Perlas on US as Empire
- I recommend the following article
DECODING THE BU.S.H DOCTRINE THE U.S. AS EMPIRE
By Nicanor Perlas
Something happened on September 17, 2002 that is altering the course
of history. Among others, the event laid the basis for the U.S. attack
on Iraqnot because of Bin Laden, not because of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD), and not just because of oil. The U.S. attacked Iraq
because of something larger and much more encompassing.
Witness the recent admission of the White House that it had no solid
factual basis for its claim that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Some U.S.
democrats are blunter. They are accusing the Bush Administration of
launching a war on Iraq on the basis of a lie.
On September 17, 2002, George W. Bush, President of the United States
of America, officially announced the grand doctrine for a new world
order, a doctrine that had been in the making for 12 years. Iraq was a
smokescreen for the "coming out party" of the new doctrine of conquest.
The official name of this doctrine is the National Security Strategy
of the United States of America (NSS). The media call it the Bush
Doctrine. In reality, it is the U.S. blueprint for world Empire, the
domination and governance by a single superpower over the lives and
destiny of billions around the world.
The NSS or Bush Doctrine is a comprehensive formula for taking over
the planet, placing it in the hands of the U.S. Empire. The Bush
Doctrine aims at taking control of the economic, political, and
cultural systems of the diverse societies and countries of the world.
It will transform the world by radically altering the roles of key
national, regional, and global institutions, of allies and enemies, of
client states and competing blocks. The Bush Doctrine will also
undertake a sweeping overhaul of U.S. laws and institutions to fulfill
dreams of global Empire.
Yet, surprisingly, very few have scrutinized and analyzed the
September 17 event with the depth it deserves. It is an urgent task to
decode the Bush Doctrine on U.S. Empire and to disseminate this
understanding to as many people as possible, including policy makers
who are falling into the trap of Empire.
With the emergence of the U.S. global Empire, heads of states, civil
society activists, and founders of socially and ecologically sound
businesses will have to re-think the relevance of their current
values, views, and approaches to the shaping of their societies and
the world. Global reality is radically morphing beyond recognition.
Past practices are no longer a guide to the future.
THE BU.S.H SECURITY STRATEGY AT A GLANCE
The Bush Doctrine does not state flat out that the U.S. is
establishing a global Empire. That's not the direct impression it
wants to create, for that would alarm people, including most
Governments and Heads of States. Instead, the policy document promotes
noble-sounding intentions that seem harmless on the surface. Reading
between the lines, however, one begins to appreciate the lowly and raw
motives connected with Empire building that animate the Bush Doctrine.
And when examined in the light of actual U.S. behavior in domestic and
world affairs, the outline of Empire in the Bush Doctrine becomes
Let us first take a look at what Bush and his colleagues want people
all over the world to believe about the new U.S. foreign policy.
Near the beginning of the National Security Strategy (NSS), one finds
the following statement.
"The United States possesses unprecedentedand unequaledstrength and
influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of
liberty, and the value of a free society, this position comes with
unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great
strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power
that favors freedom. . . . . We will work to translate this moment of
influence into decades of peace, prosperity, and liberty." (NSS, p.1)
The NSS then goes on to say that unfortunately the world has
drastically changed after the Cold War. There are now terrorists and
rogue states willing to use weapons of mass destruction against the
U.S.A. and its allies and friends. The U.S. then has no choice but to
run after and defeat these terrorists and rogue states.
The U.S. will bring its case to international bodies. The U.S.
however, does not see itself bound by the decisions of these
international bodies, including the Security Council of the United
Nations. The priority of the U.S. government is to defend its
citizens. If necessary, it will unleash a pre-emptive strike against
terrorists and rogue states. This it will do either alone, if
necessary, or with a "coalition of the willing" composed of allies and
friends who want to join.
But a unilateral pre-emptive strike is only part of the proposed
solution. The roots of terrorism go deep. The U.S. will unveil a
comprehensive, multi-faceted initiative to destroy terrorism at its
roots and establish world peace.
Among others, the U.S. will continue promoting free trade and
democracy around the world so as to spur prosperity, reducing the
incentives for terror. It will encourage or "compel" countries to
abandon any and all support for terrorist groups. The U.S. will engage
in a "war of ideas" for the hearts and minds of people the world over.
It will align all its foreign policy priorities to serve these goals.
And it will transform existing global arrangements, including its
relations with other "great powers" as well as institute changes to
U.S. law and institutions to achieve its all out war on terror and
advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.
Finally, to ensure the ultimate safety of its citizens, the U.S. will
not allow the emergence of any national or regional military
superpower that could threaten the security of the United States of
America. "Our military's highest priority is to defend the United
States. To do so effectively, our military must: . . . dissuade future
military competition . . . [and] decisively defeat any adversary if
deterrence fails." (NSS, p.29)
In order to prevent its enemies from derailing its all-out-war against
terrorism, the U.S. will not recognize the jurisdiction of the U.N.'s
International Criminal Court (ICC). The U.S. does not want its efforts
towards global security to be "impaired by the potential for
investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the . . . ICC." (NSS, p.31)
THE BU.S.H FRAMEWORK FOR EMPIRE
Even taking the policy document at face value, there are already
profoundly problematic elements deeply embedded in the Bush
DoctrinePre-emptive war; Unilateralism; Suppression of non-aggressive
military competition; Coercion of nations to follow U.S. priorities;
War on terror as the overriding and integrating framework for all U.S.
foreign policy and programs; Demotion of the UN to second class
status; Antagonism versus the International Criminal Court of the UN.
A deeper examination uncovers the true intentions behind the unusually
aggressive posturing of U.S. foreign policythe domination of the
world by a conscious Empire under the mask of freedom, justice and
peace. A quick look at the key elements of the Bush Doctrine will
convince even skeptics that the unbelievable reality of a conscious
and publicly-announced U.S. Empire is at hand, set to conquer and
dominate the world.
The Bush Doctrine can be summarized into 7 general themes. I will also
draw out an 8th theme that cannot be found in the decoded language but
which permeates the whole doctrine. These 8 themes are:
"Distinct American Internationalism" Based on Raw Power
Unilateral, Preventive War Against Rogue States
Shadow Multilateralism and Coalitions of the Willing
Iraq as Demonstration Case and Part of a Network of Bases
Suppression of Military Competition and Global Police
Systemic Societal Approach
Suppression of Internal Dissent
Legitimation of Empire and Disinformation
The principal elements of the Bush Doctrine of Empire can be
ascertained by decoding the various paragraphs and chapters of the NSS
document. The inserted page numbers refer to the official NSS document.
"Distinct American Internationalism" Based on Raw Power
Early on, the Bush Doctrine warns that "a distinctly American
internationalism" is at work in the world.
"The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly
American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and
our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the
world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are
clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other
states, and respect for human dignity." (NSS, p.1) (Emphasis added.)
For those familiar with the track record of the United States in
international affairs, it is clear what lies behind the veil of
idealistic-sounding phrases. This is a signal that the U.S. will
continue its "distinctly American" deviant behaviorunilateralism. And
as we shall see below, the U.S. Empire will also inaugurate a new form
of unilateralismunilateral preventive war.
Here is a sample track record of the "distinctly American
internationalism" raised to the status of a fundamental axiom in the
Bush Doctrine. The U.S. is NOT a signatory to dozens of U.N. or global
treaties. Here are a few examples.
* Rights of the Child
* Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming
* Ban on the Use of Land Mines
* Convention on Biological Diversity
* International Criminal Court
In the decade after the Cold War, the U.S. has had the "distinction"
of being a non-signatory to many treaties and conventions of the
United Nations. The U.S. has consciously made itself an outcast when
it comes to agreements that extend the rights of the child and women,
ban land mines, create an international criminal court, lower the
emission of gases that cause global warming, and preserve global
biodiversity, among others. It is "distinctly" unashamed of snubbing
dozens of other global initiatives meant to increase the "peace,
prosperity, and liberty" of billions around the world.
Those familiar with U.S. tactics at many UN treaty negotiations
describe the behavior of U.S. representatives as: going for the lowest
common denominator and, in the end, refusing to sign the treaty.
Knowing this track record, this "heritage" and "principle" of
unilateralism, protects us from naively believing the claim of Bush
that the U.S. will leverage its overpowering military strength for good.
The document reminds the world about the overwhelming military,
economic, and political power of the U.S.A. (NSS, p.1), capable of
creating an atmosphere of "shock and awe" in the battlefield. The
not-so-subtle message here is as follows.
Potential allies and enemies now have to choose whether they want to
be part of the Empire or against it. They can now choose to be a force
for "good" in the world or be part of the "Axis of Evil" and thus a
target of U.S. military power and covert/overt operations. The
saber-rattling of the U.S. against Iran, Syria and North Korea during
and after the war on Iraq is the same principle spoken in another
Unilateral, Preventive War Against Rogue States.
With the Bush Doctrine, U.S. unilateralism, that "distinctly American
internationalism" has mutated into a global foreign policy nightmare
for the U.N. and the nations of the world. The Bush Doctrine justifies
the Empire's upcoming invasions by identifying and defining targets as
"rogue states" (p. 14) and, irrespective of world opinion, unleashing,
unilaterally, preventive wars against terrorists and rogue states (p.
The U.S. as a Rogue State
The following statements in the National Security Strategy (NSS)
clearly lay out this foreign policy of the United States of America.
". . . [N]ew deadly challenges have emerged from rogue states and
terrorists. . . . the nature and motivations of these new adversaries,
their determination to obtain destructive powers hitherto available
only to the world's strongest states, and the greater likelihood that
they will use weapons of mass destruction against us, make today's
security environment more complex and dangerous.
"In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue
states that, while different in important ways, share a number of
attributes. These states:
brutalize their own people and squander their national resources
for the personal gain of the rulers;
display no regard for international law, threaten their
neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they
are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along
with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or
offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes;
sponsor terrorism around the globe; and
reject basic human values and hate the United States and
everything for which it stands." (p.14)
There is one fatal defect with this policy. The U.S. is the greatest
rogue state in existence today. Many of its past and current actions
fit the bill of a "rogue state".
William Blum, author of Rogue State documents in detail how the U.S.,
from 1945 to 2000, attempted regime change in 40 foreign governments
and crushed more than 30 populist movements resisting totalitarian
regimes. In the process, the U.S. bombed about 25 countries,
assassinated dozens of leaders of many countries, and contributed to
the deaths of millions of people and the suffering of millions more.
In these brutal and immoral actions, the U.S. displayed "no regard for
international law" and "callously violated international treaties" to
which "it is a party". It developed "weapons of mass destruction" and
used them "as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive
designs" of its hawkish regime. Along the way, it sponsored "terrorism
around the world" to achieve its nefarious objectives. In a number of
instances, especially in connection with the war on Vietnam and Iraq,
it "brutalized" its "own people" and "squandered its national
resources for the personal gain of its rulers". In doing all these,
the hawkish elite of the United States have basically displayed their
"rejection" of "basic human values and hate the United States and
everything for which it stands"
Unilateral, Pre-emptive War
Being a rogue state, it is not surprising that the U.S. will resort,
unilaterally, to pre-emptive war which is illegal under international
law. Who cares about international law? The U.S. is bound by only one
law, the "golden rule". He who has the "gold" rules!
The U.S. has codified this "golden rule" in the Bush Doctrine.
"War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This
nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. The conflict was
begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and
at an hour, of our choosing." (Statement of President Bush,
Washington, D.C. (The National Cathedral) September 14, 2001. NSS, p. 5.)
The U.S. is angry now that it is reaping what it has sown. In the
words of its own Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), it is "blowback"
time, the back-firing of U.S. covert policy. The U.S. wants to remain
blind to the effects of the "stealth, deceit, and murder" that it has
"waged" on many countries around the world including the Philippines,
Chile, Nicaragua, Iraq, and others. It wants to remain blind to the
fact that Osama Bin Ladin , Al Queda, and other terrorist groups are
all "blowback" creations of U.S. covert operations.
Forget all talk about multilateralism, which is supposedly the main
intent of this section of the NSS entitled, "Strengthen Alliances to
Defeat Global Terrorism". The U.S. will go about this pseudo-war on
terror in its own way and on its own terms. It is only under these
unilateral conditions that one can become a friend and ally of the
United States of America. September 11 is a perfect means to stir up
strong emotional and ultra-nationalistic sentiments among U.S.
citizens who do not discern the larger game that their elite leaders
"We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by:
· defending the United States, the American people, and our
interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat
before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly
strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will
not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of
self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to
prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country;"
(p.6) (Emphasis added.)
The U.S. is mutating and formalizing its already existing practice of
political unilateralism, which has increasingly characterized its
foreign conduct in the past decade. It will wage A PREEMPTIVE WAR on
perceived enemies of the U.S. state.
"`We have our best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the
17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace
instead of prepare for war.' President Bush West Point, New York June
1, 2002" (NSS, p.24)
Basically, the Bush Doctrine is saying that post-September 11 is the
best time to get rid of the outdated concept of the nation-state. It
has outlived its usefulness. It is now time to build a new world order
where one great power, the United States of America, competes with all
the rest and determines when to declare war and when seek peace.
The U.S. tries to legitimize its resort to preemptive war as having
precedents in international law.
"For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not
suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend
themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack.
Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the
legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threatmost
often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces
preparing to attack." (NSS, p.15)
The problem is that international law recognizes this right only under
the context of self-defense in the presence of clear and imminent
danger. The U.S. warns however, that with the Bush Doctrine, they are
now about to create a new kind of precedent and a new kind of
preemptive approach, irrespective of whether it is legal under
international law or not. They rationalize it on the basis of
September 11 and the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
"We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and
objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists . . .
they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of
mass destructionweapons that can be easily concealed, delivered
covertly, and used without warning.
". . . . 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
inactionand the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory
action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time
and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile
acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act
preemptively." (NSS, p.15)
History has subsequently shown that the UN and most nations of the
world did not buy the U.S. attempt to self-servingly extend
international law with the U.S. doctrine of pre-emptive war. Nor did
the U.N. and most nations take the bait about the alleged link between
Bin Laden and Hussein. For those in the know, Bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein were mortal enemies, the former a radical fundamentalist and
the latter an avowed secularist. Nor did the U.N. and most of the
world believe that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction.
Previous U.N. efforts had effectively dismantled most of Iraq's WMD.
The U.N. and most nations of the world were right about Iraq. The Bush
and Blair administrations have recently admitted that their own
intelligence agencies expressed doubts as to whether Iraq had WMDs,
not to mention the lack of any proof regarding the purported link
between Bin Laden and Iraq. In short, and in the words of one of the
U.S. democrats running for U.S. President, the Bush administration led
the American people to war on the basis of a lie.
It is clear that the Bush administration basically fabricated the
"facts" and ignored international law and the U.N. Despite heavy
opposition from most in the world, the U.S. declared and waged war
against Iraq. Why? The U.S. has its sights set way beyond Iraq. It has
set its eyes on inaugurating a world empire. Facts, the U.N. and world
opinion can become casualties in the pursuit of empire.
Shadow Multilateralism and Coalitions of the Willing
The Bush Doctrine lays out the U.S. game plan against the UN and other
nations. Deal with adverse global opinion by paying lip service to the
UN and other global institutions (p.3 Bush on NSS). Engage when
multilateral institutions can advance the interests of the Empire.
Drop them when they are no longer useful (p.5, 31) Create, instead,
"coalitions of the willing" (pp11, 24) as substitutes for true
multilateralism. Depend also on the shadowy world of bilateral
relations as the preferred tool to advance Empire in the different
regions of the world (pp.24-26).
"We are also guided by the conviction that no nation can build a
safer, better world alone. Alliances and multilateral institutions can
multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations. The United States is
committed to lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World
Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as
well as other long-standing alliances. Coalitions of the willing can
augment these permanent institutions. In all cases, international
obligations are to be taken seriously. They are not to be undertaken
symbolically to rally support for an ideal without furthering its
attainment." (p.3 of Bush Introduction to NSS)
Regional Alliances: The Case of Europe
The U.S. recognizes the role of other nations in building true peace
and prosperity in the world. However, in the pursuit of Empire, we
have seen in the case of the war against Iraq that the U.S. is willing
to destroy the legacy of the United Nations should the latter run
counter to U.S. interests. As we shall clearly see, the same fate
awaits formidable regional multilateral institutions like NATO.
"America will implement its strategies by organizing coalitionsas
broad as practicable of states able and willing to promote a balance
of power that favors freedom. Effective coalition leadership requires
clear priorities, an appreciation of others' interests, and consistent
consultations among partners with a spirit of humility." (p.24)
If the U.S. cannot depend on the UN, it will instead rely on its own
kind of shadowy multilateralism which it calls, "the coalition of the
willing". In effect, a "coalition of the willing" is just the U.S.
term for the old imperial practice of establishing and governing a
network of vassal and tributary states, on the basis of mutual
self-interest and survival. The U.S. is not a "territorial empire"
and therefore needs the help and support of states that prefer to come
under its control in exchange for economic and political benefits.
Thus, among others, the above phrase regarding "consistent
consultations among partners with a spirit of humility" is nothing but
a smokescreen for the purely utilitarian practice of "you scratch my
back and I will scratch yours". It is also a gross caricature of the
true practice of multilateralism. In the run-up to the war in Iraq,
the U.S. insulted some of its most important historical and strategic
allies like France and Europe, in general. U.S. Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, for example, insulted its allies in the EU by calling
them "old Europe".
Thus, the following NSS perspective on Europe, given the above
imperial realpolitik, can only come across as hollow and self-serving.
"There is little of lasting consequence that the United States can
accomplish in the world without the sustained cooperation of its
allies and friends in Canada and Europe. Europe is also the seat of
two of the strongest and most able international institutions in the
world: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which has, since
its inception, been the fulcrum of transatlantic and inter-European
security, and the European Union (EU), our partner in opening world
The NSS further states:
" take advantage of the technological opportunities and economies of
scale in our defense spending to transform NATO military forces so
that they dominate potential aggressors and diminish our
Not content with insulting and basically marginalizing Europe, U.S.
hawks now want to leverage NATO to become its de facto army in that
region of the world. They will invest in NATO, but, of course, only if
NATO continues to be a docile instrument of the U.S. Empire.
The NSS then goes on with a telling remark:
maintain the ability to work and fight together as allies even as we
take the necessary steps to transform and modernize our forces." (p.25)
The operative Freudian-slip here is "even as". The U.S. plan is
basically saying the following. Let us not put our eggs in one basket.
Meanwhile, let us use NATO to buy time while we modernize our forces
to achieve complete global military superiority. NATO is a
transitional strategy, especially in case France and Germany and
Russia do not ultimately climb on board the "Empire express train".
But by that time, we will have our "Star Wars" operational, thereby
giving us global military dominance, with or without NATO, by using an
array of smart and highly advanced weapons in outer space to
complement our conventional military superiority.
Other Regional Formations
NATO and Europe are examples of what the U.S. intends to do in the
different regions of the world. In developing global coalitions and
regional alliances, the U.S. will identify key institutions it will
leverage to advance its goal of Empire. It will provide the "carrot"
incentive approach to institutions like APEC and ASEAN, in addition to
the "stick "of military power. Thus,
" build on stability provided by these alliances, as well as with
institutions such as ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
forum, to develop a mix of regional and bilateral strategies to manage
change in this dynamic region." (NSS, p.26)
Alongside these regional economic and political alliances, the U.S.
will also build strong military coalitions of the willing.
"The attacks of September 11 energized America's Asian alliances.
Australia invoked the ANZUS Treaty to declare the September 11 was an
attack on Australia itself, following that historic decision with the
dispatch of some of the world's finest combat forces for Operation
Enduring Freedom. Japan and the Republic of Korea provided
unprecedented levels of military logistical support within weeks of
the terrorist attack. We have deepened cooperation on
counter-terrorism with our alliance partners in Thailand and the
Philippines and received invaluable assistance from close friends like
Singapore and New Zealand." (p.26)
Instead of an embarrassment, the U.S. is starting to use the September
11 tragedy to energize its global military networks. It now becomes
decisive as to whether the U.S. can win over, one by one, the key
military regional forces of the world and align its relations with
them under the new context of U.S. Empire. If successful, the U.S.
will therefore have created a global military projection unprecedented
in human history.
The regional military formations will constitute the vassal or
tributary military forces of the U.S. Empire. They will help police
national and regional hot spots, or attempts to resist the Empire.
In short, the U.S., using a "mix" of "soft" and hard military power,
will leverage the resources of naïve, weak, or ambitious governments
and regimes to attain the global objectives of Empire.
Bilateral Sweeteners or Intimidation as Preferred Instruments for
Creating "Coalitions of the Willing" to Advance Empire
Creating global and regional "coalitions of the willing" are
important. The U.S., however, intends to do important foundational
work at the level of the nation state, especially with countries of
strategic value from the U.S. point of view.
"This Administration invested time and resources building strong
bilateral relations with India and Pakistan. These strong relations
then gave us leverage to play a constructive role when tensions in the
region became acute." (p.10)
"Africa's great size and diversity requires a security strategy that
focuses on bilateral engagement and builds coalitions of the willing."
The U.S. has subverted the true spirit of multilateralism and has
appropriated it for the purpose of building a global empire.
"Coalitions of the willing", even at the bilateral level, are all
about consolidating strategic control over key territories of the
world and of constraining potential aspirants to world power.
Hence, Chapter VIII of the NSS, "Develop Agendas for Cooperative
Action with the Other Main Centers of Global Power", is really about
U.S. strategy in connection with potential threats to U.S. supremacy
and rule. This Chapter identifies the key challengers to and potential
support for U.S. hegemony. It discusses how these key nations can
either be neutralized as a force or kept within the ambit of the U.S.
Empire as a de facto tributary state.
If this seems a far fetched interpretation, decision makers are
encouraged to read Zbigniew Brezenski's The Global Chessboard and
Rebuilding America's Defenses issued by the Project for a New American
Century (PNAC). Both lay out the geopolitical and military imperatives
of Pax Americana. The insights of both are echoed in the NSS or Bush
PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses is especially relevant since the
founders of PNAC now occupy top positions of the U.S. government,
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld, among others. It is also clear that most of PNAC's Building
America's Defense heavily influenced the direction and content of the
Thus all these initiatives under the guise of "cooperative" action
could be more accurately described as strategies of containment of
potential rivals as well as strategies for maintaining the co-optation
of vassal and tributary nation states.
Iraq as Demonstration Case and To Be Part of Global Network of Bases
The U.S. means business. It will demonstrate (and has demonstrated)
its will to establish a global Empire by attacking Iraq. For the U.S.,
Iraq is a test case, showing its resolve to advance its plan of world
domination. After Iraq, the U.S. will tackle the problem of North
Korea (p.6, 14), with eyes towards other "rogue" states.
In addition, the defeat of Iraq will enable the U.S. to have a
permanent land base in a strategic area (pp.29-30) like the Middle
East. This continues the old U.S. practice of establishing permanent
military bases in and around conquered areas. Empires can govern only
if they can ward off security threats through forward military bases.
The Bush Doctrine is hoping that people have forgotten that after the
first Iraq war, the U.S. established military bases in Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. When the
U.S. bombed Yugoslavia, it ended up with military bases in Kosovo,
Albania, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia. After the defeat of
Afghanistan, the United States is now establishing military bases in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan,
and Georgia. Why do you think the U.S. still has major bases in
Germany, Japan and Korea; decades after World War II and the Korean
Iraq as Test Case. North Korea to Follow
The NSS is explicit about its intentions.
"We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by:
· direct and continuous actions using all the elements of
international power. Our immediate focus will be those terrorist
organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of
terrorism which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) or their precursors." (p. 6)
"In the past decade North Korea has become the world's principal
purveyor of ballistic missiles, and has tested increasingly capable
missiles while developing its own WMD arsenal. Other rogue regimes
seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well. . . . . We
must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients
before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction
against the United States and our allies and friends." (p.14)
The U.S. will wage war on any country or terrorist network that has
the potential for terrorism and WMD. However, under the context of the
Bush Doctrine, the Iraq war is ultimately not about terrorism or WMD,
but about the implementation of a new doctrine of global Empire by the
United States. And so it will also be with future potential wars
against North Korea and other countries, including Iran and Syria. The
war against terrorism will be the continued excuse for the U.S. to
unleash unilateral preventive war outside the ambit of international
law and the processes of the UN.
Dominate the World Through Strategic Network of Military Bases
The war on "rogue" states serves an additional purpose.
"The presence of American forces overseas is one of the most profound
symbols of the U.S. commitments to allies and friends. Through our
willingness to use force in our own defense and in defense of others,
the United States demonstrates its resolve to maintain a balance of
power that favors freedom. To contend with uncertainty and to meet the
many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases
and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as
well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment
of U.S. forces." (NSS, p.29)
The first sentence in this quote is obviously self-serving. The
presence of U.S. bases and/or forces around the world is there to
ensure global domination and to encourage weak states and leaders to
align themselves with imperial America. Seemingly altruistic military
exercises, including the Balikatan exercises in the Philippines, are
ultimately there to advance the strategic interests of the U.S.
Empire. If the U.S. cannot have a permanent base, at least they can
have a "visiting" right to land its armed forces in vassal countries
beholden to the Empire.
The military presence also serves another purpose. When bilateral
intimidation fails, when "soft power" falters, then the U.S. can have
immediate recourse to "hard power", its "big stick"visible military
deployment and "shock and awe" techniques.
Suppression of Military Competition and Global Police
For the U.S., maintaining its Empire means, foremost of all,
maintaining its military superiority. It aims to achieve this in two
ways. It will continue to build the U.S. military as the
overwhelmingly dominant military force in the world. Second, the U.S.
will sustain its Empire by preventing the rise of a competing military
power anywhere in the world (pp.29-31).
It is this latter historically unprecedented intent which clearly
signals the intention of the U.S. to be a world empire. One can forget
all the rhetoric about "rogue states". This rationale, which is
clearly a lame excuse, is insignificant and pales in comparison with
the real military and political intention of the Bush Doctrinethe
establishment of the world's first global Empire.
And when the U.S. carries the biggest "stick" in the world and has
prevented others from carrying an equally big "stick", then the U.S.
can act as a global policeman, encouraging or compelling other nations
to stay within the limits set by the U.S. Empire. The U.S. will
"compel" (p.6) other countries to follow its foreign priorities. As a
global police, the U.S. will reward allies and friends that follow its
lead through, among others, its multi-billion dollar Millennium
Challenge Account (pp.21-22), thereby dividing and conquering the world. .
The NSS clearly articulates these strategic intentions.
"It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military
strength. We must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge.
Our military's highest priority is to defend the United States. To do
so effectively, our military must:
assure our allies and friends;
dissuade future military competition;
deter threats against U.S. interests, allies, and friends; and
decisively defeat any adversary if deterrence fails." (p.29)
Let us now take a close look at the various aspects of this military
doctrine which underpins the pursuit of Empire.
Maintaining Overwhelming Military Superiority
The NSS reaffirms "the essential role of American military strength"
which it must "build and maintain". Under the context of Empire, it is
not surprising that the U.S. military budget is larger than all the
military budgets of the world combined. It needs to sustain the giant
appetite of its five global military commands; supervising more than a
million armed men and women on four continents and deploying carrier
battle groups in every ocean of the world.
And the U.S. will leave no stone unturned in its quest to "maintain"
its overwhelming military dominance.
"Before the war in Afghanistan, that area was low on the list of major
planning contingencies. Yet, in a very short time, we had to operate
across the length and breadth of that remote nation, using every
branch of the armed forces. We must prepare for more such deployments
by developing assets such as advanced remote sensing, long-range
precision strike capabilities, and transformed maneuver and
expeditionary forces. This broad portfolio of military capabilities
must also include the ability to defend the homeland, conduct
information operations, ensure U.S. access to distant theaters, and
protect critical U.S. infrastructure and assets in outer space."
(pp.29-30) (Emphasis added.)
The U.S. drive for military superiority will include "information
operations" including covert spying and psychological warfare, "U.S.
access to distant theaters" or the capability to conduct war in
multiple theaters simultaneously, and the protection of "critical U.S.
. . . assets in outer space", a euphemism for the increased military
use of space.
The Bush Doctrine, in effect, is accelerating the deployment of "Stars
Wars", the military program that will confer "full spectrum dominance"
by means of sophisticated space-based weapons systems, including
new generation laser guns, nuclear weapons, and the transformation of
the ionosphere into a combat zone with super-weapons capable of
disrupting communications systems, shutting off power lines, and
exploding underground tunnels. With "Star Wars", the U.S. will
inaugurate, for the first time in world history, a military capability
that can paralyze the most advanced military operations anywhere in
No competing military power
The NSS further states:
"We must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge. To do so
effectively, our military must:
dissuade future military competition;
. . . and, decisively defeat any adversary if deterrence fails."
(p.29) (Emphasis added)
The Bush Doctrine is not satisfied with this display of unmatched
military power. It will make sure that the other "great powers" are
not able, singly or in alliances, to challenge the U.S. (pp.26-27). In
the words of a 1997 Pentagon study, "Our first objective is to prevent
the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former
Soviet Union or elsewhere ... we must maintain the mechanisms for
deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger
regional or global role."
The NSS spells out more clearly what it means by dissuading future
"We know from history that deterrence can fail; and we know from
experience that some enemies cannot be deterred. The United States
must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an
enemywhether a state or non-state actorto impose its will on the
United States, our allies, or our friends. We will maintain the forces
sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our
forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from
pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the
power of the United States." (p.30)
"Translated", this quotation means the following.
There will be no other superpower in the world other than the United
States of America. The U.S. will prevent any competition for its
superpower status, whether globally or in any single theater of the
world. The U.S. will encourage its allies (vassals) and friends
(tributaries) to stay aligned with overwhelming U.S. power.
This policy is probably one of the most shocking aspects of the Bush
Doctrine. News accounts have it that this is the reason why this
military doctrine was placed towards the end of the National Security
Strategy. In an earlier version, in 1990, it was formerly known as the
Cheney Doctrine after Dick Cheney who was Secretary of Defense under
George Bush, Sr. at that time. It was so controversial then that the
Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations tabled this hawkish approach.
When joined together with the doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive war,
then you have the military foundations of the U.S. Empire in full view.
Operationally this arrogant military approach entails the need to
properly manage potential competitors for global military supremacy.
"We are attentive to the possible renewal of old patterns of great
power competition. Several potential great powers are now in the midst
of internal transitionmost importantly Russia, India, and China. In
all three cases, recent developments have encouraged our hope that a
truly global consensus about basic principles is slowly taking shape."
(NSS, p.26) . . . .
"The events of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the context
for relations between the United States and other main centers of
global power, and opened vast, new opportunities. With our
long-standing allies in Europe and Asia, and with leaders in Russia,
India, and China, we must develop active agendas of cooperation lest
these relationships become routine and unproductive.
Every agency of the United States Government shares the challenge. We
can build fruitful habits of consultation, quiet argument, sober
analysis, and common action. In the long-term, these are the practices
that will sustain the supremacy of our common principles and keep open
the path of progress." (p.28)
The calculating mind of the U.S. imperial strategists recognizes the
opportunities latent in the current challenges that Russia, China, and
India are facing. The general approach of the U.S. is to lure, as a
first choice, the great powers into the orbit of American
intereststhrough seemingly altruistic intentions.
This is clear in the case of Russia, for example, where the U.S. is
facilitating the involvement of Russia in NATO through the NATO-Russia
Council, and, as a possibility, the U.S. sponsorship of Russia in the WTO.
Meanwhile, the Bush Doctrine will rely on the old and favored approach
"We will continue to bolster the independence and stability of the
states of the former Soviet Union in the belief that a prosperous and
stable neighborhood will reinforce Russia's growing commitment to
integration into the Euro-Atlantic community." (p.27)
In other worlds, the U.S. will never allow Russia to come together
again with its former allies as a reborn U.S.S.R. Instead the U.S.
will continue to either isolate Russia or encourage it to integrate
with U.S.-influenced Europe.
The Bush Doctrine strategy for China is not only patronizing; it is
unsophisticated, short-sighted and dangerous.
"In pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its
neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region, China is following an outdated
path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national
greatness. In time, China will find that social and political freedom
is the only source of that greatness." (p.27)
This overt "lecturing at" and tongue-in-cheek name-calling by the U.S.
of one of the most powerful countries in the world is uncalled for and
destabilizing. The U.S. also is clearly telling "outdated" China that
the U.S. path to progress is the superior one and the path to salvation.
The U.S. is also being hypocritical in its judgment of China. The U.S.
has the most advanced military systems that threaten the world. But
this inconsistency is fine. When the U.S. possesses the weapons, it is
not a threat to anybody!
But the U.S. is not satisfied with its hypocritical name-calling.
"We expect China to adhere to its nonproliferation commitments. We
will work to narrow differences where they exist, but not allow them
to preclude cooperation where we agree." (p.28)
In other words, China has to adhere to its nonproliferation
commitments while the U.S. can wantonly violate its own
nonproliferation promises. This contradiction is only understanding
under the context of an Empire which sees itself as the ideological
model and the law-giver, one that is above the law itself.
Global Policeman: Carrots for Followers and Sticks for Enemies of the
Maintaining and increasing its global military hegemony, the U.S. can
now step into its role as the policeman of the world.
"We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by:
· denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to
terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their
sovereign responsibilities." (p.6) (Emphasis added.)
As part of their responsibility, nation states have the obligation not
to support terrorism within their boundaries. If they fail in this
responsibility, they lose their sovereign rights as a nation. The U.S.
will come in and "compel" them to get rid of terrorists. In this way,
the U.S. will become the policeman of the world.
In the pursuit of democracy, compulsion will not only be the other
name of war. Compulsion, as a prelude to war, will also have the same
status and urgency as war.
`In World War II we fought to make the world safer, then worked to
rebuild it. As we wage war today to keep the world safe from terror,
we must also work to make the world a better place for all its
citizens.' President Bush Washington, D.C. (Inter-American Development
Bank) March 14, 2002" (NSS, p.21)
So much for the promotion of freedom and democracy around the world.
As a global cop, the U.S. can also play another set of cards.
"The United States should be realistic about its ability to help those
who are unwilling or unready to help themselves. Where and when people
are ready to do their part, we will be willing to move decisively." (p.9)
The U.S. is sending a clear message that they will reward allies
supportive of their Empire. But, in this paragraph, the U.S. is vague
about those who are "unwilling" to help themselves. However, as noted
in p.6 of the NSS above, the U.S. stands ready to "compel" states to
accept "their sovereign responsibilities." It becomes clear that
deviant or "rogue" states will be the target of U.S. covert and overt
operations if they are not willing to align themselves with the goals
of the U.S. Empire.
To develop the case for "compulsion", the soft power approach of
diplomacy will first be tried. But even here, the U.S envisions
justifying radical societal engineering through diplomacy.
"Our diplomats serve at the front line of complex negotiations, civil
wars, and other humanitarian catastrophes. As humanitarian relief
requirements are better understood, we must also be able to help build
police forces, court systems, and legal codes, local and provincial
government institutions, and electoral systems. Effective
international cooperation is needed to accomplish these goals, backed
by American readiness to play our part." (NSS, p.31)
Then, if this radical form of societal engineering fails, the U.S.
will "act apart", that is, bare-fisted, it will demonstrate its
"unique responsibilities" using the cold, steel hands of Empire. This
is what the following statement means when read in the context of
global military supremacy.
"In exercising our leadership, we will respect the values, judgment,
and interests of our friends and partners. Still, we will be prepared
to act apart when our interests and unique responsibilities require."
The U.S. will feign understanding of the concerns of other nations. If
the other nations do not agree with the U.S., then the U.S. will
"compel" them with the many different instruments that it has at its
disposal. The U.S., for example, recently threatened to "punish"
France, a major world power, for leading the UN opposition against the
U.S. war on Iraq.
Systemic Societal Approach
Tempting as it is for the world's most powerful military power, the
U.S. understands that it ultimately cannot rely on military force
alone. The U.S. also aims to conquer the economic, political, and
cultural battlegrounds of the world. The Bush Doctrine therefore calls
for wide-ranging societal revolutions to remake nations into docile
vassals or tributaries of the Empire. It will create laws or practices
for others, but exempt the U.S. itself as in the case of weapons of
mass destruction (p.3, 5, 14, 15).
The U.S. will guide all other aspects of foreign policy under the
rubric of Empire (p.4). It will secure the economic basis of Empire
through free trade (pp17-20 and all of Chapter VI). It supports the
corporate or elite globalization championed by the World Trade
Organization, World Bank and IMF even though the policies and programs
of these institutions result in massive poverty and social
disorderthe very conditions that give rise to terrorism. The U.S.
will increase and align development aid to advance, like a Trojan
horse, the goals of the Empire (pp.21-23 and all of Chapter VII).
As part of its systemic societal approach, the Empire will encourage
the trappings of shallow democracy and pepper the world with
pseudo-democratic leaders that are beholden to the wishes of the
United States. In Iraq, the U.S. is already setting up the beginnings
of a new puppet regime, friendly to U.S. interests. The U.S. is
ensuring that the fundamentalist Shiite majority do not take over the
government of Iraq.
The Bush Doctrine recognizes the power of global civil society. So it
also has developed a game plan to co-opt civil society. The Doctrine
calls for harnessing the energies of civil society to enhance the
national security of the United States of America. In the guise of
cooperation and partnership, it aims to co-opt civil society to
support the Empire project or at least to be silent about it. The Bush
Doctrine thereby makes it more difficult for authentic, strategic, and
critical tri-sector partnershipswhich do exist, to create a world
radically different from Empire.
And, nations beware!! The Bush Doctrine has now designated the U.S.
State Department (and all its embassies) to promote all the
non-military elements of the Empire.
Free Trade As Economic Framework for Empire
The U.S. will continue to rely on the neo-liberal doctrine of "free"
trade as the economic framework for its Empire. Not only is "free"
trade an ideology. For the U.S. it is also a "moral principle". The
U.S. intends to "seize the global initiative" in the arena of "free"
trade, especially within the context of the WTO.
"The lessons of history are clear: market economies, not
command-and-control economies with the heavy hand of government, are
the best way to promote prosperity and reduce poverty. Policies that
further strengthen market incentives and market institutions are
relevant for all economiesindustrialized countries, emerging markets,
and the developing world." (NSS, p.17)
"The concept of `free trade' arose as a moral principle even before it
became a pillar of economics. . . . To promote free trade, the Unites
States has developed a comprehensive strategy:
Seize the global initiative. The new global trade negotiations we
helped launch at Doha in November 2001 will have an ambitious agenda,
especially in agriculture, manufacturing, and services, targeted for
completion in 2005. The United States has led the way in completing
the accession of China and a democratic Taiwan to the World Trade
Organization. We will assist Russia's preparations to join the WTO."
It is important to recognize how the Bush Doctrine is reframing the
whole economic globalization debate under the rubric of its war on
terrorism and quest for Empire. Those familiar with the
elite/corporate globalization debate know how mixing up of the two
concernstrade and empire, will have distortive effects on both trade
For one, the effects of mixing imperial objectives in the conduct of
trade will not result in prosperity. This unhealthy mix will provide
uncertainty, unpredictability, and continued lack of peace and order,
among others. This is clear in the case of the examples detailed in
the Bush Doctrine.
"Beyond market access, the most important area where trade intersects
with poverty is in public health. We will ensure that the WTO
intellectual property rules are flexible enough to allow developing
nations to gain access to critical medicines for extraordinary dangers
like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria." (NSS, p.19)
This turns out to be a bad illustration in the light of objections by
U.S. transnational corporations on the use of the drugs without
intellectual property compensation.
"Enforce trade agreements and laws against unfair practices. Commerce
depends on the rule of law; international trade depends on enforceable
agreements." (p. 19)
This is also another problematic statement given the propensity of the
U.S. to violate WTO rules for its own gains. The U.S., for example,
has imposed steeper tariffs on steel imports to protect its steel
industry. The WTO recently found this practice in violation of WTO
rules. Yet, such actions will increasingly become common on the part
of the U.S., especially now that its unilateral streak has mutated
into a full blown desire for Empire.
"We will strengthen our own energy security and the shared prosperity
of the global economy by working with our allies, trading partners,
and energy producers to expand the sources and types of global energy
supplied, especially in the Western Hemisphere, Africa, Central Asia,
and the Caspian region." (NSS, p.19-20)
This is an almost incredulous statement given that the U.S. went to
war in Iraq partly to secure Iraq's vast oil reserves for itself. This
surely will "strengthen" the "energy security" of the U.S., but not in
the way idealized in the Bush Doctrine.
Here is another amazingly flawed statement from the Bush Doctrine.
"Economic growth should be accompanied by global efforts to stabilize
greenhouse gas concentrations associated with this growth, containing
them at a level that prevents dangerous human interference with the
global climate. Our overall objective is to reduce America's
greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy, cutting
such emissions per unit of economic activity by 18 percent over the
next 10 years, by the year 2012." (NSS, p.20)
This claim is empty especially following the withdrawal of the United
States from the Kyoto Protocol, the global agreement designed to cut
down greenhouse emissions. The U.S. withdrew because it found the
targets of the Kyoto Protocol too stringent.
Oblivious to its inconsistencies, the Bush Doctrine asserts:
"Our strategies for attaining this goal will be to:
remain committed to the basic U.N. Framework Convention for
promote renewable energy production and clean coal technology,
as well as nuclear powerwhich produces no greenhouse gas emissions,
while also improving fuel economy for U.S. cars and trucks; " (NSS, p.20)
assist developing countries, especially the major greenhouse gas
emitters such as China and India, so that they will have the tools and
resources to join this effort and be able to grow along a cleaner and
better path." (NSS, p.20)
All these statements can be taken with a grain of salt. The U.S. has
demonstrated so many times its low regard for the UN and has not
participated in many of its agreements. And, of course, recently, the
U.S. humiliated the U.N. for not endorsing the war on Iraq.
Furthermore, the U.S. statement on nuclear energy is self-serving and
is really a cover for facilitating the export of a dying and hazardous
The U.S. is the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter. And it has not
demonstrated the political and economic will to reduce its emissions.
So the statement above is vacuous. It will be like the blind leading
the blind. How can the world's biggest polluter, which does not want
to curb its greenhouse emissions to conform to global standards,
achieve any level of moral suasion over other greenhouse gas-emitting
nations like China and India?
Development and Aid as Trojan Horse for Empire
Even an enthusiastic supporter of "free" trade like the U.S. realizes
that economic assistance and "free" trade alone are not enough. The
whole spectrum of development concerns have to be addressed.
"Decades of massive development assistance have failed to spur
economic growth in the poorest countries. Worse, development aid has
often served to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for
reform and perpetuating misery. Results of aid are typically measured
in dollars spent by donors, not in the rates of growth and poverty
reduction achieved by recipients. These are the indicators of a failed
This is actually a perfect description of the impact of U.S. aid,
which has often operated under the ambit of the Cold War and now
operates under the ambit of world Empire. The U.S. Agency for
International Development, with its many conditionalities, hidden
agendas, and low-intensity-conflict programs, is one of the least
progressive aid institutions in the world. Furthermore, as a
percentage of its GNP, the U.S. has one of the world's lowest aid
budgets. In addition, U.S. development aid is linked heavily with
overt U.S. geopolitical and military objectives. Among the largest
recipients of U.S. aid are Israel, Turkey, and Pakistan. Now that aid
has formally come under the orbit of the Bush Doctrine of Empire, the
situation can only get worse.
And now another remarkable statement from the Bush Doctrine.
"A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the
human race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable.
Including all of the world's poor in an expanding circle of
developmentand opportunityis a moral imperative and one of the top
priorities of U.S. international policy." (NSS, p.21)
This statement indirectly exonerates the U.S. from any responsibility
for the billions of poor people around the world. However, U.S.
policies of war, covert operation, installation of dictatorial
regimes, and "free" trade, among others, have caused and are causing
many of the suffering of the world.
And here comes the "carrot" for those that would follow the star of
Provide resources to aid countries that have met the challenge of
national reform. We propose a 50 percent increase in the core
development assistance given by the United States. While continuing
our present programs, including humanitarian assistance based on need
alone, these billions of new dollars will form a new Millennium
Challenge Account for projects in countries whose governments rule
justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom.
Governments must fight corruption, respect basic human rights, embrace
the rule of law, invest in health care and education, follow
responsible economic policies, and enable entrepreneurship. The
Millennium Challenge Account will reward countries that have
demonstrated real policy change and challenge those that have not to
implement reforms." (NSS, pp.21-22)
In effect, the U.S. is saying this. We will subtly or not so subtly
advise or nag leaders regarding how they are running their countries.
They will be amply rewarded should they decide to align themselves
with the social framework and style of the Empire.
The World Bank and other multilateral development banks will not
escape the pressure to align policies and programs with that of the
U.S. Empire. The U.S. will see to it that the World Bank, IMF, and
other similar institutions will lock step with the marching orders of
"Improve the effectiveness of the World Bank and other development
banks in raising living standards. The United States is committed to a
comprehensive reform agenda for making the World Bank and the other
multilateral development banks more effective in improving the lives
of the world's poor." (NSS, p.22)
Establishing a global empire is both an immediate and a long term
commitment for the U.S. It therefore needs to deal with the nemesis of
empires past: the hearts and minds of people around the world. This
will require investing in approaches that will shape a consciousness
and a feeling supportive of Empire.
"Emphasize education. Literacy and learning are the foundation of
democracy and development. Only about 7 percent of World Bank
resources are devoted to education. This proportion should grow. The
United States will increase its own funding for education assistance
by at least 20 percent with an emphasis on improving basic education
and teacher training in Africa. The United States can also bring
information technology to these societies, many of whose education
systems have been devastated by HIV/AIDS." (NSS, p.23)
The U.S. recognizes the immense value of education in the permanent
subjugation of a people. You have not conquered a people unless you
have also subjugated their soul and spirit. They know this from their
first imperial adventure when they took over the global possessions of
the Spanish Empire. The U.S. sent their teachers to the Philippines to
"educate" their "brown brothers." Over 90 years later, most Filipinos
still have a hard time shedding their colonial mentality.
The U.S. wants to make sure that its effort in building an empire is
pervasive. Therefore, the U.S. even has an agriculture and
agricultural biotechnology component in its quest for a global empire.
"Continue to aid agricultural development. New technologies, including
biotechnology, have enormous potential to improve crop yields in
developing countries while using fewer pesticides and less water.
Using sound science, the United States should help bring these
benefits to the 800 million people, including 300 million children,
who still suffer from hunger and malnutrition." (NSS, p. 23)
The Bush Doctrine is the perfect context to understand the biotech war
that is going on between the U.S. and the EU at the present time. The
U.S. has sued the EU before the WTO because the EU has declared a
moratorium on the import of genetically engineered products into
Europe. The EU has signaled its intention to lift the moratorium but
will replace it with labeling requirements. Of course, the U.S., the
supreme defender of "freedom" and human rights, does not support the
consumers' right to know and continues to object to EU policies. Under
the Bush Doctrine, the U.S. wants to maintain its economic basis of
Empire and is therefore positioning its biotech industry to gain
control over the land regions of the world.
There is also something interesting in the tone and language of this
explicit support for the biotech industry in the Bush Doctrine. It
seems as if it was written by the biotech industry which has very deep
connection with the U.S. government, whether Republican or Democrat.
Above the Law: Empire As Law-Giver, not Law-Follower
In all these areas of "free" trade, societal development, and aid, the
U.S. will de facto provide the new global rules. However, it will not
bind itself to these new rules.
"In many regions, legitimate grievances prevent the emergence of a
lasting peace. Such grievances deserve to be, and must be, addressed
within a political process. But no cause justifies terror. The United
States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no
deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those
who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them." NSS, p. 5.
What is the U.S. really saying with a statement like this? Follow what
we say but not what we do. Only the United States can use
extra-political means, like covert operations, terror and war, to
press its grievances against other countries. If other countries
imitate the U.S., then they will become the victims of the U.S.-led
global war on rogue states and terrorism.
"America must stand firmly for the nonnegotiable de<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
- To Soren,
Thanks for the informative article. I have read it through once but shalln't
make comment as my present train of thoughts is too far from the subject
matter for me to really get to grips with it. In other words the detail of
significance has not properly sunk in for me. As the Iraq war was looming I
remember remarking that the political idealists must now be drawn out again.
Right across Europe reactionary forces are rising in political power. There
are no moral idealists to combat them.
This e-mail message may contain privileged/confidential information.
It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the indicated
addressee (or responsible for delivery to such a person)
you shall neither read nor retain this message, copy or distribute it to
anyone, or use this e-mail for any other purpose. In such cases, please
destroy the message immediately and notify the sender by return e-mail.