GREAT CHANGES AD PORTAS: Why the replacement of the mono-polar world will likelier be bi-polar than ‘multi-polar’

---

Eric Zuesse

---

The NATO vs Warsaw Pact standoff. After the West started the Cold War and created NATO, an obvious instrument to project war against Moscow, the Soviet Union was obligated to reciprocate, and did through the Warsaw Pact.

---

1991 saw the end of the USSR and of its Warsaw Pact military mirror-image of America’s NATO military alliance against Russia, and of its communism, and then the mono-polar world-order started, of uncontested U.S. sovereignty over the planet’s nations, which mono-polarity is now ending. But what will replace it?

Andrew Korybko, an analyst I much respect, has argued that it will be replaced by “multiple-polarity”; and, on 2 March 2023, he headlined more specifically, “Towards Tri-Multipolarity: The Golden Billion, The Sino-Russo Entente, & The Global South”. He argued there that the “poles” will be America and its allies, versus China and Russia and their allies, versus India and its allies (which he asserts would be India’s “kingmaker role in the New Cold War between them [the other two ‘poles’] over the direction of the global systemic transition enabled the rest of the Global South to rise in India’s wake, thus revolutionizing International Relations by accelerating the emergence of tri-multipolarity”).

However, a three-polar structure is no more stable in its forward movement than is a three-wheeled vehicle, which tends to overturn on curves, unlike either a four-wheeled vehicle or a two wheeled one. A three-wheeled structure can be created but will likely overturn at some point in its non-straight-line course and become replaced by a bipolar structure, which is to say, by an opposition between the two opposite ends along a straight line. Adding a third dimension — making it three-dimensional instead of two-dimensional — creates unnecessary complications that are not applicable in this matter of ideology, and that can then revert to the opposition between actual opposites, which don’t require the additional, third, dimension (as-if there were no opposite to “right,” and no opposite to “left” — which clearly is false). So: I disagree with Korybko on this.

But what ARE the two “opposites”? What are the “poles”? In ideology, what is the actual meaning of “right” and of “left”? Korybko’s theory doesn’t address any such geometrical question, but simply assumes that there aren’t any opposites that are involved in the definition of “pole,” and that there can consequently be any number of “poles”— and maybe even that whatever the”poles” are is unconnected to ideology and could even be entirely arbitrary and therefore change, from time to time, perhaps even randomly. Does the term “pole” have any meaning in such a situation?

The topic in the present matter is international relations, not any nation’s internal relations; it is international instead of intranational; and, so, the poles here are entirely about beliefs concerning international law, and not at all about beliefs concerning any particular nation’s intranational or internal laws.

On April 13th, I headlined “China & Russia Lead World Toward Achieving the Type of U.N. that FDR Had Been Hoping For”, and described the four chief distinguishing features that separated U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s well-thought-out anti-imperialistic plan for the post-WW-II world, from the equally well-thought-out pro-U.S.-imperialistic plan (though by the advisors of) his immediate successor Harry S. Truman, for an all-encompassing empire by the U.S. to control all international relations and ultimately replace the very weak U.N. that Truman himself designed for that purpose — to be weak so that it could ultimately become replaced by that all-encompassing U.S. empire.  As I summarily exemplified there, in the case of China’s ideology, which in this regard is identical to Russia’s ideology, both of those two Governments exemplify FDR’s anti-imperialism, whereas the U.S. Government, ever since 25 July 1945, exemplifies Truman’s pro-imperialism. It seems to me that India and all other “developing” or “Third World” or “BRICS” countries will have to make a choice between either the anti-imperialism of China and Russia or else the pro-imperialism of America and its allies such as in NATO and AUKUS.

Fence-sitting might work temporarily for nations such as India, but ultimately they will need to replace their tricycles by bicycles, during the curves that are likely to be coming.

In other words: the ideological issue here comes down to FDR’s anti-imperialistic plan fot the future, versus Truman’s pro-imperialistic plan for the future. This concerns ONLY international affairs; and, in that field, the “left” pole is FDR’s anti-imperialistic plan, and the “right” pole is Truman’s pro-imperialistic plan. Whereas ever since 25 July 1945, America has exemplified the right pole, China and Russia are now leading the world toward the left pole instead; and the fence-sitting countries will necessarily become required to get off the fence on this, and to select what THEIR ideology will be.

This will be an important decision, because the choice here is whether the world’s international future will be what FDR planned, which would be a global democratic federation of nations; or, instead, what was Truman’s aim, which would be a global U.S. dictatorship (or “empire”) of nations. The two poles are democracy (which is the left pole) versus dictatorship (which is the right pole). 

Because of this difference in ideologies, countries such as Russia and China are not aiming to conquer America but to free themselves from becoming choked to death by it. In other words: though America aims to conquer Russia and China, neither Russia nor China aims to conquer America. Though America is a mortal threat to Russia and to China, neither Russia nor China is any threat at all to America. Korybko might disagree with this bi-polar analysis of the situation, but that’s the way I see it.

---

China & Russia Lead World Toward Achieving the Type of U.N. that FDR Had Been Hoping For 

Eric Zuesse

On March 16th, I had described the four main objectives that the U.N.’s inventor and namer, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), was systematically working to establish, starting in August 1941 and until he died in office on 12 April 1945 and his V.P. and (as it turned out) enemy Harry Truman inherited the U.S. Presidency. Both China and Russia are, now, both Governments equally systematically, working to un-do Truman’s reversal of FDR’s intentions on these four matters, so as actually to achieve, ultimately, the type of U.N. that FDR was intending.

In my article (which was titled “The Transformative Present Moment in Hisotory”), I wrote:

Truman started the present era by deciding, on 25 July 1945, to go for — and to establish entities and policies to attain — U.S. control over the entire planet. This explains the 45 U.S. coups, and 130+ U.S. invasions, since 1945, and the currently 900 foreign U.S. military bases around the world (in addition to the 749 that are within the U.S. and that can be examined here), and the expenditure by the U.S. of around 50% of the entire planet’s military costs. It’s heading now for ultimate show-downs against both Russia and China; and this brings us now to the transformative, the decisive, present moment in world history.

Although the U.S. Government routinely advocates for regime-change both in Russia and in China, the reality is (and long has been) that even Western polling within Russia and within China has almost consistently displayed vastly higher public-approval ratings of the country’s leaders there than America’s public have of our leaders here. Regime-change in America is likelier than regime-change in either Russia or China is. (Of course, U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media suppress, instead of publicize, this key reality; however, they cannot deny this reality, because the facts cannot be denied but can merely be hidden — as is done. And, then, publics in U.S.-and-allied countries vote on that basis, and this becomes ‘democracy’ in “The West.”) The only way that the U.S. Government’s craving for regime-change in Russia and in China would be carried-out is therefore by means of a U.S. invasion and conquest of Russia and China, neither of which conquest would be accepted in either Russia or China, and which attempt by the U.S. Government would thus produce, instead, a nuclear destruction of the entire world. Truman’s dream (of an-all-encompassing U.S. global empire) is unattainable. (It is also illegal — violative of the U.S. Constitution and of international laws, but this is making no difference to the individuals who control the U.S. Government: they don’t care about that.) 

The transformative present moment in history will thus either be a global-annihilationist nuclear war concluding Truman’s vision (since neither Russia nor China will accept becoming a colony — or ‘ally’ — of the U.S. empire), or else it will be the end of that since-1945-growing U.S. global dictatorship, and a consequently necessary transformation of the U.N., itself, into what had been FDR’s intention for the U.N., when he invented and named and planned for the U.N., which was to be (and which would then have been and would now be) as follows:

1. That it will define “international aggression” and will do so in a way that not only outlaws it but clearly prohibits what must be prohibited in order to prevent there being any WW III — any future World War. (To prevent any future World War was the reason why FDR came up with the idea of the U.N., back in August 1941 — even before America’s entrance into WW II.)

2. That it will have a monopoly control over all geostrategically significant weapons so that only the U.N. will be able to use them, and no nation will be able militarily to contest against the U.N.

3. That it will, as ANY government must, include all three essential branches that any government must include in order to BE a government: legislative, juridical, and executive powers; and that each one of those powers will be applicable ONLY to (and governing over) relations BETWEEN nations, and NOT to relations WITHIN any nation. This also means that ONLY “human rights” that the U.N.’s Security Council and General Assembly have ruled to exist and have embodied in international law may be enforced by agencies of the U.N., within a country, and that any such ‘rights’ that any nation(s) assert to exist but which have NOT become embodied into international law are to be treated as fraudulent to label as being international laws, and are aggressions against the U.N. itself, which must be dealt with accordingly, as constituting threats and crimes against international peace to be labelled as “human rights.” (Otherwise, without making that distinction, the U.N.’s sole and exclusive authority over international law will then disintegrate, because the concept of “Responsibility to Protect” — or “R2P” — within an individual nation is applicable to the U.N. only when and where the U.N. has specifically so legislated; and, otherwise than that, is entirely under the authority of only that given nation itself to legislate, and not, at all, of the U.N.: not within the U.N.’s purview. This is how a federal republic functions: by clearly distinguishing between federal and local responsibilities. No federation can even exist other than by this means.)

4. That every country in the world will belong to, be a member of, be represented in, have obligations to, and have rights in, this planet’s democratic federal republic of nations, and will contribute financially to its costs based not on a willingness to pay but on a formula which will be agreed-upon and set forth in the Charter of the U.N. (that democratic federal world Government’s Constitution), so that no nation will be buying special favors from paying more, nor suffer penalties from paying less, than what is there set forth. In other words: like virtually any Government, it must be tax-financed, and these taxes will fund all of its agencies.

That summarizes FDR’s view and goals for the U.N.

The U.N. that FDR’s immediate successor, Harry Truman, designed, included none of those four essential features of FDR’s intentions; and, so, is very little like what its inventor had intended it to be — and cannot even POSSIBLY serve the ultimate function that FDR had intended for the U.N., of prohibiting (outlawing) imperialism (which FDR knew had been the ultimate source of both World Wars). Here is how that is so:

1. The Truman-created U.N. did not define “international aggression” (the ultimate international-war crime) and didn’t even define “aggression” at all, until 11 June 2010, and did it then in a circular way, which used the term “aggression” in its ‘definition’ of aggression, and so it has been utterly useless except for propaganda-purposes (i.e., by aggressor-nations: imperialists — international-war criminals themselves — using “R2P” as an excuse for their aggressions). The Truman-created U.N., thus, lacking any clear definition of “aggression,” and consequently lacking likewise any clear definition of “defense” (and so, too, being unable to define clearly the most fundamental right, to “self-defense”) is trapped in an unavoidable web of hypocrisies, from which, aggressor-nations gain (by those confusions), while the U.N. gets the pain, and shares in any resultant blame. The most essential need of a functioning U.N., and of functioning international criminal law, is to define “aggression.” That need hasn’t yet been met, at all.

2. Truman refused even to consider that anything but the U.S. Government should possess nuclear or any other geostrategically important weapons — much less that the U.N. ought to control armaments of any type. (For a while, the mutual acceptance, by both the Soviet Union and the United States, of the “M.A.D.” or “Mutually Assured Destruction” meta-strategy for nuclear weapons — that they exist not in order to win a WW III, but to prevent one, prevailed on both sides, but, then, on 24 February 1990 the U.S. side tacitly and secretly abandoned that, and, after 2006, the U.S. side adopted the “Nuclear Primacy” meta-strategy, in which the U.S. is aiming to win a nuclear war against Russia. That movement toward a WW III would not even have been possible if the U.N. had had an FDR-ite Constitution; it is possible only because Truman designed the U.N., FDR didn’t.) 

3. Truman did not allow any enforcement to be included in the U.N.; so, the U.N. Charter included none, and didn’t even include any court-system for violations of international criminal laws. The International Criminal Court (ICC) wasn’t even set up until 1 July 2002, and it held its first hearing in 2006. Furthermore, unlike the U.N.’s own International Court of Justice, which was established by Article 93 in the U.N. Charter and which stated that “All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice,” the International Criminal Court was set up outside the U.N. and applies only to the Governments that have ratified it; so, international crimes don’t come under the U.N.’s compulsory jurisdiction. And international crimes by non-ratifiers of the ICC don’t come under any jurisdiction: it’s pure “Might makes right,” applying to them.

4. Truman’s U.N. included no compulsory financing, no taxation; and, so, the U.N. is especially beholden to its largest donors. It isn’t a Government. The U.N.’s Charter says nothing about how it’s to be funded. That has been ad-hoc, and entails both voluntary donations and a U.N.-applied complex formula for “assessed contributions”. The U.S., in order to dominate the U.N., is by far its biggest funder; and, at least as-of 2022, America’s contributions were around 30% assessed and 70% voluntary. Like virtually any charity, it’s controlled by its biggest donors. However, 20 U.S.-allied countries have chosen to pay even more per-capita than the U.S. itself does. Taxpayers in those U.S. ‘allies’ subsidize America’s dominance over the U.N. So, Truman’s U.N. is nothing like FDR’s U.N. would have been — nothing like it would have had to be in order for the U.N. to be able to do what he knew would need to be done after WW II, to end imperialism and thus prevent any WW III. Truman, in fact, privately despised his immediate predecessor, and replaced FDR’s entire Cabinet within just 2 years — and almost all of it within only his first year. 

In other words: whereas FDR’s U.N. was to constitute the democratic federal republic of all nations, and this means that it would concern ONLY international law and have no authority over any nation’s laws (no authority, for example, regarding how any nation’s leaders become appointed, nor regarding what is legal and what is not in a country’s internal affairs), Truman’s U.N. allows the U.N. to hold some authority over many domestic or internal national matters, such as how leaders ‘ought’ to be selected, and what ‘human rights’ or protections ‘ought’ to be imposed, and how those ‘human rights’ or protections ‘ought’ to — or not — be imposed by law within countries.

A good example of this Chinese and Russian system — in which the distinction between international laws and national laws is clear, and those two fields of legal authority are separate and distinct from each other — is described by the Global Times Chinese newspaper, under the headline on April 12th, “China releases position paper on Afghan issue to help reconstruction”, which reports that:

China released an 11-point paper to fully elaborate its position on the Afghan issue and express firm support for the reconstruction of the war-torn country on Wednesday - the same day as Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Qin Gang started a two-day visit to Uzbekistan where he will also attend the fourth Foreign Ministers' Meeting among the Neighboring Countries of Afghanistan in Samarkand. 

Analysts noted that China is taking concrete measures to push further coordination on the Afghan issue and together with regional countries to help with Afghanistan's reconstruction and revitalization.

The paper, titled "China's Position on the Afghan Issue," lists China's adherence to the "Three respects" and "Three nevers," as the first point. These are respect for Afghanistan's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, to respect the independent choices made by the Afghan people, and to respect the religious beliefs and national customs of Afghanistan. China never interferes in Afghanistan's internal affairs, never seeks selfish interests in Afghanistan and never pursues so-called sphere of influence. 

Afghanistan is in a crucial period of moving from turbulence to stabilization. To fully outline China's policy and propositions in a systematic way and build consensus and synergy among countries in the region and elsewhere on stabilizing and helping Afghanistan, the foreign ministry released China's Position on the Afghan Issue, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said at a press conference on Wednesday.

Wang noted that the fourth Foreign Ministers' Meeting among the Neighboring Countries of Afghanistan will be held in Samarkand on Thursday and China is willing to work with neighboring countries to help Afghan to walk on the path for stable development and to realize regional peace and prosperity. 

State Councilor and Foreign Minister Qin will attend the fourth Foreign Ministers' Meeting among the Neighboring Countries of Afghanistan in Samarkand, Uzbekistan and visit Uzbekistan from Wednesday to Thursday, according to information from the Foreign Ministry. 

Observers said that the paper on the Afghan issue came on the heels of a 12-point position paper on Ukraine crisis which was released in February, also highlighting China's consistent stance in seeking and making peaceful solutions for heated geopolitical issues.

Qin will meet with President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev and hold talks with Acting Foreign Minister Bakhtiyor Saidov. They will exchange views on bilateral relations, high-level exchanges between the two sides and international and regional issues of shared interest, according to Foreign Ministry.

Qin's visit will further deepen mutually beneficial cooperation and bilateral relations with Uzbekistan and Central Asian countries to inject stability in the region amid global spillover effect of the Ukraine crisis, analysts said. 

The Wednesday paper which collectively and thoroughly elaborates China's stance on Afghan issue will help coordinate neighboring countries' stance and push a different way from the West and the US in solving conflicts within Afghanistan through political dialogue, Zhu Yongbiao, director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at Lanzhou University, told the Global Times on Wednesday. 

The international community, especially regional countries, expect China to play a more active role on the Afghan issue given its selfless assistance to Afghanistan people, Zhu noted.  

The third Foreign Ministers' Meeting among the Neighboring Countries of Afghanistan was held in Tunxi, East China's Anhui Province in 2022 and foreign ministers or high-level representatives from China, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan drafted a joint statement and an initiative in pooling resources and coordinating to increase their support for Afghanistan, analysts said.   

The paper released on Wednesday showcases China's efforts in promoting mechanism of the foreign ministers of Afghanistan neighboring countries a step forward to bring more light to Afghanistan reconstruction, Hu Shisheng, director of the Institute for South Asian Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, told the Global Times. 

Hu noted that currently, Afghanistan is facing new historical changes - after the withdrawal of the US and Western troops, the country has seen no proxy wars and more autonomy. …

This is very typical both of China’s and of Russia’s initiatives regarding international-affairs matters; and it is a stark contrast to the approach that is, and has long been, used by the U.S. and its allies, in international matters. If China and Russia succeed in actually making this the international norm, and thereby ending the U.S. global dictatorship that began on 25 July 1945, then it will produce, ultimately, a transformation of the United Nations, to become an embodiment of FDR’s vision, and no longer the U.N. that Truman had created.

Print this article