TFF logoFORUMS Meeting Point

The USA, World Hegemony and Cold War II


The Double Triangle: USA/NATO/AMPO versus RUSSIA, CHINA and INDIA


By Johan Galtung,
dr hc mult, Professor of Peace Studies Director,
TRANSCEND: A Peace and Development Network

TFF Associate

Paper presented at the International Conference of NGOs, 11-13 October 1999 in Seoul, Korea


1. A Super Power in the Making: The Russia-China-India triangle


Have a look at these press excerpts from late summer 1999:


Washington. - In an attempt to forge military cooperation with non-member states, NATO is spreading its wings eastwards to the Caucasus and Central Asia which may bring Russia closer to India and China," the weekly Defense News said.

"The move builds on a four-year-old project 'Regional Initiative' to install modern, harmonised Air Sovereignty and Operations Centres (ASOCs) in countries belonging to Partnership for Peace - funded by the US /which/ provides about five million dollars for each ASOC. Installations have opened in 10 countries across the Baltic region and Central and Eastern Europe, including in NATO's three new member nations - Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - where ASOCs became fully operational in March last.

NATO working groups have identified airspace management as a top priority for -Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia - even though they are not yet members of Partnership for Peace.

A second regional airspace management working group for Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia is being set up, which could form the blueprint for an even greater expansion of NATO's influence into the former Soviet territory, it said."

(From Times of India 29/07/99



"Tbilisi. - The US Defense Secretary, Mr. William Cohen, sent a clear message to Georgia today that it is welcome-in term-to join NATO. The remark came in the backdrop of increasing Russian unease over NATO extending its influence in the Caucasian region, which Moscow sees as very much its own sphere of influence. Moscow has already criticized Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary joining

NATO, and has warned of serious consequences for East-West relations if former Soviet republics also join. In Ukraine earlier, Mr Cohen had talks in Crimea on the participation of Ukrainian troops in the Kosovo KFOR peacekeeping force. The first of - - about 800 Ukrainian troops is expected in Kosovo soon.

Observers said one immediate aim in - - promoting Ukrainian and Georgian disengagement from Russian influence is the destruction of Ukrainian-based ex- Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles."

(Hindustan Times, 02/08/ -



"Beijing. - China is keen to strengthen its ties with India to facilitate the establishment of a triangular relationship between Beijing, New Delhi and Moscow which could guarantee regional security, said a senior Chinese media official, vice-president of China's official Xinhua news agency, Gao Qiufu.

The idea of establishing a strategic triangle between Russia, China and India was first mooted by former Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov during a visit to New Delhi last year, Gao said. Diplomatic sources said China has re-evaluated it foreign policy after the US-led NATO alliance undertook unilateral military action against Yugoslavia and the subsequent bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade."

(From Times of India, 12/08/999



"Moscow. - President Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin, the Chinese leader, will begin a rare summit meeting today that will underline the hostility in Moscow and Beijing to NATO's hegemony in Kosovo--a meeting of the "Shanghai Five" - a loose alliance of Russia, China and the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan - - the real importance lies in reinforcing the Moscow-Beijing axis, and the growing determination of Russia and China to confront what they see as American world domination.- - China, like Russia, saw Kosovo as a dangerous precedent that could be used to justify other Western interventions around the world without authorisation by the UN."

(From Sunday Times, 25/08/99,



"Moscow. - Russia and China are on the threshold of a breakthrough in defence and strategic ties - - Mr Ilya Klebanov, a Deputy Prime Minister responsible for Russia's defence industry and arms trade, told Russian television on Sunday night upon his return from Beijing. - - The two sides reached a deal on the sale of advanced SU-30 MKK fighter jets to China. Russian media said the deal could be worth $ 2 billion, which suggests China could get up to 60 jets (at an estimated price of $30-35 million per jet). - - The jets will be similar to the SU-30 MKI Russia has sold India-- Beijing has also already purchased 50 SU-27 jets and acquired a license for the manufacture of 200 more planes in China.

Media reports said that the Russian and Chinese leaders had agreed to jointly develop a regional air defense system if the United States went ahead with its plans for a Theater Missile Defense covering Japan, Korea and Taiwan."

(From Hindustan Times, 31/08/99;



"Washington. - U.S. specialists in international affairs are closely monitoring signs of increased cooperation among Russia, China and India--the analysts remain concerned about a potentially grave threat: an alliance that would bring together about 2.5 billion people, formidable might and a vast stockpile of nuclear weapons, all held together by the goal of countering America's global dominance.--"if the relationships progress, Mr. Maynes /president of the Eurasia Foundation in Washington/said, then you basically have the world's heartland-2 billion people in China and India-allied with a formidable technological power in Russia. That would be a disaster for the United States."

China's acquisition of Russian SSN-22 anti-ship missiles, for example, could quickly become a worry for the U.S. 7th fleet in any confrontation with Beijing. International Herald Tribune,

(From International Herald Tribune, September 28, 1999,


East and West war expansion - a pincher movement

At this surface level of analysis we are dealing with a conventional, however tragic, drama: actio-reactio in two basic aspects of militarization: alliance-formation and arms race. Both sides are performing their roles in the state-system. When NATO expansion and AMPO deepening was a clear fact about three years ago, the present author made a rather obvious prediction in the eastward NATO expansion: the beginning of Cold War II? (1):

To start with, it should be noted that discourses trying to capture the NATO expansion tend to be Euro- or Atlanto-centric; in other words misleading from the very beginning. A global perspective is hardly necessary to understand the Washington perspective: the USA borders on two oceans, not only one, so it stands to reason that the USA has not only a Europe/Atlantic strategy but also one for Asia/Pacific. The major strategic partner in Asia/Pacific is Japan, the treaty being AMPO.

Corresponding to the eastward NATO expansion there is now a westward AMPO expansion both in terms of the definition of the theater of joint US-Japan commitments and of the scope of those commitments. Thus we can talk about a coordinated pincer move aiming at the Eurasian landmass and Russia/China in particular.

Potential enemies are designated by expanding to the perimeter of Russia, China and Islam, but not beyond. The former are big enough to be interesting as enemies, one for its nuclear arsenal with delivery systems, the other for its army. But in addition there is the Muslim world, the major producer of what the USA sees as "rogue states" (Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran) and gives pariah status in the world system.

The message is classical: any big power is supposed to be jealous of any other big power. Originating as a Christian fundamentalist state the Christian/Muslim split can be invoked. The former is presented as a law of political science, the latter of theology. USA, Russia, China are striving for world hegemony, so are Christianity and Islam. Only one can be No. 1.

The West/USA has many problematic relations, one of them with China, where Prince Charles "forgot" to apologize for colonialism and drugging a whole country. Russia could be clever enough to solve problems, not to talk about human rights, and to point to the pincer movement obviously directed at them both. Together they could draw the obvious conclusion: if the USA sees us separately as their problem, (2). how about the two of us operating jointly?

Not to be forgotten: ex-Soviet Union had good relations with India. They may one day be revived, and the "Eurasian landmass" might muster about one half of humanity against that Western/US pincer movement. But even if that should not happen, what definitely will be revived will be the Russian arms industry, also in order to compete with the West economically...


The Second Cold War?

A glance at the map is sufficient to make such predictions, using the basic law of social (and natural) reality, the dialectical principle of actio-reactio (a push in one direction will sooner or later generate a counterpush, not necessarily of the same size; that is Newton's Third Law). A high level, not only of arrogance x ignorance is needed not to make them, but also of Piaget's absolutism: what "they" do is not generated by what "we" do, theirs is only actio, not reactio, we need proactio. Well, that proactio has consequences.

In a speech in the Slovenian parliament September 1998 the present author developed this theme a little further:

To have NATO expand eastward, and at the same time AMPO westward, in terms of the support, logistical and otherwise, given by Japan to the USA, will easily be perceived as a pincer movement. In-between is the Eurasian continent, the source of geopolitical evil in US strategic thought (Latin America being an easily controlled backyard, Africa being insignificant). The Middle East is a key part of Eurasia, so is South Asia after the nuclear explosions of India and Pakistan, so is Central Asia with its oil, so is Southeast Asia. And so are, indeed Russia (with Ukraina and Belarus) and China, not to mention the highly problematic Eurasian peripheries, Korea and the Balkans.

Thus, a global superpower has its reasons. What will be the reaction?

A reactio of (about) same size, and with (about) opposite direction. Russia and China will settle grievances (e.g. over the Ussuri river) and start exchanging military information; China might like to reinforce agreements with Pakistan and Russia to reinstate agreements with India; in addition Russia will pick up what the USA defines as pariah states, Serbia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran and support them in the UN. The whole region may cohere against the USA. Welcome to Cold War II?

It could be a welcome to something more. These could be the opening moves for a World War III more devastating than anything known to humanity, with three "recognized" nuclear powers on one side and four on the other after India and Pakistan came out of the closet. Not a "clash of civilizations" - both triangles are too diverse for that - but a clash of the three richest regions in the world (USA-Canada, EU and Japan + (3), in short OECD) and the possible Number 2: the rest of Eurasia.


How did we get into this situation?

No doubt the key actor, indeed pro-actor, is the United States, in turn a product of its birth as a state, and as a nation, very courageous, very self-righteous, very violent.

After a trial run in the First world war the Second world war gave real birth to the USA as a world actor, provoked by German nazism, Italian fascism and Japanese militarism, with direct links to the present situation:

Planning for post-war bases began in 1942, barely a year into the Pacific War, when Franklin D. Roosevelt requested the Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare a global study of bases for an "International Police Force". The military complied by presenting JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) 570/2 to the President in the autumn of 1943.

Prepared by the Joint Strategic Survey Committee, JCS 570/2 divided the world into three areas: (- -) "participating or reciprocal military rights;" Atlantic locations (- -) -"exclusive military rights" (Alaska, the Philippines, Micronesia, Central America, and the Caribbean) and "participating rights" as one of the Great Powers enforcing peace: Indochina, Eastern China, Korea and Japan." (4)

The "three areas" correspond, roughly, to the NATO system of April 1949, expanded in scope and domain 50 years later; the TIAP system (Tratado Interamericano de Paz) or Rio de Janeiro system, of 1947; and the AMPO system based on the U.S.-Japan Peace Treaty of 1951. The foundation was JCS 570/2 1943, and "by late 1945, the military high command had come to the consensus, reflected in the Joint Chiefs of Staff document 570/40, that bases in the Philippines, Marianas, and the Ryukyus would be the most vital in the Pacific." (5)

A modest beginning, in the early postwar period to a large extent engineered by then Chief of Planning of the US State Department, George Kennan. For a continuation, let us use a representative article by a highly representative member of the US foreign policy establishment, Zbigniew Brzezinski: "A Geostrategy for Eurasia." (6) The title reflects a US/Western tendency to think big, and to be arrogant.

A collection of his basic points:

"Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world's most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to America's primacy." (italics ours, p. 50).
Comment: What does it mean to us/US is the only perspective.

"A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia." (p.50).
Comment: A clearly expressed ambition by the third region. (8)

"What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and historical legacy." (p. 51).
Comment: Code words: a) Global primacy = world hegemony; b) Historical legacy=manifest destiny.

"In the short run, the United States should consolidate and perpetuate the prevailing geopolitical pluralism on the map of Eurasia. This strategy will put a premium on political maneuvering and diplomatic manipulation, preventing the emergence of a hostile coalition that could challenge America's primacy, not to mention the remote possibility of any one state seeking to do so." (p. 51).
Comment: Codewords: perpetuate pluralism = split and rule. Political maneuvering and diplomatic manipulation = Machiavellianism. This type of article will rather engender a "hostile coalition"

"--the only real alternative to American leadership is international anarchy" (pp. 51f)
Comment: Not one word wasted on the equity/egality option

"In a volatile Eurasia, the immediate task is to ensure that no state or combination of states gains the ability to expel the United States or even diminish its decisive role." (p. 52)
Comment: US presence an occupation? Also against popular will?

"Its /careful strategic calculus/ goals should be to divert Chinese power into constructive regional accommodation and to channel Japanese energy into wider international partnerships." (p. 68)
Comment: China should behave well in the region; Japan should engage in wider partnership /above all with the USA/. And thereby:

"China's aspirations to regional preeminence and global status would be diminished" (p. 59).

"Japan should not be America's unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Far East, nor should it be America's principal Asian military partner."

"A disoriented Japan, whether lurching toward rearmament or a separate accommodation with China, would spell the end of the American role in the Asia-Pacific region - - " (p.63).

"Unlike China, which can seek global power by first becoming a regional power, Japan can gain global influence only if it eschews the quest for regional power".

Comment: Who, then, is America's principal Asian military partner? China? - then better not bomb China's Belgrade embassy.

"--Americans and Japanese must first set in motion a triangular political-security dialogue that engages China. Such three-way American-Japanese-Chinese security talks could eventually involve more Asian participants, and later lead to a dialogue with the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe. That, in turn, could eventually pave the way for a series of conferences by European and Asian states on security issues. A transcontinental security system would thus begin ta take shape". (pp. 63f).
Comment: With the United States at both sides of the table.

"Geostrategic success in that venture would be a fitting legacy to America's role as the first and only global superpower." (p. 64).
Comment: Any effort to manage, even micro-manage, others (Russia should become a confederation of European Russia, a Siberian Republic and a Far Eastern Republic; Ukraine should see herself as a part of Central Europe; the European Union must admit Turkey, etc.) without giving them the same realistic chance to micromanage the USA is known as hegemony, certainly fitting to "America's role as the first and only global superpower".

But it carries the seeds of its own destruction because of the counterforces it will produce. Any effort to conceive of the world in terms of regions and states as if human beings did not matter also carries the seeds of own destruction because of the popular forces it will generate - like for WTO and MAI. To have a geostrategy is already questionable, to do so treating a major part of humanity as objects for own security and enhancement is beyond the questionable.


Our geopolitical predicament after the war on Yugoslavia

Not only Russia/China/India, 40% of humanity - the only 3 out of the UN Security Council 15 members that voted against the US/NATO war on ("on" because it was the coward's war, from the air, not the traditional war, on the ground, "in") Yugoslavia - but most analysts would see the war as foreboding things to come, like the Gulf war in 1991 was seen at the time.

The minor conflict, in and around Kosovo, is now developing more or less as expected: the trilateral low intensity war (NATO-KLA-Serbs) is there and will probably escalate much further. It will drag on for decades, generations, centuries as No. 4 of a succession of Serbian-Albanian fights only since 1878 (the other three being on conjunction with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in that region, leading up to and including the First world war, Mussolini's Greater Albania in connection with the Second world war).

It is also very tragic because the crisis of 1998-99 could probably have been solved by (for more see

- expanding the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission by a factor of 10, up to 12-20,000;

- verifying that the observers are there to dampen, even eliminate acts of ethnic cleansing, not for other purposes;

- closing the border between Albania and Kosovo/a to prevent UCK infiltration (as was done between Serbia and Macedonia);

- open negotiations on the status of Kosovo/a with republic within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as one option;

- open negotiations about the status of Southern Balkans with confederation as one option;

- guaranteed and protected return of displaced persons including Serbs back to Krajina/Slavonija and to Bosnia and Hercegovina.

The first three measures of peacekeeping would provide space for the next three to start meaningful peacemaking/peacebuilding.


Consequences of the war

Instead of any real effort to solve the conflict we got the following "Consequences of NATO's War on Yugoslavia": (8)

- NATO state terrorism against Yugoslavia destroyed 300 factories and refineries, 190 educational establishments, 20 hospitals, 30 clinics, 60 bridges, 5 airports;

- to the estimated 2,000 deaths (600 military) and 6,000 wounded come those who die from destruction of health infrastructure;

- only 12-15 tanks (of 300 main battle tanks) were destroyed;

- almost all destruction was to public, not private enterprises;

- the US hatred of nonaligned/neutral countries may have been a factor in targeting Yugoslavia;

- some countries join NATO as an insurance against being bombed;

- remember that between November 1998 and March 1999 there was no evidence of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo; Germany sent back 11,000 Kosovar refugees;

- the Spanish pilot Adolfo Luis Martin de la Hoz, in Articulo 20, 14 June 1999: "They are destroying the country, bombing it with novel weapons, toxic nervous gases, surface mines dropped with parachute bombs containing uranium, black napalm, sterilization chemicals, sprayings to poison the crops and weapons of which we even still do not know anything. The North Americans are committing one of the biggest barbarities that can be committed against humanity". He refused to bomb, so did his superior, a colonel. Both were removed.


A parallel with the world around 1930

But how about the major conflict, NATO/AMPO/TIAP againstthe world? What does this remind us of? How many years have we been set back by this war by "19 democracies" (NATO)/"democratic totalitarianism" (Zinoviev)? Possible answer: 65 years.

The parallel that comes to mind, mentioned by Solzhenitsyn, is Hitler's use of the national conflict between Sudeten/Germans and Czechs, the pressure on Czechoslovakia (with the support of England). Japan's attack on Manchuria 1931-45 and Italy's attack on Ethiopia 1935-41 were also against the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 (Briand got the Nobel Peace Prize in 1926, Kellogg in 1929): 62 states, among them all major powers, agreed to renounce war as political instrument and to settle all international disputes by peaceful means.

The exceptions were wars of self-defense or miliary obligations from the League Covenant, the Monroe doctrine or alliance obligations - similar to the UN Charter Article 2(4), with exceptions. Both valid international law, with holes.

The three dictatorships were above the law and the League. They brushed all resolutions aside, lifted by their visions of a New Order: Neuordnung/Nuovo Ordine/dai-to-a. Their propaganda was as massive as the NATO propaganda with its insulting "apologies" for "collateral damage" that so obviously was intended by those on top from the very beginning. (The world did not have Internet at the time, that helps today).

But the power was on the side of those "above the law" because of a criterion of their own choice - although there was probably more popular will behind what those dictatorships did than for the sneaky action by the "democracies"). The dictatorships followed up what they started: the Second world war. The USA, using NATO-AMPO-TIAP, is probably tempted to do the same, starting with North Korea and Colombia(?), to implement their New World Order.

Unfortunately, this kind of politics is accompanied by a general attitude of self-righteousness and self-appointment. To the present President, William Jefferson Clinton, America has become the world's "indispensable nation". Since JCS has been drawn upon to show the political/military tradition enacted, it is worth pointing out that to one recent Chairman of the JCS, Colin Powell, "America was created by divine providence to bring order to the world", and to his successor, John Shalikashvili, the USA is nothing less than a "global nation with global interests". To such a nation world hegemony is not a right. It is a duty to be "international police force", whether others agree or not.


The US/UK-NATO attack: What could be the real motives?

When two countries with a very belligerent track record, able to legitimize their belligerence, launch a war, we have to identify motives in the subtext rather than in published texts.

Here is a list of possible (not mutually exclusive) motives; the list may serve to identify motivations in other conflict arenas:


The wish to help the Kosovars

• A sincere wish to stop Serbian violence against the Kosovars and to secure for the Kosovars a safe future. The means include acceptance of the Rambouillet diktat after the pain limit has been reached, withdrawal of Serbian forces, a NATO protectorate in Kosovo, safe return of the refugees, and, possibly, independence.

However, there are problems: the Rambouillet diktat does not give the Kosovars independence, the protectorate may last long given guerrilla warfare, the Kosovars may also terrorize the population and fight among themselves, Kosovo may be close to uninhabitable. Given that the means chosen may be neither efficacious, nor efficient. The goal may be laudable, the means stupid.

Could there be some other, less honorable goals that would make the means chosen look more intelligent? How to judge NATO in general, the US/UK in particular and the USA even more in particular: as honorable but stupid, or criminal but bright?


Political motives

We see four different motives:

1) Punish the Serbs for their past action, with the two goals of punishment: individual prevention (the Serbs will never try ethnic cleansing again) and general prevention (scare others). The Iraq treatment is a model: destroy military infrastructure, and then civilian infrastructure, as it can also be used by the military (a truism). Add to this economic sanctions, and Serbian children will soon die like Iraqi children do.

2) Destroy Serbia, by at least bombing it back to 1945 when Tito started reconstruction after the Second world war; detaching from Serbia Kosovo (mineral resources, cultural identity), Vojvodina (bread basket) and Montenegro (access to Adria), leaving a small country to eke out a mediocre existence.

3) Secure the Western control post for the Eurasian continent, the Eastern post being in Japan-Taiwan-South Korea.

4) The New World Military Order, substituting NATO/AMBO/TIAP for the UN Security Council, securing automatic US leadership for bombing Russia, North Korea, Colombia with obedient "allies".


Economic Motives

1) Corridor 8, the idea of a Muslim/Russian-free oil pipeline, through Georgia, from Sukhumi/Socii to Varna/Burgos by ship, then pipeline through Bulgaria-Macedonia -Kosovo/a-Albania to Duerres/Flora; from the Black Sea to Adria; used to bribe and as pressure on the British (and the Norwegians?) as it competes with North Sea oil, appealing to their interest in flow control.

2) Reconstruction contracts, presumably proportionate to the destruction wrought. Alternative model: USA destroys, Europe pays for the reconstruction, including to US companies.

3) The very rich mines in Kosovo/a, estimated at $ 5 billion.

4) Collection of Yugoslav debt that Yugoslavia is unable to pay.


Military motives

1) Testing old and new weapons.

2) Sales promotion for old and new weapons.

3) Testing the will and capacity of NATO allies.


Cultural motives

1) The cosmic drama: our God against theirs, whose is stronger?

2) Humiliating the enemy into submission.


The US instruments: NATO and Japan

The Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the North Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C. on 24th April 1999 issued a communique with the Alliance's Strategic Concept; among other interesting things, it states:

"24. Any armed attack on the territory of the Allies, from whatever direction, would be covered by Article 5 and 6 of the Washington Treaty. However, Alliance security must also take account of the global context. Alliance security interests can be affected by other risks of a wider nature, including acts of terrorism, sabotage and organised crime, and by the disruption of the flow of vital resources. - -

29. Military capabilities effective under the full range of foreseeable circumstances are also the basis of the Alliance's ability to contribute to conflict prevention and crisis management through non-article 5 crisis response operations. - -

31. In pursuit of its policy of preserving peace, preventing war, and enhancing security and stability and as set out in the fundamental security tasks, NATO will seek, in cooperation with other organisations, to prevent conflict, or, should a crisis arise, to contribute to its effective management, consistent with international law, including through the possibility of conducting non-Article 5 crisis response operations."

What is stated here is very clear: all issues, all places, "with all necessary means", and within NATO's interpretation of international law.

How about Japan? Some parts of an article in Der Spiegel (9) deserve to be quoted here:

"Against the danger there is only one remedy: Japan needs her own atomic weapons" (interview with Shingo Nishimura, MP)

The government of Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi made available $ 1.7 billion to build Japan's own spy satellite". Nishimura: "We need our own aircraft carrier, cruise missiles and nuclear warheads. Japan must become a normal country".

Japan has today and army of 243,000 men, and pays for this around $ 42 billion annually.

Parliament decided to appoint, for the first time for 52 years, a committee for possible revision of the /1947/ Constitution. Taku Yamasaki, possible successor to Prime Minister Obuchi: "Article 9 must go" /A9 denies Japan the right to go to war."

Tomohide Murai from the National Defense Academy: "The Chinese understand only the language of military threat".

Add to that the relegitimation of the Hinomaru (flag) and the Kimigayo (hymn) as official symbols, and the picture is ominous.


What can we do about it?

1) Politico-legal offence

Andre Gander Frank <> placed an essay on the Internet May 30, 1999, entitled "The Best Defense Against NATO is Political Offense at Its Weakest Links." His proposal is composed of three related parts:

1- Political: Attack and break the weakest link in and among NATO member countries and thereby weaken NATO itself.

2- Moral: Take the moral high ground and deny it to NATO leaders by indicting them for war crimes in the courts and before public opinion.

3- Legal: Resuscitate the United Nations for peace and prevent NATO from exercising military rule in the Balkans under the 'legitimizing' cloak of the same UN that NATO itself has strangled.

Tribunals indicting NATO for the war on Yugoslavia would belong among these proposals. One should not underestimate the role of the Bertrand Russell Tribunals and the work done by a Jean-Paul Sartre against whom de Gaulle said, "Monsieur, Sartre, you cannot stand in judgment of the State". That is exactly what must be done: states and statesmen are not sacred. Sacred is life.

2. Protest in time

But beyond that we need to address the present situation, the most serious the present author, who lived through the Second world war and the Cold war, has experienced. We have to learn to protest against a war that is foretold but has not

(yet) taken place, not like the governments wait till major violence has already occurred.

3. NGO coalitions and new links

This calls for NGO-coalitions disseminating information (the old triangle is most ignorant), organizing hearings, demanding and proposing conflict resolution policies if there is conflict, denouncing maneuvering for world hegemony.

A major task of NGOs in the OECD region would be to establish links with the official level in Russia-China-India (and Belarus-Ukraine, Iran-Iraq-Syria and the Central Asian republics).

4. Challenge OECD governments

Another task is to challenge the governments in the OECD region to question the USA-NATO-AMPO policy which is also accepted:

[a] because the USA as the leader presumably knows best, and
[b] because if distrusted the USA may not help in a crisis, and
[c] because fallen clients are in for the harshest treatment (Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Noriega, Aidid, Osama bin Laden).

Among 19 NATO members there must be one non-lapdog member!

5. Challenge conventional thinking and official rhetoric

Finally, an effort to answer a question that troubles some people, and also to rebut a rhetoric very often engaged in precisely by those Americans who seek world hegemony: Is this type of analysis anti-American?

Not at all! It is perfectly possible to be:

• anti-slavery/colonialism without being anti-English
• anti-nazi without being anti-German
• anti-fascist without being anti-Italian
• anti-militarist hegemony without being anti-Japanese
• anti-Quisling without being anti-Norwegian
• anti-stalinist without being anti-Russian
• anti-poststalinist socialism without being anti-socialist
• anti-jungle capitalism without being anti-market
• anti-zionist without being anti-semitic, and
• anti-hegemony without being anti-American.

The present author is all ten. In no way does this mean that we should not explore the relation between slavery/colonialism and something English (I would say deep culture/structure) all the way down the list to the relation between hegemony and something American. (10) But the relation is never that unambiguous, "something English" etc. is much broader, there are other roads that could have been travelled.

Our task, together with anti-hegemonical, pro-peace Americans, is to explore those alternative roads - and travel them.



1. First presented at the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute, Copenhagen, September 1996.

2. And China goes further than that: "Seeking to rally Southeast Asian support, China on Friday sharply intensified pressure on Japan to reject moves to have strengthened military alliance with the United States cover Taiwan.--several /countries/ were privately concerned that it was unnecessarily provocative to China and could become a serious source of instability in the Asia-Pacific region (International Herald Tribune, 23-24 August, 1997).

3. By + is meant South Korea/Taiwan.

4. From Hayes, Zarsko and Bello, American Lake: Nuclear Peril in the Pacific (New York: Penguin, 1986), p.19, among other sources drawing on E. Converse, United states Plans for a Postwar Overseas Military Base System 1942-1948 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984).

5. Op. cit., p. 23.

6. Foreign Affairs September/October 1997, 75th Anniversary, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 50-64.

7. And a reflection of the old geopolitical adage "who controls the world island /Eurasia/ controls the world".

8. The title of an important conference in London 26 June 1999 highlighted what is mentioned in the text.

9. Wieland Wagner, "Die Fahne hoch", Der Spiegel, 33/1999, pp. 128-29.

10. Global Projections of Deep-Rooted U.S. Pathologies, Fairfax: ICAR, George Mason University, 1996, 52pp.


 © Johan Galtung 1999












The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research
Vegagatan 25, S - 224 57 Lund, Sweden
Phone + 46 - 46 - 145909     Fax + 46 - 46 - 144512   E-mail:

Contact the Webmaster at:
Created by Maria Näslund      © 1997, 1998, 1999 TFF