The Australian mainstream media continues its misreporting of the ongoing war in Ukraine. The latest example, also repeated on the ABC and SBS television outlets, was the bombing of a hospital in Mariupol. This was presented to the viewing public as an unprovoked and reckless Russian attack on a hospital, filled with pregnant women waiting to give birth. The incident was seized upon also by the Ukrainian president who cited it as an example of Russian disregard for civilian life.

As is so often the case in reporting on this war, the facts were completely different. It had been seized several days earlier by the fascist forces that are the true rulers of Ukraine, and all its civilian patient population has been forced to go elsewhere. Far from a heartless Russian bombing of a civilian hospital, it was in fact an attack upon a military base. Somewhat surprisingly, there were no deaths reported from the attack.

The Australian media did not allow the facts to spoil a good horror story of yet another Russian atrocity. That same media has also met with complete silence the announcement by the Prime Minister that Australia was sending millions of dollars of aid to Ukraine. It is very difficult to find any country in the world further from Australia than Ukraine. The gesture again was met with total silence by the Labor Opposition whose foreign policy for the upcoming election can best be summarised as “me too”. The ghost of former prime minister Gough Whitlam is well and truly gone from the Australian Labor Party.

It is also difficult to establish the Labor Party policy on the bizarre decision of the government to spend an estimated $190 billion on acquiring eight submarines. These submarines are to be nuclear powered, although Australia currently lacks not only the ability to build such submarines, but also lacks the means of servicing them. Some commentators have suggested that they will effectively be under United States control. Certainly, their announced goal of operating in the South China Sea as a means of constraining China is spectacularly unconvincing.

The reasons for this are multiple. The Chinese have already built a very large navy, and the ability to track and destroy potentially hostile submarines is one of their prime objectives. Secondly, the policy assumes that 20 years from now, when the submarines are actually functioning, the western navies will still have access to the South China Sea is at best an heroic assumption.

Thirdly, the Chinese already have nuclear weapons capable of reaching all parts of Australia. In the event of hostilities between the two countries who seriously believes that their nuclear armed rockets will not be delivered to Australia’s cities and other key parts of the military system such as Pine Gap? The latter town is the home of an American run spy base and in the event of a war with China would certainly be a prime target.

The Prime Minister obviously believes that the forthcoming general election, now less than nine weeks away, is going to be a “khaki election”. We will be encouraged to believe that Australia is in dire peril and only the Coalition can save us. It is a measure of how far out of touch the Prime Minister is with reality that he has based his diminishing hopes of re-election upon such a facile policy.

One would like to think that the Labor Party has a more mature approach to Australia’s vital national interests. Unfortunately, such hopes are largely without any foundation in reality. The spectre of the fate of Gough Whitlam, who was overthrown on the eve of his intended announcement to Parliament that his government was going to close Pine Gap, is one that continues to haunt any future Labor government. That was an American engineered coup, a brutal reality that no Australian government ever since has been able to confront.

It has led Australia to in effect becoming a colony of the United States. It loyally followed the United States into wars in Afghanistan (which lasted 20 years) and Iraq (we are still there!) and support for multiple other illegal exercises by our “American friends”. It is one of the more depressing features of the debate about Australian foreign policy that it always assumes the starting point of a continuation of the United States alliance.

The two latest manifestations of this blindness are Australia’s membership of the so-called Quad of Nations (with Japan, India and the United States) and the latest manifestation of thse strategic blunders, the so-called AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom, United States) alliance.

Despite a huge effort combining bullying and bribery, the United States has been unable to draw India into a confrontation with Russia. Those two countries have a long-standing friendship, reflected most recently in India’s refusal to vote against Russia in the recent United Nations vote on the Ukraine war.

Japan is a similarly unsteady ally in the anti-China cause. Like Australia, China is Japan’s largest trading partner. Its freedom of movement is also hampered by the ongoing presence of thousands of United States troops based in the country. That Japan is still an occupied countries 77 years after World War II ended is testimony to the truism that one of any nations hardest tasks is to ever get rid of the Americans after their unwelcome presence is ensconced. Just ask the Iraqis and the Syrians (whose oil is still being stolen on a daily basis) how hard it is to get rid of an unwelcome and unwanted United States presence in their country.

Australia faces the same fate. There are already multiple United States military facilities in this country and getting rid of them is almost impossible. The fate of the Whitlam government is ample evidence as to the fate of those who tried. No Australian government ever since Whitlam has shown the least inclination to lead a truly independent nation. Instead, as United States power inexorably fades, Australia risk being dragged down with it. We have only ourselves to blame.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Last Thursday evening a senior Republican (US) official issued what must count as one of the most outrageous tweets issued by a senior politician. Lindsey Graham tweeted “is there a Brutus in Russia? Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military? The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country – and the world-a great service. Unless you want to live in darkness for the rest of your life, be isolated from the rest of the world in abject poverty, and live in darkness, you need to step up to the plate.”

The only good thing that can be said is that Graham’s remarks were not endorsed by his fellow United States politicians. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said: “while we are praying for peace and the people of Ukraine, this is irresponsible, dangerous and unhinged. We need leaders with calm minds and steady wisdom. Not bloodthirsty warmongering politicians trying to tweet tough by demanding assassinations. Americans don’t want war.”

One naturally applauds these voices of reason. But the question has to be asked: where were you during the long decades when the United States military and its lackeys from multiple western countries ran roughshod over international law and invaded, bombed and otherwise undermined more than 70 nations in the post-World War two period alone. The answer from the Western media which has been almost universal in its condemnation of Russia’s actions in Ukraine is a stunning silence.

One can look for example to the United States invasion of South Vietnam. For more than a decade the United States waged war on North Vietnam in a desperate attempt to prevent the unification of that country and its inevitable rule by a Communist government from the North. In that war they were liberally supported by Australia, among other Western nations. What vital Australian interests would be protected by joining that war? A dispassionate observer would be hard pressed to nominate a single vital national interest that was protected by joining that manifestly illegal and aggressive war. Now, with typical hypocrisy, the United States government is striving mightily to enlist Vietnam’s support in its struggle against the rise of China. They should look closely at the recent humiliating visit of the vice president to Vietnam for lessons on how not to behave when visiting that country.

The experience of the Vietnam war was insufficient to deter the Americans from multiple other foreign misadventures. In this century alone there has been at least four major interventions by the United States and its loyal adherents in the affairs of foreign countries. The century began with the invasion of Afghanistan, falsely blamed for the events of 11 September 2001. Even after they had captured and killed the alleged perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, years after the New York Times had published his obituary following his 2001 death from natural causes, the United States and its lackeys continued their occupation of Afghanistan for a further decade. They eventually retreated in humiliating circumstances (without informing their “allies”) but that was not the end of their vengeance. The United States has affectively stolen several billions of Afghanistan’s precious foreign reserves, leaving the country in a desperate position with at least 40% of its population facing premature death from being unable to access basic food and health requirements

That misadventure was followed by a similar debacle in Iraq. United States experience in conquering Iraq is always worth keeping in mind when one hears their protestations about alleged atrocities committed by Russian troops in Ukraine. More than 1 million Iraqis were killed in enforcing that occupation. The United States and Australia are still there, 19 years later, despite a demand from the Iraqi Government that they should leave.

In October 2011 the Americans killed Muamar Gaddafi. That country has been a mess ever since with at least two groups claiming power, theft of their oil reserves by the Americans (a repeat of what they did in Iraq) and a generally unstable situation the most important legacy of the murder of the country’s leader.

In 2014 the United States again intervened in a middle eastern country, this time Syria. They are still there, refusing to leave, and still, in a familiar pattern, stealing Syria’s oil. Another familiar pattern in the United States occupation (apart from its utter illegality) is the overt support provided to terrorist groups that share its ambition to overthrow the legitimate government of Assad.

In this case the United States ambitions were thwarted by the 2015 intervention of Russia in the country. The big difference is that the Russians were invited by the Assad Government to intervene. Their presence was a turning point in the war, with the government gradually reclaiming more of their territory. Apart from the Americans and their terrorist allies, Syria has also suffered from an Israeli bombing campaign. Not content with stealing Syrian territory in the Golan Heights the Israelis have continued their aerial attacks on Syria, although, with Russian assistance, they now seem to be reaching an end.

When one looks at this history, and it is far from being a complete chronicle of United States misdeeds around the world, it is astonishing that the Americans and their loyal European allies could have the temerity to criticise Russia’s actions in Ukraine. One of the many items consistently missing from the Western accounts of what is happening to their Ukrainian friends, is the long history of the brutal treatment and attempted genocide of the Russian speaking people of the Donbass region. This is a chronicle that has almost completely disappeared from the Western narrative, as has the major influence of the fascist supporters of the Ukrainian regime.

It is yet another illustration of the selective nature of the Western chronicle of events in Ukraine. The true military picture strongly suggests that the war will be over in a matter of 2–3 weeks. We are unlikely to see a return to the pre-Russian intervention era with normal trade relations resuming. My impression is that the Russians no longer care. They have other ambitions to the East. The West has no one to blame but itself for their rampant hypocrisy.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

A few days ago, Russian troops invaded Ukraine. The movement of Russian troops went far beyond removing Ukrainian forces from the Donbass region that they have occupied and challenged for the past eight years. The uproar from Western nations was as predictable as it was hypocritical. In 2014 an American backed coup took place against the lawfully elected and legitimate government of Ukraine. The silence then at this blatantly undemocratic move from western nations was stunning.

The two regions of the Donbass, and the island of Crimea declared their independence. In Crimea’s case the government held a referendum of the people. They overwhelmingly (more than 90%) voted to leave Ukraine and apply to re-join Russia. The word “re-join” is used advisably. Crimea had been part of Russia for hundreds of years until 1954 when the then Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev gifted Crimea to Ukraine. Neither the Russian parliament, nor, more significantly, the Crimean people were consulted.

The western attitude to Crimea has been marked by hypocrisy ever since it voted to re-join Russia. The British, for example, have refused to recognise the legitimacy of Crimea’s actions. Late last year a British war ship violated Crimea waters and had to be chased away by a Russian warship.

The two Donbass republics have had a hard time of it since their similar declaration that they wished no part of the new Ukrainian government. It is not an overstatement to call that government fascist, a fact that seems not to trouble western governments that are now loudly proclaiming Ukraine’s right to be free of Russian interference.

Among those western nations that have condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine are France and Germany. These two nations are part of the Normandy grouping that negotiated a settlement of the Donbass problem. They then did nothing for the next eight years as Ukraine refused to implement the agreement to which they had been a party. The protestations that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a violation of international law rings especially hollow. For eight years they have remained silent, not only on Ukraine’s refusal to abide by the terms of an agreement that they had willingly signed, but worse, waged war against the two Donbass regions.

The arrogance and hubris of the Australian government has been especially notable. The Prime Minister and the Opposition Labor Party have both condemned the Russian move. In Australia’s case they have gone so far as to shut down the Russian television channel Russia Today and prevented it from being broadcast in the country. Even the Americans have not gone that far.

The actions of the Australian government in isolating Russia for its invasion of Ukraine demonstrates a particular historical blindness. Australia has been a consistent cheerleader and willing participant in multiple acts of United States aggression around the world. Australian troops willingly joined the United States invasion of South Vietnam and waged war against the North. This was despite overwhelming evidence that the initial justification for the war, an alleged attack on a United States warship in Vietnamese waters, was manifestly a staged operation. Australian participation in that war lasted more than a decade before the newly elected Labor government withdrew Australian troops, an act that earned the Australian Labor Party the enmity of the Americans who were instrumental in the overthrow of that government three years later.

Obviously, no lessons were learnt by Australia as in 2001 they willingly joined the United States invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. That was only ended last year with the ignominious withdrawal of United States troops from that country. It is notable that the Americans loyal allies, including Australia, were not consulted about that decision. The result was an ignominious and rapid withdrawal of Australian forces and the messy betrayal of thousands of Afghan citizens who had been employed by the Australians.

The invasion of Afghanistan was followed in short order by an equally illegal and unjustified invasion of Iraq. The difference here however, is that 18 years later Australian troops still occupy Iraq and have refused a demand from the Iraqi government that they should leave. In that decision, Australia simply looked once again the to United States who similarly refused to leave Iraq.

This history is worth bearing in mind when one listens to the sanctimonious prattle of the Australian Prime Minister talking about the sanctity of national borders and the right of governments to be free of the fear of invasion and occupation. It is a lesson that his own government should heed, but that is unlikely to happen.

We are many more examples where the Australian government has refused to condemn, this alone sanction, egregious acts by foreign powers.

One has to look no further than the actions of the state of Israel. Its treatment of its own Palestinian population, the illegal seizure and takeover of the Syrian Golan Heights and Israel’s constant bombing of Syrian territory are all subjects that were met with complete silence from the Australian government.

It may well be that Russia has gone too far in invading Ukraine. One sincerely hopes that the matter will be resolved and Russian troops can return to their own country. But the west is far from justified in sanctimonious condemnation of the Russian move. There is an old biblical saying, “ those who are without sin amongst you, cast the first stone.” There are precious few western governments that are in a position to throw that stone.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and his United States counterpart Antony Blinken are scheduled to hold a meeting next week at an as yet undisclosed European location. It is difficult to see what the two men have to talk about. Lavrov has recently held meetings in Moscow with his British counterpart Elizabeth Truss. To call that meeting a complete waste of Lavrov’s time would not be an exaggeration. That woman’s ignorance was at an appalling level, apparently unable to distinguish between the Black and Baltic Seas, and naming two Russian cities as part of Ukraine.

It is to be hoped that Blinken’s grasp of geography is better than Truss. It is expected that Ukraine will be on Blinken’s agenda. He presumably shares the bizarre beliefs of his boss, United States president Joe Biden, that a Russian invasion of Ukraine is imminent. The United States is desperate to blame Russia for whatever is happening in that country, not least because it intends to use the” Russian invasion” as an excuse to cancel the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany and other points to the west.

The United States has its own selfish motives for ending the Nord Stream 2 pipeline as it sees the European market as an alternative for its own gas supplies. That this is a pipedream does not seem to enter the United States consciousness. It does not have the capacity to replace the 40% of European electricity that is supplied by the Russians. Its product is also significantly more expensive for the Europeans to buy.

This does not seem to enter into the United States consciousness. They are motivated by the desire to destroy Russia’s European market. This goal is uppermost in their mind, irrespective of the European view. This was never more apparent than during the recent visit to the United States by Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz who was gravely embarrassed by Biden’s blatant announcement that Nord Stream 2 would be cancelled if Russia invaded Ukraine.

Such was the arrogance of the United States position that is apparently never occurred to Biden that the decision to import Russian gas was a European decision and had nothing to do with the Americans. In that, Biden’s announcement was very revealing. It portrayed the Europeans in general and Germany in particular as mere pawns of the game the United States wished to play.

The loss of the German market would undoubtably cause Russia financial loss. But the economic strain on Russia would not be as great as many people imagine, in particular the Americans who see it as causing economic hardship to Russia. In fact, Russia already has an alternative market ready, willing and able. And that is China. Work has already commenced on building the pipeline to convey the gas originally designed for the European market to China. It is expected to be completed in 2 to 3 years.

The damage to Europe in general, and Germany in particular, from the loss of Russian gas will be vastly greater. That does not appear to have entered the American equation, or if it has, they show no signs of concern about the potentially devastating effects the loss of Russian gas will have on the German market. Serious commentators have suggested that it could literally spell the death- knell of German industry, let alone the physical comfort of its population forced to endure a cold winter unalleviated by the warmth provided by Russian gas.

It is the realisation that Germany will be the one to actually suffer from a United States engineered cancellation of Nord Stream 2 that probably accounts for the marked reluctance of the German chancellor to embrace the blatantly anti Russian views of the United States. It is an open question as to how far the Germans are prepared to go to defy the patent wish of the United States to see North Stream 2 cancelled.

The history in this regard is not promising. Although World War II ended 77 years ago, the Germans are still an occupied country, with more than 40,000 United States troops in occupation. Germany has risen from the rubble of World War II to become the strongest economy in Europe. It is manifestly obvious however, that their political independence does not match their economic strength.

The incongruity of being an economic heavy weight but a political pygmy is precisely why the Germans find themselves in this current position. Manifestly, it is in their interest to receive energy supplies from Russia. It is blatantly obvious that such a wish does not accord with the United States view. In many respects, the German decision on Nord Stream 2 will be a true test of how politically independent it truly is, or wishes to be.

There are some small signs that Germany is seeking to assert its independence. One sign of this is its readiness to do business with China. Again, this is a trend that is anathema to the Americans who strongly oppose the ever-increasing willingness of European nations, not just the Germans, to establish mutually beneficial economic relationships with the Chinese.

One clear symptom of this European independence is the willingness of an ever-increasing number of European countries to sign up to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. At last count 18 countries of the European Union had signed up, which is two thirds of the membership. That is expected to grow. Those countries include the European Union heavyweights of France, Germany and Italy.

This is a sign of the future, as European countries free themselves from the American bondage and make decisions that equate to their own national interest. It is symptomatic of a broader sequence occurring in the world, as more and more countries sign up to the BRI. The total membership now stands at more than 140 countries. This is notwithstanding a fierce anti-BRI program being advanced by the Americans who see their worldwide influence steadily declining.

The trend is unmistakable. Germany is part of that trend. For that reason, I believe that the Germans will resist the pressure from the Americans and sign up to the Nord Stream 2 project. The Germans are an intelligent and educated people. They are capable of reading the direction the world is going. That reading will tell them that Eurasia is where the future of the world lies. They will want to be part of that world. Finally discarding United States protection is part of that, and this is something that they will do in the vital interests of their own country.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

On fourth of February 2022 an important meeting took place in Beijing., China between the leader of China Xi Jin Ping and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Putin was in China at Xi’s invitation to attend the opening of the Winter Olympics. The reason for his visit however, went far beyond celebrating the opening of a major sporting occasion. The two men signed a series of economic and political agreements that strengthened the already close ties between the two Asian neighbours.

One of the most important agreements signed that day was for a 30-year deal with which Russia agreed to supply China with gas, to be delivered via a new pipeline built for the occasion. In one of the most important signals in the signing of the deal, the two men agreed that China would pay for the gas in Euros.  It signalled another break from the United States dollar whose importance in international trade has been steadily declining.

Following the meeting, the Chinese and Russian governments issued a joint statement that ran to more than 5000 words in length. The statement declared a “new era” under which the two men proposed a new international political model, one that was designed to leave behind the United States dominated unipolar world.

“The world is going through momentous changes and humanity is entering a new era of rapid development and profound transformation” the joint statement declared. In this “new era” China and Russia and their allies in the global South were determined to build a different system from that which the United States and its Western allies had dominated for so long.

Russia and China made it abundantly clear that they foresaw a new world order. The alternative they were proposing “condemned the practice of interference in the internal affairs of other states for geopolitical purposes.” Instead, the two countries sought to establish “a just multipolar system of international relations.” They called on NATO to “abandon its ideologized cold war approaches, and to respect the sovereignty, security and interest of other countries.”

The two powers made it clear that they oppose the obvious United States ploy to overthrow the government of both countries and replace it with a system of government that would not challenge the United States desire to rule the world. The Americans have made no secret of their ambitions in this regard. In 2021 the Atlantic Council, which functions as a think tank for the western United States alliance, published a document called The Longer Telegram, an obvious reference to The Long Telegram published many years earlier by George Keenan, a man known for his hatred of both the Russian and Chinese system of government.

The 2021 document declared that President Xi must be replaced and for Beijing to “conclude that it is in China’s best interests to continue cooperating within the United States led liberal international order rather than building a rival order.” The arrogance of the United States demands is breathtaking. The Atlantic Council undoubtedly reflects the views held in Washington.

The Russian and Chinese governments are undoubtedly aware of these views. The joint statement they released on fourth February may be interpreted as their response to the incredible hubris being shown by the Americans. The joint statement made the disagreement with the United States view abundantly clear. The two leaders instead called “for the establishment of a new kind of relationship between world powers on the basis of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial cooperation.” The contrast between the two worldviews could not be starker.

Their joint statement requested de-escalation of global tensions, of which the extraordinary US behaviour in and around Ukraine is the current best example of unilateral single mindedness. The joint statement instead emphasised “the need for cooperation, not confrontation.” The West should be under no illusions however, of the determination and ability of the two great Asian powers to defend themselves, should the Americans be crazy enough to actually mount an attack on either or both of them.

Their joint statement made it abundantly clear that Washington’s policies of unilateralism and interference in the affairs of others had to end. That part of the statement is worth quoting:

“Some actors representing but the minority of the international scale continue to advocate unilateral approaches to address international issues and resorted to force; they interfere in the internal affairs of other states, infringing their legitimate rights and interests, and incite contradictory differences and confrontation, thus the development and progress of mankind, against the opposition from the international community.”

There is no doubt that the Russian and Chinese view is widely shared in the so-called South.  Just taking those countries that have signed up to the Chinese inspired Belt and Road Initiative as one example, its co-signees now represent nearly three quarters of the worlds countries, and an even greater share of the world’s population.

Another important part of the joint statement referred to the need

“to protect the United Nations driven international architecture in the international law based world order, seek genuine multipolarity within the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and continuing role.”

The declaration used the phrase “the international law-based world order.” It is an important emphasis to draw attention to. The United States and its Western allies have for some time been attempting to substitute the international law-based order with its own much vaguer and self-serving phrase of a so-called “rules based international order.” This is a system the United States and its allies have been seeking to impose on the world for some time. It is dangerous and must be opposed.

There is infact only one international system in the world and it has the United Nations at its core. That system is one of international order and is the one underpinned by international law. The United Nations Charter is the central document governing relations between nations. The so-called rules based international order is in attempt to replace international law with the dictum of a small group of countries who have an obvious motive in undermining international law.

In the past, the rules based international order has been an excuse for intervention in the affairs of sovereign nations, being continually used by the United States government to justify its intervention in the sovereign affairs of states. The joint statement issued by the Chinese and Russian governments firmly rejects the United States version of international law. Theycondemned the “abuse of democratic values interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states under the pretext of protecting democracy and human rights”. Besides urging other countries to accept the United Nations as the proper vehicle for the resolution of international disputes, both China and Russia made it clear that they are not waiting for things to happen.

Instead, the aim is to “comprehensively strengthen the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and to further enhance its role in shaping a polycentric world  order based on the universally recognised principles of international multilateralism, equal, just, indivisible, comprehension and sustainable security.”

The two men clearly see the future in cooperation and unity between the BRI, the Greater Eurasian Economic Partnership and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. It is one of the main vehicles for promoting greater connectivity between the Asia Pacific and the Eurasian regions.

After the meeting, the Chinese foreign ministry issued a statement summarising the main points of the meeting. The Chinese statement read:

“the two sides have taken an active part in the reform and development of the global governance system, following true multilateralism safeguards and the true spirit of democracy and served as a bulwark in mobilising global solidarity at these trying times and upholding international fairness and justice.”

The overall message emerging from the Chinese and Russian meeting spells out clearly that the old order is dead. The world was now in a new era with an international order based on multi polarity and the fundamental principle but no State should ever interfere in the affairs of another State.

It is not a message that will be well received in western capitals, especially Washington that for 70 years has written rough shod over the world in pursuit of his own interests. China and Russia have made it clear that in their view that era has long ended. The world for the first time in a very long time has a clear alternative. The majority have made their choice. It is unlikely that United States will except that reality.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The past week saw what was arguably the most important encounter for a considerable period of time. The Russian president Vladimir Putin travelled to Beijing as the honoured guest of Chinese president Xi Jinping . It was their first face to face meeting for more than two years. The two leaders did not waste the opportunity and devoted themselves to covering issues that mattered.

Prior to this summit, the respective foreign secretaries of the two countries Sergey Lavrov and Wang Yi also had a meeting. The focus of the meeting was also significantly reflected in the statement after the meeting made by Wang Yi. He pointed to what is arguably the most important development occurring in the world today; the increasing cooperation of the Belt and Road Initiative with the Eurasian Economic Union (the EAEU).

There was considerable agreement between the two countries, reflected in the final communiqué. The different emphasis between the concerns of the two great powers and the preoccupations of the West were striking. Both countries are against NATO expansion which Russia in particular sees as an existential threat. They favoured the United Nations as the medium for seeking justice in international relations, rather than the more narrow and manifestly self-interested version of international agreements the Americans and their allies favour.

Both Russia and China oppose interference in their internal affairs, something the Chinese in particular are against, given the constant attempts in recent years by the Americans to create trouble in Xinjiang province and to oppose the reunification of Hong Kong into the People’s Republic. Both policies are seen as blatant interference in China’s domestic affairs, particularly, as in the Xinjiang example, where it is accompanied by a massive campaign to portray Chinese policy as amounting to genocide of the Uighur people, despite the clear evidence to the contrary.

President Putin had an Op-ed published in Xinhua, a Chinese media outlet, which details what he and Xi had discussed. Importantly, the op-ed pointed to the drive by the two countries to strengthen the role of the United Nations in global affairs and to prevent the international legal system, with the United Nations Charter at its centre, from being eroded.

And important component of that drive was to consistently expand the role of national currencies and maintaining mechanisms to offset the impact of unilateral United States sanctions. This is very important. The United States has consistently used the central role of the United States dollar in international trade as a vehicle for affecting the national policies of the countries forced to use the dollar. That is now changing, and the pace of change is expected to grow in the forthcoming years as more and more countries abandon the dollar as the means of international trade payments.

Putin’s article defined the Russia – China strategic partnership as “sustainable, intrinsically valuable, not affected by the political climate and not aimed against anyone. It is underpinned by respect, regard for each other’s core interests, adherence to international law and the United Nations Charter.”

Such a message is immensely appealing to much of the global South which for decades has been dictated to by the United States. It stands in stark contrast to the worldview as expressed by NATO which sees the dominance of United States political views, enhanced by NATO’s military power, as the cornerstone of its continued attempts to dominate the world.

The China-Russia policy to oppose the attempted United States hegemony rests on a soft power alternative, the strengthening of both the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Belt and Road Initiative. The SCO has recently welcomed Iran as a full member, making it the ninth member State along with China, India, Russia and the five “stans” of Pakistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. There are in addition three observer states and six dialogue Partners, of which the most important is Turkey in terms of population and economic and political power.

The BRI has a far broader reach, with currently more than 140 members, region extensively into Africa and Latin America. The association is historically unique. It reaches more countries than any western alliance, military or otherwise. It poses a threat to United States dominance never seen before and as such represents a major threat to that dominance. Its very success explains a lot of United States hostility toward China, which for the first time since at least the end of World War II faces a serious challenge to its assumed hegemony.

The big difference between the BRI and the United States system is that the BRI makes no attempt to dictate the internal policies of its members. It sees the United Nations as the governing body for international relations. The United Nations is accordingly awarded prime status, as Putin’s article makes abundantly clear.

The unresolved issue for the future of the Eurasian region will be the role of Turkey. It clearly harbours ambitions of a larger role in the Islamic states that stretch across the Eurasian heartland. The Turkish role is complicated by its concurrent membership of NATO. The issue will be whether Turkey’s ambitions for a larger pan Asian role are independent of NATO’s ambitions, or whether Turkey will be seen as a stalking horse for NATO.

The recent experience of Kazakhstan which saw an attempted overthrow of its government by forces that notably including a large Turkish element is a warning to other Islamic influenced nations in the region. It would be idle to assume NATO will accept its defeat and Kazakhstan as the last word in its ambitions for the region.

For NATO to gain a hole in the region would also pose a threat to the SCO. They have been defeated in their ambitions to capture Kazakhstan. It would be a huge mistake to assume that the ambitions have been put to rest. China and Russia must remain constantly alert to this threat.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Australia will hold a general election no later than May of this year. According to the opinion polls, it should be a victory for the Labor Party. They have consistently held a lead over the governing coalition of Liberal and National party members for a considerable period of time, the last opinion poll published less than one week ago showing them with a commanding 10-point lead.

Last Sunday morning, in a widely watched television program, Insiders, the leader of the Labor Party was interviewed. It may be fairly said that he acquitted himself well. What was astonishing however, was that he was not asked a single question on his party’s foreign policy. Had he been asked, it is likely that Labor’s foreign policy was largely indistinguishable from that of the coalition government.

There are a number of possible reasons for this reticence. One is historical. The Labor government of 1972–75, that of Labor leader Gough Whitlam, distinguished itself by demonstrating a foreign policy independent of the United States. That included withdrawing Australian troops from the Vietnam war. This was a decision that infuriated the Americans who, together with the Conservative government of Britain, plotted to overthrow the Australian government.

That overthrow was achieved in 1975, aided to no small degree by the governor general of the time John Kerr, who unknown at the time had close ties to the United States government. He was undoubtedly acting under instructions in engineering the demise of the Whitlam government.

Ever since that time, no Australian government has moved away from United States foreign policy objectives. Australian troops were committed to the first United States led war against Iraq in 1991, and the much longer lasting war against the same country that began in 2003 and continues to the present day. The Iraqi government in fact demanded that all foreign troops should leave their country at the beginning of 2021. After a brief period of panic, Australia took its cue from the United States and refused the demand that they should leave.

Australia similarly followed the United States into its war against Afghanistan, commenced in October 2001 following the attacks upon the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre towers. Afghanistan was accused of sheltering Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the attacks. Bin Laden always denied responsibility. The United States invaded Afghanistan following the then Taliban government’s refusal to hand bin Laden over to them. The Taliban, not unreasonably, asked for proof of bin Laden’s involvement. That was never forthcoming.

Afghanistan was then invaded, with the United States and Allied troops, including Australia, remaining there until August 2021 when they withdrew ignominiously. The United States has retained approximately $9 billion of Afghanistan’s money, and has refused to release the money to the new government. To say that the government of Afghanistan is desperate for those funds would be an understatement. Not a word of criticism of the US actions has been heard from the Australian government, nor the Opposition that is likely to take its place in May.

More recently, Australia cancelled an order to buy French built submarines. The circumstances surrounding the cancellation were a disgraceful example of deception and outright lying. The French president, Emanuel Macron, when asked about the circumstances stated he did not think he was lied to by the Australian government, he “knew”.

The Australian government’s decision to buy United States and British atomic powered submarines in lieu of the French ones reflects a number of points. First, it was a clear manifestation of Australia’s allegiance to the two powers, as part of a new arrangement known as AUKUS, reflecting the initials of the three countries.

The actual terms of the purchase have not been settled, and that is not expected for at least a year. We are told that the first submarines will be delivered up to 2 decades hence. They are clearly designed to fill a role as part of the United States “containment” of China. The strategic thinking behind the decision demonstrates just how much Australia

is linked with contemporary developments involving China. The Chinese have made, and are making, enormous strides in developing its own naval fleet, including submarines and ships designed to hunt down and destroy submarines.

That Australia is expected to play a role in any containment strategy against China demonstrates how utterly out of touch Australia’s military planners are with world developments in general and the role of China in particular. China already has more than 140 nations signed up to its Belt and Road Initiative. In 20 years’ time, when the Australian submarines come into service, the number of members of the BRI will be even greater. They include most of Australia’s neighbours, including New Zealand, Indonesia and several islands states in the South Pacific. They have not bothered to conceal their concern at the Australian move which they clearly see as destabilising the region. All of them have significant trading relations with China and they do not take kindly to any steps that threaten those links.

It is also idle to suppose that China itself will not take increasingly firm steps to control the invasion into what it sees as its territorial waters in the South China Sea by hostile foreign navies, of which both the Americans and the Australians are clearly perceived. Given the importance of China as a trading partner over the past 30 years, such overt hostility by the Australians is clearly self-defeating.

All of these developments have been met with a stunning silence from the Labor Party. To the extent that the maxim that silence implies consent applies, it must be assumed that the Labor Party is fully on board with both the plan to purchase these submarines (at not less than $70 billion) and their intended deployment in hostile actions against what is, at least for now, Australia’s largest trading partner.

To call the policy short-sighted and against Australia’s long-term interests would be an understatement. Unfortunately, both of Australia’s major parties, one of whom will form the next government, seem locked in the blind obeisance to the United States’ rapidly declining power in the world in general, and in Asia in particular.

One might have thought that the lessons of history are that no long-term good flows from this adherence to United States foreign policy. It is a lesson that will have to be learned again if Australia is ever to be diverted from this policy of acting against its manifest self-interest.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The German government has recently refused overflight rights to the Royal Air Force who were sending planes to Ukraine loaded with weapons. The French government also refused overflight rights, which meant that the British planes had to make a long detour to eventually reach their destination.

A further development of note in this context was that the Italian government also joined their French and German colleagues in refusing to be a part of United States inspired sanctions against Russia. Is this a straw in the wind for finally marking growing European disagreement with the United States inspired sanctions policy against Russia?

One of the interesting points about the German attitude is that it was supported by the CDU, the main opposition party in Germany, who ran Germany for years under Angela Merkel and which could well be the German government again if the present for union of three political parties that makes up the present coalition government in Germany does not succeed in continuing in power.

It is also notable that the leaders of the three countries also opposed what was clearly a United States plan to remove Russia from the SWIFT global payments system. If the United States had succeeded with their ambition to expel Russia from the SWIFT system it would have had a devastating effect upon the European economies, all of whom have significant trading links with Russia. There is little doubt that removing Russia from SWIFT would also have impacted the United States economy as well. It is a measure of the extent of US hostility to Russia that such a self-defeating plan could even have been considered, let alone advanced as a serious policy option.

All of these moves took place in the context of United States secretary of state Blinken’s meeting in Geneva with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. The meeting occurred after a frantic series of meetings of Blinken with his counterparts in Ukraine and elsewhere. The meeting was held at the request of Blinken, whose country has yet to formally respond to the detailed Russian proposals put forward last year.

We were told that the United States answer would be supplied in the coming week. What has also been announced is that the United States answer to the Russian memorandum would be kept secret. This is astonishing. It suggests that United States answers to the Russian proposals are unlikely to find favour with their European allies. It is doubtful if the proposals will remain secret for very long. They are highly likely to be leaked, not by the Russians, but by a different faction within the United States government for whom they are likely to be anathema.

It is a fact of life that the United States does not have a singular view of how to present themselves to the challenges posed by the Russian proposals. The United States, nominally led by two foreign policy representatives, Victoria Nuland and Antony Blinken, are both notoriously anti-Russian in their outlook. Blinken recently made a speech against Russia that the kindest thing that could be said about it was that it was frankly unhinged. The United States is poorly served by his remaining as its principal foreign policy spokesman. He is clearly out of his depth. Nuland is no better, having a long history of antipathy, not only to Russia, but also to the truth. The latter’s role in her public pronouncements is purely coincidental.

The guidance from their nominal boss, the United States president Joe Biden, is scarcely any better. He has an unfortunate habit of saying one thing one week and being forced to clarify it a few days later. He is also prone to making unfortunate gaffs, as when he labelled Russia’s President Putin “a liar”. Putin’s record for truthfulness could be readily matched against United States pronouncements on multiple issues, with the disadvantage lying very much with the latter.

The other reason for the Americans wanting their written response to the Russian proposals remaining secret is that they are unlikely to please their European allies, and in particular Ukraine. The usual reason for secrecy is that the content is to someone’s disadvantage. In the present case the real loser of any compromise or concession by the Americans is that the one truly disadvantaged is the United States itself.

If it agrees to the Russian demand for an effective dismantling of the nuclear threats against Russia by withdrawing those missiles from several European allies that border Russia, it is unlikely to please those countries who have made a career out of the imminent Russian “threat” to their continued independent existence. Such an agreement would also signal to the Europeans the United States no longer itself believes their own propaganda about an imminent Russian attack across their borders.

Some commentators have also gone so far as to suggest that United States capitulation to the Russian demands spells the beginning of the end for the NATO alliance itself. That is unlikely. The United States has invested too much in its NATO program to meekly accept that it is hugely irrelevant, and quietly withdraw. They have after all invested a huge amount of money and political capital to meekly accept the Russian demands.

But clearly they have some sort of compromise in mind that disadvantages their European allies in some way. It is difficult to see any other possible explanation for the requested secrecy as to the contents of their answer to the Russian proposals.

One thing however, is abundantly clear. The three major western European nations, Germany, France and Italy are clearly sick and tired of being second fiddle to whatever scheme the United States drags out to try and maintain its hegemony.

It has surely not been lost on those three nations that Russia, through its increasing alliance with China, has options that do not depend on European goodwill. If Nord Stream 2 is cancelled, they will be the major losers and Russia will not care if they freeze as a result of their own stupidity.

The Europeans are also capable of reading the writing on the political wall. They know that the United States is definitely the wrong horse to back in the great realignment taking place in the world. Their at least partial capitulation to the Russian demands will truly reinforce that impression. The world is changing and they will not want to be left behind.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

]]> https://journal-neo.org/2022/01/24/europe-faces-a-moment-of-truth-over-russia-s-demands-on-the-united-states-presence-in-europe/feed/ 0 https://journal-neo.org/2022/01/19/the-recently-failed-kazakhstan-coup-attempt-points-to-a-new-world-order/ https://journal-neo.org/2022/01/19/the-recently-failed-kazakhstan-coup-attempt-points-to-a-new-world-order/#comments Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:19:32 +0000 https://journal-neo.org/?p=174301

The recent talks held in Geneva and Brussels between the Russian delegates and their American and European equivalents have been completed without any agreement being reached. The Russians have given a one-week deadline for the United States and NATO’s response to their demands. The chances of the Americans agreeing to the Russian demand that not only should NATO cease its Eastward ambitions, but that the Americans should withdraw their weapons and their troops from Russia’s borders are virtually nil.

There is also a very real question that has to be asked of any American meant: what are the chances of them actually keeping to any agreement that they make. The American record in this respect gives no ground for any confidence that what they may agree to will actually be kept. There is a long and sorry history of broken American pledges that can be pointed to in support of a pessimistic view as to the reliability of any United States promises actually being kept.

A very real clue as to the sincerity of United States promises can be seen in the recent coup attempt in Kazakhstan. There, a well organised foreign group took advantage of some local unrest at a major increase in fuel prices to attempt to stage a coup d’état against the Kazakhstan government.

The speed with which the Russian led intervention at the request of the Kazakhstan government strongly suggests that the attempted coup came as no surprise to the Russians and their colleagues in the group that responded. The American response to the Russian led movement on behalf of the Kazakhstan government also left little ground for doubting that the Americans were heavily involved in the coup attempt.

Secretary of state Antony Blinken demanded an explanation for the Russian led rescue mission. He was clearly unaware of the 1994 agreement between Kazakhstan, Russia and the others that was designed to meet precisely the sort of situation the Kazakhstan government was met with. Without a hint of irony, Blinken suggested that the Russian presence would be long lasting and difficult to remove.

In fact, a week after arriving, the Russians announced that their troops would be withdrawing within a further week, mission accomplished. If Blinken has responded to this development I haven’t seen it. This is not to suggest that the successful Russian led operation has solved all the problems of the Kazakhstan government. Its president, who is fluent in both Russian and Chinese, still has some domestic issues to resolve, including in particular what to do with his predecessor who has kept a low profile during the recent troubles. There is little doubt that his faction did not approve of Tokayev’s rapid response. More particularly, he would have been alarmed at the way Tokayev has used the unrest to do some much needed house cleaning of his predecessor’s faction from his government. There have been several arrests of former prominent members of the former regime and their trials will be watched with interest.

The Russians and the Chinese government clearly saw the unrest for what it was; a thinly disguised attempt to overthrow a Russian – Chinese friendly government and replace it with one whose commitment to the old regime’s path could not by any means be assured.

Kazakhstan is in fact a crucial member of several of the organisations that Russia and China have developed in recent years, including the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Eurasian Economic Union. It occupies a crucial space in the Eurovision heartland, and is the world’s eighth largest country in land area and thus has a significant physical presence as well.

The timing of the attempted coup also gives a major clue as to the perpetrator’s real motives. The Russian government’s talk with the United States and European counterparts were taking place at exactly the same time as the coup was being organised. It was clearly designed to distract the Russian government from the talks by providing them with a major security issue on their south-eastern border.

At this point it is not known what was the actual extent and knowledge of the attempted coup by the United States foreign affairs leaders Antony Blinken and Victoria Nuland. Both of these individuals are known for their visceral dislike of everything Russian and it would be absolutely no surprise to learn that they both knew and approved of the attempted coup. Had it succeeded it would have caused significant problems for the Russians and the Chinese and undermined the steadily increasing moves to Eurasian unity under the guidance of both the Chinese and Russian economic developments underway in the region.

The BRI poses the most significant challenge to United States hegemony which for much of the post-World War II period has managed to dictate the nature and course of economic and social developments in large parts of the world. The BRI is changing all that and for the first time in recent history the United States has no idea how to appropriately respond. We have seen the gestures such as the attempt to invoke the “rules based international order” as a viable alternative to the system of international law that Russia and China, among many others, insist is the proper basis for the conduct of international affairs.

The Americans see the Chinese as the greatest threat to their vision of the world and the constant propaganda against China is one of their main weapons to combat China’s inexorable rise. In recent years the Americans have progressively made life more difficult for Chinese exports to their country. The campaign waged against the Chinese vice president of Huawei, only recently released from detention in Canada, is but one example of this relentless American pressure.

The Americans can still rely on their faithful Australian lapdog, whose most recent show of obedience to the United States view of the world, and the attempt to exercise control over it, was to agree to buy United States and/or United Kingdom built nuclear powered submarines., which has absolutely no other purpose than as a vehicle for further intimidation of China. That the Morrison government is progressively destroying the economically vital relationship of Australia with China seems to cause remarkably little reaction in Australia. Its role as a white outpost in an Asian sea reflects a throwback to an earlier era when white supremacy of Asia was taken for granted.

That the BRI, which Australia refused to join and forced the state of Victoria to withdraw from, is building up a strong set of relationships with Australia’s neighbours, poses a reality that the Australian government refuses to face. Its part of the world, as with so much else, is irrevocably changing. Australia risks being left behind in this new world. The failure of United States attempts to forcibly change the Geopolitical landscape, as most recently in Kazakhstan, points to a new reality, the forces of which are unstoppable.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

These days Russia sits down with the United States, and NATO, to discuss Moscow’s demands (they go beyond proposals) for in effect a new world order in Eastern Europe. The Russian plan envisages a greatly reduced role for NATO on and around its borders. The United States has not yet made any specific proposals in advance of the meeting, although a number of voices have been raised against the Russian proposals.

Rather than a direct response, the Americans have allowed the British assets to in effect make their answer for them. In what is manifestly a timed attempt to disrupt the talks and put Russia on the back foot, the British (with the obvious knowledge and consent of the Americans) have attempted a coup against the government of Kazakhstan.

The Russian response, pointing clearly to foreknowledge of the planned assault, has been rapid, dispatching troops to Kazakhstan to act on behalf of its embattled president and restore a measure of order to the country. At the time of writing the Russian intervention (and that of his allies) appears to be successful.

It is not only the forthcoming talks between the Russians and the United States and its allies that the aim of disruption is directed. There are simultaneous talks going on between the Russians and the Chinese president. Both men agreed to create an “independent structure for trade operations that could not be influenced by other countries”, a clear reference to the United States.

Giving impetus to the agreement by the two presidents was yet another thinly veiled attack on Russia’s membership of the SWIFT system of international banking. This is an American controlled system and they have never hesitated to use their control to achieve other geopolitical goals, as with the suspension of Iran’s membership by the Trump administration, part of the United States refusal to lift its sanctions on Iran following the nuclear deal arranged during the Obama administration. Biden was vice president at the time, and hence a party to the deal. He has refused to lift Trumps sanctions despite vague promises to do so.

The importance of the Russia – China agreement to create an independent financial structure cannot be overstated. Russia and China are but two of literally scores of nations that have suffered under United States hegemony of the world financial system and they do not have to be asked twice to abandon that system and join the new Russia – China alternative.

Bypassing the dollar’s role in trade and indeed the entire financial system is a major goal of both Chinese and Russian planners. Removing the dollar as the principal means of exchange is a vital stage in the Russian – Chinese version of a new global order.

China takes over the role of chairing the BRICS system of international trade and the year in charge is expected to see an acceleration of a series of related economic arrangements. These include the closer association between the Belt and Road Initiative and the EAEU whose geopolitical and geo-economic importance is expected to expand through 2022.

The other major change occurring in the region is the coming into force of the RCEP deal, a truly game changing arrangement that links China with 10 ASEAN nations, plus Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. The inclusion of Japan, South Korea and Australia may be seen in some ways as a game changer. All three countries have close ties to the United States, and it is certain that the United States did not approve of their becoming members of the RCEP.

In Australia’s case, it has recently signed a deal with the United States and the United Kingdom that is manifestly anti-China in its orientation. It involves Australia buying a number of submarines, the clear intention of which is to threaten China’s freedom of navigation. The signing of the RCEP deal may therefore be interpreted as a minor victory by those in Canberra who recognised geographical, trade and Geo-political reality, reflecting Australia’s position as a landmass on the southern end of Asia.

Persuading the politicians of both major parties to recognise that reality and adjust their adherence to the rapidly fading United States remains a major policy challenge. The signing of the RCEP deal recognises that there are at least some people in Canberra who have a clearer view of Australia’s interests in the region than is true of others.

It would be an unwise to expect the Americans to accept these developments unchallenged. As a partial response to the rise of the Asian powers the United States is still demanding that it is the centre point of the Asian region and that it be acknowledged as such.

The United States especially fears the rise of China which it sees as the fundamental challenger to its hegemony. The United States continues to see itself as the major power in the Asian region, but this is no longer true. Beijing certainly does not see the United States as any longer being the dominant power in the region, and Japan and South Korea joining the RCEP may be interpreted as their coming to the same conclusion.

The difference in opinion between China and United States is exemplified by the attitude to trade. The United States has progressively become less of a free trade nation, imposing more and more restrictions upon Chinese imports. China on the other hand is moving in the opposite direction. In recent years China has progressively opened its markets to foreign trade, and the RCEP is a personification of that trend.

The United States response to the Chinese moves is to propose what it calls the Indian Pacific Economic Framework. It is not actually a framework for anything but continued United States dominance of the region. It is a fundamental principle of trading relationships that if one sets out the rules, then one is expected to abide by those rules. The United States does not and has expressed no willingness to ever do so.

By attempting to remotely set rules reveals the hubris with which the United States structures its relationships with its “partners”. The United States fails to recognise what may be called the tyranny of distance. In attempting to set the rules for other countries from 10,000 km away just highlights the degree of imperial overreach that characterises United States foreign policy.

China is the driving force of the Asia Pacific region. As the old saying goes, if you don’t play the game, you don’t make the rules. The United States has long lost the ability to dictate the rules, let alone define how others should play a game. It is a lesson the Americans have been slow to learn. In Asia, and indeed throughout much of the rest of the world, China is showing that it does not accept the United States version of the rules. The quicker the Americans learn that lesson, the safer the world is likely to be.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.