From: Jei (jei@cc.hut.fi)
Date: Thu Jan 29 2004 - 15:38:51 MST
A rather bleak future ahead for the rest of the world...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5428.htm
America's War for Global Domination
by Michel Chossudovsky
12/15/03: (Global Research)
We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which
threatens the future of humanity.
The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military
agenda, which was launched at the end of the Cold War. The ongoing
war agenda is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the NATO led
wars on Yugoslavia (1991-2001).
The post Cold War period has also been marked by numerous US covert
intelligence operations within the former Soviet Union, which were
instrumental in triggering civil wars in several of the former
republics including Chechnya (within the Russian Federation), Georgia
and Azerbaijan. In the latter, these covert operations were launched
with a view to securing strategic control over oil and gas pipeline
corridors.
US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were
led in close coordination with the "free market reforms" imposed
under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the
Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies
and the impoverishment of millions of people.
The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries
enabled Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control of a
large share of the economy of the former Eastern block countries.
This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or
takeovers of the former Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful
Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and corrupt
political practices.
In other words, what is at stake in the US led war is the
recolonization of a vast region extending from the Balkans into
Central Asia.
The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's
economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent
military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military
bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western
frontier. In turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in
the South China Sea.
War and Globalization go hand in hand. Militarization supports the
conquest of new economic frontiers and the worldwide imposition of
"free market" system.
The Next Phase of the War
The Bush administration has already identified Syria as the next
stage of "the road map to war". The bombing of presumed 'terrorist
bases' in Syria by the Israeli Air Force in October was intended to
provide a justification for subsequent pre-emptive military
interventions. Ariel Sharon launched the attacks with the approval of
Donald Rumsfeld. (See Gordon Thomas, Global Outlook, No. 6, Winter
2004)
This planned extension of the war into Syria has serious
implications. It means that Israel becomes a major military actor in
the US-led war, as well as an 'official' member of the Anglo-American
coalition.
The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which
constitutes a land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as
'strategic' from a military and economic standpoint. It also
constitutes a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the
flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling to Baghdad to join the
Iraqi resistance movement.
This enlargement of the theater of war is consistent with Ariel
Sharon's plan to build a 'Greater Israel' "on the ruins of
Palestinian nationalism". While Israel seeks to extend its
territorial domain towards the Euphrates River, with designated areas
of Jewish settlement in the Syrian heartland, Palestinians are
imprisoned in Gaza and the West Bank behind an 'Apartheid Wall'.
In the meantime, the US Congress has tightened the economic sanctions
on Libya and Iran. As well, Washington is hinting at the need for a
'regime change' in Saudi Arabia. Political pressures are building up
in Turkey.
So, the war could indeed spill over into a much broader region
extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Indian sub-continent
and China's Western frontier.
The "Pre-emptive" Use of Nuclear Weapons
Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy,
which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no
longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold War era.
The US, Britain and Israel have a coordinated nuclear weapons policy.
Israeli nuclear warheads are pointed at major cities in the Middle
East. The governments of all three countries have stated quite
openly, prior to the war on Iraq, that they are prepared to use
nuclear weapons "if they are attacked" with so-called "weapons of
mass destruction." Israel is the fifth nuclear power in the World.
Its nuclear arsenal is more advanced than that of Britain.
Barely a few weeks following the entry of the US Marines into
Baghdad, the US Senate Armed Services Committee gave the green light
to the Pentagon to develop a new tactical nuclear bomb, to be used in
conventional war theaters, "with a yield [of up to] six times more
powerful than the Hiroshima bomb".
Following the Senate decision, the Pentagon redefined the details of
its nuclear agenda in a secret meeting with senior executives from
the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex held at
Central Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in
Nebraska. The meeting was held on August 6, the day the first atomic
bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 58 years ago.
The new nuclear policy explicitly involves the large defense
contractors in decision-making. It is tantamount to the
"privatization" of nuclear war. Corporations not only reap
multibillion dollar profits from the production of nuclear bombs,
they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda regarding the use
and deployment of nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has unleashed a major propaganda and public
relations campaign with a view to upholding the use nuclear weapons
for the "defense of the American Homeland."
Fully endorsed by the US Congress, the mini-nukes are considered to
be "safe for civilians".
This new generation of nuclear weapons is slated to be used in the
next phase of this war, in "conventional war theatres" (e.g. in the
Middle East and Central Asia) alongside conventional weapons.
In December 2003, the US Congress allocated $6.3 billion solely for
2004, to develop this new generation of "defensive" nuclear weapons.
The overall annual defense budget is of the order of 400 billion
dollars, roughly of the same order of magnitude as the entire Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) of the Russian Federation.
While there is no firm evidence of the use of mini-nukes in the Iraqi
and Afghan war theatres, tests conducted by Canada's Uranium Medical
Research Center (UMRC), in Afghanistan confirm that recorded toxic
radiation was not attributable to 'heavy metal' depleted uranium
ammunition (DU), but to another unidentified form of uranium
contamination:
"some form of uranium weapon had been used (...) The results were
astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic and
radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater
than in the Gulf War veterans tested in 1999." www.umrc.net
The Planning of War
The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the
mid-1990s.
A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration
stated quite clearly that the objective of the war is oil. "to
protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil.
In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W.
Bush to the White House, the Project for a New American Century
(PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under the title:
"Rebuilding America's Defenses."
The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the
Defense-Intelligence establishment, the Republican Party and the
powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a
behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of US foreign policy.
The PNAC's declared objective is quite simple - to:
"Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars".
This statement indicates that the US plans to be involved
simultaneously in several war theaters in different regions of the
World.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC
blueprint prior to the presidential elections.
The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct
imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the
Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of the
world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable
alternative to America's vision of a 'free market' economy" (See
Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003)
The Role of "Massive Casualty Producing Events"
The PNAC blueprint also outlines a consistent framework of war
propaganda. One year before 9/11, the PNAC called for "some
catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which
would serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war
agenda. (See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )
The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy,
the use of the September 11 attacks as "a war pretext incident."
The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes
a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations
Business Council in 1994:
"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."
Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand
Chessboard:.
"it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in
America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of
a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President
Jimmy Carter was one of the key architects of the Al Qaeda network,
created by the CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war
(1979-1989).
The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an
integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks,
who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October
2003) to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster
support for the imposition of military rule in America. (See General
Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ).
Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be
established:
"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur]
somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of
America - that causes our population to question our own
Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to
avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." (Ibid)
This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in
military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests
that the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational
assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It
identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and "Homeland
Defense." Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the
neoliberal agenda.
The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by
General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting
crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in
US political, social and institutional structures.
General Franks' statement reflects a consensus within the US Military
as to how events ought to unfold. The "war on terrorism" is to
provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately
with a view to "preserving civil liberties."
Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist
attack will be used as a "trigger mechanism" for a military coup
d'état in America. The PNAC's "Pearl Harbor type event" would be used
as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the
establishment of a military government.
In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in
the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy.
War Propaganda
In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center,
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of
Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was
labeled by its critics:
"The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they
were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign
countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion across the
world. (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002.)
And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded following
political pressures and "troublesome" media stories that "its purpose
was to deliberately lie to advance American interests." (Air Force
Magazine, January 2003, italics added) "Rumsfeld backed off and said
this is embarrassing." (Adubato, op. cit. italics added) Yet despite
this apparent about-turn, the Pentagon's Orwellian disinformation
campaign remains functionally intact: "[T]he secretary of defense is
not being particularly candid here. Disinformation in military
propaganda is part of war."(Ibid)
Rumsfeld later confirmed in a press interview that while the OSI no
longer exists in name, the "Office's intended functions are being
carried out". (Quoted in Federation of American Scientists (FAS)
Secrecy News, http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/11/112702.html
, Rumsfeld's press interview can be consulted at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html ).
A number of government agencies and intelligence units --with links
to the Pentagon-remain actively involved in various components of the
propaganda campaign. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war
are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards "regime
change" and "the restoration of democracy". Military occupation and
the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping". The
derogation of civil liberties --in the context of the so-called
"anti-terrorist legislation"-- is portrayed as a means to providing
"domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.
The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine
Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive
"defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda
constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's
propaganda campaign.
The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning
war as an act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies,
"rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists":
"The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise
of uncertain duration. America will act against such emerging
threats before they are fully formed.
Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using
conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead,
they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons
of mass destruction ()
The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our
civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal
norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on
September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific
objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially
more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass
destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive
actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security.
The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and
the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to
defend ourselves, (). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by
our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act
preemptively."12 (National Security Strategy, White House, 2002,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html )
To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National Security
Doctrine requires the "fabrication" of a terrorist threat, --ie. "an
outside enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist threats to
"State sponsorship" by the so-called "rogue states."
But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing
events" allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are part of the
National Security agenda.
In the months building up to the invasion of Iraq, covert 'dirty
tricks' operations were launched to produce misleading intelligence
pertaining to both Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Al Qaeda,
which was then fed into the news chain.
In the wake of the war, while the WMD threat has been toned down, Al
Qaeda threats to 'the Homeland' continue to be repeated ad nauseam in
official statements, commented on network TV and pasted on a daily
basis across the news tabloids.
And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden"
terrorist occurrences are being upheld as a justification for the
next phase of this war. The latter hinges in a very direct way:
1) the effectiveness of the Pentagon-CIA propaganda campaign,
which is fed into the news chain.
2) The actual occurrence of "massive casualty producing events" as
outlined in the PNAC
What this means is that actual ("massive casualty producing")
terrorist events are part and parcel of military planning.
Actual Terrorist Attacks
In other words, to be "effective" the fear and disinformation
campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated "warnings" of future
attacks, it also requires "real" terrorist occurrences or
"incidents", which provide credibility to the Washington's war plans.
These terrorist events are used to justify the implementation of
"emergency measures" as well as "retaliatory military actions". They
are required, in the present context, to create the illusion of "an
outside enemy" that is threatening the American Homeland.
The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon's
assumptions. In fact it is an integral part of US military
history.(See Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start a
War, Global Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3,
2002-2003).
In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan
entitled "Operation Northwoods", to deliberately trigger civilian
casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:
"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,"
"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami
area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty
lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national
indignation." (See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document
titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"16
(See Operation Northwoods at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ).
There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct
role in recent terrorist attacks, including those in Indonesia
(2002), India (2001), Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).
According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by
organizations (or cells of these organizations), which operate quite
independently, with a certain degree of autonomy. This independence
is in the very nature of a covert intelligence operation. The
«intelligence asset» is not in direct contact with its covert
sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the role it plays on
behalf of its intelligence sponsors.
The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources
are they being financed? What is the underlying network of ties?
For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged
terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiah had links to Indonesia's
military intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA and
Australian intelligence.
The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament --which
contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war-- were
allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups,
Lashkar-e-Taiba ("Army of the Pure") and Jaish-e-Muhammad ("Army of
Mohammed"), both of which according to the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) are supported by Pakistan's ISI. (Council on Foreign
Relations at http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html ,
Washington 2002).
What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between
the ISI and the CIA and the fact that the ISI continues to support
Lashkar, Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen
(JKHM), while also collaborating with the CIA. (For further details
see Michel Chossudovsky, Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html )
A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon "calls for
the creation of a so-called 'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations
Group' (P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating
reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass
destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into
action and exposing themselves to 'quick-response' attacks by U.S.
forces." (William Arkin, The Secret War, The Los Angeles Times, 27
October 2002)
The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an
existing apparatus of covert operations. Amply documented, the CIA
has supported terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This
"prodding of terrorist cells" under covert intelligence operations
often requires the infiltration and training of the radical groups
linked to Al Qaeda.
In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence
apparatus has been channeled to various Islamic terrorist
organizations through a complex network of intermediaries and
intelligence proxies. In the course of the 1990s, agencies of the US
government have collaborated with Al Qaeda in a number of covert
operations, as confirmed by a 1997 report of the Republican Party
Committee of the US Congress. (See US Congress, 16 January 1997,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html ). In fact during
the war in Bosnia US weapons inspectors were working with Al Qaeda
operatives, bringing in large amounts of weapons for the Bosnian
Muslim Army.
In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring
terrorists". Moreover, official statements and intelligence reports
confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda
operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and
Macedonia (2001).(See See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation,
The Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook, 2003, Chapter 3,
http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html )
The Bush Administration and NATO had links to Al Qaeda in Macedonia.
And this happened barely a few weeks before September 11, 2001,
Senior U.S. military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on
contract to the Pentagon, were fighting alongside Mujahideen in the
terrorist attacks on the Macedonian Security forces. This is
documented by the Macedonian press and statements made by the
Macedonian authorities. (See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit). The U.S.
government and the Islamic Militant Network were working hand in
glove in supporting and financing the National Liberation Army (NLA),
which was involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia.
In other words, the US military was collaborating directly with Al
Qaeda barely a few weeks before 9/11.
Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)
It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist
occurrences, the terrorist organization is reported (by the media and
in official statements) as having "ties to Osama bin Laden's Al
Qaeda". This in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course,
the fact that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA is neither mentioned
in the press reports nor is it considered relevant to an
understanding of these terrorist occurrences.
The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in
Asia) to Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a
few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to
have links to Pakistan's ISI, without identifying the nature of these
links. Needless to say, this information is crucial in identifying
the sponsors of these terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is
said to support these terrorist organizations, while at same time
maintaining close ties to the CIA.
September 11
While Colin Powell --without supporting evidence-pointed in his
February 2003 UN address to "the sinister nexus between Iraq and the
Al Qaeda terrorist network", official documents, press and
intelligence reports confirm that successive US administrations have
supported and abetted the Islamic militant network. This relationship
is an established fact, corroborated by numerous studies,
acknowledged by Washington's mainstream think tanks.
Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, who in the months
leading up to the war casually accused Baghdad and other foreign
governments of "harboring" Al Qaeda, played a direct role, at
different points in their careers, in supporting terrorist
organizations.
Both men were implicated --operating behind the scenes-- in the
Irangate Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration, which
involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance the
Nicaraguan Contra paramilitary army and the Afghan Mujahideen. (For
further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Expose the Links between Al
Qaeda and the Bush Administration,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html )
Moreover, both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the
9/11 cover-up. The investigations and research conducted in the last
two years, including official documents, testimonies and intelligence
reports, indicate that September 11 was an carefully planned
intelligence operation, rather than a act conducted by a terrorist
organization. (For further details, see Centre for Research on
Globalization, 24 Key articles, September 2003)
The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the
role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence. According to the report,
the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from
sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed
that the then head of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred
money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and
Globalization, op.cit.)
Moreover, press reports and official statements confirm that the head
of the ISI, was an official visit to the US from the 4th to 13th of
September 2001. In other words, the head of Pakistan's ISI, who
allegedly transferred money to the terrorists also had a close
personal relationship with a number of senior Bush Administration
officials, including Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and
Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, whom he met in the course of his
visit to Washington. (Ibid)
The Antiwar Movement
A cohesive antiwar movement cannot be based solely on the
mobilization of antiwar sentiment. It must ultimately unseat the war
criminals and question their right to rule.
A necessary condition for bringing down the rulers is to weaken and
eventually dismantle their propaganda campaign.
The momentum of the large anti-war rallies in the US, the European
Union and around the world, should lay the foundations of a permanent
network composed of tens of thousands of local level anti-war
committees in neighborhoods, work places, parishes, schools,
universities, etc. It is ultimately through this network that the
legitimacy of those who "rule in our name" will be challenged.
To shunt the Bush Administration's war plans and disable its
propaganda machine, we must reach out to our fellow citizens across
the land, in the US, Europe and around the world, to the millions of
ordinary people who have been misled on the causes and consequences
of this war.
This also implies fully uncovering the lies behind the "war on
terrorism" and revealing the political complicity of the Bush
administration in the events of 9/11.
September 11 is a hoax. It's the biggest lie in US history.
Needless to say, the use of "massive casualty producing events" as
pretext to wage war is a criminal act. In the words of Andreas van
Buelow, former German Minister of Technology and author of The CIA
and September 11:
"If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up
behind bars."
Yet it is not sufficient to remove George W. Bush or Tony Blair, who
are mere puppets. We must also address the role of the global banks,
corporations and financial institutions, which indelibly stand behind
the military and political actors.
Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than
the State Department, the White House and the US Congress) is calling
the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas oil giants, the
defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants,
operating discreetly behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If
politicians become a source of major embarrassment, they can
themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of
political puppets can be brought to office.
Criminalization of the State
The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals
legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to
decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals.
In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda
and there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are
complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world
domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the
criminalisation of the State", which includes the Judiciary and the
bipartisan corridors of the US Congress. .
Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush
administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the
Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal
acts, but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are
opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies of the State."
More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and
supports dominant economic and financial interests - i.e. the
build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces "free
trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its
military operations with the World Bank and the IMF's policy
interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and defense
bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various
civilian governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF,
World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological consensus
and commitment to the New World Order.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the
war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems like
WMDs) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be
dismantled. More generally we must reverse the "free market" reforms,
dismantle the institutions of global capitalism and disarm financial
markets.
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 antiwar and anti-globalisation movements must be integrated into
a single worldwide movement. People must be united across sectors,
"single issue" groups must join hands in a common and collective
understanding on how the New World Order destroys and impoverishes.
The globalization of this struggle is fundamental, requiring a degree
of solidarity and internationalism unprecedented in world history.
This 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 a common pursuit and commitment to the elimination of
poverty and a lasting world peace.
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky 2003
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 29 2004 - 15:39:20 MST