I. CRUSADE AND JIHADphoto.goodreads.com/documents/1344686298books/14760432.pdfIX. USA vs. China X....

2

AUTHOR:

GHETAU GH. FLORIN

TITLE:

WHAT IS DIPLOMACY?

What is diplomacy?

by Ghetau Gh. Florin

Published by Ghetau Gh. Florin on Lulu

Copyrights © 2012 Ghetau Gh. Florin

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

FLORIN GH. GHETAU was born on the 4th of August 1982 in Bacau, Bacau County (Romania). He graduated the University of Craiova, Faculty of History, Philosophy and Geography in 2005. In 2007 he got a master degree in Management of International Relations and he has been a Ph. D in History since 2009, a degree got with the thesis called “An Assumed Mission. Alexandru Marghiloman’s Government”. Currently, he is a History teacher in Lupeni, Hunedoara County.

He made his debut with a volume of poems and aphorisms entitled “Ergonomics of the Drifting Fall”. “The Protocol of Sankt-Petersburg (1913)” and “Romanian-Italian Relationships during the Period of Neutrality (August 1914 – August 1916)” saw the light of the press two years later. “The Manual of the Perfect Dictator”, an exciting radiography of the dictatorial phenomenon appeared in 2010. He published numerous studies and articles on historical themes in several specialized magazines. He has also flirted with drama, being the author of five plays called: “The Devil’s Temptation”, “Giordano Bruno”, “Leviathan”, “Tao Ba’s Falling Must Be Hurried” and “A Tale with and about Wicked People”.

His latest book is entitled “Jesus vs. Mithras”. As the title itself suggests, the Early Christian’s pagan roots are analysed therein.

CONTENTS:

I. CRUSADE AND JIHAD

II. Islamic Terrorism

III. Uncle Sam’s trifecta: Milosevic, Saddam, Gaddafi

IV. Gaddafi and the double standard politic

V. The colonel Gaddafi

3

VI. The Iraq syndrome

VII. El Lider Maximo’s competitors

VIII. China – A Clay-Legged Giant

IX. USA vs. China

X. Chess with No Checkmate or the Iranian Nuclear Crisis

XI. Iranian nuclear file

XII. China in America’s Way

XIII. Romania Declared War to USA

I. CRUSADE AND JIHAD

Author: PhD Gheţău Gh. Florin

First published on: www.geostrategic.eu

Christianity and Islam have in common a long and conflictive history.

Paradoxically, considering the fact Islam is rooted in Christianity and Mosaic

Religion. One can say this important religion denied its parents. While Christian

Europe gradually rid off its bigoted impulses, much of the Muslim world

remains confined to the strongholds of the religious fanaticism at the beginning

of the 21st century. The idea of a Crusade does not involve the Christian people

nowadays at all, while the concept of Jihad has still remained a central part in

the Muslim practitioner’s life. Moreover, numerous clerics of Islam incite to

jihad forgetting the holy wars age was gone together with the end of the Middle

4

Age. Nowadays Islam has unfairly acquired an aura of martyrdom, presenting

itself to the world as a victim of the crusaders of yesterday and today.

THE ARABIAN EMPIRE

The Islamic religion appeared in the 7th century in the Arabian Peninsula. This

cult showed a great vitality from the very beginning. The fresh Muslims used

their vitality to conquer as many territories as possible where to impose their

new religion. The Byzantine and Persian Empire were the first victims of this

roller. The Arabs raised an empire which lay from the Atlantic Ocean to India

and from the steppes of Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. Constantinople was

besieged twice during this period and miraculously got away without too much

damage. The Arabians advanced towards Europe on three paths: towards Balkan

Peninsula, Iberian Peninsula and Italian Peninsula. They were stopped with great

efforts in the victories of Poitiers (732) and Narbonne (737) by the Franks. After

the Arabians having been repelled from the gates of the Byzantine capital in 718

with the help of the famous “Greek fire”, the former no longer represented a

serious threat for Byzantium. Therefore, the initial attack came from the Islamic

world. During those conquests the Library of Alexandria was also destroyed by

the Arabs (642).

THE CRUSADES

The large-scaled confrontation between Christianity and Islam started again at

the end of the 11th century. This was the same period when the Crusades age

started and took place between 1096 and 1291. Most of the Christians do not

even know the history of this unfortunate period. By contrast, in the Muslim

world there is still an umbilical cord which links the current Islam to the events

of that time from the emotional point of view. The deeds of Saladin (Salah ad-

Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub) who reigned during 1171 and 1193 are still spun with

enthusiasm in the cafes of the Near East.

5

The attack came from the Islamic World this time, too. The dying Byzantine

Empire was attacked in force by the Seljuq Turks. Emperor Romanos IV

Diogenes was crushed at Manzikert (1071) by Sejuq Sultan Alp Arslan.

Emperror Alexios Komnenos asked for help to the Christians from West. Their

help has resulted in the organizing the First Crusade (1096-1099). In 1099 the

Crusaders conquered Jerusalem. This city went through fire and sword because

of the Crusaders. This abdominal act fits perfectly into the chapter “war crimes”.

Although, one must say the dissensions between Islam and Christianity are

marked by the hecatombs turned from the both directions. It is not an excuse but

a cruel reality. Jerusalem was conquered back in 1187 after the battle of Hattin

where the Crusaders were smashed by Saladin. The Templers and Hospitallers

who were taken prisoners in this battle were executed. Saladin wanted to act in

the same manner with Jerusalem as the Crusaders had done. But he could not

accomplish his plan because the Christians in the city threatened to destroy the

al-Aqsa Mosque if the city walls had been stormed. Having faced with that

situation, Saladin guaranteed the safety of the Christians in Jerusalem in

exchange for compensation. Unable to offer a massacre to his army, Saladin was

content with the profanation of the Christian symbols such as the Cross.

An event which should have made the Christians and the Muslims think

occurred during the Sixth Crusade. Emperor Frederick II got Jerusalem from the

Sultan of Egypt Malik al-Kamil by negotiation. Emperor Frederick II was a

great admirer of the Arabian art and decided Jerusalem should have remained a

city opened to all religions as it should be today, too. The two rulers proved the

differences between Christianity and Islam were not insurmountable.

ISLAM COUNTERS

Europe was stormed by the Muslim Empire again in the 14th century. It was

about the Ottoman Empire. Constantinople was conquered by the army of the

Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II on the 29th of May 1453. Here it is how the

6

chronicler Critobulus of Imbros depicts the second fall of this city: “Then there

was a slaughter literally speaking among those who had remained there: some of

them in the streets [...] were victims of the janissaries and other soldiers with no

faith or law; others resisted counting on their own courage; while others sought

refuge in churches where their prayers could be heard. Men, women and

children, no one were spared.”

The Ottoman Turks besieged Vienna in 1529 and 1683. Thus, they reached far

into the heart of Europe. Later they passed to defence being driven away from

the Southeast Europe only at the beginning of the 20th century. They left deep

marks in this part of Europe, creating an ethnical-religious amalgam which often

degenerated into armed conflicts. See the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina

(1992-1995) in this respect. Orthodox Serbs confronted Catholic Croats and

Muslim Bosniaks then. The intervention of the Western countries stopped the

massacres which the Bosniaks and later the Albanians in Kosovo had been

subjected to. Thus, the Christians also intervened when Muslim lives were at

stakes. This fact should give make the radicals in the Islamic world think about.

THE WORLD AFTER 9/11

The terrorist attacks of the 11th of September 2001 shook the world. The

American reaction was right, but also exaggerated and disproportioned in some

respects. Attacking Iraq was not legitimated at any moment and the excesses in

Guantanamo eroded the capital of sympathy which the USA had received

immediately after the attacks. The fundamentalists of the Muslim world used

those errors in order to speak of the Crusades and Jihad. Unfortunately, there are

many those who are willing to listen to such enormities and that makes the

phenomenon of terrorism proliferate. On the other hand, there is a major

difference between the treatment the Muslins are given in Europe and the one

given to the Christians in the Mohammedan countries. The European Muslims

can exercise their religion without hindrance. There are mosques even in

7

Romania. By contrast, the Nestorian community in Iraq and the Coptic one in

Egypt are not as lucky as the Muslim one in Europe. For instance, the Copts in

Egypt are victims of real pogroms which take place regularly. One can presume

those deeds do not scandalize the Jihad supporters.

It is absolutely regrettable two major monotheist religions which share so many

common elements cannot have a dialogue in a constructive manner. The Islamic

world must break with the past and radicalism in order to become credible and

the Western powers must treat with due respect the great Muslim culture.

II. Islamic Terrorism



The terrible attacks of September 11th, 2001 which resulted in the collapse of the

twin towers of World Trade Center among others have brought the sensitive

issue of terrorism to the centre of attention. In fact, the USA was the victim of

the Islamic terrorism, but the rallying of the Western side of the world in the

global war against terrorism led to overlooking certain nuances. Many forms of

terrorism occur in the world, but the foreground is occupied by the Islamic

terrorism. One has intended to present a series of succinct aspects of the

contemporary Islamic terrorism in few sentences.

What Is Terrorism?

Terrorism is not a recent creation, but it has existed since the dawn of humanity

as the archaeological discoveries let one see. A cliché created by mass media is

8

that terrorism is the prerogative of the terrorist organizations. There is nothing

more wrong than that. A more dangerous form of terrorism is extensively

practiced by some governments. It is about the state terrorism. On the other

hand, terrorism is an intrinsic part of the phenomenon called war. Any army

used terrorism to a greater or lesser extent when fighting against its enemy.

Thus, terrorism has many faces which mass media has not tried to draw attention

to at all. After all, the printed or audio-video media has as its main objective to

get an as high as possible financial profit rather than to provide objective and

balanced information to the people. Panic is the most contagious mental state

and the main weapon of terrorism, and the journalists all over the world have

had a great contribution to its spread. These necrophagous eagles dip their

greedy beaks in any corpse. For this reason, media has a deep fetid smell.

An interesting definition of terrorism was given by the League of Nations in

1937: “all the criminal acts intended against a state or calculated and planned to

provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular

persons’ mind.” This definition is not complete since terrorism is experimented

many times by political regimes against their own citizens or against some

foreign populations. The dictatorial regimes in the Soviet Russia, Nazi

Germany, Communist China, and Cambodia terrorized their own subjects in

order to stay in power. Terror is dictators’ favourite weapon. By the same token,

one must note that even the most democratic states of the world experienced

terrorist episodes in their past. One must mention in this respect the terrorism

practiced by the USA against the Filipinos after the occupation of the

archipelago in 1898. As a consequence, this definition has the big flaw of

cataloguing as terrorism only the “acts intended against a state”.

Recently, the USA have provided by means of the famous Patriot Act a

definition of terrorism so ambiguous and arbitrary that it proves a great truth

once again: “the fight against terrorism is done by terrorist means.” Thus:

9

“Dangerous acts for human lives which occur with violating the Penal Code of

the USA or of any other state in its structure.” One can see that the opinions on

this terrible plague which is terrorism are stated on paltry criteria that have got

too little to do with the good of humanity. One thing is definitely certain,

terrorism must be uprooted. But if the civil liberties are sacrificed for this reason

and terrorist means are used in this respect, a useless and extensively paid

victory will be won.

Manifestations of the Islamic Terrorism

The Islamic terrorism has stood out mostly because of the fights between the

Palestinians and Israelis. A less known fact is that the Jewish used terrorist

means against the British authorities before the state of Israel in 1948 having

been formed. The most prominent Israelis terrorist structures were Irgun and

Stern. Irgun remained in history with the black record of being to the origin of

the bomb attack in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem (July 22nd, 1946) and the

Deir Yassin massacre (April 9th, 1948). One can say that unfortunately Zionism

was an example for PLO, Hamas, or Fatah. However, the Islamic terrorism is

experiencing an unprecedented magnitude and media exposure.

The traces of the Islamic terrorism can be encountered throughout the Muslim

world. From Philippines to Morocco and from Czech to India Islamic terrorist

structures can be found. The most known terrorist organisations which justify

themselves by the Islamic teaching will be enumerated bellow: Abu Sayyaf

(Philippines), Harakat al-Mujahideen (Pakistan, Kashmir), Jemaah Islamiyah

(Southeast Asia), al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades (Palestine, West Bank), Egyptian

Islamic Jihad (Egypt), Armed Islamic Group (Algeria), Moroccan Islamic

Combatant Group (Morocco). All those being said, one pleads for a thorough

and objective study of this globally spread phenomenon. The best way to

counter terrorism is based on a deep understanding of the causes that produce it.

10

III. Uncle Sam’s trifecta: Milosevic, Saddam, Gaddafi



The fights during the last days in Libya look to be exact copies of the events in

Yugoslavia and Iraq. Gaddafi seems to be heading the same road that

Yugoslavia’s president, Slobodan Milosevic and the one of Iraq, Saddam

Hussein went not long ago. Having a rather negative image because of the

adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, The United States pushed Sarkozy’s France

in the front line. The president was looking for miraculous ways of turning the

tables in his favor in the next campaign. President elections in the hexagon are

coming close and the current state of France didn’t have the public’s support.

Which is why an aggressive democratic external affairs policy is required.

Putting aside these digressions, the fact still remains that Uncle Sam is on the

verge of obtaining a trifecta by eliminating from the international political arena

the last member of the golden treble: Milosevic, Saddam and Gaddafi. In the

following paragraphs we will detail the main elements of this process.

After the Second World War, Yugoslavia went through a strong change under

the rule of Iosip Broz Tito. In this country, communism had triumphed without

the direct support of the USSR. Feeling strong, Tito successfully challenged

Stalin’s authority which led to a conflict with the Soviet Russia. In this manner,

at the end of the 40’ in Romania one of the worst accusations was of being a

‘titoist’. But Stalin died in 1953 Hrusciov put an end to this useless antagonism.

11

But the important actors on the international scene understood that Yugoslavia is

a hard nut which must be cracked.

Ethnic misunderstandings led to the separation of the Yugoslavian Federation in

1991. Out of the body of the state created on the 1st of December 1918, several

other countries were gradually born: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,

Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Kosovo. The last one emerged as a result of

NATO’s military intervention between march-June 1999. The intervention was

justified by western offices who wanted to stop the genocide which the

population was forced to withstand. The Serbian army’s excesses were

committed while fighting the U.C.K. guerillas. Slobodan Milosevic was

removed from power, arrested and found dead in his cell in Hague on the 11th of

March 2006. The final act of the Serbian drama took place on the 17th of

February 2008 when this province declared its independence. Happily though,

conductors from capitals like Bucharest and Moscow had enough diplomatic

mastery to avoid recognizing the independence of the Kosovo province, which

creates a dangerous proceeding in the international rights.

Saddam Hussein took over Iraq in 1979. Between 1980 and 1988, Iraq was at

war with Iran. During this conflict, the armies from Baghdad had the support of

the Reagan regime. After the war had finished, Saddam confronted with the

external debts problem which was around 75 billion dollars. A large amount of

this sum belonged to Kuwait who refused to decrease or forget about it, which

led to the invasion in 1990. The occupation of Kuwait led to the first Gold War

lost by Iraq (1991). Events from 11th of September 2001 supplied a new

American intervention in Iraq which materialized in 2003. Obviously the mass

destruction weapons were never found and the connections with Al-Qaeda were

never backed up by evidence. Nevertheless, the Iraqi dictator was captured,

trialed and executed on the 29th of December 2006 for crimes against humanity.

12

Today, Iraq is an unstable area, but filled with hydrocarbons, which the

Pentagon’s soldiers came for in the end.

Trifecta is a term used by horse racing amateurs and it means guessing the

horses that will end up in the first three positions, as well as their order. Along

with the ONU resolution from last Thursday, Colonel Gaddafi, one of the

dictators from the old times, is closer to collapsing. The regime he created in

1969 is confronting these days with an international coalition led by –

theoretically- France. Members of the coalition will, most likely, stand back

from direct intervention, but they will support the opposition. This way the

chances of its success increase considerably. In a similar manner has the USA

used the Taliban’s opponents in Afghanistan organized in “The North Alliance”.

But there the terrestrial intervention was inevitable. We have to see if Muammar

al-Gaddafi will be removed only with air strikes like Milosevic or the ground

troops will be needed, like Saddam. We also have to see if Gaddafi will be kept

alive in a cell or hung. In any case, the international coalition claims they are

fighting for human rights and not for Libya’s oil resources. If Obama and

Sarkozy speak the truth, then the International coalition will intervene in the

Ivory Coast, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Bahrain, Turkey, China, Iran, etc. In a

nutshell: everywhere where human rights are being ignored. Unfortunately this

won’t happen because human rights are strongly tied to oil.

In 1994, in Rwanda, a massive genocide took place. The Tutsi were slaughtered

by the Hutu, and no member of the coalition thought they should step in. It is

estimated that approximately 1 million people died in those conflicts.

Unfortunately for Rwanda, Sarkozy wasn’t president and neither was Obama,

winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace.

13

IV. Gaddafi and the double standard politic



NATO, a defensive alliance created in 1949 by the Washington treaty, has

become offensive after the fall of the iron curtain. UN has accepted on the 18th

of March 2011 a western military intervention against Gaddafi’s regime, with

the help of Russia and China who, surprisingly, didn’t use their veto vote in the

Security Council. The resolution broadcasted by the UN is based on chapter 7

from the United Nation’s Charter, which authorizes the use of force.

Undoubtedly, the repression of the dictatorship regime in Libya against its own

people is intolerable, but I cannot contain the feeling that the big forces are

acting on the bases of a double standard. For instance, revolts in Bahrain and

Yemen were brutally stopped without the EU or USA being outraged. The

Egyptians wanted to get rid of Hosni Mubarak and the Americans had nothing

against it. Whatever type of Dictator Mubarak was, it was their own which

makes everything OK.

A lot of tyrants have slaughtered their population without the western states to

threaten with intervention. As an example we see the situations in Sudan,

Somalia or The Ivory Coast. The Darfur region in Sudan has been a genocide

scene in the last years, but nobody thought of a military intervention. Turkey has

been ‘silently removing’ the Kurds from PKK for decades but international

protests are barely heard. On the other hand, Gaddafi doesn’t have a ‘license to

kill’ like the famous James Bond. I’m guessing petrol has, just like in Saddam’s

case, a huge part in the decision making or bombarding Libya. Thus, the

14

“limited sovereignty doctrine” has been reactivated, fluttered by Brezhnev after

the intervention in Czechoslovakia (1968).

V. The colonel Gaddafi



The Libyan dictator Gaddafi has distinguished himself since 1969 as a insolent

head of the state. Reaching his position of power after a political strike after

which he deprived it from king Idriss, Gaddafi approached, in spite of his

western education, an attitude oriented especially towards Americans. In the

well known manner of dictators he tried to pose as an intellectual and a

ideologist and if Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, Gaddafi created a three

volume book suggestively named “The Green Book”. The Republic of Libya has

been ruled based on “Islamic nationalistic” principle which eventually led to a

new state organization in 1977 called Jamahiriya. This linguistic innovation

would translate as “the government of the masses” so a bombastically and

pointless name like “people’s democracy” in Eastern Europe during the Cold

War.

Born in a family of Bedouins has shown an attraction towards Islam’s

perceptions which he tried to combine with his admiration towards the Egyptian

dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser. Thus, he tried to eliminate any trace that from

1913 Libya was an Italian colony and has embraced the pan-Arab doctrine. Even

more, he went on to implement it by proposing to create the Arabic Republic

Federation (1972), which was supposed to be having Libya, Egypt and Syria.

15

Predictable enough, this was a failure just like the initiative to unite Libya and

Tunisia (1974).

He gained an unwanted notoriety on the external scene by the support he had

shown to different terrorist organizations. With his help a series of terrorist

attacks were successful and left many bodies behind. He was also the biggest

follower of the Palestine Liberation Organization led by Yasser Arafat. All these

made Gaddafi a controversial leader. But, after the attempts in 2001 on World

Trade Center, he tried to get closer to western governments in order to avoid

Saddam’s faith.

Internally nothing has changed and decades of deprivements led to actual

revolts. As any dictator he proved to be reluctant to the people’s desire which is

why they want him down from the head of the state. In such circumstances, just

like his good friend Nicolae Ceausescu, he uses as a persuasive weapon his last

argument: the bullet. History has shown us that when a leader and his people

there is blood, the former has its days numbered.

VI. The Iraq syndrome



On the 20th of January 2009, Barack Hussein Obama took the oath of faith

towards the American people becoming the 44th president at the White House.

The new leader of the free world won the presidential elections in 2008 on the

grounds of the population’s discontent regarding the economical crisis which hit

the USA, reminding them of the Great Depressions’ period in interwar period

(1929-1933) out of which America was taken out by president Franklin Delano

16

Roosevelt with the New Deal program. Even more, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

who produce a lot of bodies cost a lot and compromise the state’s image in the

world had a decisive contribution to the win of the candidate who came from the

Democratic Party in 2008. Choosing an Afro-American president gave the

impression that the American idealism hasn’t died and that stability and

prosperity will be found again. But Obama has promised, more than anything,

peace to the American people.

Up to now peace hasn’t settled in Middle East and rumors against a preventive

attack against Iran are more frequent. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are far

from over and the American army’s presence is still consistent. Tensions in the

Far East caused by North Korea obliged the US Army to be alert while the

Islamic world is boiling with the risk of losing old allies being serious: Saudi

Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar or Egypt. Thus, the promised peace hasn’t materialized

yet. Even more, military procedures began in Libya against Gaddafi’s regime.

Even though he didn’t contribute to world’s peace, Obama still won the 2009

Nobel prize for it. In our vision this award has been awarded based strictly on

political terms and not on concrete results which – objectively speaking –

couldn’t have come in his first year as president.

Some say that Pax Obama is far from realizable for the American people on both

the external and internal scenes. This situation leads us to believe that Barack

Hussein Obama will be like other personalities such as Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy

Carter or George Bush: a president with only one seat.

VII. El Lider Maximo’s competitors


17


Starting from the first decades of existence, the USA had the habit of

considering South and Central America their back yard. In this manner should

the Monroe doctrine be interpreted, broadcasted on the 2nd of December 1823

when the USA’s military and economical power had risen along with colonial

aspirations. Thus, after a war with Spain in 1898, the leaders in Washington got

Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Philippines and Guam. To be fair, Cuba did receive in

1902 a “limited independence”. When Columbia became reluctant to building

the Panama Channel, Uncle Sam reached for its magical hat and got out the

Panama state which they hurried to recognize their independence. But when

countries had the incautiousness to let themselves be led by regimes which

weren’t approved by the Americans, a military intervention was necessary – the

histories of Mexico, the Dominican Republic or Nicaragua should be studied for

more in depth analysis on this matter.

To support our statement above, we can question the Latin America’s

government’s attitude during the two World Wars. For instance, on Entente’s

side, meaning from the side that the USA fought for during the first World War,

joined Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay or Honduras (and the list

can continue). In the Second World War on the Allies Side (USA, Great Britain

and the URSS) fought, among others, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile,

Colombia, Costa Rica, etc. In a nutshell important military powers persuaded by

the diplomats from the State Department to give a helping hand to the free

world. The conclusion to which we have arrived is that the USA has had a huge

influence in Latin America.

Such a state has eventually led to a resistance move. The champion of this move

was the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro known as El Lider Maximo (1959-2008).

Until his retreat from the head of the state in favor of his brother (Raul Castro),

18

Fidel Castro has been against the gringo influence in Central and South America

with the help of the URSS. The success of his policy has created competitors

such as Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales. Hugo Chavez took over Venezuela in

1999 and has led this fairly rich in petrol country towards an anti-American

vision. On the other hand, Evo Morales leads a less resourceful state (Bolivia),

but this hasn’t stopped him to go forward with his national motto: „Die before

living like a slave”. Evo Morales is the head of his country since 2005 and is the

first Bolivian president with Amerindian roots which makes him somewhat

closer to Barack Obama.

We consider that anti-American feelings perpetuated in the name of

Bolivarianism by Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales have been generated by the

USA’s external politics which had for a long period of time an attitude of

superiority towards the Latin American population. The regimes led by the two

are not democratic, but are nationalist, are not acceptable, but are justified by the

history of logic evolution. This is why the Latin nations in the New World

rapport to the USA like the Eastern Europeans rapport to the Russians.

VIII. China – A Clay-Legged Giant



During the World War II the Nationalists and Communists from China

cooperated in order to banish their common enemy – Japan, which had started to

conquer China since 1931. After the Japanese’s defeat, the older conflict for

controlling the country was reopened and the Mao’s Communists who were

19

massively supported by the U.S.S.R. adjudged victory in 1949. Thus the

People's Republic of China was created with its capital in Beijing. The

Nationalists took refuge with the American’s help in Taiwan Island – past

Formosa – where they proclaimed the Chinese Republic with its capital in

Taipei. The dominant Party from Taiwan was – and it is – Kuomintang and

claimed the official proclamation of the independence in spite that the

authorities from Beijing clearly stated that such a decision would be transformed

into casus belli. From those stated above one must conclude that there are two

Chinese Republics posted on a collision course.

China faced a terror and international isolation regime under Mao’s rule. The

terror’s apogee was in the 60s when the “cultural revolution” started. On the

extern plane the coming out from the isolation was done through the

collaboration with the brilliant American tandem Richard Nixon – Henry

Kissinger. In this way the Communist China took its well disserved place as a

permanent and veto-righted member in the Security Council of U.N.O. At the

beginning of the 80s last century Deng Xiaoping started the process through

which China became the second economic power of the world. In our vision

China is a clay-legged giant by the virtue of some realities which are going to be

presented in what it follows.

The Chinese economy has at its origins three motors for developing: extremely

cheap and numerous work forces, an artificially depreciated national currency –

Yuan – and the foreign investments. The wide working class from the People's

Republic of China requests more and more a substantial slice from the national

prosperity. This desiderate can be reached by decent salaries and reasonable

working conditions. Though, the occidental investors chose China exactly for its

cheap work force. Increasing the level of living could banish the precious

investments that came from the outside. The low value where Yuan is held in

20

order to facilitate the export deeply displeases the international community

which puts pressure on the Chinese Government for the latter to renounce the

“non loyal concurrence”. The U.S.A. threatens it will depreciate the dollar as

reprisals. This spectrum is extremely dangerous under the circumstances that

China sits on a mount of American dollars and the press is on Washington’s

hand.

China has a communist origin regime which in spite of the economic liberalism

keeps totalitarianism on the politic level. The wish of a democratic politic life

was smothered in 1989 in Tien An Men Square and lately the Nobel Price for

Peace awarded to the dissenter Liu Xiabao showed the real face of the

Communist regime from Beijing to the world. The democratic aspirations of the

Chinese society can curb the economic development. It will be seen if they do it.

One considered that the communist China will have become the first economic

power by the end of this decade, outrunning the U.S.A. This foreseeing might

become true but the position of the U.S.A. is unquestionable under a military

aspect. The Pentagon has the strongest army in the world from the technological

point of view. The American advantage in this direction cannot be equalled in

our opinion. U.S. Army holds a string of strategic military bases all over the

world and many countries share the American democratic values. On the other

hand China has tensed its relationships with almost all its neighbours which

worriedly watch its ascent. China confronted Japan, the U.S.A (in Chorea 1950-

1953), India (1962), Soviet Russia (1969) and Vietnam (1979) in the 20th

century. The relationships with these states are almost normal and based on

trust. Moreover, China has territorial claims in some neuralgic directions. After

getting Hong Kong from the English (1997) and Macao from the Portuguese

(1999), China hopes to regain Taiwan and Mongolia. Taiwan is massively

supported by the U.S.A. while Mongolia which appeared on the world map in

21

1924 helped by the Red Army is supported by the Russian Federation. Firstly,

Mongolia was a province of the imperial China. This large and little populated

state is believed to become part of China even if the Chinese Government is not

clear on this direction. After all, nature is horrified by emptiness. But as

concerning Taiwan, China is extremely clear in its statements: reunion is just a

matter of time. The Chinese authorities would be considered to release from its

arms the regime from Phenian and accept a reunification of the Chorea

Peninsula southward if Americans accepted a reunion of China and Taiwan on

the principle “one country, two systems” successfully applied in Hong Kong.

Apart the delicate problem of the human rights China confronts the problem of

Tibet that was occupied in the sixth decade of the soon ended century. Under

Dalai Lama’s guidance the Tibetan people that live in China militate for

independence on the extern plane. The Tibetans’ cause enjoys much sympathy

on the world level. Dalai Lama became as popular as the Pope. In the West

provinces of China there is an open war with the Islamic fundamentalism which

claims a Muslim state to be created in that area.

In conclusion, one can say that the People's Republic of China is a giant with

much vulnerability. Definitely the statute of superpower will be never lost, but a

Chinese influence compared to that of the U.S.A. is never believed to exist. In a

multipolar world China will be one of the strongest states beside the U.S.A.,

Japan, the Russian Federation, India, European Union, and why not, Brazil. But

definitely, it will not be a dominant power as the U.S.A. was at the end of the

Cold War. Therefore the fear provoked by China’s ascent is generally not

justified because China is a clay-legged giant.

22

IX. USA vs. China



A factual fashion of predictions on the Republic of China’s rapid increasing

rhythm has come out lately. There is no doubt that the Communist China’s

economic results are impressive. The latest valuation considers that the United

States of America live their last years of world economic supremacy. Even

though people consider that the regime from Beijing is far from contesting the

power of the United States of America in all fields. At least from military,

geopolitical and geostrategic perspective, Washington’s primacy cannot be

disputed on short and medium period. According to a famous phrase China has

not been able “to cast its power on global level” yet. Some arguments will be

briefly presented further under which the People's Republic of China is thought

to replace the United States of America in near future from the position of being

the only authentic superpower of the world.

The United States of America built a line of military bases in all sore spots of

the world during the Cold War. These allow it to influence the world politics

decisively and to get involved rapidly and efficiently where its interests require.

China does not possess such instruments of foreign policy. Pakistan has recently

tried to blackmail America by inviting China to build a naval base in Gwandar

harbour. This initiative is thought to have few chances to be materialized.

Furthermore, many countries are pleased to host American bases on their

territories as this fact gives them an emphasized security feeling. This category

consists of states as Germany, Italy, Turkey, South Korea, Japan and more

recently, Romania. Through the strategic partnership with USA, our country has

the strongest guarantees of security in all its history and for this fact we salute

23

the missile shield placement from Deveselu, Olt County. Thus American

friendship is searched and that cannot be said about Chinese one.

The People's Republic of China arouses concern to the most countries which

borders. These are afraid of the colossus’s declared intensions, but especially its

undeclared ones, which is at their borders. Otherwise chine has many territorial

conflicts with its neighbouring countries. Firstly, there is the thorny problem of

the Republic of China (Taiwan) which the authorities from Beijing consider it a

rebel province. Its independence/autonomy is supported by USA. Two sections

of the border with the Russian Federation are in dispute as well as the suzerainty

on the high area of Peaktu-san which lies on the border with North Korea.

Although in the latest years there was some rapprochement between Moscow

and Beijing, there are more divergent than convergent aspects on the map of the

Russian-Chinese relationships. After all, the two countries faced each other in an

armed conflict in 1969 and China is a competitor not only for Russia but also for

America.

Disputes on territories also poison the relationship with Vietnam. The sea

borders from Tonkin Bay as well the Paracel Islands are disputed by the two

countries. Among others there was even a Chinese-Vietnamese war in 1979

during which the Vietnamese masterly coped. To all these conflicts are added

the claims that China raises on the Senkaku Islands which are administrated by

the Japanese and the divergences with Philippine which are also based on

territorial issues. India is another big country with whom China is in dispute on

territorial issues from the Himalaya Mountains. A war between China and India

arose in 1962 and in general the relationships between them are tensioned. To all

this collection of conflicts the border between Tadjikistan and China which is in

dispute is added.

Among the external territorial issues there are internal ones. Tibet which was

conquered by China in the 50s requests the regain of its independence through

24

Dalai Lama’s voice that is in exile in India. On the other hand there are serious

conflicts for independency in the Chinese Turkestan (Xinjiang) and that makes

ones believe that the threaten of the Islamic terrorism is as big for China as for

Russia or USA.

The United States’ techno-military advance is very big and hard to overcome

even if by China. In present the Chinese built their first aircraft carrier on a

platform of a carrier bought from Ukraine and the nuclear bombs are got from

Russia. There is no doubt that the America’s military potential is unbeatable

even if it will be surpassed from the economic point of view. Only USA can get

involved military everywhere in the world rapidly. Even considering the nuclear

arsenal the difference between the two counties is clearly in favour of the United

States.

The fact that there is a communist dictatorial regime ruling in China is another

aspect which concerns the international community that recurrently finds out

about the flagrant violation of the human rights which happen under the

protection of the rulers from Beijing. USA is a functional democracy, which in

spite of some excesses externally, is less “questionable” than the Chinese

Communism. Lately China has wanted to assume the USSR’s net of friends

from the Cold War (Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc.). However Uncle Sam’s

enemies are highly unstable allies unlike France and Great Britain.

These mentioned above were only some of the reasons under which people

believe that The People's Republic of China has not been yet the super power in

which many telecommunications-analysts trust. Economic power has not been

enough yet for creating a new world giant. China might surpass USA to all

aspects in a later future but in my opinion this will not be very soon.

25

X. Chess with No Checkmate or the Iranian Nuclear Crisis



The nuclear weapons appeared in 1945 in the U.S.A. as a result of the

Manhattan Project. They were used in August 1945 on the Japanese cities

Hiroshima and Nagasaki where they revealed their highly destructive potential.

During the decades of the Cold War the club of the nuclear powers enlarged and

thus today it consists of the following states: U.S.A., the Russian Federation,

China, U.K., France, and more recently, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and

Israel. The nuclear weapons paradoxically removes the risks of a generalized

war because the entire and mutual destroy is guaranteed. Nevertheless the small

and medium-sized countries have always tended to get a nuclear umbrella.

Considering the volatile character of the politic regimes from the states which

aspire to the nuclear power status, the risk of a nuclear war increases

exponentially. For that reason, the international community tried to limit the

access of such suspicious and unpredictable regimes to such a power level as

much as possible.

Lately, North Korea and Iran were the protagonists in some nuclear crisis.

While the regime from Pyongyang accomplished its dream and this on the

concern of the states from the Far East, the leaders from Teheran make intense

efforts in order to gain the much desired nuclear power. An Islamic-origin

fundamentalist regime is ruling Iran and that was settled down by the ayatollah

Khomeini after the removal of the shah Reza Pehlavi. Both the fact that the

former shah was an allied of the Americans and the hostages’ crisis that

followed led to the end of the diplomatic relationship between Washington and

26

Teheran. The American-Iranian antagonism went further in the following

decades because of the support given by some Iranians to some terrorist

organizations. Moreover, the latter president of the Bush family placed Iran on a

virtual axis of evil. One must be said for a balance that the Iranian propaganda

considers America “The Mighty Satan”.

Nevertheless the Islamist regime managed to raise Iran on the international

relationship scene through the fact that this country has an increasingly military

force, huge deposits of hydrocarbons, and there is no great power on Iran’s

borders after the U.S.S.R. dismemberment. The international community’s

reserve on the power in Teheran comes from the declarations’ radicalism

launched by President Ahmadineiad who not infrequently gave his opinion for

erasing Israel from the map. Hence the possibility that Iran owns nuclear

thermonuclear weapons is undoubtedly a serious reason for concern which

seems to sustain an American attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities. There is

the precedent from 1981 for such an initiative when the Israelis attacked some

supposed nuclear facilities from Iraq. The fact that the coalition gathered by

Bush Jr. later did not find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq determines

that many actors on the international scene to be skeptical at the existence of a

military nuclear program in Iran especially because Teheran vehemently denies

any nuclear weapons development saying out loud that the goals of its programs

are only civil.

One thing is certain: an Iran equipped with weapons able to unleash

Armageddon is an unacceptable state of fact. But before embarking upon a

preventive attack U.S.A. must prove with irrefutable arguments the fact Iraq

develops nuclear weapons and that has not been possible until now. On the other

hand, Iran’s refusal to cooperate with the international bodies of control justifies

the fears for its intentions felt by the occidental cabinets. In my opinion the

27

Russian Federation has as much concern reasons as the U.S.A. because Teheran

might approach a policy such as “all azimuths” under the circumstances of the

fact that the Russians confront the Islamic radicalism in Caucasus and Central

Asia.

In conclusion, this very complicated nuclear crisis must be solved with surgical

precision and the responsible involvement of as many powers as possible.

XI. Iranian nuclear file



A possible war between Iran and the binomial USA-Israel has become an

obsession spread by mass-media. This entire situation resembles more and more

the events which have preceded the Iraq’s invasion in 2003. America, Israel and

Saudi Arabia wish – for some reasons – an Iran where the clergy had a

secondary role. Iran is a large sales-market where the West and the

multinationals cannot be a law unto themselves. There is plentiful supply of oil

and gas in the Iranian subsoil which “Uncle Sam’s companies” does not control.

On the other hand, Teheran opposes – and with good reasons most of the times –

to the policy promoted by the Americans in the Middle and Near East. For this

reason, it supports the extremist groups such as Hezbollah. The fact that Iran

could have a military nuclear program is adds to all these.

In our opinion, USA wants to attack Iran for the same reasons that it invaded

Iraq in 2003. As one has easily realized, there is a cocktail of strategic and

especially economical interests in this entire situation. The issue of the weapons

28

of mass-destruction is just an excuse which the State Department uses on a

massive scale in order to promote the selfish interests of the Unites States of

America. Another pretext liked by the American diplomats is the issue of the

human rights. Although, only the enemies of the United States violate the human

rights and their allies never do it. The Russian Federation, China or Iran violates

the human rights while Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey do not do such a

thing. There follow some arguments by virtue of which I consider a war against

Iran is not justified:

1. Despite the alarming reports drawn up by the International Agency of

Atomic Energy we do not believe Teheran will acquire a nuclear weapon

very soon. The American officials accredit the idea that President

Ahmadinejad will have had a nuclear weapon by the end of 2012. As

irrefutable proofs did not appear to support these statements, I doubt on

their veracity. Let us not forget Sadam Hussein’s weapons of mass-

destruction could not have been found up to present.

2. Even if Iran acquired an atomic weapon in not very far future, we do not

consider this fact extremely dangerous. How the regime in Teheran would

be more dangerous for the world peace than states as Israel, Pakistan or

North Korea which has already possessed nuclear arsenals. Is it not

obvious that Iran could not use this power? Any nuclear attack against an

ally of America would be tantamount to wiping Iran out of the world map.

A riposte would simply be devastating.

3. Acquiring an atomic weapon is just one aspect of the atomic power and

not necessary the hardest. The atomic bomb has a quite low potential of

destruction. Consequently, Iran should produce thermonuclear bombs

(Hydrogen bomb or H bomb) in order it may be a real threat. Thus, the

Iranians should work at their nuclear program many years henceforward.

29

4. On the other hand, Iran must have a fairly large number of warheads in

order it may be a real threat to Israel or other ally of America in the area.

Israel cannot be attacked with a single warhead. This dilemma also

concerned Stalin in 1949 when the Soviet Russia acquired the atomic

weapon. In consequence, Iran would need very much time in order that it

might become a real nuclear power. India tested the first atomic weapon

in the 70s and, however, its nuclear arsenal cannot be compared to the one

of the five great nuclear powers.

5. In order to understand the power of an atomic weapon, Iran must initiate

tests which can last much time. For this reason, Iran will not be a genuine

threat for anybody few centuries hence. Teheran does not have the

necessary technology and knowledge at this moment in order it may

create an atomic arsenal dangerous for the world peace. However, it must

be added the fact that this country’s financial resources cannot afford to

allocate some great amounts of money for such eccentricities as to

produce nuclear capabilities. As I have already stated, a possible atomic

Iranian arsenal would require some centuries to be set up.

6. Owning an atomic weapon is worthless without the capacity of carry it to

the target efficiently. Iran does not own any nuclear missile launchers

submarines, or intercontinental ballistic missiles, or strategic bombers, or

cruise missiles as the American Tomahawk. Thus, it does not possess the

capacity of carry the atomic weapons far away and in an enough amount

to annihilate the enemy. Let us not forget Israel has high-performance

missile defense system.

7. Despite all Teheran’s warlike declarations to Israel, we do not consider

possible an attack against the Jewish state even if Iran had the supreme

weapon. How would a nuclear bombing against Israel help the Palestinian

30

cause? Would the Palestinians not die together with the Jewish, either?

Would the Iranian people not be exterminated, either?

In conclusion, we can state without being too wrong that Iran is not so big

threat as the western media shows it. A likely nuclear Iranian arsenal would

have only a strictly defensive role, but not an offensive one. An Iran with

nuclear capacities could not have the fate as Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan. And

as the fight for supply will be tough in future, the Iranian oil and gas will

weigh much in the balance of the great powers. Thus, the reasons why some

want to attack Iran are totally different.

Lastly, we may draw attention to the fact that Israel has a much superior

military force than Iran has. Israel has already possessed the atomic weapon,

but no one is outraged by this status quo. The International Agency of

Atomic Energy does not annoy Tel Aviv with unforeseen controls for the

mere reason that Israel does not support nonproliferation of the atomic

weapons only when is about other states. We nourish respect and admiration

for the Jewish state. We strongly believe in its right to have an existence

away from any threat, but we have the same beliefs concerning all the states

and for this reason we recommend to the great policy makers of the planet,

such as Ronald Reagan did: “Do not urge the dogs of war!”

XII. China in America’s Way



Much can be said about Barack Hussein Obama, but one cannot say he is a

genuine pacifist. It is nice to be associated with peace when revolving in the

31

lofty spheres of the global policy. The electorate is inexorably attracted by

pacifists. However, the laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize from the White House

has nothing in common with peace. He did not stop the military issues in Iraq

and Afghanistan for real. Moreover, he forced a NATO intervention against the

Gaddafi’s regime and he is pushing America towards a war against Iran at his

allies’ in the Near and Middle East insistences. The drones refuse to land during

his tenure. One speaks more and more intense in the mass-media about a World

War III because China and Russia seem to defend the fundamentalist regime in

Teheran.

One has been raising a dust for a while on a declaration of General Zhang

Zhaozhong, professor at the National Defence University. He was very

categorical: China will not hesitate to protect Iran, even on the risk of a World

War III”. Generals do not have own opinions in a dictatorial regime and that

makes one take his words seriously. At the same time, it is clear for any foreign

policy analyst that countries such as China or the USA will avoid a generalized

war as the great powers’ nuclear arsenals leave no doubt on the denouement. No

one has anything to gain as a result of a World War III. In our opinion, a new

Cold War is outlined. The seat vacated by the Soviet Union in 1991 is occupied

by the People’s Republic of China. China and the USA face for domination on

the global level, and the Chinese General’s declaration, namely an official of

second or even third rank, shows the regime in Beijing is willing to wage a

“total” war.

Russia opposes America of inertia. In return, China wants to outrun the USA on

geopolitical and geostrategic aspect. The leaders in Beijing seem not to suffice

the economical supremacy. For these reasons, the Chinese support Iran, with

which they develop extensive economical trade. Alike the Soviets, the Chinese

consider a potential ally any enemy of America. However, as the Americans

32

could find regarding Osama Bin Laden, a today’s ally could become a

tomorrow’s enemy. Who can guarantee the radicals in Teheran will not use the

atomic bomb in a not really far future in order they may help their brothers in

faith from Chinese Turkestan. Russia and China have major troubles with the

Islamic terrorism. Ahmadinejad threatens the Jewish for his Palestinian brothers’

sake today and he can act in the same way with China, Russia or India

tomorrow. Thus, China plays a dangerous game.

In a different connection, one must notice certain myopia of the decision factors

from Beijing concerning the world economic crisis. Even if China possesses

large amounts of currency, it refused to help the great world economies to

emerge from the recession. The Chinese are addicted to the large world markets

which absorb large quantities of merchandise Made in the PRC. Their collapse

provokes a decrease of the Chinese export and, on the other hand, the raising of

the Chinese power awakens concerns to the world and not enthusiasm as in

America’s case. America is dreaded, but also admired, China is only feared.

After all, America is a state with a democratic tradition, in spite of its flaws and

China is a state with a totalitarian tradition.

XIII. Romania Declared War to USA

Author: PhD Gheţău Gh. FlorinFirst published on: www.geostrategic.eu

Who could have guessed in the autumn of 1939 that Romania would be at war

with the United States of America after more than two years? Stalin and Hitler

started the World War II on the 23rd of August 1939 through a paradoxical Pact

33

of Nonaggression. There was a fashion of “nonaggression” in the interwar

period. It seems each eagerly wanted to hear like a jealous lover that peace

would be maintained. However, as one knows well, those formal promises were

worth less than as much as the paper did when they were eternized. Poor

Romania, as lacking statesmen as today, found itself in front of enemies such as

the Soviet Union, Horthy’s Hungary and Bulgaria in 1940. As a consequence,

the borders of the Great Romania were torn apart. Only Nazi Germany was

willing to guarantee the existence of what had remained from Romania after all

that. Our country entered the Nazi Germany’s orbit absolutely naturally and

joined the war on its side against the Soviet Union in order to regain the North

Bucovina and Hertza Region in 1941.

The purpose of the fact that Romania had been part of Barbarossa Operation was

quickly aimed and Hitler rewarded the Romanian friendship by giving it the

administration of Transnistria. The Japanese attacked the American naval base

Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December 1941 and that led to installing the state of

war between the USA and the Japanese Empire. In this context, Hitler thought

he committed a huge error to declare war to the United States of America. He

may have thought the Japanese would declare war to the Soviet Russia as a sign

of gratitude, sealing this country’s fate. However, the cerebral leaders in Tokyo

did not feel obliged to follow that direction. One believes the Japanese made a

mistake because Russian’s destruction would have let the Anglo-American

tandem alone in front of the Axis. Stalin did not hesitate to attack Japan which

was on the verge of collapse in 1945. Gratitude is not among the virtues of the

great powers.

Roosevelt could take the USA to war against Japan, but he had not any solid

reason for confronting the Hitler’s Germany. The impulsive Adolf Hitler took

him out of this dilemma by declaring war to America. In order to give more

34

effect to this gesture, he put under pressure the satellites on his orbit to get a

similar behaviour. Thus, Romania under Ion Antonescu’s rule complied and

declared war to the USA on the 11th of December 1941. Washington did not

bother to answer to this declaration only after a few months proving how little

importance it gave to the Axis’s “satellites”. This behaviour was not changed

after 1945, either. Consequently, Romania which is America’s ally today and

fought by its side in Iraq and Afghanistan was in war with the latter. NATO

security’s umbrella protects Romania, too. In consequence, America is highly

involved in protecting our country and this fact was proved also by placing the

anti-ballistic missile in Deveselu. Romania has the strongest security guarantees

in all its history through the strategic partnership with the USA. This partnership

is not randomly the headstone of the Romanian foreign policy. One considers

this extremely gladdening status quo, but one would like to see more verticality

from the decision factors in Bucharest. However, as any Romanian knows: “If

there is nothing, nor God demands.”

I. CRUSADE AND JIHADphoto.goodreads.com/documents/1344686298books/14760432.pdfIX. USA vs. China X....

Documents

Transcript of I. CRUSADE AND JIHADphoto.goodreads.com/documents/1344686298books/14760432.pdfIX. USA vs. China X....