.

Suffice it to say that had the current administration acted consistently in tune with the word uttered by the Commander Guy, "humility," the Gang of Three might not be so motivated to cut us down to size. The trouble with history is that there is no way to rewind the tape and try again.

The next administration will have a major decision right out of the box. Are the best interests of the US well served by the emergence of a multi-polar world with all of its inherent instabilities and attendant risks? If not, then, how can the best days of a uni-polar world order be retrieved from the trash heap into which the neocon ninnies of the current administration heaved them?