To start with, it should be noted that discourses trying to capture the NATO expansion tend to be Euro- or Atlanto-centric; in other words misleading from the very beginning. A global perspective is hardly necessary to understand the Washington perspective: the USA borders on two oceans, not only one, so it stands to reason that the USA has not only a Europe/ Atlantic strategy but also one for Asia/Pacific. The major strategic partner in Asia/Pacific is Japan, the treaty being AMPO. Corresponding to the eastward NATO expansion there is now a westward AMPO expansion both in terms of the definition of the theater of joint US-Japan commitments and of the scope of those commitments. Thus we can talk about a coordinated pincer move aiming at the Eurasian landmass and Russia/China in particular.

Potential enemies are designated by expanding to the perimeter of Russia, China and Islam, but not beyond. The former are big enough to be interesting as enemies, one for its nuclear arsenal with delivery systems, the other for its army. But in addition there is the Muslim world, the major producer of what the USA sees as "rogue states" (Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran) and gives pariah status in the world system.

The West/USA has many problematic relations, one of them with China, where Prince Charles "forgot" to apologize for colonialism and drugging a whole country. Russia could be clever enough to solve problems, not to talk about human rights, and to point to the pincer movement obviously directed at them both. Together they could draw the obvious conclusion: if the USA sees us separately as their problem, how about the two of us operating jointly?

Not to be forgotten: ex-Soviet Union had good relations with India. They may one day be revived, and the "Eurasian landmass" might muster about one half of humanity against that Western/US pincer movement. But even if that should not happen, what definitely will be revived will be the Russian arms industry, also in order to compete with the West economically-

A glance at the map is sufficient to make such predictions, using the basic law of social (and natural) reality, the dialectical principle of actio-reactio (a push in one direction will sooner or later generate a counterpush, not necessarily of the same size; that is Newton's Third Law). A high level, not only of arrogance x ignorance is needed not to make them, but also of Piaget's absolutism: what "they" do is not generated by what "we" do, theirs is only actio, not reactio, we need proactio. Well, that proactio has consequences.

In talk in he Slovenian parliament September 1998 the present author developed this theme a little further:

To have NATO expand eastward, and at the same time AMPO westward, in terms of the support, logistical and otherwise, given by Japan to the USA, will easily be perceived as a pincer movement. In-between is the Eurasian continent, the source of geopolitical evil in US strategic thought (Latin America being an easily controlled backyard, Africa being insignificant). The Middle East is a key part of Eurasia, so is South Asia after the nuclear explosions of India and Pakistan, so is Central Asia with its oil, so is Southeast Asia--. And so are, indeed Russia (with Ukraina and Belarus) and China, not to mention the highly

No doubt the key actor, indeed pro-actor, is the United States, in turn a product of its birth as a state, and as a nation, very courageous, very self-righteous, very violent. After a trial run in the First world war the Second world was gave real birth to the USA as a world actor, provoked by German nazism, Italian fascism and Japanese militarism, with direct links to the present situation:

"Planning for post-war bases began in 1942, barely a year into the Pacific War, when Franklin D. Roosevelt requested the Joint Chiefs of staff to prepare a global study of bases for an "International Police Force". The military complied by presenting JCS (Joint Chiefs of staff) 570/2 to the President in the autumn of 1943." "Prepared by the Joint Strategic Survey Committee, JCS 570/2 divided the world into three areas: --"participating or reciprocal military rights" /Atlantic locations/---"exclusive military rights" /Alaska, the Philippines, Micronesia, Central America, and the Caribbean/ and "participating rights" as one of the Great Powers enforcing peace /Indochina, eastern China, Korea and Japan/. "

The "three areas" correspond, roughly, to the NATO system of April 1949, expanded in scope and domain 50 years later; the TIAP system (Tratado Interamericano de Paz) or Rio de Janeiro system, of 1947; and the AMPO system based on the U.S.-Japan Peace Treaty of 1951. The foundation was JCS 570/2 1943, and "by late 1945, the military high command had come to the consensus, reflected in the Joint Chiefs of Staff document 570/40, that bases in the Philippines, Marianas, and the Ryukyus would be the most vital in the Pacific".

A modest beginning, in the early postwar period to a large extent engineered by then Chief of Planning of the US State Department, George Kennan. For a continuation let us use a representative article by a highly representative member of the US foreign policy establishment, Zbigniew Brzezinski "A Geostrategy for Eurasia". The title reflects an US/Western tendency to think big, and to be arrogant.

"Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world's most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to America's primacy (italics ours, p. 50).

Comment: What does it mean to us/US is the only perspective. "A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. (p.50).

Comment: A clearly expressed ambition by the third region.

"What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and historical legacy." (p. 51). Comment: Codewords: Global primacy=world hegemony historical legacy=manifest destiny

"In the short run, the United States should consolidate and perpetuate the prevailing geopolitical pluralism on the map of Eurasia. This strategy will put a premium on political maneuvering and diplomatic manipulation, preventing the emergence of a hostile coalition that could challenge America's primacy, not to mention the remote possibility of any one state seeking to do so." (italics ours, p. 51).

Comment: Codewords: perpetuate pluralism = split and rule Political maneuvering/diplomatic manipulation=machiavellianism This type of article will rather engender a "hostile coalition"

Comment: Not one word wasted on the equity/egality option "In a volatile Eurasia, the immediate task is to ensure that no state or combination of states gains the ability to expel the United States or even diminish its decisive role" (p.52)

Comment: US presence an occupation? Also against popular Will?

"Its /careful strategic calculus/ goals should be to divert Chinese power into constructive regional accommodation and to channel Japanese energy into wider international partnerships" (p. 68)

Comment: China should behave well in the region; Japan should engage in wider partnership /above all with the USAI. Thereby, "China's aspirations to regional preeminence and global status would be diminished" (p. 59).

"Japan should not be America's unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Far East, nor should it be America's principal Asian military partner."

"A disoriented Japan, whether lurching toward rearmament or a separate accommodation with China, would spell the end of the American role in the Asia-Pacific region - - "(p.63).

"Unlike China, which can seek global power by first becoming a regional power, Japan can gain global influence only if it eschews the quest for regional power".

Comment: Who, then, is America's principal Asian military partner? China? - then better not bomb China's Beograd embassy.

"--Americans and Japanese must first set in motion a triangular political-security dialogue that engages China. Such three-way American-Japanese-Chinese security talks could eventually involve more Asian participants, and later lead to a dialogue with the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe. That, in turn, could eventually pave the way for a series of conferences by European and Asian states on security issues. A transcontinental security system would thus begin to take shape". (pp. 63f).

Comment: With the United States at both sides of the table.

"Geostrategic success in that venture would be a fitting legacy to America's role as the first and only globalsuperpower" (p. 64). Comment: Any effort to manage, even micro-manage, others (Russia should become a confederation of European Russia, a Siberian Republic and a Far Eastern Republic; Ukraine should see herself as a part of Central Europe; the European Union must admit Turkey, etc.) without giving them the same realistic chance to micromanage the USA is known as hegemony, certainly fitting to "America's role as the first and only global superpower". But it carries the seeds of its own destruction because of the counterforces it will produce. Any effort to conceive of the world in terms of regions and states as if human beings did not matter also carries the seeds of own destruction because of the popular forces it will generate - like for WTO and MAI. To have a geostrategy is already questionable, to do so treating a major part of humanity as objects for own security and enhancement is beyond questionable.

Not only Russia/China/India, 40% of humanity--the only 3 out of the UN Security Council 15 members that voted against the US/NATO war on ("on" because it was the coward's war, from the air, not the traditional war, on the ground, "in") Yugoslavia--but most analysts would see the war as foreboding things to come, like the Gulf war in 1991 was seen at the time.

The minor conflict, in and around Kosovo, is now developing more or less as expected: the trilateral low intensity war (NATO-KLA-Serbs) is there and will probably escalate much further. It will drag on for decades, generations, centuries as No. 4 of a succession of SerbianAlbanian fights only since 1878 (the other three being on conjunction with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in that region, leading up to and including the First world war, Mussolini's Greater Albania in connection with the Second world war). Very tragic because the crisis of 1998-99 could probably have been solved by (for more see www.transcend.org):

- expanding the OSCE Kosovo Verification Force by a factor of 10, up to 12-20,000;

- verifying that the observers are there to dampen, even eliminate acts of ethnic cleansing, not for other purposes;

- closing the border between Albania and Kosovo/a to prevent UCK infiltration (as was done between Serbia and Macedonia);

- open negotiations on the status of Kosovo/a with republic within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as one option;

- open negotiations about the status of Southern Balkans with confederation as one option;

- guaranteed and protected return of displaced persons including Serbs back to Krajina/Slavonija and to Bosnia and Hercegovina. The first three measures of peacekeeping would provide space for the next three to start meaningful peacemaking/peacebuilding.

Instead of any real effort to solve the conflict we got: the following "Consequences of NATO's War on Yugoslavia":

- NATO state terrorism against Yugoslavia destroyed 300 factories and refineries, 190 educational establishments, 20 hospitals, 30 clinics, 60 bridges, 5 airports;

- to the estimated 2,O00 deaths (600 military) and 6,000 wounded come those who die from destruction of health infrastructure;

- only 12-15 tanks (of 300 main battle tanks) were destroyed;

- almost all destruction was to public, not private enterprises;

- the US hatred of nonaligned/neutral countries may have been a factor in targeting

Yugoslavia;

- some countries join NATO as an insurance against being bombed;

- November 1998-March 1999 there was no evidence of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Germany sent back 11,000 Kosovar refugees;

- the Spanish pilot Adolfo Luis Martin de la Hoz, in Articulo 20, 14 June 1999: "They are destroying the country, bombing it with novel weapons, toxic nervous gases, surface mines dropped with parachute bombs containing uranium, black napalm, sterilization chemicals, sprayings to poison the crops and weapons of which we even still do not know anything. The North Americans are committing one of the biggest barbarities that can be committed against humanity" - he refused to bomb, so did his superior, a colonel - both removed.

But how about the major conflict, NATO/AMPO/TIAP against the world? What does this remind us of? How many years have we been set back by this war by "19 democracies" (NATO)/"democratic totalitarianism" (Zinoviev)? Possible answer: 65 years.

The parallel that comes to mind, mentioned by Solzhenitsyn, is Hitler's use of the national conflict between Sudeten/Germans and Czechs, the pressure on Czechoslovakia (with the support of England). Japan's attack on Manchuria 1931 -45 and Italy's attack on Ethiopia 1935-41 were also against the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 (Briand got the Nobel Peace Prize in 1926, Kellogg in 1929): 62 states, among them all major powers, agreed to renounce war as political instrument and to settle all international disputes by peaceful means.

The exceptions were wars of self-defense or miliary obligations from the League Covenant, the Monroe doctrine or alliance obligations - similar to the UN Charter Article 2(4), with exceptions. Both valid international law, with holes.

The three dictatorships were above the law and the League. They brushed all resolutions aside, lifted by their visions of a New Order: Neuordnung/Nuovo Ordine/dai-to-a. Their propaganda was as massive as the NATO propaganda with is insulting "apologies" for "collateral damage" that so obviously was intended by those on top from the very beginning. Well, the world did not have Internet at the time that helps. But the power was on the side of those "above the law" because of a criterion of their own choice (there was probably more popular will behind what those dictatorships did than for the sneaky action by the "democracies"). The dictatorships followed up what they started: the Second World War. The USA, using NATO- AMPO-TIAP, is probably tempted to do the same, starting with North Korea and Colombia(?), to implement their New World Order.

Unfortunately, this kind of politics is accompanied by a general attitude of selfrighteousness and self-appointment. To the present President, William Jefferson Clinton, America has become the world's "indispensable nation". Since JCS has been drawn upon to show the political/military tradition enacted, it is worth pointing out that one recent Chairman of the JCS, Colin Powell, "America was created by divine providence to bring order to the world", and to his successor, John Shalikashvili, the USA is nothing less than a "global nation with global interests". To such a nation world hegemony is not a right. It is a duty to be "international police force", whether others agree or not.

4. The US/UK-NATO attack: A subtextanalysis

When two countries with a very belligerent track record, able to legitimize their belligerence, launch a war, then we have to identify motives in the subtext rather than in published texts. Here is a list of possible (not mutually exclusive) motives; the list may serve to identify motivations in other conflict arenas:

[0] A sincere wish to stop Serbian violence against the Kosovars and to secure for the Kosovars a safe future (the means include acceptance of the Rambouillet diktat after the pain limit has been reached, withdrawal of Serbian forces, a NATO protectorate in Kosovo, safe return of the refugees, and, possibly, independence. Problems: the Rambouillet diktat does not give the Kosovars independence, the protectorate may last long given guerrilla warfare, the Kosovars may also terrorize the population and fight among themselves, Kosovo may be close to uninhabitable. Given that the means chosen may be neither efficacious, nor efficient.. The goal may be laudable, the means stupid. Could there be some other, less honorable goals that would make the means chosen look more intelligent? How to judge NATO in general, the US/UK in particular and the USA even more in particular: as honorable but stupid, or criminal but bright?

Political motives. We see four different motives:- punish the Serbs for their past action,

with the two goals of punishment: individual prevention (the Serbs will never try ethnic

cleansing again) and general prevention (scare others).

The Iraq treatment is a model: destroy military infrastructure, and then civilian infrastructure,

as it can also be used by the military (a truism). Add to this economic sanctions, and Serbian

children will soon die like Iraqi children do. - destroy Serbia, by at least bombing it back to

1945 when Tito started reconstruction after the Second World War; detaching from Serbia

Kosovo (mineral resources, cultural identity), Vojvodina (bread basket) and Montenegro

(access to Adria), leaving a small country to eke out a mediocre existence; - secure the

Western control post for the Eurasian continent, the Eastern post being in Japan-Taiwan

South Korea;

- the New World Military Order, substituting NATO/AMBO/TIAP for the UN Security

Economic Motives:

- Corridor 8, the idea of a Muslim/Russian-free oil pipeline, through (Georgia, from

Sukhumi/Socii to Varna/Burgos by ship, then pipeline through Bulgaria-Macedonia

Kosovo/a-Albania to Duerres/Flora; from the Black Sea to Adria; used to bribe and as

pressure on the British (and the Norwegians?) as it competes with North Sea oil, appealing to

their interest in flow control.

- Reconstruction contracts, presumably proportionate to the destruction wrought. Alternative

model: USA destroys, Europe pays for the reconstruction, including to US companies.

- The very rich mines in Kosovo/a, estimated at $ 5 billion

- Collection of Yugoslav debt that Yugoslavia is unable to pay

- testing old and new weapons,

- sales promotion for old and new weapons,

- testing the will and capacity of NATO allies

- The cosmic drama: our God against theirs, whose is stronger? - humiliating the enemy into submission

The Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the North Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C. on 24th April 1999 issued a communique with the Alliance's Strategic Concept: 24. Any armed attack on the territory of the Allies, from whatever direction, would be covered by Article 5 and 6 of the Washington Treaty. However, Alliance security must also take account of the global- context. Alliance security interests can be affected by other risks of a wider nature, including acts of terrorism, sabotage and organised crime, and by the disruption of the flow of vital resources.-

29. Military capabilities effective under the full range of foreseeable circumstances are also the basis of the Alliance's ability to contribute to conflict prevention and crisis management through non-article 5 crisis response operations.-

31. In pursuit of its policy of preserving peace, preventing war, and enhancing security and stability and as set out in the fundamental security tasks, NATO will seek, in cooperation with other organizations, to prevent conflict, or, should a crisis arise, to contribute to its effective management, consistent with international law, including through the possibility of conducting non-Article 5 crisis response operations.

Very clear: all issues, all places, "with all necessary means", and within NATO's interpretation of international law.

"Against the danger there is only one remedy: Japan needs her own atomic weapons" (interview with Shingo Nishimura, M1P)

The govemment of Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi made available $ 1.7 billion to build Japan's own spy satellite".

Nishimura: "We need our own aircraft carrier, cruise missiles and nuclear warheads. Japan must become a normal country".

Japan has today and army of 243,000 men, and pays for this around $ 42 billion annually.

Parliament decided to appoint, for the first time for 52 years, a committee for possible revision of the /1947/ Constitution. Taku Yamasaki, possible successor to Prime Minister Obuchi: "Article 9 must go" /A9 denies Japan the right to go to war."

Tomohide Mural from the National Defense Academy: "The Chinese understand only the language of military threat''. Add to that the relegitimation of the Hinomaru (flag) and the Kimigayo (hymn) as official symbols, and the picture is ominous.

6. What can we do about it?

Andre Gander Frank placed an essay on the Internet <agfrank(~chass.utoronto.ca> May 30, 1999, entitled THE BEST DEFENSE AGAINST NATO IS POLITICAL OFFENSE AT ITS WEAKEST LINKS The proposal is composed of three related parts:

1- Political: Attack and break the weakest link in and among NATO member countries and

thereby weaken NATO itself

2- Moral: Take the moral high ground and deny it to NATO leaders. s by indicting them for war

crimes in the courts and before public opinion

3- Legal: Resuscitate the United Nations for peace and prevent NATO from exercising

military rule in the Balkans under the Legitimizing' cloak of the same UN that NATO itself

has strangled.

Tribunals indicting NATO for the war on Yugoslavia would belong to these proposals. [Better not underestimate the role of the Bertrand Russell Tribunals and the work done by a Jean-Paul Sartre against whom de Gaulle said, "M. Sartre7 you cannot stand in judgment of the State". That is exactly what must be done; states and statesmen are not sacred. Sacred is life.

But beyond that we need to address the present situation, the most serious the present author, who lived through the Second World War and the Cold war, has experienced. We have to learn to protest against a war that is foretold but has not (yet) taken place, not like the governments wait till major violence has already occurred. This calls for NGO-coalitions disseminating information (the old triangle is most ignorant), organizing hearings, demanding and proposing conflict resolution if there is conflict, denouncing maneuvering for world hegemony.

A major task of NGOs in the OECD region would be to establish links with the official level in Russia-China-India (and Belarus-Ukraine, Iran-Iraq-Syria and the Central Asian republics). Another task is to challenge the governments in the OECD region to question the USA/NATO/AMPO policy, accepted also [a] because the USA as the leader presumably knows best, and [b] because if distrusted the USA may not help in a crisis, and [c3 because fallen clients are in for the harshest treatment (Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Noriega, Aidid, Osama bin Laden). Among 19 NATO members there must be one non-lapdog members

Finally, an effort to answer a question that troubles some people, and also to rebut a rhetoric very often engaged in precisely by those Americans who seek world hegemony: Is this type of analysis anti-American?

anti-slavery/colonialism without being anti-English

anti-nazi without being anti-German

anti-fascist without being anti-Italian

anti-militarist hegemony without being anti-Japanese

anti-Quisling without being anti-Norwegian

anti-stalinist without being anti-Russian

anti-poststalinist socialism without being anti-socialist

anti jungle capitalism without being anti-market

anti-zionist without being anti-semitic, and

anti-hegemony without being anti-American

The present author is all ten. In no way does this mean that we should not explore the relation

between slavery/colonialism and something English (I would say deep culture/structure) all

the way down the list to the relation between hegemony and something American. But the

relation is never that unambiguous, "something English" etc. is much broader, there are other

roads that could have been travelled. Our task, together with anti-hegemonical, pro-peace

Americans, is to explore those alternative roads - and travel therm.