__________

HOW TO BUILD A WORLD POLITICS

A NECESSSITATED AND INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OF MANKIND:

CONCERNS BASED ON DAILY READING INFORMATION

The 14th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

ON KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE IN ORGANIZATIONS

Said Business School, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

4-5 August 2014

INTRODUCTION

RE-EVALUATE THE CONCEPT OF “GUILT” IN NIETZSCHE’S ZUR GENEALOGIE DER MORAL.

Sound structure for a world politics, necessitated and integrated community of mankind, needs clean and logistic foundation for security against encroaching malice aforethought. And so true as we see, that history is man, by which it means all about man’s consciousness, understanding and expression, which altogether network and reveal human political comportments, either good or evil . This task poses formidable questions for us if we have ever desired to build a world politics ideal and harmonious for the peoples of all nations, to use the John Raul’s terminology and utopian idea. Is this dream possible?

Current political tensions significantly to our awareness have been heating up in the Southeast and East Asian maritime and fly zones unilaterally claimed by China, and the Russian annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea and beyond to old Baltic states. The fondness of Moscow’s and Beijing’s tyrannical empiricism has made daily headlines in the press. Chinese and Russian current strategic plans have not only worsened the on-going conflicts in other parts of the world due to different ideologies and historical antipathy, but upset world’s stability for their global domination dream. We have seen their moves would eventually overcast the future of mankind. Once again, the “Law of Jungle” rules – exactly like Jean de la Fontaine’s fable of the “wolf and young lamb”, which says “La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure.”[1]

If the question on evil morals go unheard to the extreme only because of the brutality of human malice, then the community of mankind does look so much similar to that of the jungle. Unlike concepts of truth based on ideologies and preconceptions, what is called the ultimate Truth remains enduring as the law of decay that forbids everlasting-ness, we are awed of the evil that is determined to make the claim of its enduring truth and so the fate of mankind to underscore “man is but a big failure” that interestingly reminds us of Sartre’s famous saying, “l’homme est une passion inutitle”. This means “man is a grave problem” so that it is ultimately for us to pose the question if man understands himself; the pattern of his thinking and action, to himself as well as to other? Since big chapters of history have already been stained with the blood of gilt, we cannot help but looking for some way of diagnosis of the symptom of this bizarre cancer, so stubbornly resisting the light of reason that Nietzsche metaphorically suggests only the use of a “hammer” could make such a disease vanished.

Nietzsche’s writing on Concept of Gilt,[2] it seems, affords us a chance going deep into the genealogy of morals, but to our expectation, never deep enough to apprehend the root of gilt, so we need to connect it with the question of ‘the I’ in Heidegger’s work on the Phenomenology of Intuition and Concept-Formation.[3] My report will first begin with the latter’s question: “Do we know ‘the I’?” that absolutely correlates with the theme “the history is man” and then to the other theme “the beast-man” vigorously and passionately ranted in Nietzsche’s philosophical texts that finally show some parallel with current political correctness, the core of my essay.

‘The I’ remains forever, in Heidegger’s own account, an abstract idea as it does not reside in a finite fixed point but in its existence-there or the continuum of existence (Dasein). If so, we wonder whether ‘the I’ knows itself; namely if we know ourselves, cognitively and psychologically. The act of “knowing itself” does not constitute principal knowledge concretely in terms of scientific, mathematical, or biological determinations, but possibly having recourse to God, or a sort of abstraction. This assumption already occupied the center of Plato’s and Leibniz’s discourses.[4]

Not a psychological problem at all as is stated in Phänomenologie, ‘the I’ is presupposed to be of its “unity-complex” a combination of its origin and its existence or precisely Existenz (Dasein), a glossarial denotation of the continuum of lived experience in Heidegger’s texts; hence ‘the I’ is not a possible object of consciousness but a concrete conjunction in the infinite process. As the result, ‘the-I’ cannot be conceptually apprehended since it cannot objectify itself. In Heidegger’s own word, ‘the-I’ is both subjectivity and objectivity inseparably. It issues no concrete expressions save factually it pictures its relation to existence; namely what belongs to it. What troubles us is the complex-comportment of ‘the-I’ in the process from its primordial point to its infinite that brings about confrontation and alienation that might doom our dream to build a community of mankind ideally discussed in Husserl’s Fifth Mediation of Cartesian lecture.[5] Why? It is easy for any criminals, as individuals and organizations to shrug off their responsibility due to the fact that “What has happened because man does not know “the-I” in himself,” to justify their crime assumed to be innocent mistake. Speaking in terms of political context some race that has done terrible disasters to human beings through the length of its dynastic imperialism, say Chinese, that has still repeated its violent policy of deprivation of its small neighbors’ rights.

To our dilemma of inability to fathom the “I”, we turn to Nietzsche’s writings. Nietzsche’s struggles with the idea how to create an animal-man that has the ability to keep his promise; namely he is able to disclose his psychological complex on historical confrontation between the aristocratic class (the rulers/aggressors/oppressors) and the slaves (barbarians, the weak/oppressed). In Nietzsche’s own words both sides are but essentially “animal-man” without remorse.

His thematic term “resentment” is parallel to “annoyance” for the aristocrats, while it means “bitter feeling” for the slaves because it does not denote a theatrical confrontation but an enduring fate so hard to bear. The sort of fate creates misgivings to both sides; therefore, the macabre of political issue continues to embroil.

While, as history goes, the aristocrats or the aggressors continue to pursue their policy of bulling and brutality, perceive wherever they move in nothing “civilized” but “barbarian” that must be annihilated. Confronting such abhorring contempt the slaves are forced to revolt against the aggressors continuously.

In Nietzsche’s own words, the moral concept of “good” and “evil” remains justified to either “aristocrats” or “slaves” so that it is truly the ideological morality that rules regardless of ethical truth. This idea has gone beyond the ruling power of politics traditionally understood in terms of cultural and social affairs to religious root and domain that justify one’s god and faith superior to and more noble than any other’s conviction. In this respect religion has revealed itself as clearly a “secret society” that sees anything outside its parameter “evil”, “hretic”, and “worthless” prone to condemnation and extinction. On July 8, 2012, Sebastian Abbot of Associate Press presented the case of the renowned Physicist Addus Salam, a Pakistan Nobel Laureate, who had become a bounty hunting target because of his successful work on the sub-atom called Higgs-Boson or God Particle. Both the fundamentalist Muslims and the Talibans shunned him and his name was erased from all textbooks in Pakistan because according to these fanatical agitators, Salam had practiced “heresy”.

For their own protection, the aristocrats only follow their creeds and actions, physically and verbally. The slaves have no choice to forgive save to revolt. Doubtlessly, both the aristocrats (predators) and the slaves (preys) are in fact beast-men that forever fail to attain the state of “beyond Goods and Evils”. They live in their own perceptions or codes of morals that see others as mere percepts according to their definition.

INFORMATION SCIENCE

Today advanced technology has made informative networks a true science that provides worldwide knowledge about incidents of different events. My interest focuses on socio-political life and I must thank all reporters for their dedication that keep me informed of man’s complexity of unpredictable ethos. Roughly, since May 2012 till present I have collected daily information on topics such as social, economic, political, and scientific developments around the world and made them in a set of 20 volumes, each has the length from 150 pages to 190 pages. So, altogether my reading documents amass to about more than 4,000 pages of which only political subject, exclusively on the two cases: a) Chinese expansionism in Southeastern Pacific and, b) Russian fascism challenging the world are presented in my paper. Some selected readings from world leading weekly magazines, such as Time and The Economist are quoted as well.

For all concerned peoples of the world everyday reading of ideological conflicts is a revelation of lethal vile ethos (maliciousness) hazardous to the fate of mankind unless the passion of the beast-man is under control. But how would this animal-man be controlled? This paper particularly focuses on current tensions in the Far-East and Southeast Asia where China has become an imminent threat, which has posed great challenge to the West. The challenge has begun with the global view of free trade economically that has eventually lead to the attainment of eco-political imperialist domination, if necessary by means of brutality.

It is my intention to temporally sidestep other regional conflicts, to go ahead with my agenda as follows:

THE CRISES

THE ASIA-PACIFIC CONFLICT: HOW TO DEAL WITH CHINESE HEGENOMY?

According to Nietzsche’s view of the aristocratic class, we can easily see it as the rising power that resurrected from “hell” with resentment complex, including haunts of the past. This so-called new class looks at horizon where it sees nothing worthy of civilized and then it wonders if the slave camps should be rebuilt or the ruling class would move on claiming more territories. It seems for its Machiavellian ambition either or both measures would be final solution.

On February 5, 2014, it was reported that the President of Philippines likened Chinese political leaders to Hitler.

June 1, 2012, Lolita Baldor of Associated Press reported that the Pentagon “will shift more warships to the Asia-Pacific region over the next several years.” This move will rebalance, according to Defense Secretary Panetta, and enhance capability to this region, including Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Vietnam, which he called “vital” to challenge China. Simultaneously, the Canadian Press of Associated Press revealed the trip of Peter MacKay, the Defense Minister of Canada, to Singapore for concern of China’s military aggressiveness, and so Canada would respond in case of any crisis in Southeast Asia.[6]

The next day, June 2, 2012, Baldor quoted Panetta’s warning that those countries should take care of conflicts with China since the U.S cannot always interfere. It was said that the U.S and China might work together on “difficult issues”. But, he added, “by 2020 about 60 percent of the fleet or 285 ships will be present in Asia. Panetta’s optimism how to deal with China was contested by U.S. Senator John McCain, who cautioned Panetta that an “additional $500 million of the Defense Budget would be cut” to challenge Panetta’s proposal. But Panetta believed that the Congress would find some way to avert the situation.[7]

June 3, 2012, a report by David Alexander of Reuters disclosed Panetta’s idea that the U.S. needs some naval port like Cam Ranh Bay of Vietnam for 60 percent of its warships by 2020.[8] Already, Singapore granted the U.S. to deploy four Littoral Combat Ships. Clearly this decision irritated China that wanted to control maritime row in South China Sea, especially after Panetta addressed from his U.S. ship in Cam Ranh Bay about the relationship between the United States and Vietnam, a gesture of security and solidarity.[9]

June 4, 2012, Eric Talmadge of Associated Press reports the U.S. Adm. Jonathan Greenert after visiting “the shipyard in Maine” where the Navy Stealth warships had been under construction and equipped with their sonar system capability that could deal with China’s attempt to “sneak up on coastlines”.[10] Although the cost of each Stealth warship has spiraled, $ 7 billion each from the original price tag of $ 3.1 billion, the Congress approved 24 ships to be built out of the proposal of 32 ones.[11]

China’s response to the U.S. strategic stance in South China Sea dispute is clear in David Lague’s report on July 25, 2012, at least about 2 points. 1) It asserted its sovereignty over this maritime area for natural gas and oil, although historically the map of China’s Southern most territory has never gone beyond Hainan (Hồ Bạch-thảo, July 27, 2012. See map), and 2) It “should use nuclear weapons against the United States if American forces intervene in a conflict over Taiwan”.[12]

The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in her trip to regional countries enmeshed by Chinese aggression, warned China against its mistake of faltering diplomacy and creating political tensions. China simply bushed away criticism and “accused Washington of seeking to stir up trouble far from home.”[13]

THE UKRAINE CRISIS: HOW TO DEAL A FASCIST RUSSIA?

Although the Communist Soviet Union was disintegrated in the late eighties due to economic structure collapsed within itself, thereafter small state-members of the old Soviet bloc have regained their independence and national identities. In spite of such great opportunity for peaceful stability of EU (Europe Union) still in the making, Russian resentment has still going highly in some factors, especially in leaders like Putin who has had fond of the old Machiavellian and ‘Fascist’ dream,[14] and therefore, publically accused Gorbachev as “traitor” of Russian people. In his own words, Putin blatantly challenged the world that he would not care about a new cold war.

Since by destiny human being has failed to escape the dichotomy of good and evil, so do any people for whom self-interest and self-love run under the spell of cunning motivation, they may turn their blind eye to cause and consequence; namely as long as a political ideology succeeds of annexing weaker state, it is regarded as the national glory (nationalism) NOT guilt at all. It is what they might see as justification of morals of the strong.

Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 appearing as its political feeling-out for possible NATO’s reaction, clearly revealed Putin and his clique of the old glory that means in spite of the after fact Russia did not allow any former Soviet Bloc members to opt for alliance with NATO but remain Russian “vassal states”. When Sarkozy of France reminded Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia would lead to Kremlin’s isolation, Putin admittedly returned his message that he was pleased with Europe’s well-disciplinary policy toward Russian provocative behavior. Putin enjoyed the separation of a state from Georgia, but the motive of his next step remained silent.

Almost 6 years later, Kremlin stepped up violation against international laws and so against Ukraine independence and self-determination. It stirred up separatism and annexed the strategic Crimea of Ukraine. This happened when the people of Ukraine would like to join EU and stayed away from Kremlin, its former overlord. The then-Ukrainian president Yanukovich ignored his people’s choice of freedom instead he closed ties with Russia. In supporting Yanukovich, Putin urged Yanukovich to be “firm” as he sent a strong message to Ukraine demanding that Ukraine ought to be with Russia. No doubt, this aggressive attitude – repeatedly for more than 22 years[15] in fact from the Bolshevik rule[16] - angered Ukrainian people that went to Maidan Park (Independence Park) in Kiev to make their voice heard internationally. The statue of Lenin in Kiev and those in local places around the country were demolished.[17]

Yanukovich went to exile and left behind him a heap of corruptive practices,[18] while the Ukrainian declared their capture of Kiev as national glory after a bloody fight, since World War II, as former leader Yulia Tymoshenko cried bonanza: “Epoch of Free People”,[19] and so the names of those who lost their life, a total of about 100 for the nation’s independence would be written in gold.[20] However, from the moral point of view of a biggest country in the world and of military capable to wage a “star war”, Ukraine cause of freedom and independence was not extant in Putin’s mind. He disdainfully called Ukrainian revolutionary protesters as “mutineers”[21] and used it as a motif of annexation of Crimea later.[22] Meanwhile, Ukraine was indeed facing economy crisis that could only be leveraged by an act of multilateral or international committee that was not yet formed at the time according to Russian Deputy Finance Minister Sergei Storchak’s warning.[23]

Possible Russian military intervention in Ukraine loomed over the border between Russia and Ukraine where reported Lee Matthew of massive Russian military exercises, about 150,000 troops[24] and of the Russian Black Sea Fleet close to Ukrainian Crimea Peninsular where anti-Russian and pro-Russian demonstrators clashed.[25] This contrasted to Kremlin’s pledge of non-intervention in Ukraine’s internal affairs.[26] Apparently, this sounded a murky strategic move to expose Russian strategy and tactics.

THE ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA

Tactically to annex Crimea, Russian military deployment on the eastern front might look like a decoy to distract the Cossack’s mind, while the real battle encroached in Black Sea. It did happen as it was reported on Thursday, February 27, 2014, dozens of pro-Russian men seized local government buildings in Crimea and raised a Russian flag over the parliament building in Simferopol, the local capital.[27] This signaled the hours of Russian invasion of Ukraine that was decidedly followed by a referendum directed by Russian rule on the pretext or de facto of popular vote to capture Crimea, the vital strategic point without firing a bullet.

As the world and especially the U.N were looking on, on March 1, 2014, the declaration of Russian war on Ukraine went to effect, with Russian Parliament’s sanction for Putin to use armed to back up Russian annexation of Crimea and possible invasion of the entire Ukraine if situation favored Kremlin. In Crimea the pro-Russians elected Aksyonov prime minister, an act Ukraine’s interim president Turchynov decried “invalid”.[28] For Kremlin, the Crimean invasion, not only planned to grab the Black Sea strategic point of significance, but also raised a new cunning issue on the weight of popular vote termed “referendum” based on majority of language and ethnicity. In Crimea, Russian is spoken by a great number of people, who are pro-Russian. In Kiev, people vowed to continue outing “another” dictator; namely Putin. Yarema Dukh a nationalist from Lviv and especially the group leader Artem Skoropadsky addressed the nation that Ukrainians had to get “guns and stand ready to confront Russian occupation forces.”[29]

For all people of the world, who love freedom and despite fascism, the invasion of Ukraine lays barely the “Dark Age” policy of Kremlin. For Kiev, this is truly the fight for freedom and self-determination of existence from foreign rule thus “appealing to Putin an end of provocation and withdrawal of troops from the Republic of Crimea.”[30] However, for Russia, it is but a so-called’ domestic spat similar to a conflict of parents and children.

To denounce Putin’s provocative escalation hazardous to the stability of Europe, France and England pulled out from Sochi G8 and the Hague repeatedly warned Kremlin that it has violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.[31] The Hague wisely advised, diplomatic and peaceful response to Russian actions should be considered not only a commitment of the Western world, but of many other countries in the world as well.[32]

On March 2nd 2014, the NATO Secretary-General A. F. Rasmussen held a press conference warning Russian provocative and military actions, which had destabilized Europe and violated the principles of the United Nations charter of which, ironically Russia is a key member with veto power. The NATO concluded Kremlin’s seizure of Crimea is the “geographical catastrophe of the 20th century.[33]

In response to Russian destabilization of world peace, Robio and Graham suggested president Obama to “return to plans of 2009, placing long-range missile interceptors and rada in Poland and the Czech Republic because Russia will provide “weapons and military equipment to governments across the Mideast, another act of violation of Kremlin’s role as a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council of veto power.[34]

How could this be acceptable, a big and superpower claimed it has the right to invade its small neighbor? This clearly happened on the mind of Putin. His game plan is to manipulate the de-factor of majority Russian ethnic and language regardless of Ukraine national constitution and sovereignty meanwhile deploying some 150,000 troops along the border to psychologically crush Ukraine morale and inspire pro-Russian separatists. On the southern front, more than 6,000 Russian soldiers had already entered Crimea. Putin gave order to Ukraine troops to lay down their weapons by 10:00 am.[35]

In making decision of boycotting their participation at the G-8 Meeting, the U.S. and the U.K. called on Russia withdrawing its troops from Crimea. In his address at Brussels, the NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told Russia that it violated the principles of the United Nations Charters and threatened peace and security in Europe.”[36]

As by schedule the G8 Summit would take place in Sochi, Russia, it moved to Brussels where the members revoked Kremlin’s membership, and condemned Russian grab of Crimea an illegal act. Russian foreign minister Dergei Lavrov challenged, arguing that the G8-organization’s decision was groundless as it does not have membership criteria to begin with.[37]

On June 13, 2014, Druzhinin of Reuters and on June 14, 2014, Wiemer-Bronner of The Wire, reported the U.S. State Department “accused Russia” of sending 3 T-64 tanks, several BM-21 or Grad Multiple rocket launchers, and other military vehicles into Donetsk of Ukraine” to arm the separatists. This significant escalation of Crisis in Ukraine was recoded in a video.[38] So the new crisis development might trigger World War III, reported Inquisitr on June 14, 2014, from Europe that pro-Russian rebels used Russian tanks and anti-aircraft missiles to down one Kiev’s military cargo killing a crew of forty-nine. The US and its ally leaders, especially France and Germany, condemned Russian support of insurgents demanding Kremlin’s cooperation to ensure cease-fire as they “threatened to further extend the sanctions to the Russian economy.” Meanwhile Ukrainian people protested the shooting down, Kiev’s acting Foreign Minister Anddriy Deshchytsia joined his people for non-violence demonstration by chanting name-calling about Putin, an act of anger naturally justified but inappropriate as a measure of protest at any international committees, cautioned some commentators.[39]

Probably the sanctions imposing on Russia begin to show economic effects and international mistrust of Kremlin’s policy, Putin met with Poroshenko to discuss means of ceasefire amid continuous fighting intensifying in pro-Russian regions of Eastern Ukraine. Then comes the blast of pipeline that conducts gas from Siberia to Europe on a northeastern part of Ukraine. From Kiev’s point of view, this explosion is Russian sabotage.[40]

While the event might involve several other Russian motifs, including “the attempt to discredit Ukraine as a partner in the gas sector” and create a situation of gas shortage in Ukraine and Europe “for several months”. Meanwhile Europe and Ukraine maintained underground storage for a long term to “eliminate a need to maintain an alliance with Russia.”[41]

On June 24, 2014, the Reuters’ report an unexpected request of Putin, which asked Russia’s Upper House revoke the right of using military intervention in Ukraine. This surprising pivot, if actually supported by actual fulcrum, may clear gun smoke and deescalate crisis. Therefore, Ukraine’s president Poroshenko called it “a first practical step” to carefully look into Kremlin’s complexity and unpredictability, as long as Russian troops still pose threat on the Eastern Front.[42]

Regarding a possible strategic maneuver that Putin might use to cover up and nurture conflict, Obama said on June 26, 2014 that he might impose more economic sanctions on Russia, “If Kremlin does not move swiftly to reduce tensions in eastern Ukraine.”[43]

For any true conscientious human being, the deficit of meaning of civilization as regards to current diabolic politics of aggressiveness has loomed into a suffocating dome regardless of shame and agony. It seems as though some strong and big nations having congenital symptom do not solicit constructive and bilateral communication for harmonious co-existence, but move on violating small countries’ sovereignty. They call it their right of moral conduct that alludes to “new world order”! Therefore, small countries have no right to exist save to be ceded to a superpower’s hegemony.

In his poignant essay Barbarism with a Human Face,[44] Slavoj Zizek exposes Kremlin’s policy of violation of small countries an attempt to redeeming Stalin’s dream of colonization of Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. In so doing Russia betrayed Lenin’s revolutionary right of self-determination of other country’s sovereignty, and ironically justified Kiev’s reason to secede on independence, because both Stalin and Putin follow pre-Tsarist and imperialism that alludes to Kremlin’s hegemony.

The assault on other peoples’ sovereignty and existence has posed serious question on peace, a dream not yet and still vulnerable to tyrannical aggressions, Tof join the defenders of humanism, Japan has amended its constitution, maximizing its military budget, not only for its integrity, but to work with the world against evil force.[45] Doubtlessly, Beijing’s aggressive cabinet has denounced Japan’s move, in favor of its “jungle”-morals.

In such an antagonistic situation, some small Asian countries directly affected by the territorial dispute have thought of an alliance. In this direction, a coalition of Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines has begun to take shape with support of Washington, currently the Pacific domination since the Second World War to date.[46]

CHINESE MOVE TO CONTROL THE WORLD AND EVENTUALLY DEFEAT THE U.S. IN A SPECTACULAR STAND-OFF TO DOOM DAY

At Den Xiaoping’s wise and revolutionary idea to westernization, the world looked on and quoted his sayings, “Show us the latest technology” and “To be rich is beautiful”, waves of well indoctrinated Chinese students excitingly flocked at the doors of U.S. universities with touting slogan, “We will control the world!” That show of impressive determination, in reality, followed Beijing’s stark warning at America that “the rise and decline of a power is deterministic”. Much annoying to public ears those students blatantly carried out Beijing’s propaganda insulting Japan and the U.S. as “ignorant.” It sounds like a lot of naivety but in fact, that absurd and dangerous as it appears to be somewhat prefiguration of a “dawn of the ape planet”, lashing out from huge training camps to victory by grabbing the world, even destroying the ones that educated China.

After scores of years of stunning progress, China believes it has all power to grab territories of small and weak SCS neighbors. Its game plan focuses on two clear objectives: a) a pseudo-negotiation to keep its present activities in progress as long as possible until the de-factor-turn-to-status-quo becomes irrefutable after-fact; and b) harassment with military might against any show of force, which clearly no Asian countries have thought of, save Japan. China will refuse to normalize the encroaching nightmarish situation it has created until it accomplishes its goal, because it regards the illegal annexation of lands, and dominance of maritime and air space, the way of its morals, to permanently maintain logistic and strategic strongholds of Pacific Ocean; eventually to get rid of U.S presence and influence in Asia. Chinese hegemony dream publically worked out since the passing of Deng Xiaoping and accelerated its “devastating behavior” that prompted Australia to weigh (mull) its “future strategic trajectory”.[47]

For the first time ever, Abe, the premier minister of Japan addressed at Australian Parliament on the solidarity of the two countries, both for common interests and on commitment to peace of the world, which was met with enthusiastic welcome from Mr. Abbot in Canberra, but irked Beijing.[48] While world leaders have hoped China would have seen it being isolated as its neighbors are “drawing closer to the U.S. than ever” remarked Mr. Malcolm Tumdull, Australian Cabinet.[49]

Xi himself in his meeting with Kerry raised concerns over the South China Sea conflict escalation between China and the U.S. that would endanger the two countries and global security; instead he opted for diplomatic solution.[50] Xi’s points in fact lacked substance and goal of peace; because they merely echoed Beijing’s previous scenarios that have proven rhetorical and irresponsible. The truth is that China itself has created messy situation that must be resolved by Beijing’s efforts on trust; namely to abide to international laws.

Then on July 16, 2014, it was said China moved its oil-rig construction from the disputed area with Vietnam towards south of Hainan. Beijing simply stated that it completed natural resources discoveries ahead of time by schedule in August, while according to other observation Chinese move complied with American pressure on de-escalation of regional conflict, and thus if true, pleased Washington.

Chinese move was both tactical and strategic that Beijing swayed necessarily for the time being, and would be expected to pivot with full, even violently, assault to complete conquest; regardless international laws whose tribunal of arbitration Beijing has blankly rejected.

Western analysts on Beijing’s sway, particularly on Sino-Viet conflict saw Chinese tacit tactic. It gave Hanoi four preconditions to settle down conflict that Hanoi must a) acknowledge Chinese ownership of Parcel row; b) stop interfering with Chinese oil drill; c) withdraw its plan to sue Beijing at the International Court, and d) give up all effort to seek third party into the crisis. So far, Hanoi did partially complied with the last two demands; especially it halted a diplomatic trip to Washington.[51]

In reality, although some reports can be eluding, it does not deny possibility as both the U.S. Defence Department and the Chinese State run Xinhua Agency unveiled the PLA’s second artillery force that has continued China’s intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of carrying “a payload of multiple nuclear warheads.” Such awesome modernized weapons, most capable of deference, faster than the speed of sound and reachable a distance about 7,500 miles. Sources said they could deliver to the continental U.S.[52] Such information does not gamble on feasibility of mystery that if it is not ready, it will be.

As the Eastern front might show sign of calmness in disguise, the cold war between Washington and Kremlin has indeed renewed. Russia has decided to re-activate its Lourdes Spy Base in Cuba, once turned off for the cost of maintenance, now turned on to provide intelligence data collected on American activities.[53] Both Putin and Xi simultaneously work out operating their influence on Latin America, economically and possibly militarily under favorable circumstances in future.

Then came the downing of Malaysian MH-17 in Ukraine allegedly by pro-Russian unit using missile SA-11. Putin’s tactics over this senseless tragedy showed no respect to the world or did he maneuver his game-plan at a level only comprehensible to that of mischievous child? Juvenile delinquency would amount to incalculable damages, a hard job for concerned parents, here alluding to the destruction of human societies of laws.

David Axe’s report titled “China thinks it can defeat America in battle, but it overlooks one decisive factor” provides an interesting perspective of Chinese adventurous tactic and strategic move to utmost conflict for world domination.[54] Fuell’s testimony before U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission In Washington, D.C., on January 30, 2014, that China would use ballistic rockets to destroy American bases as far as in Japan, on Guam, and on Taiwan. Such preemptive assaults to cripple U.S. capabilities in fact China would think of to duplicate the Pearl Harbor strategy, may repeat great disaster, then for Japan, and in future for China being precipitated in a doom day. Beijing should carefully study Abbot’s American power to avoid resounding margin.

Facing with Chinese aggressive behavior, in part due to Beijing’s strategic trajectory based on its reasoning that U.S. is too far away from the South China Sea, and too busy with the Western Front, on July 11, 2014, Mike Rogers, Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Intelligence Committee said that ‘Washington should be less concerned with Chinese sensibilities when dealing with Beijing.” He added, “We need to empower our friends and allies in the region, (and) to be more direct and more aggressive. Because China’s behavior is gluttonous and naked aggressive”[55]

Rogers’s remarks came after Kerry failed to persuade Beijing that “efforts to create a “new status quo” at the expense of regional harmony were unacceptable.”[56]

Perhaps, the following point of view shows public concern to American policy makers that must envision Chinese threat about time Washington should begin to deal with Beijing seriously and decisively before a great world war looms out to catastrophe.

On July 6, 2014, Flournoy and Ratner shared their concerns about China’s aggressive behavior as follows:

Chinese move of its oil rig construction from the disputed area is both tactical and strategic that Beijing swayed necessarily for the time being, and is expected to pivot with full swing, even with violence to complete conquest; regardless of international laws whose tribunal of arbitration Beijing rejected.

PUTIN’S WAR GAME TO RESTORE EMPIRE

Meanwhile, on the Western front or Ukrainian crisis, the rebels dig up themselves for the last stand against Kiev’s advancing. It exposes as observes Fred Weir, while Putin’s tactic move is unseen, the 65% of Russians whose stand on their Eurasian ideology; namely an isolation from Western Europe, remain firm with their ideological root or “nationalism”. Then, Putin’s thirst of domination only reflects Russian majority clearly seen in euphemism on the aftermath of Crimean annexation. Now, it begins to show the sign of Russian internal discord.[58]

In reality Russian so-called discord should not be misunderstood as Russian people against Putin’s strategy, rather the population demanded him more destructive clout to achieve a “Stalin” dream in a record speed. The month of July heaped up with intensive violence as sources disclosed an alarming increase of Russian military build-up along eastern Ukraine border with Russia, up to 14,000 from 12,000,[59] and that Kremlin’s missiles firing across Russian border into Ukraine in support of rebels remind the EU, the NATO, and the U.S., of Russian assertiveness, which Putin has been executing and will at any costs go on all the way out with his plan clearly from the start, without concession and bowing to sanctions.[60] All totalitarian regimes, Communism is the first class example, only care about their oligarchic welfare, not their people’s, therefore, sanctions might have worried some Russian business executives on slow trade indexes,[61] and even deep plunging, Kremlin and Beijing are confident that their people have been gotten used to “ration” system. Once Putin asked Russian lawmakers to revoke the request of invading Ukraine by force, in reality, such a request was just a child-game’s deception because the invasion tactically remains unchanged as long as Kremlin can incite pro-Russian rebels to Ukrainian civil war or under pretext of saving Russian-speaking ethnic. This was clear in Putin’s elusions to reality he created as he blamed E.U. the United States and Ukraine for the tragedy of MH-27, and defended his military offensive on Ukrainian borders.[62]

Probably, downing of the civilian Malaysian MH-17 was Kremlin’s shooting practice to show off its military power and to warn the West of any attempt to interfere with Russian hegemony; namely any challenge would face deadly retaliation from Russia that calls it an act of war. On July 25, U.S. General Martin Dempsey at Aspen Security Forum sent a message to Kremlin that U.S.A. is militarily ready and has urged the NATO to cooperate. He was quoted of saying, “Our job is preparedness, deterrence and readiness.” The word “deterrence” carries meaning of “nuclear weapons” as well.[63]

In reality the U.S. and its ally should be seriously weighed upon a dangerous possibility if Kremlin helps Beijing upgrade its military sophisticated weaponry, or even worst, a joint-venture of such rogue states against the U.S. and the world.[64] Unless current conflict is defused a doom day would be inevitable if EMP technology already tested positive, by NASA for 12 hours, ten years ago in Quebec, Canada, becomes enemy’s blatant power of destruction, and one country would be out of electricity and suffer an unusual long cold season followed by sickness and starvation. Experts in the U.S. have raised concerns about this matter if EMP in the possession of enemy. They urged Washington along forward accelerating methods of national defense and even manufacturing EMP weapon to deal with consequences upbraided with by enemy of mankind.[65]

So far, Kremlin’s new imperialism has shown no sign of de-escalation of miserable job it created. Instead it has doubled its troops on the southern border with Ukraine, a sort of ready of all out invasion. Its cunning plan covers up evil tactic move by putting all blame on Ukraine of humanitarian problems and so by calling the UN Security Council’s attention to the situation that is in fact created by Russia, according to some Council members and the US Deputy UN ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo. Since the pretext of concerns over humanitarian emergency has disclosed Putin’s plan of moving Russian troops into Ukraine, British and American leaders blankly warned Moscow of such move as an act of invasion.[66] In reality, Putin “has taken advantage of a blind spot within the Ukrainian government and in the west” and gambled with the risk of escalating tensions by sending “humanitarian relief” convoy to the border. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen quotes reliable source that confirms “a continuous flow of weapons and fighters from Russia into Eastern Ukraine.” Meanwhile, according to President Petro Poroshenko, “A significant part of the Russian column had been destroyed.[67] In retaliation to more sanctions from the E.U and the U.S. Moscow, according to report of the Business Daily Vedomosti, it might ban European Airlines on flying over Siberia.[68] In reality, while both Kremlin and Beijing have pursued “salami and nibbling” tactic, sanctions are but already a declaration of war without military engagement, which would come about in the nick of time, by either side’s miscalculation.

CONCLUSION

Any positive plan aiming at building a world of peace must accept this great challenge, extremely headache, due to encroaching force of destruction maneuvered by sub-human consciousness; so frustrating mankind. Could it be true that no happiness and harmony of living together ever possible as long as tyrannical rule exists?

As a themed discourse, my presentation must exhaust at some point, due to time and space, regretfully unable of continuous reading of invaluable daily information. Almost everywhere, evil companies of different ideological types behaving like animals at large have moved on to make claims against human rights and self-determination. Ironically, both Russia and China, the two super-powers and members of the U.N., armed with veto power, have taken laws into their hands and stepped back into pre-historic era where the law of jungle has clearly served their morals well and ceded the UN’s principles to worthlessness. As a role model and champion of peace and order what should the U.N. think of itself?

Apparently, at this point of the mounting crises, any miscalculation could lead to real world war. Gain and loss are currently thickening up world leaders’ dilemma on how to avoid catastrophe when it hits global commonwealth. I can only figure out some essential to build a world politics of common benefits and harmony, yet my point of view probably short-sighted, even prejudiced is unable to get into common ground, I would only see what kind of promise at hand, and what is flagged down by imminent catastrophe. How can members of community of mankind pursue happiness and opportunity, if their security and dignity have no meaning before animal-man machinery? I am mulling the following points as essentials.

To protect good morals and destroy bad morals should target both individual and collective parties. Such efforts would ironically reveal human condition and elegy (tragic fate) well noted in the introduction of my paper, following Nietzsche’s idea. Therefore, moral with a hammer could be the only option; namely a declaration of war on animal-man’s morals, without restriction. In so doing, the real headache and weakness of humanitarian defenders call for a sound strategy to minimize the costs of innocent people and even peoples, again I make a reference to John Rawls, in his discourse on utopian society, who drew upon the case of British and American attack on Hitler’s homeland.[69] However, the animal-man would laugh at this dilemma and then would seize opportunities to create a new world order parallel to vicious models conceivable in the Medieval where only aristocrats ruled vast amount of slaves. Simon Schuster’s article Crime Without Punishment, contributes to elucidation of Putin’s war game that aims at “splintering” Europe and “ripping up” the NATO, and to make him stronger by increasing “new crisis”[70] Meanwhile to deal with the sanction effects at home economically confronting the decline of Russia’s Ruble currency as well as Russian shares,[71] Putin has “hinted at price controls”, and adjustment to what traditionally called, “improvisation and ingenuity” as the Russian diet.[72] To peer into the mind of insane aggressors, we should decipher some mysterious riddles, that for Putin, the haunts of Russian Orthodox and Vladimir the Great are great component to obtain global power;[73] and for hawkish leaders in Beijing, that of China’s cultural influence in its neighbors and the presence of Chinese immigrants on foreign soils make up a latent and even offensive column if cunningly manipulated. It seems, even if Nietzsche’s Concept of Morals to battle evil be strategically adopted, the works of the defender of peace and freedom as well as that of the guardian of the Gate of Hell cannot be accomplished without “bleeding the earth”. For both good and evil there are misconceptions when it deals with human nature. Then how to build an ideal world politics involves tremendous compelling commitment. To these very lines, I am indeed skeptical and pessimistic, albeit our hope to have a community of mankind in Husserl’s Fifth Meditation of Cartesian Meditations still holds dear to our belief, against an elegy “man is a big failure”.

POSTSCRIPT

ON THE CASE OF UKRAINE AND VIETNAM

A. The crisis of Ukraine is essentially the product of history and historicity, especially the latter that deals with the problem of ethnicity and language. It has been politically manipulated by Moscow’s fascist regime to rip Ukraine apart (Salami and nibbling), a punishment for siding with the E.U. Moscow used pro-Russian rebels on a warpath conducive to civil war. Concerning Kremlin’s policy of isolationism Moscow’s claim of Eurasian origin to distinguish itself from Western Europe in the guise of cultural and religious ideology thereupon the restoration of Soviet Union including Ukraine and possibly all other Baltic states that will become satellites of Kremlin. Drawn into the quicksand of this game, Kiev’s independent statehood would suffer consequences and enter new episode of history unless the NATO and the U.S. interfere. Kiev cannot rely on the E.U. that has not yet approved Ukraine membership while some E.U. members are reluctant on tougher sanctions against Russia because of their interest with Moscow. The hour of assault on Kiev awaits Putin’s order, and if conventional war against Ukrainian resistance seems long and arduous, Russia would use nuclear weapon.

Cơn khủng-hoảng hiện-nay ở Ukraine là kết quả của lịch-sử và những suy-tư cũng như hành-động đã gây ra trong quá-khứ, Trong khía-cạnh thứ hai chúng-ta thấy rõ vấn-đề nằm trong ngôn-ngữ và sắc-tộc. Chính-sách “Fát-xít” của Moscow nhằm băm Ukraine ra thành mảnh nhỏ, để trừng-fạt Kiev đã đi với Liên-bang Âu-châu. Moscow đã zùng fe nổi zậy thân Nga trong cuộc tranh-chấp đưa tới nội-chiến. Zựa trên chính-sách vốn-zĩ tách khỏi cộng-đồng Âu-châu, Moscow tự coi cỗi-rễ của Nga là Âu-Á, không zính-záng jì tới Tây-Âu, vì í-thức hệ tôn-jáo và văn-hóa để Nga tái-tạo lại Liên-bang Sô-viết bao gồm Ukraine và một số nước ở Bắc-hải. Bị lôi vào vũng lầy của ván-bài Nga, sự độc-lập của Ukraine sẽ bị thiệt-hại nặng nề trong jai-đoạn lịch-sử sắp tới, trừ fi khối Minh-ước Bắc Đại Tây-zương và Hoa-kì nhúng tay vào. Ukraine không thể trông cậy vào Liên-hiệp Âu-châu bời vì Kiev chưa fải là hội-viên. Trong nhi ấy, một số nước hội-viên của Liên-hiệp Âu-châu lơ là đến chuyện trừng-fạt mạnh Nga về kinh-tế, vì họ có quyền-lợi với Moscow. Nga chỉ còn đợi lệnh của Puttin để chiếm thành Kiev, và nếu Nga thấy rằng một cuộc xâm-lăng của Nga theo truyền-thống gặp kháng-cự mạnh, lâu zài và khó-khăn, thì Nga có thể zùng tới võ-khí nguyên-tử.

B. VIETNAM not only shares border with CHINA, after one thousand years of Chinese domination, it had voluntarily remained a vassal state of the giant neighbor until the 19th century, in part by Chinese colonization policy and in part due to the slavish mind of most Vietnamese leaders after heroic uprisings by the people successfully for autonomy. Historically, the weakness of Vietnam rests on cultural and linguistic complex. The latter case is attested by history and historicity under Chinese colonization, Vietnam adopted Chinese writing and education system, and worse turned against their own language, which they considered inferior to Northern counterpart’s. Culturally, as of the former case, the moral teachings of Confucianism were revered above all Vietnamese national thought. Such bizarre way of conviction has become way of life of many Vietnamese scholars, aristocrats and statesmen, even nowadays. The so-called detente between Hanoi and Beijing over territorial quarrel would spurt into violence again whenever China sees it fit to complete its final conquest.

Việtnam không chỉ sát biên-jới với Tầu, mà sau một ngàn năm lệ-thuộc Tầu, Việtnam vẫn mặc nhiên chấp nhận thân-fận chư-hầu của Tầu cho đến thế-kỉ 19. Điều này xảy ra một fần vì chính-sách thuộc-địa của Tầu, và một fần vì tinh-thần nô-lệ của số đông lãnh-đạo Việtnam, mặc zù có biết bao lần zân-tộc Việt oai-hùng nổi zậy chống xâm-lăng và hoàn-thành độc-lập. Nếu xét theo lịch-sử thì tinh-thần nô-lệ của Việtnam nằm trong huyết-quản tức là sự fức-tạp của văn-hóa và ngôn-ngữ. Lịch-sử gi rõ: trong thời Bắc-thuộc, Vietnam theo cách viết và jáo-zục của Tầu, ngu-si đến độ fỉ-báng ngôn-ngữ của mình. Xét về mặt văn-hóa, người Việt tôn-thờ kinh-sách Khổng-tử cho nên không fát-triển tư-tưởng quốc-ja. Thế nên, suy-tư nô-lệ đã trở thành lối-sống của rất nhiều người Việt, nhất là jai-cấp có học, có quyền-thế và lãnh-đạo, cho tới bây jờ vẫn còn. Cái gọi là “bớt căng-thẳng” jữa Hànội và Bắc-kinh lúc này vì sự tranh-chấp ở Biển Đông vẫn có thể bùng nổ trở lại bất cứ lúc nào Tầu thấy fải hoàn-tất chính-sách xâm-lược.

One theory would prove effective and practical to China if Beijing wishes to call for a referendum on a state of Viet to annex Vietnam, based on cultural, linguistic and political background. Still hypothetically speaking, if there were a considerable ratio of pro-Chinese inclines to educated Vietnamese, especially to Hanoi’s policymakers, for whom their benefits above that of the nation and the people, there would be no more Vietnam. For the time being, no one knows exactly what deal would come out behind the scene meetings between Hanoi and Beijing. But one would easily surmise any outcome cannot go against Beijing’s interest and against Hanoi oligarchy’s, regardless the sake of the integrity of Vietnamese nation and people at all.

Một jả-thiết hữu-hiệu và thực-tiễn mà Bắc-kinh có thể hoặc đã và đang áp-zụng là nếu Tầu có đủ khả-năng đưa ra chiêu-bài trưng cầu zân-í thành-lập một “tiểu-bang” Việt để Tầu chiếm trọn Việtnam, không cần đến chiến-tranh. Sách-lược này zựa trên căn-bản văn-hóa, ngôn-ngữ và chính-trị. Cứ jả-thiết rằng nếu có một cán-cân đáng-kể ngiêng về những kẻ thờ-fụng Tầu là những người có-học, đặc-biệt là nhóm lãnh-đạo ở Hànội, chỉ ngĩ tới sự tồn-vong của họ, chứ không màng đến quyền-lợi quốc-ja và zân-tộc, thì nuớc Việt sẽ không còn. Lúc này không ai biết chính-xác những jì Hànội và Bắc-kinh đang bí-mật bàn với nhau. Nhưng chúng ta có thể đoan-chắc là kết-quả thế nào chăng nữa vẫn không thể đi ngược lại quyền-lợi của Tầu và quyền-lợi fe-nhóm ở Hànội. Quyền-lợi của zân-tộc và của nước Việtnam chả là cái jì hết.

Pragmatically, Beijing’s wise card would offer Vietnam more economic slant on Beijing. By accepting Beijing’s offer, Hanoi slowly and deeply loses stamina and so relies on China’s protection. A prosperous Vietnam then would not annoy China, as long as the former subordinates to Beijing, and lives in Chinese Commonwealth as a vassal state. In fact, such proxy welfare like drug addictive ingredient would destroy Vietnamese critical thinking and independent spirit to a point it would be too late for Vietnam to turn back, and then accept the de-facto of becoming a state in a “Federal China”. In such system, Chinese Federalism would allow Vietnam to keep its flag, its statehood, and its constitution under the Supreme Court and Legislature of Beijing.

Con-người thực-tiễn ở Bắc-kinh có thể đang đi một thế-cờ júp-đỡ Việtnam về kinh-tế để cho Việtnam fải lụy vào Tầu. Nếu Việt chấp-nhận thế-cờ này thì Hànội từ từ không còn năng-lực và fải sống bám vào Tầu. Theo kiểu này, một Việtnam “trù-fú” không làm Tầu khó chịu, nếu Việtnam fục-tùng Bắc-kinh và sống trong Khối Thịnh-vương kiểu Tầu như một nước chư-hầu. Tuy nhiên, lối-sống được ủy-nhiệm ấy là một thứ ma-túy khiến người Việt không biết suy-ngĩ fải-trái và mất tinh-thần độc-lập đến độ khi biết ra cũng đã muộn rồi. Như thế, còn jì khác nữa hơn là Việtnam chấp nhận một thực-tế đã rồi, trở thành tiểu-bang trong một “Liên-bang kiểu Tầu”. Trong liên-bang kiểu Tầu ấy, Bắc-kinh vẫn cho fép Việtnam jữ lá cờ và hiến-fáp tiểu-bang, nhưng không thể ra ngoài luật-fáp và quyền tối-cao fáp-viện của Bắc-kinh.

Once securing Vietnam under Chinese rule as an outpost defending Beijing’s interests in Southeast Pacific, Chinese hegemony to grab territories of its neighbors would resume, and avert Vietnam from siding with the Philippines and other Asian countries, even from U.S. influence. Now, it has become clear to us how Vietnam in its independent eras still lost its dignity and integrity. It was for the existence of the ruling class not that of the people, after regaining independence, the kings of Viet unconditionally submitted the nation to Chinese sovereignty, requesting sacrament ordained by Beijing. It is recorded, even the country name had been conferred by the Court of China, therefore, Vietnam substituted for Namviet. The Viet Kings regarded Beijing the Celestial Court and the teachings of Confucius as God’s commandments. It obediently provided skillful manpower to serve China, notably in the 15th century, Vietnam lost Nguyễn An, a brilliant architect who spent ten years to build the Forbidden City for the Ming Dynasty, and Phạm Hoằng sent to Beijing as an eunuch, who was conferred the title “The Heavenly Scholar” by Chinese Emperor. Ironically, for the Vietnamese, then and now, those great personalities did not deserve a footnote. The Viets have never been able to understand the meaning of Power and Freedom, ultimately in the times of peace.

Một khi đã nắm được Vietnam, Tầu zùng Viẹtnam như một fáo-đài bảo vệ quyền-lợi của Tầu ở Đông-Nam Thái-bình Zương. Khi đó, jấc mộng bành-trướng xâm-lược các lân-bang của Tầu sẽ tiếp-ziễn. Tầu sẽ khiến Vietnam ra khỏi thế tự-vệ với Fi-Luật-Tân và các nước khác ở Á-châu, và fải xa lià ảnh-hưởng của Hoa-kì. Như vậy, chúng-ta đã thấy, vì sao trong những thời-đại độc-lập mà Vietnam vẫn mất bản-sắc quốc-ja. Vấn-đề chẳng qua là vì sự sống còn của jai-cấp lãnh-đạo chứ không fải sự sống-còn của zân-tộc. Cho nên, sau khi zành được độc-lập nhiều vua-chúa Viêtnam vẫn tự-nguyện sang Tầu xin cầu-fong, ngay cả xin chấp nhận tên gọi quốc-ja:. Ví-zụ, Việt xin quốc-hiệu Namviệt, Tầu truyền rằng fải là Vietnam. Vua-chúa Việtnam thường coi Bắc-kinh là Thiên-triều và thờ-fụng lễ-ngĩa của Khổng-tử như lời Thánh-zạy. Triều-đình Vietnam vâng lời Tầu cống-hiến ngay cả những thợ có tài trong nước. Điển-hình là chuyện zâng Kiến-trúc sư lỗi-lạc Nguyển An cho nhà Minh. Nguyễn An đã bỏ ra mười năm để thiết-kế và xây-zựng Thành Bắc-kinh. Cũng vậy, Fạm Hoằng bị zâng cho Tầu để vua Tầu zùng làm nội-thị. Nhưng chính vua nhà Minh đã fải gọi Fạm Hoằng là “Bồng-lai Cát-sĩ”. Trong khi ấy, xưa cũng như nay, người Việt coi hai nhân-vật lỗi lạc kia chỉ là “đồ bỏ”.

We have no access to Chinese current plan and promise of security to Hanoi’s policymakers, a promise would disclose wide gap between the state and the people once the latter have a chance to see it, the deficits would have amounted to a grieving elegy for the death of a country by act of treason. China cannot support any deal in default of its imperialist dream at all.

Chúng-ta không biết jì về sách-lược và những hứa-hẹn hiện thời của Tầu nhằm bảo-vệ chính-quyền Hànội ra sao. Nếu biết được, chúng-ta có thể thấy sự khác-nhau sâu-xa jữa quyền-lợi của nhà-nước và của zân-tộc. Tức là thấy được những fá-sản quốc-ja quá lớn đến độ trở thành một điếu-văn cho cái chết của nước Việt bởi lẽ sự sống còn của fe-nhóm không nề-hà fản-quốc. Zĩ-nhiên, Tầu không thể nào chấp-nhận một jải-fáp bất-lợi cho tham-vọng đế-quốc của Tầu.

Although the law of physics still holds truth to the significance of size of some account of power, in reality some small size object like a neutron star would upset the balance, as in the case of England and Japan, there is no freedom without power in defense of good morals against the evil. This is exactly what Ukraine and Vietnam should do. Although they still need allies, above all they must be self-sufficient.

Mặc-zù, theo khoa Vật-lí, vật càng to lớn thì lực càng mạnh. Trên thực-tế, vật nhỏ như neutron star có sức-mạnh cô-đọng khủng-khiếp, đảo lộn suy-ngĩ thông-thường. Trong chính-trị đó là trường-hợp của Anh và Nhật. Muốn có tự-zo fải mạnh để bảo-vệ điều-lành chống lại điều-ác. Ukraine và Việtnam không thể sống còn nếu không biết thực-hiện được điều này. Mặc zù hai nước này vẫn cần đồng-minh, nhưng trước hết, tự họ fải mạnh.

REFERENCES

1. Jean de la Fontaine (8 July 1621-13 April 1695), was the most famous French fabulist and one of the most widely read French poets of the 17th century. He is known above all for his Fables.

2. Nietzsche, Friedrich, On the Genealogy of Morals (Zur Genealogie der Moral), 1887, 2006. Barnes and Noble, NY.

3. Heidegger, Martin, Phenomenology of Intuition and Expression (Phänomenologie der Anschauung und des Ausdrucks: Theorie des Philosophischen Begriffsbuildung, 1993, 2010 Continnum, London, New York.

4. Heidegger, Martin, ibid. :94

5. Husserl, Edmund, Cartesian Mediations

6. Baldor, Lolita C. Panetta: Pentagon to shift warships to Pacific, Associated Press, June 1, 2012.

7. Baldor, Lolita C. Panetta: No China Threat from U.S. military in Asia, Associated Press, June 2, 2012.

8. David Alexander, Access to Pacific harbors hey to U.S. Strategy: Panetta, June 3, 2012.

9. Baldor, Lolota C., Panetta wants more US access to Vietnam harbor, Associated Press, 2012.

10. The Canadian Press, Canada seeks Singapore hub to support U.S. military Asia ‘pivot’ towards China. June 21, 2012.

11. Talmadge, Eric, U.S. Navy hopes stealth ship answers a rising China, Associated Press, June 4, 2012.

12. Tandon, Shaun, Obama backs Philippines over South China Sea, AFP, June 9, 2012.

13. Hồ, Bạch-thảo, “Legal Documents of Chinese Territory” based on the Royal Geographical Map (Including dates since 1708, 1750, 1807, 1833, 1888, respectively). July 27, 2012. One of which shows Chinese claims of the current dispute territories.

14. Quinn, Andrew, “Clinton warns against coercion in South Sea dispute.”, Reuters, September 2, 2012.

15. World News, Porton, Richard, ‘Inside Maidan’: Sergei Lpznitsa on His Ukrainian Uprising Doc and Putin’s ‘Fascist’ Regime.” May 25, 2014.

16. Polityuk, Pavel and Goettig, Goettig, Marcin, (Reuters), “Ukraine police charge protesters after nation’s bloodiest day.” February 18, 2014.

17. Shiebold, Sabine and Zinets, Natalia (Reuters), “Ukraine peace deal halts violence but crowds still angry.” February 21, 2014.

18. Carbonnel, de Alissa and Polityuk, Pavel (Reuters), “Ukrainian Protesters topple Lenin statue in .challenge to Yanukovich,” December 8, 2013.

19.Fitgerald, Craig, “Ukrainian Revolution Uncovers Massive Car Collection at Yanukoych Estate,” (Boldride), February 24, 2014

20.Krasnolutska, Daryna, Choursina,, Kateryna, and Arkhipov, Ilya (Bloomberg),”Ukraine Protesters in Power; Tymoshenko: ‘Epoch of Free People’.” February 23, 2014.

21.Karmanau, Yuras and Heintz, Jim, (AP), “Ukraine: president’s whereabouts unknown.”, February 23, 2014.

22.Piper, Elizabeth (Reuters), “Russia says won’t deal with “mutineers” who took power in Ukraine,” February 24, 2014.

23.Kelly, Lidia, Piper, Elizabeth, and Heritage, Timothy (Reiters), “Russia says no multilateral talks on Ukraine aid yet.”, February 26, 2014.

24.Ritter, Karl and Isachenkov, Vladimir, (AP), “Russia war games over Ukraine promp US warning.” February 26, 2014.

25.Lee, Matthew (AP), “US warns Russia on Ukraine, nudges Georgia to West”. February 26, 2014.

26.Antonova, Maria (AFP), “Russia says it won’t intervene in Ukraine”, February 25, 2014.

27.Bennett, Dalton, (AP), “Ukraine: Pro-Russia gunmen seize offices in Crimea”. February 27, 2014.

28. McHugh, David and Isachenkov (AP), “Lawmakers allow Putin to use military in Ukraine”, March 1, 2014.

29. Savochenko, Oleksandr (AFP), “Kiev’s protesters ready for another fight …against Russia.” March 1, 2014.

30. Zawadzski, Sabina and Polityuk, Pavel (Reuters), “Ukraine says Russia follows pre-Georgia war scenario in Crimea.” February 28, 2014.

31. Ponthus, Julien and Vinocur, Nicholas (Reuters), “France suspends participation in Sochi G8 preparatory meeting.” March 2, 2014

32. AFP, “Britain pulls out of this week’s talks on Sochi G8.” March 2, 2014.

33. Baker, Luke and Pawlak, Justyna (Reuters), “NATO meets on Ukraine, says RUsia risks destabilizing Europe.” March 2, 2014.

34. Jakes, Lara (AP), “US prepares tough response for Russia over Ukraine.” March 2, 2014.

35 Zinets, Natalia and de Carbonnel, Alissa (Reuters), “Ukraine mobilizes after Putin’s declaration of war.” March 2, 2014.

36. Krasnolutska, Daryna, Verbyany, Volodymyr and Choursina, Kateryna, “Ukraine Reinforces Army Amid Outcry at Russia’s Crimea Grab.” March 2, 2014.

37. Ohlheizer, Abby (The Atlantic Wire), After Kicking Out Russia, The G8 Is Now G7, March 25, 2014.

38. Druzhinin, Alexei, (Reuters), “Russia Just Significantly Escalated The Crisis In Ukraine.” June 13, 2014.

Wiemer-Bronner, Danielle (The Wire), “U.S. Confirms Russia Sent Tanks, Weapons to Ukrainian Separatists.” June 14, 2014.

39. Inquisitr, “World War III.: Ukraine Separatists Using Russia’s Tanks and RocketLaunchchers, Claims The US State Department.” June 14, 2014.

McHugh, David and Dobrnjakovic, Marko, (AP) “Ukraine vows to punish rebels who downed plane.”, June 15, 2014.

Heritage, Timothy and de Carbonnel, Allisa, (Reuters), “Ukraine minister under fire for swearing about Putin.” June 15, 2014.

40. Zaks, Dmitry, (AFP), “Putin, Poroshenko discuss Ukraine ceasefire as two TV crew killed.”, June 17, 2014.

41.Zaks, Dmitry, (AFP), Ibid.

42. De Carbonnel, Alissa and Matviyenko, Gabriela (Reuters), “Russia’s Putin renounces right to send troops to Ukraine.” June 24, 2014.

43.AFP, “Obama warns more sanctions await Russia on Ukraine.” June 26, 2014.

44. Zizek, Slavoj, “Barbarism with a Human Face”, London Review of Books, Vol. 36, Number 9, May 8, 2014.

45. Sizg, Linda and Takenaka, Kiyoshi (Reuters), “Japan Takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies.” July 1, 2014.

46. Macchi, Victoria (VOA), “Asian Neighbors Push back on China’s Claims”, July 1, 2014.

47. Schreer, Benjamin (The Buzz)m “Tensions in the Southeast China Sea are rising: What Should Australia do?”, June 26, 2014.

48. Kwek, Glenda,(AFP) “Japan’s Abe declares peace goals...”, July 8, 2014.

49.Chang, Jack, (AP), “Hoping to project power, China finds itself alone,” July 10, 2014

50. Bloomberg News, “Xi Says China Conflict With U.S. Woullbe Disaster”, July 8, 2014.

51. The National Interest, “Did China Blink in the South China Sea?” July 27, 2014.

52. Reuters, “A Chinese Agency Might Have Inadvertently Confirmed A Secret Long Range Nuclear Missile”, August 1, 2014. See also Shankar, Sneha, (IBT), “China Admits It Has Nuclear that can reach the U.S.”, August 2, 2014.

53. AFP, “THE LOURDES SPY BASE”, July 16, 2014

54. David Axe,“China thinks it can defeat America in battle, but it overlooks one decisive factor”, July 7, 2014.

55 Brunstrom, David, (Reuters), “U.S, Republican Warns of ‘death’ by a thousand cuts’ from China’. July 11, 2014

56. Perlez, Jane, “Kerry Presses China to abide by Maritine Laws to Ease Tensions,” July 9, 2014.

57. Flournoy, Michelle and Ratner, Ely, “U.S. should block China’s power play, not give it an assist.” July 6, 2014,

58. Weir, Fred, “As Rebels….”, July 8, 2014. See also Scheart, Daniel, “As Ukraine Separatists Retreat, Russia’s Next Moves Unclear”, July 8, 2014

59. “Ukraine’s President says…” July 14, 2014, AP. “Air Force Jet downed…”. Hieszen, Horn, “Border Tension…”, July 15, 2014. Barmforth, Richard, (Reuter) “Russian Jets…”, July 18, 2014. Zimetz,Natalia, “Two Ukraine fighter jets…”, July 14, 2014.

60. AFP. “Russian Firing…”, July 24, 2014.

61. Mills, Laura and Vasilyeva, Nataliya, Associated Press. “Russian Businesses Worry...”, July 25, 2014.

62. Soldatkin, Vladimir Soldatkin (Reuters), “Russia criticizes EU sanctions, raps U.S. over Ukraine role.” July 27, 2014.

63. Ferran, Lee (ABC News), “U.S. Military Dusts Off Decades-Old Readiness for Russia.” July 25, 2014.

64. Farley, Robert, “Five Ways Russia could help China’s Military…”. August 2, 2014.

65. Mulrine, Anna (Christian Science Monitor), “Is US vulnerable to EMP attack?...”, August 2, 2014.

66. Rosemary, Magaret, “Russia Criticized for Worsening Humanitarian Situation in Ukraine.” August 5, 2014.

67. The Economist, “Russia’s Aid Convoy: Putin’s PR Coup”, August 16th-22nd, 2014.

68. Zinetz, Natalia and Balmforth (Reuters), “Kiev says forces shelled Russian armors inside Ukraine.” August 16, 2014.

69. Rawls, John, The Laws of Peoples, 4th Edition (2002), p. 87, Harvard University Press. Ren, Shuli, “Russia Slumps on Escalation: No Fly Zone, MSCI Exclusion.” August 5, 2014.

70. Shuster, Simon, “Crime Without Punishment” (Time), August 4, 2014.

71. Zinets, Natalia and Balmforth (Reuters), “Kiev says forces shelled Russian Armors inside Ukraine.” August 16, 2014.

72. The Economist, “Russia and the West: Flexing its mussels”, August 16th-22nd, 2014.

73. Crowley, Michael and Shuster, Simon (Time), “This is War: What Putin Wants?” May 19, 2014.