Archives: Articles

 

 

29 May, 2011

Countercurrents.org

In 1991, after the Soviet Union dissolved, everything changed but stayed the same. As a result, today’s stakes are far greater, presenting much larger threats to world peace.

In America, neocons are still dominant. Obama is more belligerent than Bush, waging four wars and various proxy ones. The Israeli Lobby, Christian Right, and other extremist elements drive them. Conflict is preferred over diplomacy.

Congressional majorities support Washington’s imperial agenda, including global militarization against potential challengers and America’s main rivals – China and Russia, encircling them belligerently with bases and strategic weapons. It’s a policy fraught with danger.

NATO has 28 member states, including 10 former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact countries. Prospective new candidates include Georgia, Ukraine, and potentially others later to more tightly encircle Russia and China.

At the same time, the Middle East and parts of Eurasia have been increasingly militarized with a network of US bases from Qatar to Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond – a clear breach of GHW Bush’s promise to Mikhail Gorbachev that paved the way for unifying Germany in 1990 and dissolving the Soviet Union.

Washington’s promises, of course, aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, a hard lesson many nations later learn painfully.

Moreover, the Pentagon has an expanding network of 1,000 or more global bases, including secret and shared ones for greater control. In fact, at a time no nation threatens America, trillions of dollars are spent anyway for what military planners call “full spectrum dominance” over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any adversary, including with nuclear weapons preemptively.

Encroaching Belligerently Near Russia’s Borders

In late summer 2009, Obama suspended Bush administration plans for interceptor missiles in Poland and advanced tracking radar in the Czech Republic, both NATO members. Purportedly targeting Iran and other “rogue states,” they, in fact, very much aimed at Russia, what new ones will do when installed.

At issue is assuring first strike capability, preventing or diminishing retaliation if America attacks Russia or China, a potentially catastrophic possibility under any scenario, but especially if nuclear war erupts.

For now, according to Obama, Washington will pursue “stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America’s allies,” including Poland and the Czech Republic. Tactics alone may change, not hardline imperial policies.

Last September, Defense Secretary Gates explained a four-phase missile shield plan, including deploying Aegis class warships in the Eastern Mediterranean equipped with SM-3 anti-ballistic missiles and anti-satellite interceptors, followed by upgraded land and sea versions when available.

Moreover, stationing SM-3s in Bulgaria, Romania, and Poland were announced. Last summer, in fact, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors and about 100 US troops were sent to eastern Poland, close to Russia’s Kaliningrad region, 200 miles from its border.

This same capability was installed in the Persian Gulf, including supplying regional allies with longer range Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile systems, the strategy being to have in place impenetrable interceptors from the Baltic to the Arabian, Black and Red Seas.

In addition, a warning system is planned for the Czech Republic and other countries as well as centrally controlled missile interceptors – from Southern and Eastern Europe through the Middle East to close to Russia’s borders, too close perhaps for comfort.

Instead of abandoning Bush’s scheme, Obama’s plans a far more extensive, sophisticated, flexible, mobile system to be developed through 2020. Included is nearly doubling the number of Aegis class warships to 38 by 2015, equipped with state-of-the-art missile interceptors.

As a result, America’s front line capability will shift from Eastern Germany through the Middle East to the Black Sea and other strategic waterways to the Caucasus and Russia proper, encroaching on Moscow with new Eastern European bases in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland.

It represents the most significant US presence there since WW II. Currently, only limited troop numbers are involved up to 150 or so permanently, but expect an expanded presence ahead.

Last March, in fact, Secretary of State Clinton said Washington will deploy missile interceptor elements and F-16s in Poland. Russia expressed concern, Dmitry Rogozin, its permanent NATO representative, saying US plans complicate dialogue regarding creating a joint European anti-ballistic missile system, adding:

“Mrs. Clinton’s statement contradicts the foundational relationship (between the) Russian Federation and NATO signed in 1997, (stipulating) that NATO must not strengthen the military structure close to the borders of Russia.”

A Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement also expressed concern, saying:

“We have known about plans regarding (an) anti-ballistic missiles system long ago and we plan to (react in response) in the network of the EuroABM project. As for the idea of (US) Air Force base deployment, it requires an additional explanation.”

In late April, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin reacted as well, saying:

“The expansion of NATO infrastructure towards our borders is causing us concern. NATO is not simply a political bloc. It is a military bloc. No one cancelled the agreements on how the bloc reacts to external threats. It is a defense structure,” but it’s acting aggressively.

In a post-G-8 Summit press conference, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said:

“I am not satisfied with the American side’s reaction to my proposals and with NATO’s reaction in general. Why? Because we are wasting time. Even though I spoke about the year 2020 yesterday as a deadline, (the) year when the construction of a four-stage system of the so-called adaptive approach ends. After 2020, if we do not come to terms, a real arms race will begin.”

Perhaps much sooner as he’s gotten no assurances that Russia isn’t being targeted. As a result, he added:

“When we ask for the name of the countries that the shield is aimed at, we get silence. When we ask if the country has missiles (able to strike Europe), the answer is no.”

So “who has those type of missiles” interceptors wish to deter? “We do. So we can only think that this system is being aimed against us.”

He and other Russian officials worry about it expanding to Ukraine and Georgia with missile interceptors, attack aircraft, and US troops on its borders, threatening its security.

Obama in Poland

On May 28, Obama met with Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski and Prime Minister Donald Tusk, discussing, among other issues, reaffirming a US military presence with “American boots on the ground,” including a permanent aerial detachment of F-16s and C-130 transport planes.

White House national security official Liz Sherwood-Randall said:

“What we will be doing is rotating trainers and aircraft to Poland so they can become more inter-operable with NATO. It will be a small permanent presence on the ground and then a rotational presence that will be more substantial.”

On May 28, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said:

“To the east of the Oder River (dividing Germany and Poland), American forces will appear, and this at a time when America is reducing its overall military presence in Europe.”

In fact, redeployment with interceptor missiles, other offensive weapons, and boots on the ground close to Russia’s borders, not reduction, is planned, what clearly has Moscow officials alarmed.

On May 29, however, Obama disingenuously downplayed those concerns, reaffirming mutual defense and inviting Russia to participate in European missile defense plans, saying:

“I am very proud of (America’s) reset process (with Russia). We believe missile defense is something where we can cooperate with Russia….This will not be a threat to the strategic balance.”

Concerned Russian officials very much disagree, Vladimir Putin’s earlier sentiment likely again being discussed.

In February 2007, in response to US planned missile defense then, he said:

“NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders. (It) does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represent a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have a right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?”

At the time, his comments drew a storm of US media Russia bashing, as well as an article by this writer titled, “Reinventing the Evil Empire,” saying:

Russia is back, proud and re-assertive, not about to roll over for America, especially in Eurasia. For Washington, it’s back to the future with a new Cold War, but this time for greater stakes and much larger threats to world peace.

It’s especially true during economic hard times, especially with austerity policies addressing them when social stimulus is needed, provoking spreading discontent for change.

As a result, Western powers may invent threats to distract people, waging greater war for imperial dominance, Russia and China perhaps directly threatened this time.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

 

 

 

 

29 May, 2011

Countercurrents.org

There is  horrendous Mainstream media (MSM) censorship in the pro-US, pro-Zionist, democratic fascist Western Murdochracies and Lobbyocracies. But how can one begin to expose the nature and extent of this egregious censorship that variously threatens democracy as well as public health and safety in a world beset with Anglo-American and NATO wars and a worsening Climate Genocide predicted to kill 10 billion non-Europeans this century.

Murdochracy describes democracy perverted by Big Money media empires such as that of media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Lobbyocracy describes democracy perverted by Big Money corporate or other Lobbies (most notoriously, in relation to man-made climate change, by the effective climate change denialist  fossil fuel corporations).

We know that the Western MSM censor out huge realities such as the horrendous Western-imposed deaths in the US Alliance Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide  (post-1990, 1.7 million violent deaths, 2.9 million avoidable deaths from war-imposed deprivation, 2.0 million under-5 infant deaths, 90% avoidable and due to US Alliance war crimes, and 5-6 million refugees; post-2003, 1.5 million violent deaths, 1.2 million avoidable deaths from war-imposed deprivation, and 0.8 million under-5 infant deaths) (see “Iraqi Holocaust, Iraqi Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/iraqiholocaustiraqigenocide/ ).

Similarly,  in a continuing process of genocide ignoring, holocaust ignoring, genocide denial and holocaust denial, Western MSM censor out huge realities such as the Western-imposed deaths in the US Alliance Afghan Holocaust and Afghan Genocide  (post-2003 in Occupied Afghanistan, 1.5 million violent deaths, 1.2 million avoidable deaths from war-imposed deprivation, and 0.8 million under-5 infant deaths) (see “Afghan Holocaust, Afghan Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/afghanholocaustafghangenocide/ ).

However the above examples of egregious, holocaust  denying  MSM censorship is just part of the problem (noting that censorship negates rational risk management and hence endangers public health and safety). What about MSM censorship of untold numbers of Letters to the Editor and comments submitted on  On-line MSM articles? While censorship of Letters to the Editor can be justified by the cost of newsprint paper and the limited  dimensions  of each newspaper or magazine edition, the same cannot be said for censorship of comments submitted in response to On-line MSM articles.

The Age newspaper, Melbourne (arguably Australia’s most progressive Mainstream medium) has an on-line version with a section called “National Times” incorporating letters to the Editor, editorials and op-ed pieces by in-house Age writers or other writers (academics, eminent Australians, writers from overseas newspapers). The Age invites comments from readers and publishes up to several hundred comments on these National Times articles. Such comments are overwhelmingly anonymous and accordingly uncredentialled.

I am a 5 decade career scientist and teach at a major Australian university. I regularly make informed, researched, referenced, credentialled comments to The Age National Times section under my name “Dr Gideon Polya” and do so in the public interest (there is a huge gulf between reality as perceived by scientists and reality as perceived by the MSM-brainwashed public). However  I am frequently completely or partially censored by The Age. This egregious censorship can reasonably be taken as indicative of what The Age does not want its readers to read and to know. However , except in those instances in which censorship has been partial, readers of The Age don’t even know that censorship has occurred.

Accordingly I have created a web site to quickly record instances of censorship by The Age (see “Censorship by The Age”: http://agecensors.blogspot.com/2011/05/censorship-by-quality-australian.html ) , this providing a unique record (most recent items on top) of censorship by a major newspaper and of what a major Australian newspaper does not want its readers to read or to know (see also “Mainstream media censorship”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/home and “Mainstream media lying”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/home ).

An  example of this egregious Mainstream media censorship is given below.

26 May 2011 . The Age repeatedly and completely censored 2 sets of comments I made in response to a sensible, humane article by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young about proposed Australian “trading” of Muslim refugees with Malaysia  that grossly violates human rights conventions (for details of the article and the censorship see: http://gpolya.newsvine.com/_news/2011/05/25/6719290-greens-senator-on-australian-malaysia-solution-children-in-detention ). This is what The Age evidently did not want its readers to read or to know (note that Australia has a Liberal-National Party Coalition Opposition and a Labor Government, these parties with about 85% of the vote being collectively described as the Lib-Labs):

Censored comment #1.

“Excellent , humane article. What other countries in addition to Australia indefinitely imprison children behind razor wire without charge or trial? The most obvious example is Lib-Lab Australia’s great friend Apartheid Israel in which 800,000 children are highly abusively imprisoned in what UK PM Cameron and outstanding Jewish American scholar Professor Noam Chomsky have described as the Gaza Prison and what US conservative politician Pat Buchanan and the Catholic Church have described as the Gaza Concentration Camp.

Not mentioned in public in look-the-other-way, politically correct racist (PC racist) Australia is Australia ‘s involvement in all post-1950 US Asian wars, wars that have been associated so far with violent deaths plus non-violent deaths from war-imposed deprivation totalling 26 million and about 20 million Muslim refugees.

The UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay, currently visiting Australia , has stated: “I come from South Africa and lived under this, and am every way attuned to seeing racial discrimination. There is a racial discriminatory element here [in Australia ] which I see as rather inhumane treatment of people, judged by their differences, racial, colour or religions.”

Lib-Lab Australia is not just grossly violating the human rights of asylum seekers, Occupied Iraqis (post-invasion war-linked excess deaths 2.7 million) , Occupied Afghans, (post-invasion war-linked deaths 5.0 million), Occupied Palestinians (up to life imprisonment for giving money to a Gaza orphanage, tax deductibility for Australian donations to racist Zionists) and Indigenous Australians (9,000 avoidable deaths annually), it is trashing the reputation of decent, anti-racist Australians and decent, anti-racist, anti-Zionist Jews around the world.”

Censored Comment #2.

“Humane article. Below a second comment, the first having evidently been found unit for readers of The Age.

Acutely relevant is politically correct racist (PC racist) Australia ‘s involvement in all post-1950 US Asian wars that have been associated so far with violent deaths plus non-violent deaths from war-imposed deprivation totalling 26 million. Muslim refugees alone in post-1950 US wars total about 20 million.

Lib-Lab Australia endlessly declares that it is not racist and so one supposes that it would also abusively and indefinitely imprison Jewish children fleeing genocidal persecutors – this illustrating the anti-Jewish anti-Semitism as well as anti-Arab anti-Semitism of Lib-Lab Australia.

Indeed between 1933 and 1939 Australia absorbed only 7000-8000 Jewish refugees (including 2 of my family), noting that the racist Zionists were evilly opposed to Jewish refugees going anywhere except Palestine and that 5-6 million Jews died in the WW2 Holocaust (including all but a dozen of my Continental relatives).

Understand therefore why Australia ‘s most eminent Jew, Sir Isaac Isaacs, Australia ‘s first Australia-born Governor -General, stated of the racist Zionists (RZs) in 1946: “The honour of Jews throughout the world demands the renunciation of political Zionism.”

With post-invasion, US Alliance-imposed, war-linked avoidable deaths of Indigenous people in Somalia, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan now totalling 12 million and Muslim refugees totalling 20 million, Sir Isaac Isaacs’ dictum should be re-stated thus for 2011: “The honour of Australians demands the renunciation of genocidal, Lib-Lab-backed, racist Zionist and US Alliance violence and Lib-Lab maltreatment of refugees”.”

Conclusion.

Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity. We are obliged to try to penetrate the Mainstream media Wall of Silence and to inform everyone we can about the egregious lying by commission, lying by omission and egregious censorship to which we are subjected by pro-US, pro-Zionist Western Mainstream media.

Dr Gideon Polya currently teaches science students at a major Australian university. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003). He has recently published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ); see also his contributions “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007): http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm ) and “Ongoing Palestinian Genocide” in “The Plight of the Palestinians (edited by William Cook, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2010: http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/4047-the-plight-of-the-palestinians.html ). He has just published a revised and updated 2008 version of his 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” (see: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ) as biofuel-, globalization- and climate-driven global food price increases threaten a greater famine catastrophe than the man-made famine in British-ruled India that killed 6-7 million Indians in the “forgotten” World War 2 Bengal Famine (see recent BBC broadcast involving Dr Polya, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and others: http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/ bengalfamine_programme.html ). When words fail one can say it in pictures – for images of Gideon Polya’s huge paintings for the Planet, Peace, Mother and Child see: http://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonpolya/ .

 

 

 

 

 

 

Despite a new wave of criticism regarding China’s economy, it has fundamental strengths which cannot be ignored.

Last Modified: 31 May 2011 13:30

Despite the worrying increase in inflation, China’s strategic growth plans are encouraging [GALLO/GETTY]

The China doubters are back in force. They seem to come in waves – every few years, or so. Yet, year in and year out, China has defied the naysayers and stayed the course, perpetuating the most spectacular development miracle of modern times. That seems likely to continue.

Today’s feverish hand-wringing reflects a confluence of worries – especially concerns about inflation, excess investment, soaring wages, and bad bank loans. Prominent academics warn that China could fall victim to the dreaded “middle-income trap”, which has derailed many a developing nation.

There is a kernel of truth to many of the concerns cited above, especially with respect to the current inflation problem. But they stem largely from misplaced generalisations. Here are ten reasons why it doesn’t pay to diagnose the Chinese economy by drawing inferences from the experiences of others:

Strategy

Since 1953, China has framed its macro objectives in the context of five-year plans, with clearly defined targets and policy initiatives designed to hit those targets. The recently enacted 12th Five-Year Plan could well be a strategic turning point – ushering in a shift from the highly successful producer model of the past 30 years to a flourishing consumer society.

Commitment

Seared by memories of turmoil, reinforced by the Cultural Revolution of the 1970s, China’s leadership places the highest priority on stability. Such a commitment served China extremely well in avoiding collateral damage from the crisis of 2008-2009. It stands to play an equally important role in driving the fight against inflation, asset bubbles, and deteriorating loan quality.

Wherewithal to deliver

China’s commitment to stability has teeth. More than 30 years of reform have unlocked its economic dynamism. Enterprise and financial market reforms have been key, and many more reforms are coming. Moreover, China has shown itself to be a good learner from past crises, and shifts course when necessary.

Saving

A domestic saving rate in excess of 50 per cent has served China well. It funded the investment imperatives of economic development and boosted the cushion of foreign exchange reserves that has shielded China from external shocks. China now stands ready to absorb some of that surplus saving to promote a shift toward internal demand.

Rural-urban migration

Over the past 30 years, the urban share of the Chinese population has risen from 20 per cent to 46 per cent. According to OECD estimates, another 316 million people should move from the countryside to China’s cities over the next 20 years. Such an unprecedented wave of urbanisation provides solid support for infrastructure investment and commercial and residential construction activity. Fears of excess investment and “ghost cities” fixate on the supply side, without giving due weight to burgeoning demand.

Low-hanging fruit: Consumption

Private consumption accounts for only about 37 per cent of China’s GDP – the smallest share of any major economy. By focusing on job creation, wage increases, and the social safety net, the 12th Five-Year Plan could spark a major increase in discretionary consumer purchasing power. That could lead to as much as a five per cent point increase in China’s consumption share by 2015.

Low-hanging fruit: Services

Services account for just 43 per cent of Chinese GDP – well below global norms. Services are an important piece of China’s pro-consumption strategy – especially large-scale transactions-based industries such as distribution (wholesale and retail), domestic transportation, supply-chain logistics, and hospitality and leisure. Over the next five years, the services share of Chinese GDP could rise above the currently targeted four per cent point increase. This is a labour-intensive, resource-efficient, environmentally friendly growth recipe – precisely what China needs in the next phase of its development.

Foreign direct investment

Modern China has long been a magnet for global multinational corporations seeking both efficiency and a toehold in the world’s most populous market. Such investments provide China with access to modern technologies and management systems – a catalyst to economic development. China’s upcoming pro-consumption rebalancing implies a potential shift in foreign direct investment – away from manufacturing toward services – that could propel growth further.

Education

China has taken enormous strides in building human capital. The adult literacy rate is now almost 95 per cent, and secondary school enrolment rates are up to 80 per cent. Shanghai’s 15-year-old students were recently ranked first globally in mathematics and reading as per the standardised PISA metric. Chinese universities now graduate more than 1.5 million engineers and scientists annually. The country is well on its way to a knowledge-based economy.

Innovation

In 2009, about 280,000 domestic patent applications were filed in China, placing it third globally, behind Japan and the United States. China is fourth and rising in terms of international patent applications. At the same time, China is targeting a research-and-development share of GDP of 2.2 per cent by 2015 – double the ratio in 2002. This fits with the 12th Five-Year Plan’s new focus on innovation-based “strategic emerging industries” – energy conservation, new-generation information technology, biotechnology, high-end equipment manufacturing, renewable energy, alternative materials, and autos running on alternative fuels. Currently, these seven industries account for three per cent of Chinese GDP; the government is targeting a 15 per cent share by 2020, a significant move up the value chain.

Yale historian Jonathan Spence has long cautioned that the West tends to view China through the same lens as it sees itself. Today’s cottage industry of China doubters is a case in point. Yes, by our standards, China’s imbalances are unstable and unsustainable. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has, in fact, gone public with a similar critique.

But that’s why China is so different. It actually takes these concerns seriously. Unlike the West, where the very concept of strategy has become an oxymoron, China has embraced a transitional framework aimed at resolving its sustainability constraints. Moreover, unlike the West, which is trapped in a dysfunctional political quagmire, China has both the commitment and the wherewithal to deliver on that strategy. This is not a time to bet against China.

Stephen S Roach, a member of the faculty at Yale University, is Non-Executive Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia and author of The Next Asia.

A version of this article first appeared on Project Syndicate.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

 

 

01 June, 2011

Yale Environment 360

Is anything in America more faithfully followed than economic growth? Its movements are constantly watched, measured to the decimal place, deplored or praised, diagnosed as weak or judged healthy and vigorous. Newspapers, magazines, and cable channels report endlessly on it. Promoting growth may be the most widely shared and robust cause in the United States today.

If the growth imperative dominates U.S. political and economic life, what happens when growth hits some serious stumbling blocks?

When I was in school in England, the dean of my college told us when we first arrived that we could walk on the grass in the courtyard — but not across it. That helped me love the English and their language. Here is another creative use of prepositions: there are limits to growth, and there are limits of growth.

Let’s first take up the limits of growth. Despite the constant claims that we need more growth, there are limits on what growth can do for us. The ecological economist Herman Daly has reminded us that if neo-classical economists were true to their trade, they would recognize that there are diminishing returns to growth. Most obviously, the value of income growth declines as one gets richer and richer. Similarly, growth at some point has increasing marginal costs. For example, workers have to put in too many hours, or the climate goes haywire. It follows that for the economy as a whole, we can reach a point where the extra costs of more growth exceed the extra benefits. One should stop growing at that point. Otherwise the country enters the realm of “uneconomic growth,” to use Daly’s delightful phrase, where the costs of growth exceed the benefits it produces.

There are some, myself included, who believe that the U.S. is now experiencing uneconomic growth. If one could measure and add up all the environmental, security, social and psychological costs that U.S. economic growth generates at this point in our history, they would exceed the benefits of further ramping up what is already the highest GDP per capita of any major economy.

Though not widely accepted, the case is strong that growth in the affluent U.S. is now doing more harm than good. Today, the reigning policy orientation holds that the path to greater well-being is to grow and expand the economy. GDP, productivity, profits, the stock market, and consumption must all go up. This growth imperative trumps all else. It can undermine families, jobs, communities, the climate and environment, and a sense of place and continuity because it is confidently asserted and widely believed that growth is worth the price that must be paid for it.

But an expanding body of evidence is now telling us to think again. The never-ending drive to grow the overall U.S. economy is ruining the environment; it fuels a ruthless international search for energy and other resources; it fails at generating the needed jobs; it hollows out communities; and it rests on a manufactured consumerism that is not meeting the deepest human needs. Americans are substituting growth and consumption for dealing with the real issues — for doing things that would truly make us and the country better off.

It is time for America to move to post-growth society where the natural environment, working life, our communities and families, and the public sector are no longer sacrificed for the sake of mere GDP growth; where the illusory promises of ever-more growth no longer provide an excuse for neglecting to deal generously with our country’s compelling social needs; and where true citizen democracy is no longer held hostage to the growth imperative.

Another way of pointing out the limits of growth is to consider the long list of public policies that would slow GDP growth, thus sparing the environment, while simultaneously improving social and individual well-being. Such policies include: shorter workweeks and longer vacations, with more time for children and families; greater labor protections, job security and benefits, including generous parental leaves; guarantees to part-time workers and combining unemployment insurance with part-time work during recessions; restrictions on advertising; a new design for the twenty-first-century corporation, one that embraces re-chartering, new ownership patterns, and stakeholder primacy rather than shareholder primacy; incentives for local and locally-owned production and consumption; strong social and environmental provisions in trade agreements; rigorous environmental, health and consumer protection, including full incorporation of environmental and social costs in prices; greater economic and social equality, with genuinely progressive taxation of the rich (including a progressive consumption tax) and greater income support for the poor; heavy spending on neglected public services; and initiatives to address population growth at home and abroad. Taken together, these policies would undoubtedly slow GDP growth, but well-being and quality of life would improve, and that’s what matters.

Of course, it is clear that even in a post-growth America, many things do indeed need to grow: growth in good jobs and in the incomes of the poor and working Americans; growth in availability of health care and the efficiency of its delivery; growth in education, research and training; growth in security against the risks of illness, job loss, old age and disability; growth in investment in public infrastructure and in environmental protection and amenity; growth in the deployment of climate-friendly and other green technologies; growth in the restoration of both ecosystems and local communities; growth in non-military government spending at the expense of military; and growth in international assistance for sustainable, people-centered development for the half of humanity that live in poverty. These are all areas where public policy needs to ensure that growth occurs.

That’s one case against growth — the argument that we should no longer prioritize growth, much less fetishize it as we do now. I believe this case will be pressed with increasing urgency in the years ahead, and I doubt we’ll miss our growth fetish after we say good-bye to it. We’ve had tons of growth — growth while wages stagnated, jobs fled our borders, life satisfaction flatlined, social capital eroded, poverty mounted, and the environment declined.

The case that there are limits to growth — not that we shouldn’t grow but that we can’t grow — is based on the reality that we are entering a new age of scarcity and rising prices that will constrain growth. The world economy, having doubled in size three times since 1950, is now phenomenally large — large even in comparison with the planetary base that is the setting for economic activity. Today’s huge world economy is consuming the planet’s available resources on a scale that rivals their supply, and it is releasing almost all of those resources, often transformed and toxic, back to the environment on a scale that is beyond the environment’s assimilation capacities, thus greatly affecting the major biogeophysical cycles of the planet. Natural resources are becoming increasingly scarce, and the planet’s sinks for absorbing waste products are already exhausted in many contexts. According to the Ecological Footprint analysis, Earth would have to be 50 percent larger than it is for today’s economy to be environmentally sustainable.

In effect, humans have entered a new geological epoch — the anthropocene. As Paul Crutzen and Christian Schwägerl explained in an article on Yale Environment 360: “It’s a pity we’re still officially living in an age called the Holocene. The Anthropocene — human dominance of biological, chemical and geological processes on Earth — is already an undeniable reality.”

If we now live in a world where the natural resources and environmental sinks needed for economic activity are becoming more scarce across a wide front, we should see prices rising. And indeed we do. Prices of many things are rising rather rapidly: oil, coal, food, and numerous non-fuel minerals. Lithium and rare earths are probably not far behind.

If these patterns hold, as seems likely, and one factors in the economic losses due to climate disruption and the higher energy prices due to climate protection policies, it’s hard to imagine that economic growth won’t be slowed. Moreover, as noted earlier, the increasing scarcity of the atmospheric sink for greenhouse gas emissions is going to challenge growth among the affluent countries. Reducing carbon emissions at required rates may not be possible in national economies that are stressing growth maximization.

Author Richard Heinberg and many others have been calling attention to the looming challenge of peak oil. After much controversy, the reality of peak oil is now widely accepted. Oil production did actually reach its all-time high in 2005 and has plateaued since. Peak oil, the point of maximum production after which production begins to decline, may thus have already happened, but, if not, a widely held view today is that oil will have peaked and begun to decline before 2030, perhaps a decade or so hence.

In 2005, the U.S. Department of Energy released the now-famous “Hirsch Report,” Peaking of World Oil Production, which warned that “the problems associated with world oil production peaking will not be temporary, and past ‘energy crisis’ experience will provide relatively little guidance.” But the report recommended accelerating development of oil sands and coal liquefaction and other steps that would send the world rushing down a path that would exacerbate the already grave challenges of global warming. Clearly, it makes no sense to separate the two challenges: energy supply and climate change must be dealt with together — and soon. Clearly, today we are not prepared or preparing for either.

Many who have looked at the combined challenge of energy and climate change have concluded that our civilization, having completed its exuberant, flamboyant phase, is headed toward a dramatic simplification and re-localization of life and the end of economic growth as we have known it. Some even see the collapse of modern civilization as just a matter of time.

In The Transition Handbook, the bible of the fast-growing Transition Town movement, Rob Hopkins identifies three scenarios: adaptation, which assumes “we can somehow invent our way out of trouble”; evolution, which requires a collective change of mindset, but assumes that “society, albeit in a low-energy, more localized form, will retain its coherence”; or collapse, which assumes that “the inevitable outcome of peak oil and climate change will be the fracturing and disintegration, either sudden or gradual, of society as we know it.”

The eventual outcome will likely involve elements of all three of these scenarios, occurring at different times and different places. Hopefully, the “evolution” scenario will predominate.

“Within this century, environmental and resource constraints will likely bring global economic growth to a halt…,” Canadian political scientist Thomas Homer-Dixon wrote in Foreign Policy earlier this year. “We can’t live with growth, and we can’t live without it. This contradiction is humankind’s biggest challenge this century, but as long as conventional wisdom holds that growth can continue forever, it’s a challenge we can’t possibly address.”

So there we have it: the traditional solution that America has invoked for nearly every problem — more growth — is in big trouble. If we are going to move beyond growth, we will need to build a different kind of economy. We Americans need to reinvent our economy, not merely restore it. We will have to shift to a new economy, a sustaining economy based on new economic thinking and driven forward by a new politics. Sustaining people, communities and nature must henceforth be seen as the core goals of economic activity, not hoped for by-products of market success, growth for its own sake, and modest regulation. That is the paradigm shift we must now begin to pursue and promote.

James Gustave Speth is a professor at Vermont Law School and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Demos, a nonpartisan public policy research and advocacy organization. A former dean of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, he also co-founded the Natural Resources Defense Council, was founder and president of the World Resources Institute, and served as administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. He is the author of six books, including the award-winning The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability and Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment.

 

Some Reflections on the Geopolitical Situation

 

My attempt is to give or rather get an overview of the geopolitical situation by an examination of the state of the Empire today. This is because the projects and policies of US Empire largely determine developments in international politics today.

Continuing Imperial Geo-strategy

If anybody had hopes that the replacement of a Republican President by a Democratic President would reform, if not begin to dismantle the Empire, their hopes have been totally belied. The continuation of the Bush era policies, military doctrines and strategies by President Obama, is deeply disquieting but not surprising. In the wake of the Bush administration’s disastrous neoconservative ideologies, the Obama administration initially appeared to be seeking to realize the liberal international and diplomatic way of relating to the world. But soon it was clear that US is going to be an aggressive imperial power no matter whom it elects as president, and that what is called ‘neo-conservatism’ is merely an extreme version of normal American assumption of supremacy, one that explicitly promotes and heightens US’s routine practice of empire. Thus there is no fundamental break in foreign policy between the Bush and Obama regimes. The strategic goals and the imperatives of the US imperium remain the same as do principal theatres and means of operation.

One noticeable aspect of continuity is with reference to views on war and peace. If Obama was the Commander-in-Chief of two wars when he received the Nobel Peace Prize for Peace, he can now claim to be C-in-C of one more, Libya, though it is a war in denial. In fact a close analysis of the new Libyan adventure of the USA and NATO brings out clearly the continuing imperial geo-strategy.

The Discourse on War and Peace

First, on war and peace. The scrutiny of the term ‘just peace’ is especially important in the context of the confusion deliberately created by the prevailing discourse on war and peace, a discourse reflecting the hegemonic definitional power of the USA. Claiming ‘victory’ in the war against Iraq while speaking to the workers of the Boeing factory, President Bush declared, “We are redefining war on our terms”. He added, “The manufacturers of weapons are the peacemakers”.

The confusion was evident in President Obama’s speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. He had just dispatched additionally 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. He was obviously on the horns of a dilemma. But he came out in favour of war, not peace. He said, “There will be times when nations will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justifiable.” Claims about necessity and moral justification of any war are problematic, especially when such claims are made by the rulers who wage seemingly endless wars. The distance from the necessity of war to the inevitability of war was considerably shortened by the new military doctrines and strategies of the USA under President Bush.

Obama added in his Oslo speech, “Yes, the instruments of war do have a role in preserving peace”, uncomfortably reminding us of Bush’s statement to the Boeing workers. In the speech Obama spoke of the “biggest and strongest military alliance in the world”, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). “Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable.” Obama was glorifying a military alliance which has the most aggressive strategic doctrine. He was only following the path of his predecessor Bush who had declared that “Pentagon is the biggest force for freedom in the world.” The occupation of Afghanistan by the USA and NATO still continues. In Iraq there will be continued US military presence and a number of bases. Even when imperial wars end, imperial bases continue.

In his speech at the National Defense University in Washington, trying to justify military action against Libya, President Obama said, “I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests.” He added other occasions for intervention “when our safety is not directly threatened but our interests and our allies’ are”. In this secondary list he lumped everything from “preventing genocide” to “ensuring regional security” and “maintaining the flow of commerce”. Yes, Obama will take military action to maintain “the flow of commerce”. This was a reiteration of the Bush doctrine of preemption and preventive wars. If Bush thought of preventive wars even in case of presumed future, potential threats to the USA, Obama seems to believe that wars are necessary even when there is no threat to the USA now or in the future. The Libyan action of the Western powers is a war, albeit an undeclared one.

The Bush administration had redefined war objectives in terms of “changing the regime of an adversary state” and “occupying foreign territory until U.S. strategic objectives are met”. The United States and the NATO have manipulated and interpreted the Security Council resolution on Libya to suit their imperial objectives.

The Military Action against Libya and International Law

On 17th March 2011, the UN Security council adopted a binding resolution (1973) with the stated goal to protect civilians in the domestic conflict in Libya. Operative paras 4 and 8 of the resolution authorize all member states individually or through regional organizations or arrangements to “undertake all necessary measures” for the protection of civilians and for the enforcement of a so-called no fly zone. To ‘authorize’ states to “use all necessary measures” in the enforcement of a legally binding resolution is an invitation to an arbitrary and arrogant exercise of power and makes the commitment  of the UN to the international rule of law void of any meaning.  The fact that the Security Council adopted the same approach, earlier in resolution 678 dealing with the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, in 1990 does not justify the present action in the context of the domestic conflict in Libya. “All necessary measures” have come to mean solely military action excluding the range of possibilities including mediation, negotiation and diplomacy.

While the objective of the Security Council resolution is clearly stated as protecting the civilians, the Western powers have made clear that their real political goal is regime change – ousting Muammar Gaddafi. Ironically by stating that Gaddafi has lost legitimacy, Western leaders are dramatically narrowing the space for a more peaceful removal of the Libyan leader. The one thing that the Europeans share is a seeming lack of exit strategy from a military action marketed as a no-fly zone to the goal of a regime change mirroring the Afghan and Iraq campaigns. Can regime change be sustained without occupation?  Occupation is the highest form of dictatorship which Washington calls democracy.

As the military preparations of the size and magnitude employed in Libya are never improvised there is reason to believe, that the war on Libya as well as the armed insurrection against the regime were planned months prior to the Arab uprising. That is why the Libyan war has to be treated separately.

In Libya the Western powers have intervened in an internal conflict and taken sides in a civil war. There has been no threat to international peace and security from Libya.

Geo-strategic Significance

The name “Operation Odyssey Dawn” is very revealing. It identifies the strategic interest and direction of the war against Libya. The Odyssey is an ancient Greek epic by the poet Homer which recounts the voyage and trails of its hero. The main theme here is ‘return home’. The US and other imperialist powers are on their own odyssey of ‘return’ to Africa. That explains why the initiative was taken by Britain and France, the former colonial powers in Africa.

Events in Libya are not exclusive to the military theatre.  There is a geopolitical and economic chess match at play between the West and China in a battle for Africa and with it the largest basket of national resources on earth. The US has already outlined its strategic agenda through the formation of the AFRICOM, a subset of the infamous neoconservative Project for a New American Empire (PMAC). Central to America’s strategic goals is to confront the increasing Chinese influence on the continent. Beijing has assessed that the Anglo-French-American bombing of Libya, apart from its myriad geopolitical implications, has risked millions of dollars to Chinese investments.

Africa Command represents a vital and crucial link for the global military deployment of the USA. Libya is one of the five African countries that have not been integrated into, which is to say subordinated to, the Africa Command. Others are Sudan, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe and Eritrea.

There are observers who note that the Mediterranean Sea is emerging as the main battlefront in the world superseding the Afghan-Pak war theatre and thus an important zone of the Empire. Libya is the only African nation bordering the Mediterranean which is not a member of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue Programme. The Mediterranean has been historically one of the most important –if not the most important – strategically crucial sea and the only one whose waves lap the shores of three continents. The defeat and conquest of Libya, directly or by proxy, would secure a key outpost for the Pentagon and NATO on the Mediterranean Sea.

The NATO’s entry into Africa is a development that has serious consequences. Originally meant as an alliance to preserve peace and stability along the frontline between the now defunct USSR and the US-European alliance, NATO has now become the major arm of the Empire. It entered Asia through Afghanistan under a dubious authorization by the UN for the International Security Assistance Force.  The use of NATO in these regions is further proof that its Cold War function is still active, the old chess pieces are still in place and its Western directors are not hiding the fact at all. The NATO master plan is to rule the Mediterranean as a NATO lake. Under these ‘optics’ (Pentagon speak) the Mediterranean is infinitely more important as a theatre than Afghanistan. NATO is essentially Pentagon rule over its European minions. In fact it is the claim by the US that it has the right to intervene militarily in any part of the world that buttresses the new mandate assumed by the NATO.

It should be noted that only a few members of the NATO are directly involved in the Libya campaign. An important ally of the USA and a prominent member of NATO Germany abstained in the voting in the Security Council resolution and do not participate in the campaign. The Bush doctrine of the “coalition of the willing” still prevails. The key point is that while Libya allows the biggest US-European multinational to plunder its oil wealth it did not become a strategic military asset of the Empire. The driving force of US empire building is military and not economic.

The Nuclear Implications

The Libyan war raises important questions about US’s nuclear posture as well as nuclear disarmament.  A critical issue that has been raised is whether the recent test of a B61-11 by the USA is ‘routine’ or was it envisaged by the Pentagon directly or indirectly in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn implying the possible development of mini-nukes at some future stage of the Libya bombing campaign.  In the Nuclear Posture Review of 2002, the Pentagon mentioned the need to test small “usable” nuclear weapons. Low yield nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”.

The decision to use low-yield nuclear weapons (e.g. against Libya) no longer needs the authorization or even the permission of the Commander in Chief, the President. It is strictly a military decision.  The new doctrine says that Command Control and Coordination (CCC) regarding the use of nuclear weapons should be ‘flexible’ allowing geographic combat commanders to decide if and when to use nuclear weapons.

The Libyan War raises sharp questions about the nuclear disarmament policy of the United States. North Korea’s foreign ministry has issued a statement condemning the Libyan invasion, claiming that the attack is a likely scenario when a country decides to give up its nuclear weapons. (Libya gave up its nuclear program in 2003). American, British and French forces are now attacking Gaddafi’s military. And uncomfortable questions linger. Would NATO be enforcing a no-fly zone if Gaddafi had not dismantled Libya’s nuclear program?. Does the current military action against Libya send a signal to “rogue states” like Iran that security gained by de-nuclearisation is anything but? The Iranian and North Korean leadership use the nuclear weapon program both to bolster its domestic political prestige and to deter an attack from the US.

It is ironic that just under eight years ago, Gaddafi specifically engaged in an action clearly intended to forestall US military action against his regime and despite that he is now under military attack from US and its allies. The impression may gain currency that the US lures or coerces nations into nuclear disarmament and then attack them.

The Arab Uprising

The Arab uprising is a genuine expression of a long-standing desire for greater freedoms as well as economic justice denied by generally autocratic regimes. The current evolving situation raises several important questions. What are the common factors if any behind the movement? What are the possible outcomes of the demand for political reforms? How will this ongoing struggle impact the outside world? How will this affect the struggle of the Palestinian people for independent statehood? Answers to these questions are complex and difficult given the diversity in history, culture and politics of the Arab world.

However certain observations can be made. These revolts have immediately performed a kind of ideological house-cleaning sweeping away the racist conceptions of a clash of civilizations that consign Arab policies to the past. The struggles for freedom and democracy and the way in which they are being waged have shattered the stereotypes and wrong images of the Arabs created by the West. The Arab street is vibrant and peaceful even when the repression continues with state terrorism.

In the last quarter of a century and more the political developments in the region have been largely shaped by the imperialist policies of the USA especially with a view to ensuring the “security” of Israel. The US has always followed a policy of double standard in the region as it has done in other parts of the world. In response to the Arab revolt too, this double standard.  Washington has no difficulty with autocratic regimes as long as they are pro-American. Regime change means installing “friendly” regimes.

An understanding of U.S. imperial policy in the Middle East requires an analysis which contains three factors:

(i)                The power and influence of Israel and related power configuration on US political institutions.

(ii)             The capacity of the US empire to construct and instrumentalize Middle East client states and regimes

(iii)           An alliance with rightwing regimes and rulers to provide military bases, intelligence and political backing for the colonial occupation of Iraq and economic sanctions and if necessary war against Iran.

All these are under serious challenge by the Arab uprising.

The United States is intervening in the Arab uprising with a view to manipulating and fashioning it to suit its interests and promote those of Israel. Robert Gates on April 19 has identified three regimes only which denies freedom and human rights – Iran, Syria and Libya. They are prominent in the US list of countries for military action. It has started with Libya. In Gates’ view other countries like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen etc are model democracies with freedom and human rights

Since all the other countries like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Jordan are all friendly to the US and keep US interests any revolt has to be suppressed; hence, the American approval for the cruel repression in Bahrain with the active involvement of the Saudi military. The implications of any military action against Syria are quite grave but such action cannot be ruled out.

One of the most salutary effects of the Arab uprising is the agreement between Fatah and Hamas for Palestinian unity.  They have agreed to reconcile in a surprise Egyptian-brokered accord –also showing a changing role of Egypt – that enraged Israel and left US officials struggling to maintain their influence over Middle East peace negotiations. The power sharing deal which was hammered out includes the formation of a national unity government and a timetable for general election. As a Fatah leader stated, “At this stage we have the best weapon to face the occupation. This weapon is our national unity.”  It is already clear that Israel will use any means including military action to subvert Palestinian unity.

It is quite possible that Palestinian Authority (PA) had already made a strategic decision to move away from the United States and put its fate more squarely in the hands of the UN. They might have assessed a declining influence of the US in the Middle East combined with attempts for increasing support for the beleagured Israel.

Parallel to the apparent decline in American influence, many states have recently intensified their political support for a Palestinian state and criticism of Israel. More than half a dozen Latin American countries have recognized Palestine explicitly while the  governments of France, Spain and Ireland have upgraded Palestinian diplomatic delegations in their countries with other European  countries expected to follow suit.  The PA expects recognition by the vast majority of member-states of the UN when it declares unilateral independence.

The Empire’s “Global Sovereignty”.

The commando action by the Obama administration in Pakistan in which Osama bin Laden was killed, raises many important questions but underlines the fact that the President is following faithfully the imperial doctrine about ‘global sovereignty’ and ‘freedom of action’ of the USA. Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Salman Bashie said that the US forces may have breached his country’s sovereignty. “This violation of sovereignty and the modalities for combating terrorism raises certain legal and moral issues which fall in the domain of the international community”.

The explanation is found in The National Defense Strategy of the United States, March 2005. One of the main strategic objectives listed in the document is to “secure strategic access and retain global freedom of action.’

The Strategy suggests that Washington will not be reluctant to send its forces into other states that, in its opinion, “do not exercise their sovereignty responsibly” or that “use the principle of sovereignty as a shield behind which they claim to be free to engage in activities that pose enormous threats to their citizens or the rest of the international community”.

This raises important questions about sovereignty. The strategy of preventive war is closely bound up with the new vitality of the “hegemonic international law nihilism” (Norman Peach) that is exhibited by the US administration. It is rooted in the idea that the US possesses global sovereignty and all national sovereignties are relative to it. “This notion of global sovereignty means that the USA will lay down international rules (e.g. as alliances or formation of blocs0 determine what constitutes a crisis (a state of emergency), distinguish between friend and foe and make the resulting decision on the use of force.  Only the USA is competent to use force anywhere in the world. This is one of the pillars of the new grand strategy, which is exemplified above all else by the concept of an exclusive right to preventive military action all over the world. Commitments to international alliances, and in particular to the United nations are rejected as constituting a restriction of the USA’s freedom to act.” (Rainer Rilling)

Obama’s assertion that the Osama bin Laden-type operations will continue is a declaration that the global empire will retain ‘global sovereignty’ and ‘global freedom of action’ by military might.

Countervailing Powers

Despite the utopian perspectives by the ranks of neo-liberal globalist disciples, cadres of nations and trading alliances have been formed since 2000. BRICS, MENA and other emerging blocs are challenging the preeminence of the traditional Anglo-American and European dominance over the global market and cultural monopolies. Oil, gas, uranium and water feature prominently in this realignment of the global chessboard and with each additional theatre comes the risk of multi-regional wars. The imperium is under attack not only by adversaries but also by those who no longer accept the US economic and ideological models, especially in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007.

The global recession that began in the US in 2007 was perhaps the most significant event impacting the geopolitical environment over the last several years.  It has challenged the present international structures and unsustainable corporate power. Moreover the geopolitical framework has changed, questioning the supremacy of the USA which however maintains its imperial character by its unrivalled military power.

BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – may offer a countervailing power to some features of the Empire but not in military terms. The Sanya declaration –the outcome document of the recent BRICS summit in China– demonstrated five of the largest emerging economies now have “a broad consensus” of views not only on key international economic and financial issues but also on certain international political issues. They demanded reform of financial institutions of global governance enabling developing nations to have a greater say in them.

On the political side two key issues deserve mention. BRICS has voiced support for a comprehensive reform of the United Nations, including the Security Council.  On the Libyan crisis however, BRICS has managed to create an ample air of ambivalence. Prior to the Sanya summit four countries abstained on the Security Council resolution, thereby providing a cover for Western intervention, and one (South Africa) in fact supported the resolution. At the summit, however, all five member-states expressed support for avoiding the use of force and ensuring respect for the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a country. Earlier Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister of Russia termed Operation Odyssey Dawn, a medieval call to crusade and the Security Council resolution “defective and flawed”. Whether the BRICS will emerge as a counter-weight to the USA, especially with regard to its imperial pursuits is doubtful at present.

The current geopolitical situation poses many challenges to peace movements like Peace for Life. These challenges define our tasks. Let me indicate some of them.

–          Recover and recapture the full meaning of peace and critique formulations that do not reflect it

–          expose and contest the continuation of imperial policies by the Obama regime,

–          condemn violations of sovereignty and imperial military interventions,

–          Affirm the aspirations of the Arab people for freedom and human dignity,

–          Continue to be in solidarity with the Palestinian people and actively support them as they enter a new stage in their struggle for statehood.

 

 

 

 

 

31 may 2010

www.southerntimesafrica.com

Windhoek – Southern Africa has become the battle ground for a new scramble for resources, with the United States seeking to muscle out Chinese influence so as to secure strategic minerals – mainly for its military.

More frightening is the possibility of the US military itself becoming involved in securing these strategic minerals within the next 20 years.

According to a study by Dr Stephen Burgess, a Zimbabwean-born associate professor at the US Air War College, Washington may have to enlist the services of the Department of Defence, the National Security Agency and the Africa Command (AFRICOM) to secure Southern Africa’s resources.

His study, titled ‘Sustainability of Strategic Minerals in Southern Africa and Potential Conflicts and Partnerships’, says the US should move quickly to secure Southern Africa’s uranium, manganese, platinum, chrome, cobalt and rare earth minerals for America’s industrial needs and for its military as well as maintenance of weapons systems.

The study focuses on resource accessibility in the DRC, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe and draws parallels with the 1880s scramble for Africa.

To triumph in this new scramble, Burgess notes, ‘all instruments of (US) power’ must be deployed.

Burgess visited all these countries – except Zimbabwe – and makes recommendations on how the US can muscle out China.

He interviewed mining sector experts, government officials and journalists as part of his research.

There were also consultations with American institutions such as the Defence National Stock Pile Centre, the Defence Logistics Agency and the Marine Corps Command.

A note in the study indicates that it has nothing to do with the US Air War College, raising the possibility that Burgess was working as a consultant for Washington.

‘Southern Africa contains strategic minerals, which the USA and its allies require for industrial purposes and that militaries need for production and sustainment of weapons systems.

‘The principal sustainability challenge in SADC for the USA and its allies is uncertain access to strategic minerals.

‘The cause of this challenge is increasing global demand and supply shortages caused by inadequate infrastructure, politicization of the mining industry and China’s aggressive and sometimes monopolistic behaviour in pursuit of minerals.

‘The challenge is most acute in two Southern African countries – South Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) – and also growing in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Namibia.

‘Of particular concern is possible future conflict between the United States, which needs strategic minerals for national defence and other purposes, and China, which needs an increasing amount of resources to fuel its accelerating industrialization.

‘There is a rising scramble for and struggle over resources in Africa, especially in petroleum and mining economies.

‘In particular, the US government is concerned about access to ‘defence critical resources’. This requires increased levels of engagement with the African countries concerned, using all the instruments of American power and working with American and Western mining companies, as well as engagement with China and Chinese companies.

‘In the future, a ‘worst-case’ scenario might see the United States having to use coercive diplomacy in the not-too-distant future (perhaps in 10-20 years) in order to regain access to vital resources.

‘The onset of ‘resource wars’ has been predicted by a number of scholars and experts. Given the rising level of Chinese demand for resources, the probability of conflict is likely to rise.

‘The new scramble for African mineral resources (and petroleum) is most similar to the 19th century European scramble for African minerals and land that contributed to interstate conflict, especially the First World War.’

The ever-strengthening Sino-Africa ties are a major headache for the US and Washington must move quickly or else conflict will become unavoidable.

‘The United States produces a range of materials from strategic minerals, including warships, aircraft, and high tech devices and components.

‘Thus far, the United States and its allies have relied on free market forces in Southern Africa and elsewhere. ‘However, US and allied industries may not always have access in the future and may have to reduce output or even close. ‘For example, a worrisome problem has been Chinese control of production of more than 90 percent of rare earth minerals.

‘Recently, Chinese companies withheld them from Japan over the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands dispute and threatening to withhold them from the United States over arms sales to Taiwan.

‘The minerals are the ingredients in key components in communications devices, satellites, and electric fuel cells and batteries that US industry and the military require.’

Burgess says liberation movements (ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe, ANC in South Africa and SWAPO in Namibia) are politicizing the mining sector to the detriment of free marketeering and this will pose a serious challenge to the US. Issues of black economic empowerment and nationalization of mining feature prominently.

‘The free market and government taxation of mining profits have tended to provide optimal conditions for states and industry and maintain a steady flow of minerals to meet demand. ‘However politicization has occurred in the form of nationalisation of the mining industry and the intervention of black empowerment companies which have tended to disrupt the market and flow of minerals.’

The DRC, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe all have – or in the process of implementing – policies that will see greater indigenous participation in mining.

• South Africa

South Africa is targeted for its vast platinum resources which stand at about 75 percent of global production, as well as its vast manganese deposits.

‘South African President Jacob Zuma and Mineral Resources Minister Susan Shabangu have said that nationalization is not currently part of government policy.

‘However, this does not guarantee it will not be part of government policy in the not-too-distant future. The ANC Youth League managed to get nationalization onto the agenda of the governing party’s September 2010 meeting, fuelling investor worries.

‘Nationalization of South African mines has been given renewed prominence by the ANC Youth League, which in 2009 issued a discussion paper arguing for state control of 60 percent of new mines.’

• Democratic Republic of Congo

The DRC is viewed as a source to quench America’s thirst for cobalt, uranium, coltan (columbite and tantalum), tungsten, tin, and rare earth minerals.

The study says Gecamines, the state miner, has too much control of mining and appears to favour dealing with China over the West.

• Zambia

Zambia’s cobalt constitutes 20 percent of global deposits and it is second only to the DRC.

Again, emphasis is on Beijing’s growing presence in Zambia through integrated firms such as the China Railway Group, SinoHydro and the Metallurgical Group Corporation.

• Namibia

Naturally, America’s interest here is in uranium and there is unease about the activities of the recently created state miner, Epangelo.

Namibia’s Cabinet recently said all future mining of strategic minerals should be done in partnership with Epangelo.

Namibia is the fourth largest producer of uranium and global demand is rising faster than the demand for gold.

‘The recently established state owned mining company, Epangelo has virtually no capital and may look to Russian and Chinese companies for support.

‘Kalahari Holdings (a SWAPO firm) are … looking for uranium prospects and joined ventures, possibly with the Chinese and Russian companies.

‘In the long run the politisization of the mining sector could divert uranium to China.’

Recommendations

‘One measure the United States could take is to assist South Africa in developing beneficiation. US aid could help to develop local mineral processing and metal manufacturing and assist South Africa in developing sufficient electricity to power such ventures.

‘In addition, the United States could negotiate off-take agreements with South Africa and provide assistance to benefit local mining communities.

‘The United States could encourage American mining companies to reengage in South Africa and work with Australian, Canadian and South African companies that are committed to the free market.

‘Also, the US government could step up strategic communications, broadcasting Chinese abuses and dissuading forces in the ANC and SWAPO from moving their governments closer to China.’

Burgess goes further.

‘In order to shape the region to maintain the free market, there are a number of actions that the United States and its allies might take. They might use diplomacy to build strategic partnerships with the most important African countries…

‘In the case of strategic minerals, special attention must be paid to South Africa and the DRC.

‘The United States and its allies could develop military-to-military relationships with a number of strategic African countries. ‘The US National Security Council, DOD (Department of Defence) and (the) US Africa Command might develop contingencies to deal with the eventual prospect of resource cutoffs and the possibility of conflict over strategic minerals. ‘At issue is how US agencies might adjust to the forthcoming challenges.

The building of strategic partnerships is politically difficult, given the ANC regime’s rejection of AFRICOM during the stand-up process in 2007 and 2008.

‘South Africa is the hegemon in the region and must fully accept AFRICOM before military-to-military partnerships can be built throughout the region.

‘The United States also continues to apply sanctions against President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and his inner circle, which makes building partnerships with the Southern African Development Community difficult.

‘In addition, there is some resistance to US foreign policy from the (President Joseph) Kabila regime in the DRC; SWAPO in Namibia; and the (President Eduardo) dos Santos regime in Angola.

‘By 2020, US intervention, including AFRICOM, might be needed to ensure sustained US/allied access to strategic minerals, which means that the building of strategic partnerships in the next decade is important.’

About the author of the study

Dr Stephen Burgess farmed commercially in Zimbabwe’s Masvingo Province and ceded land during the government’s agrarian reforms. He left Zimbabwe in 2001 and works for the Air War College in the United States. He is the author of three books; ‘South Africa’s Weapons of Mass Destruction’ (with Helen Purkitt), ‘Smallholders and Political Voice in Zimbabwe’, and ‘The United Nations under Boutros Boutros-Ghali, 1992-97’.

Burgess helped lead in the organization and execution of the Air Force Africa Command Symposium.

He is an associate director of the US Air Force Counterproliferation Centre. Burgess holds a PhD from Michigan State University and has been a faculty member at Vanderbilt University, the University of Zambia, the University of Zimbabwe, and Hofstra University. *The full study can be found on http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/

 

 

COLUMBUS, GA (WTVM) – Year after year not hundreds but thousands of people come here to Columbus to protest and rally at the gates of Fort Benning. It’s all part of an effort lead by the SOA Watch group to call for the closing of WHINSEC formally the School of the Americas on post.

For twenty years this group has continued to meet and protest. Yet the school remains open. So why continue to make the trip to fort Benning every year?

For Mario Venegas, its more than just a protest but a vigil to remember those that lost their lives at the hands of SOA graduates.  Thirty years ago Venegas was tortured and held in captivity for more than two years.

“The two main tortures that were torturing me at that time were trained at the school of the americas when it was in panama in the 70’s,” Venegas said.

For years Venegas has banned with other SOA supporters coming together to stop these crimes that according to Venegas still happen today.

“We know for a fact that this fort here behind me is still training officers for Latin America, they have trained the people that attempt the coup in Ecuador,” Venegas said.

Venegas was held prisoner in concentration camps during military dictatorships in Chile. He tells us that he still has nightmares to this day.

“I don’t want anyone to be there, the way you suffer physically and psychologically when you see in front of you people that are being killed and you cannot do nothing about it,” Venegas said.

Like Venegas Pascao Murphy has been coming to Columbus from Canada for the past ten years. Murphy says that he keeps coming to support people that have been directly affected by SOA graduates like Venegas.

“It’s necessary, to stand in solidarity, with the people that have witnessed that that have been affected by the violence that this institution has been part of supporting,” Murphy said.

And Mario Venegas says that until the school is closed. He will keep coming back.

“It’s important, and by demanding them and telling them right here in their face, you are tortures, you are assassins of our people in Latin America,” Venegas said.

22 November, 2010

WTVM

 

 

02 June, 2011

Countercurrents.org

Together with South Korea, America’s military plans expanding its Asian footprint on Jeju Island with a strategic naval base for Aegis class attack ships. They’re equipped with sophisticated SM-3 interceptor missiles intended mainly for offense, as well as powerful computers and tracking radar for first-strike capability against enemy targets.

In 2002, Seoul announced construction plans to accommodate Pentagon planners despite strong local opposition. Located south of Korea proper, Jeju Island is its only special autonomous province, situated in the Korea Strait, Southwest of Jeollanam-do Province it separated from in 1946.

Japan lies Northeast, China due West. Jeju is in central Northeast Asia, important for reasons other than military.

Strategically located Southwest of Japan, East of China between the East China Sea and Korea Strait shipping lanes, UNESCO declared Jeju a World Natural Heritage Site in 2007 under the name Jeju Volcanic Island and Lava Tubes. Korea has nine others chosen for their cultural or natural importance to humanity’s common heritage, vital to preserve and protect, not used as launch pads for belligerence and destruction.

In fact, former South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun designated Jeju a “peace island.” It’s also a popular tourist spot and home to rare sea life, a VisitKorea.or.kr site calling it a “Volcanic Island full of Allure.”

During WW II, Japan stationed 75,000 soldiers there. The Pentagon later planned to use it strategically, today with another naval base cooperatively with South Korea and Japan against China’s military presence, as well as perhaps interdicting its ability to import oil, much of which comes through Yellow Sea shipping lanes.

According to a 2009 Pentagon report, China’s naval forces are formidable, numbering 260 vessels, including 75 or more major warships and over 60 submarines. However, Beijing regards powerful US and South Korean warships equipped with interceptor offensive missiles close to its border a strategic threat. According to South Korea’s Peace Network director Cheong Wook-sik:

“China regards missile defense as the 21st century’s greatest threat and is dissatisfied with US missile defense policy,” knowing it targets them offensively.

Lee Tae-ho, deputy secretary general of South Korea’s People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, in fact, believes:

“The Chines government has a response strategy that first attacks US missile defense in the case of an emergency. That means that the Jeju naval base will be targeted in an armed conflict between the United States and China,” or in case of one with Taiwan in which America intervenes.

Short of war, an Asian arms race and popular opposition are major bones of contention, reflected in a 2007 Geongjeong Village People’s Council vote showing 94% of residents against a naval base. They oppose one disrupting their lives by environmental destruction (including soft coral habitat), harming tourism, disrupting fishing, and displacing local citrus growers by confiscating their land for militarism and potential war.

Nonetheless, in May 2009, construction plans were approved followed by dredging the Joongduk coastline to accommodate large warships. As a result, several lawsuits were filed without success. On December 15, 2010, a Jeju court ruled building plans posed no infringement problems despite clear evidence otherwise.

As a result, villagers and supporters protested, including on Christmas day 2010, blocking cement trucks brought in to pour concrete over coral reefs vital to preserve. Moreover, local residents occupied the site, facing off with police to stop cranes from dredging their cherished shoreline for America, not their own country.

Bruce Gagnon, co-founder and coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, follows the base controversy on two web sites:

— Space4peace.org; and

— Space4peace.blogspot.com.

On May 19, he reported arrests of eight protest leaders, including Global Network board member Sung-Hee Choi for the second time recently. Moreover, “Gangjeong village resident Professor Yang Yoon-Mo (entered) his 45th day of his hunger strike while in jail for trying to block a construction truck.” He vowed to die there unless constructions stops.

Urging others offer support, he explained America’s destabilizing presence, contributing to regional militarism that could escalate to war. He also included a letter from South Korea supporter Jungjoo Park, saying:

Government security forces “are stepping up their efforts to silence all opposition to the naval base. This morning, May 19, the construction companies came with their heavy equipment together with around 100 members of the police and military” – specifically to destroy a Jungdeok coast greenhouse. Villagers chained themselves to it to stop them. Arrests followed. “Obviously the situation is still ever developing….”

On June 1, Gagnon reported Professor Yang’s release from jail after his 60-day hunger strike. “He was sentenced to one and one-half years in jail with a suspended sentence but with two years probation,” an affront for trying to preserve, not destroy, life and environmental sanity.

Widespread support helped free him weakened yet vowing to persist, saying:

“My struggle will be continued to the end. Gangjeong villagers are the teacher who led me to the road of justice.”

Her hunger strike ended, Global Network’s Sung-Hee Choi’s trial will begin June 10. The struggle against militarizing Jeju continues. “Many NGOs in South Korea launched the ‘Korean National Committee against Jeju Naval Base Construction’ on June 1.”

Gagnon continues daily commentaries, supporting Gangjeong residents struggle to preserve the “endangered soft coral reefs and a shoreline of remarkable beauty in this fishing and farming village.”

Imperial America opposes them for unchallenged global dominance. Trampling on sovereign nations, humanity and environmental sanity, it claims only its objectives matter, again proving it’s a rogue out-of-control menace.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

 

New York Times

27 May 2011

 

 

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Saudi Arabia is flexing its financial and diplomatic might across the Middle East in a wide-ranging bid to contain the tide of change, shield other monarchies from popular discontent and avert the overthrow of any more leaders struggling to calm turbulent nations.

From Egypt, where the Saudis dispensed $4 billion in aid last week to shore up the ruling military council, to Yemen, where it is trying to ease out the president, to the kingdoms of Jordan and Morocco, which it has invited to join a union of Persian Gulf monarchies, Saudi Arabia is scrambling to forestall more radical change and block Iran’s influence.

The kingdom is aggressively emphasizing the relative stability of monarchies, part of an effort to avert any drastic shift from the authoritarian model, which would generate uncomfortable questions about the pace of political and social change at home.

Saudi Arabia’s proposal to include Jordan and Morocco in the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council — which authorized the Saudis to send in troops to quell a largely Shiite Muslim rebellion in the Sunni Muslim monarchy of Bahrain — is intended to create a kind of “Club of Kings.” The idea is to signal to Shiite Iran that the Sunni Arab monarchs will defend their interests, analysts said.

“We’re sending a message that monarchies are not where this is happening,” Prince Waleed bin Talal al-Saud, a businessman and high-profile member of the habitually reticent royal family, told the editorial board of The New York Times last week, referring to the unrest. “We are not trying to get our way by force, but to safeguard our interests.”

The range of the Saudi intervention is extraordinary as the unrest pushes Riyadh’s hand to forge what some commentators, in Egypt and elsewhere, brand a “counterrevolution.” Some Saudi and foreign analysts find the term too sweeping for the steps the Saudis have actually taken, though they appear unparalleled in the region and beyond as the kingdom reaches out to ally with non-Arab Muslim states as well.

“I am sure that the Saudis do not like this revolutionary wave — they were really scared,” said Khalid Dakhil, a Saudi political analyst and columnist. “But they are realistic here.”

In Egypt, where the revolution has already toppled a close Saudi ally in Hosni Mubarak, the Saudis are dispensing aid and mending ties in part to help head off a good showing by the Muslim Brotherhood in the coming parliamentary elections. The Saudis worry that an empowered Muslim Brotherhood could damage Saudi legitimacy by presenting a model of Islamic law different from the Wahhabi tradition of an absolute monarch.

“If another model of Shariah says that you have to resist, this will create a deep difficulty,” said Abdulaziz Algasim, a Saudi lawyer.

Saudi officials are also concerned that Egypt’s foreign policy is shifting, with its outreach to the Islamist group Hamas and plans to restore ties with Iran. The Saudi monarch, King Abdullah, also retains a personal interest in protecting Mr. Mubarak, analysts believe.

The Arab Spring began to unravel an alliance of so-called moderate Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which were willing to work closely with the United States and promote peace with Israel. American support for the Arab uprisings also strained relations, prompting Saudi Arabia to split from Washington on some issues while questioning its longstanding reliance on the United States to protect its interests.

The strained Saudi posture toward Washington was outlined in a recent opinion article by Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi analyst, in The Washington Post that suggested Riyadh was ready to go it alone because the United States had become an “unreliable partner.”

But that seems at least partly a display of Saudi pique, since the oil-for-military aid arrangement that has defined relations between the two for the past six decades is unlikely to be replaced soon. Saudi Arabia is negotiating to buy $60 billion in advanced American weapons, and President Obama, in his speech last week demanding that Middle Eastern autocrats bow to popular demands for democracy, noticeably did not mention Saudi Arabia. The Saudi ambassador, Adel al-Jubeir, sat prominently in the front row.

Saudi Arabia is taking each uprising in turn, without relying on a single blueprint. In Bahrain, it resorted to force, sending troops to crush a rebellion by Shiites because it feared the creation of a hostile government — a kind of Shiite Cuba — only about 20 miles from some of its main oil fields, one sympathetic to Iran, if not allied with it. It has deployed diplomacy in other uprisings, and remained on the fence in still others. It is also spending money, pledging $20 billion to help stabilize Bahrain and Oman, which has also faced protests.

In Yemen, Saudi Arabia joined the coalition seeking to ease out President Ali Abdullah Saleh because it thinks the opposition might prove a more reliable, less unruly southern neighbor. But Arab diplomats noted that even the smallest Saudi gestures provided Mr. Saleh with excuses to stay, since he interpreted them as support. This month, for example, the Saudis sent in tanker trucks to help abate a gasoline shortage.

On Syria, an initial statement of support by King Abdullah for President Bashar al-Assad has been followed by silence, along with occasional calls at Friday Prayer for God to support the protesters. That silence reflects a deep ambivalence, analysts said. The ruling Saudi family personally dislikes Mr. Assad — resenting his close ties with Iran and seeing Syria’s hand in the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, a Saudi ally. But they fear his overthrow will unleash sectarian violence without guaranteeing that Iranian influence will be diminished.

In Libya, after helping push through an Arab League request for international intervention, Saudi Arabia sat out and left its neighbors, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, to join the military coalition supporting the rebels. It has so far kept its distance publicly from Tunisia as well, although it gave refuge to its ousted president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali.

There are also suspicions that the kingdom is secretly providing money to extremist groups to hold back changes. Saudi officials deny that, although they concede private money may flow.

In 1952, after toppling the Egyptian king, Gamal Abdel Nasser worked to destabilize all monarchs, inspiring a regicide in Iraq and eventually the overthrow of King Idris of Libya. Saudi Arabia was locked in confrontation with Egypt throughout the 1960s, and it is determined not to relive that period.

“We are back to the 1950s and early 1960s, when the Saudis led the opposition to the revolutions at that time, the revolutions of Arabism,” said Mohammad F. al-Qahtani, a political activist in Riyadh.

Neil Graham MacFarquhar has been the United Nations bureau chief of The New York Times since June 2008. MacFarquhar’s second book, The Media Relations Department of Hizbollah Wishes You a Happy Birthday: Unexpected Encounters in the Changing Middle East, is a journal of MacFarquhar’s experiences in the region, starting with his childhood in Col. Qhadafi’s Libya, and an assessment of the prospects for political and social change.

 

 

 

 

June 5th, 2011 • 9:04 AM

A recent article in Ha’aretz by Amir Oren warned that “between the end of June and Gates’ retirement, and the end of September and Mullen’s retirement, the danger that Netanyahu and [Ehud] Barak will aim at a surprise in Iran is especially great, especially since this would divert attention from the Palestinian issue.” This warning of an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz and other locations has been buttressed by senior U.S. military and intelligence sources, who have warned, in the past 24 hours, that U.S. military forces have been conducting big contingency planning drills over the past several weeks, for a U.S. intervention, following Israeli strikes on targets in Iran. These sources say that a target date for such a joint Israel-U.S. attack on Iran would be July and August of this year.

A number of other recent developments further fill out this picture of a potential Armageddon provocation by Netanyahu, Barak and Obama.

First, on June 3, Britain’s Guardian reported on an interview with recently retired Mossad head Meir Dagan, who attacked Netanyahu and Barak as “irresponsible and reckless.” Ha’aretz columnist Avi Shavit explained: “Dagan is extremely concerned about September 2011. He is not afraid that tens of thousands of demonstrators may overrun the settlements. He is afraid that Israel’s subsequent isolation will push its leaders to the wall and cause them to take reckless action against Iran.” Dagan told reporters that when he was head of Mossad, he and Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin and Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi could collectively veto any reckless behavior by Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak, but they have all been replaced by weaker figures who would not buck attack orders from the Prime Minister. “I decided to speak because when I was in office, Diskin, Ashkenazi and I could block any dangerous adventure. Now I am afraid that there is no one to stop Bibi and Barak.”

Second, the Obama White House launched a panicked, clumsy preemptive attack this week against New Yorker magazine writer Seymour Hersh, to spike his June 6 article, “Iran and the Bomb,” which provided previously unpublished details of a 2011 updated National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The new NIE, updating the December 2007 NIE, concluded that there was still no compelling evidence that Iran had resumed its quest for nuclear weapons, which had been frozen in late 2003, following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. As Hersh documented, the 2011 NIE was delayed for more than four months, due to political pressures on the intelligence analysts to reverse the earlier findings. But the intelligence community experts, with backing from such senior officials as DIA Director Gen. Ronald L. Burgess, stood behind the analysts, and refused to bend to political pressures. DIA, in particular, assessed that the Iran nuclear weapons effort had been principally directed against Iraq—not Israel, and that the March 2003 invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein had taken the Iraq threat off the table, and Iran had shelved the nuclear weapons effort. Hersh quoted former DIA humint director Col. Patrick Lang that the intelligence community had “refused to drink the Kool Aid this time.”

On June 2, Salon magazine published a report by Glenn Greenwald, which read, in part: “Seymour Hersh has a new article in the New Yorker arguing that there is no credible evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons; to the contrary, he writes, ‘the U.S. could be in danger of repeating a mistake similar to the one made with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq eight years ago — allowing anxieties about the policies of a tyrannical regime to distort our estimates of the state’s military capacities and intentions.’ This, of course, cannot stand, as it conflicts with one of the pillar-orthodoxies of Obama foreign policy in the Middle East (even though the prior two National Intelligence Estimates say what Hersh has said). As a result, two cowardly, slimy Obama officials ran to Politico to bash Hersh while hiding behind the protective womb of anonymity automatically and subserviently extended by that ‘news outlet.'” The trash-Hersh campaign spread to other publications, in a futile Obama White House effort to kill the impact of the Hersh story.

A senior U.S. intelligence official, after initially dismissing the imminent threat of an Israeli military strike on Iran, made a compelling case for why Israel might launch such an attack in the nearterm. If Israel concluded that the recent computer virus, which greatly disrupted the work at the Natanz facility, had been countered, and a new generation of centrifuges had been successfully installed, Iran could be 12-18 months away from a nuclear weapons breakout. That alone would suppress any Israeli institutional resistance to an attack on Iran.

The source added that U.S. intelligence believes that Israel’s military capabilities have been seriously diminished and that an Israeli attack on Natanz and other facilities would most likely do only minimum damage. Therefore, the U.S. would have only two options in the event of such an Israel attack: Sit it out and make it clear that the attack was not sanctioned by Washington, or launch U.S. military operations to “finish the job.” Contingency plans for the latter option are definitely in place, the source explained, and it would thus be up to President Obama to make the call. While there is no love lost between Obama and Netanyahu, Obama’s decisions are all calibrated to ensure his 2012 reelection, and he would be very reluctant to buck the Israeli Lobby and leave Israel to fend for itself.

Of course, such a Netanyahu-Obama attack on Iran would be just what London ordered, given the accelerating disintegration of the entire Inter Alpha system, and the strong intention of a hardcore Armageddonist faction centered around Prince Philip to massively reduce the world’s population.