World War III? Indo-Pacific Theatre
The global oligarchy has long recognised the importance of the Pacific in strategic and economic planning. In recent years there has been a convergence of Russia, China and the USA on the Pacific as each attempt to extend influence into the region. The U.S. oligarchy and its allies have a head-start by decades. The aims of this oligarchy are not necessarily going to coincide with the assumptions of other sectors of the American power complex, including the military and the Senate. Where the military and certain political influences see threats, the oligarchy sees opportunities, particularly in regard to China.
The USA has long sought to co-opt China into a global system. Despite the sabre-rattling on occasion, there is no indication that this outlook has changed. The difference in attitude of the USA towards Russia and China is not difficult to discern, despite whatever shadow-boxing there might be on the world stage. In brief: the USA aims for “reform” in China, which has been proceeding for several decades, while for Russia under Putin, the USA is adamant that there must be “regime change”, and pursues this goal ardently. The outrageous attempts to demonise Putin are comparable to those used against Gaddafi, Milosevic, Saddam and presently Assad. The public relations offensive against Putin is the same as that used as a prelude to proxy wars and “colour revolutions” that have toppled a string of statesmen throughout the former Soviet bloc, North Africa and elsewhere. One does not see such an offensive against the leadership of China; and it did not even occur under Mao, who was regarded as a willing partner in encircling Russia. Carl Gershman, whose Russophobia stems from a Trotskyite background, like many others, head of the National Endowment for Democracy which has been a key instigator of “regime change” throughout the world, and is funded by U.S. Congress, has recently called for Putin’s removal by the USA. (Robert Parry, “Regime change in Russia: Key Neocon calls for Washington to remove President Putin form office”, Global Research, October 7 2016; http://www.globalresearch.ca/regime-change-in-russia-key-neocon-calls-on-washington-to-remove-president-putin-from-office/5550248).
The American and allied oligarchies set up the Asia Society for the promotion of a Pacific regional economic bloc. The Asia Society was founded in 1956 by John D. Rockefeller III. The by-line on the Asia Society’s website is: “Preparing Asians and Americans for a shared future.” (Asia Society, “About,” http://www.asiasociety.org/about/mission.html). Another such policy group is the Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973, again by the Rockefeller dynasty, the first director of the Commission being the Russophobe, Zbigniew Brzezinski. A “Pacific Asian Group” of the Commission was established, reflecting the growing interest in the region. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement was intended to formalise Pacific regionalisation. (See Bolton, “Globalists’ Pacific Agenda”, Geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific, Black House Publishing, London, 2013, 138-144; and Bolton, “Regional Globalization: The Trans Pacific Partnership, Foreign Policy Journal, November 19 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/11/19/regional-globalization-the-trans-pacific-partnership/).
These economic strategies are buttressed by the U.S. military. However, China has also entered the region with a focus of assisting the numerous Pacific island nations, and more recently still Russia has extended a presence.
The Lowy Institute, an Australian-based globalist think tank founded by veteran Zionist magnate Frank Lowy, states of China:
“The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has a strong and growing engagement in the Pacific Islands region. China currently has diplomatic relations with eight countries — the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Niue, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu. The region witnessed very active ‘chequebook diplomacy’ in the past, as Taiwan also has six diplomatic allies in the Pacific. Overt ‘chequebook diplomacy’ largely came to an end in 2008 when Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-Jeou struck a truce with Beijing after promising Taiwan would no longer compete with China for allies in the Pacific. (China and the Pacific Island”, http://www.lowyinstitute.org/issues/china-pacific).
Russia has belatedly entered the region. This presently centres on Fiji, hitherto a focus of China, since New Zealand, Australia, the European Union and the USA tried to play big-brother in castigating the Fijians for their lack of liberal-democracy, and imposed sanctions. If the USA was serious about countering Chinese influence in the region such a move would be unthinkable. The efforts by the USSR to secure positions in Tonga and Western Samoa failed. However, in January 2016 20 containers of arms from Russia arrived in Suva, Fiji, causing much speculation as to whether this is the start of a Russian diplomatic offensive to establish a presence among the Pacific states, in a part of the world that is regarded symbolically as the West’s “soft underbelly”. (Roman Madaus, “The Bear Returns to the South Pacific: Russia Sends Arms to Fiji”, The Diplomat, April 9, 2016, http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/the-bear-returns-to-the-south-pacific-russia-sends-arms-to-fiji/).
In July 2016 the annual Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) war games were held under U.S. auspices. Notably present was China; notably absent was Russia. Yet even in Mongolia, a direct area of Russian interest, a U.S. sponsored multinational army war games exercise was held in 2015 also included China but excluded Russia. (Bolton, “US Navy Rim of The Pacific (RIMPAC) War Games, Co-opting China, Isolating Russia?”, Global Research, July 10, 2016, http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-sponsored-rim-of-the-pacific-rimpac-war-games-coopting-china-isolating-russia/5535240).
Future conflict in the Indo-Pacific region will be fought over or influence by water resources. Since this author wrote on the subject in 2010 (Bolton, “Water Wars: Rivalry Over Water Resources,” World Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 1 , Spring 2010; also Bolton, “Rivalry over Water Resources as a Potential Cause of Conflict in Asia”, Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1, Spring 2010, 23-44, http://search.proquest.com/openview/4daabb344fd4e09d9a7e705c541eea15/1?pq-origsite=gscholar) the question of “water wars” has come under increasing consideration. For example, Lt. Col. Jin H. Pak, a U.S. military lecturer writing on the subject in the U.S. Army War College journal Parameters, concludes:
“As water becomes increasingly sought after among states in that region, and even around the globe, it is time for the United States and the Department of Defense to elevate environmental security issues to a level on par with national security interests such as countering WMD proliferation and preventing attacks on the homeland. It is increasingly important to promote confidence-building measures between certain states to ensure military missteps do not aggravate territorial sovereignty issues like the one over the Arunachal Pradesh. Finally, it is time for the Department of Defense to invest in more water purification/treatment capabilities so it is not focused only on sustaining the health of US and coalition forces, but also on mitigating water shortage crises”. (Pak, “China, India and War over Water”, Parameters, Vol. 46, No. 2, Summer 2016, http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/issues/Summer_2016/8_Pak.pdf
Like the securing of oil resources, the idea is being floated that rivalry over water resources could justify the USA taking over the water resources of states in the interests of peace. Will we soon find American and other corporations controlling water resources after U.S. military intervention, and ultimatums for the privatisation of water resources to enable corporate control? Will war or “colour revolution” be used against those states that insist on maintaining control over water resources? Such conflicts over water are especially problematic for the entirety of the Indo-Pacific region with the control by China of the headwaters in Tibet. It is also a question that could confound Russo-Chinese relations, Israeli responses to water control, and water problems in the USA with the depletion of water tables. The destruction of Serbia was wrought by military means for the purpose of securing the mineral resources of Kosovo, particularly the Trepca mining complex, one of the primary war ultimatums to Serbia being privatisation to enable the corporate takeover of Kosovo’s resources., as per the Rambouillet diktat imposed on the state (See: Privatization Agency of Kosovo, http://www.pak-ks.org/?page=2,1). Wars will be fought for water as they have been fought over opium, gold and oil, and as has consistently occurred when the globalists have intervened for the sake of “humanity, the outcome will be an enduring shambles.