Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Perlas on US as Empire

Expand Messages
  • ziggy_se
    I recommend the following article Soren http://www.freewebs.com/tcfactory/threefold/start.htm DECODING THE BU.S.H DOCTRINE — THE U.S. AS EMPIRE By Nicanor
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 31 8:33 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I recommend the following article


      By Nicanor Perlas[1]

      August 2003

      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 Iraq—not 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 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 unprecedented—and unequaled—strength 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)


      Even taking the policy document at face value, there are already
      profoundly problematic elements deeply embedded in the Bush
      Doctrine—Pre-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 policy—the 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 behavior—unilateralism. And
      as we shall see below, the U.S. Empire will also inaugurate a new form
      of unilateralism—unilateral 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.
      6, 15.)

      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 party;

      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[2] 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
      are playing.

      "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 threat—most
      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 destruction—weapons 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
      inaction—and 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.[3]

      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 coalitions—as
      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.[4] 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
      trade." (p.24)

      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
      vulnerabilities; (p.24)

      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
      Bush Doctrine.

      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
      War ended?

      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.[5]

      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 Doctrine—the
      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)
      (Emphasis added.)

      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[6], 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
      the world.

      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
      military competition.

      "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
      enemy—whether a state or non-state actor—to 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 transition—most 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
      interests—through 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
      of divide-and-rule.

      "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
      disorder—the 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 partnerships[7]—which 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 economies—industrialized 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."
      (NSS, p.18)

      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
      concerns—trade and empire, will have distortive effects on both trade
      and security.

      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
      international cooperation;

      promote renewable energy production and clean coal technology,
      as well as nuclear power—which 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
      strategy." (P.21)

      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
      development—and opportunity—is 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
      the Empire.

      "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)
    • Maurice McCarthy
      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
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        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.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.