The (new) term is "Commulism" (Communism fueled by Capitalism), one NEVER before mentioned or annunciated in either the public or political lexicon. Here is Part 5 of a comprehensive, integrated 10 part article "Commulism Series"; providing an Analysis, Assessment and Commulism Response Framework on this, the most significant threat to long term U.S. national and economic security.

::::::::

Analyst's Opening Statement:

The (new) term is “COMMULISM” (COMMUNISM fueled by CAPITALISM), one NEVER before mentioned or annunciated in either the public or political lexicon. Here is Part 5 of a comprehensive, integrated 10 part article “Commulism Series”; providing an Analysis, Assessment and Commulism Response Framework on this, the most significant threat to long term U.S. national and economic security.

This 10 Part "Commulism Series" was seven months in development. Considering how fast data changes, the Analyst has strived to keep current the volumes of relevant data throughout, recognizing there may be a few data points that might not be absolutely current at publishing date, particularly during these past few weeks of highly volatile financial market activity. However, the threat assessment, core themes and Counter-Manual (Framework) Guidelines remain fully supported, and not sensitive to the day to day data fluctuations.  

Also, the Analyst views (and intends) this document to be a vehicle to provoke public debate on the theme article issue and that the White House/DOD/State Department et al to read this, "acknowledge" the threat, and revise the following proposed "Commulism Response Framework" accordingly. The ideas presented are aggressive, if not unconventional in some areas, as they must be given the seriousness of the threat. They are provocative, for the sole purpose of sparking that much needed, yet currently absent public and government debate, in the vital interests of collective U.S. national and economic security.

Finally, it would indeed be refreshing to hear one of the 2008 Presidential hopefuls in either party or a soon to launch Independent, move beyond petty badmouthing of the other candidates. Instead, having them prudently focus on something of substance both the American people and themselves have yet to recognize and mention, but promptly need to become aware and understand. It is an issue/term/moniker ("Commulism") NEVER media et al mentioned. Who on the campaign trail is ready to broach and champion an issue which dwarfs other issues in terms of future U.S. national/economic security impact, yet has never been mentioned in the public or campaign lexicon? Hopefully one of these candidates is ready to step up and be the first to declare the rise of Commulism, and the plan to address it - the "Counter-Commulism Framework". Any reader that is within one, two or three degrees of separation to a 2008 Presidential candidate is encouraged to direct them here to begin that important awareness and education process.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Part 1: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_080125_u_s__economic_securi.htm  concluded with the integrated "5 Pillar Superpower (Commulism) Sustainability Framework" to support the core ideology - Communism:

                                  Economic/Military/Social/Technology/Partnerships 

Note: For the visual, see the illustrative Commulism 5 Pillar Structure Chart at the end of article (note included in all 10 Parts). The columned look was chosen to denote the insidious nature of Commulism, by capturing the underlying Communist ideology intent to displace Democracy.

Part 2: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_080126__22commulism_series_22__.htm provided the first half of the analysis and assessment of the first of the 5 Commulism Pillars - "Economic".  

Part 3: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_080127__22commulism_series_22__.htm  completed the Commulism "Economic Pillar" analysis and assesment with "What's the Endgame?"

Part 4: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_080130_part_4____22commulism_.htm provided analysis and assessment of the next three Commulism Pillars - Military, Social Order and Technology.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 5 will now analyze and assess the final Commulism Pillar – Strategic Partnerships (and Polarities). 

E) STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS/POLARITY (i.e. Power Block): 

Lesson – The Soviet sponsored Warsaw Pact demonstrated that any superpower still needs some minimal strategic partnering to compete (and buffer itself) against another (e.g. the U.S. and NATO, ASEAN, OAS (ex Venezuela), Africa, etc. – i.e. WEAST). This lesson complimenting the one above regarding being an economically “functional” superpower.  

Analyst Note: Polarity: From a “polarity” in international relations perspective, the overall Cold War situation was really one that can be described as bi-polar, with the world strategically aligning in two camps. Of course the Sino-Soviet split during that period might suggest a multi-polar situation, but the Chinese were again visibly quiet and aside from population numbers arguably not true super power status. So it's questionable during that period whether there was an active third power, and too if it came down to picking sides, they’d likely align Communist (Soviet).  

While on the polarity issue, one can argue the period from 1989 until just recently as the world living in a uni-polar situation, with but one superpower being the U.S., possessing most of the global cultural, economic, and military influence. Call it the age of U.S. hegemony, which is now rapidly disappearing as the world moves back to a bi-polar if not derivative multi-polar mix. Bi-polar from the standpoint that China has emerged as the new superpower offset to the U.S..  Multi-polar from that standpoint that a resurgent Russia is on the heels of China in regaining superpower status. Other key nations, most notably BRIC + V countries India and Brazil are on the rise and at the cusp of achieving that status too. Vietnam (V), has aggressively embraced Commulism and is rapidly on the rise and emerging as a global power player. The Analyst suggests it be added to the high profile BRIC mix. With Russia (and Vietnam) clearly aligned with China and communism, it then comes down to how India and Brazil and their own respective global strategic partners ultimately either align or not to the U.S. or China or a derivative block unto themselves and others, that will determine final global polarity at least over the intermediate term.  

A final polarity comment, the term superpower, in the purest sense, which historically implied the ability of a nation to sustain itself more or less independent of the rest of the world may be a term of the past as respects both the U.S. (and China too) which is now deeply rooted and dependent on the global economy. China too needs natural resources from across the globe to support its population, generating growing dependencies on other nations too.  

Perhaps then in sympathy with the trend to super nation led “power blocks”, the term “superpower” should too evolve to “superblocks”.   

The Soviets were able to perpetuate their dysfunctional power reign (much) longer than they should have because of these strategic relationships/partnerships, whether looking at Russia plus the “other” Soviet Union entities like Belarus and Ukraine for example, or looking at the aggregate Soviet Union plus the Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe. In fact, these countries and that subservience to “Russia” (the real core entity of both the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact), in large part subsidized that undeserved, in essence artificial longevity. While these internal/external partnerships did not cause the Soviet Union collapse, they did in fact prolong that inevitably and therefore the lesson learned is that these type of strategic partnerships, however obtained, were (are) extremely necessary and beneficial. Now take that lesson and apply it to a “functional” superpower like China and the result is not prolonging inevitable collapse but rather synergistically ensuring its continued growth and long term longevity.   

China has clearly figured this out. Adding a new, perplexing and increasing complexity to the mix, which if not addressed by the U.S. and WEAST, will accelerate even faster China’s rise and make its ultimate global power even greater, is its growing military, economic and technology cooperation with Russia. Russia of course with its own potent Commulism game plan. These developments all building off the landmark 2001 Russia-China Friendship and Cooperation Treaty, the first of its kind since the Stalin era. One of its specific mission statements being to counter perceived U.S. hegemony. That agreement interestingly on the heels of another pivotal strategic partnership between the two, and four other countries including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It is called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and provides complete geo-political transformation and new strategic positioning for China and Russia in Central Asia. In fact, SCO is purposely designed and intended as a block of U.S. and NATO (EU) interests in the region.  

This “one plus one equal three” synergistic relationship between China and Russia and associated actions suggests mutual intent in the short term to act collectively as a de-facto “functional” superpower counter-balance to the U.S.  For example, the unique and high profiled August 2007 SCO joint China and Russia military exercises in Russia were viewed personally by the leaders of both countries; being but a proxy for what’s to come, which may include a formal military alliance. 

Russia has indeed learned from both its past Soviet era mistakes and China’s newfound success. As with China, another relevant concern to highlight and not yet recognized by the U.S. and WEAST either is that a resurgent Russia now also aggressively embraces Commulism. It’s interesting how former Soviet Union KGB superstar, U.S. antagonist and now Russian President, Vladimir Putin, has grudgingly come to accept the need for capitalism, if communism is to survive. While recognizing capitalism’s utility, he now too accepts its necessity, as a core component and/or underpinning in his own grand, un-vocalized plan to restore and reinvigorate as best he can the former Soviet Union. Call it Putin’s “Soviet ReUnion” Plan, the plan to bring everyone back together again.

Under the global radar, the underpinnings of this resurrection are already coming into place. Most don’t realize that the “reunion” began with the forming of the “Community of Russia and Belarus” on April 2, 1996. The basis of the “union” was strengthened on April 2, 1997, at which time its name was changed to Union of Russia and Belarus. This “Union” is really at present, a “confederation” as the two have not yet formally joined. However, the BBC reported on Nov. 28, 2007 that “the Presidents of Russia and Belarus, Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko, say they have agreed on a timetable for further integration of the two countries. However, they stopped short of giving exact dates or details of the creation of the new union state.” While Mr. Lukaskenko’s decision to “go Russia” was in large part driven by his need for a superpower ally, he had no choice but Russia given him being ostracized by the U.S. and EU for human rights violations. A disturbing trend is still clear however, noting other former Soviet republicKazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan seeking to join the “Union” soon. Even Serbia, itself never part of the former Soviet Union, is now expressing interest in joining the Union of Russia and Belarus.

For those that may argue that Mr. Putin can’t achieve much of that plan given his very limited remaining time in office, they are not thinking in his mental paradigm. His mindset is Soviet, not Russian. He’ll find a clever way to remain in office – for a long time to come. As Russia drifts back to old Soviet ways, his continued stay in power will become easier and easier. Here’s an article on but one projected Putin game plan to remain in power: 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_071217_russian_dictatorship.htm 

See too a coming article on Russia and Commulism, specifically Russia’s growing threat to the newest members of NATO, the former Warsaw Pact nations. 

Perhaps Venezuela’s recently announced plans for sweeping Constitution reform and abolishing Presidential term limits will provide the model Putin too seeks for himself. In fact, it would not be surprising if the Chavez “President for Life” Plan, even though failing on its first Referendum attempt, is really a collusionary testbed for a similar but grander Putin-like Plan to come. 

See following Venezuela Referendum article:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_071211_venezuelan_referendu.htm 

On the broader China aspect, China is now looking at Russia in the same way the Soviet Union needed and exploited the eastern European nations. In effect, Russia is China’s Warsaw Pact equivalent, enhanced with superpower capability. Ironically, the one difference here being that unlike the Warsaw Pact countries, Russia is voluntarily succumbing to this role. 

To gage just how fast the old Communist world is transforming to Commulism, one need only note the pace of change in some of these global names. Besides China and Russia, other noteworthy Commulism converts include Vietnam over the last decade or two and now even signs evident in the hardest of hardcore communist states, Cuba. With Fidel Castro’s health on the wane and his acting President (since July 2006) brother Raul Castro’s power on the rise, the winds of change are in the air as Raul favors the course pursued by China and Vietnam. 

One key indicator of Russia’s embrace of Commulism is comparing Moscow 1989 to Moscow  2007. Any visitor then and now can visually see the striking transformation and benefits from this overt change in core ideology. Moscow has gone from a “drab to fab”, a bustling cosmopolitan city. Another indicator would be Russia’s dramatic trade situation change with the world, specifically the U.S. as a representative proxy example. As reported by U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, in 1992 the U.S. imported just $481million Russian goods. By 2006 however, this annual figure had ballooned to $19.8 billion, a trend which continues.

Note: These funds in part or in whole, along with growing trade surpluses from other countries, are the fuel helping Russia get its tentacles back into these former Soviet Union states. The threat being the potential to undermine these newbie NATO members’ commitment and revert back to Cold War alignment status. See later section (and coming article noted above) on the Baltic states and other recent new Eastern European NATO entrants. 

An overlooked wild card (or two), yet perhaps the real pivot point in this rapidly growing Commulism power block to be led by China is India, herself having the potential to be another functional superpower. While on the up and comer superpower topic, add Brazil here too.  

In support of the earlier polarity comments, as for India, the country currently struggles whether to go with “Team U.S.” or “Team China”. While China and India have had their differences and even wars in the past, most recently in 1962, there exists a mutual respect and recognition that each can maintain a rival relationship yet still help each other. Whereas China excels in manufacturing and infrastructure, India is dominant in information technology and services. Both currently complement each other, noting each however, gaining ground on the other in their respective current dominant areas. There too exists very strong historical ties, on many fronts, which weigh heavily. The recent opening of the highest border pass control (customs) point in the world is symbolic of a growing bond and embracement process between the two.  

Further evidence of increasing collaboration and partnership between the two in the wake of a competitive if not often adversarial past, is the energy area, where both countries are energy deficient. With India importing 70% and China 50% of their respective domestic oil needs and demand rapidly growing, clearly the competition for foreign energy (oil) sourcing becomes intense. That rivalry, built upon the concept of “equity oil”, led to the January 2006 Sino-Indian agreement between the two governments to put the rivalry aside and instead partner to secure mutually beneficial energy resource projects. Thus the groundbreaking agreement between India Oil & Natural Gas Co. (ONGC) and China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC).  Of interest and concern from U.S. national security perspective, these two entities (India the concern) recently exercised the power of this newfound collaboration with a supply sourcing contract from Venezuela.  See “Divorce Venezuela, Marry Brazil” article below.  

While much positive (from China/India’s own point of view) is going on between India and China, there too are inherent weaknesses to be exploited in terms of both lack of mutual trust and a key strategic regional issue – Burma/Myanmar. Which name this common entity is referred to depends on the party discussing it, noting the U.S. tends to go with Burma, since it was the antagonist military junta (the State Peace and Development Council – SPDC), that changed it to Myanmar. On Myanmar, China supports the SPDC military junta while India does not. This is a major friction point, and one the U.S. can and should exploit with a “wedge to leverage” strategy. 

The U.S. and WEAST would therefore be well served by doing a much better job courting India to join WEAST. Exploiting the weaknesses above, coupled with sharing of nuclear power plant technology and a new allowance for U.S. arms sales being big steps in that (right) direction. Further inclusion into the G8 should also be seriously considered (see “What To Do” - Strategic Partnerships section – a coming Part in this series).  

However, the continued growth in the Delhi/Tehran relationship collectively on the military, political and economic fronts is causing many in Washington to reconsider the tentative nuclear deal with India. Is Russia, in its de facto capacity here as China’s enforcer, leveraging its relationship with Iran to drive Iran toward disturbing an India/U.S. strategic alliance? This interference effort being orchestrated by Iran preys/leverages (to China’s favor) upon the historic, productive relationship between India and Iran, which India views fondly and of great importance. In so doing then, is Russia/Iran trying to help indirectly tilt India to “Team China”?  

Adding even more complexity to courting India, is the extremely difficult and delicate balancing process required regarding the local powder keg geo-political climate. That effort must be expertly navigated, balanced and choreographed in order to still maintain and continue to seek even better relations with another current and long term desired ally - Pakistan, both from a WEAST participation and too anti-terror perspective. China too would welcome Pakistan into its fold and precisely why an aggressive, expert, yet delicate handling of the India/Pakistan situation by the U.S. is so critically important. Therefore, given its dual strategic importance (War on Terror and Commulism) to the U.S. and WEAST, a few relevant thoughts and recommendations on Pakistan. The Pakistan article link below highlights what is going on. Note it was written just “prior” to the Bhutto assassination.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_071128_pakistan_crisis_and_.htm 

Analyst Note: The theme in the article of Presidential (evolving to Dictatorial if Musharraf feels cornered – again pure dictatorship is an option within his overall survival agenda) power being a function and/or degree of linkage to the powerful Military, however remains, even in the post assassination chaos, as do the article’s other conclusions and recommendations. Bottom line, in Pakistan, whoever owns the military, owns the power. That said, as a matter of fact, that power remains (and accordingly will almost certainly remain) solidly with Musharraf, not his opposition.

Al Qaeda has clearly shifted its geographical strategy from Afghanistan to Pakistan. The latter a true prize of significant strategic significance to all sides. It’s escalating efforts now re-focused and targeted at destabilizing Pakistan and toppling the Musharraf government. The result of this shift in Al Qaeda emphasis being both the U.S. and Musharraf (will) need each other even more. Expect Musharraf and Military Chief Gen. Kiyani then to allow a more (unofficially) relaxed yet still publicly tempered use of U.S. Special Ops forces, particularly in the Al Qaeda strongholds in the northwest tribal areas. Until the U.S. friendly Frontier Forces in that region are able to take on a true counter-terrorism/insurgency role, and it won’t be anytime soon, Musharraf and the U.S. know the U.S. will need to fill the gap. The trick of course, to creatively minimize the public’s expected backlash on the Musharraf government for doing so.  

On that last comment, the recent public visit by several top CIA officials with Mr. Musharraf to discuss greater coordinated actions, including U.S. combat troops on Pakistani soil, is of keen interest. The “public” aspect of what intuitively should have been a covert meeting is key. Clearly, both parties wanted the meeting to be known to the public as well as Mr. Musharraf’s official  “no way” public statement to the CIA. It provides the needed appearance that Mr.Musharraf does not publicly support foreign troops on Pakistani soil, something the public desperately wanted to hear. While that’s the public statement, designed/orchestrated to quell anti-government public opinion, was there perhaps a non-public, unofficial wink wink, with the Mission Impossible-like denial statement by Mr. Musharraf, “off the record, do what you must, but I’ll deny ever having any knowledge of your actions if problems arise?” Perhaps the old “it’s easier (for both parties) to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission” approach to bypass the public opinion obstacle. 

Of note too, “officially” however, there was seemingly positive discussion on “non-troop” collaborations such as greater use of Predator drones and sharing of intelligence.  

Anyway, indeed a fluid situation and only time will tell.    

On Brazil (and Latin America), it represents the major power in Latin America. Venezuela has emerged as an arrogant bully and key access point for China (and Russia) into Latin America. The Brazil/Venezuela article link below highlights what is going on:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_071202_u_s__national_securi.htm 

A strategic alignment with Brazil keeps that in check to some if not large degree. Adding even greater impetus to a more comprehensive strategic alignment with Latin America is China’s aggressive probing for access not only in and through Venezuela but direct too. Under the premise that any China foothold in the western hemisphere increases the threat to U.S. national security - dramatically, the recent stunning announcement by Ecuador that it was terminating the long held U.S. air base lease near the port city of at Manta, is cause for great concern. It not only provides China a key strategic shipping and distribution point on the west coast of South America but too potential strategic hemispheric military positioning as well.

April Howard’s Dec. 13 2007 AlterNet article titled “Ecuador to Evict US, Offer Air Base to China” sums up this groundbreaking development stating “When the US Air Force Southern Command's 10-year usage rights for Ecuador's Manta air base expire in 2009, it can expect to be evicted….” There is a historical irony to this turn of events, though neither government nor corporations are likely to see it as such. Sanho Tree of the Institute for Policy Studies notes, "It's ironic that it is China, and not a European power, that would challenge the Monroe Doctrine. The irony is doubled as China turns the original U.S. Open Door Policy of 1900 (designed to allow U.S. access to Chinese markets) back on the United States to get better access to Latin American markets."

Africa: China is very aggressive and has made great inroads here. The June 22, 2007 Harvard International Review article “An Opportunistic Ally: China’s Increasing Involvement in Africa” is cause for alarm, the article noting “China’s Strategy in Africa…In general China has sought to portray itself as the world’s largest and most powerful developing country, while it describes Africa as the continent with the largest number of developing countries….. The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), launched in 2000, is the vehicle through which China manages this relationship. The Third Ministerial Conference of FOCAC took place in Beijing in November 2006. All 48 African countries that have diplomatic relations with China sent senior delegations, most of them led by their respective heads of state….The Beijing Action Plan resulting from the last FOCAC conference was ambitious in both its depth and breadth. Specific decisions included a Chinese pledge to increase from 190 to 440 the number of items from Africa’s least developed countries that are permitted to enter China duty-free. China said it would establish a China-Africa Development Fund capitalized at US$5 billion to support investments in Africa by Chinese companies. It also promised to double the value of its 2006 development assistance program by 2009 and cancel some states government interest-free loans that were due at the end of 2000.”

Canada: Given China’s serious long term infrastructure weaknesses in the area of natural resources to support manufacturing, coupled with its need to “feed and water” its population, one can easily look to where China will seek to satisfy these needs and design an appropriate countering strategy. Having discussed Central Asia and Latin America, the other key strategic geography, and the largest “resource rich” region or country in the world is Canada. A country with a very small population (1/10 the U.S.), yet with almost limitless resources - minerals, water, food and energy. China will certainly and aggressively be pursuing/wooing Canada as a key anchor point in its global positioning strategy. This too points to why a Canadian E-F CFIUS equivalent is mandatory to prevent such a strategic toehold in North America, and incumbent upon the U.S. government to create a linkage of its own E-F policy with Canada’s. With the longest unsecured border in the world, the U.S. should not take Canada for granted. Just as with some of the large and savvy financial services companies discussed, Canada too as with other U.S. WEAST allies, is ultimately prone to China economic seduction.

In summary, the global strategic puzzle is rapidly realigning, and will look very different than it ever did before. It’s important for the U.S. to stay ahead of this phenomena in leading/driving the shaping of it, rather than reactively having to (painfully) live with the result.

In essence, and stealing a “hockey-ism”, the U.S. needs to get to where the puck ("Commulism") is going to be, rather than sitting tight where it ("Communism") was.

Coming Next: “Commulism Series” – Part 6

Having analyzed and assessed the 5 Pillars of Commulism, Part 6 moves into the "What to Do" about each pillar – i.e. The Commulism Reponse Framework (CCF); starting with the "Awareness" issue and then the first part of the "Economic Pillar". Parts 7 and 8 will complete the Economic Pillar action steps.

                            

Authors Bio:

The cleverest of all, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month

- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

It is a curious fact that people are never so trivial as when they take themselves seriously...Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go

- Oscar Wilde

The situation is what it is...so deal with it...and then as General Patton inspiringly told his tankers...ADVANCE!!

- Brock Novak