Doctoring Official Transcripts

Appendix to Chapter 10

Excerpts from the transcripts of Dr. Condoleezza Rice's press conference of May 16, 2002

Below are excerpts from the transcripts of the same Condoleezza Rice press conference from CNN, the White House (FDCH) and Federal News Service. The latter is the source quoted in Chapter X. The other two sources (CNN and the White House) were manipulated.

CNN SHOW: "Inside Politics" 16:00, May 16, 2002 Transcript # 051600CN.V15:

QUESTION: Are you aware of the reports at the time that (inaudible) was in Washington on September 11. And on September 10, $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And while he was here, was he meeting with you or anybody in the administration?

RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.

FDCH Federal Department and Agency Documents, May 16, 2002, Agency, White House:

QUESTION: Dr. Rice, are you aware of the reports at the time that (inaudible) was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $100,000 was wired to Pakistan to this group here in this area? And while he was here was he meeting with you or anybody in the administration?

DR. RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.

Federal News Service, May 16, 2002, Special White House Briefing:

QUESTION: Are you aware of the reports at the time that the ISI chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And why he was here? Was he meeting with you or anybody in the administration?
MS. RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.

Notice the difference between the three transcripts. Both the White House and CNN exclude the identity of the "ISI chief" to the extent that the transcripts are totally unintelligible.

Read More..

Political Deception: The Missing Link Behind 9/11

Chapter 10

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

On May 16th 2002, The New York Post dropped what appeared to be a bombshell: "Bush Knew." Hoping to score politically, the Democrats jumped on the bandwagon, pressuring the White House to come clean on two "top-secret documents" made available to President Bush prior to September 11, concerning "advance knowledge" of Al Qaeda attacks. Meanwhile, the US media had already coined a new set of buzzwords: "Yes, there were warnings" and "clues" of possible terrorist attacks, but "there was no way President Bush could have known" what was going to happen. The Democrats agreed to "keep the cat in the bag" by saying: "Osama is at war with the US"and the FBI and the CIA knew something was cooking but "failed to connect the dots". In the words of House Minority Leader, Richard Gephardt:

This is not blame-placing.... We support the President on the war against terrorism-have and will. But we've got to do better in preventing terrorist attacks.(1)

The media's spotlight on "foreknowledge" and "FBI lapses" served to distract public attention from the broader issue of political deception. Not a word was mentioned concerning the role of the CIA, which throughout the entire post-Cold War era, has aided and abetted Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda as part of its covert operations.

Of course they knew! The foreknowledge issue is a red herring. The "Islamic Militant Network" is a creation of the CIA. (See Chapter 2.) In standard CIA jargon, Al Qaeda is categorized as an "intelligence asset". Support to terrorist organizations is an integral part of US foreign policy. Al Qaeda continues to participate in CIA covert operations in different parts of the world. (See Chapter 4.)

While individual FBI agents are often unaware of the CIA's role, the relationship between the CIA and Al Qaeda is known at the top levels of the FBI. Members of the Bush administration and the US Congress are fully cognizant of these links.

The foreknowledge issue, focussing on "FBI lapses", is an obvious smokescreen. While the whistleblowers serve to underscore the weaknesses of the FBI, the role of successive US Administrations (since the presidency of Jimmy Carter), in supporting the "Islamic Militant Base", is simply not mentioned.

Fear and Disinformation Campaign

The Bush administration-through the personal initiative of Vice President Dick Cheney-chose not only to foreclose the possibility of a public inquiry, but also to trigger a fear and disinformation campaign:

I think that the prospects of a future attack on the US are almost a certainty.... It could happen tomorrow, it could happen next week, it could happen next year, but they will keep trying. And we have to be prepared.(2)

What Cheney is really telling us is that our "intelligence asset", which we created, is going to strike again. Now, if this "CIA creature" were planning new terrorist attacks, you would expect that the CIA would be first to know about it. In all likelihood, the CIA also controls the "warnings" emanating from CIA sources on "future terrorist attacks" on American soil.

Carefully Planned Intelligence Operation

The 9/11 terrorists did not act on their own volition. The suicide hijackers were instruments in a carefully planned intelligence operation. The evidence confirms that Al Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's ISI. Amply documented, the ISI owes its existence to the CIA. (See Chapter 3.)

The Missing Link

The FBI confirmed in late September 2001, in an interview with ABC News, that the 9/11 ringleader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from unnamed sources in Pakistan. The FBI had information on the money trail. They knew exactly who was financing the terrorists. Less than two weeks later, the findings of the FBI were confirmed by Agence France Presse (AFP) and the Times of India, quoting an official Indian intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington). As mentioned in Chapter IV, according to these two reports, the money used to finance the 9/11 attacks had allegedly been "wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of [ISI Chief] General Mahmoud [Ahmad]".3 According to the AFP (quoting the intelligence source):

The evidence we have supplied to the US is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism.(4)

Pakistan's Chief Spy Visits Washington

Now, it just so happens that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money man" behind 9/11, was in the US when the attacks occurred. (See Chapter IV.) He arrived on the 4th of September, one week before 9/11, on what was described as a routine visit of consultations with his US counterparts. According to Pakistani journalist Amir Mateen (in a prophetic article published on September 10):

ISI Chief Lt-Gen. Mahmoud's week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. Officially, he is on a routine visit in return for CIA Director George Tenet's earlier visit to Islamabad. Official sources confirm that he met Tenet this week. He also held long parleys with unspecified officials at the White House and the Pentagon. But the most important meeting was with Marc Grossman, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. One can safely guess that the discussions must have centred around Afghanistan... and Osama bin Laden. What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmoud's predecessor, was here, during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days.(5)

Nawaz Sharif was overthrown by General Pervez Musharaf. General Mahmoud Ahmad, who became the head of the ISI, played a key role in the military coup.

Condoleezza Rice's Press Conference

In the course of Condoleezza Rice's May 16, 2002 press conference (which took place barely a few hours after the publication of the "Bush Knew" headlines in The New York Post), an accredited Indian journalist asked a question on the role of General Mahmoud Ahmad:

Q: Dr. Rice?

Ms RICE: Yes?

Q: Are you aware of the reports at the time that the ISI chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And why was he here? Was he meeting with you or anybody in the Administration?

Ms RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.(6)

Although there is no official confirmation, in all likelihood General Mahmoud Ahmad met Dr. Rice during the course of his official visit. Moreover, she must have been fully aware of the $100,000 transfer to Mohammed Atta, which had been confirmed by the FBI.

Lost in the barrage of media reports on "foreknowledge", this crucial piece of information on the ISI's role in 9/11 implicates key members of the Bush administration including: CIA Director George Tenet, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Under-Secretary of State Marc Grossman, as well as Senator Joseph Biden (Democrat), Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee (who met General Ahmad on the 13th of September). "According to Biden, [Ahmad] pledged Pakistan's cooperation."(7) (See Text box 10.1.)

Mysterious 9/11 Breakfast Meeting on Capitol Hill

On the morning of September 11, General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" behind the 9/11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham (Democrat) and Representative Porter Goss, Chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees respectively. Also present at this meeting was Pakistan's ambassador to the US Maleeha Lodhi. The report confirms that other members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees were present.

When the news [of the attacks on the World Trade Center] came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss'staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. "We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan," Graham said.

Mahmoud Ahmed, director general of Pakistan's intelligence service, was "very empathetic, sympathetic to the people of the United States," Graham said.

Goss could not be reached Tuesday. He was whisked away with much of the House leadership to an undisclosed "secure location". Graham, meanwhile, participated in late-afternoon briefings with top officials from the CIA and FBI.(8)

-----

TEXT BOX 10.1

General Mahmoud Ahmad and the Bush Administration

Confirmed by official sources (quoted by the mainstream media) Pakistan's chief spy General Mahmoud Ahmad met the following members of the Bush administration and the US Congress, during his visit to D.C. (4 to 13 September 2001):

- Secretary of State Colin Powell (12-13 September);
- Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (13 September);
- Under-Secretary of State Marc Grossman (before 11 September);
- CIA Director George Tenet (before 11 September);
- Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee (11 September);
- Senator John Kyl, member of the Senate Intelligence Committee (11 September);
- Representative Porter Goss, Chairman of the House Intelli-gence Committee (11 September);
- Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee (13 September).

-----

While trivializing the importance of the 9/11 breakfast meeting, the Miami Herald (16 September 2001) confirms that General Ahmad also met with Secretary of State Colin Powell in the wake of the 9/11 attacks:

Graham said the Pakistani intelligence official with whom he met, a top general in the government, was forced to stay all week in Washington because of the shutdown of air traffic."He was marooned here, and I think that gave Secretary of State Powell and others in the administration a chance to really talk with him," Graham said.(9)

With the exception of the Florida press (and Salon.com, 14 September 2001), not a word was mentioned in the US media's September coverage of 9/11 concerning this mysterious breakfast meeting.

Eight months later, on the 18th of May 2002, two days after the "Bush Knew" headline hit the tabloids, the Washington Post published an article on Porter Goss, entitled: "A Cloak But No Dagger; An Ex-Spy Says He Seeks Solutions, Not Scapegoats for 9/11."

Focussing on his career as a CIA agent, the article largely served to underscore the integrity and commitment of Porter Goss to waging a "war on terrorism". Yet in an isolated paragraph, the article acknowledged the mysterious 9/11 breakfast meeting with ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, while also confirming that "Ahmad ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban":

Now the main question facing Goss, as he helps steer a joint House-Senate investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, is why nobody in the far-flung intelligence bureaucracy-13 agencies spending billions of dollars-paid attention to the enemy among us. Until it was too late.

Goss says he is looking for solutions, not scapegoats. "A lot of nonsense," he calls this week's uproar about a CIA briefing that alerted President Bush, five weeks before Sept. 11, that Osama bin Laden's associates might be planning airline hijackings.

None of this is news, but it's all part of the finger-pointing," Goss declared yesterday in a rare display of pique. "It's foolishness." [This statement comes from the man who was having breakfast with the alleged "money-man" behind 9/11 on the morning of September 11.]...

Goss has repeatedly refused to blame an "intelligence failure" for the terror attacks. As a 10-year veteran of the CIA's clandestine operations wing, Goss prefers to praise the agency's "fine work"....

On the morning of Sept. 11, Goss and Graham were having breakfast with a Pakistani general named Mahmud Ahmad-the soon-to-be-sacked head of Pakistan's intelligence service. Ahmad ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.(10)

While The Washington Post acknowledges the links between ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad and Osama bin Laden, it failed to dwell on the more important question: What were Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham and other members of the Senate and House intelligence committees doing, together with the alleged money-man behind 9/11, at breakfast on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11?

Neither does it acknowledge the fact, amply documented by media reports, that "the money-man" behind the hijackers had been entrusted by the Pakistani government to discuss the precise terms of Pakistan's "collaboration" in the "war on terrorism" in meetings held at the State department on the 12th and 13th of September 2001.

When the "foreknowledge" issue hit the street on May 16, 2002, "Chairman Porter Goss said an existing congressional inquiry has so far found 'no smoking gun' that would warrant another inquiry."(11) This statement points to an obvious "cover-up".

The Investigation and Public Hearings on 'Intelligence Failures'

In a piece of bitter irony, Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham-the men who hosted the mysterious September 11 breakfast meeting with the alleged "hijackers'high commander" (to use the FBI's expression)-had been put in charge of the investigation and public hearings on "intelligence failures".

Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney had expressed anger on a "leak" emanating from the intelligence committees regarding "the disclosure of National Security Agency intercepts of messages in Arabic on the eve of the attacks. The messages... were in two separate conversations on Sept. 10 and contained the phrases 'Tomorrow is zero hour'and 'The match is about to begin.'The messages were not translated until September 12."(12)

Red Carpet Treatment for the Alleged "Money Man" behind 9/11

The Bush administration had not only provided red carpet treatment for the alleged "money man" behind the 9/11 attacks, it had also sought his "cooperation" in the "war on terrorism". The precise terms of this "cooperation" were agreed upon between General Mahmoud Ahmad, representing the Pakistani government, and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in meetings at the State Department on September 12 and 13. In other words, the Administration decided in the immediate wake of 9/11 to seek the "cooperation" of Pakistan's ISI in "going after Osama", despite the fact (documented by the FBI) that the ISI was financing and abetting the 9/11 terrorists. Contradictory? One might say that it's like asking the Devil to go after Dracula.

The CIA Overshadows the Presidency

Dr. Rice's statement regarding the ISI chief at her May 16 2002 press conference is an obvious cover-up.

While General Ahmad was talking to US officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, he had allegedly also been in contact (through a third party) with the September 11 terrorists.

But this conclusion is, in fact, the tip of the iceberg. Everything indicates that CIA Director George Tenet and ISI Chief General Mahmoud Ahmad had established a close personal working relationship. As mentioned in Chapter 4, General Mahmoud had arrived a week prior to September 11 for consultations with George Tenet.

Bear in mind that the CIA's George Tenet also has a close personal relationship with President Bush. Prior to September 11, Tenet would meet the President nearly every morning, at 8:00 a.m. sharp, for about half an hour.(13)

A document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, or PDB, "is prepared at Langley by the CIA's analytical directorate, and a draft goes home with Tenet each night. Tenet edits it personally and delivers it orally during his early morning meeting with Bush."(14) This practice of "oral intelligence briefings" is unprecedented. Bush's predecessors at the White House received a written briefing:

With Bush, who liked oral briefings and the CIA director in attendance, a strong relationship had developed. Tenet could be direct, even irreverent and earthy.(15)

The Decision to Go To War

At meetings of the National Security Council and in the "War Cabinet" on September 11, 12 and 13, CIA Director George Tenet played a central role in gaining the Commander-in-Chief's approval to the launching of the "war on terrorism".

George W. Bush's Timeline-September 11 (from 9:45 a.m. in the wake of the WTC-Pentagon Attacks to midnight):

Circa 9:45 a.m: Bush's motorcade leaves the Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida.

9:55 a.m: President Bush boards "Air Force One" bound for Washington.(16) Following what was noted as a "false report" that Air Force One would be attacked,Vice-President Dick Cheney had urged Bush (10:32 a.m.) by telephone not to land in Washington. Following this conversation, the plane was diverted (10:41 a.m.) (on orders emanating from Washington) to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. A couple of hours later (1:30 p.m.), after a brief TV appearance, the President was transported to Offut Air Force base in Nebraska at US Strategic Command Headquarters.

3:30 p.m: A key meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) was convened, with members of the NSC communicating with the President from Washington by secure video.(17) In the course of this NSC video-conference, CIA Director George Tenet fed unconfirmed information to the President. Tenet stated that "he was virtually certain that bin Laden and his network were behind the attacks...."(18)

The President responded to these statements, quite spontaneously, off the cuff, with little or no discussion and with an apparent misunderstanding of their implications. In the course of this video-conference (which lasted for less than an hour), the NSC was given the mandate by the Commander-in-Chief to prepare for the "war on terrorism".Very much on the spur of the moment, the "green light" was given by video conference from Nebraska. In the words of President Bush: "We will find these people. They will pay. And I don't want you to have any doubt about it."(19)

4:36 p.m: (One hour and six minutes later... Air Force One departed for Washington. Back in the White House that same evening (9:00 p.m.) a second meeting of the full NSC took place together with Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had returned to Washington from Peru. The NSC meeting (which lasted for half an hour) was followed by the first meeting of the "war cabinet". The latter was made up of a smaller group of top officials and key advisers.

9:30 p.m: At the war cabinet: "Discussion turned around whether bin Laden's Al Qaeda and the Taliban were one and the same thing. Tenet said they were."(20) By the end of that historic meeting of the war cabinet (11:00 p.m.), the Bush administration had decided to embark upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Did Bush Know?

Did Bush, with his minimal understanding of foreign policy issues, know all the details regarding General Mahmoud and the "ISI connection"? Did Tenet and Cheney distort the facts, so as to get the Commander-in-Chief's "thumbs up" for a military operation which was already in the pipeline?

Notes:

1. Quoted in AFP, 18 May 2002.

2. Fox News, 18 May 2002.

3. The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001.

4. AFP, 10 October 2001.

5. Amir Mateen, "ISI Chief's Parleys continue in Washington", News Pakistan, 10 September 2001.

6. Federal News Service, 16 May 2002. Note that in the White House and CNN transcripts of Dr. Rice's press conference, the words "ISI chief" were transcribed respectively by a blank "-" and "(inaudible)". Federal News Service Inc. which is a transcription Service of official documents provided a correct transcription, with a minor error in punctuation, which we corrected. The White House transcript is at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html. All three transcripts were verified by the author and are available on Nexus. Federal News Service documents are also available for a fee at http://www.fnsg.com/ For details on the transcripts, see Appendix.

7. New York Times, 14 September 2002.

8. Stuart News Company Press Journal (Vero Beach, FL), September 12, 2001).

9. Miami Herald, 16 September 2001.

10. Washington Post, 18 May 2002.

11. White House Bulletin, 17 May 2002.

12. Miami Herald, 21 June 2002.

13. The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, 17 May 2002.

14. Washington Post, 17 May 2002.

15. Washington Post, 29 January 2002.

16. Washington Post, 27 January 2002.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

Read More..

Disarming the New World Order

Chapter 9

The "war on terrorism" is a lie. Amply documented, the pretext to wage this war is totally fabricated.

Realities have been turned upside down.

Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards restoring "democracy". Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping operations". The derogation of civil liberties-by imposing the "anti-terrorist legislation"-is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.

Meanwhile, expenditures on health and education are curtailed to finance the military-industrial complex and the police state.

Under the American Empire, millions of people around the world are being driven into abysmal poverty, and countries are being transformed into open territories.

US protectorates are installed with the blessing of the "international community". "Interim governments" are formed. Political puppets designated by America's oil giants are casually endorsed by the United Nations, which increasingly performs the role of a rubber-stamp for the US Administration.

When viewed historically,"September 11" is the biggest fraud in American history.

Totalitarian State

We are fast moving towards a totalitarian system in which the institutions of war, police repression and economic policy (i.e.,"strong economic medicine") interface with one another. This system relies on the manipulation of public opinion. The "fabricated realities" of the Bush administration must become indelible truths, which form part of a broad political and media consensus. In this regard, the corporate media is an instrument of this totalitarian system. It has carefully excluded, from the outset, any real understanding of the September 11 crisis.

Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of September 11. While the Bush administration implements a "war on terrorism", the evidence (including mountains of official documents) amply confirms that successive US Administrations have supported, abetted and harbored international terrorism.

This fact, in itself, must be suppressed because if it ever trickles down to the broader public, the legitimacy of the "war on terrorism" collapses "like a deck of cards". In the process, the legitimacy of the main actors behind this system is threatened, so they enact new laws to protect themselves:

We are becoming a banana republic here in the United States, with "disappeared" people, which was the phenomenon that we all saw down in Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s, with the support, by the way, of the United States Government.(1)

Disarming the New World Order

Militarization, covert intelligence operations and outright war support the extension of the "free market" economy into new frontiers. The development of America's war machine supports an unprecedented accumulation of private wealth into fewer and fewer hands, which threatens the future of humanity.

The dangers of a possible Third World War must be addressed and understood. To disarm the New World Order, the inner features of this totalitarian system must be revealed and fully understood. This understanding must not be confined to a handful of writers and critics, it must be shared by all our fellow citizens, whose lives are directly affected by the "war on terrorism".

An understanding of this system is required to develop cohesive mass movements, which will reverse the tide and prevent the onslaught of a World War.

The workings of global capitalism and of the "free market" economy are intricately tied to the corridors of power. The powers behind this system are those of the global banks and financial institutions, the military-industrial complex, the oil and energy giants, the biotech-pharmaceutical conglomerates and the powerful media and communications giants, which fabricate the news and overtly distort the course of world events.

To effectively disarm this system, it is not sufficient to call for the "democratization" of the financial system, coupled with "reforms" of global institutions (such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO and the UN). These "reforms" do not change the workings of global capitalism, nor do they in any way upset the underlying power structures. In fact, the New World Order not only allows, but actively encourages this type of cosmetic "reform", which provides the illusion that "the globalizers" are somehow committed to progressive change.

Sustaining the Illusion of Democracy

The Bush administration requires "legitimacy" in the eyes of public opinion, namely, that in launching the "war on terrorism", it is acting in the best interests of society, with the full endorsement of the American people and with the backing of the "international community".
To effectively build this "legitimacy", the Bush administration not only needs to uphold the falsehoods behind the "war on terrorism", it also needs to sustain the illusion that constitutional democracy continues to prevail.

Sustaining the "freedom and democracy rhetoric" is part of the process of building a totalitarian State. While "legitimate dissent" is encouraged, democracy requires that "civil liberties be balanced against public safety":

Our response to the threat of terrorism, in the context of systemic vulnerability, will have an impact both on the cost of providing security and on the civil liberties prized in many communities.(2)

Fabricating Dissent

To convey the illusion of democracy, "the globalizers" must "fabricate dissent". In other words, they must create, covet and finance their own political opposition. In order to appear legitimate, they must actively encourage the type of "criticism" which does not challenge "their right to rule".

This libertarian "counter-discourse"-which serves to disarm a genuine mass movement against war and globalization-constitutes part of the foundations of this evolving totalitarian system. Leaders of trade union confederations and mainstream NGOs, together with selected "academics" and critics, are invited to participate in policy formulation together with bankers, corporate executives and politicians.

The ploy is to selectively handpick civil society leaders "whom we can trust" and integrate them into a "dialogue". The idea is to cut them off from their rank and file, make them feel that they are "global citizens" acting on behalf of their fellow citizens, but make them act in a way which serves the interests of the corporate establishment:

Business, government and civil society leaders must have the creativity to forge new institutional arrangements for a more inclusive global economy.(3)

This ritual of "civil society participation" serves several important functions. In the US it requires these "progressive" leaders to accept the fundamental premise that the Bush administration is waging a campaign against international terrorism in response to the events of September 11. In the words of Edward Herman and David Peterson, "this ['leftist accommodation']...of leaning over backwards to downplay the US terrorist role, merges into a serious misreading of ongoing events".(4)

Once the fundamental premise that the US Administration is committed to curbing international terrorism is accepted, these leftist intellectuals and civil society critics are invited to express their "reservations" regarding America's conduct of the war, the impacts on civilians or their humanitarian concerns regarding the derogation of the Rule of Law.

In this ritual, the main justification for waging the war, which is a complete falsehood, is never questioned despite documented evidence that the "war on terrorism" is a fabrication. For instance, numerous NGOs have accused the Bush administration for having breached the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, yet these same organizations have failed to question the overall legitimacy of the Bush administration's "war on terrorism". While the "globalizers" are subjected to "constructive criticism", their legitimate right to rule remains unchallenged. What this "left accommodation" and "civil society mingling" does is to reinforce the clutch of the military-intelligence elites and the corporate establishment, while weakening the real protest movement.

More importantly, "left accommodation" splits up the protest movement. It divides the anti-war movement from the anti-globalization movement. It prevents the development of a broader movement against the American Empire. The large trade unions and the mainstream non-governmental organizations, by failing to denounce the falsehoods behind the "war on terrorism", have contributed unwittingly to the failure of a real opposition movement being mounted against the New World Order.

In the words of AFL-CIO president John Sweeney: "We are all angry; let our anger be directed at the real enemy. The terrorists and those who supported them must be brought to justice."(5)

Building Meaningful Mass Movements

We are at the juncture of one of the most important social struggles in world history, requiring an unprecedented degree of solidarity and commitment. America's New War, which includes the "first strike" use of nuclear weapons, threatens the future of humanity as we know it. This is by no means an overstatement.

Some people believe that this New World Order can be changed by developing "new ideas" (or "paradigms") regarding "alternative forms of economic and social organization" and that government policy will somehow adjust and encompass these new concepts. This viewpoint-which is fashionable among civil society advocates-calls for dialogue, debate and discussion with elected politicians concerning reforms and "alternatives".

More importantly, this left accommodation does not question the legitimacy of the elected politicians who have unequivocally endorsed the "war on terrorism". It often trivializes the seriousness of the post-September 11 crisis. It fails to recognize that the US is involved in a war of conquest. It does not address the relationship between the objectives of war and global capitalism. In other words, it dares not look behind the curtain to see who is really driving the hidden agenda. Nor does it address the fact that Western heads of state and heads of government, in endorsing America's war, have blatantly violated international law and are also responsible-together with the Bush administration-for crimes against humanity.

Establishing an "alternative economic and social system" through an abstract set of principles does not, in itself, address the nature of the World Order and the power structures which underlie it.

The abstract formulation of "an alternative" does not ensure that meaningful change will be forthcoming and that the workings of contemporary capitalism will be modified. These work-ings-which are the result of complex manoeuvers between the business elites and the military-intelligence establishment-cannot be undone simply by formulating a new paradigm, or by calling for a more "Just World" or by presenting demands and/or petitions to the G-7 political leaders who are, themselves, the lackeys of the New World Order.

To bring about meaningful change, the balance of power within society must be modified. The backbone of this system is militarization, which in turn endorses and enforces the capitalist market system. One cannot disarm the "invisible fist" of the "free market" without concurrently dismantling the military and intelligence apparatus which supports it. Military bases must be closed down; the war machine- including the production of advanced weapons systems-must be dismantled, implying a dramatic shift into civilian production.

Disarming the New World Order also requires a transformation of the structures of ownership, namely the disempowering of banks, financial institutions and transnational corporations, as well as a radical overhaul of the state apparatus. All these issues are complex and will require careful debate and analysis in the years ahead.

The first priority, in this regard, is to stall the privatization of collective assets, infrastructure, public utilities (including water and electricity), state institutions (such as hospitals and schools), the commons, communal lands, etc.

Yet it should be understood that this process-which in itself requires a meaningful debate on policy alternatives-cannot commence unless the falsehoods which provide "legitimacy" to war and globalization are fully revealed and understood by all.

This struggle requires breaking the legitimacy of the system and those who rule in our name. Politicians who are war criminals must be removed. The judicial system must be transformed. The banking system must be overhauled, etc. But none of this is possible as long as citizens continue to blindly uphold the neoliberal agenda.

The legitimacy of the New World Order system must be undone.

Social Movements

At the present juncture, social movements are in a state of disarray. Labour leaders and leftist politicians have been co-opted.

Against this background, the anti-globalization protest movement seems to have coalesced around the "Counter-Summit" or "People's Summit", held in parallel to various "official" venues such as the G-7, G-8 meetings, or those of the Bretton Woods institutions: namely the World Bank and IMF and also the annual World Economic Forum, usually held in Davos, Switzerland.

These international venues-while bringing together activists from around the world-tend to be dominated by a handful of intellectuals and civil society organizers which set the agenda. The same personalities travel to these various international venues which, over the years, have become heavily ritualized.

The Funding of Dissent

These international conferences and teach-ins are often financed by government grants and donations from the large private foundations (Ford Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, etc.). This "funding of dissent" plays a key role. It essentially circumscribes the boundaries of dissent. In other words, one cannot meaningfully question the legitimacy of the governments and business corporations while, at the same time, expecting them to foot the bill. The "funding of dissent" ensures that these organizations will criticize the system without going against their government and corporate sponsors. In other words, they will not take a lead in the development of a meaningful mass movement.

Many of the organizations involved have, in the process, become "lobbyists", often funded by governments or intergovernmental organizations. Demands, petitions and declarations are formulated to little avail, largely with respect to issues of debt cancellation, environmental standards and macro-economic reform, etc.

The Ritual of the Counter-Summit

The organization of international counter-summits cannot constitute the basis of this struggle. To effectively "disarm the American Empire", we must move to a higher plane by launching mass movements in our respective countries, grassroots movements-integrated nationally and internationally-which reveal the hidden face of the New World Order and bring the message of what globalization and militarization are doing to ordinary people. Ultimately, these are the grassroots forces which must be mobilized to challenge those who threaten our collective future.

Existing mass organizations such as trade unions and non-governmental organizations, whose leaders have visibly been co-opted, must be "democratized" and reappropriated by their grass-roots. In other words, these organizations must be rebuilt from within.

This process should take place in all sectors of organized labour (industrial workers, farmers, teachers, public sector employees, professionals, etc.), eventually leading to the transformation of the national and international labour confederations. In other words, within these various organizations, leadership structures must be democratized, while setting an agenda of struggle and resistance against war and globalization.

Other sectors of society, including small and medium-sized businesses and independent producers, whose existence is threatened by the global corporations, must also address these issues within their respective organizations.

Of critical importance, this democratization process must also proceed from within the security, police and military forces with a view to effectively disarming the Empire's repressive apparatus. To succeed, dissident voices within the military, intelligence and police sectors must be fully integrated into the broader struggle.

Grass Roots Organizations

Concurrently, what is also required in each of our countries is the formation of a powerful network of local level councils in neighborhoods, work places, schools, universities, etc. which integrate millions of citizens. These national networks would in turn be integrated into a broad international movement.

The first priority for these grass-roots councils would be to break the legitimacy of global capitalism by informing, educating and sensitizing fellow citizens regarding the nature of the New World Order-i.e., uncovering the falsehoods and media lies, taking a firm position against the "war on terrorism", establishing the links between globalization and militarization, debating the concrete impacts of deadly macroeconomic reforms, etc.

The councils and their respective networks, operating nationally and internationally, would eventually become increasingly politicized, constituting the basis for organized resistance and transformation. In turn, the councils could develop, under certain circumstances, into a de facto system of parallel government.

The struggle must be broad-based and democratic, encompassing all sectors of society at all levels, in all countries, uniting in a major thrust: workers, farmers, independent producers, small businesses, professionals, artists, civil servants, members of the clergy, students and intellectuals.

The anti-war, anti-globalization, environmentalist, civil rights and anti-racism coalitions must unite. "Single issue" groups must join hands in a common understanding on how the New World Order is threatening our collective future on this planet.

This global struggle directed against the American Empire is fundamental, requiring a degree of solidarity and internationalism unprecedented in world history.

The global economic system feeds on social divisiveness between and within countries. Unity of purpose and worldwide coordination among diverse groups and social movements is crucial. A major thrust is required which brings together social movements in all major regions of the world, in common pursuit of and commitment to the elimination of poverty and a lasting world peace.

Notes:

1. Christopher Bollyn,"In the Name of Security, Thousands Denied Constitutional Rights", American Free Press, 29 November 2001.

2. 2002 World Economic Forum, http://www.weforum.org/.

3. In the words of Ed Mayo, Executive Director of the New Economics Foundation at the 2002 New York World Economic Forum, at http://www.weforum.org, February 2002.

4. Edward Herman and David Peterson,"Who Terrorizes Whom", Global Outlook, No. 1, Spring 2002, p. 47.

5. Statement by John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO, 14 September 2001, http://www.aflcio.org/publ/press2001/pr0916.htm.

Read More..

The American Empire

Chapter 8

We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. (David Rockefeller, Statement to the United Nations
Business Council, 1994)

War Without Borders

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the world is at an important crossroads in its history. The "campaign against terrorism" constitutes a "war of conquest" with devastating consequences for the future of humanity.

America's New War is not confined to Central Asia. Using the "war on terrorism" as a pretext, the Bush administration had announced already in 2001, the extension of US military operations into new frontiers, including Iraq, Iran and North Korea. While accusing these countries of developing "weapons of mass destruction", Washington has not excluded itself from using nuclear weapons as part of the "war on terrorism".

Moreover, Israel, which now possesses an arsenal of at least 200 thermonuclear weapons with a sophisticated delivery system, "has made countless veiled nuclear threats against the Arab nations".(1)

The ongoing war waged by Israel against the Palestinian people is part and parcel of America's New War strategy. The 2003 invasion of Iraq could trigger a broader war throughout the Middle
East in which Israel would be aligned with the Anglo-American military axis.

In 2001, military planners at the Pentagon had drawn up a "blueprint for a two-pronged invasion of Iraq involving up to 100,000 US troops".(2) Gun boats were on standby in the Gulf of Oman. "Military contingency plans [were] being refined for Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Indonesia and Yemen. ...Special forces and US intelligence agencies are active overtly and covertly in all of these countries with local militias or militaries."(3) Meanwhile, Britain had been asked by the US "to help prepare military strikes against Somalia in the next phase of the global campaign against Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda".(4)

The War on Afghanistan was Illegal

In launching the war on Afghanistan in October 2001, the Bush administration-with the full support and military backing of Britain, and with the prior consent of member governments of the Western military alliance-is in blatant violation of international law:

This war is illegal because it is a flagrant violation of the express words of the Charter of the United Nations....In fact, it is not only illegal, it's criminal. It is what the Nuremberg Tribunal called "the supreme crime", the crime against peace.(5)

In turn, these same political leaders, responsible for thousands of civilian deaths in Afghanistan, have launched a process within their respective countries, which recasts-in the framework of the "anti-terrorist legislation"-the legal definition of "terrorism" and "war crimes".

In other words, the actual protagonists of state terrorism-namely, our elected politicians-can now arbitrarily decide, through their "legally constituted" secret tribunals,"who are the war criminals" and "who are the terrorists". Ironically, the "elite war criminals"-using the powers of high office-decide who can be prosecuted. Moreover, by derogating the Rule of Law and setting up kangaroo courts, their own "hands are clean"-i.e., they will not be prosecuted on charges of war crimes: they cannot be blamed since these military tribunals will ultimately decide if an accused person should be executed.

The American Empire

The onslaught of the US-led war also coincides with a worldwide depression, leading to the impoverishment of millions of people. While the civilian economy plummets, extensive financial resources are funneled towards America's war machine. The most advanced weapons systems are being developed by America's military-industrial complex with a view to achieving a position of global military and economic dominance, not only in relation to China and Russia, but also in relation to the European Union, which Washington considers as an encroachment upon America's global hegemony.

Behind America's "war on terrorism" is the militarization of vast regions of the world, leading to the consolidation of what is best described as the "American Empire". Since the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, an Anglo-American military axis has developed, based on a close coordination between Britain and the US in defense, foreign policy and intelligence. Israel is the launch pad of the Anglo-American axis in the Middle East. The objective behind this war is to "re-colonize" not only China and the countries of the former Soviet block, but also Iran, Iraq and the Indian peninsula.

War and globalization go hand in hand. The powers of the Wall Street financial establishment, the Anglo-American oil giants and the US-U.K. defense contractors are undeniably behind this process, which consists in extending the frontiers of the global market system. Ultimately, the purpose of "America's New War" is to transform sovereign nations into open territories (or "free trade areas"), both through "military means", as well as through the imposition of deadly "free market" reforms.

Defined under Washington's 1999 SRS, America's war is intent upon destroying an entire region, which, in the course of history, was the cradle of ancient civilizations linking Western Europe to the Far East. In turn, covert support to Islamic insurgencies (channeled by the CIA through Pakistan's ISI) in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, China and India has been used by Washington as an instrument of conquest-ie. by deliberately destabilizing national societies and fostering ethnic and social divisions.

More generally, war and "free market" reforms destroy civilization by forcing national societies into abysmal poverty.

America's NATO Partners

While significant divisions have emerged within the Western military alliance, America's NATO partners including Germany, France and Italy, have nonetheless endorsed the 2001 US-U.K.-led military operation into Afghanistan. Despite their differences, Europe and America appear to be united in the planned "re-colonization" and "partition" of a broad geographic area extending from Eastern Europe and the Balkans to China's Western frontier.

Within this broad region,"spheres of influence" have nonetheless been agreed upon largely between Germany and America. This "partition" must be understood in historical terms. It is, in some regards, similar to the agreement reached between the European powers at the Berlin Conference pertaining to the partition and territorial conquest of Africa in the late 19th century. Similarly, colonial policy in China's treaty ports in the years leading up to the First World War was carefully coordinated and agreed upon by the same imperialist powers.

The Military-Intelligence Apparatus

While civilian state institutions increasingly assume the role of a façade, elected politicians in most Western "democracies" (including the US, Britain and Canada) increasingly play a nominal role in decision-making. Under this evolving totalitarian system, the institutions of civilian government are being superseded by the military-intelligence-police apparatus (see Chapter XXI). In the US, the CIA has come to play the role of a de facto "parallel government" in charge of formulating and implementing US foreign policy.

Moreover, the intelligence apparatus in the US has been integrated into the workings of the financial system. Senior military and intelligence officials in the US have become full-fledged "partners" in a number of lucrative business undertakings.

As mentioned earlier, the CIA's official budget is in excess of $30 billion a year. This colossal amount does not include the multi-billion dollar revenues and proceeds of CIA covert operations. Documented by Alfred McCoy, the CIA has, since the Vietnam war, used the flow of dirty money from the drug trade to finance its covert operations conducted in the context of Washington's foreign policy initiatives.(6)

In other words, the extensive accumulation of money wealth from the proceeds of the drug trade has transformed the CIA into a powerful financial entity. The latter operates through a web of corporate shells, banks and financial institutions wielding tremendous power and influence.

These CIA-sponsored "corporations" have, over time, been meshed into the mainstay of the business and corporate establishment, not only in weapons production and the oil business, but also in banking and financial services, real estate, etc. In turn, billions of narco-dollars are channeled-with the support of the CIA-into the spheres of "legitimate" banking, where they are used to finance bona fide investments in a variety of economic activities.

In other words, CIA covert activities play a crucial undercover role in ensuring the appropriation of drug money by powerful financial and banking interests. In this regard, Afghanistan is strategic because it is the world's largest producer of heroin. The Taliban government was crushed on the orders of the Bush administration because it had (under United Nations guidance) curbed opium production by more than 90 per cent. (See Chapter 16.) The bombing of Afghanistan served to restore the multi-billion dollar drug trade, which is protected by the CIA. Immediately following the installation of the US puppet government, under President Hamid Karzai, opium production soared, regaining its historic levels. (See Chapter 16.)

War: A Money Making Operation

The military-intelligence community has also developed its own money-making operations in the areas of mercenaries services, defense procurement, intelligence, etc. Key individuals in the Bush administration, including Vice-President Dick Cheney through his company, Haliburton, have links to these various business undertakings.

Under the New World Order, the pursuit of profit hinges upon political "manipulations", the bribing of officials and the routine exercise of covert intelligence operations on behalf of powerful corporate interests. The US-sponsored paramilitary armies in different parts of the world are trained and equipped by private mercenary outfits on contract to the Pentagon.
Ultimately, the conduct of war, rather than being controlled by the state, is subordinated to the pursuit of private economic interests.

While interfacing with Wall Street, intelligence agencies, including the CIA, have also developed undercover ties with powerful criminal syndicates involved in the drug trade. These syndicates, through the process of money laundering, have also invested heavily in legitimate business undertakings.

Under the New World Order, the demarcation between "organized capital" and "organized crime" is blurred. In other words, the restructuring of global trade and finance tends to favor the concurrent "globalization" of the criminal economy, which is intricately tied into the corporate establishment. In turn, the state apparatus is criminalized. Amply documented, senior policy-makers in the Bush administration in charge of foreign policy have links to various drug cartels.(7)

Dollarization and the Big Picture

While securing corporate control over extensive oil reserves and pipeline routes along the Eurasian corridor on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants, Washington's ultimate objective is to eventually destabilize and then colonize both China and Russia. This means the takeover of their national financial systems and the control over monetary policy, leading eventually to the imposition of the US dollar as the national currency. This objective has, in part, already been achieved in parts of the former Soviet Union where the US dollar has become a de facto national currency.

While the US has established a permanent military presence on China's Western frontier, China's banking system has also been "opened up" to Western banks and financial institutions following China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in October 2001. The tendency in China is towards the demise of the state banking system, which provides credit to thousands of industrial enterprises and agricultural producers. Ironically, the system of state credit has sustained China's role as the West's largest "industrial colony", producer of cheap labour-manufactured goods for the European and American markets.

This deregulation of state credit has triggered a deadly wave of bankruptcies, which in all likelihood will devastate China's economic landscape. In turn, the restructuring of China's financial institutions could lead, within a matter of years, to the destabi-lization of its national currency, the Renminbi, through speculative assaults, opening the door to a broader process of economic and political "colonization" by Western capital.

In other words, the outright manipulation of currency markets by "institutional speculators", similar to that of the 1997 Asian crisis, also constitutes a powerful instrument, which contributes to the fracturing of national economies. In this regard, financial warfare applies complex speculative instruments encompassing the gamut of derivative trade, forward foreign exchange transactions, currency options, hedge funds, index funds, etc. Speculative instruments have been used with the ultimate purpose of capturing financial wealth and acquiring control over productive assets. In the words of Malaysia's former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad: "This deliberate devaluation of the currency of a country by currency traders purely for profit is a serious denial of the rights of independent nations."(8)

-----

TEXT BOX 8.1

Financial Warfare: An Instrument of Conquest

In Korea, Indonesia and Thailand the vaults of the central banks were pillaged by institutional speculators, while the monetary authorities sought, in vain, to prop up their ailing currencies. The speculative assaults waged against these countries constitute a "dress rehearsal" for the application of a similar process directed against China's national currency, the Renminbi.

In 1997, more than $100 billion of Asia's hard currency reserves were confiscated and transferred (in a matter of months) into private financial hands. In the wake of the currency devaluations, real earnings and employment plummeted virtually overnight, leading to mass poverty in countries which had, in the post-war period, registered significant economic and social progress.

The financial scam in the foreign exchange market had destabilised national economies, thereby creating the preconditions for the subsequent plunder of the Asian countries'productive assets by "vulture foreign investors".

The Demise of Central Banking

This worldwide crisis marks the demise of central banking, meaning the derogation of national economic sovereignty and the inability of the national state to control money creation on behalf of society. In other words, privately held money reserves in the hands of "institutional speculators" far exceed the limited capabilities of the world's central banks. The latter, acting individually or collectively, are no longer able to fight the tide of speculative activity.

Monetary policy is in the hands of private creditors who have the ability to freeze state budgets, paralyse the payments process, thwart the regular disbursement of wages to millions of workers (as in the former Soviet Union) and precipitate the collapse of production and social programs. As the crisis deepens, speculative raids on central banks are extending into China, Latin America and the Middle East with devastating economic and social consequences.(9)

Together with the liberalization of trade and the deregulation of agriculture and industry (in accordance with WTO rules), China is heading towards massive unemployment and social unrest. In turn, the US-sponsored covert operations in Tibet and the Xinjiang-Uigur Autonomous Region, in support of secessionist movements, contribute to fostering political instability, which in turn tends to support the "dollarization" process.

More generally, the deregulation of national banking institutions has created havoc worldwide. Washington's foreign policy agenda consists in eventually encroaching upon the Euro and imposing the US dollar as a "global currency" (in overt confrontation with the powerful banking interests behind the European currency system)."Militarization" of vast regions of the world (e.g., where the dollar and the Euro are competing) tends to support the "dollarization" process. In other words, "dollarization" and "free trade"-supported by US militarization-constitute two essential pillars of the American Empire.

Militarization and Dollarization of the Western Hemisphere

In the Western hemisphere, Wall Street has already extended its control by displacing or taking over existing national financial institutions. With the help of the IMF, Washington is also bullying Latin American countries into accepting the US dollar as their national currency. The greenback has already been imposed on five Latin American countries including Ecuador, Argentina, Panama, El Salvador and Guatemala.

The economic and social consequences of "dollarization" have been devastating. In these countries, Wall Street and the US Federal Reserve system directly control monetary policy. The entire structure of public expenditure is controlled by US creditors.

"Militarization" and "dollarization" are the essential building blocks of the American Empire. In this regard, "Plan Colombia", financed by US military aid, constitutes the basis for militarizing the Andean region of South America in support of "free trade" and "dollarization".

Meanwhile, the same Anglo-American oil companies (Chevron-Texaco, BP, Exxon-Mobil), which are vying for control over the oil wealth of the former Soviet Union, are also present in the Andean region of South America. Under the disguise of the "war on drugs" or the "war on terrorism", US foreign policy has led to the militarization of both of these regions. The hidden agenda is to protect both the oil pipelines and the powerful financial interests behind the multibillion dollar drug trade. In Colombia, many of the paramilitary groups "responsible for hundreds of murders and thousands of disappearances" are financed by US military assistance under Plan Colombia.(10)

In turn, Plan Colombia is implemented in close liaison with the imposition of IMF "guidelines". In Colombia, for example, the IMF's economic medicine has led to the destruction of domestic industry and agriculture. More generally, the militarization of the continent is an integral part of the "Free Trade" Agenda. The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) initiative is being negotiated alongside a "parallel" military cooperation protocol signed by 27 countries of the Americas (the Declaration of Manaus), which virtually puts the entire hemisphere under the military control of the US.

Already in Latin America, the economic and social consequences of "dollarization" have been devastating. The current economic and social crisis in Argentina is the direct result of "dollarization" imposed by Wall Street and the US Federal Reserve system, which directly control monetary policy. The entire structure of Argentinean public expenditure is controlled by US creditors.

Real wages have collapsed, social programs have been destroyed and large sectors of the population have been driven into abysmal poverty. The Argentinean pattern, engineered by Wall Street, will undoubtedly be replicated elsewhere as the "invisible fist" of the American Empire extends its reach to other regions of the world.

Notes:

1. John Steinbach, "Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Threat to Peace", DC Iraq Coalition, March 2002, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html, 3 March 2002.

2. Iain Bruce, "Pentagon Draws up Plans for Invasion of Iraq", The Herald (Scotland) January 31, 2002.

3. Florida Times-Union, Jacksonville, 17 February 2002.

4. Deirdre Griswold, "Will Somalia be next? US targets another Poor Country", Workers World , December 2001, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GRI112A.html, 13 December 2001.

5. Michael Mandel,"This War is Illegal and Immoral: It will not Prevent Terrorism", Science Peace Forum & Teach-In, December 9, 2001, Centre for Research on Globalization, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN112A.html, Dec. 2001.

6. Alfred McCoy, op. cit.

7. For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, "Globalization and the
Criminalization of Economic Activity", Covert Action Quarterly, No. 58, Fall 1996; Michel Chossudovsky, "Financial Scams and the Bush Family", Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO202C.html, 18 February 2002.

8. Quoted in Michel Chossudovsky, "Financial Warfare", Third World Network, Penang, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/trig-cn.htm. 1999.

9. Michel Chossudovsky, "Financial Warfare", op. cit.

10. See Kim Alphandary,"Colombia War: 'Highest Priority'", Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ALP204A.html, 5 April 2002.

Read More..

America's War Machine

Chapter 7

The 1999 war in Yugoslavia-which coincided with the formation of GUUAM and NATO enlargement into Eastern Europe-marked an important turnaround in East-West relations.

Aleksander Arbatov, Deputy Chairman of the Defense Committee of the Russian State Duma US-Russian Relations, described the war in Yugoslavia as the "worst, most acute, most dangerous juncture since the US-Soviet Berlin and Cuban missile crises".(1) According to Arbatov:

START II is dead, co-operation with NATO is frozen, co-operation on missile defense is out of the question, and Moscow's willingness to cooperate on non-proliferation issues is at an all-time low. Moreover, anti-US sentiment in Russia is real, deep and more widespread than ever, and the slogan describing NATO action-"today Serbia, tomorrow Russia," is deeply planted in Russians'minds.(2)

Despite President Boris Yeltsin's conciliatory statements at the 1999 G-8 Summit in Cologne, Russia's military establishment had openly expressed its distrust of the US: "The bombing of Yugoslavia could turn out in the very near future to be just a rehearsal for similar strikes on Russia."(3)

Mary-Wynne Ashford, co-President of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), warned that, whereas Russia was moving towards integration with Europe, they (the Russians) now:

...perceive their primary threat [to be] from the West. Officials in [Russia's] Foreign Affairs (Arms Control and Disarmament) told us [the IPPNW] that Russia has no option but to rely on nuclear weapons for its defense, because its conventional forces are inadequate.... [T]he changes in Russia's attitude toward the West, its renewed reliance on nuclear weapons with thousands on high alert and its loss of confidence in international law leave us vulnerable to catastrophe.... This crisis makes de-alerting nuclear weapons more urgent than ever. To those who say the Russian threat is all rhetoric, I reply that rhetoric is what starts wars.(4)
Post 1999 Military Buildup

Meanwhile, in Washington, a major build-up of America's military arsenal was in the making. The underlying objective was to achieve a position of global military hegemony. Defense spending in 2002 was hiked up to more than $300 billion, an amount equivalent to the entire Gross Domestic Product of the Russian Federation (approximately $325 billion). An even greater increase in US military spending was set in motion in the wake of the October 2001 bombing of Afghanistan:

More than one-third of the $68 billion allocated for new weapons in the 2003 budget is for Cold War-type weapons. Several billion dollars are allocated for cluster bomb systems that have been condemned by human rights groups around the world. There is no rationale for this level of military spending other than a clear intent for the United States to be the New World Empire, dominating the globe economically and militarily, including the militarization of space.(5)

In the largest military buildup since the Vietnam War, the Bush administration plans to increase military spending by $120 billion over a five-year period, "bringing the 2007 military budget to an astounding $451 billion".(6)

This colossal amount of money allocated to America's war machine does not include the enormous budget of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) allocated from both "official" and undisclosed sources to finance its covert operations. The official budget of the CIA is in excess of $30 billion (10 per cent of Russia's GDP). This amount excludes the multi-billion dollar earnings from narcotics accruing to CIA shell companies and front organizations.(7)

From the overall defense budget, billions of dollars have been allocated to "refurbishing America's nuclear arsenal". A new generation of "cluster missiles"-with multiple nuclear warheads- has been developed, capable of delivering (from a single missile launch) up to 10 nuclear warheads directed at 10 different cities. These missiles are now targeted at Russia. In this context, Washington has clung to its "first strike" nuclear policy, which in principle is intended to deal with "rogue states" but, in fact, is largely directed against Russia and China.

Meanwhile, the US have also developed a new generation of "tactical nuclear weapons" or "mini-nukes" to be used in conventional war theatres. Already during the Clinton administration, the Pentagon was calling for the use of the "nuclear" B61-11 bunker buster bomb, suggesting that because it was "underground", there was no toxic radioactive fallout which could affect civilians:

Military officials and leaders of America's nuclear weapon laboratories are urging the US to develop a new generation of precision low-yield nuclear weapons....which could be used in conventional conflicts with Third World nations.(8)

America's War Economy

The military buildup initiated during the Clinton administration has gained a new momentum. September 11 and Bush's "war on terrorism" are used as an excuse for expanding America's military machine and fuelling the growth of the military-industrial complex.

A new "legitimacy" has unfolded. Increased military spending is said to be required "to uphold freedom" and defeat "the axis of evil":

It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month-over $30 million a day-and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile, to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely.... My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades-because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay.(9)

Since September 11, 2001, billions of dollars have been channeled towards developing new advanced weapons systems, including the F22 Raptor fighter plane and the Joint Fighter (JF) program.

The Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") not only includes the controversial "Missile Shield", but also a wide range of "offensive" laser-guided weapons with striking capabilities anywhere in the world, not to mention instruments of weather and climatic warfare under the High Altitude Auroral Research Program (HAARP). The latter has the ability of destabilizing entire national economies through climatic manipulations, without the knowledge of the enemy, at minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a conventional war.(10)

Long-term planning pertaining to advanced weapons systems and the control of outer space is outlined in a US Space Command document released in 1998, entitled "Vision for 2020". The underlying objective consists in:

...dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment... The emerging synergy of space superiority with land, sea and air superiority will lead to Full Spectrum Dominance.(11)

Nuclear Weapons in the Wake of September 11

In the wake of September 11, the "war on terrorism" is also being used by the Bush administration to redefine the assumptions underlying the use of nuclear weapons. The concept of "nuclear deterrence" has been scrapped. "They're trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to deterrence."(12)

In early 2002, a secret Pentagon report confirmed the Bush administration's intent to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. The secret report, leaked to the Los Angeles Times, states that nuclear weapons "could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or in the event of surprising military developments".(13)

-----

TEXT BOX 7.1

America's Tactical Nuclear Weapons

In the 2002 war in Afghanistan, the US Air Force was using GBU-28 "bunker buster bombs" capable of creating large scale underground explosions. The official story was that these bombs were intended to target "cave and tunnel complexes" in mountainous areas in southern Afghanistan, which were used as hideaways by Osama bin Laden. Dubbed by the Pentagon "the Big Ones", the GBUs (guided bomb units) are 5000-lb laser guided bombs with improved BLU-113 warheads capable of penetrating several metres of reinforced concrete. The BLU-113 is the most powerful conventional "earth penetrating warhead" ever created.

While the Pentagon's "Big Ones" are classified as "conventional weapons", the official statements fail to mention that the same "bunker buster bombs" launched from a B-52, a B-2 stealth bomber, or an F-16 aircraft can also be equipped with a nuclear device. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of its "conventional" BLU-113 counterpart.

The nuclear B61-11 is categorized as a "deep earth penetrating bomb" capable of "destroying the deepest and most hardened of underground bunkers, which the conventional warheads are not capable of doing." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stated that while the 'conventional' bunker buster bombs "'are going to be able to do the job'.... He did not rule out the eventual use of nuclear weapons."(14)

The Bush administration needs a justification, as well as public support, for the use of tactical nuclear weapons as part of its "war against international terrorism". It is also anxious to test its "low yield" B61-11 bombs.

First, it is saying that these "low yield" nuclear weapons do not affect civilians, therefore justifying their being used in the same way as conventional weapons. Second, the Administration is hinting that the use of nuclear bunker busters may be justified as part of "the campaign against international terrorism", because Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network possesses nuclear capabilities and could use them against us. America's tactical nuclear weapons are said to be "safe" in comparison to those of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Administration statements suggest, in this regard, that a "low-yield" earth penetrating tactical nuclear weapon such as the B61-11 would "limit collateral damage" and therefore be relatively safe to use.(15)

These new buzzwords are being spread by the US media to develop public support for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Yet, the scientific evidence on this issue is unequivocal: the impacts on civilians of the "low yield" B61-11 would be devastating "because of the large amount of radioactive dirt thrown out in the explosion, the hypothetical 5-kiloton weapon … would produce a large area of lethal fallout".(16)

-----

With a Strangelovian genius, they cover every conceivable circumstance in which a president may wish to use nuclear weapons-planning in great detail for a war they hope never to wage. In this top-secret domain, there has always been an inconsistency between America's diplomatic objectives of reducing nuclear arsenals and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on the one hand, and the military imperative to prepare for the unthinkable on the other.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration plan reverses an almost two-decade-long trend of relegating nuclear weapons to the category of weapons of last resort. It also redefines nuclear requirements in hurried post-September 11 terms.(17)

While identifying a number of "rogue states", the not-so-hidden agenda of the Bush administration is to deploy and use nuclear weapons against Russia and China in the context of America's expansionary policy into Central Asia, the Middle East and the Far East:

The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbour, it said.

The report says Russia is no longer officially an "enemy". Yet it acknowledges that the huge Russian arsenal, which includes about 6,000 deployed warheads and perhaps 10,000 smaller "theatre" nuclear weapons, remains of concern.

Pentagon officials have said publicly that they were studying the need to develop theatre nuclear weapons, designed for use against specific targets on a battlefield, but had not committed themselves to that course.(18)

The thrust of this secret report, presented to the US Congress in early 2002, has been endorsed by the Republican Party:

[C]onservative analysts insisted that the Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret weapon's development programs.... They argued that smaller weapons have an important deterrent role because many aggressors might not believe that the US forces would use multi-kiloton weapons that would wreak devastation on surrounding territory and friendly populations.

We need to have a credible deterrence against regimes involved in international terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction," said Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. He said the contents of the report did not surprise him and represent "the right way to develop a nuclear posture for a post-Cold War world".(19)

Encircling China

In the wake of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, the Clinton administration boosted its military support to Taiwan against China, leading to a significant military buildup in the Taiwan Straits. Taiwan's Air Force had been previously equipped with some 150 F16A fighter planes from Lockheed Martin. In this regard, the Clinton administration had argued that military aid to Taiwan was required to maintain "a military balance with the People's Republic of China" as part of Washington's policy of "peace through deterrence".(20)

US-built Aegis destroyers equipped with state-of-the-art surface-to-air missiles, ship-to-ship missiles, and Tomahawk cruise missiles were delivered to Taiwan to boost its naval capabilities in the Taiwan Straits.(21) Beijing responded to this military buildup by taking delivery in 2000, of its first Russian-built guided missile destroyer, the Hangzhou, equipped with SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missiles,"capable of penetrating the state-of-the-art defenses of a US or Japanese naval battle group".(22)

Military assumptions have been radically changed since September 11. The Bush administration has scrapped the "peace through deterrence" doctrine. The post-September 11 military buildup in the Taiwan Straits is an integral part of Washington's overall military planning, which now consists in deploying "on several fronts".

Supported by the Bush administration, Taiwan has been "conducting active research aimed at developing a tactical ballistic missile capable of hitting targets in mainland China. … The alleged purpose of these missiles is to degrade the PLA's (People's Liberation Army) strike capability, including missile infrastructure and non-missile infrastructure (airfields, harbors, missile sites, etc.)."(23) In turn, US military presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan (and in several former Soviet republics), on China's western border, are being coordinated with Taiwan's naval deployment in the South China Sea.

China has been encircled: The US military is present in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits, in the Korean Peninsula and the Sea of Japan, as well as in the heartland of Central Asia and on the Western border of China's Xinjiang-Uigur autonomous region. "Temporary" US military bases have been set up in Uzbekistan (which is a member of the GUUAM agreement with NATO), in Tajikistan and in Kyrgyztan, where airfields and military airport facilities have been made available to the US Air Force.

Using Nuclear Weapons Against China

In early 2002, the Bush administration confirmed its intent to use nuclear weapons against China if there was a confrontation in the Taiwan Straits:

China, because of its nuclear forces and "developing strategic objectives", is listed as "a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential contingency". Specifically, the NPR lists a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan as one of the scenarios that could lead Washington to use nuclear weapons.(24)

The Anglo-American Axis

The 1999 war in Yugoslavia contributed to reinforcing strategic, military and intelligence ties between Washington and London. After the war in Yugoslavia, US Defense Secretary William Cohen and his British counterpart, Geoff Hoon, signed a "Declaration of Principles for Defense Equipment and Industrial Cooperation" so as to "improve cooperation in procuring arms and protecting technology secrets", while at the same time "easing the way for more joint military ventures and possible defense industry mergers".(25)

Washington's objective was to encourage the formation of a "trans-Atlantic bridge across which DoD [US Department of Defense] can take its globalization policy to Europe....Our aim is to improve interoperability and war fighting effectiveness via closer industrial linkages between US and allied companies."(26)

In the words of President Clinton's Defense Secretary William Cohen:

[The agreement] will facilitate interaction between our respective [British and American] industries so that we can have a harmonized approach to sharing technology, working cooperatively in partnership arrangements and, potentially, mergers as well.(27)

The agreement was signed in 1999 shortly after the creation of British Aerospace Systems (BAES) resulting from the merger of British Aerospace (BAe) with GEC Marconi. British Aerospace was already firmly allied to America's largest defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing.(28)

The hidden agenda behind the Anglo-American "trans-Atlantic bridge" is to eventually displace the Franco-German military conglomerates and ensure the dominance of the US military industrial complex (in alliance with Britain's major defense contractors).

Moreover, this integration in the area of defense production has been matched by increased cooperation between the CIA and Britain's MI6 in the sphere of intelligence and covert operations, not to mention the joint operations of British and US Special Forces.

The United States and Germany

The British military-industrial complex has become increasingly integrated into that of the US. In turn, significant rifts have emerged between Washington and Berlin. Franco-German integration in aerospace and defense production is ultimately directed against US dominance in the weapons market. The latter hinges upon the partnership between America's Big Five and Britain's defense industry under the trans-Atlantic bridge agreement.

Since the early '90s, the Bonn government has encouraged the consolidation of Germany's military industrial complex dominated by Daimler, Siemens and Krupp. Several important mergers in Germany's defense industry took place in response to the mega-mergers between America's aerospace and weapons producers.(29)

By 1996 Paris and Bonn had already set up a joint armaments agency with the mandate "to manage common programs [and] award contracts on behalf of both governments".(30) Both countries had stated that they "did not want Britain to join the agency".

France and Germany also now control Airbus industries, which is competing against America's Lockheed-Martin. (Britain's BAES owns the remaining 20 per cent.) The Germans are also collaborating in the Ariane Space satellite-launching program in which Deutsche Aerospace (DASA) is a major shareholder.

In late 1999, in response to the "alliance" of British Aerospace with Lockheed Martin, France's Aerospatiale-Matra merged with Daimler's DASA, forming the largest European defense conglomerate. The following year the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. (EADS) was formed, integrating DASA, Matra and Spain's Construcciones Aeronauticas, SA. EADS and its Anglo-American rivals are competing for the procurement of weapons to NATO's new Eastern European members. (Europe's third largest defense contractor is Thomson, which in recent years has several projects with US weapons producer Raytheon.)

While EADS still cooperates with Britain's BAES in missile production and has business ties with the US "Big Five", including Northrop Grumman, the Western defense and aerospace industry tends to be split into two distinct groups: EADS dominated by France and Germany on the one hand, the Anglo-US "Big Six", which includes the US Big Five contractors (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and Northrop Grumman) plus Britain's powerful BAES on the other.

Integrated into US Department of Defense procurement under the Atlantic bridge arrangement, BAES was the Pentagon's fifth largest defense contractor in 2001. Under the Anglo-American "transatlantic bridge", BAES operates freely in the US market through its subsidiary BAE Systems North America.(31)

Franco-German Integration in Nuclear Weapons

The Franco-German alliance in military production under EADS opens the door for the integration of Germany (which does not officially possess nuclear weapons) into France's nuclear weapons program. In this regard, EADS already produces a wide range of ballistic missiles, including the M51 nuclear-tipped ballistic submarine-launched ICBMs for the French Navy.(32) What this means is that Germany, through its alliance with France, is a de facto nuclear power.

Euro versus Dollar: Rivalry Between Competing Business Conglomerates

The European common currency system has a direct bearing on strategic and political divisions. London's decision not to adopt the common European currency is consistent with the integration of British financial and banking interests with those of Wall Street, as well as the Anglo-American alliance in the oil industry (as in BP-Amoco) and weapons production ("Big Five" plus BAES). In other words, this shaky relationship between the British pound and the US dollar is an integral part of the new Anglo-American axis.

What is at stake is the rivalry between two competing global currencies: the Euro and the US dollar, with Britain's pound being torn between the European and the US-dominated currency systems. Thus two rival financial and monetary systems are competing worldwide for control over money creation and credit. The geopolitical and strategic implications are far-reaching because they are also marked by splits in the Western defense industry and the oil business.

In both Europe and America, monetary policy, although formally under state jurisdiction, is largely controlled by the private banking sector. The European Central Bank based in Frankfurt- although officially under the jurisdiction of the European Union- is, in practice, overseen by a handful of private European banks, including Germany's largest banks and business conglomerates.

The US Federal Reserve Board is formally under state supervision-marked by a close relationship to the US Treasury. Unlike the European Central Bank, the 12 Federal Reserve banks (of which the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the most important) are controlled by their shareholders, which are private banking institutions. In other words, "the Fed" as it is known in the US, which is responsible for monetary policy and hence money creation for the nation, is actually controlled by private financial interests.

Currency Systems and 'Economic Conquest'

In Eastern Europe, in the former Soviet Union and in the Balkans, extending into Central Asia, the dollar and the Euro are competing with one another. Ultimately, control over national currency systems is the basis upon which countries are colonized. While the US dollar prevails throughout the Western Hemisphere, the Euro and the US dollar are clashing in the former Soviet Union, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

In the Balkans and the Baltic States, central banks largely operate as colonial style "currency boards" invariably using the Euro as a proxy currency. What this means is that German and European financial interests are in control of money creation and credit. In other words, the pegging of the national currency to the Euro- rather than to the US dollar-means that both the currency and the monetary system will be in the hands of German-EU banking interests.

More generally, the Euro dominates in Germany's hinterland: Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and the Balkans, whereas the US dollar tends to prevail in the Caucasus and Central Asia. In GUUAM countries (which have military cooperation agreements with Washington) the dollar tends (with the exception of the Ukraine) to overshadow the Euro.

The "dollarization" of national currencies is an integral part of America's SRS. The SRS consists of first destabilizing and then replacing national currencies with the American greenback over an area extending from the Mediterranean to China's Western border. The underlying objective is to extend the dominion of the Federal Reserve System-namely, Wall Street-over a vast territory.

What we are dealing with is an "imperial" scramble for control over national currencies. Control over money creation and credit is an integral part of the process of economic conquest, which in turn is supported by the militarization of the Eurasian corridor.

While American and German-EU banking interests are clashing over the control of national economies and currency systems, they seem to have agreed on "sharing the spoils"-i.e., establishing their respective "spheres of influence". Reminiscent of the policies of "partition" in the late 19th century, the US and Germany have agreed upon the division of the Balkans: Germany has gained control over national currencies in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, where the Euro is legal tender. In return, the US has established a permanent military presence in the region (i.e., the Bondsteel military base in Kosovo).

Cross-cutting Military Alliances

The rift between Anglo-American and Franco-German weapons producers-including the rifts within the Western military alliance-seem to have favored increased military cooperation between Russia on the one hand, and France and Germany on the other.

In recent years, both France and Germany have entered into bilateral discussions with Russia in the areas of defense production, aerospace research and military cooperation. In late 1998, Paris and Moscow agreed to undertake joint infantry exercises and bilateral military consultations. In turn, Moscow has been seeking German and French partners to participate in the development of its military industrial complex.

In early 2000, Germany's Defense Minister, Rudolph Sharping, visited Moscow for bilateral consultations with his Russian counterpart. A bilateral agreement was signed pertaining to 33 military cooperation projects, including the training of Russian military specialists in Germany.(33) This agreement was reached outside the framework of NATO, and without prior consultation with Washington.

Russia also signed a "long term military cooperation agreement" with India in late 1998, which was followed a few months later by a defense agreement between India and France. The agreement between Delhi and Paris included the transfer of French military technology, as well as investment by French multinationals in India's defense industry. The latter investment includes facilities for the production of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads, in which the French companies have expertise.

This Franco-Indian agreement has a direct bearing on Indo-Pakistani relations. It also impinges upon US strategic interests in Central and South Asia. While Washington has been pumping military aid into Pakistan, India is being supported by France and Russia.

Visibly, France and the US are on opposite sides of the India-Pakistan conflict.

With Pakistan and India at the brink of war, in the immediate wake of September 11, 2001, the US Air Force had virtually taken control of Pakistan's air space, as well as several of its military facilities. Meanwhile, barely a few weeks into the 2001 bombing of Afghanistan, France and India conducted joint military exercises in the Arabian Sea. Also in the immediate wake of September 11, India took delivery of large quantities of Russian weapons, under the Indo-Russian military cooperation agreement.

Moscow's New National Security Doctrine

US post-Cold War era foreign policy had designated Central Asia and the Caucasus as a "strategic area". Yet this policy no longer consisted in containing the "spread of communism", but rather in preventing Russia and China from becoming competing capitalist powers. In this regard, the US had increased its military presence along the entire 40th parallel, extending from Bosnia and Kosovo to the former Soviet republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, all of which had entered into bilateral military agreements with Washington.

The 1999 war in Yugoslavia and the subsequent outbreak of war in Chechnya in September 1999 were crucial turning points in Russian-American relations. They also marked a rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing and the signing of several military cooperation agreements between Russia and China.

US covert support to the two main Chechen rebel groups (through Pakistan's ISI) was known to the Russian government and military. (For further details, see Chapter II.) However, it had never previously been made public or raised at the diplomatic level. In November 1999, the Russian Defense Minister, Igor Sergueyev, formally accused Washington of supporting the Chechen rebels. Following a meeting held behind closed doors with Russia's military high command, Sergueyev declared that:

"The national interests of the United States require that the military conflict in the Caucasus [Chechnya] be a fire, provoked as a result of outside forces," while adding that "the West's policy constitutes a challenge launched to Russia with the ultimate aim of weakening her international position and of excluding her from geo-strategic areas".(34)

In early 2000, in the wake of the Chechen war, a new "National Security Doctrine" was formulated and signed into law by President Vladimir Putin. Barely acknowledged by the international media, a critical shift in East-West relations had occurred. The document reasserted the building of a strong Russian state, the concurrent growth of the military and the reintroduction of state controls over foreign capital.

The document carefully spelled out what it described as "fundamental threats" to Russia's national security and sovereignty. More specifically, it referred to "the strengthening of military-political blocs and alliances" (namely GUUAM), as well as to "NATO's eastward expansion" while underscoring "the possible emergence of foreign military bases and major military presences in the immediate proximity of Russian borders".(35)

The document confirmed that "international terrorism is waging an open campaign to destabilize Russia". While not referring explicitly to CIA covert activities in support of armed terrorist groups, such as the Chechen rebels, it nonetheless called for appropriate "actions to avert and intercept intelligence and subversive activities by foreign states against the Russian Federation".(36)

Undeclared War Between Russia and America

The cornerstone of US foreign policy was to encourage-under the disguise of "peace-keeping" and "conflict resolution"-the formation of small pro-US states, which lie strategically at the hub of the Caspian Sea basin, which contains vast oil and gas reserves:

The US must play an increasingly active role in conflict resolution in the region. The boundaries of the Soviet republics were intentionally drawn to prevent secession by the various national communities of the former USSR and not with an eye towards possible independence.... Neither Europe, nor our allies in East Asia, can defend our [US] mutual interests in these regions. If we [the US] fail to take the lead in heading off the kinds of conflicts and crises that are already looming there, that will eventually exacerbate our relations with Europe and possibly Northeast Asia. It will encourage the worst kind of political developments in Russia. This linkage, or intercon-nectedness, gives the Transcaucasus and Central Asia a strategic importance to the United States and its allies that we overlook at huge risk. To put it another way, the fruits accruing from ending the Cold War are far from fully harvested. To ignore the Transcaucasus and Central Asia could mean that a large part of that harvest will never be gathered.(37)

Russia's Military Industrial Complex

Alongside the articulation of Moscow's National Security doctrine, the Russian State was planning to regain economic and financial control over key areas of Russia's military industrial complex. For instance, the formation of "a single corporation of designers and manufacturers of all anti-aircraft complexes" was envisaged in cooperation with Russia's defense contractors.(38)

This proposed "re-centralization" of Russia's defense industry, in response to national security considerations, was also motivated by the merger of major Western competitors in the area of military procurement. The development of new production and scientific capabilities was also contemplated, based on enhancing Russia's military potential as well as its ability to compete with its Western rivals in the global weapons market.

The National Security Doctrine also "eases the criteria by which Russia could use nuclear weapons...which would be permissible if the country's existence were threatened".(39)

Russia reserves the right to use all forces and means at its disposal, including nuclear weapons, in case an armed aggression creates a threat to the very existence of the Russian Federation as an independent sovereign state.(40)

In response to Washington's "Star Wars" initiative, Moscow had developed "Russia's Missile and Nuclear Shield". The Russian government announced in 1998 the development of a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as Topol-M (SS-27). These new single-warhead missiles (based in the Saratov region) are currently in "full combat readiness", against a "pre-emptive first strike" from the US, which (in the wake of 9/11) constitutes the Pentagon's main assumption in an eventual nuclear war."The Topol M is lightweight and mobile, designed to be fired from a vehicle. Its mobility means it is better protected than a silo-based missile from a pre-emptive first strike."(41)

Following the adoption of the National Security Document (NSD) in 2000, the Kremlin confirmed that it would not exclude "a first-strike use" of nuclear warheads "if attacked even by purely conventional means".(42)

Political 'Turnaround'under President Vladimir Putin

The foreign policy directions of the Putin Administration remain unclear. There are significant divisions within both the political establishment and the military. On the diplomatic front, President Putin has sought a "rapprochement" with Washington and the Western Military Alliance in the "war on terrorism".

In the wake of 9/11, a significant turnaround in Russian foreign policy, largely orchestrated by President Putin, has occurred. The Putin Administration, acting against the Russian Duma, has, nonetheless, accepted the process of "NATO Enlargement" into the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) implying the establishment of NATO military bases on Russia's western border.

Meanwhile, Moscow's military cooperation agreement signed with Beijing after the 1999 war in Yugoslavia was virtually on hold:

China is obviously watching with deep concern Russia surrendering these positions. China is also concerned by the presence of the US Air Force close to its borders in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrghyz Republic....Everything that Mr. Putin has earned through the spectacular improvement of Russia's relations with China, India, Vietnam, Cuba and some other countries collapsed nearly overnight. What has surfaced is a primitive Gorbachev concept of "common human values"-i.e., the subordination of Russia's interests to those of the West.(43)

Ironically, the Russian President was supporting America's "war on terrorism", which is ultimately directed against Moscow. Washington's hidden agenda is to dismantle Russia's strategic and economic interests in the Eurasian corridor and close down or take over its military facilities, while transforming the former Soviet republics (and eventually the Russian Federation) into American protectorates:

It becomes clear that the intention to join NATO, expressed by Mr. Putin in an offhand manner last year [2000], reflected a long matured idea of a far deeper (i.e., in relation to the positions previously taken by Gorbachev or Yeltsin) integration of the Russian Federation into the "international community". In fact, the intention is to squeeze Russia into the Western economic, political and military system. Even as a junior partner. Even at the price of sacrificing an independent foreign policy.(44)

Notes

1. Quoted in Mary-Wynne Ashford,"Bombings Reignite Nuclear War Fears", The Victoria Times-Colonist. 13 May 1999, p. A15. Mary-Wynne Ashford is co-president of the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPPNW.

2. Quoted in Mary-Wynne Ashford, op. cit.

3. According to Viktor Chechevatov, a Three-star General and Commander of ground forces in Russia's Far East, quoted in The Boston Globe, 8 April 1999, emphasis added.

4. Ashford, op. cit.

5. Douglas Mattern, "The United States of Enron-Pentagon, Inc", Centre for Research on Globalization, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAT202A.html, February 2002.

6. Ibid.

7. See "Intelligence Funding and the War on Terror", CDI Terrorism Project at http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/intel-funding-pr.cfm, 2 February 2002. See also Patrick Martin, "Billions for War and Repression: Bush Budget for a Garrison State", World Socialist Website (WSWS), http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/ feb2002/mili-f06.shtml, 6 February 2002.

8. Federation of American Scientists (FAS) at http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/.

9. George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 29 January 2002.

10. For further details on HAARP, see Michel Chossudovsky,"Washington's New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change", Centre for Research on Globalization at globalresearch.ca, http://globalresearch.ca/ articles/CHO201A.html, January 2002.

11. See Bob Fitrakis, "Chemtrails Outlaw", Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FIT203A.html, 6 March 2002. See also Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http:// www.au.af.mil/au/2025/.

12. John Isaacs, President of the Council for a Livable World quoted in Paul Richter,"US Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms", Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.

13. Paul Richter, "US Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms", Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.

14. Quoted in The Houston Chronicle, 20 October 2001.

15. Cynthia Greer, The Philadelphia Inquirer, 16 October 2000.

16. Ibid.

17. William Arkin, "Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable", Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Mother Jones, "Taiwan wants bigger Slingshot", http://www.mojones.com/ arms/taiwan.html, 2000.

21. Deutsche Press Agentur, 27 February 2000.

22. Japan Economic Newswire, March 4, 2000.

23. AFP, 12 December 2001.

24. William Arkin, op. cit.

25. Reuters, 5 February 2000.

26. For further details see Vago Muradian, "Pentagon Sees Bridge to Europe", Defense Daily, Vol. 204, No. 40, 1 December 1999.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid. See also Michel Collon's analysis in Poker Menteur, Editions EPO, Brussels,
1998, p. 156.

29. Ibid., p. 156.

30."American Monsters, European Minnows: Defense Companies." The Economist, 13 January 1996.

31. British Aerospace Systems'home page at: http://www.BAESystems.com/ globalfootprint/northamerica/northamerica.htm.

32. "BAES, EADS Hopeful that Bush will broaden Transatlantic Cooperation", Defense Daily International, 29, 2001.

33. Interfax, 1 March 2000.

34. See The New York Times, 15 November 1999; see also the article of Steve Levine, The New York Times, 20 November 1999.

35. To consult the document, see Federation of American Scientists (FAS), http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/doctrine/gazeta012400.htm.

36. Ibid.

37. Joseph Jofi, Pipeline Diplomacy: The Clinton Administration's Fight for Baku-Ceyhan, Woodrow Wilson Case Study, No. 1. Princeton University, 1999.

38. Mikhail Kozyrev, "The White House Calls for the Fire", Vedomosti, Nov. 1, 1999, p.1.

39. See Andrew Jack, "Russia Turns Back Clock", Financial Times, London, 15 January 2000, p.1.

40. Quoted in Nicolai Sokov, "Russia's New National Security Concept: The Nuclear Angle", Centre for Non Proliferation Studies, Monterrey, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/sokov2.htm, January 2000.

41. BBC, "Russia Deploys New Nuclear Missiles", London, 27 December 1998.

42. Stephen J. Blank, "Nuclear Strategy and Nuclear Proliferation in Russian Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States", Appendix III: Unclassified Working Papers, Federation of American Scientists (FAS),
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/rumsfeld/toc-3.htm. Washington DC, undated.

43. V. Tetekin, "Putin's Ten Blows", Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) http://globalresearch.ca/articles/TET112A.html, 27 December 2001.

44. Ibid.

Read More..