THE COLDEST COLD WAR (3) a part of The Unifying Factor:

I just cant let go of the notion that America and China are in the midst of a covert war.
Nor can I ignore the feeling that this war is intimately connected to many political events that, ostensibly, are not commonly discussed in relation to both America and China.

Please bear with me.

I don't mean that the coldest cold war is the cause of these events -events that I will elaborate on in the coming weeks- but rather the war is a major component and relatively discernible part of a larger trend.

I believe that the coldest cold war and the many other pieces of the diffuse puzzle are in fact part of a global shift towards a new world order. Some would have you believe that a new world order has inherently negative connotations, and/or reeks of conspiracy theories, I couldn't disagree more.

Historically speaking there have been a number of world order shifts from East to West, and vis versa. All long term victors, had their detractors, but in retrospect contributed significantly to societies progress. The Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, the Far-Eastern nations like China and India -under the great unifier Chandra Gupta-, Ottomans, and now Western civilization. All the above civilizations, and many which I out of ignorance missed, contributed essential parts to global progress.True they all committed their unforgivable crimes, but the good, usually, outweighed the bad.

My point is simply that any long term world order shift does not necessarily denote negative progress. Nor were they in retrospect figments of societies imagination or as some term conspiraces.

At the same time these shifts all came about through instability and destructive force.
Thus when advocating for a new world order, we need to take into account the price vs the potential benefit.

That being said the development of an hypothesis, that I call the "coldest cold war", led me to the realization that the nature and impetus for this war reflected a larger motivation; an attempt to shift the world balance of power i.e a new world order. The first cold war had the same goal. Essentially this is what the Soviets attempted. They failed as a result of the consistent, and ultimately successful, implementation of the "Truman doctrine" (Communist containment).

The point is that however big the Chinese-American struggle it is only one part of a larger trend towards a new world order.

Another way of explicating the development of my perspective is that the coldest cold war was a clue that led me to the belief that nearly every major political event since 9/11, and perhaps from before can be traced to a larger motivation, a shift towards a new world order.

It may explain everything from the religious tension in the middle east, to Russia's recent moves in Eastern-Europe, (please see post, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Poland: Who’s Next?) to the "Bilderberg conspiracies". All issues that I have written on with a local perspective, not observing that the local reflects the global.

Conspiracy? Absolutely not!

The skeptic may contend that this is too big, too many details, too diffuse, for it all to reflect one story? I agree. I don't believe that some group meeting in Spain, or what not, is orchestrating this. Indeed my point is not to uncover some insidious plot to divide and control the world. Not only because I don't think that any one group, or consortium of groups, has the global insight to implement such a big and infinitely complex operation, but also because new world order shifts have happened before. They were the result of a series of unpredictable and disparate events that culminate with a shift. Who imagined that Rome would decay and fall or that the great Ottoman empire would drown in corruption? Were that orchestrated by some unseen human-hand, not according to most historians. Rather past shifts unfolded a seemingly natural progression of events that can be explained, retrospectively of course, by the combination of a series of coincidences, and human efforts to harness those coincidences.

I do not know who or what is behind this global trend, all I am attempting do is connect many seemingly separate events/effects with a common cause. Perhaps this will allow me to offer a different perspective, we shall see.

At the moment my observation is that the attempt at a new world order is the unifying factor.

I will attempt to further delineate/defend this perspective in the coming months.

THE COLDEST COLD WAR (2) A New World Order?

In part one of this series we looked at an example of the coldest cold war between America and China, as well as the economic reasons why this war is so much "colder" then the last cold war.

In part two I would like explore the question of why our society is hell bent on ignoring the realities of our relationship with China. As well as the question of which is the greater force in the China-West coldest cold war, economy/stability or influence/change in the world order.
Our close economic ties prevent out government from calling, for example, the North Korean provocation what it is –a proxy event. But the question still remains, why has our diverse, vaunted, and conspiracy-prone media ignored the realties?

One potential answer is that our media and even the public, have justifiably reconciled with the fact that China is now our partner in power. Thus China’s covert actions around the world are part of Chinas right as a super-power. Indeed, this theme is given sufficient if not obsessive coverage.

My question is not why hasn’t the media and larger society at acknowledged the ramifications of China as an emerging super-power. Rather why is there no discussion about the manner of how China is going about their war? Chinas anti-Democratic belief system, allows it to easily support North Korea, a county that literally starves and kills its own people by the 1000’s, and that habitually commits acts of war, but China supports is so long as it weakens American influence.

While we do not even acknowledge the link, China is challenging us in ways that we last saw during our cold war with Russia. We should be aware of the parallel, if only to apply the lessons of the past to the present, but we ignore them, why?

This may all boil to social-psychology; society is experiencing a form of collective Freudian defense mechanism -repression.

Just as the child who has a negative experience in the bathtub may have an aversion to all water as they mature so too the trauma of the last cold war has affected our collective psyche to the extent that we refuse to acknowledge the realities we face. This despite the fact that we "won" the last cold war -akin to the mature individual who "survived/won" their child-hood trauma, but still manifests, perhaps unknowingly, symptoms of that trauma.

Our analogy, like all analogies is imprecise. In this case, the ramifications of our self imposed ignorance are unlike the implications of the individual with an aversion to water. While the person who dislikes water, can choose to avoid his phobia, and if he/she were to encounter the water they could choose to disengage from it, we, America and the west, can ot simply disengage. This lack of choice may be at the heart of why we refuse to acknowledge and confront the issue in the first place.

Now on to the second question.

Will this remain a coldest cold war? Put otherwise will our economic marriage with China -and the ensuing superficial stability it produces- trump the struggle for global supremacy and the forces that seek a new world order.

But before we can answer this larger question let us establish that the nature of the coldest cold war centers on the establishment of a new world order. Currently this is less obvious because the the current benefits, to all sides, of our economic ties relegate the proxy aggressiveness e.g. North Korean actions to the back burner, i.e. The current economic benefits outweigh the push for a new world order. (You could even say that China sees the economic ties and the corollary buildup of its economic might as a necessary step in the push for its new world order).

Either way as the benefits diminish and/or the "new world order" gathers strength and coalesces the symptoms of the coldest cold war will become more pronounced and more cold war-like. In other words, the fact that the coldest cold war is so cold is because there are powerful mitigating factors. As those factors become weaker say as Americas economic might becomes mired in crushing debt, or becomes, relatively, less significant, say as Iran, Turkey, Russia, Brazil, and China coalesce into a potent economic/military force, then we can expect that the push to realign the world order to be more urgent and overt.

To the extent of direct war? Probably not. It is more likely that the degree that a cold war is evident would match the potential benefit of that change to those seeking the change.

From this perspective, the North Korean provocation, Iranian president Ahamdinejad call for a new world order before embarking to Turkey to meet with Erdogan of Turkey and Putin Of Russia (http://www.infowars.com/ahmadinejad-stresses-need-for-new-world-order/) , and Brazil and Turkeys failed attempt to broker a nuclear swap deal -to head off sanctions on Iran- are part of a larger and accelerating trend.

It is no coincidence, then, that this trend is becoming increasingly evident as the America and the West flounder economically, and militarily.

At the same time the fact that Brazil and Turkey failed, and that sanctions, however inane (and even insidious, please see post on http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-do-latest-unsc-sanctions-on-iran.html) passed against Iran are both indicators of a emerging and definable coalition opposing the old American dominated word, and that America is still the leader and a potent force. Which in turn explains why we are still involved in the coldest cold war, with China.


Taken as a whole it seems that we are in the midst of a calculated and predictable progression from coldest cold war to cold war; from covert war to thinly veiled overt war. This reflects an underlying consensus in both China and America, acknowledged or otherwise that should there be a shift in the world order it should unfold in a stable and progressive manner. Let us hope that it is China and not its less pragmatic partners that continues to guide and lead the coalition for a new world order.

For our part, we in America need to recognize the signs. We are in the midst of deeply veiled war, in the past we were victorious, we can be so again. For those that look forward to Americas down fall, remember that the now powerful nations of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union were once Americas defeated enemies. America is pragmatic not vengeful -it elevates those it defeats- can we be certain that China and its minority partners will do the same?

THE COLDEST COLD WAR (1) A Case Study: North Korea

China is a key player in the international arena, and has been for some time. This is not only because it one of five permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and has the second biggest economy on the planet, but also because it is the un-proclaimed leader of the “human-rights depriving world”. Pariah countries like North Korea and Myanmar (Burma) as well as noxious nations like Iran are all closely linked with China and like China have abysmal human rights record. Moreover, Chinas relationship with its other minor partners, the Western nations, led by America, is asymmetrical because they need China. For the very same reasons that make China a world power –its economy, its vote on the UNSC, and its considerable influence in the “human-rights depriving world”. One could argue that China is already the most influential nation in the world.

Regardless it is Chinas paradoxical relationship with the West and parts of the East, that are at the heart of the coldest of cold war’s.

The cold war that we are all familiar with was termed “cold” because it was fought by proxy, i.e. it was never hot between America and the Soviet Union. Instead a form of political passive aggressiveness prevailed, where both sides smiled at each other but attempted to undermine each other at every turn. At the same time there was no ambiguity about who (and why) was behind a given global event. For example, America covertly took the Afghan “freedom fighters” side in their “just” struggle against Soviet expansionism , yet no one doubted who was supplying advance stinger missiles or how mountain fighters knew where the next Soviet convoy was traveling.

The coldest cold war is very different for one simple reason –the passive aggressiveness is rooted in the subconscious. In other words, the two sides in this coldest of cold wars are actively undermining each other but are unwilling to acknowledge that they are in direct opposition.


Why is the reality being ignored?

Because of the paradoxical relationship between the West and China. Unlike the Soviets and the West, the former are economically intertwined -the implications of which are evident here.

In part one we will look at one example, of the coldest cold war. This example with illustrate that their is a "coldest cold war" but the fact that it is a war is being ignored becasue of the nature of the China-West relationship.

A team of civilian and military experts from South Korea, the U.S., Australia, Britain and Sweden, concluded that North Korea was responsible for sinking a South Korean Warship in the Yellow sea near the border between the two Koreas. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during a visit to South Korea, declared that North Korea must pay for its offensive provocation. She also called for an international consensus to condemn and sanction North Korean in the UNSC. As expected, despite the overwhelming evidence, China shied away from openly condemning North Korea, its ally. Essentially shielding it from real international repercussions.

Yet without China's support for further sanctions of North Korea the international community’s efforts will not be enough to stop further provocations, which would likely lead to war. Thus without Chinas intervention war is more likely between the two Koreas.

I would be reticent not to ask why China refuses to act in a way that would prevent a war in its back yard?

To be fair, some China apologists explain that China does not want to back a volatile North Korea into a corner. Ok, but this answer also implies that China was unaware of North Koreas intentions prior to its decision to kill over 50 South Koreans in the worst Navel incident in the latter nations history. This conclusion may be a lot easier to digest then the alternative – China gave its tacit approval.

But are the apologists correct? Is Chinas support for North Korea going back to the Korean war of 1950, and its current economic (and military ?) aid with which North Korea could not survive, not mean that China has a say as to whether North Korea goes to war?! Alternatively, North Korea was sure that its blatant and unprovoked attack on South Korea would not force China to sanction and cut off its vital support for North Korea. How could North Korea have been so sure?

It is difficult to come to any other conclusion other than that China approved North Koreas actions. Which goes back to our original question, why did China not stop North Korea, and why does it not now at least condemn them, so as to do all it can to prevent a war?

In the Soviet era, it would be clear who was behind such ostensibly irresponsible but in reality calculated actions, and America would respond accordingly, pointing publicly to the hidden hand of the Soviets. In this coldest cold war the passive aggressiveness is so deeply imbedded that it is not even acknowledged that this is in fact a passive aggressive event, with roots in China and America.

So why did China do what it did, and why hasn't the West called it as it is?

Put otherwise the reason China supported/supports North Korea is to degrade Americas foot-hold in its neighborhood. Thus South Koreas will feel like its distant ally is unreliable and weak pushing them into the hands of China -as they see that only China can control North Korea. Of course the willfully blind mainstream media will interpret Clintons desperate effort as simply another wordy reassurance that Americas is still a staunch and reliable ally. What they won’t report is that every escalating North Korean provocation is a proxy attempt by China to battle American influence in Asia. At the same time the economic marriage between the West and China prevents both sides from delving into the nature of the their political interactions.

To the extent that China is willing to allow a war? Yes, despite the frigid air, this is the coldest cold WAR. As long, as it the war is not labeled as a proxy battle.


In part two we will explore the question of which is the greater force in the China-West cold war, economy/stability or influence/change in world order?