As a rapidly collapsing British Empire refuses to loosen its political grip on its completely bankrupt trans-Atlantic financial system, dominated thus far by a City of London-Wall Street Axis, and prefers to fantasize about the possibility of a ‘winning option’ of a limited nuclear war against Russia and China, this creates an urgent necessity to sound the alarm, and give political direction in order that a mobilization of thinking citizens can neutralize this very real, immediate threat to human extinction.
One useful but insufficient alarm was sounded in the pages of the New York Times, in an op-ed on April 19, entitled “How to Avert a Nuclear War” (1) by Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and retired Russian General Vladimir Dvorkin, where they put the priority on attempting to get the United States and Russia to eliminate the Launch-on-warning concept from their nuclear strategies!
The number one priority for avoiding a global thermonuclear war must be the removal of the British Empire’s puppet, Barack Obama, as far away as possible from the nuclear button, preferably kicked out of the White House right away. That is for the patriotic thinking Americans to accomplish, with some international help.
But what about thinking Canadians? What can they do about this immediate existential threat to humanity?
First, organize Canadian institutions to pressure Parliament not to go on summer recess and into the fall election period without first joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) which every nation of consequence has already joined except the United States and Japan! Secondly, get Canada to abandon its suicidal geopolitical thinking, and scrap its policy of aiding and abetting the Kiev regime which is both ‘Nazi and Fascist’. Thirdly, and most importantly, get the Canadian government to discuss the ‘win-win’ policy offer of the Chinese President to participate in the New Silk Road strategy that could lead, through other reforms, to Canada eventually qualifying itself to be a reliable partner in the new international BRICS dynamic.
The folly of geopolitics in the Arctic
As part of the British-American build up for military confrontation, NATO forces have been setting up its ballistic missile shield in Denmark, and Norway causing Russia to respond with a series of defensive Arctic militarization measures. Thus far, Canada has not agreed to participate in this NATO encirclement with the ABM shield strategy, but Canada is being pressured to join.
Admiral William Gortney, head of the Canada-US NORAD and Northern Command has recently made public the intention of the utopian war faction in America to bring Canada into greater alignment with the global missile defense shield as part of the planned war on Russia. This intention was made public when it was requested that the Cold War-era DEW line and the Canada-US North Warning systems must be restructured to detect shorter range, low altitude cruise missiles. A Russia Today report from April 10 quoted NORAD Brigadier General Matt Molloy who has said that such a partnership “would open up the door for all kinds of conversations” about deeper Canada-United States cooperation.
In describing the un-militarized Arctic, General Molloy stated “our polar approach; it’s a vulnerability. That polar approach is of supreme importance to North American Defense. And that is, I think, a great area to look at”. What Gen. Molloy leaves out is the fact that the “Arctic vulnerability” occurs within the context of a neo-conservative-led “Prompt Global Strike” doctrine governing NATO’s expansion around the Russian perimeter and which Russia sees as a primary threat to its very existence.
According to Professor Ron Huebert, an Arctic expert at the University of Calgary, Russia is also looking at American missile sites in Alaska with suspicion. The Arctic being a region that both the US and Russia use to position their nuclear arsenal, Huebert asserts that: “Their nuclear deterrent system has to be based predominantly in the Arctic, the Americans are placing most of their mid-range interceptors in Alaska. So is it about the Arctic? No, it’s not about the Arctic, but that’s where the weapons systems are going. When the political issues explode that’s when we see the exercises!
Another geopolitical co-thinker of Huebert is Michael Byers, the Associate Director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of British Columbia and an unsuccessful NDP candidate in the 2008 election in the Vancouver Centre riding. Byers tongue-in cheek Toronto Star article, “Stephen Harper, the Austin Power of the Arctic” (6), has at least the merit of making us laugh at the ineptitude and lack of a northern vision of Harper when compared to Putin’s decade of significant investment in the development of Russia’s Arctic region.
Lyndon LaRouche’s Eurasian Landbridge and Bering Strait Tunnel
Canada must accept the rich bequest of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s Northern Vision and carry it forward in the context of a 21st Century post-cold war era. The foremost condition for success requires a trans-continental approach to Arctic development that becomes the basis, together with space collaboration, to consolidate a long lasting peace by continuous joint actions that realize the common aims of mankind.
Russia, over the recent decade, has made a several offers to collaborate with Canada and the United States in developing the Arctic. Vladimir Putin himself had offered Canada and America the opportunity to unite with Russia to build the Bering Strait rail tunnel as early as October 2011, and this spirit of cooperation was revived most recently by Dr. Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian Ambassador to the United Kingdom who intervened in an April 8 editorial “The Arctic: Territory for Non-Politicized Dialogue for the Benefit of Mankind“. Dr. Yakovenko first re-capitulated the danger of using the Arctic as a platform for NATO militarization fueled by anti-Russian propaganda, but ended with a call for hope and world peace:
“Some western leaders have called on NATO to expand the area of responsibility in the Arctic direction, something that contradicts the current trend of keeping the Arctic free of military competition… and unfortunately is used as a tool of propaganda against Russia… We hope that the significant achievements of the Arctic Council will remain the basis for global cooperation on the development of the Arctic region as a unique natural zone in a peaceful, non-politicized fashion and for the benefit of all mankind”
This sane approach to the Arctic as a platform for peace and cooperation echoes the policy of Lyndon LaRouche who has fought for decades to make the Arctic via the Bering Strait, the pivot for a more just new world economic order based upon the Westphalian principle of sovereign nations collaborating on great projects within a global community of common interest. Such a policy outlook is an idea whose time has come with the 2015 new BRICS initiative. Is it not time for Canada to be on the right side of history and join the over 50% of the world’s population who have now understood that the new name for peace is development?