Peter Kramer

Peter Kramer
Thank you for your service.

14 words

14 words
We do for the love of our people.

Monday, January 28, 2013

WPWW Flyer 2013



Equal Rights
for
NZ Whites
Are you tired of  money and grants given to anyone accept whites?

Are you tired of being called a racist because your proud of your own skin color?

Isn't it time left wing Hypocrisy and lunacy is put to an end?

Stop the Shame based brow beating and anti white propaganda that our society is smothered with.

Give us the right to express our love and pride of our people, and to explore our culture and history without disgusting remarks from liberal zombies.

White Pride Day 23rd March, 2013, Christchurch
We stand for Conservative White Patriotic civil rights!

RWRNZ: 0220343593
www.rwrnz.blogspot.com



Saturday, January 26, 2013

Good news re WPWW day

We have two confirmed Leaders from Aussie Patriot orgs coming to WPWW DAY in Christchurch 23rd March.

Also we have some media confirmed to come. It will be a good opportunity for us to launch our new uniforms.

Location and time for the demonstration still being worked out.

Tickets for sale now for the gig. $30 each now, $35 on the night.

Tattoo comp at the gig will be $5 registration, that goes into pool for winnings. Two Categories  best white pride style tat, and best general style.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Water War part 2


Conservancy Committee said publicly that the mega-plan enjoys official sanction and may begin by 2010.”65

China is clearly being duplicitous in its public pronouncements on its intentions in regard to Brahmaputra. Past and present actions indicate that Beijing expects to get its own way over any disputes regarding territory and resources, and China is not about to back down or “loose face” on one of the most vital issues of survival.
Dr Chellaney states that the first phase of China’s South-North Project involves building 300 km of tunnels and channels to draw waters from the Jinsha, Yalong and Dadu rivers, on the eastern rim of the Tibetan plateau. In the second phase the Brahmaputra waters would be directed northward.
“In fact, Beijing has identified the bend where the Brahmaputra forms the world’s longest and deepest canyon just before entering India as holding the largest untapped reserves for meeting its water and energy needs.”66

Chellaney considers that the re-routing of the Brahmaputra “would constitute the declaration of a water war on lower-riparian India and Bangladesh.”
Most of Asia's major rivers – the Yellow, the Yangzi, the Mekong, Salween, Irrawaddy, Brahmaputra, Ganges, Sutlej, and Indus – draw on the glaciers and snowmelt of the Himalayas. Except for the Ganges the source for these rivers is in Tibet.
The diversion of the Yalong Zangbo/ Brahmaputra would impact on Eastern India and Bangladesh, with a combined population larger than North China's, could be devastating. “The potential for such a project to create conflicts between China and India –and to exacerbate existing conflicts over shared waterways between India and Bangladesh – is gigantic. ...”, states Kenneth Pomeranz 67

Central Asia
This conflict over water while most obviously affecting the relations between India and China and further afield into South-east Asia, also has major consequences in Central Asia and potentially also draws China into conflict with Russia.
Irtysh River, which shares borders with China, Russia, and Kazakhstan, places relations between these states in the same predicament as that between India and China over the Brahmaputra. Despite China’s assurances, like Beijing’s dubious assurances over the Brahmaputra, in regard to Irtysh:
“Patience ran out when Beijing started construction of a canal linking the Black Irtysh with the Karamai River on Chinese territory, dramatically lowering the water level in the river. China's water-management policy threatens to drastically reduce crop production in the environmentally vulnerable regions of East Kazakhstan, Pavlodar, and Karaganda.”68

Yermukanov adds that, “Such a move could also cause a severe drought in Russia's wheat-growing Omsk region.”
In November 2005, in a desperate attempt to prevent an environmental disaster, the Governor of Omsk region, Leonid Polezhayev, ordered 10 billion roubles to be allocated for the construction of a huge water reservoir to accumulate floodwaters for industrial use. He argued that a political solution to the Irtysh River dispute was not feasible, since the Chinese did not wish to negotiate69.
Yermukanov cites the pessimism of Russian Sinologists in regard to China’s willingness to negotiate other than for the purpose of stalling: “Experts familiar with the state of affairs on the Chinese side are less optimistic about Beijing's resolve to solve the problem of water resources in the Irtysh-Ili basin without dragging out the talks endlessly.” This has
certainly been the case in China’s negotiations with India over the course of thirteen years in regard to Brahmaputra.
In 2004 China opened a hydroelectric power station that consumes 15% of the Ili River's water resources. 65 hydroelectric power stations have already been built on the Ili River. China is planning to build another 13 reservoirs.70 Dr Bobo Lo states that, many in the Kazakh Government are not even aware of the extent of China’s hydro projects. He states that:
“…Environmentalists warn that in the next few years China will build additional hydroelectric power installations along the Irtysh and Ili Rivers. Among the installations not revealed to the Kazakh government delegation is the Kapshagay (a hydroelectric power station in Kazakhstan carries the same name) water reservoir, with the enormous capacity of 380 million cubic meters.”71

Yermukanov refers to the industrialisation of northwestern China’s polluting of Lake Balkhash, and the increased food production in Xingjiang Uighur. He points to Chinese mismanagement, and to the refusal of China to sign an agreement on shared water resources.
“The forced industrial development of north-western China is likely to pollute Lake Balkhash in Kazakhstan with chemicals and fertilizers, as the Ili River feeds the lake. The increase of paddy fields in Xingjiang Uighur Autonomous Region has already led to the depletion of the Irtysh and Ili Rivers. According to the latest data, as a result of mismanagement the annual loss of water in the Chinese section of the Ili River basin makes up 4.4 cubic kilometres, which equals 15% of the whole water resources of the river. That reduces substantially the amount of water inflow into Lake Balkhash. The root cause of the problem is that until now China had not signed the international convention on trans-border waters.…”72

Yermukanov ominously points to the ethnic dynamics of the region, which he states could lead to violence. The Chinese are changing the demographics of the region with Chinese ethnic incursions, in the name of peaceful commerce. Yermukanov also reveals that China has territorial designs on Kazakhstan. While Bobo Lo maintains that China is too pragmatic and has too much to lose to continue pressing its territorial claims on Russia as it did under Mao, its present designs on Kazakh lands give pause to thought in regard to whether it has indeed forgone its ambitions in regard to Russia:
In addition to the intransigent territorial claims against India, Vietnam and Russia, China also claims territories in Kazakhstan. Yermukanov states that despite border agreements between Kazakhstan and China, “Beijing did not abandon altogether territorial claims on some southern regions of Kazakhstan. Some years ago a Kazakh Foreign Ministry delegation was surprised to see the former capital, Almaty; Balkhash; and other areas of south Kazakhstan marked as parts of China on a map in Beijing's central museum. The Foreign Ministry of Kazakhstan filed an official protest, and the Chinese promised to correct the mistake. But the school text on Xingjiang history lists the same parts of Kazakhstan as Chinese territory.”73

U.N. worries over potential for ‘water wars’
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has already expressed concern about the disputes over water between states in the Middle East. At the 2007 Asia-Pacific Water Summit Ban Ki-moon stated that, “Our planet faces a growing water crisis. But the situation in the Asia-Pacific region is especially troubling. High population growth, unsustainable consumption, pollution and poor management all threaten the area’s clean water sources.”74
A 2009 UNESCO report, Water in a Changing World, refers to the need for urgent action if a “global water crisis” is to be avoided.75 Indeed, the UNESCO report places water problems at the centre of potential crises leading to national and even global conflicts:
“Water is linked to the crises of climate change, energy and food supplies and prices, and troubled financial markets. Unless their links with water are addressed and water crises around the world are resolved, these other crises may intensify and local water crises may worsen, converging into a global water crisis and leading to political insecurity and conflict at various levels.”76

What can be stated with relative confidence is that it won’t be the United Nations Organisation or any other such international organisation, treaty or agreement that will forestall or avert crises resulting from the competition for water resources. Such utopian schemes from Alexander the Great’s vision of a multicultural world empire to the League of Nations and Wilson’s Fourteen Points, and the complete failure of the UNO since its foundation to avert war, or even improve the atmosphere relating to confrontation between tribes and states, have intrinsically failed. The appeal to “humanity” or to “the human race” is too nebulous to succeed. Should such schemes succeed in establishing what has recently being called a New World Order, history and current situations indicate that the globalist “cure” would be at least as terrifying as the problem, and if successful would establish a world state that would in turn operate at the behest of whatever coterie of power-bloc gets the upper hand. From thence the cycle of competition would resume… We are at this moment and have for the past several decades been witnessing the efforts of the UNO, NATO and other alliances to establish “peacefully” and “humanly” this New World Order, as per the bombing into submission of Yugoslavia and Iraq.

Geopolitical shifts
Since the implosion of the Soviet bloc, a mono-polar world has emerged revolving around the USA, and challenged by an Islamic bloc. Russia and China77 have attempted to confront this mono-polar post-Cold War situation by forming a pact between each other and bordering states78. This holds out the prospect of a Eurasian bloc to confront the world hegemony of the USA, which seeks to draw to it the European Union and return Europe to the subordinate role she played vis-à-vis the USA during the Cold War, pushed into coming under the US orbit by the fear of Warsaw Pact invasion. The US now uses the “war on terror” as the same fear-based strategy to maintain its world’s power, and it was the first war against Iraq that was used by President George H W Bush to announce the desire for a New World Order as the basis of the USA’s post-Cold War policy.79
The USA is not a natural leader of any Western bloc or alliance with Europe. It is and always has been a misnomer to call the USA “leader of the Western world.” The USA at its founding arose as a dichotomy between Puritans and Freemasons80. The USA has since the time of Woodrow Wilson81 regarded Europe is its vassal. The USA sought to unite Europe on US terms. America does not represent a new and vibrant nation, but an excrescence of the degenerate cycle of Europe emanating from Europe’s Age of Enlightenment, when Europe had repudiated its own cultural and spiritual roots, starting from the Reformation.82 Hence, the USA has forever been soulless, and money obsessed and offers no leadership, but relies on money, advanced weaponry and global cultural subversion in creating its New World Order.
The US global agenda largely proceeds from cultural subversion, which is antithetical to traditional Western culture, and indeed all traditional cultures. Maj. Ralph Peters outlined the cultural offensive in an article for the Parameters in 1997. Here Peters states that the world is “entering a new American century”, in which America’s increased power will be concomitant with being “culturally more lethal.” He alludes to the “clash of civilisations” and democracy as the “liberal form of imperialism.” Peters wrote of how America would dominate through cultural subversion, stating, “Hollywood goes where Harvard never penetrated…. American culture is the most powerful in history, and the most destructive competitor of cultures. … Our military power is culturally based. … For the majority of our citizens, our vulgar, near-chaotic, marvellous culture is the greatest engine of positive change in history…. But American culture is infectious, a plague of pleasure…. But Hollywood is ‘preparing the battlefield’, and burgers precede bullets. The flag follows trade….”83
Peters, retiring in 1998 as a lieutenant colonel, wrote the article in Parameters, entitled “Constant Conflict”84, when he was attached to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. He continues to be a commentator and writer on military strategy and foreign policy.
In the face of American globalism and cultural penetration Russia is the natural alignment for a European bloc if it is based around states that are historically resistant to US hegemony over Europe, such as France, a major player in the European Union.
The USA seeks to co-opt China into the world economy, as indicated previously with reference to the Soros comments and the long-running actions of the Rockefeller dynasty, and in turn is at the mercy of Chinese financial investment, creating a symbiotic relationship between the two.85 The USA has in the recent past sought out alignment with China in order to contain Russia86. This is a possibility again, as it would be strategically plausible for the USA to back China vis-à-vis Russia.
Any repudiation of a mono-polar world based on US hegemony again centres on Russia, whose Governments after the end of the US-orientated Yeltsin era aim to restore Russian global influence. The alliance between China and Russia is contrary to history and ethnography and will not last. It is not a natural geopolitical alliance, for reasons outlined in this essay, and dealt with specifically in this writer’s paper Russia and China: an approaching conflict?87 China will confront India, Russia and Central Asia in a struggle for resources, especially including water, as I have attempted to show in this essay. Central Asia, India and other states as far away as Vietnam will gravitate towards Russia as China becomes increasingly hegemonic.
A Latin American bloc is emerging around Venezuela. Combined a South American bloc will have immense mineral and food resources. A Bolivarian revolution is taking place throughout Latin America under the inspiration of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela88. This Latin American bloc is forming in defiance of North American hegemonic ambitions, as it has traditionally done. This bloc is already in the process of formation and was launched as The Bolivarian Alternative for the People of Our America (ALBA) in 2004 by Venezuela and Cuba as an alternative to the U.S.- backed Free Trade Area of the Americas. By June 2009, ALBA had grown to nine member states, and the name was changed to the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America. A Latin American bloc will consequently seek alignment with Russia, and Venezuela is already doing so. 89.
New Zealand and Australia are being forced into Asia on economic grounds. Ethnography is not being taken into account, and therefore the prospect of an “Asian bloc” cannot work other than to submerge New Zealand and Australia as subordinate vassal sates to China, which will be the focus of any such bloc. Vietnam and India would not accede to an Asian bloc dominated by China. To view such an Asian bloc as a geopolitical evolution is not to consider the ethnographic and historical factors. New Zealand and Australia are outposts of European culture. They were founded as vibrant cultural expressions, but both were detached
from their cultural roots, first by cutting off the allegiances to Britain, then by substituting the British cultural foundations for American cosmopolitanism and commerce. Britain and New Zealand were thereby denied the time during which to evolve their own national folk cultures, and now remain culturally and spiritually barren. Hence both are easy prey for parasitic global commerce and have readily accepted an Asian identity.
The concept of the Asian bloc under Chinese hegemony, and including Australia and New Zealand are the product of specific plutocratic interests in the USA centred around the Rockefeller dynasty in particular. John D. Rockefeller III set up the Asia Center in 1956 as a preliminary interest group to promote an Asia bloc. The by-line on the Asia Society’s website is: “Preparing Asians and Americans for a shared future.”90. Trustees currently include: Charles P. Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller IV. To promote an Asia bloc as part of a global economic structure, the Trilateral Commission was established in 1973 by David Rockefeller, listed on the Commission’s website as the “Founder and Honorary North American Chairman (1977-1991).
The agenda of the Trilateral Commission has been widened in recent years to further the ‘new world order’ that is also being sought by similar think tanks, again with Rockefeller influence, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (David Rockefeller is CFR emeritus chairman), and the Bilderberg Group. Hence, the Trilateral Commission states that the regional groupings being incorporated into the Trilateralist scheme now include Mexico (reflecting the push for the NAFTA American Free Trade Agreement that includes Mexico), and the “Japan Group” has now become the “Pacific Asian Group” reflecting the push for a Pacific-wide union. The Trilateral Commission states of this:
“Two strong convictions guide our thinking for the 2006-2009 triennium. First, the Trilateral Commission remains as important as ever in helping our countries fulfil their shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system and, second, its framework needs to be widened to reflect broader changes in the world. Thus, the Japan Group has become a Pacific Asian Group, and Mexican members have been added to the North American Group. The European Group continues to widen in line with the enlargement of the EU. …”91

The widened Pacific Asia Group within the Trilateral Commission includes representatives from China and Hong Kong.92
Leading proponents of an East Asian bloc include Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and Japan’s Yukio Hatoyama. Rudd in particular considers the USA to be a focus of such a bloc. The U.S. signed a friendship pact with the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) in July 2009 to extend relations. China’s Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue states China is “positive and open” to the establishment of an “East Asian community”.93
Given the long history of relations between the USA and China, often covert, and often with a contrived façade of rivalry, New Zealand and Australia and other states in the Pacific, in addition to India, should not regard the USA as a reliable ally in the face of any Chinese threats.94

Towards an ANAZAC bloc
This essay has dealt primarily with the upheaval that is approaching in Asia particularly as the result of water shortages. This upheaval will result in geopolitical dramatic shifts, and the reversal of current, and even now, uneasy, alliances, such as those centring around the Central Asia and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in particular. Chinese efforts at regional hegemony and incursions into Russia and India, will prompt a new bloc with Russia and India as the foci.
New Zealand and Australia, like India in the Asian sphere, constitute a separate cultural and economic axis, around which a Pacific bloc outside of Asia can and should develop. Like India, Australia is a Continental Nation - potentially. New Zealand is for historical and ethnographic reasons intrinsically bound with Australia, and awaiting the assertion of an ANZAC95 axis to confront the approaching crises to the north. Within this ANAZAC axis naturally congregate the small island states of Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia, over which China has been seeking to expand its hegemony in recent years.96 The first task is for New Zealand and Australia to extricate themselves from Chinese and other detrimental Asia free trade agreements97. The second task of any such ANZAC bloc is to increase economic, diplomatic and military relations with the island states and counter Chinese influence, as well as possible Indonesian incursions in relation to New Guinea and East Timor. The third issue is for such an ANZAC bloc to look to India and Russia as allies on the world stage rather than the USA and China.
An ANZAC bloc that includes the small island states, many of which are presently succumbing to Chinese bribes of aid, in particular should be able to look to the strength of the two main constituent states, Australia and New Zealand. Such a sovereign geopolitical entity if brought out from under the control of foreign capital and exploitation of their resources and permitted to self-develop would, like a self-developed European Union, or Bolivarian bloc, possess vast potential of mineral wealth and food, and the potential to develop alliances with states based on genuine geopolitical and ethnographic considerations rather than being pushed by globalist economics.

K R Bolton Ph.D., Th.D., FCIS, is an independent New Zealand researcher, and a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research (http://www.academy-of-social-and-political-research.com) Recent publications include: “Russia and China: an approaching conflict?” Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, Washington, Vol. 34, no. 2, Summer 2009; “Trotskyism and the family”, CKR, Sociology Dept., Moscow State University, October 2009, and Geopolitica, Russia, November 2009; and “Multiculturalism and globalisation”, Ab Aeterno, Journal of the Academy of Social and Political Research, No. 1, November, 2009. Contact: vindex@clear.net.nz

Notes
1 Rival. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rival (accessed: October 19, 2009). 2 Jung Chang & Jon Halliday, Mao: the unknown story (London: Jonathan Cape, 2005), 570-571. 3 Bruce Elleman, “Sino-Soviet Relations and the February 1979 Sino-Vietnamese Conflict”, 20 April 1996 http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/events/1996_Symposium/96papers/elleviet.htm Vietnam Center, Texas Tech University, http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/ 4 Robert A Scalapino, “The Political Influence of the USSR in Asia”, in Donald S. Zagoria, ed., Soviet Policy in East Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 71. 5 Considering the symbiotic relationship between China and the USA economically, the USA is unlikely to intervene against regional conflicts in Asia. 6 http://www.paracelspratlyislands.blogspot.com (accessed October 29, 2009).
7 Bill Emmott, Rivals: How the Power Struggle Between China, India and Japan Will Shape Our Next Decade (London: Allen Lane, 2008). Cited in: Times Online, May 30, 2008, “Tibet is one thing, but India and China tensions spell bigger disaster”. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3645001.ece (accessed October 29, 2009). 8 Ibid. 9 Dr Bobo Lo for example, whilst pointing out the expansionist intent of China, does not believe that this will result in military conflict. Bobo Lo, Russia-China: Axis of Convenience, May 20, 2008, 2008, http://www.opendemocracy.net/user/511394 (accessed October 29, 2009). 10 K R Bolton, “Russia and China: An Approaching Conflict?” Journal of Social, Economic and Political Studies, Washington, Vol. 34, No. 2, Summer 2009, pp. 154-194. 11Sandeep Dikshit, “India China to sate up hotline”, The Hindu, August 9, 2009, p. 1.
12 “Manmohan Singh says India committed to promote its relations with China”, Thaindian News, October 1st, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:sRUHaAtkXYwJ:www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/manmohan-singh-says-india-committed-to-promote-its-relations-with- china_100254569.html+china+india+%22shared+vision%22+press+release&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 21, 2009). 13 “A Shared Vision for the 21st Century of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of India”, Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco, January 14, 2008, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Xu9S29da7sQJ:www.chinaconsulatesf.org/eng/xw/t399545.htm+china+india+%22shared+vision%22+press+release&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 21, 2009).
14 This involved a ban on toys from China, an action, which had significant economic consequences. China makes the majority of the world’s toys of which India imports 350 million pounds annually. It has been suggested the real reason for the ban was in retaliation for China’s growing links with Pakistan. Malcolm Moore, “China outraged after India bans all toy imports”, Daily Telegraph, February 4, 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4511451/China-outraged-after-India-bans-all-toy-imports.html (accessed October 21, 2009). 15 “India to finance ’sensitive’ areas’ projects itself: Krishna”, Thaindian News, August 17, 2009, http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/india-to-finance-sensitive-areas-projects-itself-krishna_100233891.html (accessed October 29, 2009). 16 John Cherion, “China bogey”, Frontline: India’s national magazine, Volume 26 - Issue 21, October, 10-23, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:pHCY8ETII2MJ:www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20091023262103700.htm+%22line+of+actual+control%22+%2BIn+June+2009,+the+Indian+Government+announced+the+deployment+of+an+additional+60,000+soldiers&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 29, 2009). 17 “India’s unwise military moves”, Global Times, June 9, 2009, cited in: PakTribune, “Cow (India) Desire of Hitting Bull (China)”, August 10, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:5VOcJaMz9MgJ:www.paktribune.com/news/index.php%3Fid%3D217944+%22Global+times%22+%2B+june+9+2009+%2B+%E2%80%9Cto+consider+whether+or+not+it+can+afford+the+consequences+of+a+potential+confrontation+with+China%E2%80%9D.&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 29, 2009). The Paktribune article also cites a further Chinese article, stating: “An affiliate of the People’s Daily published a Chinese language article on June 12 which translates to “India is a paper tiger and its use of force will be trounced, say experts.” 18 K R Bolton, Russia and China: an Approaching Conflict?, op.cit. 19 Quoted in The South China Morning Post, “China and India resume talks over disputed border”, August 7, 2009, 6. 20 Joseph Kahn, Last Stop, “Lhasa: Rail Link Ties Remote Tibet to China”, The New York Times, July 2, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/world/asia/02tibet.html (accessed October 29, 2009). 21 Brahma Chellaney is one of India’s most eminent strategy analysts, serving as Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based think tank, the Centre for Policy Research. He was a Member of the Policy Advisory Group headed by the External Affairs Minister of India. Chellaney was an adviser to India's National Security Council until January 2000, serving as convenor of the External Security Group of the National Security Advisory Board, and a member of the Board's Nuclear Doctrine Group. 22 Brahmas Chellaney, “View: Sino-Indian water divide”, Pakistan Daily Times, August 4, 2009, http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\08\04\story_4-8-2009_pg3_3 (accessed October 27, 2009). 23 For an examination of Chinese naval expansion throughout the world, with emphasis on the Pacific see: K R Bolton, A Wider Paranoia?: The Menace of China in the Pacific (Paraparaumu, New Zealand: Spectrum Press, 2004). 24 “India plans to build 100 warships, work on 32 vessels already under way”, The Nation, July 31, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:A4rvAzhM4tsJ:www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/31-Jul-2009/India-plans-to-build-100-warships-work-on-32-vessels-already-under-way--FT+Bhatnagar+stated:+%E2%80%9CChina+is+developing+its+navy+at+a+great+rate.+Its+ambitions+in+the+Indian+Ocean+are+quite+clear&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 29, 2009). 25 Peter Ford, “Rivals China, India in escalating war of words”, The Christian Science Monitor, October 20, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1020/p06s04-woap.html (accessed October 21, 2009). 26 Ben Arnoldy, “Growing number of China incursions into India lead to a strategy change”, The Christian Science Monitor, September 29, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0929/p06s06-wosc.html (accessed October 22, 2009). 27 Ben Arnoldy, ibid. 28 Ben Arnoldy, ibid. 29 Ben Arnoldy, ibid. 30 Ben Arnoldy, ibid. 31 Ratified by US Congress, October 1, 2008. The nuclear treaty with the USA might more cynically be viewed as a means of restraining India while China has no such restraints. The Treaty places India’s nuclear energy development under the scrutiny of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), and reaffirms India’s continue moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. “India works toward negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) with the United States banning the production of fissile material for weapons purposes. India agrees to prevent the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that don't possess them and to support international non-proliferation efforts.” Esther Pan and Jayshree Bajoria, Backgrounder: The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal, Council on Foreign Relations, October 2, 2008, http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/ 32 Informed US political commentators have pointed out the President Obama came from nowhere to the presidency with the backing of anti-Russia Soros-Brzezinski interests. US investigative journalist and lecturer Webster G Tarpley forcefully states that: “Barack Obama came in as the candidate of the Brzezinski-Soros machine, overwhelmingly focused on the need to assert Anglo-American world domination over Russia… We immediately find that Obama’s foreign policy is made by the Russia-hater Zbigniew Brzezinski of the Washington Center for Strategic and International Studies and the gray eminence of the Democratic Party foreign policy establishment. … But Zbigniew is not just an individual; he is the gruff patriarch of an extended clan of intelligence operatives around which an entire coterie of the intelligence community is grouped. One is his son Mark Brzezinski, who served in the National Security Council during the Clinton era. Zbigniew and Mark jointly directed the infamous orange revolution in the Ukraine in November and December 2004, which brought a pro-NATO puppet regime of kleptocrats and oligarchs to power deep into the former Soviet territory. At one point in this operation, it looked like the pro-Russian eastern Ukraine might secede, leading to possible civil war within that country. … The outlines of Zbigniew’s plan are also clear: he considers himself the man who shattered the Warsaw Pact, and who then brought on the collapse of the entire Soviet Union. Now he wants to dismember the Russian Federation itself, with the option of carving up the Russian heartland….” (Webster G Tarpley, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarOnFreedom/message/4141, accessed October 30, 2009). In an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in 2005 Brzezinski was frank about the subversive agenda being directed against Russia by the USA: “The United States is supporting and de facto promoting geopolitical pluralism in the space of the [former] Soviet Union.” U.S./Russia: Zbigniew Brzezinski Assesses U.S.-Russia Relations, May 11, 2005 http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1058818.html (accessed October 30, 2009). Brzezinski was National Security Adviser in the Carter Administration, and the founding director of the Trilateral Commission. Like Kissinger, he remains a key policy adviser. George Soros, the currency speculator, was a major backer of the Obama presidency. Through Soros’ Open Society Institute and Soros Foundation and a myriad of think tanks and lobbies, it is the Soros network that has fomented the “colour revolutions” throughout the former Soviet republics. Russia and the former Soviet republics are the major focus of Soros’ attention. For a quite open and informative outline of Soros activities see the website of the Soros Foundation and Open Society Institute under the “Central and Eastern Europe” section: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/regions/central-eastern_europe (accessed October 30, 2009). 33 “Poliverse” is a term used by leading Russian geopolitical theorist Dr A G Dugin, director of the Center for Conservative Studies, Moscow State University, in explaining the aim of creating a global order based on a number of geopolitical “vectors”, as opposed to global hegemony by one or two super-powers. This “poliverse” would comprise self-contained geopolitical blocs. (See A. G. Dugin, “The Eurasian Idea”, Ab Aeterno, Issue 1, November 2009. (http://academy-of-social-and-political-research.com; and http://konservatizm.org). 34 Among the many agreements signed by President Medvedev's on the his state visit to India were the Agreement on Construction of Additional Nuclear Plants at Kudankulum site as well as Construction of Russian-designed Nuclear Power Plants at New Sites within Republic of India. See: Dr. Subhash Kapila, Russia: President Medvedev's visit to India (December 2008) reviewed, Paper No. 2978, December 10, 2008. This includes as an appendix of the entire Indo-Russian declaration: Joint Declaration between the Republic of India and the Russian Federation During the visit of the President of the Russian Federation (December 5,2008). http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Ot99UtWcFRIJ:www.southasiaanalysis.org/%255Cpapers30%255Cpaper2978.html+india+russia+nucelar+energy+december+2008&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 30, 2009). 35 Vladimir Radyuhin, “New 10-year defence tie-up with Russia finalised”, The Hindu, October 16, 2009, http://www.hindu.com/2009/10/16/stories/2009101659881000.htm (accessed October 21, 2009). 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Peter Ford, op.cit. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Dan Murphy, “Indian Ocean as new strategic field”, The Christian Science Monitor, June 28, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0703/p12s01-wosc.html (accessed October 22, 2009). 45 “Transcript: George Soros interview”, Financial Times, London, Published: October 23 2009, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e2dfb82-c018-11de-aed2-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1 (accessed October 30, 2009). 46 New Zealand and Australia as European states that are being forced into Asia at the behest of political and business interests, are not informed regarding Asian rivalries and the consequences in regard to control of water resources. 47 Fire Earth: environmental issues, “Drought: China’s Arch Nemesis, February 26, 2009, http://feww.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/ (accessed October 30, 2009). 48 Ibid. 49 Xinhuanet official news agency, “China suffers great losses form desertification”, June 17, 2003. “China is losing 4.5 billion tons of soil each year”; cited by Reuters, “China's crops at risk from massive erosion”, November 21, 2008, http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4AK1J220081121?sp=true (accessed October 26, 2009).
50 Ibid. 51 NASA: “NASA Hydrologist Matt Rodell discusses vanishing groundwater in India”, August 12, 2009, http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html (accessed October 26, 200). 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid. 55 Brahma Chellaney, “China aims for bigger share of South Asia’s water lifeline”, Japan Times, June 26, 2007. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. 59 Of the numerous campaigns conducted by human rights activists against the Chinese occupation of Tibet, and the reports on the subject in the news media, little attention seems to have been given to Tibet’s importance in terms of geo-politics, water and mineral resources. It seems to be the general view that control over Tibet is simply a matter of Chinese pride. China is not about to relinquish control over Tibet under any circumstances. Tibet is crucial to China’s survival. 60 Braham Chellaney, “China aims for bigger share of South Asia’s water lifeline”, op.cit. 61 Brahma Chellaney, “View: Sino-Indian water divide”, op.cit. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Kenneth Pomeranz, "The Great Himalayan Watershed: Water Shortages, Mega-Projects and Environmental Politics in China, India, and Southeast Asia," The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 30, July 27, 2009. 68 Marat Yermukanov, “China obstructs River Management Talks with Kazakhstan”, February 17, 2006 Eurasia Daily Monitor, Jamestown Foundation, http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2370793. The Jamestown Foundation is a US based think tank specialising in the analysis of the affairs of the republics of the former USSR, and is staffed by academic specialists. Eurasia Daily Monitor is the Foundation’s publication. Yermukanov is a journalist working for the Russian-language private newspaper Panorama Nedely in Petropavlovsk, North Kazakhstan. 69 Marat Yermukanov, op.cit., citing Izvestiya Kazakhstan, February 14), 2005. 70 Bobo Lo, “Russia-China: Axis of Convenience”, May 20, 2008 http://www.opendemocracy.net/user/511394, citing: Novoye pokolenie, February 10, 2005. 71 Bob Lo, ibid. 72 Marat Yermukanov, op.cit. 73 Ibid. 74 United Nations media release, “Secretary General to inaugural Asia-Pacific Water Summit”, December 3, 2007, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sgsm11311.doc.htm (accessed October 28, 2009).
75 The 3rd United Nations World Water Development Report, UNESCO, Water in a changing world, March 2009. 76 Water in a changing world, ibid., Overview of key messages, xx, http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr3/pdf/08_WWDR3_overview_of_key_msgs.pdf (accessed October 28, 2009). 77 As this essay hopefully clearly shows, the pact between Russia and China has historical and ethnographic factors working against it and is an historical aberration, which will disintegrate with the types of pressures that are considered here. See also K R Bolton, Russia and China: an approaching conflict? Op.cit. 78 Central Asia and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. 79 In his speech before Congress declaring war on Iraq Bush stated: “This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order-- a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful -- and we will be -- we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfil the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders.” Pres. George

Conservancy Committee said publicly that the mega-plan enjoys official sanction and may begin by 2010.”65

China is clearly being duplicitous in its public pronouncements on its intentions in regard to Brahmaputra. Past and present actions indicate that Beijing expects to get its own way over any disputes regarding territory and resources, and China is not about to back down or “loose face” on one of the most vital issues of survival.
Dr Chellaney states that the first phase of China’s South-North Project involves building 300 km of tunnels and channels to draw waters from the Jinsha, Yalong and Dadu rivers, on the eastern rim of the Tibetan plateau. In the second phase the Brahmaputra waters would be directed northward.
“In fact, Beijing has identified the bend where the Brahmaputra forms the world’s longest and deepest canyon just before entering India as holding the largest untapped reserves for meeting its water and energy needs.”66

Chellaney considers that the re-routing of the Brahmaputra “would constitute the declaration of a water war on lower-riparian India and Bangladesh.”
Most of Asia's major rivers – the Yellow, the Yangzi, the Mekong, Salween, Irrawaddy, Brahmaputra, Ganges, Sutlej, and Indus – draw on the glaciers and snowmelt of the Himalayas. Except for the Ganges the source for these rivers is in Tibet.
The diversion of the Yalong Zangbo/ Brahmaputra would impact on Eastern India and Bangladesh, with a combined population larger than North China's, could be devastating. “The potential for such a project to create conflicts between China and India –and to exacerbate existing conflicts over shared waterways between India and Bangladesh – is gigantic. ...”, states Kenneth Pomeranz 67

Central Asia
This conflict over water while most obviously affecting the relations between India and China and further afield into South-east Asia, also has major consequences in Central Asia and potentially also draws China into conflict with Russia.
Irtysh River, which shares borders with China, Russia, and Kazakhstan, places relations between these states in the same predicament as that between India and China over the Brahmaputra. Despite China’s assurances, like Beijing’s dubious assurances over the Brahmaputra, in regard to Irtysh:
“Patience ran out when Beijing started construction of a canal linking the Black Irtysh with the Karamai River on Chinese territory, dramatically lowering the water level in the river. China's water-management policy threatens to drastically reduce crop production in the environmentally vulnerable regions of East Kazakhstan, Pavlodar, and Karaganda.”68

Yermukanov adds that, “Such a move could also cause a severe drought in Russia's wheat-growing Omsk region.”
In November 2005, in a desperate attempt to prevent an environmental disaster, the Governor of Omsk region, Leonid Polezhayev, ordered 10 billion roubles to be allocated for the construction of a huge water reservoir to accumulate floodwaters for industrial use. He argued that a political solution to the Irtysh River dispute was not feasible, since the Chinese did not wish to negotiate69.
Yermukanov cites the pessimism of Russian Sinologists in regard to China’s willingness to negotiate other than for the purpose of stalling: “Experts familiar with the state of affairs on the Chinese side are less optimistic about Beijing's resolve to solve the problem of water resources in the Irtysh-Ili basin without dragging out the talks endlessly.” This has
certainly been the case in China’s negotiations with India over the course of thirteen years in regard to Brahmaputra.
In 2004 China opened a hydroelectric power station that consumes 15% of the Ili River's water resources. 65 hydroelectric power stations have already been built on the Ili River. China is planning to build another 13 reservoirs.70 Dr Bobo Lo states that, many in the Kazakh Government are not even aware of the extent of China’s hydro projects. He states that:
“…Environmentalists warn that in the next few years China will build additional hydroelectric power installations along the Irtysh and Ili Rivers. Among the installations not revealed to the Kazakh government delegation is the Kapshagay (a hydroelectric power station in Kazakhstan carries the same name) water reservoir, with the enormous capacity of 380 million cubic meters.”71

Yermukanov refers to the industrialisation of northwestern China’s polluting of Lake Balkhash, and the increased food production in Xingjiang Uighur. He points to Chinese mismanagement, and to the refusal of China to sign an agreement on shared water resources.
“The forced industrial development of north-western China is likely to pollute Lake Balkhash in Kazakhstan with chemicals and fertilizers, as the Ili River feeds the lake. The increase of paddy fields in Xingjiang Uighur Autonomous Region has already led to the depletion of the Irtysh and Ili Rivers. According to the latest data, as a result of mismanagement the annual loss of water in the Chinese section of the Ili River basin makes up 4.4 cubic kilometres, which equals 15% of the whole water resources of the river. That reduces substantially the amount of water inflow into Lake Balkhash. The root cause of the problem is that until now China had not signed the international convention on trans-border waters.…”72

Yermukanov ominously points to the ethnic dynamics of the region, which he states could lead to violence. The Chinese are changing the demographics of the region with Chinese ethnic incursions, in the name of peaceful commerce. Yermukanov also reveals that China has territorial designs on Kazakhstan. While Bobo Lo maintains that China is too pragmatic and has too much to lose to continue pressing its territorial claims on Russia as it did under Mao, its present designs on Kazakh lands give pause to thought in regard to whether it has indeed forgone its ambitions in regard to Russia:
In addition to the intransigent territorial claims against India, Vietnam and Russia, China also claims territories in Kazakhstan. Yermukanov states that despite border agreements between Kazakhstan and China, “Beijing did not abandon altogether territorial claims on some southern regions of Kazakhstan. Some years ago a Kazakh Foreign Ministry delegation was surprised to see the former capital, Almaty; Balkhash; and other areas of south Kazakhstan marked as parts of China on a map in Beijing's central museum. The Foreign Ministry of Kazakhstan filed an official protest, and the Chinese promised to correct the mistake. But the school text on Xingjiang history lists the same parts of Kazakhstan as Chinese territory.”73

U.N. worries over potential for ‘water wars’
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has already expressed concern about the disputes over water between states in the Middle East. At the 2007 Asia-Pacific Water Summit Ban Ki-moon stated that, “Our planet faces a growing water crisis. But the situation in the Asia-Pacific region is especially troubling. High population growth, unsustainable consumption, pollution and poor management all threaten the area’s clean water sources.”74
A 2009 UNESCO report, Water in a Changing World, refers to the need for urgent action if a “global water crisis” is to be avoided.75 Indeed, the UNESCO report places water problems at the centre of potential crises leading to national and even global conflicts:
“Water is linked to the crises of climate change, energy and food supplies and prices, and troubled financial markets. Unless their links with water are addressed and water crises around the world are resolved, these other crises may intensify and local water crises may worsen, converging into a global water crisis and leading to political insecurity and conflict at various levels.”76

What can be stated with relative confidence is that it won’t be the United Nations Organisation or any other such international organisation, treaty or agreement that will forestall or avert crises resulting from the competition for water resources. Such utopian schemes from Alexander the Great’s vision of a multicultural world empire to the League of Nations and Wilson’s Fourteen Points, and the complete failure of the UNO since its foundation to avert war, or even improve the atmosphere relating to confrontation between tribes and states, have intrinsically failed. The appeal to “humanity” or to “the human race” is too nebulous to succeed. Should such schemes succeed in establishing what has recently being called a New World Order, history and current situations indicate that the globalist “cure” would be at least as terrifying as the problem, and if successful would establish a world state that would in turn operate at the behest of whatever coterie of power-bloc gets the upper hand. From thence the cycle of competition would resume… We are at this moment and have for the past several decades been witnessing the efforts of the UNO, NATO and other alliances to establish “peacefully” and “humanly” this New World Order, as per the bombing into submission of Yugoslavia and Iraq.

Geopolitical shifts
Since the implosion of the Soviet bloc, a mono-polar world has emerged revolving around the USA, and challenged by an Islamic bloc. Russia and China77 have attempted to confront this mono-polar post-Cold War situation by forming a pact between each other and bordering states78. This holds out the prospect of a Eurasian bloc to confront the world hegemony of the USA, which seeks to draw to it the European Union and return Europe to the subordinate role she played vis-à-vis the USA during the Cold War, pushed into coming under the US orbit by the fear of Warsaw Pact invasion. The US now uses the “war on terror” as the same fear-based strategy to maintain its world’s power, and it was the first war against Iraq that was used by President George H W Bush to announce the desire for a New World Order as the basis of the USA’s post-Cold War policy.79
The USA is not a natural leader of any Western bloc or alliance with Europe. It is and always has been a misnomer to call the USA “leader of the Western world.” The USA at its founding arose as a dichotomy between Puritans and Freemasons80. The USA has since the time of Woodrow Wilson81 regarded Europe is its vassal. The USA sought to unite Europe on US terms. America does not represent a new and vibrant nation, but an excrescence of the degenerate cycle of Europe emanating from Europe’s Age of Enlightenment, when Europe had repudiated its own cultural and spiritual roots, starting from the Reformation.82 Hence, the USA has forever been soulless, and money obsessed and offers no leadership, but relies on money, advanced weaponry and global cultural subversion in creating its New World Order.
The US global agenda largely proceeds from cultural subversion, which is antithetical to traditional Western culture, and indeed all traditional cultures. Maj. Ralph Peters outlined the cultural offensive in an article for the Parameters in 1997. Here Peters states that the world is “entering a new American century”, in which America’s increased power will be concomitant with being “culturally more lethal.” He alludes to the “clash of civilisations” and democracy as the “liberal form of imperialism.” Peters wrote of how America would dominate through cultural subversion, stating, “Hollywood goes where Harvard never penetrated…. American culture is the most powerful in history, and the most destructive competitor of cultures. … Our military power is culturally based. … For the majority of our citizens, our vulgar, near-chaotic, marvellous culture is the greatest engine of positive change in history…. But American culture is infectious, a plague of pleasure…. But Hollywood is ‘preparing the battlefield’, and burgers precede bullets. The flag follows trade….”83
Peters, retiring in 1998 as a lieutenant colonel, wrote the article in Parameters, entitled “Constant Conflict”84, when he was attached to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. He continues to be a commentator and writer on military strategy and foreign policy.
In the face of American globalism and cultural penetration Russia is the natural alignment for a European bloc if it is based around states that are historically resistant to US hegemony over Europe, such as France, a major player in the European Union.
The USA seeks to co-opt China into the world economy, as indicated previously with reference to the Soros comments and the long-running actions of the Rockefeller dynasty, and in turn is at the mercy of Chinese financial investment, creating a symbiotic relationship between the two.85 The USA has in the recent past sought out alignment with China in order to contain Russia86. This is a possibility again, as it would be strategically plausible for the USA to back China vis-à-vis Russia.
Any repudiation of a mono-polar world based on US hegemony again centres on Russia, whose Governments after the end of the US-orientated Yeltsin era aim to restore Russian global influence. The alliance between China and Russia is contrary to history and ethnography and will not last. It is not a natural geopolitical alliance, for reasons outlined in this essay, and dealt with specifically in this writer’s paper Russia and China: an approaching conflict?87 China will confront India, Russia and Central Asia in a struggle for resources, especially including water, as I have attempted to show in this essay. Central Asia, India and other states as far away as Vietnam will gravitate towards Russia as China becomes increasingly hegemonic.
A Latin American bloc is emerging around Venezuela. Combined a South American bloc will have immense mineral and food resources. A Bolivarian revolution is taking place throughout Latin America under the inspiration of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela88. This Latin American bloc is forming in defiance of North American hegemonic ambitions, as it has traditionally done. This bloc is already in the process of formation and was launched as The Bolivarian Alternative for the People of Our America (ALBA) in 2004 by Venezuela and Cuba as an alternative to the U.S.- backed Free Trade Area of the Americas. By June 2009, ALBA had grown to nine member states, and the name was changed to the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America. A Latin American bloc will consequently seek alignment with Russia, and Venezuela is already doing so. 89.
New Zealand and Australia are being forced into Asia on economic grounds. Ethnography is not being taken into account, and therefore the prospect of an “Asian bloc” cannot work other than to submerge New Zealand and Australia as subordinate vassal sates to China, which will be the focus of any such bloc. Vietnam and India would not accede to an Asian bloc dominated by China. To view such an Asian bloc as a geopolitical evolution is not to consider the ethnographic and historical factors. New Zealand and Australia are outposts of European culture. They were founded as vibrant cultural expressions, but both were detached
from their cultural roots, first by cutting off the allegiances to Britain, then by substituting the British cultural foundations for American cosmopolitanism and commerce. Britain and New Zealand were thereby denied the time during which to evolve their own national folk cultures, and now remain culturally and spiritually barren. Hence both are easy prey for parasitic global commerce and have readily accepted an Asian identity.
The concept of the Asian bloc under Chinese hegemony, and including Australia and New Zealand are the product of specific plutocratic interests in the USA centred around the Rockefeller dynasty in particular. John D. Rockefeller III set up the Asia Center in 1956 as a preliminary interest group to promote an Asia bloc. The by-line on the Asia Society’s website is: “Preparing Asians and Americans for a shared future.”90. Trustees currently include: Charles P. Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller IV. To promote an Asia bloc as part of a global economic structure, the Trilateral Commission was established in 1973 by David Rockefeller, listed on the Commission’s website as the “Founder and Honorary North American Chairman (1977-1991).
The agenda of the Trilateral Commission has been widened in recent years to further the ‘new world order’ that is also being sought by similar think tanks, again with Rockefeller influence, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (David Rockefeller is CFR emeritus chairman), and the Bilderberg Group. Hence, the Trilateral Commission states that the regional groupings being incorporated into the Trilateralist scheme now include Mexico (reflecting the push for the NAFTA American Free Trade Agreement that includes Mexico), and the “Japan Group” has now become the “Pacific Asian Group” reflecting the push for a Pacific-wide union. The Trilateral Commission states of this:
“Two strong convictions guide our thinking for the 2006-2009 triennium. First, the Trilateral Commission remains as important as ever in helping our countries fulfil their shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system and, second, its framework needs to be widened to reflect broader changes in the world. Thus, the Japan Group has become a Pacific Asian Group, and Mexican members have been added to the North American Group. The European Group continues to widen in line with the enlargement of the EU. …”91

The widened Pacific Asia Group within the Trilateral Commission includes representatives from China and Hong Kong.92
Leading proponents of an East Asian bloc include Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and Japan’s Yukio Hatoyama. Rudd in particular considers the USA to be a focus of such a bloc. The U.S. signed a friendship pact with the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) in July 2009 to extend relations. China’s Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue states China is “positive and open” to the establishment of an “East Asian community”.93
Given the long history of relations between the USA and China, often covert, and often with a contrived façade of rivalry, New Zealand and Australia and other states in the Pacific, in addition to India, should not regard the USA as a reliable ally in the face of any Chinese threats.94

Towards an ANAZAC bloc
This essay has dealt primarily with the upheaval that is approaching in Asia particularly as the result of water shortages. This upheaval will result in geopolitical dramatic shifts, and the reversal of current, and even now, uneasy, alliances, such as those centring around the Central Asia and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in particular. Chinese efforts at regional hegemony and incursions into Russia and India, will prompt a new bloc with Russia and India as the foci.
New Zealand and Australia, like India in the Asian sphere, constitute a separate cultural and economic axis, around which a Pacific bloc outside of Asia can and should develop. Like India, Australia is a Continental Nation - potentially. New Zealand is for historical and ethnographic reasons intrinsically bound with Australia, and awaiting the assertion of an ANZAC95 axis to confront the approaching crises to the north. Within this ANAZAC axis naturally congregate the small island states of Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia, over which China has been seeking to expand its hegemony in recent years.96 The first task is for New Zealand and Australia to extricate themselves from Chinese and other detrimental Asia free trade agreements97. The second task of any such ANZAC bloc is to increase economic, diplomatic and military relations with the island states and counter Chinese influence, as well as possible Indonesian incursions in relation to New Guinea and East Timor. The third issue is for such an ANZAC bloc to look to India and Russia as allies on the world stage rather than the USA and China.
An ANZAC bloc that includes the small island states, many of which are presently succumbing to Chinese bribes of aid, in particular should be able to look to the strength of the two main constituent states, Australia and New Zealand. Such a sovereign geopolitical entity if brought out from under the control of foreign capital and exploitation of their resources and permitted to self-develop would, like a self-developed European Union, or Bolivarian bloc, possess vast potential of mineral wealth and food, and the potential to develop alliances with states based on genuine geopolitical and ethnographic considerations rather than being pushed by globalist economics.

K R Bolton Ph.D., Th.D., FCIS, is an independent New Zealand researcher, and a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research (http://www.academy-of-social-and-political-research.com) Recent publications include: “Russia and China: an approaching conflict?” Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, Washington, Vol. 34, no. 2, Summer 2009; “Trotskyism and the family”, CKR, Sociology Dept., Moscow State University, October 2009, and Geopolitica, Russia, November 2009; and “Multiculturalism and globalisation”, Ab Aeterno, Journal of the Academy of Social and Political Research, No. 1, November, 2009. Contact: vindex@clear.net.nz

Notes
1 Rival. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rival (accessed: October 19, 2009). 2 Jung Chang & Jon Halliday, Mao: the unknown story (London: Jonathan Cape, 2005), 570-571. 3 Bruce Elleman, “Sino-Soviet Relations and the February 1979 Sino-Vietnamese Conflict”, 20 April 1996 http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/events/1996_Symposium/96papers/elleviet.htm Vietnam Center, Texas Tech University, http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/ 4 Robert A Scalapino, “The Political Influence of the USSR in Asia”, in Donald S. Zagoria, ed., Soviet Policy in East Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 71. 5 Considering the symbiotic relationship between China and the USA economically, the USA is unlikely to intervene against regional conflicts in Asia. 6 http://www.paracelspratlyislands.blogspot.com (accessed October 29, 2009).
7 Bill Emmott, Rivals: How the Power Struggle Between China, India and Japan Will Shape Our Next Decade (London: Allen Lane, 2008). Cited in: Times Online, May 30, 2008, “Tibet is one thing, but India and China tensions spell bigger disaster”. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3645001.ece (accessed October 29, 2009). 8 Ibid. 9 Dr Bobo Lo for example, whilst pointing out the expansionist intent of China, does not believe that this will result in military conflict. Bobo Lo, Russia-China: Axis of Convenience, May 20, 2008, 2008, http://www.opendemocracy.net/user/511394 (accessed October 29, 2009). 10 K R Bolton, “Russia and China: An Approaching Conflict?” Journal of Social, Economic and Political Studies, Washington, Vol. 34, No. 2, Summer 2009, pp. 154-194. 11Sandeep Dikshit, “India China to sate up hotline”, The Hindu, August 9, 2009, p. 1.
12 “Manmohan Singh says India committed to promote its relations with China”, Thaindian News, October 1st, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:sRUHaAtkXYwJ:www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/manmohan-singh-says-india-committed-to-promote-its-relations-with- china_100254569.html+china+india+%22shared+vision%22+press+release&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 21, 2009). 13 “A Shared Vision for the 21st Century of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of India”, Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco, January 14, 2008, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Xu9S29da7sQJ:www.chinaconsulatesf.org/eng/xw/t399545.htm+china+india+%22shared+vision%22+press+release&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 21, 2009).
14 This involved a ban on toys from China, an action, which had significant economic consequences. China makes the majority of the world’s toys of which India imports 350 million pounds annually. It has been suggested the real reason for the ban was in retaliation for China’s growing links with Pakistan. Malcolm Moore, “China outraged after India bans all toy imports”, Daily Telegraph, February 4, 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4511451/China-outraged-after-India-bans-all-toy-imports.html (accessed October 21, 2009). 15 “India to finance ’sensitive’ areas’ projects itself: Krishna”, Thaindian News, August 17, 2009, http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/india-to-finance-sensitive-areas-projects-itself-krishna_100233891.html (accessed October 29, 2009). 16 John Cherion, “China bogey”, Frontline: India’s national magazine, Volume 26 - Issue 21, October, 10-23, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:pHCY8ETII2MJ:www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20091023262103700.htm+%22line+of+actual+control%22+%2BIn+June+2009,+the+Indian+Government+announced+the+deployment+of+an+additional+60,000+soldiers&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 29, 2009). 17 “India’s unwise military moves”, Global Times, June 9, 2009, cited in: PakTribune, “Cow (India) Desire of Hitting Bull (China)”, August 10, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:5VOcJaMz9MgJ:www.paktribune.com/news/index.php%3Fid%3D217944+%22Global+times%22+%2B+june+9+2009+%2B+%E2%80%9Cto+consider+whether+or+not+it+can+afford+the+consequences+of+a+potential+confrontation+with+China%E2%80%9D.&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 29, 2009). The Paktribune article also cites a further Chinese article, stating: “An affiliate of the People’s Daily published a Chinese language article on June 12 which translates to “India is a paper tiger and its use of force will be trounced, say experts.” 18 K R Bolton, Russia and China: an Approaching Conflict?, op.cit. 19 Quoted in The South China Morning Post, “China and India resume talks over disputed border”, August 7, 2009, 6. 20 Joseph Kahn, Last Stop, “Lhasa: Rail Link Ties Remote Tibet to China”, The New York Times, July 2, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/world/asia/02tibet.html (accessed October 29, 2009). 21 Brahma Chellaney is one of India’s most eminent strategy analysts, serving as Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based think tank, the Centre for Policy Research. He was a Member of the Policy Advisory Group headed by the External Affairs Minister of India. Chellaney was an adviser to India's National Security Council until January 2000, serving as convenor of the External Security Group of the National Security Advisory Board, and a member of the Board's Nuclear Doctrine Group. 22 Brahmas Chellaney, “View: Sino-Indian water divide”, Pakistan Daily Times, August 4, 2009, http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\08\04\story_4-8-2009_pg3_3 (accessed October 27, 2009). 23 For an examination of Chinese naval expansion throughout the world, with emphasis on the Pacific see: K R Bolton, A Wider Paranoia?: The Menace of China in the Pacific (Paraparaumu, New Zealand: Spectrum Press, 2004). 24 “India plans to build 100 warships, work on 32 vessels already under way”, The Nation, July 31, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:A4rvAzhM4tsJ:www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/31-Jul-2009/India-plans-to-build-100-warships-work-on-32-vessels-already-under-way--FT+Bhatnagar+stated:+%E2%80%9CChina+is+developing+its+navy+at+a+great+rate.+Its+ambitions+in+the+Indian+Ocean+are+quite+clear&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 29, 2009). 25 Peter Ford, “Rivals China, India in escalating war of words”, The Christian Science Monitor, October 20, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1020/p06s04-woap.html (accessed October 21, 2009). 26 Ben Arnoldy, “Growing number of China incursions into India lead to a strategy change”, The Christian Science Monitor, September 29, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0929/p06s06-wosc.html (accessed October 22, 2009). 27 Ben Arnoldy, ibid. 28 Ben Arnoldy, ibid. 29 Ben Arnoldy, ibid. 30 Ben Arnoldy, ibid. 31 Ratified by US Congress, October 1, 2008. The nuclear treaty with the USA might more cynically be viewed as a means of restraining India while China has no such restraints. The Treaty places India’s nuclear energy development under the scrutiny of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), and reaffirms India’s continue moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. “India works toward negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) with the United States banning the production of fissile material for weapons purposes. India agrees to prevent the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that don't possess them and to support international non-proliferation efforts.” Esther Pan and Jayshree Bajoria, Backgrounder: The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal, Council on Foreign Relations, October 2, 2008, http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/ 32 Informed US political commentators have pointed out the President Obama came from nowhere to the presidency with the backing of anti-Russia Soros-Brzezinski interests. US investigative journalist and lecturer Webster G Tarpley forcefully states that: “Barack Obama came in as the candidate of the Brzezinski-Soros machine, overwhelmingly focused on the need to assert Anglo-American world domination over Russia… We immediately find that Obama’s foreign policy is made by the Russia-hater Zbigniew Brzezinski of the Washington Center for Strategic and International Studies and the gray eminence of the Democratic Party foreign policy establishment. … But Zbigniew is not just an individual; he is the gruff patriarch of an extended clan of intelligence operatives around which an entire coterie of the intelligence community is grouped. One is his son Mark Brzezinski, who served in the National Security Council during the Clinton era. Zbigniew and Mark jointly directed the infamous orange revolution in the Ukraine in November and December 2004, which brought a pro-NATO puppet regime of kleptocrats and oligarchs to power deep into the former Soviet territory. At one point in this operation, it looked like the pro-Russian eastern Ukraine might secede, leading to possible civil war within that country. … The outlines of Zbigniew’s plan are also clear: he considers himself the man who shattered the Warsaw Pact, and who then brought on the collapse of the entire Soviet Union. Now he wants to dismember the Russian Federation itself, with the option of carving up the Russian heartland….” (Webster G Tarpley, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarOnFreedom/message/4141, accessed October 30, 2009). In an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in 2005 Brzezinski was frank about the subversive agenda being directed against Russia by the USA: “The United States is supporting and de facto promoting geopolitical pluralism in the space of the [former] Soviet Union.” U.S./Russia: Zbigniew Brzezinski Assesses U.S.-Russia Relations, May 11, 2005 http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1058818.html (accessed October 30, 2009). Brzezinski was National Security Adviser in the Carter Administration, and the founding director of the Trilateral Commission. Like Kissinger, he remains a key policy adviser. George Soros, the currency speculator, was a major backer of the Obama presidency. Through Soros’ Open Society Institute and Soros Foundation and a myriad of think tanks and lobbies, it is the Soros network that has fomented the “colour revolutions” throughout the former Soviet republics. Russia and the former Soviet republics are the major focus of Soros’ attention. For a quite open and informative outline of Soros activities see the website of the Soros Foundation and Open Society Institute under the “Central and Eastern Europe” section: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/regions/central-eastern_europe (accessed October 30, 2009). 33 “Poliverse” is a term used by leading Russian geopolitical theorist Dr A G Dugin, director of the Center for Conservative Studies, Moscow State University, in explaining the aim of creating a global order based on a number of geopolitical “vectors”, as opposed to global hegemony by one or two super-powers. This “poliverse” would comprise self-contained geopolitical blocs. (See A. G. Dugin, “The Eurasian Idea”, Ab Aeterno, Issue 1, November 2009. (http://academy-of-social-and-political-research.com; and http://konservatizm.org). 34 Among the many agreements signed by President Medvedev's on the his state visit to India were the Agreement on Construction of Additional Nuclear Plants at Kudankulum site as well as Construction of Russian-designed Nuclear Power Plants at New Sites within Republic of India. See: Dr. Subhash Kapila, Russia: President Medvedev's visit to India (December 2008) reviewed, Paper No. 2978, December 10, 2008. This includes as an appendix of the entire Indo-Russian declaration: Joint Declaration between the Republic of India and the Russian Federation During the visit of the President of the Russian Federation (December 5,2008). http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Ot99UtWcFRIJ:www.southasiaanalysis.org/%255Cpapers30%255Cpaper2978.html+india+russia+nucelar+energy+december+2008&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 30, 2009). 35 Vladimir Radyuhin, “New 10-year defence tie-up with Russia finalised”, The Hindu, October 16, 2009, http://www.hindu.com/2009/10/16/stories/2009101659881000.htm (accessed October 21, 2009). 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Peter Ford, op.cit. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Dan Murphy, “Indian Ocean as new strategic field”, The Christian Science Monitor, June 28, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0703/p12s01-wosc.html (accessed October 22, 2009). 45 “Transcript: George Soros interview”, Financial Times, London, Published: October 23 2009, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e2dfb82-c018-11de-aed2-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1 (accessed October 30, 2009). 46 New Zealand and Australia as European states that are being forced into Asia at the behest of political and business interests, are not informed regarding Asian rivalries and the consequences in regard to control of water resources. 47 Fire Earth: environmental issues, “Drought: China’s Arch Nemesis, February 26, 2009, http://feww.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/ (accessed October 30, 2009). 48 Ibid. 49 Xinhuanet official news agency, “China suffers great losses form desertification”, June 17, 2003. “China is losing 4.5 billion tons of soil each year”; cited by Reuters, “China's crops at risk from massive erosion”, November 21, 2008, http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4AK1J220081121?sp=true (accessed October 26, 2009).
50 Ibid. 51 NASA: “NASA Hydrologist Matt Rodell discusses vanishing groundwater in India”, August 12, 2009, http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html (accessed October 26, 200). 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid. 55 Brahma Chellaney, “China aims for bigger share of South Asia’s water lifeline”, Japan Times, June 26, 2007. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. 59 Of the numerous campaigns conducted by human rights activists against the Chinese occupation of Tibet, and the reports on the subject in the news media, little attention seems to have been given to Tibet’s importance in terms of geo-politics, water and mineral resources. It seems to be the general view that control over Tibet is simply a matter of Chinese pride. China is not about to relinquish control over Tibet under any circumstances. Tibet is crucial to China’s survival. 60 Braham Chellaney, “China aims for bigger share of South Asia’s water lifeline”, op.cit. 61 Brahma Chellaney, “View: Sino-Indian water divide”, op.cit. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Kenneth Pomeranz, "The Great Himalayan Watershed: Water Shortages, Mega-Projects and Environmental Politics in China, India, and Southeast Asia," The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 30, July 27, 2009. 68 Marat Yermukanov, “China obstructs River Management Talks with Kazakhstan”, February 17, 2006 Eurasia Daily Monitor, Jamestown Foundation, http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2370793. The Jamestown Foundation is a US based think tank specialising in the analysis of the affairs of the republics of the former USSR, and is staffed by academic specialists. Eurasia Daily Monitor is the Foundation’s publication. Yermukanov is a journalist working for the Russian-language private newspaper Panorama Nedely in Petropavlovsk, North Kazakhstan. 69 Marat Yermukanov, op.cit., citing Izvestiya Kazakhstan, February 14), 2005. 70 Bobo Lo, “Russia-China: Axis of Convenience”, May 20, 2008 http://www.opendemocracy.net/user/511394, citing: Novoye pokolenie, February 10, 2005. 71 Bob Lo, ibid. 72 Marat Yermukanov, op.cit. 73 Ibid. 74 United Nations media release, “Secretary General to inaugural Asia-Pacific Water Summit”, December 3, 2007, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sgsm11311.doc.htm (accessed October 28, 2009).
75 The 3rd United Nations World Water Development Report, UNESCO, Water in a changing world, March 2009. 76 Water in a changing world, ibid., Overview of key messages, xx, http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr3/pdf/08_WWDR3_overview_of_key_msgs.pdf (accessed October 28, 2009). 77 As this essay hopefully clearly shows, the pact between Russia and China has historical and ethnographic factors working against it and is an historical aberration, which will disintegrate with the types of pressures that are considered here. See also K R Bolton, Russia and China: an approaching conflict? Op.cit. 78 Central Asia and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. 79 In his speech before Congress declaring war on Iraq Bush stated: “This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order-- a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful -- and we will be -- we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfil the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders.” Pres. George Conservancy Committee said publicly that the mega-plan enjoys official sanction and may begin by 2010.”65

China is clearly being duplicitous in its public pronouncements on its intentions in regard to Brahmaputra. Past and present actions indicate that Beijing expects to get its own way over any disputes regarding territory and resources, and China is not about to back down or “loose face” on one of the most vital issues of survival.
Dr Chellaney states that the first phase of China’s South-North Project involves building 300 km of tunnels and channels to draw waters from the Jinsha, Yalong and Dadu rivers, on the eastern rim of the Tibetan plateau. In the second phase the Brahmaputra waters would be directed northward.
“In fact, Beijing has identified the bend where the Brahmaputra forms the world’s longest and deepest canyon just before entering India as holding the largest untapped reserves for meeting its water and energy needs.”66

Chellaney considers that the re-routing of the Brahmaputra “would constitute the declaration of a water war on lower-riparian India and Bangladesh.”
Most of Asia's major rivers – the Yellow, the Yangzi, the Mekong, Salween, Irrawaddy, Brahmaputra, Ganges, Sutlej, and Indus – draw on the glaciers and snowmelt of the Himalayas. Except for the Ganges the source for these rivers is in Tibet.
The diversion of the Yalong Zangbo/ Brahmaputra would impact on Eastern India and Bangladesh, with a combined population larger than North China's, could be devastating. “The potential for such a project to create conflicts between China and India –and to exacerbate existing conflicts over shared waterways between India and Bangladesh – is gigantic. ...”, states Kenneth Pomeranz 67

Central Asia
This conflict over water while most obviously affecting the relations between India and China and further afield into South-east Asia, also has major consequences in Central Asia and potentially also draws China into conflict with Russia.
Irtysh River, which shares borders with China, Russia, and Kazakhstan, places relations between these states in the same predicament as that between India and China over the Brahmaputra. Despite China’s assurances, like Beijing’s dubious assurances over the Brahmaputra, in regard to Irtysh:
“Patience ran out when Beijing started construction of a canal linking the Black Irtysh with the Karamai River on Chinese territory, dramatically lowering the water level in the river. China's water-management policy threatens to drastically reduce crop production in the environmentally vulnerable regions of East Kazakhstan, Pavlodar, and Karaganda.”68

Yermukanov adds that, “Such a move could also cause a severe drought in Russia's wheat-growing Omsk region.”
In November 2005, in a desperate attempt to prevent an environmental disaster, the Governor of Omsk region, Leonid Polezhayev, ordered 10 billion roubles to be allocated for the construction of a huge water reservoir to accumulate floodwaters for industrial use. He argued that a political solution to the Irtysh River dispute was not feasible, since the Chinese did not wish to negotiate69.
Yermukanov cites the pessimism of Russian Sinologists in regard to China’s willingness to negotiate other than for the purpose of stalling: “Experts familiar with the state of affairs on the Chinese side are less optimistic about Beijing's resolve to solve the problem of water resources in the Irtysh-Ili basin without dragging out the talks endlessly.” This has
certainly been the case in China’s negotiations with India over the course of thirteen years in regard to Brahmaputra.
In 2004 China opened a hydroelectric power station that consumes 15% of the Ili River's water resources. 65 hydroelectric power stations have already been built on the Ili River. China is planning to build another 13 reservoirs.70 Dr Bobo Lo states that, many in the Kazakh Government are not even aware of the extent of China’s hydro projects. He states that:
“…Environmentalists warn that in the next few years China will build additional hydroelectric power installations along the Irtysh and Ili Rivers. Among the installations not revealed to the Kazakh government delegation is the Kapshagay (a hydroelectric power station in Kazakhstan carries the same name) water reservoir, with the enormous capacity of 380 million cubic meters.”71

Yermukanov refers to the industrialisation of northwestern China’s polluting of Lake Balkhash, and the increased food production in Xingjiang Uighur. He points to Chinese mismanagement, and to the refusal of China to sign an agreement on shared water resources.
“The forced industrial development of north-western China is likely to pollute Lake Balkhash in Kazakhstan with chemicals and fertilizers, as the Ili River feeds the lake. The increase of paddy fields in Xingjiang Uighur Autonomous Region has already led to the depletion of the Irtysh and Ili Rivers. According to the latest data, as a result of mismanagement the annual loss of water in the Chinese section of the Ili River basin makes up 4.4 cubic kilometres, which equals 15% of the whole water resources of the river. That reduces substantially the amount of water inflow into Lake Balkhash. The root cause of the problem is that until now China had not signed the international convention on trans-border waters.…”72

Yermukanov ominously points to the ethnic dynamics of the region, which he states could lead to violence. The Chinese are changing the demographics of the region with Chinese ethnic incursions, in the name of peaceful commerce. Yermukanov also reveals that China has territorial designs on Kazakhstan. While Bobo Lo maintains that China is too pragmatic and has too much to lose to continue pressing its territorial claims on Russia as it did under Mao, its present designs on Kazakh lands give pause to thought in regard to whether it has indeed forgone its ambitions in regard to Russia:
In addition to the intransigent territorial claims against India, Vietnam and Russia, China also claims territories in Kazakhstan. Yermukanov states that despite border agreements between Kazakhstan and China, “Beijing did not abandon altogether territorial claims on some southern regions of Kazakhstan. Some years ago a Kazakh Foreign Ministry delegation was surprised to see the former capital, Almaty; Balkhash; and other areas of south Kazakhstan marked as parts of China on a map in Beijing's central museum. The Foreign Ministry of Kazakhstan filed an official protest, and the Chinese promised to correct the mistake. But the school text on Xingjiang history lists the same parts of Kazakhstan as Chinese territory.”73

U.N. worries over potential for ‘water wars’
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has already expressed concern about the disputes over water between states in the Middle East. At the 2007 Asia-Pacific Water Summit Ban Ki-moon stated that, “Our planet faces a growing water crisis. But the situation in the Asia-Pacific region is especially troubling. High population growth, unsustainable consumption, pollution and poor management all threaten the area’s clean water sources.”74
A 2009 UNESCO report, Water in a Changing World, refers to the need for urgent action if a “global water crisis” is to be avoided.75 Indeed, the UNESCO report places water problems at the centre of potential crises leading to national and even global conflicts:
“Water is linked to the crises of climate change, energy and food supplies and prices, and troubled financial markets. Unless their links with water are addressed and water crises around the world are resolved, these other crises may intensify and local water crises may worsen, converging into a global water crisis and leading to political insecurity and conflict at various levels.”76

What can be stated with relative confidence is that it won’t be the United Nations Organisation or any other such international organisation, treaty or agreement that will forestall or avert crises resulting from the competition for water resources. Such utopian schemes from Alexander the Great’s vision of a multicultural world empire to the League of Nations and Wilson’s Fourteen Points, and the complete failure of the UNO since its foundation to avert war, or even improve the atmosphere relating to confrontation between tribes and states, have intrinsically failed. The appeal to “humanity” or to “the human race” is too nebulous to succeed. Should such schemes succeed in establishing what has recently being called a New World Order, history and current situations indicate that the globalist “cure” would be at least as terrifying as the problem, and if successful would establish a world state that would in turn operate at the behest of whatever coterie of power-bloc gets the upper hand. From thence the cycle of competition would resume… We are at this moment and have for the past several decades been witnessing the efforts of the UNO, NATO and other alliances to establish “peacefully” and “humanly” this New World Order, as per the bombing into submission of Yugoslavia and Iraq.

Geopolitical shifts
Since the implosion of the Soviet bloc, a mono-polar world has emerged revolving around the USA, and challenged by an Islamic bloc. Russia and China77 have attempted to confront this mono-polar post-Cold War situation by forming a pact between each other and bordering states78. This holds out the prospect of a Eurasian bloc to confront the world hegemony of the USA, which seeks to draw to it the European Union and return Europe to the subordinate role she played vis-à-vis the USA during the Cold War, pushed into coming under the US orbit by the fear of Warsaw Pact invasion. The US now uses the “war on terror” as the same fear-based strategy to maintain its world’s power, and it was the first war against Iraq that was used by President George H W Bush to announce the desire for a New World Order as the basis of the USA’s post-Cold War policy.79
The USA is not a natural leader of any Western bloc or alliance with Europe. It is and always has been a misnomer to call the USA “leader of the Western world.” The USA at its founding arose as a dichotomy between Puritans and Freemasons80. The USA has since the time of Woodrow Wilson81 regarded Europe is its vassal. The USA sought to unite Europe on US terms. America does not represent a new and vibrant nation, but an excrescence of the degenerate cycle of Europe emanating from Europe’s Age of Enlightenment, when Europe had repudiated its own cultural and spiritual roots, starting from the Reformation.82 Hence, the USA has forever been soulless, and money obsessed and offers no leadership, but relies on money, advanced weaponry and global cultural subversion in creating its New World Order.
The US global agenda largely proceeds from cultural subversion, which is antithetical to traditional Western culture, and indeed all traditional cultures. Maj. Ralph Peters outlined the cultural offensive in an article for the Parameters in 1997. Here Peters states that the world is “entering a new American century”, in which America’s increased power will be concomitant with being “culturally more lethal.” He alludes to the “clash of civilisations” and democracy as the “liberal form of imperialism.” Peters wrote of how America would dominate through cultural subversion, stating, “Hollywood goes where Harvard never penetrated…. American culture is the most powerful in history, and the most destructive competitor of cultures. … Our military power is culturally based. … For the majority of our citizens, our vulgar, near-chaotic, marvellous culture is the greatest engine of positive change in history…. But American culture is infectious, a plague of pleasure…. But Hollywood is ‘preparing the battlefield’, and burgers precede bullets. The flag follows trade….”83
Peters, retiring in 1998 as a lieutenant colonel, wrote the article in Parameters, entitled “Constant Conflict”84, when he was attached to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. He continues to be a commentator and writer on military strategy and foreign policy.
In the face of American globalism and cultural penetration Russia is the natural alignment for a European bloc if it is based around states that are historically resistant to US hegemony over Europe, such as France, a major player in the European Union.
The USA seeks to co-opt China into the world economy, as indicated previously with reference to the Soros comments and the long-running actions of the Rockefeller dynasty, and in turn is at the mercy of Chinese financial investment, creating a symbiotic relationship between the two.85 The USA has in the recent past sought out alignment with China in order to contain Russia86. This is a possibility again, as it would be strategically plausible for the USA to back China vis-à-vis Russia.
Any repudiation of a mono-polar world based on US hegemony again centres on Russia, whose Governments after the end of the US-orientated Yeltsin era aim to restore Russian global influence. The alliance between China and Russia is contrary to history and ethnography and will not last. It is not a natural geopolitical alliance, for reasons outlined in this essay, and dealt with specifically in this writer’s paper Russia and China: an approaching conflict?87 China will confront India, Russia and Central Asia in a struggle for resources, especially including water, as I have attempted to show in this essay. Central Asia, India and other states as far away as Vietnam will gravitate towards Russia as China becomes increasingly hegemonic.
A Latin American bloc is emerging around Venezuela. Combined a South American bloc will have immense mineral and food resources. A Bolivarian revolution is taking place throughout Latin America under the inspiration of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela88. This Latin American bloc is forming in defiance of North American hegemonic ambitions, as it has traditionally done. This bloc is already in the process of formation and was launched as The Bolivarian Alternative for the People of Our America (ALBA) in 2004 by Venezuela and Cuba as an alternative to the U.S.- backed Free Trade Area of the Americas. By June 2009, ALBA had grown to nine member states, and the name was changed to the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America. A Latin American bloc will consequently seek alignment with Russia, and Venezuela is already doing so. 89.
New Zealand and Australia are being forced into Asia on economic grounds. Ethnography is not being taken into account, and therefore the prospect of an “Asian bloc” cannot work other than to submerge New Zealand and Australia as subordinate vassal sates to China, which will be the focus of any such bloc. Vietnam and India would not accede to an Asian bloc dominated by China. To view such an Asian bloc as a geopolitical evolution is not to consider the ethnographic and historical factors. New Zealand and Australia are outposts of European culture. They were founded as vibrant cultural expressions, but both were detached
from their cultural roots, first by cutting off the allegiances to Britain, then by substituting the British cultural foundations for American cosmopolitanism and commerce. Britain and New Zealand were thereby denied the time during which to evolve their own national folk cultures, and now remain culturally and spiritually barren. Hence both are easy prey for parasitic global commerce and have readily accepted an Asian identity.
The concept of the Asian bloc under Chinese hegemony, and including Australia and New Zealand are the product of specific plutocratic interests in the USA centred around the Rockefeller dynasty in particular. John D. Rockefeller III set up the Asia Center in 1956 as a preliminary interest group to promote an Asia bloc. The by-line on the Asia Society’s website is: “Preparing Asians and Americans for a shared future.”90. Trustees currently include: Charles P. Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller IV. To promote an Asia bloc as part of a global economic structure, the Trilateral Commission was established in 1973 by David Rockefeller, listed on the Commission’s website as the “Founder and Honorary North American Chairman (1977-1991).
The agenda of the Trilateral Commission has been widened in recent years to further the ‘new world order’ that is also being sought by similar think tanks, again with Rockefeller influence, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (David Rockefeller is CFR emeritus chairman), and the Bilderberg Group. Hence, the Trilateral Commission states that the regional groupings being incorporated into the Trilateralist scheme now include Mexico (reflecting the push for the NAFTA American Free Trade Agreement that includes Mexico), and the “Japan Group” has now become the “Pacific Asian Group” reflecting the push for a Pacific-wide union. The Trilateral Commission states of this:
“Two strong convictions guide our thinking for the 2006-2009 triennium. First, the Trilateral Commission remains as important as ever in helping our countries fulfil their shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system and, second, its framework needs to be widened to reflect broader changes in the world. Thus, the Japan Group has become a Pacific Asian Group, and Mexican members have been added to the North American Group. The European Group continues to widen in line with the enlargement of the EU. …”91

The widened Pacific Asia Group within the Trilateral Commission includes representatives from China and Hong Kong.92
Leading proponents of an East Asian bloc include Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and Japan’s Yukio Hatoyama. Rudd in particular considers the USA to be a focus of such a bloc. The U.S. signed a friendship pact with the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) in July 2009 to extend relations. China’s Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue states China is “positive and open” to the establishment of an “East Asian community”.93
Given the long history of relations between the USA and China, often covert, and often with a contrived façade of rivalry, New Zealand and Australia and other states in the Pacific, in addition to India, should not regard the USA as a reliable ally in the face of any Chinese threats.94

Towards an ANAZAC bloc
This essay has dealt primarily with the upheaval that is approaching in Asia particularly as the result of water shortages. This upheaval will result in geopolitical dramatic shifts, and the reversal of current, and even now, uneasy, alliances, such as those centring around the Central Asia and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in particular. Chinese efforts at regional hegemony and incursions into Russia and India, will prompt a new bloc with Russia and India as the foci.
New Zealand and Australia, like India in the Asian sphere, constitute a separate cultural and economic axis, around which a Pacific bloc outside of Asia can and should develop. Like India, Australia is a Continental Nation - potentially. New Zealand is for historical and ethnographic reasons intrinsically bound with Australia, and awaiting the assertion of an ANZAC95 axis to confront the approaching crises to the north. Within this ANAZAC axis naturally congregate the small island states of Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia, over which China has been seeking to expand its hegemony in recent years.96 The first task is for New Zealand and Australia to extricate themselves from Chinese and other detrimental Asia free trade agreements97. The second task of any such ANZAC bloc is to increase economic, diplomatic and military relations with the island states and counter Chinese influence, as well as possible Indonesian incursions in relation to New Guinea and East Timor. The third issue is for such an ANZAC bloc to look to India and Russia as allies on the world stage rather than the USA and China.
An ANZAC bloc that includes the small island states, many of which are presently succumbing to Chinese bribes of aid, in particular should be able to look to the strength of the two main constituent states, Australia and New Zealand. Such a sovereign geopolitical entity if brought out from under the control of foreign capital and exploitation of their resources and permitted to self-develop would, like a self-developed European Union, or Bolivarian bloc, possess vast potential of mineral wealth and food, and the potential to develop alliances with states based on genuine geopolitical and ethnographic considerations rather than being pushed by globalist economics.

K R Bolton Ph.D., Th.D., FCIS, is an independent New Zealand researcher, and a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research (http://www.academy-of-social-and-political-research.com) Recent publications include: “Russia and China: an approaching conflict?” Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, Washington, Vol. 34, no. 2, Summer 2009; “Trotskyism and the family”, CKR, Sociology Dept., Moscow State University, October 2009, and Geopolitica, Russia, November 2009; and “Multiculturalism and globalisation”, Ab Aeterno, Journal of the Academy of Social and Political Research, No. 1, November, 2009. Contact: vindex@clear.net.nz

Notes
1 Rival. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rival (accessed: October 19, 2009). 2 Jung Chang & Jon Halliday, Mao: the unknown story (London: Jonathan Cape, 2005), 570-571. 3 Bruce Elleman, “Sino-Soviet Relations and the February 1979 Sino-Vietnamese Conflict”, 20 April 1996 http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/events/1996_Symposium/96papers/elleviet.htm Vietnam Center, Texas Tech University, http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/ 4 Robert A Scalapino, “The Political Influence of the USSR in Asia”, in Donald S. Zagoria, ed., Soviet Policy in East Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 71. 5 Considering the symbiotic relationship between China and the USA economically, the USA is unlikely to intervene against regional conflicts in Asia. 6 http://www.paracelspratlyislands.blogspot.com (accessed October 29, 2009).
7 Bill Emmott, Rivals: How the Power Struggle Between China, India and Japan Will Shape Our Next Decade (London: Allen Lane, 2008). Cited in: Times Online, May 30, 2008, “Tibet is one thing, but India and China tensions spell bigger disaster”. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3645001.ece (accessed October 29, 2009). 8 Ibid. 9 Dr Bobo Lo for example, whilst pointing out the expansionist intent of China, does not believe that this will result in military conflict. Bobo Lo, Russia-China: Axis of Convenience, May 20, 2008, 2008, http://www.opendemocracy.net/user/511394 (accessed October 29, 2009). 10 K R Bolton, “Russia and China: An Approaching Conflict?” Journal of Social, Economic and Political Studies, Washington, Vol. 34, No. 2, Summer 2009, pp. 154-194. 11Sandeep Dikshit, “India China to sate up hotline”, The Hindu, August 9, 2009, p. 1.
12 “Manmohan Singh says India committed to promote its relations with China”, Thaindian News, October 1st, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:sRUHaAtkXYwJ:www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/manmohan-singh-says-india-committed-to-promote-its-relations-with- china_100254569.html+china+india+%22shared+vision%22+press+release&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 21, 2009). 13 “A Shared Vision for the 21st Century of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of India”, Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco, January 14, 2008, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Xu9S29da7sQJ:www.chinaconsulatesf.org/eng/xw/t399545.htm+china+india+%22shared+vision%22+press+release&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 21, 2009).
14 This involved a ban on toys from China, an action, which had significant economic consequences. China makes the majority of the world’s toys of which India imports 350 million pounds annually. It has been suggested the real reason for the ban was in retaliation for China’s growing links with Pakistan. Malcolm Moore, “China outraged after India bans all toy imports”, Daily Telegraph, February 4, 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4511451/China-outraged-after-India-bans-all-toy-imports.html (accessed October 21, 2009). 15 “India to finance ’sensitive’ areas’ projects itself: Krishna”, Thaindian News, August 17, 2009, http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/india-to-finance-sensitive-areas-projects-itself-krishna_100233891.html (accessed October 29, 2009). 16 John Cherion, “China bogey”, Frontline: India’s national magazine, Volume 26 - Issue 21, October, 10-23, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:pHCY8ETII2MJ:www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20091023262103700.htm+%22line+of+actual+control%22+%2BIn+June+2009,+the+Indian+Government+announced+the+deployment+of+an+additional+60,000+soldiers&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 29, 2009). 17 “India’s unwise military moves”, Global Times, June 9, 2009, cited in: PakTribune, “Cow (India) Desire of Hitting Bull (China)”, August 10, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:5VOcJaMz9MgJ:www.paktribune.com/news/index.php%3Fid%3D217944+%22Global+times%22+%2B+june+9+2009+%2B+%E2%80%9Cto+consider+whether+or+not+it+can+afford+the+consequences+of+a+potential+confrontation+with+China%E2%80%9D.&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 29, 2009). The Paktribune article also cites a further Chinese article, stating: “An affiliate of the People’s Daily published a Chinese language article on June 12 which translates to “India is a paper tiger and its use of force will be trounced, say experts.” 18 K R Bolton, Russia and China: an Approaching Conflict?, op.cit. 19 Quoted in The South China Morning Post, “China and India resume talks over disputed border”, August 7, 2009, 6. 20 Joseph Kahn, Last Stop, “Lhasa: Rail Link Ties Remote Tibet to China”, The New York Times, July 2, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/world/asia/02tibet.html (accessed October 29, 2009). 21 Brahma Chellaney is one of India’s most eminent strategy analysts, serving as Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based think tank, the Centre for Policy Research. He was a Member of the Policy Advisory Group headed by the External Affairs Minister of India. Chellaney was an adviser to India's National Security Council until January 2000, serving as convenor of the External Security Group of the National Security Advisory Board, and a member of the Board's Nuclear Doctrine Group. 22 Brahmas Chellaney, “View: Sino-Indian water divide”, Pakistan Daily Times, August 4, 2009, http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\08\04\story_4-8-2009_pg3_3 (accessed October 27, 2009). 23 For an examination of Chinese naval expansion throughout the world, with emphasis on the Pacific see: K R Bolton, A Wider Paranoia?: The Menace of China in the Pacific (Paraparaumu, New Zealand: Spectrum Press, 2004). 24 “India plans to build 100 warships, work on 32 vessels already under way”, The Nation, July 31, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:A4rvAzhM4tsJ:www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/31-Jul-2009/India-plans-to-build-100-warships-work-on-32-vessels-already-under-way--FT+Bhatnagar+stated:+%E2%80%9CChina+is+developing+its+navy+at+a+great+rate.+Its+ambitions+in+the+Indian+Ocean+are+quite+clear&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 29, 2009). 25 Peter Ford, “Rivals China, India in escalating war of words”, The Christian Science Monitor, October 20, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1020/p06s04-woap.html (accessed October 21, 2009). 26 Ben Arnoldy, “Growing number of China incursions into India lead to a strategy change”, The Christian Science Monitor, September 29, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0929/p06s06-wosc.html (accessed October 22, 2009). 27 Ben Arnoldy, ibid. 28 Ben Arnoldy, ibid. 29 Ben Arnoldy, ibid. 30 Ben Arnoldy, ibid. 31 Ratified by US Congress, October 1, 2008. The nuclear treaty with the USA might more cynically be viewed as a means of restraining India while China has no such restraints. The Treaty places India’s nuclear energy development under the scrutiny of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), and reaffirms India’s continue moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. “India works toward negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) with the United States banning the production of fissile material for weapons purposes. India agrees to prevent the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that don't possess them and to support international non-proliferation efforts.” Esther Pan and Jayshree Bajoria, Backgrounder: The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal, Council on Foreign Relations, October 2, 2008, http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/ 32 Informed US political commentators have pointed out the President Obama came from nowhere to the presidency with the backing of anti-Russia Soros-Brzezinski interests. US investigative journalist and lecturer Webster G Tarpley forcefully states that: “Barack Obama came in as the candidate of the Brzezinski-Soros machine, overwhelmingly focused on the need to assert Anglo-American world domination over Russia… We immediately find that Obama’s foreign policy is made by the Russia-hater Zbigniew Brzezinski of the Washington Center for Strategic and International Studies and the gray eminence of the Democratic Party foreign policy establishment. … But Zbigniew is not just an individual; he is the gruff patriarch of an extended clan of intelligence operatives around which an entire coterie of the intelligence community is grouped. One is his son Mark Brzezinski, who served in the National Security Council during the Clinton era. Zbigniew and Mark jointly directed the infamous orange revolution in the Ukraine in November and December 2004, which brought a pro-NATO puppet regime of kleptocrats and oligarchs to power deep into the former Soviet territory. At one point in this operation, it looked like the pro-Russian eastern Ukraine might secede, leading to possible civil war within that country. … The outlines of Zbigniew’s plan are also clear: he considers himself the man who shattered the Warsaw Pact, and who then brought on the collapse of the entire Soviet Union. Now he wants to dismember the Russian Federation itself, with the option of carving up the Russian heartland….” (Webster G Tarpley, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarOnFreedom/message/4141, accessed October 30, 2009). In an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in 2005 Brzezinski was frank about the subversive agenda being directed against Russia by the USA: “The United States is supporting and de facto promoting geopolitical pluralism in the space of the [former] Soviet Union.” U.S./Russia: Zbigniew Brzezinski Assesses U.S.-Russia Relations, May 11, 2005 http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1058818.html (accessed October 30, 2009). Brzezinski was National Security Adviser in the Carter Administration, and the founding director of the Trilateral Commission. Like Kissinger, he remains a key policy adviser. George Soros, the currency speculator, was a major backer of the Obama presidency. Through Soros’ Open Society Institute and Soros Foundation and a myriad of think tanks and lobbies, it is the Soros network that has fomented the “colour revolutions” throughout the former Soviet republics. Russia and the former Soviet republics are the major focus of Soros’ attention. For a quite open and informative outline of Soros activities see the website of the Soros Foundation and Open Society Institute under the “Central and Eastern Europe” section: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/regions/central-eastern_europe (accessed October 30, 2009). 33 “Poliverse” is a term used by leading Russian geopolitical theorist Dr A G Dugin, director of the Center for Conservative Studies, Moscow State University, in explaining the aim of creating a global order based on a number of geopolitical “vectors”, as opposed to global hegemony by one or two super-powers. This “poliverse” would comprise self-contained geopolitical blocs. (See A. G. Dugin, “The Eurasian Idea”, Ab Aeterno, Issue 1, November 2009. (http://academy-of-social-and-political-research.com; and http://konservatizm.org). 34 Among the many agreements signed by President Medvedev's on the his state visit to India were the Agreement on Construction of Additional Nuclear Plants at Kudankulum site as well as Construction of Russian-designed Nuclear Power Plants at New Sites within Republic of India. See: Dr. Subhash Kapila, Russia: President Medvedev's visit to India (December 2008) reviewed, Paper No. 2978, December 10, 2008. This includes as an appendix of the entire Indo-Russian declaration: Joint Declaration between the Republic of India and the Russian Federation During the visit of the President of the Russian Federation (December 5,2008). http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Ot99UtWcFRIJ:www.southasiaanalysis.org/%255Cpapers30%255Cpaper2978.html+india+russia+nucelar+energy+december+2008&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 30, 2009). 35 Vladimir Radyuhin, “New 10-year defence tie-up with Russia finalised”, The Hindu, October 16, 2009, http://www.hindu.com/2009/10/16/stories/2009101659881000.htm (accessed October 21, 2009). 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Peter Ford, op.cit. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Dan Murphy, “Indian Ocean as new strategic field”, The Christian Science Monitor, June 28, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0703/p12s01-wosc.html (accessed October 22, 2009). 45 “Transcript: George Soros interview”, Financial Times, London, Published: October 23 2009, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e2dfb82-c018-11de-aed2-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1 (accessed October 30, 2009). 46 New Zealand and Australia as European states that are being forced into Asia at the behest of political and business interests, are not informed regarding Asian rivalries and the consequences in regard to control of water resources. 47 Fire Earth: environmental issues, “Drought: China’s Arch Nemesis, February 26, 2009, http://feww.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/ (accessed October 30, 2009). 48 Ibid. 49 Xinhuanet official news agency, “China suffers great losses form desertification”, June 17, 2003. “China is losing 4.5 billion tons of soil each year”; cited by Reuters, “China's crops at risk from massive erosion”, November 21, 2008, http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4AK1J220081121?sp=true (accessed October 26, 2009).
50 Ibid. 51 NASA: “NASA Hydrologist Matt Rodell discusses vanishing groundwater in India”, August 12, 2009, http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html (accessed October 26, 200). 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid. 55 Brahma Chellaney, “China aims for bigger share of South Asia’s water lifeline”, Japan Times, June 26, 2007. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. 59 Of the numerous campaigns conducted by human rights activists against the Chinese occupation of Tibet, and the reports on the subject in the news media, little attention seems to have been given to Tibet’s importance in terms of geo-politics, water and mineral resources. It seems to be the general view that control over Tibet is simply a matter of Chinese pride. China is not about to relinquish control over Tibet under any circumstances. Tibet is crucial to China’s survival. 60 Braham Chellaney, “China aims for bigger share of South Asia’s water lifeline”, op.cit. 61 Brahma Chellaney, “View: Sino-Indian water divide”, op.cit. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Kenneth Pomeranz, "The Great Himalayan Watershed: Water Shortages, Mega-Projects and Environmental Politics in China, India, and Southeast Asia," The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 30, July 27, 2009. 68 Marat Yermukanov, “China obstructs River Management Talks with Kazakhstan”, February 17, 2006 Eurasia Daily Monitor, Jamestown Foundation, http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2370793. The Jamestown Foundation is a US based think tank specialising in the analysis of the affairs of the republics of the former USSR, and is staffed by academic specialists. Eurasia Daily Monitor is the Foundation’s publication. Yermukanov is a journalist working for the Russian-language private newspaper Panorama Nedely in Petropavlovsk, North Kazakhstan. 69 Marat Yermukanov, op.cit., citing Izvestiya Kazakhstan, February 14), 2005. 70 Bobo Lo, “Russia-China: Axis of Convenience”, May 20, 2008 http://www.opendemocracy.net/user/511394, citing: Novoye pokolenie, February 10, 2005. 71 Bob Lo, ibid. 72 Marat Yermukanov, op.cit. 73 Ibid. 74 United Nations media release, “Secretary General to inaugural Asia-Pacific Water Summit”, December 3, 2007, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sgsm11311.doc.htm (accessed October 28, 2009).
75 The 3rd United Nations World Water Development Report, UNESCO, Water in a changing world, March 2009. 76 Water in a changing world, ibid., Overview of key messages, xx, http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr3/pdf/08_WWDR3_overview_of_key_msgs.pdf (accessed October 28, 2009). 77 As this essay hopefully clearly shows, the pact between Russia and China has historical and ethnographic factors working against it and is an historical aberration, which will disintegrate with the types of pressures that are considered here. See also K R Bolton, Russia and China: an approaching conflict? Op.cit. 78 Central Asia and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. 79 In his speech before Congress declaring war on Iraq Bush stated: “This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order-- a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful -- and we will be -- we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfil the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders.” Pres. George Conservancy Committee said publicly that the mega-plan enjoys official sanction and may begin by 2010.”65


China is clearly being duplicitous in its public pronouncements on its intentions in regard to Brahmaputra. Past and present actions indicate that Beijing expects to get its own way over any disputes regarding territory and resources, and China is not about to back down or “loose face” on one of the most vital issues of survival.

Dr Chellaney states that the first phase of China’s South-North Project involves building 300 km of tunnels and channels to draw waters from the Jinsha, Yalong and Dadu rivers, on the eastern rim of the Tibetan plateau. In the second phase the Brahmaputra waters would be directed northward.

“In fact, Beijing has identified the bend where the Brahmaputra forms the world’s longest and deepest canyon just before entering India as holding the largest untapped reserves for meeting its water and energy needs.”66


Chellaney considers that the re-routing of the Brahmaputra “would constitute the declaration of a water war on lower-riparian India and Bangladesh.”

Most of Asia's major rivers – the Yellow, the Yangzi, the Mekong, Salween, Irrawaddy, Brahmaputra, Ganges, Sutlej, and Indus – draw on the glaciers and snowmelt of the Himalayas. Except for the Ganges the source for these rivers is in Tibet.

The diversion of the Yalong Zangbo/ Brahmaputra would impact on Eastern India and Bangladesh, with a combined population larger than North China's, could be devastating. “The potential for such a project to create conflicts between China and India –and to exacerbate existing conflicts over shared waterways between India and Bangladesh – is gigantic. ...”, states Kenneth Pomeranz 67


Central Asia

This conflict over water while most obviously affecting the relations between India and China and further afield into South-east Asia, also has major consequences in Central Asia and potentially also draws China into conflict with Russia.

Irtysh River, which shares borders with China, Russia, and Kazakhstan, places relations between these states in the same predicament as that between India and China over the Brahmaputra. Despite China’s assurances, like Beijing’s dubious assurances over the Brahmaputra, in regard to Irtysh:

“Patience ran out when Beijing started construction of a canal linking the Black Irtysh with the Karamai River on Chinese territory, dramatically lowering the water level in the river. China's water-management policy threatens to drastically reduce crop production in the environmentally vulnerable regions of East Kazakhstan, Pavlodar, and Karaganda.”68


Yermukanov adds that, “Such a move could also cause a severe drought in Russia's wheat-growing Omsk region.”

In November 2005, in a desperate attempt to prevent an environmental disaster, the Governor of Omsk region, Leonid Polezhayev, ordered 10 billion roubles to be allocated for the construction of a huge water reservoir to accumulate floodwaters for industrial use. He argued that a political solution to the Irtysh River dispute was not feasible, since the Chinese did not wish to negotiate69.

Yermukanov cites the pessimism of Russian Sinologists in regard to China’s willingness to negotiate other than for the purpose of stalling: “Experts familiar with the state of affairs on the Chinese side are less optimistic about Beijing's resolve to solve the problem of water resources in the Irtysh-Ili basin without dragging out the talks endlessly.” This has

certainly been the case in China’s negotiations with India over the course of thirteen years in regard to Brahmaputra.

In 2004 China opened a hydroelectric power station that consumes 15% of the Ili River's water resources. 65 hydroelectric power stations have already been built on the Ili River. China is planning to build another 13 reservoirs.70 Dr Bobo Lo states that, many in the Kazakh Government are not even aware of the extent of China’s hydro projects. He states that:

“…Environmentalists warn that in the next few years China will build additional hydroelectric power installations along the Irtysh and Ili Rivers. Among the installations not revealed to the Kazakh government delegation is the Kapshagay (a hydroelectric power station in Kazakhstan carries the same name) water reservoir, with the enormous capacity of 380 million cubic meters.”71


Yermukanov refers to the industrialisation of northwestern China’s polluting of Lake Balkhash, and the increased food production in Xingjiang Uighur. He points to Chinese mismanagement, and to the refusal of China to sign an agreement on shared water resources.

“The forced industrial development of north-western China is likely to pollute Lake Balkhash in Kazakhstan with chemicals and fertilizers, as the Ili River feeds the lake. The increase of paddy fields in Xingjiang Uighur Autonomous Region has already led to the depletion of the Irtysh and Ili Rivers. According to the latest data, as a result of mismanagement the annual loss of water in the Chinese section of the Ili River basin makes up 4.4 cubic kilometres, which equals 15% of the whole water resources of the river. That reduces substantially the amount of water inflow into Lake Balkhash. The root cause of the problem is that until now China had not signed the international convention on trans-border waters.…”72


Yermukanov ominously points to the ethnic dynamics of the region, which he states could lead to violence. The Chinese are changing the demographics of the region with Chinese ethnic incursions, in the name of peaceful commerce. Yermukanov also reveals that China has territorial designs on Kazakhstan. While Bobo Lo maintains that China is too pragmatic and has too much to lose to continue pressing its territorial claims on Russia as it did under Mao, its present designs on Kazakh lands give pause to thought in regard to whether it has indeed forgone its ambitions in regard to Russia:

In addition to the intransigent territorial claims against India, Vietnam and Russia, China also claims territories in Kazakhstan. Yermukanov states that despite border agreements between Kazakhstan and China, “Beijing did not abandon altogether territorial claims on some southern regions of Kazakhstan. Some years ago a Kazakh Foreign Ministry delegation was surprised to see the former capital, Almaty; Balkhash; and other areas of south Kazakhstan marked as parts of China on a map in Beijing's central museum. The Foreign Ministry of Kazakhstan filed an official protest, and the Chinese promised to correct the mistake. But the school text on Xingjiang history lists the same parts of Kazakhstan as Chinese territory.”73


U.N. worries over potential for ‘water wars’

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has already expressed concern about the disputes over water between states in the Middle East. At the 2007 Asia-Pacific Water Summit Ban Ki-moon stated that, “Our planet faces a growing water crisis. But the situation in the Asia-Pacific region is especially troubling. High population growth, unsustainable consumption, pollution and poor management all threaten the area’s clean water sources.”74

A 2009 UNESCO report, Water in a Changing World, refers to the need for urgent action if a “global water crisis” is to be avoided.75 Indeed, the UNESCO report places water problems at the centre of potential crises leading to national and even global conflicts:

“Water is linked to the crises of climate change, energy and food supplies and prices, and troubled financial markets. Unless their links with water are addressed and water crises around the world are resolved, these other crises may intensify and local water crises may worsen, converging into a global water crisis and leading to political insecurity and conflict at various levels.”76


What can be stated with relative confidence is that it won’t be the United Nations Organisation or any other such international organisation, treaty or agreement that will forestall or avert crises resulting from the competition for water resources. Such utopian schemes from Alexander the Great’s vision of a multicultural world empire to the League of Nations and Wilson’s Fourteen Points, and the complete failure of the UNO since its foundation to avert war, or even improve the atmosphere relating to confrontation between tribes and states, have intrinsically failed. The appeal to “humanity” or to “the human race” is too nebulous to succeed. Should such schemes succeed in establishing what has recently being called a New World Order, history and current situations indicate that the globalist “cure” would be at least as terrifying as the problem, and if successful would establish a world state that would in turn operate at the behest of whatever coterie of power-bloc gets the upper hand. From thence the cycle of competition would resume…  We are at this moment and have for the past several decades been witnessing the efforts of the UNO, NATO and other alliances to establish “peacefully” and “humanly” this New World Order, as per the bombing into submission of Yugoslavia and Iraq.


Geopolitical shifts

Since the implosion of the Soviet bloc, a mono-polar world has emerged revolving around the USA, and challenged by an Islamic bloc. Russia and China77 have attempted to confront this mono-polar post-Cold War situation by forming a pact between each other and bordering states78. This holds out the prospect of a Eurasian bloc to confront the world hegemony of the USA, which seeks to draw to it the European Union and return Europe to the subordinate role she played vis-à-vis the USA during the Cold War, pushed into coming under the US orbit by the fear of Warsaw Pact invasion. The US now uses the “war on terror” as the same fear-based strategy to maintain its world’s power, and it was the first war against Iraq that was used by President George H W Bush to announce the desire for a New World Order as the basis of the USA’s post-Cold War policy.79

The USA is not a natural leader of any Western bloc or alliance with Europe. It is and always has been a misnomer to call the USA “leader of the Western world.” The USA at its founding arose as a dichotomy between Puritans and Freemasons80. The USA has since the time of Woodrow Wilson81 regarded Europe is its vassal. The USA sought to unite Europe on US terms. America does not represent a new and vibrant nation, but an excrescence of the degenerate cycle of Europe emanating from Europe’s Age of Enlightenment, when Europe had repudiated its own cultural and spiritual roots, starting from the Reformation.82 Hence, the USA has forever been soulless, and money obsessed and offers no leadership, but relies on money, advanced weaponry and global cultural subversion in creating its New World Order.

The US global agenda largely proceeds from cultural subversion, which is antithetical to traditional Western culture, and indeed all traditional cultures. Maj. Ralph Peters outlined the cultural offensive in an article for the Parameters in 1997. Here Peters states that the world is “entering a new American century”, in which America’s increased power will be concomitant with being “culturally more lethal.” He alludes to the “clash of civilisations” and democracy as the “liberal form of imperialism.” Peters wrote of how America would dominate through cultural subversion, stating, “Hollywood goes where Harvard never penetrated…. American culture is the most powerful in history, and the most destructive competitor of cultures. … Our military power is culturally based. … For the majority of our citizens, our vulgar, near-chaotic, marvellous culture is the greatest engine of positive change in history…. But American culture is infectious, a plague of pleasure…. But Hollywood is ‘preparing the battlefield’, and burgers precede bullets. The flag follows trade….”83

 Peters, retiring in 1998 as a lieutenant colonel, wrote the article in Parameters, entitled “Constant Conflict”84, when he was attached to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. He continues to be a commentator and writer on military strategy and foreign policy.

In the face of American globalism and cultural penetration Russia is the natural alignment for a European bloc if it is based around states that are historically resistant to US hegemony over Europe, such as France, a major player in the European Union.

The USA seeks to co-opt China into the world economy, as indicated previously with reference to the Soros comments and the long-running actions of the Rockefeller dynasty, and in turn is at the mercy of Chinese financial investment, creating a symbiotic relationship between the two.85 The USA has in the recent past sought out alignment with China in order to contain Russia86. This is a possibility again, as it would be strategically plausible for the USA to back China vis-à-vis Russia.

Any repudiation of a mono-polar world based on US hegemony again centres on Russia, whose Governments after the end of the US-orientated Yeltsin era aim to restore Russian global influence. The alliance between China and Russia is contrary to history and ethnography and will not last. It is not a natural geopolitical alliance, for reasons outlined in this essay, and dealt with specifically in this writer’s paper Russia and China: an approaching conflict?87 China will confront India, Russia and Central Asia in a struggle for resources, especially including water, as I have attempted to show in this essay. Central Asia, India and other states as far away as Vietnam will gravitate towards Russia as China becomes increasingly hegemonic.

A Latin American bloc is emerging around Venezuela. Combined a South American bloc will have immense mineral and food resources. A Bolivarian revolution is taking place throughout Latin America under the inspiration of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela88. This Latin American bloc is forming in defiance of North American hegemonic ambitions, as it has traditionally done. This bloc is already in the process of formation and was launched as The Bolivarian Alternative for the People of Our America (ALBA) in 2004 by Venezuela and Cuba as an alternative to the U.S.- backed Free Trade Area of the Americas. By June 2009, ALBA had grown to nine member states, and the name was changed to the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America. A Latin American bloc will consequently seek alignment with Russia, and Venezuela is already doing so. 89.

New Zealand and Australia are being forced into Asia on economic grounds. Ethnography is not being taken into account, and therefore the prospect of an “Asian bloc” cannot work other than to submerge New Zealand and Australia as subordinate vassal sates to China, which will be the focus of any such bloc. Vietnam and India would not accede to an Asian bloc dominated by China. To view such an Asian bloc as a geopolitical evolution is not to consider the ethnographic and historical factors. New Zealand and Australia are outposts of European culture. They were founded as vibrant cultural expressions, but both were detached

from their cultural roots, first by cutting off the allegiances to Britain, then by substituting the British cultural foundations for American cosmopolitanism and commerce. Britain and New Zealand were thereby denied the time during which to evolve their own national folk cultures, and now remain culturally and spiritually barren. Hence both are easy prey for parasitic global commerce and have readily accepted an Asian identity.

The concept of the Asian bloc under Chinese hegemony, and including Australia and New Zealand are the product of specific plutocratic interests in the USA centred around the Rockefeller dynasty in particular. John D. Rockefeller III set up the Asia Center in 1956 as a preliminary interest group to promote an Asia bloc. The by-line on the Asia Society’s website is: “Preparing Asians and Americans for a shared future.”90. Trustees currently include: Charles P. Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller IV. To promote an Asia bloc as part of a global economic structure, the Trilateral Commission was established in 1973 by David Rockefeller, listed on the Commission’s website as the “Founder and Honorary North American Chairman (1977-1991).

The agenda of the Trilateral Commission has been widened in recent years to further the ‘new world order’ that is also being sought by similar think tanks, again with Rockefeller influence, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (David Rockefeller is CFR emeritus chairman), and the Bilderberg Group. Hence, the Trilateral Commission states that the regional groupings being incorporated into the Trilateralist scheme now include Mexico (reflecting the push for the NAFTA American Free Trade Agreement that includes Mexico), and the “Japan Group” has now become the “Pacific Asian Group” reflecting the push for a Pacific-wide union. The Trilateral Commission states of this:

“Two strong convictions guide our thinking for the 2006-2009 triennium. First, the Trilateral Commission remains as important as ever in helping our countries fulfil their shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system and, second, its framework needs to be widened to reflect broader changes in the world. Thus, the Japan Group has become a Pacific Asian Group, and Mexican members have been added to the North American Group. The European Group continues to widen in line with the enlargement of the EU. …”91


The widened Pacific Asia Group within the Trilateral Commission includes representatives from China and Hong Kong.92

Leading proponents of an East Asian bloc include Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and Japan’s Yukio Hatoyama. Rudd in particular considers the USA to be a focus of such a bloc. The U.S. signed a friendship pact with the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) in July 2009 to extend relations. China’s Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue states China is “positive and open” to the establishment of an “East Asian community”.93

Given the long history of relations between the USA and China, often covert, and often with a contrived façade of rivalry, New Zealand and Australia and other states in the Pacific, in addition to India, should not regard the USA as a reliable ally in the face of any Chinese threats.94


Towards an ANAZAC bloc

This essay has dealt primarily with the upheaval that is approaching in Asia particularly as the result of water shortages. This upheaval will result in geopolitical dramatic shifts, and the reversal of current, and even now, uneasy, alliances, such as those centring around the Central Asia and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in particular. Chinese efforts at regional hegemony and incursions into Russia and India, will prompt a new bloc with Russia and India as the foci.

New Zealand and Australia, like India in the Asian sphere, constitute a separate cultural and economic axis, around which a Pacific bloc outside of Asia can and should develop. Like India, Australia is a Continental Nation - potentially. New Zealand is for historical and ethnographic reasons intrinsically bound with Australia, and awaiting the assertion of an ANZAC95 axis to confront the approaching crises to the north. Within this ANAZAC axis naturally congregate the small island states of Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia, over which China has been seeking to expand its hegemony in recent years.96 The first task is for New Zealand and Australia to extricate themselves from Chinese and other detrimental Asia free trade agreements97. The second task of any such ANZAC bloc is to increase economic, diplomatic and military relations with the island states and counter Chinese influence, as well as possible Indonesian incursions in relation to New Guinea and East Timor. The third issue is for such an ANZAC bloc to look to India and Russia as allies on the world stage rather than the USA and China.

An ANZAC bloc that includes the small island states, many of which are presently succumbing to Chinese bribes of aid, in particular should be able to look to the strength of the two main constituent states, Australia and New Zealand. Such a sovereign geopolitical entity if brought out from under the control of foreign capital and exploitation of their resources and permitted to self-develop would, like a self-developed European Union, or Bolivarian bloc, possess vast potential of mineral wealth and food, and the potential to develop alliances with states based on genuine geopolitical and ethnographic considerations rather than being pushed by globalist economics.


K R Bolton Ph.D., Th.D., FCIS, is an independent New Zealand researcher, and a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research (http://www.academy-of-social-and-political-research.com) Recent publications include: “Russia and China: an approaching conflict?” Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, Washington, Vol. 34, no. 2, Summer 2009; “Trotskyism and the family”, CKR, Sociology Dept., Moscow State University, October 2009, and Geopolitica, Russia, November 2009; and “Multiculturalism and globalisation”, Ab Aeterno, Journal of the Academy of Social and Political Research, No. 1, November, 2009. Contact: vindex@clear.net.nz  


Notes

1 Rival. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rival (accessed: October 19, 2009). 2 Jung Chang & Jon Halliday, Mao: the unknown story (London: Jonathan Cape, 2005), 570-571. 3 Bruce Elleman, “Sino-Soviet Relations and the February 1979 Sino-Vietnamese Conflict”, 20 April 1996 http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/events/1996_Symposium/96papers/elleviet.htm Vietnam Center, Texas Tech University, http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/ 4 Robert A Scalapino, “The Political Influence of the USSR in Asia”, in Donald S. Zagoria, ed., Soviet Policy in East Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 71. 5 Considering the symbiotic relationship between China and the USA economically, the USA is unlikely to intervene against regional conflicts in Asia. 6 http://www.paracelspratlyislands.blogspot.com (accessed October 29, 2009).

7 Bill Emmott, Rivals: How the Power Struggle Between China, India and Japan Will Shape Our Next Decade (London: Allen Lane, 2008). Cited in: Times Online, May 30, 2008, “Tibet is one thing, but India and China tensions spell bigger disaster”.  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3645001.ece (accessed October 29, 2009).  8 Ibid. 9 Dr Bobo Lo for example, whilst pointing out the expansionist intent of China, does not believe that this will result in military conflict. Bobo Lo, Russia-China: Axis of Convenience, May 20, 2008, 2008, http://www.opendemocracy.net/user/511394 (accessed October 29, 2009).  10 K R Bolton, “Russia and China: An Approaching Conflict?” Journal of Social, Economic and Political Studies, Washington, Vol. 34, No. 2, Summer 2009, pp. 154-194.  11Sandeep Dikshit, “India China to sate up hotline”, The Hindu, August 9, 2009, p. 1.

12 “Manmohan Singh says India committed to promote its relations with China”, Thaindian News, October 1st, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:sRUHaAtkXYwJ:www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/manmohan-singh-says-india-committed-to-promote-its-relations-with- china_100254569.html+china+india+%22shared+vision%22+press+release&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 21, 2009).  13 “A Shared Vision for the 21st Century of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of India”, Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco, January 14, 2008, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Xu9S29da7sQJ:www.chinaconsulatesf.org/eng/xw/t399545.htm+china+india+%22shared+vision%22+press+release&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 21, 2009).

14 This involved a ban on toys from China, an action, which had significant economic consequences. China makes the majority of the world’s toys of which India imports 350 million pounds annually. It has been suggested the real reason for the ban was in retaliation for China’s growing links with Pakistan. Malcolm Moore, “China outraged after India bans all toy imports”, Daily Telegraph, February 4, 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4511451/China-outraged-after-India-bans-all-toy-imports.html (accessed October 21, 2009).  15 “India to finance ’sensitive’ areas’ projects itself: Krishna”, Thaindian News, August 17, 2009, http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/india-to-finance-sensitive-areas-projects-itself-krishna_100233891.html (accessed October 29, 2009).  16 John Cherion, “China bogey”, Frontline: India’s national magazine, Volume 26 - Issue 21, October, 10-23, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:pHCY8ETII2MJ:www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20091023262103700.htm+%22line+of+actual+control%22+%2BIn+June+2009,+the+Indian+Government+announced+the+deployment+of+an+additional+60,000+soldiers&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 29, 2009).  17 “India’s unwise military moves”, Global Times, June 9, 2009, cited in: PakTribune, “Cow (India) Desire of Hitting Bull (China)”, August 10, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:5VOcJaMz9MgJ:www.paktribune.com/news/index.php%3Fid%3D217944+%22Global+times%22+%2B+june+9+2009+%2B+%E2%80%9Cto+consider+whether+or+not+it+can+afford+the+consequences+of+a+potential+confrontation+with+China%E2%80%9D.&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 29, 2009). The Paktribune article also cites a further Chinese article, stating: “An affiliate of the People’s Daily published a Chinese language article on June 12 which translates to “India is a paper tiger and its use of force will be trounced, say experts.” 18 K R Bolton, Russia and China: an Approaching Conflict?, op.cit. 19 Quoted in The South China Morning Post, “China and India resume talks over disputed border”, August 7, 2009, 6.  20 Joseph Kahn, Last Stop, “Lhasa: Rail Link Ties Remote Tibet to China”, The New York Times, July 2, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/world/asia/02tibet.html (accessed October 29, 2009).  21 Brahma Chellaney is one of India’s most eminent strategy analysts, serving as Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based think tank, the Centre for Policy Research. He was a Member of the Policy Advisory Group headed by the External Affairs Minister of India. Chellaney was an adviser to India's National Security Council until January 2000, serving as convenor of the External Security Group of the National Security Advisory Board, and a member of the Board's Nuclear Doctrine Group. 22 Brahmas Chellaney, “View: Sino-Indian water divide”, Pakistan Daily Times, August 4, 2009, http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\08\04\story_4-8-2009_pg3_3 (accessed October 27, 2009). 23 For an examination of Chinese naval expansion throughout the world, with emphasis on the Pacific see: K R Bolton, A Wider Paranoia?: The Menace of China in the Pacific (Paraparaumu, New Zealand: Spectrum Press, 2004).  24 “India plans to build 100 warships, work on 32 vessels already under way”, The Nation, July 31, 2009, http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:A4rvAzhM4tsJ:www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/31-Jul-2009/India-plans-to-build-100-warships-work-on-32-vessels-already-under-way--FT+Bhatnagar+stated:+%E2%80%9CChina+is+developing+its+navy+at+a+great+rate.+Its+ambitions+in+the+Indian+Ocean+are+quite+clear&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 29, 2009).  25 Peter Ford,  “Rivals China, India in escalating war of words”, The Christian Science Monitor,  October 20, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1020/p06s04-woap.html (accessed October 21, 2009). 26 Ben Arnoldy, “Growing number of China incursions into India lead to a strategy change”, The Christian Science Monitor, September 29, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0929/p06s06-wosc.html (accessed October 22, 2009).  27 Ben Arnoldy, ibid.  28 Ben Arnoldy, ibid.  29 Ben Arnoldy, ibid. 30 Ben Arnoldy, ibid.  31 Ratified by US Congress, October 1, 2008. The nuclear treaty with the USA might more cynically be viewed as a means of restraining India while China has no such restraints. The Treaty places India’s nuclear energy development under the scrutiny of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), and reaffirms India’s continue moratorium on nuclear weapons testing.  “India works toward negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) with the United States banning the production of fissile material for weapons purposes. India agrees to prevent the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that don't possess them and to support international non-proliferation efforts.” Esther Pan and Jayshree Bajoria, Backgrounder: The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal, Council on Foreign Relations, October 2, 2008, http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/ 32 Informed US political commentators have pointed out the President Obama came from nowhere to the presidency with the backing of anti-Russia Soros-Brzezinski interests. US investigative journalist and lecturer Webster G Tarpley forcefully states that: “Barack Obama came in as the candidate of the Brzezinski-Soros machine, overwhelmingly focused on the need to assert Anglo-American world domination over Russia… We immediately find that Obama’s foreign policy is made by the Russia-hater Zbigniew Brzezinski of the Washington Center for Strategic and International Studies and the gray eminence of the Democratic Party foreign policy establishment. … But Zbigniew is not just an individual; he is the gruff patriarch of an extended clan of intelligence operatives around which an entire coterie of the intelligence community is grouped. One is his son Mark Brzezinski, who served in the National Security Council during the Clinton era. Zbigniew and Mark jointly directed the infamous orange revolution in the Ukraine in November and December 2004, which brought a pro-NATO puppet regime of kleptocrats and oligarchs to power deep into the former Soviet territory. At one point in this operation, it looked like the pro-Russian eastern Ukraine might secede, leading to possible civil war within that country. … The outlines of Zbigniew’s plan are also clear: he considers himself the man who shattered the Warsaw Pact, and who then brought on the collapse of the entire Soviet Union. Now he wants to dismember the Russian Federation itself, with the option of carving up the Russian heartland….” (Webster G Tarpley, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarOnFreedom/message/4141, accessed October 30, 2009). In an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in 2005 Brzezinski was frank about the subversive agenda being directed against Russia by the USA: “The United States is supporting and de facto promoting geopolitical pluralism in the space of the [former] Soviet Union.” U.S./Russia: Zbigniew Brzezinski Assesses U.S.-Russia Relations, May 11, 2005 http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1058818.html (accessed October 30, 2009).   Brzezinski was National Security Adviser in the Carter Administration, and the founding director of the Trilateral Commission. Like Kissinger, he remains a key policy adviser.  George Soros, the currency speculator, was a major backer of the Obama presidency. Through Soros’ Open Society Institute and Soros Foundation and a myriad of think tanks and lobbies, it is the Soros network that has fomented the “colour revolutions” throughout the former Soviet republics. Russia and the former Soviet republics are the major focus of Soros’ attention. For a quite open and informative outline of Soros activities see the website of the Soros Foundation and Open Society Institute under the “Central and Eastern Europe” section: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/regions/central-eastern_europe (accessed October 30, 2009).  33 “Poliverse” is a term used by leading Russian geopolitical theorist Dr A G Dugin, director of the Center for Conservative Studies, Moscow State University, in explaining the aim of creating a global order based on a number of geopolitical “vectors”, as opposed to global hegemony by one or two super-powers. This “poliverse” would comprise self-contained geopolitical blocs. (See A. G. Dugin, “The Eurasian Idea”, Ab Aeterno, Issue 1, November 2009. (http://academy-of-social-and-political-research.com; and http://konservatizm.org). 34 Among the many agreements signed by President Medvedev's on the his state visit to India were the Agreement on Construction of Additional Nuclear Plants at Kudankulum site as well as Construction of Russian-designed Nuclear Power Plants at New Sites within Republic of India. See: Dr. Subhash Kapila, Russia: President Medvedev's visit to India (December 2008) reviewed, Paper No. 2978, December 10, 2008. This includes as an appendix of the entire Indo-Russian declaration: Joint Declaration between the Republic of India and the Russian Federation During the visit of the President of the Russian Federation (December 5,2008).  http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Ot99UtWcFRIJ:www.southasiaanalysis.org/%255Cpapers30%255Cpaper2978.html+india+russia+nucelar+energy+december+2008&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 30, 2009). 35 Vladimir Radyuhin, “New 10-year defence tie-up with Russia finalised”, The Hindu, October 16, 2009, http://www.hindu.com/2009/10/16/stories/2009101659881000.htm (accessed October 21, 2009).  36 Ibid. 37 Ibid.  38 Ibid. 39 Peter Ford, op.cit. 40 Ibid.  41 Ibid. 42 Ibid.  43 Ibid.  44 Dan Murphy, “Indian Ocean as new strategic field”, The Christian Science Monitor, June 28, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0703/p12s01-wosc.html (accessed October 22, 2009). 45 “Transcript: George Soros interview”, Financial Times, London, Published: October 23 2009, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e2dfb82-c018-11de-aed2-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1 (accessed October 30, 2009).  46 New Zealand and Australia as European states that are being forced into Asia at the behest of political and business interests, are not informed regarding Asian rivalries and the consequences in regard to control of water resources.  47 Fire Earth: environmental issues,  “Drought: China’s Arch Nemesis, February 26, 2009, http://feww.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/ (accessed October 30, 2009).  48 Ibid.  49 Xinhuanet official news agency, “China suffers great losses form desertification”, June 17, 2003. “China is losing 4.5 billion tons of soil each year”; cited by Reuters, “China's crops at risk from massive erosion”, November 21, 2008, http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4AK1J220081121?sp=true (accessed October 26, 2009).

50 Ibid.  51 NASA: “NASA Hydrologist Matt Rodell discusses vanishing groundwater in India”, August 12, 2009, http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html (accessed October 26, 200). 52 Ibid.  53 Ibid.   54 Ibid.  55 Brahma Chellaney, “China aims for bigger share of South Asia’s water lifeline”, Japan Times, June 26, 2007. 56 Ibid.  57 Ibid.  58 Ibid.  59 Of the numerous campaigns conducted by human rights activists against the Chinese occupation of Tibet, and the reports on the subject in the news media, little attention seems to have been given to Tibet’s importance in terms of geo-politics, water and mineral resources. It seems to be the general view that control over Tibet is simply a matter of Chinese pride. China is not about to relinquish control over Tibet under any circumstances. Tibet is crucial to China’s survival.  60 Braham Chellaney, “China aims for bigger share of South Asia’s water lifeline”, op.cit.  61 Brahma Chellaney, “View: Sino-Indian water divide”, op.cit. 62 Ibid.  63 Ibid. 64 Ibid.  65 Ibid.  66 Ibid.  67 Kenneth Pomeranz, "The Great Himalayan Watershed: Water Shortages, Mega-Projects and Environmental Politics in China, India, and Southeast Asia," The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 30, July 27, 2009. 68 Marat Yermukanov, “China obstructs River Management Talks with Kazakhstan”, February 17, 2006   Eurasia Daily Monitor, Jamestown Foundation, http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2370793.  The Jamestown Foundation is a US based think tank specialising in the analysis of the affairs of the republics of the former USSR, and is staffed by academic specialists. Eurasia Daily Monitor is the Foundation’s publication. Yermukanov is a journalist working for the Russian-language private newspaper Panorama Nedely in Petropavlovsk, North Kazakhstan. 69 Marat Yermukanov, op.cit., citing Izvestiya Kazakhstan, February 14), 2005.  70 Bobo Lo, “Russia-China: Axis of Convenience”, May 20, 2008 http://www.opendemocracy.net/user/511394, citing: Novoye pokolenie, February 10, 2005. 71 Bob Lo, ibid.  72 Marat Yermukanov, op.cit.  73 Ibid.  74 United Nations media release, “Secretary General to inaugural Asia-Pacific Water Summit”, December 3, 2007, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sgsm11311.doc.htm (accessed October 28, 2009).

75 The 3rd United Nations World Water Development Report, UNESCO, Water in a changing world, March 2009.  76 Water in a changing world, ibid., Overview of key messages, xx, http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr3/pdf/08_WWDR3_overview_of_key_msgs.pdf (accessed October 28, 2009).  77 As this essay hopefully clearly shows, the pact between Russia and China has historical and ethnographic factors working against it and is an historical aberration, which will disintegrate with the types of pressures that are considered here. See also K R Bolton, Russia and China: an approaching conflict? Op.cit.  78 Central Asia and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.  79 In his speech before Congress declaring war on Iraq Bush stated:  “This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order-- a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful -- and we will be -- we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfil the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders.” Pres. George
Bush, US Congress, January 16, 1991, full text: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:0l07QwX3xWwJ:www.historyplace.com/speeches/bush-war.htm+bush+%22new+world+order%22+iraq&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a (accessed October 30, 2009). 80 The first American Colonies were those of the Puritans, the Founding Fathers were largely anti-Christian and Deist, heavily influenced by Masonry and Continental Rationalism. See: Nicholas Hagger, The Secret Founding of America: The real story of Freemasons, Puritans, & the battle for the New World (London: Watkins Publishing, 2007). See also: K R Bolton, From Knights Templar to New World Order (Paraparaumu Beach, New Zealand: Renaissance Press, 2006). 81 Wilson reversed traditional American ‘non-interventionist’ policy and globalisd US foreign policy with his declaration of the Fourteen Points, for re-organising the post-World War I world, and his support for the abortive League of Nations. 82 K R Bolton, The Faith of Europe (Paraparaumu Beach, New Zealand: Renaissance Press, 2009). 83 Maj. Ralph Peters, “Constant conflict”, Parameters: US Army College Quarterly, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14. 84 Note the resemblance between the concept of “constant conflict’ and the Trotskyist concept of “permanent revolution.” It is interesting to note that misnamed “neo-conservatism which controlled the last Bush Administration so thoroughly, but which has now been replaced by another set of globalists – the Soros/Rockefeller interests – did not proceed from the conservative Right, but from the Trotskyists who were recruited during the Cold War by the CIA front, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, because they hated the USSR after the overthrow of Trotsky more than they hated the USA or capitalism. The ‘neo-con’ rhetoric remains essentially Trotskyist. See: Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: the CIA and the world of arts and letters (New York: The New Press, 1999). 85 Dr Niall Ferguson states of the USA and China: “Far from being strategic rivals, these two empires have the air of economic partners…” Niall Ferguson, Colossus: the rise and fall of the American empire (London: Penguin Books, 2004). 86 K R Bolton, Russia and China, op.cit., pp. 181-190. 87 Ibid. 88 When Hugo Chavez assumed power in 1998 Venezuela was renamed constitutionally as the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. 89 In September 2009 on a visit to Moscow Chavez secured a $US2.2 billion deal to obtain credit for the purchase of 92 Russian-made T-72 tanks and an undisclosed number of Smerch anti-aircraft missile launching systems. Russia opens billions in credit to Venezuela, Chavez: Country plans to buy T-72 tanks, Smerch missile launching systems, msnbc.com news services, Sept. 13, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32809912/ns/world_news-venezuela/ (accessed October 30, 2009). 90 http://www.asiasociety.org/about/mission.html 91 The Trilateral Commission: About the Organization: http://www.trilateral.org/about.htm 92 Ibid. 93 Daniel Ten Kate and Shamim Adam, “Japan, Australia ‘Test’ Asean With Competing Economic Visions”, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aBwX7p1R496Q (accessed October 29, 2009). 94 An example of these covert dealings between china and the USA is that of Kissnger’s statement in 1973 to China’s envoy: On July 6, 1973,Henry Kissinger told Mao’s envoy: “I have talked to the French Foreign Minister about our interest in strengthening the PRC [People’s Republic of China]. We will do what we can to encourage our allies to speed up requests they receive from you on items for Chinese defense. In particular you have asked for some Rolls-Royce technology. Under existing regulations we have to oppose this, but we have worked out a procedure with the British where they will go ahead anyway. We will take a formal position in opposition, but only that. Don’t be confused by what we do publicly…” (Chang and Halliday, op.cit., 613). It is notable that Henry Kissinger, perennial adviser to presidents who began his career in the employ of the Rockefellers, continues to be prominent in such think tanks as the Asia Society, Trilateral Commission etc. 95 ANZAC: acronym for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps formed in 1914 to assist in the Allied offensive on Gallipoli, Turkey, where over 8,000 Australian and 2,700 New Zealand soldiers died. Despite the military disaster under the responsibility of Winston Churchill, an enduring ANZAC myth was formed around which a significant part of the national identities of both Australia and New Zealand separately and in alliance is based. The ANZAC spirit or mythos provides the potential for the forging of a new and vibrant identity for an ANZAC bloc encompassing Polynesia, Micronesia and in alliance with certain Asian states such as India and Vietnam, and in broader alliance with Russia and the Bolivarian bloc, a common basis being independence from the hegemonic policies of China and the USA. 96 K R Bolton, A Wider Paranoia?: the menace of China in the Pacific (Paraparaumu Beach, New Zealand: Renaissance Press, 97 New Zealand is undergoing a continual process of singing free trade agreements with Asian states, as a prelude to an Asian bloc, the latest being signed on October 26, 2009 with Malaysia. The most problematic is the Free Trade Agreement New Zealand has with China, which came into effect on October 1, 2008, which has pushed New Zealand fully into the Chinese orbit.