|
 Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972 He settled in New York City where he quickly learned that there was no market for his eloquent and powerful English language attacks on the Soviet Union. To this day, he writes without fear or favor or the conventions of polite society. He chaired the "Alternative to the New York Times Committee" in 1980, challenged the editors of the New York Times to a debate (which they declined) and became a columnist for the New York City Tribune. His columns are today read in both English and Russian.
|
 |
It has barely been noticed in the West that on December 13, Associated Press reported from Beijing that China and Russia would Òhold their first joint military exercise next year, the Chinese government said Monday, as President Hu Jintao called for the expansion of the rapidly growing alliance.Ó
The bad news is not so much the first Sino-Russian joint military exercise per se, as its symbolism: so China and Russia are now full-fledged ALLIES, not just Òstrategic partnersÓ as before. This symbolism is emphasized by the entire political environment in which the two countries became allies. To quote AP:
ÒThe announcement came during a visit to Beijing by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, who was expected to discuss expanding the Kremlin's multibillion-dollar annual arms sales to China. The exercises are to take place on Chinese territory, the official Chinese News Service said.Ó
Before, Putin had not been selling to China any arms Hu wanted. Like every militarily developed power, Putin's Russia kept certain weapons for itself. If Hu's China gets from Putin's Russia everything Hu wants, then it will be by definition militarily superior to Putin's Russia Ñ even without those post-nuclear superweapons China has been developing since 1986. But for an ally, and not just a strategic partner, Putin will widen the sphere of weapons to be sold to China.
According to the China News Service, Hu told Ivanov as they became allies: ÒWe want to promote the development of the two countries' strategic collaborative relationship in order to safeguard and promote regional and world peace.Ó
But who threatens Òregional and world peaceÓ?
Hu himself will never say, ÒThe U.S.A.Ó The words and deeds of the U.S. political establishment with respect to China have been so lovable that Hu will never risk it. The United States has been doing everything possible for China to develop post-nuclear superweapons, able to circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction and thus to annihilate the United States or obtain its unconditional surrender.
But the love of the U.S. political establishment is so deep, strong, and rooted in the profits of Sino-American economic cooperation that it will not be diminished by the vitriol, poured by lower-rank Chinese on the United States as a country in quest for world domination.
At the same time, this vitriol is useful for propaganda. Let the population of China know that there is an ENEMY, but the supreme leaders of China have been making military preparations Ñ for DEFENSE, not for their Ñ the idea! Ñ quest for world domination!
Wang Jisi, director of the Beijing Institute of American Studies, said in the July/August, 2003, issue of ÒForeign Policy MagazineÓ that ÒPresident George W. Bush has two faces.Ó One is his Òface smiling toward China.Ó A three-inch-long paragraph is devoted to the smiling love of the United States for China.
But this smiling face Òis twinnedÓ with the Òferocious visageÓ of President Bush:
On Nov. 1, 2004, ÒVice Premier Qian QichenÓ repeated the above in a much louder and sharper key, in the China Daily. He said that Òthe philosophy of the 'Bush Doctrine' is in essence force. It advocates the United States should rule over the whole world with overwhelming force, military force in particular.Ó
Analysts told the Reuters news agency that China had Òa slight preference for the incumbent in the U.S. election of Nov. 2. So the official Chinese attacks on the United States are not personal Ñ against George W. Bush Ñ but general.
What about Putin's Russia? Isn't he afraid of the Chinese dictatorship?
In the Russian language there is an expression: Òthe enlightened West.Ó If the enlightened West feels only love for, and no fear of, China, then China must be a benign peaceful society. On the other hand, Putin agrees with the Chinese query ÒWill it ultimately be China?Ó except that he puts mentally Russia before or after China.
Is the Sino-Russian fear justified?
Nietzsche used to say that compassion, pity, kindness, and other Christian virtues are weaknesses, and hence Christianity is the worst evil in history. Hitler, who grew up on Nietzsche, launched a world war and annihilated 12 million civilians without any Christian weaknesses/virtues.
Democracy originated on the basis of Christian weaknesses/virtues. Thus the United States launched the Vietnam War to defend the free or partly free South Vietnam against the unfree Vietnam. But when the number of battle losses approached 50,000 American soldiers, the United States withdrew. A dictatorship would never have showed such a weakness/virtue. As a Soviet official told me in Russia: ÒI do not understand why they haven't dropped a couple of atom bombs on North Vietnam.Ó ÒWell,Ó I answered, Òit is even more incomprehensible why the United States did not drop a couple of atom bombs on Moscow and Leningrad between 1945 and 1949 when they had a monopoly on nuclear weapons.Ó
When the Coalition invaded Iraq and routed its regular army owing to infinite technological superiority, ÒeveryoneÓ was for the war. But there followed a Vietnam-like guerrilla war, and the mood began to change. Imagine the weakness/virtue, should the battle losses amount to 50,000 American soldiers.
The word ÒcompassionÓ implies that a compassionate person has experienced Òpassion,Ó that is, suffering. When the guerrilla war broke out in Iraq, and Coalition soldiers kept dying daily, it began to be realized that the Iraqi also suffered when, for example, bombers at the beginning of the war were killing with impunity both soldiers and civilians (collateral damage).
Christ was not a suicidal warrior, equally indifferent to his own and anyone else's suffering and death. He did nothing to incur martyrdom Ñ he was wandering with his disciples and telling the truth as he saw it. He prayed: ÒMay this cup pass me!Ó Nor did he commit suicide like Hitler or Pontius Pilate, both of whom created martyrdom for others, but committed suicide when their good fortune was over.
When Nietzsche was on the verge of his mental illness, he saw in the street a horse that was being compelled to carry a heavy load by being beaten. He rushed, sobbing, to protect the horse with his own body and arms. Of course, it was weakness, unworthy of the great superman, and indeed, his incipient mental sickness provoked this weakness. But surely it was also a virtue, of which Hitler did not possibly know because the German-language biographies of Nietzsche did not mention this scandalous incipient insanity/weakness/virtue of the great superman.
The above does not mean that any weakness is a Christian virtue. Christ foresaw his suffering and death. A possible annihilation of the West many Westerners do not want to foresee out of greed (economic cooperation with China) or mental sloth, or total indifference to anyone or anything except their own well-being.
The moral is that a dictatorship does not have to fear a democracy, while a democracy must try to foresee its destiny by recalling how a dictatorship, based on Nietzsche's anti-Christian cult of strength, did not establish its world domination due to accidents of history, not owing to the foresight on the part of the democratic West.
* * * * *
For more information about Drexler's Foresight Institute and its lobbying in Congress, see www.foresight.org
To learn more about the Chris Phoenix report, suggesting a Ònano Manhattan Project,Ó go to crnano.org.
For information about the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., including how you can help, please e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.
The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com. You can also request our webmaster@levnavrozov.com to send you by e-mail my outline of my book.
It is my pleasant duty to express gratitude to the Rev. Alan Freed, a Lutheran pastor by occupation before his retirement and a thinker by vocation, for his help in the writing of this column.
Lev Navrozov's (navlev@cloud9.net] new book is available on-line at www.levnavrozov.com. To request an outline of the book, send an e-mail to webmaster@levnavrozov.com.
ÒHis denouncement of the 'axis of evil,' together with his administration's withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and the unveiling of a new doctrine of preemption, are interpreted as a unilateral strategy to establish U.S. global hegemony. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Chinese have feared a unipolar world in which the United States would wantonly interfere with other countries' domestic affairs and strive to prevent any other single power Ñ especially China Ñ from rising to a position to challenge U.S. supremacy. War in the Middle East has only heightened that fear. A frequently asked question among the Chinese is: 'Which country will be next after the Americans finish with Iraq? North Korea? Iran? Will it ultimately be China?'Ó