The South China Sea and the Risk of War*

Standard

 11 September 2017                       

Although the title of my address today focuses on the South China Sea it is of course self-evident that the risk of war is not confined to the South China Sea. In fact, the risk of war there is probably less than it is in other significant flash points around the world.

It is a general feature of the post 1945 geopolitical world that the United States does not attack nations that are capable of fighting back. This has been especially true since they fled from the rooftops of Saigon in 1975.

William Blum’s latest list (1) of governments that the US has overthrown or sought to overthrow since 1945 numbers 55, of which 32 were successful. Some countries in that list appear more than once.

Some recent examples of military intervention aimed at “regime change”, at least nominally, and also involving Australia include Afghanistan (a project, Operation Cyclone, that began in the 1970s under Jimmy Carter) and with a full blown invasion in 2001; Iraq in 2003; Libya in 2011; and Syria in 2012.

Attempted overthrows and even successful ones do not necessarily involve a military invasion. The Ukrainian coup of 2014 was brought about with an investment of $5 billion and reliance upon local forces to overthrow the legitimately elected Yanukovich government (2).

That country, like so many on Blum’s list, is in a chaotic dysfunctional state, where the lives of ordinary citizens are measurably worse than before the intervention. That both the causes and the consequences of the outside intervention are seriously and continually misrepresented by the mainstream media is something that has to be always taken into account when one considers both the issues and the parties involved.

There are usually a number of other features that the targeted countries share. They either occupy strategically important geographical locations, or have resources that the US military-industrial complex covets, and sometimes both.

Australia is on Blum’s list, and he cites the coup against the Whitlam government in 1975 about which Jenny Hocking has done invaluable research (3). The precipitating factor was probably Whitlam’s desire to close the US spy base at Pine Gap, then as now playing a central role in assisting the perpetration of spying, as well as facilitating war crimes through electronic targeting.

Australia of course has a huge range of valuable raw materials as well as being, in the words of a recent US military chief, a “stationary aircraft carrier.”   A Defence Department spokesman at the time added the qualification that Australia was “also out of the range of Chinese missiles” which says he is either ignorant or willfully misleading the tax paying public with whose security he is charged (4). One needs only to refer to the DongFeng41 to expose the conceptual blindness of such defence “thinking.”

One has to have some justification for all these invasions, proxy wars, coups and other forms of interference. It is deeply ironic that the United States, easily the greatest serial offender of them all, should accuse Russia of interference in its recent Presidential election.

The accusations are reprinted or broadcast without a hint of embarrassment by our mainstream media.

The usual justifications put forward have an element of repetition. The heads of government are accused of horrendous crimes; or posing an unacceptable risk to world peace (another deep irony); or allegedly threatening the very survival of western civilization, or of particular States.

Afghanistan for example, was said to be sheltering Osama bin Laden and refusing him to be turned over to American “justice” for his alleged role in the events of 11 September 2001.

The Afghan government, not unreasonably in my view, demanded some evidence as proof of bin Laden’s alleged role. If the evidence were produced they would turn him over to an independent international tribunal for trial.

That evidence was never forthcoming and in the view of many scholars of that seminal event of “9/11” it never could be. Some might also argue that the example of the prisoners incarcerated for years without charge or trial, and in many cases tortured, at Guantanamo Bay prison camp would be further ample cause to be skeptical of American “justice.”

That Guantanamo base was established following the 1898 Spanish-American War and remains despite repeated demands from the sovereign Cuban government that it should be vacated by the Americans is a salutary lesson for other countries that may wish to disinvite the Americans from one of the hundreds of military bases they currently occupy in foreign countries.

But we now know that the decision to invade Afghanistan was made in July 2001, two months before the events of 9/11. We also know that the reason for the invasion followed upon the refusal of the Afghan government to grant pipeline rights to an American consortium of companies to bring oil and gas from the immensely rich Caspian Basin region (5).

The contract was instead given to Bridas Corporation, an Argentinian company. Their contract was cancelled very shortly after the 2001 invasion. These basic facts are never discussed in the mainstream media.

Sixteen years later the invading forces are still there. The only beneficiaries appear to be the military industrial complex for whom, as Gore Vidal pointed out, perpetual war means perpetual profit (6) and the CIA who use the massive opium crop to finance their off the books clandestine operations around the world, (7) as they have long done with Golden Triangle opium during the 1960s and 1970s and Colombian cocaine up to and including the present (8).

The US Geological Survey conducted in Afghanistan several years post the invasion of 2001 disclosed potential mineral resources in excess of $3 trillion. Trump has openly referred to those resources being there for the Americans to exploit.

With Iraq it was the alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. You will all recall the hysteria generated by the Blair government about being only 15 minutes from annihilation.

The British government did at least hold an inquiry under Sir John Chilcott, the results of which were a devastating expose of the lies that led to that war. (9)

Despite the best efforts of the Campaign for an Iraq War Inquiry in this country, both sides of Parliament here have steadfastly refused to emulate the British, or the Dutch, or the Canadians, all of whom produced damning reports about the decisions of the governments of the day.

The outcome of that wholly unnecessary and illegal war was the devastation of a country, well over a million deaths, four million forced into either internal exile or abroad, and an ongoing internal war with ISIS, the spawn of the original invasion.

Australia not only joined that illegal war based on monstrous lies, more than fourteen years later we are still there, still committing war crimes, and so uncertain of the Iraqi government that all military personnel have been issued with diplomatic passports to maintain their immunity from prosecution (10).

Again, we know that the decision to invade Iraq was made at the first Cabinet meeting of Bush the Lesser (as Arundhati Roy memorably described him), in January 2001. (11)

We also know that Vice President Cheney chaired a committee throughout 2001 and 2002 that drew up plans for the division of Iraq’s oil assets between favoured oil companies. (12)

In the case of Libya, Gaddafi was alleged to be “killing his own people”. Libya remains a broken State, having once had Africa’s highest standard of living. Gaddafi’s crime, apart from wanting Libya’s people to share the benefits of its huge oil and gas reserves, was having the temerity to be working toward replacing the US dollar as the medium of payment for its oil and gas.

Saddam Hussein had similar ambitions for Iraq.

Syria had friendly relations with the US until 2011 when Bashar al Assad refused to allow Syria to be used for the transit of Qatari gas to Europe. (13) The Americans wanted to use Qatari gas to replace Russian gas as Europe’s main source of imported energy. That remains a major strategic objective, as the latest sanctions against European entities working with the Russians on the Nord Stream II project make clear.

Little or none of this is ever discussed in the mainstream media. Instead, we are always asked to believe that the US acts from the best of altruistic motives: ridding the world of loathsome dictators; bringing stability to a region (sic); underwriting our security and so on.

I mention these brief examples because they provide an essential context for understanding what is going on in the South China Sea.

MAP OF REGION

The first point to note from this map is that there are a number of countries bordering the South China Sea, none of them either Australia or the United States.

In fact, it is about 13,000km from Ho Chi Minh City to Los Angeles and 6,794km from HCM to Canberra. From Hainan Island off the Chinese coast it is 12,000km and 7,362km to Los Angeles and Canberra respectively.

In the same way that skepticism about the mainstream media’s version of events in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria should be the dominant mind set, so too is that the case with the South China Sea.

We hear and read a great deal about China’s alleged “aggressiveness” or “assertiveness” or “bullying” of its neighbours in the region. China’s claims to maritime rights within what is commonly referred to as the Nine Dash Line are at the root of these allegations. I have never seen even a faint attempt by the mainstream media to put that claim in any sort of proper context.

The Nine Dash Line (SEE MAP) was first formulated in 1947 by the Chiang Kai Shek Nationalist government that then ruled China. This was two years before the PRC even came into existence.

In 1949 CKS fled to what was then called Formosa, a Chinese Island off the mainland coast. CKS survived in what later became the Republic of China, (Taiwan) because American warships patrolled the Formosa Strait and prevented the PRC from taking control of that part of China.

I will refer to Taiwan as part of China because that is its official status ever since Nixon dropped the absurdity of the “two China” policy. Moreover, Taiwan refers to itself as being part of China. The disagreement comes in whom they believe should be in charge.

It is one of the important reasons why the claims of the modern day PRC and those of Taiwan are almost identical in respect of the Nine Dash Line. That simple fact is barely acknowledged by the mainstream media.

The similarities do not end with their having essentially identical claims to “rights” within the Nine Dash Line.

Taiwan claims rights to the Spratly Islands (MAP) and also the Paracel Islands (MAP) as well as part of the Macclesfield Bank, which is part of the Scarborough, shoal. (MAP)

Taiwan maintains a military base on the island of Pratos in the Spratly Group. The distance from Taiwan to Pratos is just under 2000km. Taiwan’s military activities on the island and in the surrounding sea are never mentioned in the mainstream media.

The Spratlys are the most contested group of largely rocky outcrops in the whole of the South China Sea. They are claimed in whole by the PRC, Taiwan and Vietnam, and in part by Brunei, Malaysia and the Philippines.

The Scarborough Shoal, geographically closest to the Philippines, is claimed by the Philippines, Taiwan and the PRC.

It was the Philippines claim to the Scarborough Shoal that was brought before an Arbitration hearing pursuant to Annex VII of UNCLOS.

Although the Philippines was the applicant, no Philippine lawyer was part of that hearing which was conducted by US and UK lawyers.

A further irony was that the US, which has never signed nor ratified UNCLOS, is the one most likely to demand its “rights” under FONOP.

China neither participated in the arbitration process, nor did it recognise the outcome, although China is a party to UNCLOS. Taiwan also does not accept the ruling, although again that is not mentioned in the mainstream media.

China much prefers to engage in bilateral negotiations, and that is exactly what it is doing with some success. It is also using intra-regional forums such as ASEAN to achieve outcomes satisfactory to all the parties.

The Philippines actions was commenced under President Duterte’s predecessor, who like Turnbull was a loyal acolyte of American wishes.

Duterte has chosen to largely ignore the Tribunal’s findings and has made a point of seeking to improve relations with the PRC. For a whole lot of reasons it is in the Philippine’s interest to have good relations with the PRC.

Tony Cartalucci (14) notes that as Duterte’s relations with the US deteriorated and improved with China, ISIS suddenly becomes a significant problem in the Philippine’s southern regions that have a strong Muslim component.

This is entirely consistent with a pattern that we have seen since at least the 1970s, as Brzezinski boasted in his book (15) and a DIA strategy paper leaked in 2012 also makes clear (16). Support for terrorist groups is a key element of US strategy for targeted countries.

It is also a strategy that Andrew Korybko has explored in some detail (17). That strategy goes beyond mere support. As Daniele Ganser showed in his important book Nato’s Secret Armies, a project known as Operation Gladio was directly responsible for perpetrating terrorist acts in western European countries in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Those attacks were attributed to left wing groups, the aim being to discredit them and bolster right wing governments.

Another illustration are the current problems in Rakhine state in Myanmar. It is not a coincidence that Rakhine is an important conduit of the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic corridor and the Kyaukphyu Economic Zone.

China is building a $10 billion pipeline there as part of its strategy to avoid the Malacca Strait chokepoint inhibiting its capacity to import oil from the Middle East.

Another common accusation leveled against the PRC is that it is militarizing the South China Sea by building up atolls into fortified artificial islands. These “islands” then have the capacity to have missiles installed, and other weaponry.

That is certainly true. To date the PRC has constructed eight such fortified atolls. But it is not alone. Other littoral States are doing the same, including Taiwan, Vietnam and the Philippines.

Vietnam alone has seven such artificially constructed military outposts, equipped with missiles and other weaponry.

There are, according to at least one report, dozens of such artificial “islands” apart from those constructed by the PRC (18). Yet it is the PRC that is the one labeled as “aggressive” because it does so.

A good argument can be constructed that China’s actions are in fact defensive in nature, rather than a harbinger of threats to or invasions of its neighbouring States. Why might this be so?

The outstanding reason is the huge US military presence in the region. This did not begin with Obama’s “pivot to Asia” speech to the Australian parliament on 17 November 2017 (19).

As far back at 1866 the USS General Sherman forced its way up the Taedong River in Korea in an attempt to forcibly open a closed and isolationist State through gunboat diplomacy (20).

The Chosun dynasty that had ruled a Confucian and isolationist Korea for more than 500 years, sent emissaries to the USS General Sherman and told them to leave Korea alone.

The ship’s officers did not accept that and took the emissaries hostage and opened fire on the locals. They were in turn attacked, their ship destroyed, and the crew killed.

A large US armada returned five years later in 1871 seeking revenge. They obliterated the Korean defenders. They forced the Chosun to sign a “Friendship Treaty” guaranteeing “perpetual peace and friendship.”

In 1905 in the infamous Taft-Katsura Memorandum Korea was in effect handed over to the Japanese (21). What the US got in return was non-interference by the Japanese in the US’s forcible colonization of the Philippines.

At least 600,000 Filipinos died resisting American colonization. Millions of Koreans died during the 1905-1945 occupation of their country by the Japanese. More than 75% of the euphemistically entitled “comfort women” died during their sexual enslavement.

One in five of the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings were Korean slave labour (22).

The full story of Korea’s history of relations with the US is outside the scope of what I am discussing today, but I urge those interested in an honest history that is key to understanding the present conflict there are urged to read the excellent histories by the American scholar Bruce Cumings (23).

That honest history bears no resemblance to the portrait presented in our media, or from the bellicose posturing of the current US President or his joined at the hip Canberra lackey.

Returning to the SCS MAP, a key entry and exit point to the South China Sea is the Malacca Strait. About $5 trillion of world trade passes through this Strait each year, mostly to and from China. That trade includes about 80% of China’s oil and gas imports and is thus of great strategic importance to the PRC.

It is one of the world’s seven great “choke points,” only 2.5 kilometers wide, and a major American strategic goal is the control of all seven of those choke points (24).

Australia engages in a massive biannual exercise with the Americans called Operation Talisman Sabre. One of the exercise’s objectives is to practice blockading the Malacca Strait. That is clearly aimed at depriving China of its oil and gas imports.

So much for freedom of navigation. The overwhelming loser of any strictures on trade in the South China Sea would be China itself. I have not heard a single logical argument that explains why the PRC would wish to inhibit the movement of civilian maritime traffic in this vital sea area.

China does not like the movement of military vessels through what it says is its territorial waters. It is well-settled international maritime law that military vessels acting peaceably may transit territorial waters. That is, any water within the 12 nautical mile limit as defined in the UNCLOS.

The argument hinges around what constitutes “innocent passage”. Transit from “A” to “B” would not necessarily be a problem, especially, as with narrow waterways, encroachment within the 12 mile limit may be unavoidable.

It becomes a much more fraught issue when warships repeatedly sail within 12 nautical miles of islands that are the subject of disputed claims. To say that it an exercise in freedom of navigation is nonsense as legitimate passage is guaranteed under UNCLOS that the PRC has ratified and the US has not.

It is clearly intended as a provocation and hence heightens tensions with their attendant risks more than it helps to resolve the dispute. This is particularly the case as there is not a single instance of China actually impeding the passage of shipping.

Australia makes supportive noises about this American activity, but given its own multiple violations of international law it would be more prudent to remain quiet (25).

There is already in place a means of resolving outstanding issues in the South China Sea, although neither Australia nor the US seem particularly interested in promoting them and in the case of the Australian media it barely rates a mention.

In November 2002 the ten ASEAN nations plus China entered an agreement known as the Declaration on the Conduct of the Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). Since then there have been 14 meetings of senior officials of the 11 countries.

The latest such meeting was held in May this year when the parties reached an agreement by consensus and announced that they had finalized a code of conduct for the disputed areas of the SCS.

According to a statement issued after the meeting, all parties agreed to “uphold (the Declaration) “using the framework of regional rules to manage and control disputes, to deepen practical maritime cooperation, to promote consultation on the Code and jointly maintain the peace and stability of the South China Sea.” (26) Work will continue on the formulation of the rules and regulations that will provide the details that will give effect to the agreement.

The major question is: what lies behind this American assertion of rights and its challenges to China’s activities when manifestly freedom of navigation is not a real issue?

Given that the US has approximately 400 military bases in a wide arc encircling China as part of its self-proclaimed (27) “containment” of the PRC, and given that the PRC (unlike the US) does not engage in continuous warfare around the world, why the provocative and belligerent behaviour?

 SEE MAP OF BASES

The answer to that question I suggest lies in the American reaction to the fundamental changes occurring in the geopolitical structure of the world.

For millennia, Eurasia was the centre of world power and civilization. That power shifted for a period beginning in the 17th Century when the European powers assumed ascendancy through a combination of colonization, military and technological supremacy and a cleverly constructed financial system.

European supremacy began declining after the two great wars of the 20th Century. Post 1945 there were only two great powers, the US and the USSR.

The implosion of the USSR in 1989-90 left the US as the sole hegemonic power.

Instead of acknowledging that this unipolar world was an historical aberration, and putting in place structures that would accommodate the inevitable realignment foreseen by the British geopolitical analyst Halford Mackinder in his famous lecture to the Royal Society in 1904, (28) the US sought to impose and maintain its singular vision upon the world.

It was dressed up in fine phrases like democracy promotion, security and the rule of law.

In reality it was a ruthless exploitation of the weakness of its rivals; the plundering of resources; and a willingness to engage in constant warfare of one kind or another to maintain the status of sole superpower. Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria are only the latest manifestations of this.

Instead, the past four decades have seen unpararelled hubris. To call oneself the “exceptional nation” implies that all others are unexceptional. To say further that one is the “indispensable nation” is to say that all others are dispensable.

This hubris created first a myopia that was blind to the resurrection of Russia under Vladimir Putin from 2000 onwards, and equally blind to the restoration of China to its historical position as the dominant Eurasian power.

It is a dangerous sense of exceptionalism that permits even thinking that one has the right to contain or confront other great powers and to limit their ability to exercise legitimate sovereignty.

Both the Russian Federation and the PRC are now ahead of the US in military technology (29) and in other key areas. They are both led by brilliant men with a vision for their nations that is unmatched anywhere else in the world.

American foreign policy has had the singular and unforeseen (by the Americans) consequence of driving them to forge a strategic partnership that makes then unbeatable in any military confrontation with the US.

Of the two men, Xi is the more internationalist in outlook. This is most stunningly reflected in the promotion of what is the world’s greatest infrastructure project, the New Silk Roads, aka OBOR or BRI.

This initiative now embraces more than 60 countries. New Zealand was the first “western” country to sign up. It involves building highways, high speed rail and fibre optic links in multiple directions emanating in China and now embraces four continents.

 SEE MAP OF OBOR

Part of the infrastructure development is to enable those countries that have joined the parallel development of the means of developing their own resources, of which there is an abundance in Eurasia and Africa.

This development is unparalleled in history. It is associated with equally momentous financial changes including setting up development funds such as the AIIB (which Australia actually joined over American opposition).

Further related developments include linking OBOR to the Eurasian Economic Union, which Turkey announced on 18 August it had commenced negotiations with for a trade agreement. It also includes linking with the North South Transportation Corridor (NSTC) (SEE MAP), BRICS, and perhaps most importantly the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). (30)

Iran is a pivotal State in OBOR, the SCO and the NSTC as well as a regional power and one of the top four producers of oil and gas in the world.

It is why Iran has long been a target of US and UK interests, especially from the 1953 CIA organized overthrow of the Mossadegh government. (31) The 1979 revolution saw the restoration of Iranian independence and the Americans have never forgiven them.

We currently see the relentless demonization of Iran; the US support for MEK terrorists; the blatant threats of Hilary Clinton, Trump and others; and Trump’s avowed intent to disavow the 2015 P+5 JCPOA agreement (32). The Iranian situation is worth separate examination in its own right on another day.

There are rapidly increasing moves for nations to trade in other than dollar denominated terms, with more than 60 nations currently using the Yuan, the Ruble, and gold backed convertible notes.

This single factor alone marks the demise of the petrodollar and with it America’s ability to finance its wars at the expense of others. It was a critical factor in the recent Saudi stoush with Qatar after the latter signed a $50 billion dollar deal with the PRC not denominated in dollars. Qatar also announced it was negotiating with Iran to jointly develop the South Pars/North Dome gas field, half of which falls in their respective exclusive economic zones

Both moves enraged the Americans. The Saudi climb down from their initial demands is symptomatic of this shift in geopolitical power.

The US will not be able to do to Putin and Xi what they did to Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi who had made similar moves to remove the dollar as the medium of payment in 2003 and 2011 respectively.

It is against this inexorable tide of change that the failing US empire is fighting a desperate rearguard action.

The South China Sea represents one theater of operations in that rearguard action. It is in my view doomed to fail. The question is whether in failing to impose its will, the Americans will embroil us all in a war that would have cataclysmic consequences. The rational mind would do all in its power to avoid such an outcome.

Unfortunately, the history of the past decades suggests that at least since Kennedy’s murder by the US Deep State (33) rationality has not been the dominant characteristic of US foreign policy.

The other question inevitably raised is Australia’s role and response?

Again, one would have to say that rationality has not been the dominant characteristic. Prime Minister Turnbull’s recent remarks about being “joined at the hip” with the Americans over Korea not only displays an alarming ignorance of historical and contemporary realities, it demonstrates that Australia has learned nothing from the foreign policy misadventures we have joined in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

The challenge for Australia is to develop a truly independent foreign policy that best reflects our real national interests. Those interests should reflect both our geography and the economic realities of our dominant trading patterns.

By joining the US in its ill-advised forays in the South China Sea and further north, it will in my view hasten the day when China, having a choice between accessing its raw materials from friendly neighbours via high speed rail links, or from a mistrustful (34) and hostile Australia will make a choice that will have devastating consequences for Australia.   We will have only ourselves to blame for that eventuality.

Let me conclude with a quotation from the final communiqué of the recently concluded BRICS conference in Xiamen China on 3 September 2017. Again you will struggle to find reference to or discussion of either the conference or its profound implications for a different and, I suggest, better world:

“We condemn unilateral military interventions, economic sanctions or arbitrary use of unilateral coercive measures in violation of international law and universally recognised norms of international relations. We emphasize that no country should enhance its security at the expense of the security of others.”

*Paper delivered to the IPAN conference, Melbourne 10   September 2017.

** Barrister at Law and geopolitical analyst. He may be contacted at joneill@qldbar.asn.au

References

  1. Blum Overthrowing Other People’s Governments. informationclearinghouse.info 9 September 2014
  2. Obama Admits US Role in Ukraine Coup washingtonsblog.com 21 February 2015
  3. Hocking The Dismissal Dossier, Updated Edition MUP Digital 2016
  4. O’Neill Australia and North Korea: Dangerous Delusions Place Australia at Risk. johnmenadue.com 15 August 2017.
  5. Scott The American Deep State. Rowman and Littlefield 2017
  6. Blood Class and Empire Atlantic Books 2013
  7. The Politics of Heroin Chicago Review Press 2003
  8. Hopsicker Barry and the Boys. Mad Cow Press 2001
  9. Chilcot The Report of the Iraq Inquiry 2016
  10. Tanter Australia and America’s Iraq War Nautilus Institute 2014
  11. Suskind The Price of Loyalty Simon & Schuster 2004.
  12. Scott op cit.
  13. F. Kennedy Jnr Syria: another Pipeline War www.ecowatch.com 25 February 2016
  14. Cartalucci Facing Defeat in Syria, ISIS Inexplicably Expands Globally. joirnal;-neo.org 11 August 2017
  15. Brzezinski The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives Basic Books 1998
  16. Cartalucci op cit
  17. Korybko Hybrid Wars Amazon Kindle Editions 2017
  18. Thayer Vietnam and the South China Sea’s Roiled Waters policyforum.net 30 January 2017
  19. Engdahl Target China Progressive Press 2014
  20. Garrison Locked and Loaded dissidentvoice.org 16 August 2017
  21. Esthus The Taft-Katsura Memorandum: Reality or Myth (1959) Journal of Modern History 31 46-51
  22. Garrison op cit
  23. Cumings The Korean War: A History The Modern Library 2010
  24. Naval Choke Points and Command of the Sea www.worldpoliticsreview.com 2 March 2009
  25. For example, in the dispute with East Timor; the Refugee Convention; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the invasion of Iraq; the current war in Syria.
  26. China, ASEAN Come to Agreement and a Framework South China Sea Code of Conduct www.thediplomat.com 19 May 2017
  27. Engdahl op cit.
  28. Mackinder The Geographical Pivot of History. The Geographical Journal Vol 23 (4) April 1904 421-437.
  29. The Essential Saker. Nimble Pluribus 2015
  30. O’Neill One Belt, One Road: a new Geopolitical Paradigm johnmenadue.com 31 January 2017
  31. Weiner Legacy of Ashes Doubleday 2007
  32. O’Neill US Sanctions Symptomatic of a Failing Empire journal-neo.org 15 August 2017
  33. Douglass JFK and the Unspeakable Orbis Books 2013
  34. O’Neill op cit reference 30.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s