America's War
For Global Domination
By Michel Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca
28 December, 2003
We
are at 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.
(This is the background
text of Michel Chossudovsky's public lecture at the Society for the
Defense of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin, 10-11 December,
2003 and Humboldt University, Berlin, 12 December 2003. On Human Rights
Day, 10 December 2003, Michel Chossudovsky was awarded The 2003 Human's
Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human
Dignity (GBM).)
© Copyright
Michel Chossudovsky 2003 For fair use only/ pour usage équitable
seulement.