China and the globalists

[I think this is a review of "Geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific" by Kerry Bolton. Amazon deleted it during one of its purges, and the review as it appears in my files doesn´t mention the book title.]

Kerry Bolton is a controversial author based in New Zealand. His political convictions are relatively close to those of Alexander Dugin, the far right Russian “Eurasianist”. Despite this, shall we say, colorful background, Bolton's book about geopolitics makes a lot of interesting and intriguing points.

Bolton argues that the convergence of Russia and China is only skin deep, and that China's real geopolitical alliance is with the United States and the globalist cabals (George Soros, etc). He therefore predicts serious conflicts, even wars, between Russia and China in the near future, with the United States siding with the Chinese. As an alternative geopolitical axis, Bolton proposes that Russia collaborates with India (its old Cold War ally). He wants Australia and New Zealand, which have a pro-Chinese orientation, to join this Russo-Indian bloc instead. Bolton calls on Europe to break with the United States and ally itself with Russia. The author names this perspective “Eurosiberian” rather than “Eurasian”, thereby implying a certain criticism of Dugin. The term “Eurosiberian” was apparently coined by French “Archeo-Futurist” Guillaume Faye.

More specifically, Bolton points out that Russia and China have usually been enemies or rivals. Russia is the “colonial power” in East Asia. Stalin was more supportive of Nationalist Chiang Kai-shek than of Communist Mao Zedong. Even after Mao's victory, the Soviets treated China as their semi-colony. Bolton believes that Mao took power due to U.S. betrayal of Chiang, and that the United States always wanted an alliance with the People's Republic of China as a counterweight to the Soviet Union. It was Mao's adventurist politics which made this impossible, until the U-turn under Richard Nixon when Henry Kissinger managed to negotiate a U.S.-Chinese alliance as a way of encircling the Soviet bloc. The cooperation between the two powers deepened after Mao's death. Today, China is heavily penetrated by American (or globalist) capital, and is in a symbiotic economic relationship with the United States. This explains why Soros is pro-Chinese and doesn't foment “color revolutions” on Chinese soil, while similar destabilization attempts are constantly directed against Russia, still seen as the main enemy by the U.S. foreign policy establishment and its secret masters.

Bolton further argues that China is rapidly approaching a severe crisis due to its fast and furious industrialization, which has led to widespread environmental destruction. This makes China covet the Russian Far East, with its mineral resources, fishing industry and fertile agricultural lands. The Chinese are already migrating in large numbers to the Russian Far East, and practically control the local economy in some regions. China has an enormous population, while the Russian population is dwindling, with few (if any) Russians willing to settle in the far-away eastern regions. In a crisis situation, such as a famine, the temptation to attack Russia and annex the Far East to China may prove too strong for the Beijing regime.

Bolton's discussion of Tibet is interesting. Most large Asian rivers have their sources in the Himalayas, on the Chinese side of the border. There are also large mineral resources in Tibet. However, the control of the water is central. If China builds dams in Tibet, or otherwise redirects the flow of the rivers, the consequences for India, Myanmar and Indochina further downstream will be catastrophic. Vietnam and Laos are Russian clients, India is at least a potential Russian partner. Other rivers flow from Tibet to Central Asia, traditionally also within Russia's sphere of influence. In addition, China claims most of the Indian state Arunachal Pradesh (which borders Tibet and has important water resources all its own) and has other unresolved border conflicts with India. Bolton therefore predicts a future “water war” between China and India, which could spill over into a larger war with Russia. The author believes that the United States doesn't really support the Tibetan independence struggle (except maybe in words) and that globalist companies prefer to invest heavily in various Chinese projects to exploit Tibet's natural riches. In the case of a shooting war, the United States is more likely to side with Beijing than with New Delhi (or Dharamsala). Already today, China attempts to encircle India by cultivating Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar.

To Bolton, the Russo-Chinese conflict isn't simply about geography or water, however. It's at bottom an ages long cultural or even racial conflict. Russia is European (in the traditional sense) and has been at war with Asiatic (Mongoloid) peoples for centuries. India, by contrast, isn't really “Asian” but Indo-European (the author means “Aryan”). India is also one of the last “traditional” civilizations. For this reason, Russia (or all of Europe) and India are natural allies against the Yellow peril. Despite this racial/racist angle, the author is nevertheless very positive towards Japan, presumably because this old Axis power is a potential ally against Beijing.

While Bolton's analysis (except the racialist material) is interesting, he seems to downplay the conflicts which also exist between the United States and the People's Republic of China. China, after all, doesn't seem to be “globalist” in the strict sense of that term, but rather a hegemonic power with its own agendas, agendas ultimately based on nationalism and protectionism. If China is allied with Soros, it must be a marriage of convenience only! I wonder how the author explains the increased tensions between China and the United States and its allies, for instance in the South China Sea? It would also be interesting to know how he analyses the rise of Donald Trump. Is Trump cheating when he promises to take on China? Or is he an honest anti-China politician who will dismally fail, due to the symbiosis between the American and Chinese economies? And what would happen if he *doesn't* fail? By Bolton's logic, Trump should make a deal with Putin's Russia – and it's interesting to note that the Republican nominee sometimes make statements in that direction.

I haven't double checked every claim in this somewhat obscure publication, but Bolton's counter-intuitive perspective on things at least deserves to be pondered…

Four stars.