Just International

West’s battle for Russian ‘hearts and minds’: NGOs on steroids (Op-Ed)

The Russian Duma has just passed amendments to the Russian NGO law.

Russian NGOs receiving foreign funding will now have to register at the Ministry of Justice as an “NGO carrying out functions as a foreign agent”, make public their sources of funding by marking it on the materials they distribute, and report semi-annually to the Ministry of Justice on their activities.

This law, a great majority of Russians believe, is long overdue. In the past 25 years, billions of dollars have been pouring into Russia from the US State Department and its subsidiary agencies like the US Agency for International Development (USAID – nearly $3 billion alone), as well as from so-called “private foundations” like the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, and George Soros’s Open Society Institute. All of these institutions, judging by their activities and leadership’s biographies, have important ties to the US State Department, the intelligence community, Cold War and the “color revolutions”.

The goal of all this money was not to express Washington’s generous love of Russia, its culture or its people. In addition to building a loyal infrastructure, it aimed at “winning hearts and minds” – and along the way oil, gas, and military capacity. It has all been about “opening” – “open society”, “open economy”, “open Russia”, “open government” – open for brainwashing, economic plunder, for hijacking Russia’s domestic and foreign policies.

Conquest by war is always an option for the US, as we have seen in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and now in Syria. But “victory without war” is cheaper and more effective, as the collapse of Soviet Union has tragically shown.

What did Western funding do to the Russian civil society while pursuing military objectives by “peaceful means”? Might it have accidentally contributed to building democracy in Russia? The word “democracy” here is understood in its original sense, as government of the people for the people, not in Washington’s interpretation as a loyal regime subservient to US interest.

In fact, the multibillions of Western funding have profoundly distorted Russian civil society. A marginal pro-American group of NGOs that was pumped up with US dollars like a bodybuilder with steroids -it has gained much muscle and shine. Those few Russians willing to serve foreign interests were provided nice offices, comfortable salaries, printing presses, training, publicity, and political and organizing technology which gave them far more capacity, visibility, and influence that they could possibly have had on their own. Money and spin are the only means to promote unpopular ideas, alien to national interests.

On the other side is the silent majority of people who is squeezed out of the public space. In Western, and also in Russian media, civil society turns out to be represented by Ludmila Alekseyeva (The Helsinki Group), Boris Nemtsov and Gary Kasparov, rather than by a worker from the Urals, teacher from Novosibirsk or a farmer from Krasnodar Region.

Moreover, Russian NGOs not addicted to Western funding are put under serious pressure from Western funders and their local outlets to join the club. Once the Russian organization shows its effectiveness, its leadership receives a call from US Embassy, and an invitation to visit. Money offers follow shortly. If the Russian NGO dares to refuse the bait, one or several mirror organizations are created that, with massive funding and publicity, hijack the subject, fill it out with its agenda and occupy the field.

For projects in education, for example, suddenly it will be all Anglo-Saxon models and values. For projects fighting abuse by the police, this fight will be selective and serving to compile incriminatory evidence on loyal officials designed to create hostility to the government in general, rather than truly fighting these intolerable practices. In the field of business associations, one Russian NGO was denounced by a major US-allied corporation for “excessively defending the rights of domestic producers”.

No, Western funding does not contribute to strengthening Russian democracy. It only extends the battle field for pro-American forces against patriotic forces. Like steroids, Western funding is injected in the weaker spots of the targeted civil society. Like steroids, it is addictive. Like steroids, it corrupts the mind and body of the political organism. It transforms the target nation into a sick and dependent collaborating entity deprived of independent will, mind, and heart.

Russia and other countries subject to Western funding infusions must take charge of their domestic problems. Building a patriotic civil society cannot be outsourced. Democratic processes and national security cannot be outsourced – all the more so to openly hostile governments.

These NGO amendments, by correcting an evident gap in our laws, take a major step in leveling the playing field. But this step needs to be followed by further measures that strengthen our national civil societies.

By Veronika Krasheninnikova

13 July, 2012

­Veronika Krasheninnikova, Director General of the Institute for Foreign Policy Research and Initiatives in Moscow, for RT

­The statements, views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

© Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005 – 2011. All rights reserved.

We Must Bury Imperialism in Africa or Perish

Muammar Qaddafi is dead and the Al Fateh revolution has been rolled back. Two months after his death, on October 2011, the imperialists, in collaboration with the Salafists in Tripoli and Khartoum, orchestrated the assassination of the revolutionary leader of the Sudanese Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), Dr Khalid Ibrahim. On a recent visit to Tripoli, president of Sudan, Omar Bashir, congratulated the Libyan NTC and said that ‘Qaddafi’s death is the best thing that could have happened to the people of Sudan’. When the chairman of the NTC, Mustafa Jalil, recently visited Sudan, Bashir once again sank into absurdity, claiming that ‘Sudan has experienced no harm, even from the colonial nations, like the injury caused by Qaddafi and his group.’ Bashir certainly wasn’t speaking for South Sudan, nor even for some parts of the north. He was speaking only for those Sudanese who support the National Congress Party, which he leads, and their program to promote Arab hegemony.

NATO backed Salafist militias are working with Bashir’s military to seal the Sudanese- Libyan border, and are engaged in a joint military effort to fight pro-Qaddafi Tuaregs and JEM fighters operating in the region.  JEM’s leader, the late Dr Khalid Muhammad, was residing in Libya prior to and during the NATO invasion. Khartoum wanted Qaddafi to hand over Khalid Muhammad who was wanted by the Bashir regime. Qaddafi of course refused. He had for many years assisted the African fighters in Southern Sudan and those operating in the Darfur area in their legitimate struggle against the ethnic and religious chauvinists in Khartoum.  This fuelled Khartoum’s hatred of Qaddafi, because Qaddafi openly supported the struggle being waged against the Bashir regime, and also they hated Qaddafi’s Islam – an Islam that promotes justice, equality and peace – hence the name JEM (Justice and Equality Movement).

A few weeks after Qaddafi’s death, the Justice and Equality Movement, based in the Darfur region, joined forces with the Sudanese Peoples’ Liberation Movement (North), and two other liberation organizations to form the Sudanese Revolutionary Front, with the aim of toppling the Khartoum regime. Strangely enough, when Bashir visited NATO controlled Libya, no attempt was made to instruct the NTC to hand him over to the International Criminal Court, although only months ago the US was making a big fuss about the fact that other African regimes had allowed Bashir to land on their soil and had not handed him over.  Of course, the imperialists change their allegiances at the drop of a hat – Mubarak is a good example of that. That is at least one thing that we can agree on: that throughout the terrible ‘White Ages’, the politics of the North Atlantic Tribes has always been based on expedience rather than being rooted in moral principles. Their relationships are always based solely on how best the relationship can further Euro/American interests and objectives and they will make a pact with the any demon when and where necessary – I think we can all agree on that self-evident truth.  And we must never forget that their objective is always the same – unchanging – to dominate Africa and the rest of the global south, in order that they can continue to plunder our vast resources,  enabling them to live their irrational, spiritually bankrupt and unsustainable life style – end of story.  We are nothing to them – mere pawns in their game – no more than a bit of collateral damage in their way. Their worldview was perfectly illustrated when Lesley Stahl of CBS asked former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright,  the following question:

‘We have heard that a half million children have died… I mean, that’s more than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?’

To which Madeleine Albright replied, ‘I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.’

There is no better example of the enemy’s total disregard for ‘us’ than recent events in Libya. The most prosperous and stable country on the African continent was bombed to a point of total destruction of its physical environment, economy and social fabric, and then following the globally televised murder of the leader, left to dwell in pure chaos and misery. In the space of 24 hours, the corporate and mainstream media went from 24 hour coverage to zero coverage. They turned off their cameras so that the world would not see the ensuing bloodbath, as the racist and fascist Salafists, who had been handed power by NATO, continued on their murderous rampage of ethnic and ideological cleansing. Intellectuals, religious leaders, Black Libyans and all those who dared to openly support the Al Fateh revolution were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured and murdered – and not a word from NATO countries about the human rights they pretended to cherish while they savagely bombed this defiant African nation.

One only has to look back on the days of what the enemy has termed the ‘Arab Spring’ to understand how sinister and sophisticated their plans for domination really are. They quite clearly have a contingency plan for every eventuality and so, when they need to support a repressive regime such as Ben Ali in Tunisia or Mubarak in Egypt they do so, when that is no longer working, they can switch gear within hours to support the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi electoral outfits, despite the fact that only yesterday they were raging against them. The only thing that matters is that they remain at the top of the global pyramid, exerting total control. There are many, who for years, have discarded such ideas as the ranting of whacky conspiracy theorists, however,  it is now becoming crystal clear for all to see that the unfolding  of global events is not taking place as a result of ‘shared interests converging in some ad hoc manner’, but rather is part of a carefully planned strategy. Of course, there are random events that occur which are beyond anybody’s control, such as  the Tunisian vegetable seller, Muhammad Bouazizi, setting himself on fire in protest at his harassment by Tunisian local authorities, but let us not be confused by random events that occur. It is important to note that those that are manipulating world events have contingency plans for every conceivable series of events and outcomes. As soon as the rebellion in Tunisia and Egypt started, they swung into gear, launching plan B to either co-opt and/or destabilize the rebellions. They would support any commotion – even an al Qaeda inspired and led takeover of Libya, as long as they remain in control.

Confusion Reigns
Even amongst so-called anti-imperialist and ‘revolutionary’ organizations and personalities, confusion reigns. They shout ‘revolution’ as soon as they see a rebellion, failing to realize that all rebellions are not revolutions and some, as in the case of Libya and more recently Syria, are simply imperialist orchestrated ‘rebel commotion’. Revolutions do not happen without a revolutionary theory and revolutionary organization. In the absence of these weapons, and indeed, revolutionary theory, consciousness and organization are weapons, confusion, co-option and chaos are easy to establish. In an alliance with the powerful corporate media and local players, commotion of a destabilizing nature is all around us. In such circumstances, as we have witnessed over the past 18 months, if we are not careful we can lose our bearings. Sadly many progressive and so-called anti-imperialists figures fell for the bait and found themselves on the same side as NATO and the Salafists.

For the past decades, since the end of the so-called Cold War, as the single global super-power, the US and their European allies have enjoyed unfettered access to Africa, however, with the rise of China as a powerful economic player, and their own deepening economic crisis and decline, they are once again on the offensive, determined that they will maintain sole control over Africa by whatever means necessary. Muammar Qaddafi and the Libyan Jamahiriya were major obstacles to their plan. Qaddafi had the ability to provide financial assistance to African countries, and his vision of African unity was fast gaining momentum, Qaddafi and Libya’s prosperity and capability to lead the charge towards African liberation had to be eliminated.  No one was more aware of their nefarious agenda than the Brother-Leader himself.  His last message to the peoples of Africa stated:

‘The fight, if it is not won in Libya, will be coming to you. Prepare for it. Prepare traps for the invaders. You must defend your corners…Do not let them use you. Be united. Build your defenses for they are coming if they manage to pass Libya.’

Since the overthrow of the Libyan revolution, The United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), set up to facilitate US military intervention in Africa has, as expected, stepped up its activity throughout the continent. Muammar Qaddafi was totally opposed to AFRICOM and all it stood for. His ability to influence other African governments meant that not a single African country had allowed AFRICOM to establish a military base on their soil, which was what AFRICOM had set out to do. As a result of this unanimous rejection by African nation-states, AFRICOM was forced to establish its headquarters in Germany. This was a humiliating defeat for the US led mission to militarily occupy Africa.

AFRICOM – a creature of US imperialism – is modeled after the infamous School of the Americas, where military training, including instruction on torture techniques, was provided to the military and paramilitary personnel of the most vicious of Central and South American dictatorships. The objective was to build their capacity to fight US imperialist conflicts and achieve the imperialist’s outcomes throughout the Americas, without having to deploy US troops. This partnership with compliant South American countries meant that citizens of the South, rather than US citizens, could fight and die to further US objectives in the region. Likewise, AFRICOM already has Ugandan, Rwandan, Kenyan, Ethiopian and Somali troops fighting to achieve the US agenda in Somalia.  We have witnessed the hideous Youtube campaign, known as Kony 2012, which was a crude attempt to win support for US military advisors and troops to be deployed in central Africa. Kony 2012 is also part of imperialism’s ongoing attempt to control and co-opt the internet however, it was a dismal failure. In fact, due to the huge number of comments ridiculing this pitiful attempt to establish a credible cover for the US military being on the ground in Africa, an order was given from somewhere to disable the comments to avoid further embarrassment. So, although this social experiment using the internet failed dismally, in the midst of the Kony madness, Obama authorized 100 US troops to be deployed to central Africa to ostensibly assist in the US created mythical struggle against Joseph Kony – yet another African bogeyman. The imperialists are tightening their military grasp on Africa.  In fact, military intervention is clearly the preferred method.

Control or Kill – that is the Question?
The second form of warfare, psychological warfare, is becoming a more difficult option, posing many challenges in a world connected by internet and social media. The enemy is clearly aware of this.  In a recent address, the Hon. Minister Louis Farrakhan once again reminded us that we need to listen carefully to the enemy because they are crystal clear regarding their plans for our continued enslavement.  Minister Farrakhan quoted the infamous speech given by Zbigniew Brzezinski, to a gathering of British elites in London on November 17, 2008.

Brzezinski was national security advisor in the Carter administration. He is also a founding member of the Trilateral Commission, which is a think tank set up to increase co-operation between the US, Europe and Japan with the aim of furthering their domination of world affairs, and is highly influential in the Obama administration. He had this to say on what he termed, ‘the global political awakening’.

‘This is a truly transformative event on the global scene, namely that for the first time in human history… almost all of mankind is politically awake, activated, politically conscious and interactive. There are only a few pockets of humanity, here or there, in the remotest corners of the world, which are not politically alert and interactive with the political turmoil and stirrings and aspirations around the world,  and all of that is creating a worldwide surge in the quest for personal dignity and cultural respect, in a diversified world sadly accustomed for many centuries to domination of one portion of the world by another.

That is an enormous change and beyond that is the interacting of a further change, namely in the distribution of global power. It pertains to some of the obvious of which we are aware  but which it is important to register, namely that we are living in a time of the basic shift away from the 500 years long global domination by the Atlantic powers. It is the countries that have been located on the shores of the Atlantic ocean, and let’s recall them, Portugal, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Great Britain and more recently the United States that have dominated world affairs and that shift now is taking us towards Asia. It is not the end of the preeminence of the Atlantic world but it is now the surfacing of the Pacific region, most notably Japan, the number two economic power and China, an assertive global power that is  now occupying a pre-eminent  place in the global hierarchy, and of course, beyond them, there is India’s future development, though it is currently still in the wings,  and it is also complicated by the re-appearance of Russia which is still restless, rather unclear about its own definition, very un-definite about its recent past and very insecure about its place in the world… these new and old major powers face still yet another novel reality, in some respects unprecedented, and it is that, while the lethality of their power is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historical low.

I once put it rather pungently and I was flattered that the British foreign secretary repeated this as follows: namely in earlier times it was easier to control a million people, literally it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people. It is easier to kill than to control…’

Here it is – the chilling plan – easier to kill than to control – a clear picture of the era that is before us. And I can guarantee that Brzezinski and his kind have a plan – the question is do we?

Notice that nowhere in Brzezinski’s speech is there any mention of ‘us’ – of those of us that dwell in the parts of the world that the imperialists continue to wrangle over and dominate. We are treated as nothing – expendable – not even worth a mention. The Trilateralists are very different from the crude Neo-Cons. Their plans for global domination are much slicker. Where the Neo-Cons support direct military intervention, the Trilateralists are among those who believe that it is smarter and more effective to pit us against each other, and to ensure that we fight the wars on their behalf. While Brzezinski welcomes the Russians back onto the world stage, and acknowledges China’s rise in a seemingly friendly way, behind the rhetoric is a plan to directly counter China and Russia’s global power, ensuring the continuity of West European/American dominance. Hence, Brzezinski and his kind would rather see us embroiled in conflict and turmoil, fighting each other, and where possible, use this chaos to their advantage in their battle to counter the growing influence of China and Russia.

‘Era of the Masses’
Muammar Qaddafi predicted this moment in history many years before Brzezinski and his cohorts.  Even progressive commentators and intellectuals speak about the current awakening of the masses without referring to The Green Book.  As far back as 1975, when the Green Book was first published, Qaddafi spoke about the ‘era of the masses’, describing it as a time ‘rapidly advancing towards us to overtake the era of republics’, an era that would ‘excite the emotions and dazzle the eyes’. However, he also realized that it would usher in a dangerous time, where we may find ourselves teetering on the brink of disaster. He sounded this warning: ‘But in as much as it heralds the advent of real freedom for the masses and the blissful emancipation from the chains of all instruments of government, it is also the harbinger of a chaotic and tumultuous era. If the new democracy, the authority of the people, were to suffer a relapse, such an era would bring back autocracy…’

Qaddafi the visionary was able to comprehend the movement of history and the spirit of time, always believing that the present era represents a turning point in humanity’s history, heralding the great awakening of the masses – both men and women moving forward together to shape history and social evolution.

Revolution or Commotion and Chaos?
Leaders from Marcus Garvey to Muammar Qaddafi have warned us over and over that we will continue to be condemned to the imperialist’s genocidal policies and domination until we are able to unite and set our own agenda.  We must have zero tolerance of those amongst us who continue to be manipulated to serve the interests of and achieve the very outcomes laid out for us by our enemies. Even this historical moment, which Brzezinski describes as a truly transformative event on the global scene and what he rightly terms a ‘global political awakening’, will be of no use to us without some level of clarity and unity of purpose.

The objective of psych-ops is to defeat us mentally – to convince us of the invincibility of Euro/American domination. This forces us into an acceptance of the inevitability of being relegated to nothing more than collateral damage in a battle between powerful global forces. The aim is to make us feel completely disempowered and impotent in the face of this leviathan, which destroys entire nation-states that stand in its way with its foreboding military might, and parades the televised murder of our leaders before us with impunity. Amos Wilson explains:

‘The European inhabits only a small part of this globe. The parts of the globe that the European occupies are relatively resourceless when compared to those occupied by non-European people. And yet, the European is saddled with great wealth, economic and political power. He controls the globe and maintains the world in a state of terror, and has the earth now on the brink of suicide. We must question how is it that a minority people, a very small percentage of mankind, a people who are essentially resourceless in terms of their natural resources, maintain the power they have. Why is it that the people whose lands contain the wealth of the earth are the poorest people? Why is it that Afrika with some twenty (20) or thirty (30) strategic metals that make the space age possible – why is it that the image of Africa is projected at us time and time again as that of starving children, as societies in disorder, as societies on the verge of disaster?

This implies, to my mind, that there must exist, a political and social situation wherein the mental orientation of our people must be so structured, that the power and ability of the Europeans to rule this earth are continually maintained… The imperialistic European must essentially function in a very devilish fashion. That is, in a fashion that uses deception as its major characteristic. Consequently, fundamental values and ways of seeing reality must be reversed. The good must appear to be the bad, the light dark. Truth must be taken for the lie; the lie for truth. Otherwise a small group, such as European people could not continue to keep the rest of the world out of its mind. The European hegemonic establishment must project false and injurious ideologies that are accepted by its victims.’

Imperialism can only be buried in Africa…
In an earlier article, I invoked as its title Sekou Toure’s bold assertion: that imperialism will be buried in Africa. From a Eurocentric perspective that might have seemed optimistic, and indeed some commentators asserted that it was not grounded in reality and that we were, if anything, being crushed by imperialism’s might. However, looking at it from a revolutionary Pan-African perspective one simply sees it as inevitable. Actually, imperialism can only be defeated in Africa.  Although there is a revolutionary fightback globally and most notably throughout South America, it is only when Africa is finally free and regains its sovereignty that imperialism in its current form can be buried, since it is Africa that fuels the space age.  The onus is on revolutionary Pan-African organizations and movements, on the continent and in the Diaspora, to provide clear analysis and strategies that are capable of thwarting the enemies’ plans at every point in the evil axis of Euro/American imperialism, Saudi and Qatari sponsored Salafism parading as Islam, and the neo-colonial regimes in Africa and the Diaspora. There is no room for weakness, ineffective ways of operating that drain our resources and fail time and time again to achieve results. There is no room or time for indecision leading to inaction.
We must bury imperialism in Africa or we will surely perish.

In a recent interview with The Southern Times, veteran African freedom fighter and former president of Namibia, Sam Nujoma, was extremely critical of the African Union’s weakness, stating that they ‘had woefully failed to mobilize militarily to stop the bombing of Libya and that the African Union should have mobilized their forces in order to fight and defend the territorial integrity of Libya.’

He offered the following advice on confronting what he identified as a new scramble for Africa: ‘Africans should talk war – the language best understood by Western countries…The imperialists understand no other words than fighting. We dislodged them from our continent by fighting them. If we did not fight in Namibia or in Zimbabwe or elsewhere, we would not be free today. We must now prepare to fight them again…’

Nujoma stated that Africa’s sovereignty was not up for debate and called upon the youth of Africa, to prepare themselves to fight and defend the continent.

Black Power – African Power
It is only with access to Africa’s resources, that modern day empires, fuelled by industrialized and high-tech economies, can be built. Even Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are in the scramble for African lands to grow food for their populations, and African resources to fuel their economies. The Lebanese, Saudis, Qataris and Israeli’s are among those that rival the Europeans in their plunder of Africa’s wealth. It came as no surprise that it was the Lebanese who assisted the French to draft the so-called ‘No-Fly Zone’ resolution which spelled Libya’s destruction. The same Lebanese, who now so hypocritically recognize Syria’s plight in the face of groups of Salafi terrorists being armed, trained and organized by the NATO member states, and are calling for no outside intervention with an agenda for regime change in Syria. The only Arab nations to oppose NATO’s invasion of Libya were Algeria, Syria and Mauritania.

Qaddafi’s plans for Africa were inimical to the Lebanese and other Arab business interests on the continent. Like their European counterparts, they simply could not afford a united and independent Africa.

Libyan Popular National Movement (LPNM)
The fight back is on and intensifying in every region of Libya. The NTC is definitely not in control, and faces a well coordinated armed rebellion on a daily basis. Qaddafi loyalists have launched the Libyan Popular National Movement, which embodies the principles of the Al Fateh revolution and draws on 40 years of experience in struggle against imperialism, pseudo-Islam and neo-colonialism.  Its leader, Qweldi al Hamedi, was one of the original members of the Free Unionist Officers that toppled the pro-western monarchy of King Idris back in 1969. He lost his pregnant daughter-in-law and three of his grandchildren when his home was bombed by NATO.  This man, like Muammar Qaddafi and Abubakr Younis Jabr, is a man of steel. Prior to the NATO invasion, Qweldi al Hamedi was semi-retired, and now in his 70s, after losing so many of his family members, is once again in the trenches. As revolutionary Pan-Africanists, we must give unwavering support to the Libyan Popular National Movement, the natural heir of the Al Fateh Revolution.

Axis of Evil: Imperialists, Neo-Colonial Regimes and Salafists
Imperialism and its neo-colonial client regimes have been written about extensively and are old members of this axis. Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah provided us with a masterful analysis of neo-colonialism in Africa in his book Neo-colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism.

Pretenders to Islam
The Salafists are a less understood and recent member of this most unholy of alliances. While we were sleeping, these religious charlatans were quietly stealing the minds of large numbers of Muslim youth throughout Africa and the Arab region. It was not a difficult task. The Salafists had, and continue to receive massive financial backing to the tune of millions from the medieval Wahhabi creatures in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This allowed them to prey on the disillusioned and poverty stricken youths throughout the continent and the Arabian Peninsula. They seduced the poorest of them with scholarships, covering all costs, to Salafi infested institutions, where they have been and continue to be, indoctrinated with a simplistic, puritanical and one dimensional view of Islam and the world. The Salafis offer themselves to the Muslim Ummah as the sole solution to the crisis of modernity and secularism.  This is opium for the people, especially the youth.  It appeals to the poor and marginalized who have little or no education. It also appeals to youth from the wealthier middle-classes, who are completely disaffected by the hypocrisy and double standards of their parents’ generation – a generation which they perceive as having ‘sold out’ to the West, which entailed abandoning their Islamic values.  To these youths, the Salafists seem to be the only ones talking militancy and offering a tangible solution. 

This is not the first time we have witnessed the emergence of such movements. In recent history, we have observed the emergence of fascist movements, which in all their tendencies, offer simplistic and puritanical solutions to the crisis of capitalism and existing political systems, and prey on the disillusionment, disenfranchisement and fear of the masses, especially the youth. We have also seen deviant religious ideas used as a weapon during slavery, throughout the colonial project and in Apartheid South Africa, to name a few examples.

The Salafists have become imperialism’s shock troops – foot soldiers doing their dirty work.  It is no accident that Ansar Dine has emerged out of the blue to challenge the revolutionary nationalist and Islamic MNLA in Mali, while in Nigeria, Boko Haram is well funded and armed to wage war against the Nigerian state, bombing Christian churches and killing Muslims who do not adhere to their Salafist doctrine, and all the while shouting Allahu Akhbar.  Throughout the continent, Salafism is on the rise, posing a serious threat to the Pan-African struggle for the liberation of Africa and the creation of a United States.

As I write, the Salafist Ansar Dine which is linked to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are destroying historical religious and cultural artifacts in Timbuktu, on the grounds that they are somehow un-Islamic.  An observer aptly referred to them as ‘madmen with guns’. Let us be clear, that in order to defeat these enemies of Islam, Africa and humanity, we have to wage war against them on every front, including in the realm of theology and ideas. The battle of ideas is crucial, since it is the hearts and minds of the youth that have been captivated.  It is important to understand that these pretenders to Islam are not revolutionaries but are rather reactionaries in the true sense – both racist and fascist; they are not rebels but are actually counter-revolutionaries, with little or no understanding of Islam. For them Islam and Arab culture is one and the same thing. They are religious deviants, preaching a false and misguided theology, in order to achieve their objective, which is to subvert Islam and dominate the Ummah. This is not a new battle but is a battle that has been waged since the time of the Prophet and before. The Salafists’ objective is to ensure that Islam is stripped of its revolutionary essence and reduced to a mere ritualistic/legalistic doctrine and practice, which will no longer challenge the existing order. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist parties are no threat to western economic and geo-political interests in the region and globally. Their electoral outfits, wherever they assume political office, will implement neo-liberal economic policies and will manage the ‘free market’ economy with an ‘Islamic’ veneer.

Zia-ul-Haq (not the former president of Pakistan, but the Muslim scholar) showed how the early conflicts in the Muslim world shaped the Wahhabi/Salafi mindset:

‘After the civil wars and counter revolution of the Umayyads, the revolutionary principles of Salat, Jihad, Zakat etc, were all reinterpreted in a feudal framework. Feudalism reasserted itself when under monarchy and autocracy,  feudal social and economic relationships of master and slave, lord and serf, king and his subjects replaced the pristine revolutionary principles of justice and social equality…feudal Islam was a political instrument to enslave the broad masses in the name of pristine Islam…Feudal Islam was thus a negation of the Qu’ranic Islam, the Islam of the prophet-revolutionaries, the Islam which was synonymous with truth, justice, social equality, sincerity and humility.’

Qaddafi knew them well. In the early 70s he spoke of this ongoing battle:

‘As the Muslims have strayed far from Islam, a review is demanded. The Libyan revolution is a revolution for rectifying Islam, presenting Islam correctly, purifying Islam of the reactionary practices which dressed it in retrograde clothing not its own.’

‘Soon we’ll find out who is the real revolutionaries cos I don’t want my people to be tricked by mercenaries…’
African youth, especially Muslim youth, need to familiarize themselves with the writings and teachings of the real revolutionary Islamic thinkers and Islamic liberation theologians, such as Muhammad Iqbal, Ali Shariati, Mahmoud Ayoub, Ayatollah Mahmoud Taleqani, Muammar Qaddafi, Louis Farrakhan and Wesley Muhammad among others.

As revolutionary Pan-Africanists, we must heed the call of Nigeria’s African Renaissance Party and join with them in applying pressure on the African Union not to recognize the NTC racists in Libya. We must also put pressure on African governments in the Caribbean to do the same. We must, as Qaddafi implored us in his final message – ‘hold down our corner’. We need to make sure that wherever we are, the battle against these enemies of humanity is raging. As the brothers and sisters of the Pan-African Society Community Forum stated, ‘African neo-colonial agents of imperialism have no strategic power. They have no economic or financial power, which therefore means that they have no strategic political power. Whilst they have a degree of operational powers, they are under the total strategic control of their racist masters; they’re active tools of imperialism’s racist agenda as well as its economic one. The racism of the imperialist system is still present, but the role of the African neo-colonial agents is disguising it at the point of conflict.’

Qaddafism – Out of Africa
I believe that those who are committed to the unification and total liberation of Africa must understand and grasp Qaddafism, the revolutionary theory and practice of the Al Fateh revolution of 1969. It is a theory of revolution capable of ushering in a new era of popular democracy in Africa. In the words of Qaddafi himself, ‘democracy can only occur when power, wealth and arms are in the hands of the African people’. Presently none of these are in our hands, and the ludicrous mimicry of the western parliamentary system parading as democracy is obsolete.  If we are to succeed in our protracted struggle against imperialism, neo-colonialism and religious deviationism, we must have a revolutionary theory that provides us with the tools to combat Africa’s enemies, while also providing us with the guidelines for social, economic and political reconstruction on our own terms.  

Qaddafism and its concept of a Jamahiriya which means ‘State of the Masses’ was developed under African skies, by a Bedouin, who was able to create a system that embraced the values, traditions and entire way of life/culture of the people it was designed to govern. It is, in every sense of the word, a political theory and system of governance indigenous to Africa. It offers an Afrocentric alternative to the two Eurocentric paradigms that have been dominant globally in this epoch, that is, Liberal Capitalism and Marxism.

Qaddafism addresses the problems confronting Africa as a result of the imposition of alien ideologies and political systems, in that it gives us a political theory and practice that is wholly applicable to Africa and the African psyche. What makes Qaddafism unique is that unlike so many great thinkers to have emerged from the global south, there are no traces of Marxism or any other European revolutionary ideas lingering in Qaddafi’s political thought. Those who disagree with this premise need to examine the history of Islam during the period of the Prophet Muhammad and before, and the history, culture and indigenous political systems of Africa. It is clear from such research that Qaddafi’s socialism and concept of popular democracy are rooted in the ancient democratic practices of Africa and early Islam, which are far older than any Greek and European notions of democracy and European versions of socialism.

This is why there are so many challenges faced by those of us who have been involved in the dissemination of the ideas contained in The Green Book, and the attempt inside Libya to put these ideas into practice. It is important to understand that any attempt by any non-western leader to develop and articulate a political theory which is outside western intellectual tradition and paradigms, is unacceptable in the halls of western academia and political circles, and unfortunately many of our academics are still tangled up in these circles and influenced by them. Non-western political thought is frowned upon, and only those scholars whose works are shaped by Enlightenment ideologies such as Liberalism and Marxism are given any serious consideration. Hence, the deliberate marginalization and ridicule of Qaddafism and The Third Universal Theory by Eurocentric academics, political philosophers and activists is to be expected.

There can be no doubt that one of the gravest enemies of Africa has been the imposition of European materialist ideologies and political systems – whether they emanate from right or left. Africa’s true liberation cannot occur unless we free ourselves from this ‘conceptual incarceration’. We must move beyond ‘multi-partyism’ and ‘electocracy’ parading as democracy. We must reject the criminal and fraudulent neo-liberal economic policies that have been imposed on us with the full complicity of African neo-colonial regimes.  Also, we must reject Marxist ‘solutions’ as yet another imposition of an alien ideology.

Another important factor in the negation of Qaddafi’s ideas in western circles, and sadly in some non-western circles still influenced by western thought, is that secular European discourse is unable to comprehend an ideology such as the Third Universal Theory, precisely because this ideology acknowledges the transcendental and metaphysical dimension of human civilization and existence. However, it is this very aspect of the ideology that provides us with an alternative model for social and political reconstruction and transformation in synergy with our culture and traditions, which for Africans is deeply rooted in the metaphysical and transcendental.

This is why the rejection of Marxism being applied as a theory of social change in Africa is as inevitable as our rejection of the Liberal/Capitalist paradigm. However, the rejection of Marxism is not yet accepted by all Pan-Africanists, despite the fact that many of our greatest African thinkers have lamented the fact that Marxism is fundamentally at odds with African culture and thinking and therefore doomed to fail as a solution to Africa’s crisis.

Oba T’Shaka, puts it this way: ‘While Marxism represents western man’s best attempt to formulate a just system of thought and a conception of the just society in the modern world, the fundamental flaw of Marxism is its western orientation…precisely because Marxism is a product of the European mind and the European worldview, it accepts the Greek notion that ‘nothing can give rise from nothing’. Marxism is rooted squarely in a western materialistic paradigm, which regards the invisible or the spiritual as superstitious…this is a fundamental flaw in Marxism because it denies our humanity, which is tied to a spiritual – physical – spiritual – material unity and synthesis. Only when man and woman as physical beings aspire to be better spiritually can we become truly human. The inability of Marxism to deal with the invisible spiritual is the central reason why western Marxism has not even offered a conception of a just human being. Marxism simply proposes that somehow human beings will be better if the goods are equally distributed. Here Marxism is only partially correct.’

In contrast, Qaddafism is a holistic paradigm incorporating the theological, philosophical, political, economic, legal and scientific principles, all inter-related. As such, it represents an ideological paradigm that is applicable to Africa and indeed other parts of the global south.

Molefi Kete Asante explains another fundamental aspect of Marxism that places it at odds with the African psyche:

‘Marxism over-simplifies the significance of our history… In some ways Marxism acts on the same Eurocentric basis as Capitalism because for both, life is economics… The class-warrior attitude dominates the thinking of Marxists and capitalists. It is a war of class against class, group against group, and individual against individual…Marxism’s base is antithetical to the African concept of society. Life for the Afrocentric person is organic and harmonious… However, the Marxist view of life is as competitive as that of the capitalist, since both are rooted in Eurocentric materialism.’

Qaddafism on the other hand rejects the notion of class-warfare and sees the aim of the nation as an integral whole striving for harmony, which must not be fragmented or socially stratified along class, tribal, ethnic or partisan lines. It is a ‘party-less’ system because the political party is seen as an instrument which fragments and divides the society.

As Yahaya Ndu of the African Renaissance Party of Nigeria said recently:

‘The western world has through the systems of government that it has forced upon Africa today put the whole continent in collective amnesia, which has rendered the continent totally stultified to such an extent that it is incapable of doing anything about its sorry state. Unless and until Africans can return to their own form of democratic governance there can be no salvation for her and her peoples.’

He goes on to state that, ‘Historical revelations point to the fact that democracy was practiced in Igboland of Nigeria long before it found its way to Greece and that western visitors to Igboland strikingly discovered the extent to which democracy was truly practiced.’ He cites a number of academics and historians who saw the Igbo political culture as, in their words ‘ultra democratic in its values and having no hierarchical type of political organization’. Ndu concludes it was ‘this political climate or tradition that gave everyone who cared, the opportunity to mobilize and distinguish him or herself’. In other words, it was a model of direct and ‘party-less’ democracy which can be traced, in its various forms, to many parts of the African continent. It is this same concept that was implemented in the Libyan Jamahiriya, where ‘everyone who cared’ was able to fully participate in making the decisions that affected their lives through a network of People’s Congresses and Popular Committees.

We are oppressed by the enemies military and economic might. However, both their military and economic might would have been humbled if only we were not still captivated by and adopting alien ideologies and political systems, that have stood  in the way of our total liberation for so long.  It is imperative that we free ourselves from these ideologies and the neo-colonial regimes that foster this mindset. The struggle must be intensified against this axis of evil on every front, and most importantly at the battlefront of ideas. For, if we do not free ourselves mentally, then I fear that we will fight these same battles many times over and not see the change we fight for. Unfortunately many more lives will be lost before we realize that one of the most potent weapons in our arsenal lies, in the words of Amilcar Cabral, in our ‘return to the source’.

By Gerald A. Perreira

Gerald A. Perreira is a founding member of the Guyanese organizations Joint Initiative for Human Advancement and Dignity and Black Consciousness Movement Guyana (BCMG). He lived in Libya for many years, served in the Green March, an international battalion for the defense of the Al Fateh revolution and was an executive member of the World Mathaba based in Tripoli.

Sources:
Asante, Molefi Kete, Afrocentricity, Africa World Press, Inc., New Jersey, 1990.

Oba T’Shaka, Return to the African Mother Principle of Male and Female Equality, Vol. 1, Pan Afrikan Publishers and Distributors, California, 1995.

Qaddafi, Muammar, The Green Book, World Centre for the Study and Research of the Green Book, 1975.

Ul-Haq, Zia, Revelation and Revolution in Islam, Idara Isha’at-E-Diniyat, New Delhi, 1996.

Wilson, Amos, The Falsification of African Consciousness: Eurocentric History, Psychiatry and the Politics of White Supremacy, Afrikan World Infosystems, New York, 1993.

Washington’s Militarized Mindset

Americans may feel more distant from war than at any time since World War II began. Certainly, a smaller percentage of us — less than 1% — serves in the military in this all-volunteer era of ours and, on the face of it, Washington’s constant warring in distant lands seems barely to touch the lives of most Americans.

And yet the militarization of the United States and the strengthening of the National Security Complex continues to accelerate. The Pentagon is, by now, a world unto itself, with a staggering budget at a moment when no other power or combination of powers comes near to challenging this country’s might.

In the post-9/11 era, the military-industrial complex has been thoroughly mobilized under the rubric of “privatization” and now goes to war with the Pentagon. With its $80 billion-plus budget, the intelligence bureaucracy has simply exploded. There are so many competing agencies and outfits, surrounded by a universe of private intelligence contractors, all enswathed in a penumbra of secrecy, and they have grown so large, mainly under the Pentagon’s aegis, that you could say intelligence is now a ruling way of life in Washington — and it, too, is being thoroughly militarized. Even the once-civilian CIA has undergone a process of para-militarization and now runs its own “covert” drone wars in Pakistan and elsewhere. Its director, a widely hailed retired four-star general, was previously the U.S. war commander in Iraq and then Afghanistan, just as the National Intelligence Director who oversees the whole intelligence labyrinth is a retired Air Force lieutenant general.

In a sense, even the military has been “militarized.” In these last years, a secret army of special operations forces, 60,000 or more strong and still expanding, has grown like an incubus inside the regular armed forces. As the CIA’s drones have become the president’s private air force, so the special ops troops are his private army, and are now given free rein to go about the business of war in their own cocoon of secrecy in areas far removed from what are normally considered America’s war zones.

Diplomacy, too, has been militarized. Diplomats work ever more closely with the military, while the State Department is transforming itself into an unofficial arm of the Pentagon — as the secretary of state is happy to admit — as well as of the weapons industry.

And keep in mind that we now have two Pentagons, thanks to the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is focused, among other things, on militarizing our southern border. Meanwhile, with the help of the DHS, local police forces nationwide have, over the last decade, been significantly up-armored and have, in the name of fighting terrorism, gained a distinctly military patina. They have ever more access to elaborate weaponry and gadgets, including billions of dollars of surplus military equipment of every sort, often being funneled to once peaceable small town police departments.

The Military Solution in the Greater Middle East

Militarization in this country is hardly a new phenomenon. It can be traced back decades, but the process hit warp speed in the post-9/11 years, even if the U.S. still lacks the classic look of a militarized society. Almost unnoticed has been an accompanying transformation of the mindset of Washington — what might be called the militarization of solutions.

If the institutions of American life and governance are increasingly militarized, then it shouldn’t be surprising that the problems facing the country are ever more often framed in militarized terms and that the only solutions considered are similarly militarized. This paucity of imagination, this constraining of what might be possible, seems especially evident in the Greater Middle East.

In fact, Washington’s record there, seldom if ever collected in one place, should be eye-opening. Start with a dose of irony: before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it was a commonplace among neoconservatives to label the region extending across the oil heartlands of the planet, from North Africa to the Chinese border in Central Asia, “the arc of instability.” After a decade in which Washington has applied its military might and thoroughly militarized solutions to the region, that decade-old world now looks remarkably “stable.”

Here, in shorthand, is a little regional scorecard of what American militarization has meant in the Greater Middle East, 2001-2012:

Pakistan: The U.S. has faced a multitude of complex problems in this nuclear nation beset with insurgent movements, its tribal areas providing sanctuary to both Afghan and Pakistani rebels and jihadis, and its intelligence service entangled in a complicated relationship with the Taliban leadership as well as other rebel groups fighting in Afghanistan. Washington’s response has been — as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently labeled it — war. In 2004, the Bush administration launched a drone assassination campaign in the country’s tribal borderlands largely focused on al-Qaeda leaders (combined with a few cross-border special forces raids). Those rare robotic air strikes have since expanded into something like a full-scale covert drone war that is killing civilians, is intensely unpopular throughout Pakistan, and by now is clearly meant to punish the Pakistani leadership for its transgressions as well.

Frustrated by what they consider Pakistani intransigence, elements in the U.S. military and intelligence community are reportedly pressing to add a new set of cross-border joint special operations/Afghan commando raids to the present incendiary mix. American air strikes from Afghanistan that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last November, with no apologies offered for seven months, brought to a boil a crisis in relations between Washington and Islamabad, with the Pakistani government closing off the country to American war supplies headed for Afghanistan. (That added a couple of billion dollars to the Pentagon’s expenses there before the crisis was ended with a grudging apology this week). The whole process has clearly contributed to the destabilization of nuclear Pakistan.

Afghanistan: Following a November 2001 invasion (light on invading U.S. troops), the U.S. opted for a full-scale occupation and reconstruction of the country. In the process, it managed to spur the reconstruction and reconstitution of the previously deeply unpopular and defeated Taliban movement. An insurgent war followed. Despite a massive surge of U.S. forces, CIA agents, special operations troops, and private contractors into the country, the calling in of air power in a major way, and the expansion of a program of “night raids” by special ops types and the CIA, success has not followed. By the end of 2014, the U.S. is scheduled to withdraw its main combat forces from what is likely to be a thoroughly destabilized country.

Iran: In a program long aimed at regime change (but officially focused on the country’s nuclear program), the U.S. has clamped energy sanctions — often seen as an act of war — on Iran, supported a special operations campaign of unknown proportions (including cross-border actions), run a massive CIA drone surveillance program in the country’s skies, and (with the Israelis) loosed at least two major malware “worms” against the computer systems and centrifuges of its nuclear facilities, which even the Pentagon defines as acts of war. It has also backed a massive build-up of U.S. naval and air power in the Persian Gulf and of military bases in countries on Iran’s peripheries, along with “comprehensive multi-option war-planning” for a possible 2013 strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities. (Though little is known about it, an assassination campaign against Iranian nuclear scientists has usually been blamed on the Israelis. Now that the joint U.S.-Israeli authorship of acts of cyberwar against Iran has been confirmed, however, it is at least reasonable to wonder whether the U.S. might also have had a hand in these killings.) All of this has embroiled the region and brought it to the edge of yet more war, while in no obvious way shaking the Iranian regime.

Iraq: The U.S. invaded in March 2003, occupying the country. It fought (and essentially lost) an eight-year-long counterinsurgency war, withdrawing its last troops at the end of 2011, but leaving behind in Baghdad the world’s largest, most militarized embassy. The country, now an ally and trading partner of Iran, remains remarkably unreconstructed and significantly destabilized, with regular bombing campaigns in its cities.

Kuwait: Just across the border from Iraq, the U.S. has continued a build-up of forces. In the future, according to a U.S. Senate report, there could be up to 13,000 U.S. personnel permanently stationed in the country.

Yemen: Washington, long a supporter of the country’s strong-man ruler, now backs the successor regime. (In Yemen, as elsewhere, Washington has been deeply uncomfortable with Arab-Spring-style democracy movements among its allies.) For years, it has had an air campaign underway in the southern part of the country aimed at insurgents linked to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). More recently, it has put at least small numbers of special operations troops on the ground there as advisers and trainers and has escalated a combined CIA drone and Air Force manned-plane air campaign in southern Yemen. There have been at least 23 air strikes already this year, evidently causing significant civilian casualties, reportedly radicalizing southerners, increasing support for AQAP, and helping further destabilize this impoverished and desperate land.

Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, tiny Bahrain, facing a democratic uprising of its repressed Shiite majority, called in the Saudi military on a mission of suppression. The U.S. has offered military aid and support to the ruling Sunni monarchy.

Syria: In radically destabilized Syria, where a democracy uprising has morphed into a civil war with sectarian overtones that threatens to further destabilize the region, including Lebanon and Iraq, the CIA has now been dispatched to the Turkish border. Its job: to direct weapons to rebels of Washington’s choice (assuming that the CIA, with its dubious record, can sort the democrats from the jihadis). The weapons themselves are arriving, according to the New York Times, via a “network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.” It’s a project that has “this can’t end well” written all over it.

Somalia: Long a failed state, Somalia has suffered, among other things, through a U.S.-fostered Ethiopian invasion back in 2006 (and another more recently), drone attacks, CIA and special forces operations, a complicated U.S. program to subsidize a force of African (especially Ugandan) troops in the capital and support for a Kenyan invasion in the south — each step in the process seemingly leading to further fragmentation, further radicalization, and greater extremism.

Egypt: Ever since Tahrir Square, Washington has been focused on its close ties with the Egyptian military high command (key figures from which visit Washington every year) and on the billions of dollars in military aid it continues to provide to that military, despite the way it has usurped democratic rule.

Libya: The Obama administration called in the U.S. Air Force (along with air power from NATO allies) to support an inchoate uprising and destroy the regime of long-time strong-man Muammar Gaddafi. In this they were successful. The long-term results still remain unknown. (See, for instance, the Islamist revolt in destabilized neighboring Mali.)

How to Set the Planet on Fire and Learn Nothing

This remains a partial list, lacking, to give but one example, the web of drone bases being set up from the Seychelles Islands and Ethiopia to the Arabian Peninsula — clearly meant for expanded drone wars across the region. Nonetheless, it is a remarkable example of the general ineffectiveness of applying military or militarized solutions to the problems of a region far from your own shores. From Pakistan and Afghanistan to Yemen and Somalia, the evidence is already in: such “solutions” solve little or nothing, and in a remarkable number of cases seem only to increase the instability of a country and a region, as well as the misery of masses of people.

And yet the general lack of success from 2002 on and a deepening frustration in Washington have just led to a stronger conviction that some recalibrated version of a military solution (greater surges, lesser surges, no invasions but special forces and drones, smaller “footprint,” larger naval presence, etc.) is the only reasonable way to go.

In fact, military solutions of every sort have such a deep-seated grip on Washington that the focus there might be termed obsessive. This has been particularly obvious when it comes to the CIA’s drone wars. Back in the Vietnam War years, President Lyndon Johnson was said to have driven his generals crazy by “micromanaging” the conflict, especially in weekly lunch meetings in which he insisted on picking specific targets for the air campaign against North Vietnam.

These days, however, Johnson almost looks like a laissez-faire war president. After all, thanks to the New York Times, we know that the White House has a “nominating” process to compile a “kill list” of terror suspects, and that the president himself decides which drone air attacks should then be launched, not target area by target area, but individual by individual. He is choosing specific individuals to kill in the Pakistani, Yemeni, and Somali backlands.

It should be considered a sign of the times that, whatever shock this news may have caused in Washington (mainly because of possible administration leaks about the nature of the “covert” drone program), few have even mentioned presidential micromanaging, nor, it seems, are any generals up in arms. Some may have found the “nomination” process shocking, but rare are those who seem to think it strange that a president of the United States should be involved in choosing individuals (including U.S. citizens) for assassination-by-drone in distant lands.

The truth is that such “solutions,” first tested in the Greater Middle East, are now being applied (even if, as yet, in far more modest ways) from Africa to Central America. In Africa, I suspect you could track the growing destabilization of parts of that continent to the setting up of a U.S. command for the region (Africom) in 2007 and in subsequent years the slow movement of drones, special forces operatives, private contractors, and others into a region that already has problems enough.

Here’s a 2012 American reality then: as a great power, the U.S. has an increasingly limited toolkit, into which it is reaching far more often for ever more similar tools. The idea that the globe is a chessboard, that Washington is in control of the game, and that each militarized move it makes will have a reasonably predictable result couldn’t be more dangerous. The evidence of the last decade is clear enough: there is little less predictable or more likely to go awry than the application of military force and militarized solutions, which are cumulatively incendiary in unexpected ways, and in the end threaten to set whole regions on fire. None of this, however, seems to register in Washington.

The United States is commonly said to be a great power in decline, but the militarization of American policy — and thinking — at home and abroad is not. It has Washington, now a capital of perpetual war, in its grip.

This process began, post-9/11, with the soaring romanticism of the Bush administration about, as the president put it, the power of the “greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known” (a.k.a. the U.S. military) to change the world. It was a fundamental conviction of Bush and his top officials that the most powerful military on the planet could bring any state in the Greater Middle East to heel in a “cakewalk.”

Today, in the wake of two failed wars on the Eurasian continent, a de-romanticized version of that conviction has become the deeply embedded, increasingly humdrum way of life of a militarized Washington. It will remain so.

If Barack Obama, the man who got Bin Laden, is reelected, nothing of significance is likely to change in this regard. If Mitt Romney wins, the process is likely to accelerate, possibly moving from global misfire, failure, and obsession to extreme global fantasy, with consequences — from Iran to Russia to China — difficult now to imagine.

By Tom Engelhardt

05 July, 2012

TomDispatch.com

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project and author of The United States of Fearas well as The End of Victory Culture, runs the Nation Institute’s TomDispatch.com. His latest book, co-authored with Nick Turse, is Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050.

Washington Steps Up Drive To Overthrow Syrian Regime

Following its failure to ram through a resolution against Syria at the United Nations Security Council last week, the administration of Barack Obama has intensified its preparations to gather a “coalition of the willing” to oust the government of Syria and install a US client regime.

The resolution would have imposed new sanctions against Damascus under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which authorizes the use of military force. The last such resolution by the council was used by the US and NATO to justify their war for regime-change in Libya.

The US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, condemned Moscow and Beijing for vetoing the anti-Syrian resolution and declared that Washington would “work with a diverse range of partners outside the Security Council” to undermine the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

These partners include Britain and France, the former colonial powers in the region, and the Sunni monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have provided hundreds of millions of dollars in arms and financial support to the Islamist-dominated Syrian opposition militias.

The New York Times reported Sunday that the White House is “now holding daily high-level meetings” on Syria “to discuss a broad range of contingency plans.”

Senior figures from the Obama administration and the Pentagon are also in discussions with their Israeli counterparts to prepare for an attack on Syria. US National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon was in Israel for talks last week and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is due to visit Jerusalem in the next few days to discuss the situation in Syria.

Echoing the bogus “weapons of mass destruction” campaign used in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Washington and its allies are increasingly citing Syria’s alleged chemical weapons arsenal as a potential casus belli against the Assad government. “We are well aware that Syria has large stockpiles of chemical weapons,” Ambassador Rice told National Public Radio Friday, adding, “Syria has a legal and moral obligation to secure them… Should anyone in the Syrian regime do otherwise they will be held accountable.”

Republican Senator John McCain on Sunday made even more bellicose statements concerning the alleged threat of Syrian weapons, telling CNN’s “State of the Union” program that Assad could deploy chemical weapons against his own people and declaring that the US had an obligation to militarily intervene in Syria.

The Israeli government stated that it is prepared to launch a unilateral attack on Syria in order to prevent Islamist militants gaining access to chemical weapons. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barack said he had “ordered the Israeli military to prepare for a situation where we would have to weigh the possibility of carrying out an attack” on Syrian military bases reported to house chemical weapons stockpiles.

Speaking on the “Fox News Sunday” program, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated that his government was prepared to take military action to prevent “chemical weapons falling into the hands of Hezbollah or some other terror groups.”

Such expressions of concern from Israeli and US officials about Islamist militants gaining access to chemical weapons reek of hypocrisy. If there is a threat of terrorist groups seizing Syrian chemical weapons, it has come about as a direct consequence of the year-old destabilization operation against the regime in Damascus, in which the US, Israel, Britain, France and the pro-Western Persian Gulf monarchies have supplied weaponry, money and intelligence to Syria’s Sunni-extremist opposition militias.

Behind the humbug over chemical weapons, the real US attitude toward Syria was bluntly expressed last week by Andrew Tabler, a member of the influential Washington Institute for Near East Policy, whom the New York Times quoted as saying, “We’re looking at the controlled demolition of the Assad regime.”

US officials have acknowledged that the support given to the Syrian opposition by Washington and its allies lies behind the sharp intensification of the conflict into a full-scale civil war over the summer. “You’ll notice in the last couple of months, the opposition has been strengthened,” one senior White House official told the Times Sunday edition. “Now we’re ready to accelerate that,” the unnamed source added.

This escalation has been coordinated by the US Central Intelligence Agency, which operates near the Syrian border in Turkey to control the flood of weapons supplied by Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Syrian “rebel” militias.

The mounting violence has forced an estimated 125,000 Syrians to flee the country into neighboring Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq. Many more have become internal refugees, fleeing areas of heavy fighting for the two main cities of Damascus and Aleppo, which have until recently seen relatively little violence. However, the US-backed opposition has in the past few weeks been able to target these cities with a number of armed assaults and terrorist bombings, such as the blast that killed three top regime officials in the capital’s national security headquarters last week.

There were reports of heavy fighting in several suburbs of Aleppo over the weekend, as well as battles between militants and the armed forces in the capital. On Saturday, the Syrian Army’s elite Fourth Division, commanded by President Assad’s brother, led a counterattack on the opposition fighters in the Damascus suburbs of Barzeh and Mezzeh. Free Syrian Army and Islamist fighters have also been able to take control of several border crossings from Syria into Turkey and Iraq.

The New York Times also reported Sunday that Obama administration officials were working with the Syrian “rebels” to set up a provisional government that would include elements from the current regime. Washington is particularly eager to court top Syrian military personnel in the hope that such defections will serve both to undermine Assad and provide a prop for a new US-sponsored regime in Damascus.

By Niall Green

23 July, 2012

@ WSWS.org

Washington Seizes On Alleged Massacre In Syria To Promote War

Reports of scores of deaths in the Syrian village of Tremseh Thursday, in the course of violent clashes between government forces and opposition militia, have been seized upon by the United States and its allies to ramp up their campaign to overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

In a press statement issued Friday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted that the Syrian regime had carried out “yet another massacre,” claiming there was “indisputable evidence that the regime deliberately murdered innocent civilians.”

However, no sooner had the US-sanctioned account of events been released than it fell apart. Syrian opposition spokesmen had initially claimed that pro-Assad militiamen had entered the village and killed unarmed civilians. They then claimed that the Syrian army had carried out a rampage aimed at civilians. But it quickly became clear that almost all of the deaths were the result of fighting between government troops and foreign-armed anti-Assad militia.

Though there are still conflicting accounts of the events in Tremseh, it appears that “rebel” fighters attacked an army convoy passing through the village on Thursday. Government troops then launched a sustained counterattack, resulting in opposition forces being routed and suffering heavy casualties.

Major General Robert Mood, the Norwegian commander of the United Nations mission in Syria, told a press conference in Damascus that observers under his command had witnessed prolonged fighting in the area, including the use of army mechanized units and helicopters.

The UK-based pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that “several dozen rebel fighters were among those killed” in the battle in and around Tremseh. Reuters reported that the fighting was part of a campaign by the Syrian air force over recent days directed against opposition activities near Hama.

“At this stage, though we do not yet have the final count, the number of civilians killed by shelling is not more than seven,” said a spokesman from the pro-opposition Sham News Network. “The rest were members of the [US-backed] Free Syrian Army,” he added.

Tremseh is located near the central Syrian city of Hama, an area that has been a focal point of fighting between the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and government forces for over a year.

The FSA is the main armed “rebel” group in Syria. Backed by Washington, the FSA leadership is based in Turkey, where it receives direction and aid from the US Central Intelligence Agency. The FSA is largely made up of former Syrian army personnel and has close ties to Sunni Islamist militias. It receives money and weapons from the Western-backed dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Syria’s state news agency, SANA, reported that the armed forces had moved into the area around Tremseh after locals had complained of “criminals” taking over the village. The agency reported that the army had found the bodies of several civilians who had been executed by opposition “terrorists.”

US allegations of a massacre in Tremseh come as Washington ramps up its diplomatic campaign against Syria, which is aimed at deposing the Assad government by military means in order to install a more pliant Western-backed regime in Damascus.

In particular, the Obama administration is attempting to pressure Moscow and Beijing into acceding to the US campaign for regime-change. The United Nations Security Council is due to vote July 18 on a resolution sponsored by the British government that could, under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, authorize the use of military force to oust the Syrian government.

During a tour of Asia, Secretary Clinton used the alleged massacre to condemn the Russian and Chinese governments for refusing to endorse the US-led campaign against Assad. “History will judge this [United Nations Security] Council,” Clinton said in her statement. “Its members must ask themselves whether continuing to allow the Assad regime to commit unspeakable violence against its own people is the legacy they want to leave.”

Russia has proposed an alternate draft Security Council resolution that opposes sanctions and calls for support for the current UN mission to Syria. The Russian foreign ministry came close to accusing Washington and its local proxies in Syria of orchestrating the violence in Tremseh, noting that the US accusations of a massacre coincided with the start of the UN talks on Syria.

“Without prejudicing the outcome of the investigation,” Russian government spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich stated Friday, “we have no doubt that this atrocity is of advantage to the forces that do not seek peace, but persist in trying to sow the seeds of sectarian animosity and civil conflict.”

The alleged massacre in Tremseh is the latest example of the Obama administration’s cynical use of “humanitarian” justifications for its increasingly bloody intervention into the Syrian conflict. Following a well-established pattern, the US media swung into line on Thursday, promulgating uncritically the administration line on the events in Tremseh and largely ignoring the evidence contradicting the official pro-war propaganda.

In May, Washington similarly seized on accusations of a massacre of 100 people in the village of Houla. At that time, Clinton used the killings to undermine the ceasefire plan being negotiated with the Assad regime by UN envoy Kofi Annan. Following the Houla “massacre” the US-backed FSA repudiated the Annan plan on the grounds that the Syrian government had used the ceasefire to carry out the attack.

As subsequently revealed by the leading German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, but almost completely ignored by the rest of the Western media, multiple eyewitness accounts of the killings in Houla reported that the massacre was actually carried out by FSA fighters who had targeted minority Shiites, Alawites and Christians who had refused to join the Sunni-based opposition.

The Syrian National Council, the Turkish-based opposition group that is closely linked to the FSA, on Thursday echoed the line coming from Washington on the alleged massacre and urged the UN to pass a binding resolution against the Assad government. Meanwhile, the French government of President Francois Hollande used the claims of a massacre in Tremseh to announce that it would begin supplying the Syrian opposition with military-grade communications equipment.

By Niall Green

14 July, 2012

WSWS.org

Vatican: Christians expelled from war-torn Syrian town

BEIRUT — Much of the Christian population of the besieged Syrian city of Qusair has abandoned the town after an “ultimatum” from the rebel military chief there, reports Agenzia Fides, the official Vatican news agency.

The ultimatum expired Thursday, the agency reported, adding that most of the city’s 10,000 Christians have fled the city, situated in the battleground province of Homs.

“Some mosques in the city have relaunched the message, announcing from the minarets: ‘Christians must leave Quasir,’ ” read the report from the Vatican agency, which has sought to document the parlous plight of Syria’s ancient Christian community.

Qusair has been the site of intense clashes for months between armed rebels and forces loyal to President Bashar Assad. The strategic city is close to the Lebanese border and has been a smuggling hub for arms and medicines destined for rebel forces in the embattled city of Homs, about 15 miles to the northeast, which has already seen its large Christian population flee, the Vatican agency reported.

A Jesuit priest, Father Paolo Dall’Oglio, had recently remained in Qusair for a week, “praying and fasting for peace in the midst of the conflict,” the Vatican report said.

The reasons for the ultimatum ordering Christians to leave Qusair “remain unclear,” the Vatican agency said. “According to some, it serves to avoid more suffering to the faithful; other sources reveal ‘a continuity focused on discrimination and repression.’ Still others argue that Christians have openly expressed their loyalty to the state and for this reason the opposition army drives them away.”

Christians represent about 10% of Syria’s population, but their status in Syrian conflict zones has become more and more tenuous. Many Christians remain loyal to Assad because his government has been tolerant of religious minorities. Many fear an Islamist takeover could result in the kind of repression that occurred in neighboring Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 that ousted Saddam Hussein — who, like Assad, was a secular autocrat. Militants in post-Hussein Iraq bombed churches, torched Christian shops and forced hundreds of thousands of Christians to flee to Syria, long regarded as safe for Christians.

Syrian opposition spokesmen have repeatedly said that Syrian rebels do not target Christians or other minorities and believe in creating a democratic society once Assad is ousted. Leading the rebellion are members of Syria’s Sunni Muslim majority, who have long chaffed under the rule of the Assad clan, members of the minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam. The Assad leadership has maintained power for more than four decades in part by forging alliances with minorities, as well as with important Sunni sectors.

The Vatican agency cited “sources” who said that extremist Islamist groups in the ranks of the Qusair rebels “consider Christians ‘infidels,’ confiscate goods, commit brief executions and are ready to start a ‘sectarian war.’ “

Families fleeing Qusair have gone to nearby villages and to Damascus, the capital, the agency report said. “Some families, very few, sought valiantly to stay in their home town,” reported Agenzia Fides, “but no one knows what fate they will suffer.”

By Patrick J. McDonnell

10 June 2012

@ Los Angeles Times

USAFRICOM and the Militarization of the African Continent: Combating China’s Economic Encroachment

As the Obama administration claims to welcome the peaceful rise of China on the world stage, recent policy shifts toward an increased US military presence in Central Africa threaten deepening Chinese commercial activity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, widely considered the world’s most resource rich nation.

Since the time of the British Empire and the manifesto of Cecil Rhodes, the pursuit of treasures on the hopeless continent has demonstrated the expendability of human life. Despite decades of apathy among the primary resource consumers, the increasing reach of social media propaganda has ignited public interest in Africa’s long overlooked social issues. In the wake of celebrity endorsed pro-intervention publicity stunts, public opinion in the United States is now being mobilized in favor of a greater military presence on the African continent. Following the deployment of one hundred US military personnel to Uganda in 2011, a new bill has been introduced to the Congress calling for the further expansion of regional military forces in pursuit of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), an ailing rebel group allegedly responsible for recruiting child soldiers and conducting crimes against humanity.

As the Obama administration claims to welcome the peaceful rise of China on the world stage, recent policy shifts toward an American Pacific Century indicate a desire to maintain the capacity to project military force toward the emerging superpower. In addition to maintaining a permanent military presence in Northern Australia, the construction of an expansive military base on South Korea’s Jeju Island has indicated growing antagonism towards Beijing. The base maintains the capacity to host up to twenty American and South Korean warships, including submarines, aircraft carriers and destroyers once completed in 2014 – in addition to the presence of Aegis anti-ballistic systems. In response, Chinese leadership has referred to the increasing militarization in the region as an open provocation.

On the economic front, China has been excluded from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), a trade agreement intended to administer US-designed international trading regulations throughout Asia, to the benefit of American corporations. As further fundamental policy divisions emerge subsequent to China and Russia’s UNSC veto mandating intervention in Syria, the Obama administration has begun utilizing alternative measures to exert new economic pressure towards Beijing. The United States, along with the EU and Japan have called on the World Trade Organization to block Chinese-funded mining projects in the US, in addition to a freeze on World Bank financing for China’s extensive mining projects.

In a move to counteract Chinese economic ascendancy, Washington is crusading against China’s export restrictions on minerals that are crucial components in the production of consumer electronics such as flat-screen televisions, smart phones, laptop batteries, and a host of other products. In a 2010 white paper entitled “Critical Raw Materials for the EU,” the European Commission cites the immediate need for reserve supplies of tantalum, cobalt, niobium, and tungsten among others; the US Department of Energy 2010 white paper “Critical Mineral Strategy” also acknowledged the strategic importance of these key components.  Coincidently, the US military is now attempting to increase its presence in what is widely considered the world’s most resource rich nation, the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The DRC has suffered immensely during its history of foreign plunder and colonial occupation; it maintains the second lowest GDP per capita despite having an estimated $24 trillion in untapped raw minerals deposits. During the Congo Wars of the 1996 to 2003, the United States provided training and arms to Rwandan and Ugandan militias who later invaded the eastern provinces of the DRC in proxy. In addition to benefiting various multinational corporations, the regimes of Paul Kagame in Rwanda and Yoweri Museveni in Uganda both profited immensely from the plunder of Congolese conflict minerals such as cassiterite, wolframite, coltan (from which niobium and tantalum are derived) and gold. The DRC holds more than 30% of the world’s diamond reserves and 80% of the world’s coltan, the majority of which is exported to China for processing into electronic-grade tantalum powder and wiring.

China’s unprecedented economic transformation has relied not only on consumer markets in the United States, Australia and the EU – but also on Africa, as a source for a vast array of raw materials. As Chinese economic and cultural influence in Africa expands exponentially with the symbolic construction of the new $200 million African Union headquarters funded solely by Beijing, the ailing United States and its leadership have expressed dissatisfaction toward its diminishing role in the region. During a diplomatic tour of Africa in 2011, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton herself has irresponsibly insinuated China’s guilt in perpetuating a creeping “new colonialism.”

At a time when China holds an estimated $1.5 trillion in American government debt, Clinton’s comments remain dangerously provocative. As China, backed by the world’s largest foreign currency reserves, begins to offer loans to its BRICS counterparts in RMB, the prospect of emerging nations resisting the New American Century appear to be increasingly assured. While the success of Anglo-American imperialism relies on its capacity to militarily drive target nations into submission, today’s African leaders are not obliged to do business with China – although doing so may be to their benefit. China annually invests an estimated $5.5 billion in Africa, with only 29 percent of direct investment in the mining sector in 2009 – while more than half was directed toward domestic manufacturing, finance, and construction industries, which largely benefit Africans themselves – despite reports of worker mistreatment.

China has further committed $10 billion in concessional loans to Africa between 2009 and 2012 and made significant investments in manufacturing zones in non-resource-rich economies such as Zambia and Tanzania. As Africa’s largest trading partner, China imports 1.5 million barrels of oil from Africa per day, approximately accounting for 30 percent of its total imports. Over the past decade, 750,000 Chinese nationals have settled in Africa, while Chinese state-funded cultural centers in rural parts of the continent conduct language classes in Mandarin and Cantonese. As China is predicted to formally emerge as the world’s largest economy in 2016, the recent materialization of plans for a BRICS Bank have the potential to restructure the global financial climate and directly challenge the hegemonic conduct of the International Monetary Fund in Africa’s strategic emerging economies.

China’s deepening economic engagement in Africa and its crucial role in developing the mineral sector, telecommunications industry and much needed infrastructural projects is creating “deep nervousness” in the West, according to David Shinn, the former US ambassador to Burkina Faso and Ethiopia. In a 2011 Department of Defense whitepaper entitled “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China”, the US acknowledges the maturity of China’s modern hardware and military technology, and the likelihood of Beijing finding hostility with further military alliances between the United States and Taiwan. The document further indicates that “China’s rise as a major international actor is likely to stand out as a defining feature of the strategic landscape of the early 21st century.” Furthermore, the Department of Defense concedes to the uncertainty of how China’s growing capabilities will be administered on the world stage.

Although a US military presence in Africa (under the guise of fighting terrorism and protecting human rights) specifically to counter Chinese regional economic authority may not incite tension in the same way that a US presence in North Korea or Taiwan would, the potential for brinksmanship exists and will persist. China maintains the largest standing army in the world with 2,285,000 personnel and is working to challenge the regional military hegemony of America’s Pacific Century with its expanding naval and conventional capabilities, including an effort to develop the world’s first anti-ship ballistic missile. Furthermore, China has moved to begin testing advanced anti-satellite (ASAT) and Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) weapons systems in an effort to bring the US-China rivalry into Space warfare.

The concept of US intervention into the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, Central African Republic and Uganda under the pretext of disarming the Lord’s Resistance Army is an ultimately fraudulent purpose. The LRA has been in operation for over two decades, and presently remains at an extremely weakened state, with approximately 400 soldiers. According the LRA Crisis Tracker, a digital crisis mapping software launched by the Invisible Children group, not a single case of LRA activity has been reported in Uganda since 2006. The vast majority of reported attacks are presently taking place in the northeastern Bangadi region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, located on the foot of a tri-border expanse between the Central African Republic and South Sudan.

The existence of the Lord’s Resistance Army should rightfully be disputed, as the cases of LRA activity reported by US State Department-supported Invisible Children rely on unconfirmed reports – cases where LRA activity is presumed and suspected. Given the extreme instability in the northern DRC after decades of foreign invasion and countless rebel insurgencies, the lack of adequate investigative infrastructure needed to sufficiently examine and confirm the LRA’s presence is simply not in place. The villainous branding of Joseph Kony may well be deserved, however it cannot be overstated that the LRA threat is wholly misrepresented in recent pro-intervention US legislation. An increasing US presence in the region exists only to curtail the increasing economic presence of China in one of the world’s most resource and mineral rich regions.

The Lord’s Resistance Army was originally formed in 1987 in northwestern Uganda by members of the Acholi ethnic group, who were historically exploited for forced labor by the British colonialists and later marginalized by the nation’s dominant Bantu ethic groups following independence. The Lord’s Resistance Army originally aimed to overthrow the government of current Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni – due to a campaign of genocide waged against the Acholi people. The northern Ugandan Acholi and Langi ethnic groups have been historically targeted and ostracized by successive Anglo-American backed administrations. In 1971, Israeli and British intelligence agencies engineered a coup against Uganda’s socialist President Milton Obote, which gave rise to the disastrous regime of Idi Amin.

Prior to declaring himself head of state after deposing Obote, Amin was a member of the British colonial regiment, charged with managing concentration camps in Kenya during the Mau Mau rebellion beginning in 1952. Amin conducted genocide against the Acholi people on the suspicion of loyalty toward the former Obote leadership, who later reclaimed power in 1979 after Amin attempted to annex the neighboring Kagera province of Tanzania. Museveni founded the Front for National Salvation, which helped topple Obote with US support in 1986, despite the fact that his army exploited the use of child soldiers. Museveni formally took power and was subsequently accused of genocide for driving the Acholi people into detainment camps in an attempt to usurp fertile land in northern Uganda.

The Museveni regime has displaced approximately 1.5 million Acholi and killed at least three hundred thousand people when taking power in 1986 according to the Red Cross. In addition to accusations of using rape as weapon and overseeing the deaths of thousands in squalid detainment camps, Museveni has been accused of exerting a campaign of state-sponsored terror onto the Acholi people in a 1992 Amnesty International report. During an interview with Joseph Kony in 2006, the LRA commander denies allegations of mutilation and torture and further accuses Museveni’s forces of committing such actions as propaganda against the Lord’s Resistance Army.

In a detailed report of Museveni’s atrocities, Ugandan writer Herrn Edward Mulindwa offers, “During the 22-year war, Museveni’s army killed, maimed and mutilated thousands of civilians, while blaming it on rebels. In northern Uganda, instead of defending and protecting civilians against rebel attacks, Museveni’s army would masquerade as rebels and commit gross atrocities, including maiming and mutilation, only to return and pretend to be saviors of the affected people.” Despite such compelling evidence of brutality, Museveni has been a staunch US ally since the Reagan administration and received $45 million dollars in military aid from the Obama administration for Ugandan participation in the fight against Somalia’s al Shabaab militia. Since the abhorrent failure of the 1993 US intervention in Somalia, the US has relied on the militaries of Rwanda, Uganda and Ethiopia to carry out US interests in proxy.

Since colonial times, the West has historically exploited ethnic differences in Africa for political gain. In Rwanda, the Belgian colonial administration exacerbated tension between the Hutu, who were subjugated as a workforce – and the Tutsi, seen as extenders of Belgian rule. From the start of the Rwandan civil war in 1990, the US sought to overthrow the 20-year reign of Hutu President Juvénal Habyarimana by installing a Tutsi proxy government in Rwanda, a region historically under the influence of France and Belgium. At that time prior to the outbreak of the Rwandan civil war, the Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) led by current Rwandan President Paul Kagame, was part of Museveni’s United People’s Defense Forces (UPDF).

Ugandan forces invaded Rwanda in 1990 under the pretext of Tutsi liberation, despite the fact that Museveni refused to grant citizenship to Tutsi-Rwandan refugees living in Uganda at the time, a move that further offset the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Kagame himself was trained at the U.S. Army Command and Staff College (CGSC) in Leavenworth, Kansas prior to returning to the region to oversee the 1990 invasion of Rwanda as commander of the RPA, which received supplies from US-funded UPDF military bases inside Uganda. The invasion of Rwanda had the full support of the US and Britain, who provided training by US Special Forces in collaboration with US mercenary outfit, Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI).

A report issued in 2000 by Canadian Professor Michel Chossudovsky and Belgian economist Senator Pierre Galand concluded that western financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank financed both sides of the Rwandan civil war, through a process of financing military expenditure from the external debt of both the regimes of Habyarimana and Museveni. In Uganda, the World Bank imposed austerity measures solely on civilian expenditures while overseeing the diversion of State revenue go toward funding the UPDF, on behalf of Washington. In Rwanda, the influx of development loans from the World Bank’s affiliates such as the International Development Association (IDA), the African Development Fund (AFD), and the European Development Fund (EDF) were diverted into funding the Hutu extremist Interhamwe militia, the main protagonists of the Rwandan genocide.

Perhaps most disturbingly, the World Bank oversaw huge arms purchases that were recorded as bona fide government expenditures, a stark violation of agreements signed between the Rwandan government and donor institutions. Under the watch of the World Bank, the Habyarimana regime imported approximately one million machetes through various Interhamwe linked organizations, under the pretext of importing civilian commodities. To ensure their reimbursement, a multilateral trust fund of $55.2 million dollars was designated toward postwar reconstruction efforts, although the money was not allocated to Rwanda – but to the World Bank, to service the debts used to finance the massacres.

Furthermore, Paul Kagame was pressured by Washington upon coming to power to recognize the legitimacy of the debt incurred by the previous genocidal Habyarimana regime. The swap of old loans for new debts (under the banner of post-war reconstruction) was conditional upon the acceptance of a new wave of IMF-World Bank reforms, which similarly diverted outside funds into military expenditure prior to the Kagame-led invasion of the Congo, then referred to as Zaire. As present day Washington legislators attempt to increase US military presence in the DRC under the pretext of humanitarian concern, the highly documented conduct of lawless western intelligence agencies and defense contractors in the Congo since its independence sheds further light on the exploitative nature of western intervention.

In 1961, the Congo’s first legally elected Prime Minister, Patrice Lumumba was assassinated with support from Belgian intelligence and the CIA, paving the way for the thirty-two year reign of Mobutu Sese Seko. As part of an attempt to purge the Congo of all colonial cultural influence, Mobutu renamed the country Zaire and led an authoritarian regime closely allied to France, Belgium and the US. Mobutu was regarded as a staunch US ally during the Cold War due to his strong stance against communism; the regime received billions in international aid, most from the United States. His administration allowed national infrastructure to deteriorate while the Zairian kleptocracy embezzled international aid and loans; Mobutu himself reportedly held $4 billion USD in a personal Swiss bank account.

Relations between the US and Zaire thawed at the end of the Cold War, when Mobutu was no longer needed as an ally; Washington would later use Rwandan and Ugandan troops to invade the Congo to topple Mobutu and install a new proxy regime. Following the conflict in Rwanda, 1.2 million Hutu civilians (many of whom who took part in the genocide) crossed into the Kivu province of eastern Zaire fearing prosecution from Paul Kagame’s Tutsi RPA. US Special Forces trained Rwandan and Ugandan troops at Fort Bragg in the United States and supported Congolese rebels under future President, Laurent Kabila. Under the pretext of safeguarding Rwandan national security against the threat of displaced Hutu militias, troops from Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi invaded the Congo and ripped through Hutu refugee camps, slaughtering thousands of Rwandan and Congolese Hutu civilians, many of who were women and children.

Reports of brutality and mass killing in the Congo were rarely addressed in the West, as the International Community was sympathetic to Kagame and the Rwandan Tutsi victims of genocide. Both Halliburton and Bechtel (military contractors that profited immensely from the Iraq war) were involved in military training and reconnaissance operations in an attempt to overthrow Mobutu and bring Kabila to power. After deposing Mobutu and seizing control in Kinshasa, Laurent Kabila was quickly regarded as an equally despotic leader after eradicating all opposition to his rule; he turned away from his Rwandan backers and called on Congolese civilians to violently purge the nation of Rwandans, prompting Rwandan forces to regroup in Goma, in an attempt to capture resource rich territory in eastern Congo.

Prior to becoming President in 1997, Kabila sent representatives to Toronto to discuss mining opportunities with American Mineral Fields (AMF) and Canada’s Barrick Gold Corporation; AMF had direct ties to US President Bill Clinton and was given exclusive exploration rights to zinc, copper, and cobalt mines in the area. The Congolese Wars perpetrated by Rwanda and Uganda killed at least six million people, making it the largest case of genocide since the Jewish holocaust. The successful perpetration of the conflict relied on western military and financial support, and was fought primarily to usurp the extensive mining resources of eastern and southern Congo; the US defense industry relies on high quality metallic alloys indigenous to the region, used primarily in the construction of high-performance jet engines.

In 1980, Pentagon documents acknowledged shortages of cobalt, titanium, chromium, tantalum, beryllium, and nickel; US participation in the Congolese conflict was largely an effort to obtain these needed resources. The sole piece of legislation authored by President Obama during his time as a Senator was S.B. 2125, the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006. In the legislation, Obama acknowledges the Congo as a long-term interest to the United States and further alludes to the threat of Hutu militias as an apparent pretext for continued interference in the region; Section 201(6) of the bill specifically calls for the protection of natural resources in the eastern DRC.

The Congressional Budget Office’s 1982 report “Cobalt: Policy Options for a Strategic Mineral” notes that cobalt alloys are critical to the aerospace and weapons industries and that 64% of the world’s cobalt reserves lay in the Katanga Copper Belt, running from southeastern Congo into northern Zambia. For this reason, the future perpetration of the military industrial complex largely depends on the control of strategic resources in the eastern DRC. In 2001, Laurent Kabila was assassinated by a member of his security staff, paving the way for his son Joseph Kabila to dynastically usurp the presidency. The younger Kabila derives his legitimacy solely from the support of foreign heads of state and the international business community, due to his ability to comply with foreign plunder.

During the Congo’s general elections in November 2011, the international community and the UN remained predictably silent regarding the mass irregularities observed by the electoral committee. The United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) has faced frequent allegations of corruption, prompting opposition leader Étienne Tshisikedi to call for the UN mission to end its deliberate efforts to maintain the system of international plundering and to appoint someone “less corrupt and more credible” to head UN operations. MONUSCO has been plagued with frequent cases of peacekeeping troops caught smuggling minerals such as cassiterite and dealing weapons to militia groups.

Under the younger Joseph Kabila, Chinese commercial activities in the DRC have significantly increased not only in the mining sector, but also considerably in the telecommunications field. In 2000, the Chinese ZTE Corporation finalized a $12.6 million deal with the Congolese government to establish the first Sino-Congolese telecommunications company; furthermore, the DRC exported $1.4 billion worth of cobalt between 2007 and 2008. The majority of Congolese raw materials like cobalt, copper ore and a variety of hard woods are exported to China for further processing and 90% of the processing plants in resource rich southeastern Katanga province are owned by Chinese nationals. In 2008, a consortium of Chinese companies were granted the rights to mining operations in Katanga in exchange for US$6 billion in infrastructure investments, including the construction of two hospitals, four universities and a hydroelectric power project.

The framework of the deal allocated an additional $3 million to develop cobalt and copper mining operations in Katanga. In 2009, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) demanded renegotiation of the deal, arguing that the agreement between China and the DRC violated the foreign debt relief program for so-called HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Countries) nations. The vast majority of the DRC’s $11 billion foreign debt owed to the Paris Club was embezzled by the previous regime of Mobuto Sesi Seko. The IMF successfully blocked the deal in May 2009, calling for a more feasibility study of the DRCs mineral concessions.

The United States is currently mobilizing public opinion in favor of a greater US presence in Africa, under the pretext of capturing Joseph Kony, quelling Islamist terrorism and putting an end to long-standing humanitarian issues. As well-meaning Americans are successively coerced by highly emotional social media campaigns promoting an American response to atrocities, few realize the role of the United States and western financial institutions in fomenting the very tragedies they are now poised to resolve. While many genuinely concerned individuals naively support forms of pro-war brand activism, the mobilization of ground forces in Central Africa will likely employ the use of predator drones and targeted missile strikes that have been notoriously responsible for civilian causalities en masse.

The further consolidation of US presence in the region is part of a larger program to expand AFRICOM, the United States Africa Command through a proposed archipelago of military bases in the region. In 2007, US State Department advisor Dr. J. Peter Pham offered the following on AFRICOM and its strategic objectives of “protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance, a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment.” Additionally, during an AFRICOM Conference held at Fort McNair on February 18, 2008, Vice Admiral Robert T. Moeller openly declared AFRICOM’s guiding principle of protecting “the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market,” before citing the increasing presence of China as a major challenge to US interests in the region.

The increased US presence in Central Africa is not simply a measure to secure monopolies on Uganda’s recently discovered oil reserves; Museveni’s legitimacy depends solely on foreign backers and their extensive military aid contributions – US ground forces are not required to obtain valuable oil contracts from Kampala. The push into Africa has more to do with destabilizing the deeply troubled Democratic Republic of the Congo and capturing its strategic reserves of cobalt, tantalum, gold and diamonds. More accurately, the US is poised to employ a scorched-earth policy by creating dangerous war-like conditions in the Congo, prompting the mass exodus of Chinese investors. Similarly to the Libyan conflict, the Chinese returned after the fall of Gaddafi to find a proxy government only willing to do business with the western nations who helped it into power.

As the US uses its influence to nurture the emergence of breakaway states like South Sudan, the activities of Somalia’s al Shabaab, Nigeria’s Boko Haram and larger factions of AQIM in North Africa offer a concrete pretext for further US involvement in regional affairs.

The ostensible role of the first African-American US President is to export the theatresque War on Terror directly to the African continent, in a campaign to exploit established tensions along tribal, ethnic and religious lines. As US policy theoreticians such as Dr. Henry Kissinger, willingly proclaim, “Depopulation should be the highest priority of US foreign policy towards the Third World,” the vast expanse of desert and jungles in northern and central Africa will undoubtedly serve as the venue for the next decade of resource wars.

By Nile Bowie

Global Research, March 23, 2012

nilebowie.blogspot.ca/

Nile Bowie is an independent writer and photojournalist based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; he regularly contributes to Global Research Twitter: @NileBowi

WWIII Scenario

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Nile Bowie, nilebowie.blogspot.ca/, 2012

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=29919

© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca

Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

US-Backed Gunmen Stage Massacre At Syrian TV Station

Gunmen stormed a pro-government television station in Syria Wednesday, slaughtering seven employees, wounding others and taking several people hostage. The attack came a day after President Bashar al-Assad declared Syria to be in “a real state of war.”

Killed in the early morning attack on Ikhbariya TV, located in a southern suburb of Damascus, were three journalists and four security guards. The attackers fired automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades at the security guards before ransacking the satellite station’s offices and studios and then setting powerful explosive devices that reduced the buildings to broken and burning rubble.

An outside wall of one of the buildings was splattered with blood, where the station’s employees had been bound, forced to their knees and then executed in cold blood.

The assault on Ikhbariya TV came just one day after the European Union issued new sanctions on sections of Syria’s state-run media, and followed the move earlier this month by the Arab League to force two Pan-Arab satellite companies to black out Syrian channels.

The massacre is part of an escalation of attacks by the so-called Free Syrian Army and other insurgent militias. These groups are backed by the Western powers, which are, together with Turkey and the right-wing monarchical regimes of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, providing them with an increasingly sophisticated arsenal as well as “trainers”, “advisors” and foreign fighters from elsewhere in the Middle East.

Wednesday’s assault on the TV station followed reports Tuesday of an attack on a major Republican Guard compound in Damascus as well as ambushes of government troops elsewhere in the country.

The escalating violence inside the country has been joined by stepped-up external threats, particularly from Turkey, which has ratcheted up tensions in response to Syria’s shooting down of one its military jets over Syrian territory late last week. The Turkish press reported Wednesday that Turkey had deployed 15 battle tanks, armored vehicles and artillery to its southern border with Syria. The Turkish government has vowed to treat any Syrian forces approaching the 550-mile long frontier between the two countries as hostile and respond militarily.

Violence inside Syria has “reached or even surpassed” the levels that existed before the April 12 ceasefire agreement brokered by the UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan, Jean-Marie Guehenno, the UN’s deputy envoy, told the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Wednesday. He added that the six-point Annan agreement “is clearly not being implemented.”

The UNHRC received an update from an international commission of inquiry into the Syrian events, which warned that the conflict was rapidly developing into a sectarian civil war.

“Where previously victims were targeted on the basis of their being pro- or anti-Government, the CoI [Commission of Inquiry] has recorded a growing number of incidents where victims appear to have been targeted because of their religious affiliation,” the report states.

A large portion of the document is devoted to the massacre in Houla, northwest of the city of Homs, late last month. The killing of some 100 civilians was seized upon by Washington and the other Western powers and the mass media in the West to demand the immediate ouster of the Assad regime, which they held responsible for the killings.

Subsequent reports have appeared, particularly one written for Germany’s leading daily newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, that have cited eyewitness testimony, including from opponents of the Assad regime, that the real authors of the killing were members of the Free Syrian Army, and that the victims were members of the Shia religious minority as well as perceived supporters of the government.

The report to the UN acknowledged that the investigation could not say with certainty who had carried out the killings. It presented three possibilities: “First, that the perpetrators were Shabbiha or other local militia from neighbouring villages, possibly operating together with, or with the acquiescence of, the Government security forces; second, that the perpetrators were anti-Government forces seeking to escalate the conflict while punishing those that failed to support—or who actively opposed—the rebellion; or third, foreign groups with unknown affiliation.”

The commission of inquiry, the report said, “could not rule out any of these possibilities,” although UN officials suggested that pro-government militias were the most likely suspects.

The report itself, however, cited evidence to the contrary, including information that the victims included one retired and one active member of the Syrian security forces, and that one of the children killed was wearing a bracelet bearing the Syrian national flag. It also cited testimony that the killers had “shaved heads and long beards”, suggesting the Sunni Islamist forces, including foreign fighters, that have been mobilized against the regime.

Russia, which has opposed until now the US-led demand for regime change in Syria, criticized the UN report for failing to reflect the scale of violence unleashed by the Western-backed “rebels.”

The report “does not reflect the scope of violence committed by militants,” said Vassily Nebenzya, the director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s department for humanitarian cooperation and human rights. These forces, he said, “kill or take hostage civilians, renowned Syrian political, state, municipal, public and religious activists, pilgrims”.

He added: “State institutions and infrastructure facilities are attacked practically on a daily basis. A mine war is in full swing. Militants commit bloody terrorist acts in Syrian cities.” This violence, Nebenzya said, “is fed with money and weapons from abroad.”

By Bill Van Auken

28 June, 2012
WSWS.org

US Escalates Military Threat Against Iran

The Obama administration has ordered a major buildup of American military forces in the Persian Gulf, as punishing economic sanctions imposed by both the US and the European Union within the last week have sharply escalated tensions with Iran. The Pentagon has deployed both a large number of warships in the Gulf itself, as well as advanced warplanes in neighboring countries.

The purpose of this buildup, according to a report published Tuesday in the New York Times, is to send various “signals”—to warn Iran against any attempt to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, to convince Israel not to carry out its own strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and to deflect Republican criticisms of Obama as “weak” on Iran.

Whether or not these are the real intentions of the US military buildup, the effect is to put a hair trigger on the threat of an armed confrontation that could provoke a devastating and potentially nuclear war with untold consequences in terms of human life, physical destruction and economic disruption throughout the region and internationally.

The US Navy, the Times reports, “has doubled the number of minesweepers assigned to the region to eight vessels,” while the Air Force has, since late spring, deployed “stealthy F-22 and older F-15C warplanes” at US bases in the region. These warplanes are in addition to “combat jets already in the region and the carrier strike groups that are on constant tours of the area.”

According to the Times, “Those additional attack aircraft give the United States military greater capability against coastal missile batteries that could disrupt shipping, as well as the reach to strike other targets deeper inside Iran.”

In addition, the military has sent the USS Ponce, an amphibious transport and docking ship specially converted into an “Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB),” into the Persian Gulf. Equipped with a helicopter landing deck, field hospital and a large number of bunks for Special Operations troops, it can be used as a floating staging area for sea, air and land attacks on Iran.

The Times report, which appears to stem from a deliberate attempt by the Obama administration and the Pentagon to intimidate Iran, is laced with highly provocative and bellicose rhetoric from unnamed “senior administration officials.”

“When the president says there are other options on the table besides negotiations, he means it,” said one official, referring to the military buildup in the gulf.

“The message to Iran is, ‘Don’t even think about it’” the Times quoted an unnamed “senior Defense Department” official as saying. “Don’t even think about closing the strait. We’ll clear the mines. Don’t even think about sending your fast boats to harass our vessels or commercial shipping. We’ll put them on the bottom of the gulf.”

The real message is that Washington is treating the Persian Gulf like an American lake under conditions in which the US and its European allies are ratcheting up economic sanctions that more and more resemble a blockade, an act of war.

On Sunday, the European Union, which previously accounted for one fifth of Iran’s oil exports, put into effect a total embargo on Iranian oil. The move followed even more sweeping sanctions imposed by the United States, which penalizes third countries by denying access to the US banking and financial system to banks and corporations that do business with Iran’s central bank.

These measures come on top of a host of previously enacted sanctions that together have reportedly cut Iran’s oil exports by approximately 40 percent since last year. The real impact of this economic warfare is felt by working people in Iran in the form of sharply rising prices of basic necessities and growing unemployment.

The ostensible purpose of these sanctions is to force the Iranian government to bow to Western ultimatums regarding the country’s nuclear program. The US and its allies have repeatedly made unsubstantiated charges that the Iranian government is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran has denied these allegations, insisting that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Another round of the stalled talks between Iran and the so-called P5+1 countries—the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany—took place in Istanbul on Tuesday, although on a lower level than previous negotiations. The session was held between nuclear experts from Iran and the major powers to determine whether differing technical interpretations were impeding the talks.

Talks held in Moscow last month stalemated, however, because the US and its allies issued a series of ultimatums to Tehran—that it halt its enrichment of uranium to the 20 percent level, relinquish its stockpile of enriched uranium and shutter its enrichment plant at Fordow. The US and its allies, however, brushed aside Iranian demands that they recognize Iran’s right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and lift economic sanctions.

Tehran has questioned Washington’s stated desire to resolve the nuclear issue by means of diplomacy. “Many people are starting to conclude that maybe there are specific goals in dragging out the talks and preventing their success,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told a weekly briefing. “One option is that perhaps there is a link with the US [presidential] election.”

The senior Pentagon official quoted by the New York Times Tuesday openly indicated that the confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program was largely a pretext for using economic and military aggression in pursuit of US strategic interests.

“This is not only about Iranian nuclear ambitions, but about Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions,” the Defense Department official told the Times. “This is a complex array of American military power that is tangible proof to all our allies and partners and friends that even as the US pivots toward Asia, we remain vigilant across the Middle East.”

In other words, Iran is seen as an obstacle to US “hegemonic ambitions” in the oil-rich regions of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. Having spent the last decade fighting two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is now preparing a third and far more dangerous one against the country that lies between them, Iran.

The Iranian parliament, the Majlis, has responded to the escalating Western aggression with a threat to close down the strategic Strait of Hormuz to shipping from the US, the EU and other countries supporting the embargo against Iranian oil. A resolution to that effect was passed by the body’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, with 120 members of parliament signing their support. A government spokesman said that if the measure was approved by the full body, Tehran would be obliged to act upon it.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards initiated three days of military exercises Monday, firing medium range ballistic missiles at mock enemy bases in the Iranian desert. One of the missiles, the Shahab-3, has a range of 800 miles, able to reach both Israel and US military bases throughout the region.

“It is a response to the political impoliteness of those who talk about all options being on the table,” Gen. Hossein Salami said in explaining the test firings.

Also on Monday, Iranian officials joined relatives of the 290 people, including 66 children, killed in the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3, 1988. The 24th anniversary commemoration was held just off Bandar Abbas, the Iranian port where the flight was hit by a missile fired by the USS Vincennes just after it took off.

In a statement issued Monday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said: “This inhumane crime is clear proof of the innocence of the Iranian nation and [provides] clear evidence that the United States is not committed to any international legal and ethical principles and norms, and (it) will remain in the historical memory of the Iranian nation.”

By Bill Van Auken

04 July, 2012

@ WSWS.org

U.S. Empire Of Bases Grows

The first thing I saw last month when I walked into the belly of the dark grey C-17 Air Force cargo plane was a void — something missing. A missing left arm, to be exact, severed at the shoulder, temporarily patched and held together. Thick, pale flesh, flecked with bright red at the edges. It looked like meat sliced open. The face and what remained of the rest of the man were obscured by blankets, an American flag quilt, and a jumble of tubes and tape, wires, drip bags, and medical monitors.

That man and two other critically wounded soldiers — one with two stumps where legs had been, the other missing a leg below the thigh — were intubated, unconscious, and lying on stretchers hooked to the walls of the plane that had just landed at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. A tattoo on the soldier’s remaining arm read, “DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR.”

I asked a member of the Air Force medical team about the casualties they see like these. Many, as with this flight, were coming from Afghanistan, he told me. “A lot from the Horn of Africa,” he added. “You don’t really hear about that in the media.”

“Where in Africa?” I asked. He said he didn’t know exactly, but generally from the Horn, often with critical injuries. “A lot out of Djibouti,” he added, referring to Camp Lemonnier, the main U.S. military base in Africa, but from “elsewhere” in the region, too.

Since the “Black Hawk Down” deaths in Somalia almost 20 years ago, we’ve heard little, if anything, about American military casualties in Africa (other than a strange report last week about three special operations commandos killed, along with three women identified by U.S. military sources as “Moroccan prostitutes,” in a mysterious car accident in Mali). The growing number of patients arriving at Ramstein from Africa pulls back a curtain on a significant transformation in twenty-first-century U.S. military strategy.

These casualties are likely to be the vanguard of growing numbers of wounded troops coming from places far removed from Afghanistan or Iraq. They reflect the increased use of relatively small bases like Camp Lemonnier, which military planners see as a model for future U.S. bases “scattered,” as one academic explains, “across regions in which the United States has previously not maintained a military presence.”

Disappearing are the days when Ramstein was the signature U.S. base, an American-town-sized behemoth filled with thousands or tens of thousands of Americans, PXs, Pizza Huts, and other amenities of home. But don’t for a second think that the Pentagon is packing up, downsizing its global mission, and heading home. In fact, based on developments in recent years, the opposite may be true. While the collection of Cold War-era giant bases around the world is shrinking, the global infrastructure of bases overseas has exploded in size and scope.

Unknown to most Americans, Washington’s garrisoning of the planet is on the rise, thanks to a new generation of bases the military calls “lily pads” (as in a frog jumping across a pond toward its prey). These are small, secretive, inaccessible facilities with limited numbers of troops, spartan amenities, and prepositioned weaponry and supplies.

Around the world, from Djibouti to the jungles of Honduras, the deserts of Mauritania to Australia’s tiny Cocos Islands, the Pentagon has been pursuing as many lily pads as it can, in as many countries as it can, as fast as it can. Although statistics are hard to assemble, given the often-secretive nature of such bases, the Pentagon has probably built upwards of 50 lily pads and other small bases since around 2000, while exploring the construction of dozens more.

As Mark Gillem, author of America Town: Building the Outposts of Empire, explains, “avoidance” of local populations, publicity, and potential opposition is the new aim. “To project its power,” he says, the United States wants “secluded and self-contained outposts strategically located” around the world. According to some of the strategy’s strongest proponents at the American Enterprise Institute, the goal should be “to create a worldwide network of frontier forts,” with the U.S. military “the ‘global cavalry’ of the twenty-first century.”

Such lily-pad bases have become a critical part of an evolving Washington military strategy aimed at maintaining U.S. global dominance by doing far more with less in an increasingly competitive, ever more multi-polar world. Central as it’s becoming to the long-term U.S. stance, this global-basing reset policy has, remarkably enough, received almost no public attention, nor significant Congressional oversight. Meanwhile, as the arrival of the first casualties from Africa shows, the U.S. military is getting involved in new areas of the world and new conflicts, with potentially disastrous consequences.

Transforming the Base Empire

You might think that the U.S. military is in the process of shrinking, rather than expanding, its little noticed but enormous collection of bases abroad. After all, it was forced to close the full panoply of 505 bases, mega to micro, that it built in Iraq, and it’s now beginning the process of drawing down forces in Afghanistan. In Europe, the Pentagon is continuing to close its massive bases in Germany and will soon remove two combat brigades from that country. Global troop numbers are set to shrink by around 100,000.

Yet Washington still easily maintains the largest collection of foreign bases in world history: more than 1,000 military installations outside the 50 states and Washington, DC. They include everything from decades-old bases in Germany and Japan to brand-new drone bases in Ethiopia and the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean and even resorts for military vacationers in Italy and South Korea.

In Afghanistan, the U.S.-led international force still occupies more than 450 bases. In total, the U.S. military has some form of troop presence in approximately 150 foreign countries, not to mention 11 aircraft carrier task forces — essentially floating bases — and a significant, and growing, military presence in space. The United States currently spends an estimated $250 billion annually maintaining bases and troops overseas.

Some bases, like Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, date to the late nineteenth century. Most were built or occupied during or just after World War II on every continent, including Antarctica. Although the U.S. military vacated around 60% of its foreign bases following the Soviet Union’s collapse, the Cold War base infrastructure remained relatively intact, with 60,000 American troops remaining in Germany alone, despite the absence of a superpower adversary.

However, in the early months of 2001, even before the attacks of 9/11, the Bush administration launched a major global realignment of bases and troops that’s continuing today with Obama’s “Asia pivot.” Bush’s original plan was to close more than one-third of the nation’s overseas bases and shift troops east and south, closer to predicted conflict zones in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The Pentagon began to focus on creating smaller and more flexible “forward operating bases” and even smaller “cooperative security locations” or “lily pads.” Major troop concentrations were to be restricted to a reduced number of “main operating bases” (MOBs) — like Ramstein, Guam in the Pacific, and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean — which were to be expanded.

Despite the rhetoric of consolidation and closure that went with this plan, in the post-9/11 era the Pentagon has actually been expanding its base infrastructure dramatically, including dozens of major bases in every Persian Gulf country save Iran, and in several Central Asian countries critical to the war in Afghanistan.

Hitting the Base Reset Button

Obama’s recently announced “Asia pivot” signals that East Asia will be at the center of the explosion of lily-pad bases and related developments. Already in Australia, U.S. marines are settling into a shared base in Darwin. Elsewhere, the Pentagon is pursuing plans for a drone and surveillance base in Australia’s Cocos Islands and deployments to Brisbane and Perth. In Thailand, the Pentagon has negotiated rights for new Navy port visits and a “disaster-relief hub” at U-Tapao.

In the Philippines, whose government evicted the U.S. from the massive Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base in the early 1990s, as many as 600 special forces troops have quietly been operating in the country’s south since January 2002. Last month, the two governments reached an agreement on the future U.S. use of Clark and Subic, as well as other repair and supply hubs from the Vietnam War era. In a sign of changing times, U.S. officials even signed a 2011 defense agreement with former enemy Vietnam and have begun negotiations over the Navy’s increased use of Vietnamese ports.

Elsewhere in Asia, the Pentagon has rebuilt a runway on tiny Tinian island near Guam, and it’s considering future bases in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei, while pushing stronger military ties with India. Every year in the region, the military conducts around 170 military exercises and 250 port visits. On South Korea’s Jeju island, the Korean military is building a base that will be part of the U.S. missile defense system and to which U.S. forces will have regular access.

“We just can’t be in one place to do what we’ve got to do,” Pacific Command commander Admiral Samuel Locklear III has said. For military planners, “what we’ve got to do” is clearly defined as isolating and (in the terminology of the Cold War) “containing” the new power in the region, China. This evidently means “peppering” new bases throughout the region, adding to the more than 200 U.S. bases that have encircled China for decades in Japan, South Korea, Guam, and Hawaii.

And Asia is just the beginning. In Africa, the Pentagon has quietly created “about a dozen air bases” for drones and surveillance since 2007. In addition to Camp Lemonnier, we know that the military has created or will soon create installations in Burkina Faso, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mauritania, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, South Sudan, and Uganda. The Pentagon has also investigated building bases in Algeria, Gabon, Ghana, Mali, and Nigeria, among other places.

Next year, a brigade-sized force of 3,000 troops, and “likely more,” will arrive for exercises and training missions across the continent. In the nearby Persian Gulf, the Navy is developing an “afloat forward-staging base,” or “mothership,” to serve as a sea-borne “lily pad” for helicopters and patrol craft, and has been involved in a massive build-up of forces in the region.

In Latin America, following the military’s eviction from Panama in 1999 and Ecuador in 2009, the Pentagon has created or upgraded new bases in Aruba and Curaçao, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, and Peru. Elsewhere, the Pentagon has funded the creation of military and police bases capable of hosting U.S. forces in Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Costa Rica, and even Ecuador. In 2008, the Navy reactivated its Fourth Fleet, inactive since 1950, to patrol the region. The military may want a base in Brazil and unsuccessfully tried to create bases, ostensibly for humanitarian and emergency relief, in Paraguay and Argentina.

Finally, in Europe, after arriving in the Balkans during 1990’s interventions, U.S. bases have moved eastward into some of the former Eastern Bloc states of the Soviet empire. The Pentagon is now developing installations capable of supporting rotating, brigade-sized deployments in Romania and Bulgaria, and a missile defense base and aviation facilities in Poland. Previously, the Bush administration maintained two CIA black sites (secret prisons) in Lithuania and another in Poland. Citizens of the Czech Republic rejected a planned radar base for the Pentagon’s still unproven missile defense system, and now Romania will host ground-based missiles.

A New American Way of War

A lily pad on one of the Gulf of Guinea islands of São Tomé and Príncipe, off the oil-rich west coast of Africa, helps explain what’s going on. A U.S. official has described the base as “another Diego Garcia,” referring to the Indian Ocean base that’s helped ensure decades of U.S. domination over Middle Eastern energy supplies. Without the freedom to create new large bases in Africa, the Pentagon is using São Tomé and a growing collection of other lily pads on the continent in an attempt to control another crucial oil-rich region.

Far beyond West Africa, the nineteenth century “Great Game” competition for Central Asia has returned with a passion — and this time gone global. It’s spreading to resource-rich lands in Africa, Asia, and South America, as the United States, China, Russia, and members of the European Union find themselves locked in an increasingly intense competition for economic and geopolitical supremacy.

While Beijing, in particular, has pursued this competition in a largely economic fashion, dotting the globe with strategic investments, Washington has focused relentlessly on military might as its global trump card, dotting the planet with new bases and other forms of military power. “Forget full-scale invasions and large-footprint occupations on the Eurasian mainland,” Nick Turse has written of this new twenty-first century military strategy. “Instead, think: special operations forces… proxy armies… the militarization of spying and intelligence… drone aircraft… cyber-attacks, and joint Pentagon operations with increasingly militarized ‘civilian’ government agencies.”

Add to this unparalleled long-range air and naval power; arms sales besting any nation on Earth; humanitarian and disaster relief missions that clearly serve military intelligence, patrol, and “hearts and minds” functions; the rotational deployment of regular U.S. forces globally; port visits and an expanding array of joint military exercises and training missions that give the U.S. military de facto “presence” worldwide and help turn foreign militaries into proxy forces.

And lots and lots of lily-pad bases.

Military planners see a future of endless small-scale interventions in which a large, geographically dispersed collection of bases will always be primed for instant operational access. With bases in as many places as possible, military planners want to be able to turn to another conveniently close country if the United States is ever prevented from using a base, as it was by Turkey prior to the invasion of Iraq. In other words, Pentagon officials dream of nearly limitless flexibility, the ability to react with remarkable rapidity to developments anywhere on Earth, and thus, something approaching total military control over the planet.

Beyond their military utility, the lily pads and other forms of power projection are also political and economic tools used to build and maintain alliances and provide privileged U.S. access to overseas markets, resources, and investment opportunities. Washington is planning to use lily-pad bases and other military projects to bind countries in Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America as closely as possible to the U.S. military — and so to continued U.S. political-economic hegemony. In short, American officials are hoping military might will entrench their influence and keep as many countries as possible within an American orbit at a time when some are asserting their independence ever more forcefully or gravitating toward China and other rising powers.

Those Dangerous Lily Pads

While relying on smaller bases may sound smarter and more cost effective than maintaining huge bases that have often caused anger in places like Okinawa and South Korea, lily pads threaten U.S. and global security in several ways:

First, the “lily pad” language can be misleading, since by design or otherwise, such installations are capable of quickly growing into bloated behemoths.

Second, despite the rhetoric about spreading democracy that still lingers in Washington, building more lily pads actually guarantees collaboration with an increasing number of despotic, corrupt, and murderous regimes.

Third, there is a well-documented pattern of damage that military facilities of various sizes inflict on local communities. Although lily pads seem to promise insulation from local opposition, over time even small bases have often led to anger and protest movements.

Finally, a proliferation of lily pads means the creeping militarization of large swaths of the globe. Like real lily pads — which are actually aquatic weeds — bases have a way of growing and reproducing uncontrollably. Indeed, bases tend to beget bases, creating “base races” with other nations, heightening military tensions, and discouraging diplomatic solutions to conflicts. After all, how would the United States respond if China, Russia, or Iran were to build even a single lily-pad base of its own in Mexico or the Caribbean?

For China and Russia in particular, ever more U.S. bases near their borders threaten to set off new cold wars. Most troublingly, the creation of new bases to protect against an alleged future Chinese military threat may prove to be a self-fulfilling prophecy: such bases in Asia are likely to create the threat they are supposedly designed to protect against, making a catastrophic war with China more, not less, likely.

Encouragingly, however, overseas bases have recently begun to generate critical scrutiny across the political spectrum from Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul to Democratic Senator Jon Tester and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. With everyone looking for ways to trim the deficit, closing overseas bases offers easy savings. Indeed, increasingly influential types are recognizing that the country simply can’t afford more than 1,000 bases abroad.

Great Britain, like empires before it, had to close most of its remaining foreign bases in the midst of an economic crisis in the 1960s and 1970s. The United States is undoubtedly headed in that direction sooner or later. The only question is whether the country will give up its bases and downsize its global mission by choice, or if it will follow Britain’s path as a fading power forced to give up its bases from a position of weakness.

Of course, the consequences of not choosing another path extend beyond economics. If the proliferation of lily pads, special operations forces, and drone wars continues, the United States is likely to be drawn into new conflicts and new wars, generating unknown forms of blowback, and untold death and destruction. In that case, we’d better prepare for a lot more incoming flights — from the Horn of Africa to Honduras — carrying not just amputees but caskets.

By David Vine

16 July, 2012
Tomdispatch.com

David Vine is assistant professor of anthropology at American University, in Washington, DC. He is the author of Island of Shame: The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia(Princeton University Press, 2009). He has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, and Mother Jones, among other places. He is currently completing a book about the more than 1,000 U.S. military bases located outside the United States. To listen to Timothy MacBain’s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Vine discusses his experiences with the Pentagon’s empire of bases, click here or download it to your iPod here.

Copyright 2012 David Vine