NATO AND THE ARCHITECTS

              American Blueprint for World Hegemony

               Nikolaj von Kreitor 

Go to: 

THE CONCEPT OF GROSSRAUM IN CARL SCHMITT’S JURISPRUDENCE

NATO AS INSTRUMENT OF UNITED STATES EXPANSIONISM:
THE GEOPOLITICS OF AMERICAN LEBENSRAUM

THE CONCEPT OF GROSSRAUM IN CARL SCHMITT’S JURISPRUDENCE 

The Historical Necessity of a New Russian Grossraum

by Nikolai von Kreitor

The most fundamental principle in geopolitics is the principle of Grossraum (=Great Area) formulated by the prominent German jurist Carl Schmitt in his book Völkerrechtlishe Grossraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für Raumfremde Mächte (1) and seen by him as a foundation for the science of international law and international relations.

A Grossraum is an area dominated by a power representing a distinct political idea. This idea was always formulated with a specific opponent in mind; in essence ,the distinction between friend and enemy would be determined by this particular political idea. As an example Carl Schmitt cited the American Monroe Doctrine and its concept of non-intervention by foreign powers in the American Raum. “This is the core of the original Monroe Doctrine, a genuine Grossraum principle, namely the union of politically awakened people, a political idea and, on the basis of this idea, a politically dominant Grossraum excluding foreign intervention.”

Carl Schmitt’s knowledge and sense of history were equaled by his ability to define core issues. That ability enabled Schmitt to quickly grasp the essence of national foreign policy , articulate it in his book, relate the idea and implementation of the American Monroe Doctrine to the concept of Grossraum , subject Grossraum to analysis, incorporate it into the framework of international law and contrapose American Grossraum to a new German Grossraum, opposed to and competing with the American. By subjecting Grossraum to scholarly investigation and by placing it in the context of global politics, Schmitt had hoped to enlarge the horizon of learning and to update the state-centered system of international law to include relations between Grossräume (Different Great Areas).(2)

In so doing he subjected the political theology of American expansionism, the American state-policy and objectives of world domination formulated and codified in the Monroe Doctrine and its various extension, to a demystifying and critical analysis showing that the essence of Wilsonian universalism before, during and after the World War II was in fact an insidious ideology to equate American national interest, American expansionism and the principles of the Monroe Doctrine with the interest of mankind(3). Discussing emerging political realities , Schmitt noted that Germany needed to formulate her own Grossraum and to conceptualize the nature of international law as a relationship between different Grossräume, rejecting thereby the universalistic claims of the United States.

The center of Carl Schmitt’s discussion was the geopolitical and the ideological substance of the Monroe Doctrine, especially the series of ideas articulated prior to Theodore Roosevelt’s reinterpretation of it justifying a “capitalist imperialism”(4) and Woodrow Wilson’s reinterpretation that sough to justify a “kind of pan-interventionist world ideology”(5) , i.e. to justify the principles of the Monroe Doctrine and the new international law it created in the Western Hemisphere to principles valid for the whole world. The substance of the new American international law, created by the Monroe Doctrine, was in fact an absence of international law, understood traditionally as law of nations created by mutual consent of those nations, in the Western Hemisphere, since the Monroe Doctrine postulated that the only source of the new international law was the will of the United States. According to Schmitt the Monroe Doctrine, historically seen, was the vehicle of American subjugation of the Latin American countries and transformation of those countries into virtual American protectorates.

President Woodrow Wilson’s objectives at the end of the W.W. I to elevate the principles of the Monroe Doctrine to universally valid principles for the whole world was in fact America’s first bid for world domination. On April 12, 1919, at the Paris Peace Conference , President Wilson assured the delegates that the Monroe Doctrine was “the real forerunner of the League of Nations” and asked rhetorically ,”Indeed are we not assembled here to consecrate and extend the horizon of this document as a perpetual charter for all the world.”(6)

The Monroe Doctrine, that nineteenth-century formulation of American foreign policy, has according to Schmitt a profound relevance for the Germany of his day. Though Schmitt recognized that the realities of power politics in the Western Hemisphere of the nineteenth century were different from those on the European continent of the twentieth century , he realized that the Monroe Doctrine had extended the parameters of international relations. As far as Schmitt was concerned, the Monroe Doctrine was “the first and until now the most successful example of a Grossraum principle”(7) that had over a period of time acquired validity, for it was referred to in every important text and dictionary of international law and was defended by the United States as “an expression of the inalienable right to self-defense”(8) Calling the Monroe Doctrine, i.e. the American expansionism, a “right to self-defense”, clearly showed the substance of American political theology-the ideological justification of U.S. imperialism as well as the equation in the ideology of expansionism with self-defense: an important ideological component that will became a center-peace of American mystification of U.S. expansionism.

Carl Schmitt points out that at the end of the W.W. I, at the Paris Peace-conference which resulted in the Treaty of Versailles and the creation of the League of Nations , United States succeeded to include the Monroe Doctrine in the Article 21 of the League’s Covenant. Inclusion of the Monroe Doctrine in the Article 21 in the League of Nation’s Covenant, which reads “Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of international engagements, such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine, for securing the maintenance of peace.” symbolized for Carl Schmitt Europe’s defeat by the United States and the end of the old Jus Publicum European, which had been the foundation for all preexisting international relations. For one thing , the League of Nations, purportedly an universal international organization and predecessor of the United Nations, was excluded from asserting any jurisdictional claims in the American Grossraum, i.e. the Western Hemisphere. Western Hemisphere was excluded from the purview of the League. Thus the United States asserted the pre-eminence of its will and the ordering principles of her Grossraum, i.e. her unrestricted hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, over the League of Nations.

Schmitt emphasizes that before Grossraum could be anchored in international law it had to be legitimized by a political idea. The geopolitical and ideological conviction behind the original Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in 1823 - the belief that the Americas had to be defended from the “status quo powers of legitimacy”(9) , the Holly Alliance, the European Con-cert formed after the defeat of Napoleon - justified its proclamation and gave it credibility. President James Monroe announced the doctrine in response to rumored intervention in America of the Holy Alliance. The United States justified its policy on the basis of its inalienable right of self-defense , a principle on which international law is found. Hence the declaration warning the members of the Holy Alliance that the United States “would consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety” and that the U.S. government would “view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in no other light than as manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States”. As a corollary of the principle of nonintervention, Monroe declared that the United States was committing itself to a policy of non-intervention “in the internal concerns of any European powers.”(10)

Carl Schmitt notes that the Monroe Doctrine , originally proclaimed as a vehicle of defense against interventionism and European colonialism, transformed itself into it’s opposite, becoming the main legal and ideological instrument of American interventionism, expansionism, economic imperialism and colonization of the Western Hemisphere.(11) The language of the Monroe Doctrine lended itself to a political-semantic corruption of the English language: American interventionist policies were still presented as defense, American colonialism was heralded as establishment of democracy, installation of puppet regimes in Latin-America serving their American masters was called a preservation of civilized forms of government, the many repeated American military interventions to keep the puppet regimes in power and to expand American economic penetration - a peace-keeping operations and, quite consistent with what George Orwell would latter call a New Talk, the enslavement of Latin-American countries, their transformation into protectorates was heralded as enlargement of the frontiers of freedom.

The interventionist substance of the Monroe Doctrine was clearly emphasized in 1904, in the so called Roosevelt Corollary pronounced by President Theodore Roosevelt shortly after the Hague Peace Conference the same year. Roosevelt proposed to make an exception to general international law in favor of the Western Hemisphere and this exception were to be made by “ a unilateral American pronouncement , not through a universally agreed amendment to international law.”(12) Roosevelt explicitly rejected the notion that the new international law in the Western Hemisphere could be created through multilateral, inter-American action, instead, Roosevelt asserted, its creation was only through unilateral action by the United States, i.e. the source of the new international law was solely the will of the United States.

”Instead of abolishing intervention in the Western Hemisphere, Roosevelt explicitly sanctioned this practice and claimed for the United States a monopoly of the right to engage in it... Finally the Roosevelt corollary applied to American intervention of all kind and for whatever purpose.”(13) The new international law in the Western Hemisphere, as formulated by Theodore Roosevelt, was in fact an absence of international law, or, to put it in another way, the foreign expansionist policy of the United States was elevated into a quasi international law. Thus the Roosevelt corollary defined the principle of organization and control of geopolitical space under American domination. That principle of domination suspended the operation of general norms of international law and elevated the imperialist will of the United States into the sole normative source. Or, as Secretary of State Olney had earlier expressed it: “United States is the sole sovereign in the Western Hemi-sphere and its will is a fiat.” Carl Schmitt also emphasized the territorial criterion of the Monroe Doctrine for the international law. He noted that the doctrine introduced territorial lines of delineation and demarcation into the body of international law, infused the international law with the concept and substance of geopolitics.

THE CONCEPT OF GERMAN GROSSRAUM

Based on the perception that the Monroe Doctrine provided the precedent for justification for both German and Japanese Grossraum, Schmitt observed that the traditional Eurocentric order underlying international law- relations between and among sovereign states- had been superseded by relations between and among sovereign Grossräume(14) As far as Germany was concerned , her Grossraum consisted, according to Schmitt’s view during the 30-ties, predominantly of Central and Eastern Europe. Though Schmitt failed to define the precise territorial dimensions of Germany’s Grossraum, he cited the Monroe Doctrine as the basis for maintaining that Grossraum in not something abstract and diffuse but contains “recognizable territorial limits”(15).

According to the Monroe Doctrine, Schmitt argued, the leading or hegemonial power is the one that determines the governing political idea for its realm. United States asserted the political idea that it had the hegemonial right to exclude from the Western Hemisphere any foreign power, or any foreign influence. After the end of the Word War I United States also asserted that the newly formed international organization , the League of Nations , was also excluded from asserting any jurisdiction in the Western Hemisphere. Schmitt emphasized that the new German Grossraum , seen by him as analogous to the American Grossraum, should also exclude any foreign interference, and above all American influence, and argued for the proclamation of a Ger-man Monroe Doctrine. Schmitt rejected the false universalist claims of the United States and noted that as a matter of principle non-interference by European states in the affairs of the American continent cannot be justified unless the United States likewise refrains from interference in the affairs of the European continent. In Carl Schmitt’s view geopolitics and international law have been joined in the Germanic Monroe Doctrine underlying the German Grossraum.

Carl Schmitt defined also the concept of a national Grossraum principle by extending his analysis to encompass the Reich . Though “the concept of Grossraum belongs to the concept of Reich (Empire, Realm) , the two are not identical because “not every state or every people within the German Grossraum is part of the Reich”. A Reich, according to Schmitt, “is the leading and sustaining power whose political idea radiates over a specific Grossraum”. And the code that governs relations between Grossräume is that of nonintervention.(16) Schmitt asserted that in the middle of Europe the German Reich faces the interventionist claims of the Anglo-Saxon pseudo-universalism. Against those claims it contraposes the principle of national life style “based on the principle of national respect.”(17)

Whereas relations between Grossräume were to be governed by the principle of nonintervention , intra-Grossraum relations in Schmitt’s construct were to be based on respect for every nation and nationality. Although in Schmitt’s configuration this connoted a policy of domination exercised without the need to resort to the extraordinary means of intervention , decision about whether to intervene, reflecting power-political realities, would not be made in any capital of the German Grossraum other than Berlin. One possible justification for intervention in a nation in the Reich was that it pursued foreign policy goals inimical to the security interests of Germany. In another work Carl Schmitt defines the Reich as “the leading and supporting powers whose political idea is radiated over a specified major territory and which fundamentally exclude the intervention of extra-territorial powers with regard to this territory.”(18)

It should be noted that Carl Schmitt, while recognizing that the historically changing world order and nature of international relations necessitated the reformulation of the international law in terms of equal relationship between competing Grossräume, he nevertheless never advocated an unrestricted expansion of a singular Grossraum i.e. geopolitical objectives of total world hegemony by for example Germany. Quite to the contrary : the substance of his work Grossraum gegen Universalismus is a strong criticism of the American ideology of universalism and from that ideology derived foreign policy on which U.S. embarked in a limited scope during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, and which became the ideological hallmark of the Wilsonianism during and after the World War I.

American universalism , emphasized Schmitt, globalized the principles of the Monroe Doctrine to principles valid for the whole world i.e. to universal principles and thus , ideologically and politically, laid claims for extension of American hegemony in the Western Hemisphere to a hegemony over the whole world. American objectives for world conquest and domination used the ideology of universalism to revise the geographical limitations of the Monroe Doctrine- the very principle of geographical delimitation and demarcation of the concept of Grossraum- and to justify American interventionism in the European continent. While American universalism was a rejection of the idea of co-existence of different Grossräume and thus not only a rejection of the concept of Grossraum with its principles of geographic delimitation but also a claim for global world hegemony, so was also Hitler’s concept of Lebensraum which served as an ideological device for foreign policy objectives of establishment first of German continental hegemony and latter of global world hegemony . In other words there were ideological and geopolitical similarities between Wilson’s universalism and Hitler’s Lebensraum. Both Wilsonian universalism and Nazi-Germany’s Lebensraum were falsification of a genuine Grossraum principle and both universalism and Lebensraum rejected the very notion of international pluralism, of co-existence of Grossräume.

Both universalism and Lebensraum as concepts were antithetical to Schmitt’s concept of territorial limits of Grossraum and both universalism and Lebensraum encompassed no territorial limits serving as ideological justification for global world domination.(19)

In formulating the concept of Grossraum Carl Schmitt wanted to broad the framework of international law to include relations between Grossräume. His concept allowed for the rational conduct of international relations and provided a compelling principle for the international law that would correspondent to new historical realities.

THE RELEVANCE OF THE CONCEPT OF GROSSRAUM FOR RUSSIA

Prior to the dissolution or , I would rather say, subversion of the Soviet Union in 1991, in the bipolar world of two superpowers , there existed two competing Grossräume ( Great Areas) or two opposing political blocks, each with its sphere of influence and thus geographical delimitation and demarcation: the Atlantic Grossraum, dominated by the United States, and the Eurasian Grossraum, dominated by the Soviet Union. The political competition between the two blocks gave a substantial latitude for autonomy and independence for countries included in the sphere of influence of the two blocks. However after 1991 a completely new world order has been created. The bipolar world landscape of two superpowers has been transformed into a mono landscape of one superpower imposing its will on the rest of the world. The concept of a New World Order, propounded first by President Bush and now implemented by the neo-Wilsonian foreign policies of President Clinton, must be seen as a realization and assertion of the principles on the Monroe Doctrine to principles valid for the whole world, or, in other words, as a Roosevelt corollary for the whole world, with a new international law equated with the U.S.’s will. The globalization of the Monroe Doctrine , the pronouncement of the Bush/Clinton corollary is the assertion of the legitimacy of American intervention in the world for whatever purposes United States deem necessary, in other words , it is the equation of the United States will with grounds for intervention, an equation which is not only a radical repudiation of the priciples of non-intervention contained in the United Nations Charter, and thus a repudiation of the essence and substance of the United Nations, but is also the substance of the new international law of the New World Order. In the post-Cold War political landscape , United States, invoking and asserting her principles of legitimacy of American world-wide hegemony , is in a position visavi Europe similar to the position of the former Holy Alliance visavi America in the past. American intrusion into the Eurasian geopolitical vacuum after the demise of the Soviet Union, has necessitated a formulation and implementation of a global policy of pseudo-universalism and intervention. Therefore an absolute geopolitical necessity for Russia now, tantamount to her national survival, is the re-establishment of her Grossraum, which is a prerequisite not only for the future independence of Russia but also for the independence of other European countries as well. Re-establishment of the Russian Grossraum and a necessary new geopolitical alliance, which one my symbolically call “a second Treaty of Rappalo”, will be the beginning of disintegration of the global system of American universalism and interventionism and thus a necessary prerequisite for the rebirth of America-free Europe. During the interwar years, in the Europe after the Treaty of Versailles , Carl Schmitt, observing the universalist claims of international law of American and British imperialism, asserted that “behind the facade of general norms of international law lies, in reality, the system of Anglo-Saxon world imperialism”(20)

Today, observing the new American expansionism, the American invasion in the geopolitical vacuum of the Eurasian Grossraum, the decline and fall of the United Nations and the perversion of this international body into a legitimacy facade for the United States bid for world conquest and hegemony in the New World Order , one may say, as it was said once before by Carl Schmitt , that behind the facade of general norms of international law , lies now in reality the system of American world imperialism and expansionism. For the substance of the New World Order is the globalization of the American hegemony without any geographical limitations, the triumph of the old Wilsonian universalism or the neo-Wilsonian policies of President Clinton, a universalism that is a radical rejection of the notion of peaceful co-existence of Grossräume, of a pluralistic world order build on respect for existing state sovereignties.

The primary foreign policy objective of Russia must be the formulation of her own Monroe Doctrine, geographically delimiting Russian Grossraum, which would exclude the intervention on foreign powers and above all the United States.

A formulation of a Russian Monroe Doctrine implies by necessity a rejection of the pseudo-universalist claims of the American New World Order and the validity of a new international law that legitimizes that order. It also implies a firm rejection of American legal nihilism and revisionism, it mandates a restoration of a world order codified by the Helsinki Accord. Thus a Russian Monroe Doctrine will be an expression of a genuine and inalienable right to self-defense against American expansionism and it’s new territorial ambitions. Integral to the purpose of self-defense must be a Russian claim for respect for Russian minorities in any state where they are to be found as well as prevention of foreign policy inimical to the security interest of Russia , such as membership in NATO , prevention of coming into power of governments serving as agents of foreign power , in short , of governments of American Quislings.

The geographical delimitation of the Russian Grossraum is the territory of the former Soviet Union, countries belonging to the former socialist block , including Yugoslavia, now subjected to a war of aggression by the United States.

A Russian Grossraum can only be a genuine, geographically delimited Grand Area and the international law it would create will be, according to Carl Schmitt’s visions, an international law encompassing the co-existence of Grossräume and thus a rejection of the international law of the New World Order- the universalization of American principles of legitimization of global and unlimited American expansionism and domination. A peaceful co-existence of Grossräume can hardly be achieved without the geopolitical expulsion of the United States from Eurasia.

In the past the United States has been successful in theologization of American geopolitical objectives of world domination - the ideology of Wilsonian pseudo universalism-and demonization of geopolitical competitors and thus rejection of the very notion of geopolitical pluralism. The restoration of the Russian Grossraum is therefore the only guaranty for international peace and renewed respect for international law, constructed not as the will of the United States but as the collective will of sovereign countries and geopolitical blocks. Russian Grossraum is the only guaranty against the future anti-utopia of a Monroe Doctrine for the whole world.

The historical necessity and actuality of a new Russian Grossraum, excluding American interference in Eurasia, confluence with Charles de Gaulle’s vision of a free Europe from Atlantic to Urals and beyond to Vladivostok, which could only exist as America-free Europe. Without a reconstitution of a Russian Grossraum, the future not only of Russia but also of other European countries, will be the present of Latin America. In other worlds, the historical necessity of a Russian Grossraum is a decision for a future of freedom and national and cultural authenticity, a decision against the future as American protectorate. And again, the Russian choice is also the choice of Europe.

ENDNOTES 

(1) Carl Schmitt -Völkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für Raumfremde Mächte- Ein Bitrag zum Reichsbegriff im Völkerrecht (Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 1991)

(2) some authors trace the concept of Grossraum in earlier writings of Friedrich Naumann and others. “According to their concept of Mitteleuropa , modern political, economic, and technological considerations necessitated the creation of a German empire in the center of Europe that would allow Germany to survive in a world dominated by political units larger than a typical European nation-state, namely Russia, the British Empire , and the United States..Raumtheorie was first established as a specialized field of study in the twenties , when it became an integral part of the developing sciene of geopolitics” -see Joseph W. Bendersky-Carl Schmitt (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983) - at p. 251

(3) Carl Schmitt - Grossraum gegen Universalism in Positionen und Begriffe im Kampf mit Weimar- Genf- Versailles 1923-1939 (Duncker & Humblot , Berlin , 1988)

(4) Carl Scmitt -Völkerrechtlische Grossraumordnung - ibid. p. 37

(5) Carl Schmitt- Völkerrechtlische Grossraumordnung- ibid. pp 38-39

(6) Stephen Bonsal -Unfinished Business (New York, 1944) pp. 184-185; also Arthur P. Whitaker-The Western Hemisphere Idea (Cornell University Press, New York, 1954) at p. 125

(7) Carl Schmitt- Völkerrechtlische Grossraumordnung- ibid. p. 23

(8) Carl Schmitt- Völkerrechtlische Grossraumordnung- ibid. pp. 17, 19, 27-30

(9) Carl Schmitt- Völkerrechtlische Grossraumordnung- ibid. p. 34

(10) see Thomas A. Bailey - A Diplomatic Hisstory of the American People (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1980), pp. 183-184

(11) see Carl Schmitt -Völkerrechtliche Formen des modernen Imperialismus in Schmitt Positionen und Begriffe

(12) Arthur P. Whitaker- The Western Hemisphere Idea -ibid. - p. 100

(13) Arthur P. Whitaker- The Western Hemisphere Idea -ibid. - p. 100

(14) Carl Schmitt - Volkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung- ibid. p. 76, 77, 81

(15) Carl Schmitt - Volkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung- ibid. p. 16

(16) Carl Schmitt - Volkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung- ibid. p. 66

(17) Carl Schmitt - Volkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung- ibid. p.71

(18) Carl Schmitt - Der Reichbegrif in Völkerrecht in Positionen und Begriffe - ibid. at p. 303

(19)in fact American universalism can be seen as Lebenraum for American economic imperialism

(20)Carl Schmitt - Völkerrechtliche Formen des modernen Imperialismus ibid. p.43

NATO AS INSTRUMENT OF UNITED STATES EXPANSIONISM:
THE GEOPOLITICS OF AMERICAN LEBENSRAUM
Prof. Dr . Nikolai von Kreitor

A new consciousness seems to have come upon us — the consciousness of strength— and with it a new appetite, the yearning to show our strength. It may be compared with the effect upon the animal creation of the taste of blood...The taste of empire is in the mouth of the people even as the taste of blood in the jungle. It means an imperial policy, the Republic , renascent, taking her place with the armed nations.”(1)

Each year the society inclines to accept more unreservedly the theory that war is only an extreme phase of economic competition, and...it follows that international competition, if carried far enough, must end in war...America’s attack is based not only on her superior resources and her more perfect administration ...No wonder the European regards America as a dangerous and relentless foe. ..United States is determined to yield nothing , but is resolved to push all her advantages to the uppermost...If Americans are determined to reject reciprocity in all its forms , to concede nothing to the adversary; if , having driven in the knife , they mean to turn it in the wound, they should recognize that they are provoking reprisals in every form and accept the situation with the uppermost. To carry out an aggressive policy in some security, the United States needs 300.000 trained men whom she can put in the field in twenty days, with an ample reserve of officers and of material. More especially, she needs a Navy.”
Brooks Adams(2)

Americans must recognize that this is war to the death—a struggle no longer against single nations but against a continent. There is no room in the economy of the world for two centers of wealth and empire. One organism, in the end, will destroy the other. The weaker must succumb.
Brooks Adams(3)

The father of containment George Kennan pointed in his 1993 published book Around the Cragged Hill that “The time for the stationing of American forces on European soil has passed, and...the ones now stationed there should be withdrawn...as soon as it is conveniently possible“.(4) Kennan further argued that his long-term hope was for the development of a “new European security structure...of which the United States was not a member..” Recently he warned against the planned expansion of NATO:

“Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era...Such a decision may be expected...to restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East West relations, to impel Russian foreign policy decidedly not to our liking. And, last but not least, it may make it much more difficult , if not impossible, to secure the Russian Duma’s ratification of the Start II agreement and to achieve further reduction of nuclear weaponry. It is of course unfortunate that Russia should be con-fronted with such a challenge at a time when its executive power is in a state of high uncertainty and near-paralysis. And it is double unfortunate considering the total lack of any necessity for this move.(5)

George Kennan’s political realism and responsibility for the future of the international world order parallels the German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel’s conclusion that European security cannot be created in confrontation with Russia.
Unfortunately the American foreign policy in the period after 1991 has not been based on political realism but on geopolitical expansionism compared in scope with the US expansion-ism after the end of the W.W.II. The question of expansion of NATO is “The struggle for mastery in Europe”(6), points General William E. Odon in his study NATO Expansion: The Unifinished Business in Post Gold War Europe , the last chapter of which is being played now.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact was not followed by the logical dissolution of the other Cold War military alliance NATO. Quite to the contrary: Washing-ton embarked on a new global geopolitical expansionism using NATO as the foremost instrument of extending its world wide “open door” empire and the dynamic and ideology of that expansionism predominates the post 1991 period.
Beginning in 1991 the ideological drive of the United States was directed toward the goal of “socialization of larger policy community’s a priory faith that NATO is the only global ‘security’” framework which is bound to subsume the vast space of the created geopolitical vacuum in Eastern Europe and parts of the former Soviet Union. Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance from 1991, mirroring the geopolitical objectives of the main Cold War document , NSC-68, outlined the paramount geopolitical objective of the United States: control of all geopolitical areas —Japan, Western Europe, former Soviet Union—the consolidation and/or mobilization of which could lead to a competition with the United States. The ultimate goal was American domination over the entire landmass of Eurasia. The expansion of NATO to include not only the ex- Warsaw Pact states but also republics of the former Soviet Union, was the strategy chosen in furtherance of that goal. “Expansion of NATO” was the geopolitical code and the paramount paradigm of American dominion over the entire Eurasia.
Countering the American expansionist ideology by Russia resulted in a clash of incompatible paradigms. Russian initiatives, based on entirely different paradigm, which emphasized the sovereign equality of countries and envisioned the anchor of security in Europe in revitalized CSCE, which would supersede NATO, lead to a frontal confrontation with the American paradigm- the domination of both Western and Eastern Europe by the United States through the military instrument of American hegemony- NATO.
Across the political spectrum in the US. the support for American expansionism, epitomized by the expansion of NATO, has been strong. Resorting to old imperialist vocabulary Henry A. Kissinger exclaimed : now is the opportune moment , when Russia is weak, to extend American “protection” (sic) to potential targets.(7)
Jeane Kirkpatrick at the conservative American Enterprise Institute , Morton Abramowitz, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Zbigniew Brzezinski , the former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake and the Assistant Secretary of State Strobe Talbot have emphasized that NATO is the anchor of American influence (an euphemism for hegemony) in Europe and a guaranty for permanence of the regime of preponderance of power and “open door” expansionism. Brzezinski went so far as to bluntly state in the influential magazine Foreign Affairs that American hegemony in Europe is axiomatic.(8) Thus the true roll of NATO is to serve as a pillar for that axiom crushing all potential anti-hegemonic forces. “United States is the world’s policeman, owing to its unique ability to project power” conclude the RAND analysts David Gompert and Richard Kugler. As the only nation able to project mili-tary power United States has monopolized the use of force and that monopoly rests on a “NATO power projection capability”.

The evolution of American expansionism

Unilateralism has been historically the foreign policy orientation of the United States, either from a position of preponderance of power or aiming at preponderance of power. Following that historical pattern, the American expansionism after the dissolution of the Soviet Union has produced a new strategic concept of world domination , that emphasizes, in addition to largely rhetorical and ideological to the point of orthodox theology assertions of NATO’s roll as “European pillar” , a vehicle of “open door” policy and anchor of the New World Order, creation of quick-reaction forces and two political military initiatives to extend the Alliance’s “security” umbrella as far as the Urals. This new strategic concept is not only a dramatic expansion of the number and nature of conflicts in which NATO may be involved but also presupposes a quick , blitzkrieg-like subsumption of a vast new geopolitical space- Balkans, Eastern Europe , Caucasus and other parts of the former Soviet Union, subordination of international institutions under NATO, as the war in Yugoslavia has shown, and perversion of the pre-existing international law into quasi-legal norms serving the American expansionism.
Beginning with the 1990 NATO summit meeting in London , the 1991 summit in Rome and the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance of the same year, a doctrinal “new strategic concept” was formed. The American political scientist Jonathan Clark calls that concept “battle plans” or American war aims under the guise of a New World Order. (Jonathan G. Clarke NATO in Eastern Europe in Ted Galen Carpenter (ed.) The Future of NATO, Frank Gass, Lon-don 1995)
The “battle plan” was a blatant statement of expansionist intent, dramatically expanding the geographical scope of NATO. The underlying philosophy of this statement is that “secu-rity interests “ of the United States are inseparably linked not only with both Western and Eastern Europe but also with the Baltic countries and other former Soviet republics. Using the ideological clichés of the political vocabulary of the Monroe Doctrine, disguising expansionism as “security” or “defense”, it in many respects can be seen as analogous to the Truman Doctrine in the past. For the purposes of American grand expansionist design the 1994 NATO Brussels declaration defines Europe “as comprising the whole CSCE membership and, therefore including not only the Baltic countries and Ukraine but also the former Soviet Central Asian and Trans-caucasian republics.”
The Brussels declaration stated that “NATO increasingly will be called upon to under-take missions in addition to the traditional and fundamental task of collective defense of its members, which remains a core function.” “Missions “ was defined as military operations utilizing rapid response military forces.
Combined Joint Task Forces (CJTF) were created to provide rapid military intervention capabilities. President Clinton’s Presidential Directive 13 outlined the planned interventions in the future in all Europe to the Urals, envisioning deployment of NATO forces from the Atlantic ocean to the Ural mountains. The Presidential Directive 13 was conceived as operationalization of the American war aims. Amplifying the Directive 13 William Pfaff, writing in Foreign Affairs in 1993, called for NATO interventions in Eastern, East-Central, and Balkan Europe and envisioned NATO forces in the Baltic republics.
The formation of North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) was NATO’s first organizational attempt to incorporate the former republics of the Soviet Union and the ex-Warsaw Pact countries into the sphere of American domination. Announced at the Rome summit meeting of the North Atlantic Council in November 1991 it went on to a mission to fill the strategic vacuum created by the collapse of the Soviet Union..... At the end of 1991 NATO made a decision to extend NACC membership to all former Soviet republics. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia were of special concern. During 1993 NATO actively participated in the ongoing dismembering of Yugoslavia and destruction of the world order based on and guaranteed by the Helsinki Accord. NATO did dispatch warships to the Adriatic in support of the Americanized United Nations’ embargo against Serbia which was defending its territorial integrity guaranteed by general norms of international law and the Helsinki Agreement, in historical perspective the very constitution of the CSCE. In April of 1993 NATO began to enforce the “no-fly zone” over Bosnia-Herzegovina, i.e. United States asserted the primacy of her jurisdiction over the jurisdiction of Yugoslavia, expropriating thereby part of Yugoslavia’s sovereignty.
At the Oslo ministerial meeting June 1992 of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) NATO announced its willingness to undertake regional “peace-keeping” operations on behalf of the CSCE . Six months later in Brussels NATO extended its “peacekeeping” umbrella to the United Nations.
The important objectives, part of the overall grand expansionist design , were to put CSCE and the United Nations under the authority of NATO, i.e. the United States, to achieve a freedom of unilateral actions and paralyze the multilateral approach and concern to crisis situations, created in fact by American policies of destabilization of different countries , and , finally, to accomplish the political isolation and encirclement of Russia.
In the fall of 1993 came then Partnership for Peace (PFP) . NATO unveiled PFP in January of 1994 at its meeting in Brussels. The creation of the Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) for “peacekeeping” was designed as a device for strengthening the American grip over new countries and above all over Eastern Europe. At the Brussels summit a firm decision was made to expand toward the east -an American plan Ost - through Partnership for Peace program , called by Valery Zuyganov “an American Barbarossa plan for the conquest of Russia” . Secondly NATO would became a military instrument and a “security umbrella” for the West European Union (WEU) and the Conference on Security and Cooperation (CSCE), and subsequently also for the United Nations, meaning that NATO would assert its authority and primacy over those international organizations and subsume their jurisdiction under its own.
The main objective was also the subjugation of all international organization under the will of the United States, the corruption and appropriation of the function of those international organizations and then the encirclement, and latter dismembering of Russia after the already proven Yugoslavian scenario.
The Partnership for Peace , president Clinton told the Polish parliament in July of 1994, is only the beginning. “Bringing new members into NATO is no longer a question of whether, but of when and how.”

Drang Nach Krieg

Within a space of three months at the beginning of 1994 the following events took place: NATO heads of government issued a declaration that linked NATO’s security directly with the conflicts in post-communist Eastern Europe; NATO ambassadors agreed on a ultimatum to parties in the Bosnian conflict that bristled with warlike rhetoric. “NATO moved in a very short span from the Brussels meeting to the brink of war in three months. On February 28 1994, six weeks after the Brussels meeting two American F-16 fighter aircraft flying under NATO command shot down four Bosnian Serb Galeb jets over Bosnia. Six weeks later , on April 13 , NATO lost its first aircraft to hostile fire when a British Navy Harrier was downed over Goradze. On April 22 NATO issued an ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs and on April 30 NATO forces killed Serbian soldiers.”, points out Jonathan Clarke. Subsequently United States choose to escalate the level of conflict —with wide scale bombing of Serbian civilian population and civilian targets, introduction of combat ground forces and outright military occupation of parts of Yugoslavia—Bosnia. What began in London as a vague discussion on NATO’s new mission and purpose, four years later became a full scale war. Bosnia thus became a paradigmatic case not only of the New World Order but of the true purpose of NATO. In retrospect NATO’s Brussels doctrine was a formulation of the American war aims and the war in Yugoslavia their first implementation.
The analogy with Hitless foreign policy of conquest is obvious. In the past Hitler, embarking on a course of expansion of German Lebensraum and building a New European Order, offered to all states which he intended to transform into German satellites guarantees in return to accession to the Tripartite Pact. Yugoslavia, who refused , was bombed into submission and subsequently partitioned. In a similar fashion United States insist that the new satellite states in Eastern Europe join NATO and be run as American protectorates. And as in the past Yugoslavia was bombed by NATO forces into submission and partitioned along the same lines as by Nazi Germany. When NATO forces bombed Serbian civilian targets, committing war crimes and acts of genocide, the end result was the destruction not only of Yugoslavia, but also of the fundamental principles and norms of international law embodied in the Helsinki Agreement, which guaranteed and protected Yugoslavia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. American New European Order was being build.
The expansion of NATO is a matter of globalization and totalization of geopolitical space. Beginning with the NATO summit meeting 1991 in Rome and Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance, which outlined the doctrine of global preponderance of power and the United States’ main geopolitical objective: assertion of control and dominium over all geopolitical regions the consolidation and/or mobilization of which could produce a rival , the overall foreign policy strategy of the United States and the American expansionist Weltanschaung have been centered on the two basic concepts of geopolitical space and control. The power management of the geopolitical expansionism is accomplished by two, mutually complementary processes: on one side the process of destruction and subjugation of previously protected geo-political space —Yugoslavia, Eastern Europe— by military, economic and pseudo-legal means, and on the other, the process of totalization and militarization of the world community, the historical transformation of the whole Europe into American protectorate in the future and production of unified geopolitical space under the regime of United States preponderance of power and the dictates of the New World Order. Thus the doctrine of preponderance of power, disguised the code name “Expansion of NATO”, is a doctrine of geopolitical totalitarianism: it aims at securing U.S. dominion over Eurasia leading to American world hegemony —a Monroe Doctrine for the whole world.

Escalation Dominance

Resorting to old American practice of intimidation and domination, the strategy the Washington is using now is the old doctrine of “Escalation Dominance” , developed by Pentagon, which is the ability to threaten or coerce other nations by being capable of dominating the next level of escalation of violence.
The known American nuclear physicists Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod point out in their book “To Win a Nuclear War. The Pentagon’s Secret War Plans” that “Escalation Dominance” is a term coined in the 1950’s by the nuclear strategists at the Rand Corporation and it describes consistent use of military threats and coercion that runs all the way from the Pentagon’s first nuclear war plans of 1945 to the present. As a tool of American foreign policy it was modeled on Hitler’s conquest’s of part of Europe by threat and coercion short of war. “One analogy sometimes used by Rand analysts to study Escalation Dominance is the strategy used by Hitler when he took over large portion of Europe in the late 1930s without firing a single shot. Hitler’s troops marched into the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia because all of Europe feared he was reckless and powerful enough to dominate the next level of violence: world war. By deliberately projecting a ruthless image, Hitler could achieve his goals short of war.”
A former Rand analyst Daniel Ellsberg stated that the United States use the strategy of Escalation Dominance “ in the precise way that a gun is used when you point it a someone’s head in a direct confrontation , whether or not the trigger is pulled.”
The former U.S. Attorney General in the Carter Administration Ramsey Clark, who latter became one of the most outspoken critics of American expansionism, calls the use of “Es-calation Dominance” an international crime: “ Our government means to have its way through the use and threatened use of force. It will lie. It will deceive. It will kill. It will escalate the threat and use of force to the highest level it dares. It will bluff, dangerous as it can be...The conduct revealed here cannot be rationally explained or morally tolerated. It must be prohibited.”
“Escalation Dominance” describes the main strategy employed by the United States after the destruction of the Soviet Union all over the world.

Foreign policy of Lebensraum

The expansion of NATO is continuation of the building of an American empire by extending the Western frontier of the empire. In geopolitical terms the expansion of NATO is a moving of the Western frontier of the American Empire first in Eastern Europe and ultimately deep into Russia. Thus NATO’s main function is to serve the policies of the American Lebensraum i.e. the open door imperialism.
“The idea of preserving and spreading democracy has served as euphemism for marked expansion from the time of Frederick Jackson Turner’s 1893 frontier thesis , which suggested that the American sensibility was shaped by the possibilities afforded by seemingly limitless land. George Marshall , seeking congressional approval for his plan to rebuild Europe compared it to America’s westward continental expansion . Marshall went to link the needs of our economy to the expansion of overseas markets, contending that foreign markets expansion was the way to prevent the loss of democracy at home . Democracy of course, referred to the United States domestic economy”. American economy demanded a geopolitical expansionist state existence of the United States, points the American political scientist, professor Robert Cox and reaches the inevitable conclusion: “NATO has replaced the Marshall Plan as the vehicle of American market expansion. This is the real purpose of NATO in Europe and the reason there is an urgency to expand it”.(10)

The former Defense secretary William J. Perry on February 4, 1996 in Munich, Ger-many, stated bluntly that the extension of NATO is important to ensure the success of American “open door” policy in those countries. He was seconded by Strobe Talbott who in his article “Why NATO Should Expand”, published in the New York Review of Books (August 10, 1995) wrote that the inclusion of the former Warsaw pact countries in NATO would integrate them in the free trade “open door” post-Cold War New World Order, linking thus NATO expansion with policies of American Lebensraum. One may recall that already in 1988 Zbigniew Brzezinski emphasized in his article “America’s New Geo-strategy” (Foreign Affairs, Spring 1988) that “space control is likely to become tantamount to earth control. There is a striking parallels between the role of the navy in the emergence of American global power and today’s incipient competition for a dominant position in space.” If in the past admiral Mahan envisioned the role of the navy as the foremost instrument of American “Open door” expansionism, now that role has been overtaken by NATO. NATO main roll is to serve the policies of American geopolitical enlargement and space control.

The Doctrine of Enlargement

After the “end “ of the so called Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union Zbigniew Brzezinski described in his 1993 published book Out of Control (Colier Books, New York) the geopolitics of the New World Order as “an American invasion of the geopolitical vacuum in Eurasia created by the dissolution of the Soviet Union”, aimed to transform the former republics of the Soviet Union into an area of overt and exclusive preponderance of American power. Under the heavy hand of American imperialism the filling of the geopolitical vacuum will continue and the United States will ultimately conquer the geopolitical space of the former Soviet Union and interpose its authority over all of Europe.
During the same year the former National Security Adviser to President Clinton Anthony Lake, defined the new expansionist doctrine of the United States. In his foreign policy statement titled “From Containment to Enlargement” (U.S. Department of State Dispatch , September 27, 1993) Lake asserted that “the successor to the doctrine of containment must be the doctrine and strategy of enlargement.” In full agreement with Brzezinski he defines the new foreign policy doctrine as enlargement and globalization of the American sphere of dominance. To the same conclusion comes also Strobe Tallbott in his book “The New Frontier”. In a recently published book under the auspices of the Twentieth Century Fund, “America’s Mission”, (Princeton University Press, 1996) the author Tony Smith puts that new doctrine in the context of the oldest expansionist doctrine of the United States- the Monroe Doctrine.
The prominent American historian William Appleman Williams points out in his essay The Large Corporation and American Foreign Policy that its was Theodore Roosevelt who first launched America’s empire :
“Roosevelt at first favored the traditional imperial policy of establishing formal administrative and military colonies within the subject society, but he ultimately adopted Secretary of State Bryan’s approach which was based on extending the Monroe Doctrine to cover the foreign country.”(12) That policy served as the basis of the Open Door Notes, of the new form of American “ Open Door” colonialism and imperialism.
On January 22, 1917 President Woodrow Wilson pronounced the Monroe Doctrine as a doctrine for the whole world which then became, as Carl Schmitt has pointed out, a pan-interventionist world ideology. Wilson wanted to extend the Monroe Doctrine— and thus American geopolitical preponderance of power— to the whole world. He did not succeed. How-ever Wilson formulated the American geopolitical mission during the twentieth century which United States has been pursuing since then. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and subsequently President Truman embarked for a second time on a globalization of the Monroe Doctrine. The clash between American geopolitical mission and the defense policy of the Soviet Union created the Cold War. The policy of “containment” was designed to overcome the resistance of the Soviet Union to the expansion and globalization of the Monroe Doctrine. Thus the term “contain-ment” as characterization of the US Cold War policy is utterly misleading. The Cold War policy of the United States was not a policy of containment but of enlargement, also of Lebensraum. It was the foreign policy of the Soviet Union that in historical perspective was the policy of containment of the American expansionism. It is therefore logical that with the collapse of the Soviet Union United States reverts to its old imperialist habit of further enlargement. With the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War it is the time, believes Washington, to materialize the geopolitical vision of president Wilson— to establish the American Monroe Doctrine as an organizational principle of America dominated New World Order, And in fact NATO and the Monroe Doctrine are interrelated. As senator Connally expressed it: “NATO is the logical extension of the Monroe Doctrine” and the process of NATO expansion is the enlargement of the sphere of application of the Monroe Doctrine, i.e. the setting of the new expanding Western frontier of the American Empire, which by necessity leads to globalization and totalization of geopolitical space under American dominion, accomplishing thus what Brzezinski called a geo-political “earth control” by the United States.
In the September/October of 1993 issue of the influential journal Foreign Policy, published by the ideological think-tank of Washington, The Council of Foreign Relations, in an article written by Rand Coprorations analysts Ronald D. Asmus, Richard L. Kugler and F. Stephen Larrabee, the authors, echoing the old imperialist theories of Brooks Adams, assert that United States must expand or it would stagnate. The vehicle for American expansionism is NATO. “NATO must go out of area or it will go out of business”. The doctrine of enlargement, formulated by Anthony Lake and Zbigniew Brzezinski is illustrated by a geopolitical map pro-vided by the Council of Foreign Relations. The map shows the new area of American geopolitical conquests which corresponds to the territorial aggrandizement of Germany after the Brest-Litovsk treaty or to Hitler’s territorial conquests at the beginning of the Second World War. The whole Eastern Europe , Ukraine, Byelorussia, the Baltic Republics and Tran-caucasian Republics are included. For good measure also Finland(!). Ronald Asmus, the proponent of the old expansionist Lebensraum doctrine of Brooks Adams, has also recently been recruited as a special adviser to the Clinton administration on the issue of enlargement of NATO.
In a recent article in the New York Times the former Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger and Peter Schweizer , a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, argue for coupling of the NATO expansion in Eastern Europe with simultaneous American policy of assertion of preponderance of power over the Caspian region, where important raw resources of oil and gas are concentrated.
“Open access to the Caspian is critical if the United States is to diversify its energy sources and reduce its dangerous reliance on Middle Eastern supplies...Our long-term security interests are at stake.” (13)
In essence the authors argue for the extension of the Carter Doctrine—a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine to include, in addition to the Middle Eastern region, also the Caspian region, i.e. parts of the former Soviet Union. The language used by the authors is the language of the geopolitical orthodoxy of American Lebensraum: geopolitical enlargement and assertion of control over sources of raw materials is equated with American security, and political environment safe for expansionism with politically stable world order.
Zbignief Brzezinski points out that the overriding geopolitical imperative for the United States , linked with further erosion of the geopolitical space of the former Soviet Union, is to assert American control over above all Ukraine. Other geopolitical areas, such as the Baltic and Trans-caucasian republics will soon follow. Extension of the Monroe Doctrine over Ukraine, emphasizes Brzezinski again, is a foremost guaranty of American preponderance of power over Eurasia. Ultimately Brzezinski envisions the partition of Russia into three separate parts, all according to analogous plans of President Wilson’s administration at the end of World War I as shown in the geographical maps prepared by Isaiah Bowman within the framework of Wilson’s commission on geopolitics —The Inquiry—, and presented at the Paris Peace Conference.

The end-games of American Lebensraum
In a geopolitical study of the New World Order, prepared for the Secretary of Defense by the Rand Corporation , titled “Enlarging NATO. The Russian Factor” (Rand Corporation, 1996), the author Richard Kugler outlines the strategy or end-games of what he calls American “open door-enlargement”, the overriding objective of which is the destruction of an independent Eurasian geopolitical space and the subsumption of that space under American control. He points out that incorporation of Ukraine is especially critical to the goal of establishment of American global hegemony. “Keeping Eurasia ‘pluralistic’”—an euphemism for weak and divided Eurasia—”by preventing CIS reintegration, not only opens the geopolitical space of Eurasia for American enlargement but also inhibits any organized block from emerging that may menace the enlarging USA” , states Kugler. Control of the Eurasian geopolitical space is of crucial importance for the U.S. hegemony, emphasizes he. “At a minimum , the combination of American enlargement into the Baltic states and Ukraine coupled with efforts to deny Russia control of the remainder of the CIS will effectively isolate Russia and accomplish the American objective of control of Eurasia” i.e. the destruction of Eurasian geopolitical space.
Kugler argues for a strategy of “phased enlargement” of the United States —demands by installment—which translates into a geopolitical dynamic of phased attack by the US cou-pled by phased retreat by the Russia, leading at the end to a total Russian surrender. He explains the logic of this phased enlargement: once Russia has accepted the incorporation of the Visegrad countries into NATO, then it would be easier for the United States to claim Bulgaria, Romania, the Baltic countries and Ukraine. The first Russian retreat would lead to a subsequent retreat. And once the Baltic countries and Ukraine are taken, then it would came the turn of the remaining CIS countries. And following this logic at the end the Russia itself would be dismembered.
The strategy of phased attacks leading to a sequence of surrenders was envisioned also by Zbigniew Brzezinski who in his essay “The Cold War and Its Aftermath “ , published in Foreign Affairs (Fall 1992) called the signing of the 4 plus 2 “Treaty on On The Final Settlement With Respect To Germany” on November 19, 1990 in Paris Russia’s surrender and capitulation , “the functional equivalent of the act of capitulation in the railroad car in Compiegne in 1918.” The signing on May 27, 1997 in Paris of a “Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Co-operation and Security “ , as in Orwellian New talk the expansion of American Lebensraum in Eastern Europe is called “ is Russia’s second surrender”(14) . This second surrender, however, can not be seen as any final settlement. Knowing the American war aims is only the beginning of the road to a subsequent capitulation.
Containing Europe
Zalmay Khalizdad, a former assistant secretary of defense, in his geopolitical study prepared for the United States Air Force “US Grand Strategies: Implications for the United States and the World” and published in a book edited by him (“Strategic Appraisal 1996”, RAND Corporation 1996), distinguishes between three possible American grand strategies in the Post-Cold War world: de-imperialization, return to multi-polarity or balance of power, and finally, global world hegemony, euphemistically called global US world leadership.
De-imperialization is the return of the United States to the Western Hemisphere, i.e. withdrawal from Europe into Fortress America. Rather than expanding NATO , US shall limit its military presence in Europe. Khalizdad rejects that strategy on the basis that it may lead to re-nationalization of Japan and Germany and thus to the constitution of a future geopolitical rival to the United States.
The second option is a system of balance of power aimed to preclude the emergence of another predominant power, i.e. a world system of “several Monroes.” With the return of the balance of power system US would not get involved militarily on the territory of the former Soviet Union. He rejects the second strategy “because US would face more competition from other major powers in areas of interest to the United States.”
The final strategy is a global world hegemony aimed at deterring the rise of another hostile global power or a return to multi-polarity for the indefinite future — the same objectives stated in the Pentagon Defense Planning Guidance from 1991— i.e. policies of American Lebensraum coupled with containment of the whole earth, not only of Russia, but above all US’s present allies - Germany and Japan.
To preclude the rise of another global rival or an international system of multipolarity, US must adhere to the following geopolitical imperatives:
1. Prevent hostile hegemony over geo-politically critical regions and at the same time establish US hegemony over those regions.
2. Preserve the United States military preeminence
3. Expand NATO as an anchor of US hegemony and containment of all potential rivals.
4. Prevent re-nationalization of security policies in key countries such as Japan and Germany.
Resorting to a MacKinderian world view and the old NSC-68 objectives, restated in the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance, he concludes that its is vital for the United States “to preclude hostile hegemony over critical regions. A region can be defined as critical if it con-tains sufficient economic, technical and human resources so that a hostile power gaining con-trol over it could pose a global challenge.”
Thus control of global political space from a position of preponderance of power is the categorical imperative of American foreign policy and geopolitics. And the vehicle of realization of this imperative is the expansion of NATO , the ultimate instrument of American Lebensraum.
In respect to Europe Zalmay Khalizdad formulates the main purpose of NATO: containment of Europe as a whole, echoing the geopolitical imperative of Nicholas Spykman at the end of the W.W.II: “A European federation is not a power constellation that the United States should encourage....The interest of the United States demand the prevention of a federal Europe”.(15) Thus the obvious conclusion, reached in the past by de Gaulle , is that European security and independence and the expansion of NATO , are utterly incompatible objectives. In fact the main purpose of NATO now is containing of Western Europe , on one side, and con-quest of Eastern Europe , on the other.
The American experience of power will rest on the conquest and domination of space(16), control and use of space will be exclusively an American prerogative in the coming American epoch , conclude geo-politicians George and Meredith Friedman in a recently published book in which they make the inevitable and obvious conclusion: the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War was in fact a defeat of Europe as a whole.

“The twenty-first century will be the American century....The period since American intervention deter-mined the outcome of World War I to the present was merely a prologue.... Now the struggle is over . The Soviet Union , unable to break out of its encirclement ...broke apart and the dreams of unified Eurasia shattered. ...Only one great power has survived—United States—alone and victorious. The American Navy goes where it wants and does what it wants, and American troops land in Eurasia and brush aside enemy armies and they intervene in Latin America at will... With the collapse of the Soviet Union , the only power capable of challenging American politico-military might, the focus of the international system has finally and definitively shifted from Europe to the United States...What would define the twenty-first century would be the overwhelming and persistent power of the United States. With the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the American Century truly begins.(17)

Not satisfied, however, with merely an American Century and echoing Hitler’s concept of a “Thousand years Reich” the authors envision the coming of the “Thousand years American Empire”: “For better or worst , America has seized hold of the future of war, and with it the future of humanity...This is the beginning of the American epoch, the beginning of American millennium”.(18)

Conquer the Heartland and you dominate the world
US plans for world conquest can be explained in the categories of the geopolitical theory of Halford MacKinder: conquer Eastern Europe, and you dominate the Heartland, conquer the Heartland and you dominate the World Island. Conquer the World Island and you dominate the world. Or as Zbigniew Brzezinski asserts in his book The Grand Chessboard (Basic Books, New York, 1997, p. 38), American control of Eastern Europe is a “vital springboard for attainment of continental domination”. He quotes MacKinders geopolitical dictum: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-island; Who rules the World-Island commands the world” and concludes that “the United States, a non-Eurasian power, now enjoys international primacy , with its power directly deployed on three peripheries of the Eurasian continent, from which it exercises a powerful influence on the states occupying the Eurasian hinterland.” The geopolitical state of world affairs is characterized by a unique power constellation: “for the first time in history , (1) a single state is a truly global power, (2) a non-Eurasian state is globally the preeminent state, and (3) the globe’s central arena , Eurasia, is dominated by a non-Eurasian power”. The US policy goal must be “to perpetuate America’s own dominant position.” (Brzezinski, ibid. p.p. 38, 39, 197, 215).
The question of expansion of NATO is a question of assertion of US domination over Eastern Europe, which according to MacKinder and the US main documents of the Cold War such as NSC 20/1, NSC 58 and NSC 68 , is a necessary prelude to assertion of domination over the Heartland— the pivotal geopolitical area of history, occupied by Russia. And already MacKinder emphasized the pivotal roll of domination of Eastern Europe as a prelude to world domination.
From conquest of Oregon, Texas and California and later Cuba and Philippines in the past to the dismembering and conquest of Yugoslavia and enlargement of NATO, the term “West” signifies merely the moving and expanding western frontier of the American empire.
Beginning with the war against Spain in 1898 US intended to dominate the world and had a plan to doing so. To seize the earth bit by bit is US’s working formula for domination of the world, her Drang Nach West grand design. For the past 150 years US has been pushing west armed with the theology of the Manifest Destiny and the geopolitical organization and subjugation of space of the Monroe Doctrine. US used the theology of the Manifest Destiny and the geopolitics of the Monroe Doctrine to justify its goal of world conquest. This comprehensive and detailed design for world conquest is a product of national habit of mind that reaches far back into American history, to the days of the pronouncement of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 and the theological postulates of the Doctrine of Manifest Destiny, enunciated in 1841.
In her bid for absolute hegemonial power United States pursues power with ever greater arrogance and deception. Invocation of “security” in the issue of NATO expansion is only a pretext for an imperialist policy of conquest. If one descends from the clouts of security rhetoric to the reality of expansionism beneath, one will see what de Gaulle clearly saw in the past after meeting President Roosevelt: a naked will to power cloaked in a rhetoric of idealism and humanitarianism, in short—the political theology of American Lebensraum.
Therefore resisting American aggression in the guise of expansion of NATO is an existential imperative for Russia because softness only invites aggression. United States is a country impervious to logic of reason and receptive only to the logic of force. Russia is facing the new American expansionism and only blunt rejection of the language and practice of expansion-ism, the containment and the roll back of the United Sates, can stop the American menace. The truth of the matter is that the very presence of US in Eurasia must be a casus belle for Russia in exactly the same way as Russia’s, or for that matter any other Eurasian power’s, presence in the Western Hemisphere is, and has been, a casus belle for the United States already since 1823.
ENDNOTES
1 Washington Post, quoted in Cong. Rec. , 55 th. Congress, 2nd. session App., p. 573 (1898) , see Albert K. Weinberg Manifest Destiny ( Quadrangle Books, Chicago , 1963) p. 289.
2 see Brooks Adams and Theodore Roosevelt Discuss the American Empire in Williams Appleman Williams (ed) The Shaping of American Diplomacy. Readings and Documents in American Foreign Relations (Rand McNally & Company, Chicago, 1972) pp. 421, 422, 223,224. Brooks Adams article, in which he equated United States with a commercial enterprise , was originally published in the Atlantic Monthly of August 1901 under the title “Reciprocity or the Alternative.” Roosevelt replied in a letter of Sept, 27, 1901. “I intend to put in one or two ideas of your Atlan-tic Monthly article “ (in the massage to the Congress ), ibid. p. 224. Brooks Adams as well as admiral Mahan and Theodore Roosevelt envisioned the American Navy as the foremost instrument of American expansionism. The Navy had to play the same roll as the NATO plays now.
3 Brooks Adams The New Industrial Revolution , Atlantic Monthly, LXXXVII (1901) p. 165,. Here quoted from Richard Hofstadter Social Darwinism in American Though (Beacon Press, Boston, 1992) p. 188. Those words are Brooks Adams manifesto of the coming American struggle for and conquest of Eurasia.
4 George Kennan Around the Cragged Hill (Norton, New York, 1993) p.p. 223-24
5 George Kennan NATO. A Fateful Error, N.Y.Times. 02.05.1997, p. 23)
6 William E. Odon NATO Expansion: The Unfinished Business in Post Gold War Europe in Gary L. Geipel and Robert A. Manning (ed) Rethinking the Transatlantic Partnership (The Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, 1996) p. 15
7 see N.Y.Times. May 15, 1997, p. A18
8 Zbigniew Brzezinski A Plan for Europe (Foreign Affairs, January/February 1995) p. 26
9 David Gompert and Richard Kugler Free-Rider Redux (Foreign Affairs, January/February 1995 ) p. 8. In the same issue of Foreign Affairs Richard N. Haas advocates a future American foreign policy of unilateralism imbedded in neo-Wilsonian universalist rhetoric of deception. Richard Haas Paradigm Lost ibid. pp. 50, 51
10 Robert C. Cox, N.Y.Times. June 16, 1996.
11
12 William Appleman Williams The Large Corporation and American Foreign Policy in David Horowitz (ed) Corporations and the Cold War (Monthly Review Press, New York, 1969) p. 78, see also Williams Americas ‘ideal-istischer’ Iimperialismus, 1900-1917 in Hans -Ulrich Wehler (ed) Imperialusmus (Althenaum, Koningstein, 1979)
13 Gaspar W. Weinberger and Peter Schweizer Russia’s Oil Grab (N.Y. Times, May 9, 1997, p. A35)

14 A New European Order, The Economist, May 17-23, 199 7, p. 55
15 Nicholas J. Spykman America’s Strategy in World Politics ( Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1944) p. 466.
16 George and Meredith Friedman “The Future of War and American World Dominance in the 21 Century” (Crown Publishers, New York, 1997) p. 422
17 George and Meredith Friedman ibid. p.p. 1, VII, 2 . In spite of assurances of global American power domination the authors write that “we believe that we are entering a new epoch of war.” , p XIV. They point out that the conclusions reached in their previous book The Coming War with Japan are valid and that the United States will inevitable fight against and defeat Japan in the future (sic!) , p. XII
18 George and Meredith Friedman ibid p. 422. The authors envision a greatly enlarged version of Henry Luce “American Century “ in the past. In that conjunction one can recall the reactions of contemporaries to Luce’s expansionist vision of an American World Empire. In the Nation magazine Freda Kirchwey compared Luce’s idea to Nazi concepts like “The New Order” and Lebensraum . Oswald Garrison Villard saw Luce and his patron  F .D. Roosevelt as men of evil, global designs. “The American Century”, he wrote, mixed aggression with imperialism, resulting in a kind of American Mein Kampf. Dr. Richard Sallet saw Luce as an “imperialist spokesman for a bar-baric country.” American Century reflected “moral depravity behind hypocritical arrogance , and a plutocratic pre-tense of stupidity and cunning”. Giovanni Ansaldo foresaw an evil “American Century” in which their new Yankee rulers treated Europeans like Hawaiians and Filipinos.” see Robert E. Herzstein Henry R. Luce. A Political Portrait of the Man Who Created the American Century (Charles Scribner & Sons, New York, 1994, pp. 182, 183

Return to top of page

Revised: July 18, 2010 .   Communication:   discoverer73(at symbol)hotmail.com     Go to Home Page     Go to Index of All Articles Pages       
Read the Disclaimer
Last modified: July 18, 2010  Copyright © 1999 - 2008  All rights reserved. [Gnostic Liberation Front].   www.gnosticliberationfront.com