Current Concerns
P.O. box 223
CH-8044 Zurich
+41-44-350 65 50

May 06, 2015
The monthly journal for independent thought, ethical standards and moral responsibility The international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility,
and for the promotion and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law
Current Concerns  >  2008  >  No 9, 2008  >  PNEC - Project for a New European Century [printversion]

PNEC - Project for a New European Century

by Jochen Scholz, Berlin

For a state to pursue its own interests is still considered somewhat indecent by the greater part of the German population, although it is well-known that Germany itself is an object of foreign interests. That might be the reason why especially human rights and Burka liberation debates are carried on with such enthusiasm in our country. Considering the German history from 1933 to 1945 and its limited sovereignty until 1990 it is easily comprehensible that integration with and subordination to the West left little scope to raise one’s own interests and to pursue them politically during the time of conflict of the systems. The economic giant Germany chose the path of over-identification with the Western hegemonic power under the caption “community of values”, lasting to this very day.
Essential for this process was that the USA discharged the Germans collectively of their NAZI-past. The US forged the links between Germany and the international community and attained its admission to the League of Nations. This was, of course, motivated by self-interest. Willy Brandt’s policy of reconciliation with the East-European neighboring countries, the German Democratic Republic and the Soviet Union, by which he was pursuing German interests, was therefore met with suspicion by the USA. As it turned out the “Ostpolitik” became the catalyst of a political development, which led to the historically unique dominance of the USA as the only super power. Therefore the attempt of the German Federal Republic to emancipate itself partially from US dominance and interests led – irony of history – to the safeguarding of precisely those interests.
The manageable geopolitical situation changed fundamentally after the Cold War. Since the end of the East-West conflict with its loss of strategic balance the framework has changed dramatically. The European Unification, the continuing economic and communicative globalization, the newly evolving centers of power have been influencing international relations with a new quality. To some extent US companies have been able to adjust to these circumstances, as politics cleared the way for them, if necessary with brute force. The German and European politics and economy have remained in a state of reactivity and are holding on to an obsolete identity of interests, rather than dealing offensively with the blue print for the National Security Strategy of the USA, whose origins date back to the end of the Cold War in 1989: “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”1, published by Paul Wolfowitz.
However, this approach has negative impacts on the German and European economies, which can be shown by some specified examples of the past years.

The master clock

In 2003 the following comment could be read in the Managermagazin (Magazine for Managers):
“The USA is the master clock: militarily, politically, socially, economically, legally, culturally and morally. The normative power of facticity, the US elites’ nearly indefinite claim for leadership and justice, which is obviously not inhibited by any doubts, are shaping in an increasingly annoying way what is thought and done globally and what has to be thought and done globally. The affected nations have to deal with this, whether it pleases them or not, at a very high price – not only the so-called rogue states are experiencing this – and is getting ever more costly. So costly that it may come to severe economic losses – directly, immediately, individually.”2
What had happened? Applying the “Iran and Lybia Santions Act” the US government forced Thyssen-Krupp to repurchase 16.9 million of their own stocks from the IFIC Holding AG Essen at a price of 24 euro per share (current price 9 euro).3 This way the shareholding quota of IFIC which is a share property of Iran was brought down below 5 percent and the already negative consolidated accounts of Thyssen-Krupp deteriorated even further. Since the USA threatened the corporation to restrict their companies’ access to the US market the Stock Corporation Act article 71, paragraph 1, number 1 (defense against a severe, direct, forthcoming damage) had to be applied.
A reaction by the German Federal Government is not known. The commentator in the Magazine who cannot be suspected of Marxist or anti-American ideologies calls on politions and economists in Europe “particularly on the crisis management and planning groups of the European companies” “to look into the ‘new world order’, strategically as well as tactically on the occasion of that operation. Otherwise they would not be able to deal adequately with the new business risks generated by that new order.” I agree with Johannes Reich, Head of Metzler Eqities4, but I would go one step further.

Two challenges

The world outside the United States is confronted with two challenges, which frame its sphere of influence:
• The military supremacy of the USA after the collapse of the Soviet Union,
• The international economic system optimized with the help of the dollar system and if necessary with the help of military control5 of the energy flows towards a certain segment of the largest national economy.
Between both there is a fruitful interrelation. They are the mainstays of the new world order. The study “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” published by the Republican think tank “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC)6 calls for the United States to be superior in each conceivable coalition of states. They explicitly refer to all military spheres and to the economy. They also name potential competitors, which are to be minimized. Among them are the European Union and China. The former merely military aim of a “Full Spectrum Dominance” of the USA has been extended to all levels of international relations and to space. The English writer Harold Pinter commented on this when he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2005 in the following way:
“I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its officially declared policy is now defined as ‘full spectrum dominance’. That is not my term, it is theirs. ‘Full spectrum dominance’ means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources. ”7
The document breathes the a-historical conception that the USA would not only be able to maintain its hegemonic position in the long run, but also expand it against other forthcoming centers of power, and do so with a dynamic development. It is nothing but logical, that the existing international law is seen as an obstacle, which can be done away with and that multilateral attempts in international relations aiming at solving the problems and conflicts are justified means just as long as they serve American interests.
This was also expressed quite frankly at a conference for high-ranking Eastern European government representatives, in the Slovak capital Bratislava in April 2000. It was organized by the State Department and the “New Atlantic Initiative”8, which is a project of the Republican foreign policy institute “American Enterprise Institute”. The only German politician invited was the MP Willy Wimmer, member of the Christian Democratic Party (CDU). He is a member of the foreign committee of the German Bundestag and was undersecretary in the Federal Ministry of Defense from 1987 to 1992. He summarized the result of the conference in a letter to the Federal Chancellor. Wimmer’s evaluation of the speeches reads:
“It seems that in the global context and for the enforcement of their goals, the American side seems to be consciously levering out the international legal order which was developed as a result of two wars in the last century. Power is to take precedence over law. Where international law stands in the way, it is eliminated. When the League of Nations faced a similar development, the Second World War was not far away. Concepts, which consider their own interests that absolute, can only be called totalitarian.”9

Democrats versus Republicans: Criticizing methods while pursuing the same goals

It would be an illusion to think that the American idea about the rest of the world’s relationship to the country is limited to the neo-conservative specter of the US elites. The “Progressive Policy Institute”, a foreign policy institute affiliated to the Democratic Party, published the “Democratic National Security Strategy”10. Its core statement can be summarized as follows: The Bush administration snubbed our allies; that was extremely unwise because we need them to enforce our interests. That, however, is merely a criticism of methods while one is pursuing the same objective. This is incompatible with the continental European concepts of a functioning international system just as the current US government’s hegemonic policy is, which has become ever more brutal since 9/11. “America First” is the common denominator of Democrats and Republicans and the absolute term of US politics, which Europe and the other centers of power in the world are expected to adjust to.

Multilateralism versus international club law

Above all: Under conditions, which are dictated by the stronger party, the incantation of a ‘transatlantic community of values’ proves to be nothing but an illusion. America First is a contrast program to multilateralism. Unfortunately multilateralism is mentioned by Europeans mostly in Sunday speeches rather than actively put on the international agenda. Multilateralism is no academic event, but this concept for living together on our planet emanated from sorrowful historical experiences, which Europeans have had for centuries, especially in the 20th century with its two world wars. The US have so far been spared. So the collective consciousness of its citizens is in a state of innocence, which may explain the Americans’ broad initial consent to any war, at least initially. Multilateralism instead is therefore based on participation, on a reliable and functioning set of rules, on reconciliation of interests and on the rule of law.

By all means

A look at what is euphemistically called the US defense budget is self-explanatory. For the financial year 2008, it amounts to 500 billion dollar plus 200 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (For comparison: The German defense budget amounted to 29.3 billion euro = 43.3 billion dollar for 2008). This amount of the American defense budget cannot be justified by any really existing threat. It merely serves one purpose: To decide on the geo-economical competition for raw materials which are getting scarce and to fight for dominance over the highly competitive markets by military means. Read a collection of quotes from the Wolfowitz paper11:
“At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it, if they can. The US must discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership, or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.”
The fact that in order to enforce these goals, inhumane and racist means are taken into consideration, becomes evident in a quote at the end of the document, which gives a view on future developments:
“An advanced form of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
We must not neglect the fact that Wolfowitz has been the deputy Secretary of Defense since 2001 and that other authors of the paper were Robert Kagan (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) and William Kristol (The Weekly Standard). Such line of thought must not shun a historical comparison with the recent past. Before the act there comes the word. George Orwell wrote: War is peace.
The average citizen in the “western community of values” usually does not get to know any of these cynical instructions. And they were no topic in the German mainstream media, either.

So the Europeans yield to the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty, not knowing that since 11 September 2001 the validity of her message is very limited inside the United States and since the days of president John Quincy Adams12 she has not played any role outside the US territory: In a memorial address on 4 July 1821, Adams said that a war would only be justified, if the rights or the security of one’s own nation were threatened directly. He added:
“Wherever the standard of Freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She knows well that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the powers of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.”13
The world could consider itself fortunate if his guidance were valid for his successors.

Instead, the threat to national security becomes the magic hood intended to hide the US imperial interests. The line of action against Iraq in 2003 shows the interests, the methods and the rhetoric of legitimization - as focused in a burning lens.
The 200 000 enthusiastic people assembled at the Berlin Victory Column on the occasion of the democratic presidential candidate Obama’s visit on 24 July 2008, were obviously not aware of the constant basic features and driving forces which have shaped the geo-strategic American foreign policy since the beginning of the 20th Century, characteristic of both Democrats and Republicans. America waged two world wars, in order to become the Eurasian power that set the tone on this continent. The main obstacle on the way to the central Asian markets and energy reserves was gone with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. This unique historical chance has since then been enforced by US politics against their allies with an ever more aggressive attitude, while Europe was still dreaming of a “peace dividend”. Supremacy was practiced via NATO and OSCE. The possible threat – from the US point of view – that the EU with its Common Security and Defense Policy could shake loose the grip, was temporarily banned by the “Berlin Plus Agreement”.14

Europe’s Co-responsibility

Even if the USA know how to skillfully play off the different interests and historically induced caveats of the Europeans, we should always remember that it takes two parties to play the game. War on the Balkans, NATO Eastward Enlargement, the new NATO strategic intervention concept of 1999 with its disconnection of the UN Charter, the removal of some bothersome terms of contract, the raids on Iraq and Afghanistan that violated international law15 were and are supported by the EU and that means, Europe is responsible as well.
The fact that these developments were set into motion by the democratic president Clinton points towards an all-parties focus of interest.

All parties focus of interest

An inevitably rough look at the outline conditions, mechanisms and instruments of the “new world order” as well as the answer to the question “cui bono”, explains it.
• The organization of international relations on the basis of the right of the stronger, after the geostrategic counter weight has ceased to exist. The USA – once driving force behind the existing order of international law – are today regarding the UN as an obstacle.
• The supremacy of the monetary think tank and the principles of the Washington Concensus16 in economy. Both didn’t grow in a societal vacuum. They are deeply rooted in the Anglo American society model which is the diametrical opposite of the European model. Nevertheless they are practised dogmatically only on the surface, whereas the US finance and economy policies are quite pragmatic.
• The dominance in the relevant international committees of the world bank, IMF, G 7/8 and WTO as well as Nato under the slogan “America first”.
• Sustaining the historically unique position of the dollar as world prime currency: required by central banks in case of currency crises, by states for export support and for imports of oil and industrial goods and threshold countries and developing countries serving their depts with the IMF and the so-called Clubs of Paris and London17. All important goods in the world trade are invoiced in US dollars.
• Since the end of the gold standard and the rapidly increased demand for dollars due to the shock like increase of oil prices in the 1970’s by several hundred percent, hardly any influence of investors on the US money press is existing anymore any longer.18
• For more than two decades the USA have been practising almost universally trade and home budget policies that intentionally entail a deficit. Although the dollar is inflationary it is still accepted as means of payment and on the world capital market. The main reasons: Fear of a collaps, lack of courage for alternatives and the so far succesful message, that only America can guarantee our safety from the threats of the world. Where this believe crumbles, instability is created to lead the renegades back on the path of virtue.19
• The dollar system demands export oriented economies that are exposed noles volens to the conditions set up via WTO, IMF and the world bank. Threshold countries and developing countries that are on the IMF drip, are suffering the most. It’s conditions make sure that the profits from the foreign trade are drawn from the domestic development in favour of the dept payments. Export based, highly productive economies like the German one, come under pressure by the globalisation with standards set accross the Atlantic. The pressure is passed on internally. The result is evident in the effects of the so called agenda 2010, rushed through by Federal Chancellor Schröder.
• America can afford an exorbitant balance of payments of over 500 billion dollars, a deficit in the budget to the same amount and net debts of 3,7 trillion dollars globally. The rest of the world is financing the deficit, as long as the central banks are investing their export profits in US government bonds believed to be secure. The ASEAN + 3 states reinvested 80% of their trade surplus in this way and are holding some 90% of the entire dollar reserves. China’s foreign exchange reserves are currently 1,8 trillion dollars mainly consisting of US government securities. Simplified: If you put the deficit in relation to the military budget of 400 billion dollars, then rivals are financing the American capability to project power in the sense of the Wolfowitz papers, and give a tip on top of it. The former Chancellor and current co-publisher of the weekly newspaper Die Zeit, Helmut Schmidt, asked the candidates for presidency: “Is your home budget and finance policy going to be aiming at bringing the foreign asset and liability statement that show huge deficits into a balance? Will America stop spending a large proportion of the savings and the accumulated capital of other nations? Are you standing for order and control over the highly speculative global financial markets, as it is agreed upon?”20
• The major winner of this system is Big Oil and the finance conglomerate going with it, as well as the military-industrial complex. The loosers are not only wide parts of the world but also large branches of the US industry, that isn’t competible on the world market any more by now. To a large degree, the US economy has become an import and consumption economy financed on credits. The leaving president had to listen to furious industrial workers in the Middle West in no uncertain terms during his last election campaign. So-called export world champions are still sunbathing in a treacherous light.

Precondition of economy

Oil and natural gas will be the economic preconditions now and in the near future and therefore not replaceable for development, strength and influence. In the light of the declared US ‘grand strategy’ it is more than obvious that one decisive topic is being discussed mostly behind closed doors, and is not subject to (world) public discussion, as is the case with the climate debate: that is ‘Peak Oil’.21 Economists are referring reassuringly to the available reserves as they are presented by the big oil companies. This is very likely misleading because it omits the core of the problem and doesn’t include the socalled resources neither. The last mentioned are however just probable reserves.
According to renowned oil geologists, the decisive question is 22: When will be the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached and then enters the terminal decline? The background: When 50% of an oil well is depleted then exponentiallly more technique and energy is required to produce the rest. Naturally, precise predictions, on when this point in time will be reached, can’t be made. Experts estimate it sometime between 2010 and 2020. At the same time the global demand from threshold countries is increasing. After the USA, China is the second largest oil importer with approximately 20% of the global petroleum extraction.

Control over world economy

‘The Cheney National Energy Report’ from April 200123, in relation with the predictions of geologists and the ‘grand stratgegy’ of the PNAC documents, puts forward more valid arguments for the American foreign, economy and finance policies and the military interventions of the past years, than our transatlantic White house-astrologists in politics and media do. All the more so because the PNAC authors are no spin doctors but long standing officials in positions of power on board several administrations, who held leading positions in the US oil industrie. A list of states and regions, apart from Iraq, that drew the special political and military attention of the USA, give further evidence: Venezuela, Mexico, Columbia, Sudan, the West African Coast (Sao Tomé, Principe), Algeria and Morocco, Lybia with it’s informative development over the last years, Georgia and the region of the Caucasus, the former Soviet Republics, Iran, Pakistan, India (with the latest nuclear deal and the, in the meantime, failed treaty24 on strategic partnership), Indonesia, Afghanistan, Japan, Korea. The deployment of American forces over the globe25 and the efforts on building military bases in oil strategic relevant regions26 up to the occupation of the country, represent a clear message: We want to have control over the economic development of our rivals, by determining who will get how much oil at what price.
“While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies. Let’s look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.”27
It can’t be put any clearer. Attentive listeners to the “Autumn Lunch Speech” of Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton and now Vice President, Dick Cheney, could plainly recognize as far back as 1999, the direction of the journey.28 Cheney asked the question: Where should, after 2010, the globally needed additional 50 billion barrels daily come from, if the governments and national (!) oil companies are controlling 90% of the oil wells. A remark on the scale: In 1999 the estimated additional demand constituted close to two thirds of the global petroleum extraction. To Cheney, the national power of disposal represented one of the major problems. For this reason the drawing up of military options for a change of government in Iraq began some eight months before September 11, 2001.29

Va banque

Never before have the United States nor their closest allies presented the world with a fait accompli in such a brutal way as in the case of the Iraq war; and never before did they try to deceive the world public as they did prior to the Iraq war. They risked to destabilize precisely the region which has highest priority in their strategic considerations and which is of major importance for the functioning of the global economy. They jeopardized their reputation as a “soft power” standing up for peace, freedom and stability and are now exposed as liars. It is appropriate to raise the question under which circumstances do rational thinking politicans run the risk of playing va banque. As the actors are neither gamblers nor mentally disordered people the explanation is simple: on the basis of the peak-prognosis the US government plans and acts to prevent the dramatic consequences for the US hegemony. This opinion is based on Paul Bremer’s economic programme issued in decree 39 in September 2003. He left the oil and gas industry under US control (meanwhile this has changed). The following significant operation also fits in, however, hardly noticed by the world public: Due to US pressure Japan renounced a contract ready to be signed in August 2003 concerning the growth of an important oil field in Iran.

Terrorism – magic hood of imperial claims

The new world order of „America first“ is based on its military supremacy, the dollar system, the control over the energy sources?30, its dominance over the relevant institutions of global economy and the law of the jungle. Since the abolition of any serious military thread „the“ international terrorism serves as a justification of a gigantic military juggernaut for the own people.31 At the meantime the new enemy keeps the group of the industrialized countries and the emerging markets at it and still let the creditors accept paper money which is not backed non-monetarily.
With respect to a world order, where one actor makes a disproportionate profit via the instruments dominated by him, the other actors need to raise questions. Those questions can be answered alternatively in two main ways:
Adjust – submit – react? Or: take countermeasures – readjust – act?
If you answer the first question positively the risks will prevail: increasing dependence up to vassalage, loss of Europe’s own maneuovering room and own concepts of policy, law insecurity, further wars and destabilization, high death toll, wasting of spiritual and material resources, generating an aggressive countervailing power, a disintegrating process in Europe, ongoing danger of collapse of the democratic system. The hope of being among the future victors, will probably be fulfilled only for a few. It would be a grave mistake, if Europe and the Western-oriented Asian states did transfer their positive economic experiences between 1945 and 1990 onto the future. They were nearly owed to the Cold War.

Europe must find allies to make the United States come to their senses

Josef Joffe’s soft hegemon does no longer exist.32 He cannot afford to share the cake that is getting smaller all the time, because the water is up to his neck. Competition has become too big.
To go the second way does involve some risks as well. But chances are bigger, because it contains a contrasting merely “civil” program and will set in motion a process with a larger creative leeway. Only Europe could be initiator, provider and catalyst of this alternative, because it is strong enough economically, its unification process has well advanced and its culture – with its rule of law, its striving for coordination of interests and its diplomatic way of conflict resolution – meets with world wide acknowledgement. However, it might not be strong enough to realize this alternative. Without necessity, the USA might not be willing to adopt the multilateral course as long as they can skim the cream off the present situation, overestimate their position of strength and have the rest of the world reimburse their expenses. On the other hand the existing problems cannot be solved without the USA. That means Europe has to find allies in order to make the US come to their senses. What is lacking in order to realize a countervailing strategy are not primarily the instruments but the sober glance at the respective situation of interests, courage and the ability to distinguish between facts and bluff and the determination to act instead of merely react.

Liberation or self-destruction of the economic basis

Each year high ranking representatives of politics and economy assemble at Davos. In 2004 Vice-President Cheney impressed his audience with with the American economy’s 8% boom during the third quarterly period of 2003. However, this boom had been payed by the tax gifts of a greater part of the assembled foreign investors at midyear 2003. There was no objection to be heard, neither in Davos nor in Berlin. The vicious circle of dependency – export compulsion – investment into the dollar – US-deficit – even more export – will never be broken this way.
Whoever continues to pit on US-booms as the driving force for the world economy will sooner or later destroy his economic basis. Whenever the respective FED director clears his throat in connection with the interest rate level, the world’s stock exchanges get the hiccups. For how long do the national economies and the enterprises want to take this dependency placed to the debit of the world’s citizens? In the whole wide world there is no debtor who can dictate conditions to the creditor.

Project for the New American Century

The concept was formulated deliberately visionarily and aggressively with the emphasis on exclusion eight years ago. Recently the vision has got real contours, as it was put to practice: In Iraq, in Afghanistan, towards Russia, with the successful splitting of the EU unity, in Iran, in Pakistan. When it comes to European banks and businesses breaking off business connections with Iran in preemptive obedience33 because they are afraid of the self-proclaimed gods’ wrath in the Washington olymp and therefore cause losses of their own national economies, the time has come to take action. If Europe and other countries do not accept the conceded role as a victim and vassal, they must formulate their own vision and put it to political practice instead of mumbling in secret.

The cornerstones of a European counter program

What could be the corner stones of a Project for the European 21st Century, capable of summoning consent outside the USA, as it would not contain hegemonic ambitions. A project that would aim at directing the economic development primarily to the interior instead of misusing the world market as an arena for economic killer troops34? The following proposals are based on the results of a security policy analysis – one that can hardly be discounted – that Europe is not threatened militarily in the foreseeable future and therefore is not depending on American security guarantees any longer. The proposals are:
• Strengthening of Asia’s, Latin America’s and Africa’s regional economic cycles
• Encouragement and support of creating an Asian, Latin American and African economic community in accordance with the European model
• Support of the rudiments of the ASEAN Plus Three Group as far as they have been established yet35
• Support of the Mercosur Group in the Latin American unification process
• Strategic expansion of the economic co-operation between EU, Asia, Russia, Latin America and Africa36
• Change of the Maastrich standards with the goal of expanding the European infra structure and of creating new market channels beyond Eastern Europe
• Change of the monetary philosophy and function of the European Central Bank as servant to the dollar-ruled financial centers New York and London
• Breaking up with the ideology of working the national economies in direction of a large trade surplus. To continue this way would mean to support a dollar system on the verge of collapse37 outside and to break up the cohesion of the societies inside.
• Breaking up with the ideology of the free world market, which merely plays off the strong against the weak38
• Launching initiatives of EU governments for a new “Bretton Woods” for the reorganization of the world finance system in such a way that it will serve economic development.
• Establishing the Euro as an alternative to the Dollar as well as encouraging the Asian Central Banks in the diversification of their currency reserves.
• Cutting of all connections with ICF and World Bank
• Strengthening the Role of the Asian Development Bank39 as financer of regional economic structures – which up to now has been prevented by Washington
• Breaking up the Petro-Collar-Cartel by building privileged relations with oil supplying states including Russia
• Alteration of parasitical structures of European politics in particular with respect to agriculture and the negotiation positions in the Doha Round40 of the WTO
• Shifting the focus of finance policy to investments
• Coordination of European foreign policy, security and defense policy strictly inside the framework of the European Union
• Renunciation of the status and abilities of a global military power
• Orientation towards strictly defensive armed forces and expansion of their capacities to stabilize crisis regions on the grounds of a clear UN or OSCE mandate
• Initiative of the EU to establish a UN Standing Peacekeeping Force41
• Organizing a Near and Middle East Conference similar to the CSCE of the 1970s including all parties42
• Crisis prevention by the primacy of diplomacy and economy in foreign relations on the basis of interest coordination and mutuality
• Strict binding to the law43
• EU initiative to strengthen and reform the UN
• Initiative to fight terrorism exclusively by civilian means of criminal prosecution within UN limits44

China’s role

The USA are depending on the prevalence of the present world economic order. Only this order is able to guarantee the economic resources that – next to the dollar – are necessary to maintain the gigantic military apparatus that is indispensible for their role as a superpower. China is still a welcomed because indispensible buyer of American state papers. But it certainly won’t let itself be confined to this role in the long run. The issue of energy is vital for China, in particular in view of the steadily approaching US military presence. For many parties investing in the dollar a question has come up: For how much longer are the creditors willing to accept the debtor’s compulsory demand to exchange their trade surplus for inflationary paper money, thus financing an aggressive potential that might be directed against themselves?
If Europe does not summon the courage to turn the setscrews of world politics to the advantage of all actors it will have to continue to go along with the imperial power into the future globalization wars under the flag of “War on terrorism”. But military means are inadequate as instruments of repression. That has become obvious from Israel to Northern Ireland, from Afghanistan to Indonesia and the Philippines45.The reason is the nature of asymmetry. When it comes to catching leading figures of terror groups, all successes so far were the result of a patient and persistent work of a supranational network of police and intelligence agencies. Whoever chooses to employ military means, will get nothing but the new “Hundred Years’ War”46, of which the former CIA director James Woolsey spoke in order to enforce the Western vassals’ compliance.

Dynamite for the dollar system

Instead of subsidizing the decrepit engine of the world economy with their trade surplus the highly productive European economies should become themselves the engine. The USA’s threat to heckle the exports via the dollar will turn out as a bluff as soon as the Asian Central Banks go over to the Euro in an orderly way. Without their assets the US deficit can no longer be funded. China has already begun the diversification process, because the relative value of its dollar reserves is shrinking steadily. The ASEAN Plus Three Group is contemplating intensely the handing out of state securities in regional currencies. This is dynamite for the dollar system. Such a development needs to be guided with regard to its concepts and institutions. If it is left to itself, chaos is imminent, indeed; i.e. the chaos that Greenspan used so masterly as an instrument to enforce discipline.

A fair global economy is possible

Europe is strong enough to take on responsibility for a juster and fairer order of global economy together with Russia and Asia by way of an economic-strategic alliance. In order to be successful it has to be careful not to repeat the dollar empire’s faults of the last decades. The USA would not be able to evade the dynamics of such a process. Last not least its own economy would benefit from it. The advocates of the Atlantic alliance keep warning against US isolationism. This is another bluff, because the US geostrategic motives would never admit a thing like that. Isolationism would be the end of America’s role as a world imperial power, since the opposite shore Europe that has been secured with immense costs and is friendly in general, is vital. The US elites know that. So there is no reason to play the scaredy-cat.


Europe cannot evade a global role because of its political weight. That we are going to take it on, is being expected from us outside the West and in the executive floors of the UN. But this role should not be a copy or an appendix of the present hegemon. A world order with European character in this sense must be shaped in such a way that “Europe and the USA still feel at home in it, even if their position in it is no longer an outstanding one such as today.”47
If you replace Europe and the USA by England and France in this quotation that was originally meant for the international order, an essential secret of the European success becomes clear. Helmut Kohl and his predecessors knew about that. His followers, however, without the experience of a war – that he had – claim a sort of normalcy for Germany which is inappropriate in view of Germany’s history in the 20th century. They are sending false signals into the apparatus of the executive, where the political management of the medium level belongs to a generation that has not experienced nor reflect even the Cold War.48
Only an active commitment to the alteration of the global political general conditions can actually generate new maneuvering room. Every Euro that Europe spends on the repairing of a state which was before destroyed by American precision weapons, cannot be invested. Every Renminbi spent on the backing of the dollar, eludes the economic development of China’s home market.
The EU’s political rudiments for a rerouting have not yet passed their embryonic stage, although there are clear signals, e.g. from China.49 This could not be changed by the yearly “Asia-Europe-Meetings” and the visits of the German Chancellor to Bejing.
In view of the prognoses of the leading oil geologists and of the very fragile world finance system, however, time is running out. Moreover, the latest events in the Caucasus are denoting a change of paradigm: Russia is back on the world stage. The USA experienced their first real blowback just now, which Chalmers Johnson foresaw already eight years ago: “The USA like to view themselves as the victors of the Cold War. Most likely those who will look back in a hundred years, will not detect any victor at all, in particular if the United States go on with their present imperial course.”50
It is well-known how a battered boxer might react. That states as well might go for broke, if they feel they stand with their back to the wall, history has shown. The former Singapore diplomat Kishore Mahbubani indicated the Ragnarok for the West in his book that came out in 2008: “The New Asian Hemisphere. The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East.” On 20th August 2008 he wrote about the Westen media’s reception of the short war in Georgia:
“It is therefore critical for the west to learn the right lessons from Georgia. It needs to think strategically about the limited options it has. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, western thinkers assumed the west would never need to make geopolitical compromises. It could dictate terms. Now it must recognize reality. The combined western population in North America, the European Union and Australasia is 700 million, about 10 per cent of the world’s population. The remaining 90 per cent have gone from being objects of world history to subjects. ‹The Financial Times› headline of August 18, 2008 proclaimed: ‹West in united front over Georgia›. It should have read: ‹Rest of the world faults west on Georgia›.”
These insights have not yet reached the chief counsellor on foreign affairs of the democratic candidate for presidency, Zbigniew Brzezinski which becomes obvious in the following commentaries about the crisis in the Caucasus51:
“Currently, Europe – despite its economic strength, significant economic and financial integration, and the enduring authenticity of the transatlantic friendship – is a de facto military protectorate of the United States. This situation necessarily generates tensions and resentments, especially since the direct threat to Europe that made such dependence somewhat palatable has obviously waned. Nonetheless, it is not only a fact that the alliance between America and Europe is unequal, but it is also true that the existing asymmetry in power between the two is likely to widen even further in America’s favor.”52
The hubris expressed in these words as well as the fatal strategy of splitting Europe by including Poland and the Tchech Republic in their “National Missile Defense” (NMD) 53 demand an appropriate answer by Europe. And this will also be for the benefit of America.    •

For 38 years Jochen Scholz was a regular officer of the air force, now he works as an advisor to foreign affairs. During the last six years in office in the Federal Ministry of Defence he was appointed to the general inspector’s staff. Before that he served for twelve years in Nato bodies, six years in Nato staffs. The article is a revised version of a text sent to the Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI) und several German big businesses.

1 The Project for the New American Century (PNAC): “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, September 2000, by Paul Wolfowitz (ed.),
2 Johannes J. Reich (Bankhaus Metzler) in: Managermagazin vom 27.05.03, in: “Die neue Weltordnung”,,2828,249860,00.html
3, See also: und
5 Cf. William F. Engdahl: Wird Asien den Dollar aufgeben?,
9 Cf. Faksimile page 7 and 8, in: Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik 9/2000,
10 Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy,
11 Cf. footnote 1
12 US-President from 1825 to1829, Co-founder of the “Monroe-Doctrine”
13 Cf. Studien von Zeit-Fragen, Jahrbuch 2001,
14 Cf. and
15 Cf. Texts of the UN Security Resolutions 1368 and 1373, September 2001:
16 Freihandel, Liberalisierung, Deregulierung, Subventionsabbau, Privatisierung, Zahlungsfähigkeit für Schuldendienst. See also:
18 Cf. William F. Engdahl: Mit der Ölwaffe zur Weltmacht, Kopp-Verlag Rottenburg am Neckar, 2007 and
19  Cf. Jürgen Elsässer: Wie der Dschihad nach Europa kam. Gotteskrieger und Geheimdienste auf dem Balkan, Niederösterreichisches Pressehaus, St. Pölten 2005
20 Quoted from Die Zeit, Nummer 6/2008,
21 Cf. ASPO Deutschland 
22 Cf. “Submission to the Cabinet Office on Energy Policy” by The Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, September 9, 2001,, Simmons, Matthew, address to Association for the Study of Peak Oil, May 27, 2003, French Petroleum Institute (IFP), Campbell, Colin, “Forecasting Global Oil Supply 2000–2050”, M. King Hubbert Centre for Petroleum Supply Studies, Colorado School of Mines, July 2002, See also: Princeton University Geology Department, Universität Uppsala, Douglas-Westwood Ltd., Petroconsultants Schweiz
23 Produced on the basis of “Strategic Energy Policy: Challenge for the 21st Century”, James Baker Institute for Public Policy and Council on Foreign Relations, Houston, April 2001.
24 Cf.
25 Cf. Foreign Policy in Focus
26 See for example: African Command,
27 Quoted from Studien von Zeitfragen, Jahrbuch 2004, , see as well: “Wolfowitz: The Iraq War was about Oil”, “The Guardian”, 4. Juni 2003 in a report on the security conference in Singapur,
28 Cf. London Institute of Petroleum, 1999,
29 Cf. Paul O’Neill, first Finance Minister under George W. Bush in Mid-East Realities, 10. Januar 2004,
30 “The overriding motivation for this political -smokescreen [War against Terrorism] is that the US and UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies… As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.”, Michael Meacher, British environment Minister from 1997–2003, “This War on Terrorism is Bogus” in: “The Guardian”, 6. September 2003
31 “Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly and widely perceived direct external threat.”, Zbigniew Brzezinski in “The Grand Chessboard” (1997), Seite 211
33 Deutsche Bank gibt Iran-Gschäft auf,,1518,497032,00.html
34 Cf. «Confessions of an Economic Hitman»,
37 Cf. footnote 5
38 Cf. Karl Polanyi, The great Transformation, 1944, German by Suhrkamp 1978, Taschenbuch Wissenschaft 260,, and John Gray, Die falsche Verheissung, Alexander Fest Verlag, Berlin 1999, Buchkritik:
41 Cf.
43 The European security strategy, e.g., does not guarantee that it will take military action exclusively on the basis oft he Charta of the UN , cf.
44 Cf. the study of the RAND Corporation , Juli 2008 “How Terrorist Groups end”,           
45 The number of attacks and battles against the ISAF troops rose from 20 per month to 250 during the years 2005 to 2008. (August 2008, Source: author’s archive)
46 Cf.
47 The former German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher: “Politikberatung durch Immanuel Kant” in “Der Tagesspiegel” vom 10. Februar 2004
48 Cf. the scandalous statements of a State Department diplomat on the occasion of a presentation of seminar findings at the Federal Academy for Security Policy on the topic of “Energy Security 2050” in June 2008, , also «Bär und Drache»,
49 Cf. “China’s EU Policy Paper”, 13. October 2003, Chinese State Department of Foreign Affairs
50 Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (Holt/Owl), see as well
52 Quoted from Studien von Zeitfragen, Jahrbuch 2001,
53 See as well: Keir A. Liebr, Darley G. Press, “The End of MAD”,, und “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy” in Foreign Affairs, April/Mai 2006, S. 42 – 54,