Rabu, 03 Juni 2015

WHY MIDEAST....?? >>> WHO DID..THE NEWPLAN..?? >> THE CIA AND PENTAGON ...MIDEAST MAP AS THE REDRAWING MIDEAST UNDER USA's GLOBAL PLAN IN THE NWO...?? >> The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006)....??>> Controlling these zones and groups remains superfluous as long as they do not affect U.S.-American or European solid institutions of power (Porcaro 2013). This system is strengthened by a form of authoritarian constitutionalism that only passes with great difficulty as a “market-driven democracy” (Merkel). This is because growth and profit rates are continuously flattening out, but the current level of surplus value absorption is more than enough for the super-rich....>>>... Imperial Way of Life More than ever, the imperial way of life (Brand/Wissen 2012) is proving incredibly attractive, and this is particularly the case for the new middle classes of the Global South. However, resistance is forming – both on the left and the right of the political spectrum – and it ranges from indigenous movements in the Andes, to new democracy movements in Sao Paulo, Istanbul and Madrid, to the reactionary right in Venezuela and Thailand and rising Islamist forces in the Arab world...>>.....The Obama administration has been not only absent in the struggle for the civil and human rights of African Americans, it has actually oversaw some of the worst losses in jobs, economic opportunities and household wealth. There is a systematic campaign on the part of the banks and corporations to drive African Americans and other oppressed nationalities out of the central areas of the major municipalities. Detroit, an example of extreme expropriation and disenfranchisement of African Americans and Latinos, is being championed by the ruling class as a successful example of urban revitalization. ..>>...These foreign policy imperatives of U.S. imperialism reverberate with ominous consequences for the people living inside country. Despite the rise of President Barack Obama as the first self-identified African American to hold that office, the actual conditions of the people represents the reinforcement of national oppression and institutional racism. ..>>..Nonetheless, this ruling class propaganda cannot mask the gross injustices and inequalities prevalent in Detroit and other cities. The mass demonstrations in Ferguson, Baltimore and other urban areas have shown the world that America is still a class society. The militarized response to the rebellions does not suggest the strengths of the capitalist and imperialist system but its weaknesses. It will be the organized might of the workers and the oppressed that seals the fate of imperialism both abroad and domestically...>>.....Since March 26 the Saudi Arabian monarchy along with its neighbors in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has been waging war on the nation of Yemen. Daily bombing raids against residential areas and infrastructure are ostensibly designed to push back the Ansurallah (Houthis) movement which has taken over large sections of the country, one of the most underdeveloped in the region...>>...This war has been largely hidden from the view of people inside the United States. Nonetheless, this is a U.S. war aimed at maintaining Washington’s dominant position within the Arabian Peninsula extending to the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden. Prior to the beginning of the airstrikes by the Saudi-GCC Coalition, the administration of President Barack Obama withdrew its diplomatic personnel along with Special Forces operating inside the country. For many years the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has viewed Yemen as a key area for its so-called “war on terrorism.”..>>In Lebanon Hezbollah has maintained its strength against the Zionist regime occupying Palestine. The party and mass movement have also intervened in solidarity with the people of Syria and may escalate its involvement based upon developments taking place inside the country....>>.

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”
 This article first published by GR in November 2006 is of particular relevance  to an understanding of the ongoing process of destabilization and political fragmentation of Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
“Hegemony is as old as Mankind…” -Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor
The term “New Middle East” was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the “Greater Middle East.”
This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the “New Middle East,” was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of  the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a “New Middle East” was being launched from Lebanon.
This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli “military roadmap” in the Middle East. This project, which has been in the  planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.
The “New Middle East” project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This “constructive chaos” –which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region– would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives.

New Middle East Map

Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated during a press conference that “[w]hat we’re seeing here [in regards to the destruction of Lebanon and the Israeli attacks on Lebanon], in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we [meaning the United States] have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one.”1 Secretary Rice was immediately criticized for her statements both within Lebanon and internationally for expressing indifference to the suffering of an entire nation, which was being bombed  indiscriminately by the Israeli Air Force.

The Anglo-American Military Roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia 

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s speech on the “New Middle East” had set the stage. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon –which had been fully endorsed by Washington and London– have further compromised and validated the existence of the geo-strategic objectives of the United States, Britain, and Israel. According to Professor Mark Levine the “neo-liberal globalizers and neo-conservatives, and ultimately the Bush Administration, would latch on to creative destruction as a way of describing the process by which they hoped to create their new world orders,” and that “creative destruction [in] the United States was, in the words of neo-conservative philosopher and Bush adviser Michael Ledeen, ‘an awesome revolutionary force’ for (…) creative destruction…”2
Anglo-American occupied Iraq, particularly Iraqi Kurdistan, seems to be the preparatory ground for the balkanization (division) and finlandization (pacification) of the Middle East. Already the legislative framework, under the Iraqi Parliament and the name of Iraqi federalization, for the partition of Iraq into three portions is being drawn out. (See map below)
Moreover, the Anglo-American military roadmap appears to be vying an entry into Central Asia via the Middle East. The Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are stepping stones for extending U.S. influence into the former Soviet Union and the ex-Soviet Republics of Central Asia. The Middle East is to some extent the southern tier of Central Asia. Central Asia in turn is also termed as “Russia’s Southern Tier” or the Russian “Near Abroad.”
Many Russian and Central Asian scholars, military planners, strategists, security advisors, economists, and politicians consider Central Asia (“Russia’s Southern Tier”) to be the vulnerable and “soft under-belly” of the Russian Federation.3
It should be noted that in his book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. National Security Advisor, alluded to the modern Middle East as a control lever of an area he, Brzezinski, calls the Eurasian Balkans. The Eurasian Balkans consists of the Caucasus (Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Armenia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan) and to some extent both Iran and Turkey. Iran and Turkey both form the northernmost tiers of the Middle East (excluding the Caucasus4) that edge into Europe and the former Soviet Union.

The Map of the “New Middle East”

A relatively unknown map of the Middle East, NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been circulating around strategic, governmental, NATO, policy and military circles since mid-2006. It has been causally allowed to surface in public, maybe in an attempt to build consensus and to slowly prepare the general public for possible, maybe even cataclysmic, changes in the Middle East. This is a map of a redrawn and restructured Middle East identified as the “New Middle East.”

MAP OF THE NEW MIDDLE EAST



 














Note: The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).




Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.

This map of the “New Middle East” seems to be based on several other maps, including older maps of potential boundaries in the Middle East extending back to the era of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and World War I. This map is showcased and presented as the brainchild of retired Lieutenant-Colonel (U.S. Army) Ralph Peters, who believes the redesigned borders contained in the map will fundamentally solve the problems of the contemporary Middle East.

The map of the “New Middle East” was a key element in the retired Lieutenant-Colonel’s book, Never Quit the Fight, which was released to the public on July 10, 2006. This map of a redrawn Middle East was also published, under the title of Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look, in the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal with commentary from Ralph Peters.5

It should be noted that Lieutenant-Colonel Peters was last posted to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, within the U.S. Defence Department, and has been one of the Pentagon’s foremost authors with numerous essays on strategy for military journals and U.S. foreign policy.
It has been written that Ralph Peters’ “four previous books on strategy have been highly influential in government and military circles,” but one can be pardoned for asking if in fact quite the opposite could be taking place. Could it be Lieutenant-Colonel Peters is revealing and putting forward what Washington D.C. and its strategic planners have anticipated for the Middle East?
The concept of a redrawn Middle East has been presented as a “humanitarian” and “righteous” arrangement that would benefit the people(s) of the Middle East and its peripheral regions. According to Ralph Peter’s:
International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.
The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa’s borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.
While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region’s comprehensive failure isn’t Islam, but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.
Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant “cheated” population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia [Muslims], but still fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.
Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East.
Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosphorus and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East’s “organic” frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected. 6
(emphasis added)

“Necessary Pain”

Besides believing that there is “cultural stagnation” in the Middle East, it must be noted that Ralph Peters admits that his propositions are “draconian” in nature, but he insists that they are necessary pains for the people of the Middle East. This view of necessary pain and suffering is in startling parallel to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s belief that the devastation of Lebanon by the Israeli military was a necessary pain or “birth pang” in order to create the “New Middle East” that Washington, London, and Tel Aviv envision.
Moreover, it is worth noting that the subject of the Armenian Genocide is being politicized and stimulated in Europe to offend Turkey.7
The overhaul, dismantlement, and reassembly of the nation-states of the Middle East have been packaged as a solution to the hostilities in the Middle East, but this is categorically misleading, false, and fictitious. The advocates of a “New Middle East” and redrawn boundaries in the region avoid and fail to candidly depict the roots of the problems and conflicts in the contemporary Middle East. What the media does not acknowledge is the fact that almost all major conflicts afflicting the Middle East are the consequence of overlapping Anglo-American-Israeli agendas.
Many of the problems affecting the contemporary Middle East are the result of the deliberate aggravation of pre-existing regional tensions. Sectarian division, ethnic tension and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States and Britain in various parts of the globe including Africa, Latin America, the Balkans, and the Middle East. Iraq is just one of many examples of the Anglo-American strategy of “divide and conquer.” Other examples are Rwanda, Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and Afghanistan.
Amongst the problems in the contemporary Middle East is the lack of genuine democracy which U.S. and British foreign policy has actually been deliberately obstructing.  Western-style “Democracy” has been a requirement only for those Middle Eastern states which do not conform to Washington’s political demands. Invariably, it constitutes a pretext for confrontation. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are examples of undemocratic states that the United States has no problems with because they are firmly alligned within the Anglo-American orbit or sphere.
Additionally, the United States has deliberately blocked or displaced genuine democratic movements in the Middle East from Iran in 1953 (where a U.S./U.K. sponsored coup was staged against the democratic government of Prime Minister Mossadegh) to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, the Arab Sheikdoms, and Jordan where the Anglo-American alliance supports military control, absolutists, and dictators in one form or another. The latest example of this is Palestine.

The Turkish Protest at NATO’s Military College in Rome

Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters’ map of the “New Middle East” has sparked angry reactions in Turkey. According to Turkish press releases on September 15, 2006 the map of the “New Middle East” was displayed in NATO’s Military College in Rome, Italy. It was additionally reported that Turkish officers were immediately outraged by the presentation of a portioned and segmented Turkey.8 The map received some form of approval from the U.S. National War Academy before it was unveiled in front of NATO officers in Rome.
The Turkish Chief of Staff, General Buyukanit, contacted the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, and protested the event and the exhibition of the redrawn map of the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.9 Furthermore the Pentagon has gone out of its way to assure Turkey that the map does not reflect official U.S. policy and objectives in the region, but this seems to be conflicting with Anglo-American actions in the Middle East and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.
Is there a Connection between Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Eurasian Balkans” and the “New Middle East” Project?
The following are important excerpts and passages from former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives. Brzezinski also states that both Turkey and Iran, the two most powerful states of the “Eurasian Balkans,” located on its southern tier, are “potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts [balkanization],” and that, “If either or both of them were to be destabilized, the internal problems of the region would become unmanageable.”10
It seems that a divided and balkanized Iraq would be the best means of accomplishing this. Taking what we know from the White House’s own admissions; there is a belief that “creative destruction and chaos” in the Middle East are beneficial assets to reshaping the Middle East, creating the “New Middle East,” and furthering the Anglo-American roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia:
In Europe, the Word “Balkans” conjures up images of ethnic conflicts and great-power regional rivalries. Eurasia, too, has its “Balkans,” but the Eurasian Balkans are much larger, more populated, even more religiously and ethnically heterogenous. They are located within that large geographic oblong that demarcates the central zone of global instability (…) that embraces portions of southeastern Europe, Central Asia and parts of South Asia [Pakistan, Kashmir, Western India], the Persian Gulf area, and the Middle East.
The Eurasian Balkans form the inner core of that large oblong (…) they differ from its outer zone in one particularly significant way: they are a power vacuum. Although most of the states located in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East are also unstable, American power is that region’s [meaning the Middle East’s] ultimate arbiter. The unstable region in the outer zone is thus an area of single power hegemony and is tempered by that hegemony. In contrast, the Eurasian Balkans are truly reminiscent of the older, more familiar Balkans of southeastern Europe: not only are its political entities unstable but they tempt and invite the intrusion of more powerful neighbors, each of whom is determined to oppose the region’s domination by another. It is this familiar combination of a power vacuum and power suction that justifies the appellation “Eurasian Balkans.”
The traditional Balkans represented a potential geopolitical prize in the struggle for European supremacy. The Eurasian Balkans, astride the inevitably emerging transportation network meant to link more directly Eurasia’s richest and most industrious western and eastern extremities, are also geopolitically significant. Moreover, they are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely, Russia, Turkey, and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.
 The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of Energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy, and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea.
Access to that resource and sharing in its potential wealth represent objectives that stir national ambitions, motivate corporate interests, rekindle historical claims, revive imperial aspirations, and fuel international rivalries. The situation is made all the more volatile by the fact that the region is not only a power vacuum but is also internally unstable.
(…)
The Eurasian Balkans include nine countries that one way or another fit the foregoing description, with two others as potential candidates. The nine are Kazakstan [alternative and official spelling of Kazakhstan] , Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia—all of them formerly part of the defunct Soviet Union—as well as Afghanistan.
The potential additions to the list are Turkey and Iran, both of them much more politically and economically viable, both active contestants for regional influence within the Eurasian Balkans, and thus both significant geo-strategic players in the region. At the same time, both are potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts. If either or both of them were to be destabilized, the internal problems of the region would become unmanageable, while efforts to restrain regional domination by Russia could even become futile. 11
(emphasis added)

Redrawing the Middle East

The Middle East, in some regards, is a striking parallel to the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe during the years leading up the First World War. In the wake of the the First World War the borders of the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe were redrawn. This region experienced a period of upheaval, violence and conflict, before and after World War I, which was the direct result of foreign economic interests and interference.
The reasons behind the First World War are more sinister than the standard school-book explanation, the assassination of the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian (Habsburg) Empire, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo. Economic factors were the real motivation for the large-scale war in 1914.
Norman Dodd, a former Wall Street banker and investigator for the U.S. Congress, who examined  U.S. tax-exempt foundations, confirmed in a 1982 interview that those powerful individuals who from behind the scenes controlled the finances, policies, and government of the United States had in fact also planned U.S. involvement in a war, which would contribute to entrenching their grip on power.
The following testimonial is from the transcript of Norman Dodd’s interview with G. Edward Griffin;
We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations.  And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion.  And the question is this:  Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?  And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war.  So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?
Well, I doubt, at that time, if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the people of this country [the United States], than its involvement in a war.  There were intermittent shows [wars] in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were.  And finally, they answer that question as follows:  we must control the State Department.

And then, that very naturally raises the question of how do we do that?  They answer it by saying, we must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country and, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.  Then, time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I.  At that time, they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.  And finally, of course, the war is over.

At that time, their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914, when World War I broke out. (emphasis added)
The redrawing and partition of the Middle East from the Eastern Mediterranean shores of Lebanon and Syria to Anatolia (Asia Minor), Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and the Iranian Plateau responds to broad economic, strategic and military objectives, which are part of a longstanding Anglo-American and Israeli agenda in the region.
The Middle East has been conditioned by outside forces into a powder keg that is ready to explode with the right trigger, possibly the launching of Anglo-American and/or Israeli air raids against Iran and Syria. A wider war in the Middle East could result in redrawn borders that are strategically advantageous to Anglo-American interests and Israel.

NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan has been successfully divided, all but in name. Animosity has been inseminated in the Levant, where a Palestinian civil war is being nurtured and divisions in Lebanon agitated. The Eastern Mediterranean has been successfully militarized by NATO. Syria and Iran continue to be demonized by the Western media, with a view to justifying a military agenda. In turn, the Western media has fed, on a daily basis, incorrect and biased notions that the populations of Iraq cannot co-exist and that the conflict is not a war of occupation but a “civil war” characterised by domestic strife between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Attempts at intentionally creating animosity between the different ethno-cultural and religious groups of the Middle East have been systematic. In fact, they are part of a carefully designed covert intelligence agenda.

Even more ominous, many Middle Eastern governments, such as that of Saudi Arabia, are assisting Washington in fomenting divisions between Middle Eastern populations. The ultimate objective is to weaken the resistance movement against foreign occupation through a “divide and conquer strategy” which serves Anglo-American and Israeli interests in the broader region.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes in Middle Eastern and Central Asian affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Notes

1 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Special Briefing on the Travel to the Middle East and Europe of Secretary Condoleezza Rice (Press Conference, U.S. State Department, Washington, D.C., July 21, 2006).
2 Mark LeVine, “The New Creative Destruction,” Asia Times, August 22, 2006.
3 Andrej Kreutz, “The Geopolitics of post-Soviet Russia and the Middle East,” Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ) (Washington, D.C.: Association of Arab-American University Graduates, January 2002).
4 The Caucasus or Caucasia can be considered as part of the Middle East or as a separate region
5 Ralph Peters, “Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look,” Armed Forces Journal (AFJ), June 2006.
6 Ibid.
7 Crispian Balmer, “French MPs back Armenia genocide bill, Turkey angry, Reuters, October 12, 2006; James McConalogue, “French against Turks: Talking about Armenian Genocide,” The Brussels Journal, October 10, 2006.
8 Suleyman Kurt, “Carved-up Map of Turkey at NATO Prompts U.S. Apology,” Zaman (Turkey), September 29, 2006.
9 Ibid.
10 Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives (New York City: Basic Books, 1997).
11 Ibid.
Related Global Research articles on the March to War in the Middle East
US naval war games off the Iranian coastline: A provocation which could lead to War? 2006-10-24
“Cold War Shivers:” War Preparations in the Middle East and Central Asia 2006-10-06
The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean 2006-10-01
The March to War: Iran Preparing for US Air Attacks 2006-09-21
The Next Phase of the Middle East War 2006-09-04
Baluchistan and the Coming Iran War 2006-09-01
British Troops Mobilizing on the Iranian Border 2006-08-30
Russia and Central Asian Allies Conduct War Games in Response to US Threats 2006-08-24
Beating the Drums of War: US Troop Build-up: Army & Marines authorize “Involuntary Conscription” 2006-08-23
Iranian War Games: Exercises, Tests, and Drills or Preparation and Mobilization for War? 2006-08-21
Triple Alliance:” The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon 2006-08-06 
The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil 2006-07-26 
Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust? 2006-02-22 
The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War 2006-02-17 
Nuclear War against Iran 2006-01-03 
Israeli Bombings could lead to Escalation of Middle East War 2006-07-15 
Iran: Next Target of US Military Aggression 2005-05-01 
Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran 2005-05-01

War, Imperialism and the People’s Struggle in the Middle East

United States continues its occupation of the region

http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-imperialism-and-the-peoples-struggle-in-the-middle-east/5453386


US military bases
Since March 26 the Saudi Arabian monarchy along with its neighbors in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has been waging war on the nation of Yemen. Daily bombing raids against residential areas and infrastructure are ostensibly designed to push back the Ansurallah (Houthis) movement which has taken over large sections of the country, one of the most underdeveloped in the region.

This war has been largely hidden from the view of people inside the United States. Nonetheless, this is a U.S. war aimed at maintaining Washington’s dominant position within the Arabian Peninsula extending to the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden.

Prior to the beginning of the airstrikes by the Saudi-GCC Coalition, the administration of President Barack Obama withdrew its diplomatic personnel along with Special Forces operating inside the country. For many years the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has viewed Yemen as a key area for its so-called “war on terrorism.”

Regular drone strikes have killed many Yemenis along with at least three of whom were U.S. citizens. Washington has said that the Al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is major threat to American interests in an attempt to justify the drone attacks which have killed more civilians than supposed “armed combatants.”


However, in recent months the Islamic Republic of Iran has been designated by Washington and its allies as the principal threat in Yemen. The Ansurallah, which is a Shiite branch of Islam, is supported politically by Tehran. The Saudi monarchy views Iran as its major impediment in controlling the region on behalf of U.S. oil and financial interests.
The current hostilities in Yemen have been described as a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and the GCC on one side and Iran and its allies on the other. The total war strategy against Yemen consists of the banning of humanitarian assistance from Iran and others who oppose the bombing and ground offensive by militias which are financed by Riyadh.
According to an article published by the Telegraph in Britain, it says that “As Saudi Arabia has maintained an air and naval blockade on Yemeni territory, gas supplies have run perilously low. Even a five day humanitarian pause was not enough to bring in the necessary aid. Fuel prices have spiked as the casualty count mounts, and some hospitals have been forced to close altogether because they are unable to keep medical supplies refrigerated or perform operations since they can’t run backup generators.”
Reports of the number of Yemenis killed in the fighting range from 2,000-4,000 with many more injured and displaced. Yemeni-Americans who have been attempting to leave the country since late March have been abandoned by Washington.
Many Yeminis have taken refuge across the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden into Djibouti where the U.S. has its largest military base in Africa. The U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) is expanding its operations at Camp Lemonnier which is utilized as a staging ground for military strikes inside Somalia and other countries on the continent.
This same above-mentioned Telegraph article also notes that
“The UNHCR says a total of 5,000 Yemeni refugees have made it to Djibouti, including 3,000 in the capital, Djibouti city, and 1,000 in Obock, 300 kilometers (187 miles) to the north — making it currently the biggest Yemeni refugee population. The influx has hiked up local prices, with markets, hotels, and drivers trying to make the most of the situation in an already struggling economy.”

Yemen and the Imperialist Regional War

The war in Yemen is part and parcel of a broader regional war that encompasses Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, occupied Palestine and Iran. In Iraq where the U.S. occupied the country for over eight years, the Pentagon has redeployed 3,100 troops to the area. These troops are purportedly training Iraqi military forces although the Defense Department cannot claim any real successes.

When Islamic State fighters confronted Iraqi units in Mosul and other cities they fled. A similar situation was reported in Ramadi in Anbar Province. The Obama administration played down these events in order to deflect the attention of the U.S. public away from its failures in Iraq.

The Kurdish fighters seem to have fought with far greater commitment and vigor yet they are not privy to the military assistance in their struggle against IS. Fierce battles in Kobane on the border with Turkey revealed that the Kurds were a force to be reckoned with in the regional war against IS.

In neighboring Syria, the U.S. is behind efforts to destabilize and overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad. Since 2011, an estimated 200,000 people have died and several million dislocated both inside and outside of Syria.

The U.S. is bombing both Iraq and Syria under the guise of degrading and destroying IS bases. However, the impact of this aerial war is to create broader avenues of operation for the IS forces which were built up during the initial years of the destabilization campaign against Syria. At present IS military units have seized large areas of territory within Syria and Iraq, while the strategy of the White House is to continue the bombing targeting Daesh but at the same time opposing the continued existence of the Assad government in Damascus.

A massive air assault on Syria was planned for August-September 2013. However, public outrage in Britain and the U.S. stopped the president in his tracks. The effect of recent wars waged by Washington through successive administrations has resulted in greater instability and dislocation.

In Lebanon Hezbollah has maintained its strength against the Zionist regime occupying Palestine. The party and mass movement have also intervened in solidarity with the people of Syria and may escalate its involvement based upon developments taking place inside the country.

The plight of Palestinians has been negatively impacted by the wars in Syria and Iraq. In Syria, many Palestinian refugees were divided over support for the Assad government. A major camp housing Palestinians has been the focal point of IS attacks seeking to gain control of the area.
Israel is supported to the tune of billions every year from the tax dollars of the American people. U.S. warplanes and other defense technology are given to Tel Aviv where it is tested against the people of Gaza and other occupied territories.

Although the U.S. administration has signed an agreement on Iran nuclear energy program, the Obama White House is continuing the 36 years of hostility towards Tehran since the popular revolution of 1979. Washington’s coordination of the Saudi-GCC war in Yemen is a clear testament to the ongoing war against Iran.

Africa and the Middle East 

As we mentioned earlier, Djibouti, the pivotal staging ground for AFRICOM on the continent is located right across from Yemen. Somalia, Ethiopia, Egypt and Kenya are in close proximity. The artificial divisions between Africa and the so-called Middle East are merely constructs of colonialism and imperialism for the purpose dividing the regions in regard to spheres of influence for western powers.
Peoples who reside on either side of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden fundamentally want the U.S. out of their countries. They desire to live in peace and to determine their own destiny in the quest for development and unity. Washington and Wall Street dominate through their military prowess and economic machinations that bribe leaders making them dependent upon U.S. and European patronage and privilege.
The fueled hostility between various branches of Islam is indispensable in the imperialist strategy for the Middle East and Africa. Only when the peoples of Africa and the Middle East unite on an anti-imperialist basis will there be a genuine atmosphere of lasting peace and social stability.

Note: This paper was presented at the Left Forum held at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York (CUNY) during May 29-31, 2015. The panel was chaired by Bill Dores of the International Action Center. Kazem Azin of Solidarity Iran was also a participant.
Giovanni Arrighi
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Arrighi
2007 Giovanni Arrighi lecture in South Africa.jpg
Giovanni Arrighi giving a lecture at the Faculty of Humanities at Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa (April 18, 2007)
Born July 7, 1937 Milan, Italy
Died June 18, 2009 (aged 71) Baltimore, Maryland
Nationality Italy
Fields Sociology
Institutions Johns Hopkins University Binghamton University
Alma mater Bocconi University
Known for Historical Sociology Political Economy
Influences Karl Marx Antonio Gramsci Fernand Braudel Karl Polanyi Paul A. Baran Jaap Van Velsen

Chimerica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimerica
 
China USA Locator.svg
For the play of this title, see Chimerica (play).
Chimerica is a neologism and portmanteau coined by Niall Ferguson and Moritz Schularick describing the symbiotic relationship between China and the United States, with incidental reference to the legendary chimera.[1][2][3][4][5]

Origin

First coined by historian Niall Ferguson and economist Moritz Schularick in late 2006, they argue that saving by the Chinese and overspending by Americans led to an incredible period of wealth creation that contributed to the financial crisis of 2007–08.[6] For years, China accumulated large currency reserves and channeled them into US government securities, which kept nominal and real long-term interest rates artificially low in the United States. Ferguson describes Chimerica as one economy which "accounts for around 13 percent of the world's land surface, a quarter of its population, about a third of its gross domestic product, and somewhere over half of the global economic growth of the past six years."[7] He suggests Chimerica could end if China were to decouple from the United States bringing with it a shift in global power and allowing China "to explore other spheres of global influence, from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, of which Russia is also a member, to its own informal nascent empire in commodity-rich Africa."[7]
The accumulation of American debt, which has been estimated at over $800 billion, suggests the two nations are intrinsically linked; the economic symbiosis prevalent between the two suggests that separation would harm both countries and be disastrous for the global economy.[citation needed] Another way to measure this integration is the trade deficit. The US trade deficit with China was $295 billion in 2011, meaning the US imported that much more goods and services from China than it exported to China. The Economic Policy Institute estimated that from 2001–2011, 2.7 million US jobs were lost to China.[8]
The idea of Chimerica features prominently in Ferguson's 2008 book and adapted television documentary The Ascent of Money, which reviews the history of money, credit, and banking.

“New World Re-Ordering” and Neoliberal Transnationalization

http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-world-re-ordering-and-neoliberal-transnationalization/5453352

Region: ,

US Dollar Hegemony over China and Russia
What should we call the current era? Post-everything? Or perhaps, the interregnum? Whatever the name it should be given, the current period is characterized by neoliberal trans-nationalization.
In addition, U.S. hegemony has been under question since the beginning of this period. In fact, the Empire is no longer U.S.-American and a change in hegemony is in full swing. Despite what world-systems theorists such as Giovanni Arrighi suggest, the balance does not seem to be tipping toward China. Nevertheless, as Niall Ferguson points out, it is moving toward Chimerica. Furthermore, since the beginning of the global financial crisis, no project has been in sight that could reorganize the active consensus of the subalterns, move perspectives on accumulation one step up the ladder, and provide a position capable of establishing a new world order.

Attempts to secure neoliberal positions through authoritarianism are now facing a new transnational cycle of movements (Candeias 2013). Alongside numerous attempts by Islamist movements, the remaining great powers are sparring for spheres of influence, whether in Eastern Europe or through the appropriation of African resources. At the same time, the United States is endeavouring to prevent further losses of its room to manoeuvre; Russia is striving to expand its influence through energy and resource policies, and arms trafficking, whereas China has linked its imperial ambitions to the provision of foreign aid.

Imperial Way of Life

More than ever, the imperial way of life (Brand/Wissen 2012) is proving incredibly attractive, and this is particularly the case for the new middle classes of the Global South. However, resistance is forming – both on the left and the right of the political spectrum – and it ranges from indigenous movements in the Andes, to new democracy movements in Sao Paulo, Istanbul and Madrid, to the reactionary right in Venezuela and Thailand and rising Islamist forces in the Arab world.
This situation is reflected in attempts by the EU to enclose itself within a ‘ring of fire’, which it is promoting through hasty and clumsy forms of diplomacy such as EU policy on Ukraine. It seems that the strategic partnership with Russia has been forgotten; this need not bother the United States, however, since neither Russia nor the European periphery plays a significant role for the U.S. economy. This point is further illustrated by the U.S. ‘pivot to Asia’, which is leading the U.S. to develop long-term links (and competition with) the largest economic power centres in the world. At the same time, the privileged insular status of the U.S. means that it need not pay too much attention to good neighbourly relations, and this is particularly relevant because of the country’s successful moves toward energy self-sufficiency. In short: unlike Europe, the U.S. can at least partly “afford to act unilaterally” (Daniljuk 2015).

What Form of New World Order is This Leading To?

None, as yet. It is conceivable, however, that zones of uncertainty will form beyond the old and new capitalist centres. Direct (military) intervention to pacify and develop market-economic, liberal-democratic states has failed in Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq. It seems we are already seeing the end of Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history.” The market has failed to produce order, and occupying the markets with ground troops is no longer an option. Limited operations and air attacks, however, and especially the use of drones, enable relative control to be exercised from a distance. Nevertheless, complete control over such zones of uncertainty is unnecessary as long as they remain enclosed. In worst-case scenarios, direct intervention can be undertaken under the guise of the “responsibility to protect” (for a critical review see Obenland 2015). This illustrates the point that the institutions of collective security (including the UN and the OSCE) have been marginalized.

The result is a form of ‘gated capitalism’: protected zones of global capitalism that guarantee the exploitation of resources, and free trade – even if no functioning community exists within the zones of uncertainty. However, this new strategy was borne out of necessity, and it is not running smoothly. States such as Syria and Iraq are disintegrating and this has led to the foundation of a new caliphate in the heart of the Middle East. Accordingly, control is being lost and we are facing a situation in which friends and foes rapidly change sides.

Disintegration is by no means restricted to the periphery. The EU states are still facing crises and are unable to stand on their feet. This situation is made worse by the fact that European democratic institutions are rapidly losing support. In Portugal, Spain and Greece, however, new left-wing forces are developing. Be this as it may, extreme right-wing and fascist national-populist movements and parties are gaining strength throughout Europe. This is not only the case with Eastern Europe, it is also occurring in the old centres: the Front National and UKIP constituted the largest parties in the European parliamentary elections in France and the UK respectively. Society is becoming increasingly polarized while disintegration continually marches on. In this situation, European societies need to ask themselves why thousands of young French and German Muslims can see no future in Europe and instead are joining the Islamist Jihad.

In the wake of the crisis, zones of uncertainty have long been established in the United States. The inner city of Detroit, for example, represents both a counterpart to the gated communities mentioned above and an expression of social polarization. Although public infrastructure is falling apart and inequality continues to rise, the focus remains on the top 0.1% (Piketty). Killing sprees are occurring regularly, and firearm fanatics, police and gangs continue the everyday violence. The system is partly responding to this situation with a privatized model of prisonfare – the management of the ‘underclasses’ in prisons (Wacquant). (Institutional) racism is now expressed in the open, as with the town of Ferguson, where the police shot an unarmed black youth. In the political field, polarization is worsening between the proto-fascist Tea Party and the liberal ‘Wall Street’ Democrats. At the same time, new left-wing forces are developing albeit mostly at the local level (Mogilyanskaya 2015). Despite this, controlling the zones of uncertainty and the budding forces on the left and right of the political spectrum is both impossible and unnecessary.

Controlling these zones and groups remains superfluous as long as they do not affect U.S.-American or European solid institutions of power (Porcaro 2013). This system is strengthened by a form of authoritarian constitutionalism that only passes with great difficulty as a “market-driven democracy” (Merkel). This is because growth and profit rates are continuously flattening out, but the current level of surplus value absorption is more than enough for the super-rich.

Global resource grabbing and free trade agreements are destroying local habitats and economies in the Global South and cause new flows of refugees that are then instrumentalized in right-wing propaganda. This is nowhere more evident than in EU policy in Africa. Free trade agreements are being concluded that enable competition from what are often highly subsided companies from the north to destroy smallholder production in the Global South. Of course, countries such as France intervene whenever destabilization goes too far, and they also secure the EU’s external borders against flows of refugees to avoid additionally ‘burdens’ on the dwindling social cohesion within the EU. However, this merely confirms an aspect that characterized the debate on globalization: traditional foreign policy is rarely ever conducted and it has been replaced with a form of global domestic policy, if not global crisis management. This illustrates the point that European foreign policy actually runs under the name of Frontex.

Left-Wing Perspectives

Left-wing ‘foreign policy’ should not be limited to security; rather it must also include social, economic and environmental aspects. How should we assess the current geo-economic changes? Which issues are currently gaining in strategic importance? Moreover, what might constitute an appropriate left-wing response?

Beyond clear positions against military intervention, left-wing foreign policy needs to develop a “policy of peace by peaceful means” (van Aken) that address the causes of conflict with just economic relations, social-ecological paths of development and the construction of social infrastructure. Specific entry projects that have begun to do so include the Yasuní Initiative, which proposed rejecting the exploitation of oil in the Ecuadorian jungle, while providing international compensation; or new institutions of economic cooperation, such as the Latin American ALBA agreement and the alternative development bank run by the BRIC countries. Even the implementation of an alternative trade mandate within the EU would represent a step toward fairer trade. However, one factor should not be forgotten, the Left needs to put an end to arms exports and implement just transitions for the conversion of former arms industries.
More often than not, however, the Left becomes entangled in false differences: one side argues that worsening conflicts demonstrate that there is no alternative to military intervention; the other argues against military intervention on principle. This debate generally leads to nothing but unilateral declarations of solidarity and abstract commitments, because peace policy measures are rarely ever developed. Only differentiated assessments of power (relations) can enable us to side with the subalterns, instead of merely with one side of the debate. How then can these issues be addressed while ensuring they remain coupled to discussions about a (demonstrably lacking) transformational perspective? Which international condensation points enable the development of exemplary, effective alternatives? More specifically, which strategies could provide civilian crisis prevention and conflict resolution? Moreover, where can the Left really make a difference? Calling for the repeal of the PKK ban, for example, which has long been anachronistic, would provide voice to an issue that is otherwise never heard.

Mario Candeias is the director of the Institute for Critical Social Analysis and editor of the review LuXemburg.
Translated by Eric Canepa.
Bibliography:
  • Candeias, Mario (2013). “‘Which Way to the Winter Palace, Please?’ Transnational Echoes and Blocked Transformations,” LuXemburg3/2014. Also at: The Bullet No. 922.
  • Brand, Ulrich and Markus Wissen (2012). “Global Environmental Politics and the Imperial Mode of Livin,” Globalizations, 9(4).
  • Daniljuk, Malte (2015). “Fracking, Freedom, Freihandel,” LuXemburg, 3/2014.
  • Mogilyanskaya, Alina (2015). “Ausweis her! New York City führt ein kommunales Personaldokument ein,” LuXemburg 3/2014.
  • Obenland, Wolfgang (2015). “Responsibility to Protect,” LuXemburg 3/2014.
  • Porcaro, Mimmo (2013). “A New Type of Art: From Connective to Strategic Party,” in: LuXemburg 1/2013. Also at The Bullet No. 868.



Imperialist Economics and the New Cold War

Western capitalist states continue efforts to dominate world system

http://www.globalresearch.ca/imperialist-economics-and-the-new-cold-war/5453339

 

VOLATILE OIL PRICES: The Geopolitics of Speculation: Oil-price makers and takers
Since late last year there has been a precipitous decline in the prices of oil and other commodities produced in large measure by countries in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Russia and Latin America. The United States under the Obama administration has developed a concerted energy policy to boost domestic oil and natural gas production in an effort to lessen dependence on foreign states for essential transportation and concomitant needs related to petroleum and related industries.
One country on the African continent, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, represents a case in point when analyzing the role of oil in the economic trajectory of a post-colonial territory. 101 years ago the British consolidated their control over Nigeria as an imperialist outpost for London.

During the mid-1950s, a number of western-based oil firms such as Shell entered the country to exploit its natural resources. By the time of independence in 1960, the country contrived by the British was split in several essential ways where the production of oil was largely centered in the southeast. A three-year civil war in which Biafra attempted to separate from the broader state failed leading to a heightened level of oil exploitation resulting to the country becoming the dominant producer on the continent.
The U.S. utilization of oil led to a strong economic relationship between Washington, Wall Street and Nigeria. Successive U.S. administrations sought to maintain good relations with Nigeria in order to encourage the stability of a unitary state and the continued supply of oil.
However, the billions earned by the multi-national corporations and the Nigerian national bourgeoisie did not necessary flow down to the masses of farmers, workers and youth. Unrest grew in the oil-rich regions of the South and demands were made that Shell, Exxon-Mobil, Total and the others invest some of its resources into maintaining an environmentally sound area as well as funding schools, hospitals and other centers of employment and services for the local population.
At present the trade in oil between the U.S. and Nigeria has dropped significantly. The largest purchasers of Nigerian crude are now India and China. The decline in oil prices is requiring the incoming administration of Muhamadu Buhari to institute austerity measures amid massive shortages of fuel in the domestic market. Even though the largest producer of oil on the continent can provide crude to other states, its deteriorating infrastructure and other
market-related issues have created a major crisis for ordinary Nigerians who need fuel to drive and maintain a household.

The Impact of U.S. Energy Policy

Under Obama there has been a concerted movement towards a rapid escalation in domestic and offshore production of petroleum products. An oil glut during 2014 has created economic downturns in several states around the world.
In Nigeria the transition from the government of President Goodluck Jonathan to former military head-of-state Ret.-Gen. Muhamadu Burhari will pose enormous challenges to Africa’s most populace state which was also designated during 2014 as having the largest economy on the continent. The designation as the most robust economy came at a time when the Boko Haram Islamist sect based in the northeast carried out daily attacks on state structures and civilians. Boko Haram extended its operations across the Nigeria borders claiming to have established a caliphate which encompassed sections of Chad, Niger and Cameroon. The militaries from these neighboring states joined in to force Boko Haram from some the territories they had seized.
However, the young women high school students kidnapped at Chibok have not been accounted for. Burhari will face monumental issues amid a declining economy and the growing unrest within the labor movement. The strike by petroleum workers coupled with the gross scarcity of gasoline in Africa’s largest oil-producing state with the leading economy to boot, illustrates that despite these aspects of foreign direct investment growth, the contradictions between the capitalist mode of production and relations of production continues.

Gold, Platinum and the South African Working Class

The wealth of South Africa beginning in the late 19th century centered-around the extraction of strategic minerals such as gold, diamonds and later platinum. During the era of settler-colonialism and apartheid the mining industry was a source of super-exploitation and consequent unrest among the African workers.
Successive generations from the Post-World War I period through the present have organized workers and taken labor action through strikes and other forms of resistance. In 1985, nearly thirty years ago, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) was formed in alliance with the still outlawed African National Congress (ANC) and the South African Communist Party (SACP).
At the time of national independence in 1994, the mining firms such as Anglo-American and DeBeers established their headquarters outside of South Africa. As a result of the militant demands of the African workers, leading firms began to downsize their operations creating an even larger crisis of joblessness than what existed under apartheid.
In the last three years, the unrest in the platinum belt has resulted in the deaths of dozens of workers–the most egregious of course was the massacre of 34 miners at Marikana on August 16, 2012. A commission of inquiry has just submitted its report to ANC President Jacob Zuma yet very little information has been released to the South African media.
The contradictions within the post-apartheid political and economic dispensation has created tensions within the Black working class movement prompting splits and expulsions from COSATU while unemployment and poverty persists among a large segment of the proletariat overall. A political revolution needed within the trade union movement is stifled by the crisis of how to proceed during a general world economic crisis within global capitalism which necessitates a socialist program that objective conditions would facilitate but still remains elusive.
Nonetheless, the ANC remains in power as the Southwest African People’s Organization (SWAPO) of the Republic of Namibia, two close allies during the struggle against apartheid. The land redistribution program in Zimbabwe over the last 15 years is admired but has not been replicated in the region.
These complexities require a total break with imperialism and its economics of export and subservience to the multi-national corporation and the financial institutions. These difficulties for the oppressed nations are also mirrored within the industrialized capitalist states in a myriad of forms.

FIFA Indictments and the New Cold War

One current example of the continuing Cold War and the militaristic character of imperialism is the announcement by the U.S. Justice Department of indictments against leading officials of the international soccer clubs. The Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA) had several officials indicted after an investigation by Washington.
Such criminal indictments involving FIFA immediately has international implications. Outside the U.S. where soccer is not only a popular sport and cultural phenomenon, opinions vary but the political repercussions of these legal actions remain paramount.
Russia was chosen to host the World Cup of 2018 and Qatar in 2022. Efforts aimed at isolating the Russians have been the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy for decades.
The U.S. has been involved in Moscow’s foreign affairs dating back to the mediation role played by President Theodore Roosevelt during the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. When the Bolsheviks took power in 1917, the U.S. joined with other imperialist states in an invasion to overthrow the world’s first socialist government.
From the era of Lenin and Stalin to Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev until to today’s post-Soviet Putin administration, the ruling class has viewed Russia as an impediment of imperialist’s designs on Eastern Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Even though the Russian Federation is no longer a socialist state, Washington views it as a threat to its imperialist policies.
President Vladimir Putin immediately spoke out against the role of the U.S. in FIFA affairs saying that the alleged crimes were not committed on American soil and these efforts by the Obama administration’s Justice Department represent the continuing overreach of the country in meddling in the internal affairs of other states and institutions. Washington is still angry over the persistent resistance to the right-wing coup in Ukraine during 2014 and the federation of Crimea with Moscow.
The development of alliances and economic organizations which exclude the U.S. and the European Union member states, illustrates to the U.S. that its role in the world economy is no longer guaranteed as being dominant. The Pentagon interventions in the Black Sea, expanding NATO in efforts to contain and surround Russia and the imposition of unwarranted sanctions against the Kremlin are all part of the methodology to undermine Moscow’s influence.

Impact of the Cold War on the Domestic Scene

These foreign policy imperatives of U.S. imperialism reverberate with ominous consequences for the people living inside country. Despite the rise of President Barack Obama as the first self-identified African American to hold that office, the actual conditions of the people represents the reinforcement of national oppression and institutional racism.

The Obama administration has been not only absent in the struggle for the civil and human rights of African Americans, it has actually oversaw some of the worst losses in jobs, economic opportunities and household wealth. There is a systematic campaign on the part of the banks and corporations to drive African Americans and other oppressed nationalities out of the central areas of the major municipalities. Detroit, an example of extreme expropriation and disenfranchisement of African Americans and Latinos, is being championed by the ruling class as a successful example of urban revitalization.

Nonetheless, this ruling class propaganda cannot mask the gross injustices and inequalities prevalent in Detroit and other cities. The mass demonstrations in Ferguson, Baltimore and other urban areas have shown the world that America is still a class society. The militarized response to the rebellions does not suggest the strengths of the capitalist and imperialist system but its weaknesses. It will be the organized might of the workers and the oppressed that seals the fate of imperialism both abroad and domestically.
Note: This paper was prepared and partially presented at the Left Forum held at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York (CUNY), during May 29-31, 2015.

The End of History and the Last Man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The End of History and the Last Man
The End of History and the Last Man.jpg
Author Francis Fukuyama
Language English
Published 1992 (Free Press)
Pages 418
ISBN 0-02-910975-2
The End of History and the Last Man is a 1992 book by Francis Fukuyama, expanding on his 1989 essay "The End of History?", published in the international affairs journal The National Interest. In the book, Fukuyama argues that the advent of Western liberal democracy may signal the endpoint of humanity's sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government.
"What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."[1]
Fukuyama's work contradicts Karl Marx, who predicted that communism would displace capitalism.[2] Fukuyama himself identifies on some level with Marx, but identifies most strongly with the German philosopher Hegel, by way of Alexandre Kojève. Kojève argued that the progress of history must lead toward the establishment of a "universal and homogenous" state,[3] most likely incorporating elements of liberal or social democracy; but Kojeve's emphasis on the necessarily "post-political" character of such a state (and its citizens) makes such comparisons inadequate, and is irreducible to any mere "triumph" of capitalism.[4]

Contents

Highlights

  • History should be viewed as an evolutionary process.
  • Events still occur at the end of history.
  • Pessimism about humanity's future is warranted because of humanity's inability to control technology.
  • The end of history means liberal democracy is the final form of government for all nations. There can be no progression from liberal democracy to an alternative system.

Misinterpretations

According to Fukuyama, since the French Revolution, democracy has repeatedly proven to be a fundamentally better system (ethically, politically, economically) than any of the alternatives.
The most basic (and prevalent) error in discussing Fukuyama's work is to confuse "history" with "events". Fukuyama claims not that events will stop occurring in the future, but rather that all that will happen in the future (even if totalitarianism returns) is that democracy will become more and more prevalent in the long term, although it may suffer "temporary" setbacks (which may, of course, last for centuries).
Some argue[who?] that Fukuyama presents "American-style" democracy as the only "correct" political system and argues that all countries must inevitably follow this particular system of government. However, many Fukuyama scholars claim this is a misreading of his work.[citation needed] Fukuyama's argument is only that in the future there will be more and more governments that use the framework of parliamentary democracy and that contain markets of some sort. Indeed, Fukuyama has stated:
The End of History was never linked to a specifically American model of social or political organization. Following Alexandre Kojève, the Russian-French philosopher who inspired my original argument, I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States. The EU's attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a "post-historical" world than the Americans' continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military.[5]

Arguments in favor

 

 This graph shows the number of nations in the different categories given by Freedom House in their survey Freedom in the World for the period for which there are surveys, 1972–2005. Nations are categorized as "Free", "Partly Free", and "Not Free". Freedom House considers "Free" nations to be liberal democracies. The trend is much weaker when counting population instead, as countries classified as "free" tend to be smaller and have lower population growth.

One argument used to support the theory is the dramatic rise in democratic nations over the course of the 20th century. An extensive study by Freedom House counted zero liberal democracies with universal suffrage in the world in 1900, but 119 (60%) in 2003. It counted 25 nations (19%) with "restricted democratic practices" in 1900 and 16 (8%) today. Additionally, in 1900 it counted 19 constitutional monarchies (14%), where a constitution limited the powers of the monarch and some power is devolved to elected legislatures, and none today. Other nations had, and have, various forms of non-democratic rule.[6]
Another argument in favor of Fukuyama's thesis is the democratic peace theory, which argues that mature democracies rarely or never go to war with one another. This theory has faced criticism, with arguments largely resting on conflicting definitions of "war" and "mature democracy". Part of the difficulty in assessing the theory is that democracy as a widespread global phenomenon emerged only very recently in human history, which makes generalizing about it difficult. (See also list of wars between democracies).
Other major empirical evidence includes the elimination of interstate warfare in South America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe among countries that moved from military dictatorships to liberal democracies.
According to several studies, the end of the Cold War and the subsequent increase in the number of liberal democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons.[7][8]

Criticisms

There have been many criticisms of the "end of history" thesis.

Critics of liberal democracy

Some have argued against the book due to an ideological disagreement with the concept of liberal democracy.
Jacques Derrida criticized Fukuyama in Specters of Marx (1993) as a "come-lately reader" of Alexandre Kojève "in the tradition of Leo Strauss", who already described US society in the 1950s as the "realization of communism". According to Derrida, Fukuyama—and the quick celebrity of his book—is but one symptom of the anxiety to ensure the "death of Marx". Fukuyama's celebration of liberal hegemony is criticized by Derrida:
Derrida goes on to analyze Fukuyama's book as taking part in the intellectual branch of current Western hegemony and the spreading of its "New Gospel": "This end of History is essentially a Christian eschatology. It is consonant with the current discourse of the Pope on the European community: destined to become a Christian State or Super-State, this community would still belong therefore to some Holy Alliance." He claims that the book uses a "sleight-of-hand trick" of making use of empirical data whenever it seems to suit its message, while appealing to an ideal whenever the empirical data contradicts it. Derrida points out that Fukuyama himself sees the real United States and European Union as imperfect compared to the "ideals" of liberal democracy and the free market. Even the author understands that such ideals are not demonstrated by empirical evidence or ever could be demonstrated empirically. They belong entirely to the realm of philosophy or religion, owing their birth to the Gospels of Philosophy of Hegel. And yet Fukuyama still uses a movement toward empirical observations, which he himself grants are imperfect and incomplete, to validate an idea that is purely idealistic and transcendent of any empirical reality or possibility.[9]
Certain versions of Marxism can be conceived as "end of history" philosophies. Therefore, Marxists like Perry Anderson have been among Fukuyama's fiercest critics. Apart from pointing out that capitalist democracies are still riven with poverty, racial tension, and the like, Marxists also reject Fukuyama's reliance on Hegel. According to them, Hegel's philosophy was fatally flawed until Marx "turned it on its head" to create historical materialism. Fukuyama argues that even though there is poverty, racism, and sexism in present-day democracies, there is no sign of a major revolutionary movement developing that would actually overthrow capitalism. While Marxists disagree with Fukuyama's claim that capitalist democracy represents the end of history, they support the idea that the "end of history" will consist of the victory of democracy: communism, in the Marxist view, must necessarily involve a form of direct democracy.
Former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez argued against "the end of history": he argued his case in his September 2006 address to the United Nations General Assembly.[10] Shortly before that, in August 2006, Fukuyama wrote in response to Chávez's argument, his main point being that Chavismo was only possible due to the unique oil reserves of Venezuela, and thus would not spread.[11]

Radical Islam, tribalism, and the "Clash of Civilizations"

Various Western commentators have described the thesis of The End of History as flawed because it does not sufficiently take into account the power of ethnic loyalties and religious fundamentalism as a counter-force to the spread of liberal democracy, with the specific example of Islamic fundamentalism, or radical Islam, as the most powerful of these.
Benjamin Barber wrote a 1992 article and a 1995 book, Jihad vs. McWorld, that addressed this theme. Barber described "McWorld" as a secular, liberal, corporate-friendly transformation of the world and used the word "jihad" to refer to the competing forces of tribalism and religious fundamentalism, with a special emphasis on Islamic fundamentalism.
Samuel P. Huntington wrote a 1993 essay, "The Clash of Civilizations", in direct response to The End of History; he then expanded the essay into a 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. In the essay and book, Huntington argued that the temporary conflict between ideologies is being replaced by the ancient conflict between civilizations. The dominant civilization decides the form of human government, and these will not be constant. He especially singled out Islam, which he described as having "bloody borders".
After the September 11, 2001, attacks, The End of History was cited by some commentators as a symbol of the supposed naiveté and undue optimism of the Western world during the 1990s, in thinking that the end of the Cold War also represented the end of major global conflict. In the weeks after the attacks, Fareed Zakaria called the events "the end of the end of history", while George Will wrote that history had "returned from vacation".[12]
Fukuyama did discuss radical Islam briefly in The End of History. He argued that Islam is not an Imperialist force like Stalinism and Fascism; that is, it has little intellectual or emotional appeal outside the Islamic "heartlands". Fukuyama pointed to the economic and political difficulties that Iran and Saudi Arabia face and argued that such states are fundamentally unstable: either they will become democracies with a Muslim society (like Turkey) or they will simply disintegrate. Moreover, when Islamic states have actually been created, they were easily dominated by the powerful Western states.
In October 2001, Fukuyama, in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, responded to the declarations that the September 11 attacks had disproved his views by stating that "time and resources are on the side of modernity, and I see no lack of a will to prevail in the United States today." He also noted that his original thesis "does not imply a world free from conflict, nor the disappearance of culture as a distinguishing characteristic of societies."[12]
In a 2008 Washington Post opinion piece, Fukuyama wrote:
Democracy's only real competitor in the realm of ideas today is radical Islamism. Indeed, one of the world's most dangerous nation-states today is Iran, run by extremist Shiite mullahs. But as Peter Bergen pointed out in these pages last week, Sunni radicalism has been remarkably ineffective in actually taking control of a nation-state, due to its propensity to devour its own potential supporters. Some disenfranchised Muslims thrill to the rantings of Osama bin Laden or Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the appeal of this kind of medieval Islamism is strictly limited.[13]

The resurgence of Russia and China

Another challenge to the "end of history" thesis is the growth in the economic and political power of two countries, Russia and China; China has a single-party state government, while Russia, though a democracy, has been described by some as de facto authoritarian.[14]
Azar Gat, Professor of National Security at Tel Aviv University, argued this point in his 2007 Foreign Affairs article, "The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers", stating that the success of these two countries could "end the end of history".[15] Gat also discussed radical Islam, but stated that the movements associated with it "represent no viable alternative to modernity and pose no significant military threat to the developed world". He considered the challenge of China and Russia to be the major threat, since they could pose a viable rival model which could inspire other states.
This view was echoed by Robert Kagan in his 2008 book, The Return of History and the End of Dreams, whose title was a deliberate rejoinder to The End of History.[16]
In his 2008 Washington Post opinion piece, Fukuyama also addressed this point. He wrote, "Despite recent authoritarian advances, liberal democracy remains the strongest, most broadly appealing idea out there. Most autocrats, including Putin and Chávez, still feel that they have to conform to the outward rituals of democracy even as they gut its substance. Even China's Hu Jintao felt compelled to talk about democracy in the run-up to Beijing's Olympic Games."[13]

Failure of civil society and political decay

In 2014, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the publication of the original essay, "The End of History?", Fukuyama wrote a column in The Wall Street Journal again updating his hypothesis. He wrote that, while liberal democracy still had no real competition from more authoritarian systems of government "in the realm of ideas", nevertheless he was less idealistic than he had been "during the heady days of 1989." Fukuyama noted the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Arab Spring, both of which seemed to have failed in their pro-democracy goals, as well as the "backsliding" of democracy in countries including Thailand, Turkey and Nicaragua. He stated that the biggest problem for the democratically-elected governments in some countries was not ideological but "their failure to provide the substance of what people want from government: personal security, shared economic growth and the basic public services... that are needed to achieve individual opportunity." Though he believed that economic growth and improved government and civic institutions all reinforced one another, he wrote that it was not inevitable that "all countries will... get on that escalator."[17]
Twenty-five years later, the most serious threat to the end-of-history hypothesis isn't that there is a higher, better model out there that will someday supersede liberal democracy; neither Islamist theocracy nor Chinese capitalism cuts it. Once societies get on the up escalator of industrialization, their social structure begins to change in ways that increase demands for political participation. If political elites accommodate these demands, we arrive at some version of democracy.
Fukuyama also warned of "political decay", which he wrote could also affect established democracies like the United States, in which corruption and crony capitalism erode liberty and economic opportunity. Nevertheless, he expressed his continued belief that "the power of the democratic ideal remains immense."[17]

Posthuman future

See also: Transhumanism
Fukuyama has also stated that his thesis was incomplete, but for a different reason: "there can be no end of history without an end of modern natural science and technology" (quoted from Our Posthuman Future). Fukuyama predicts that humanity's control of its own evolution will have a great and possibly terrible effect on the liberal democracy.

Systemic Corruption Has Destroyed America

 175
 34  5
 
 225
US-Corrupt-financial-crisis-bankster-and-uncle-sam-eating-each-other
Preface: It’s been less than a month since we last posted on this topic … but, sadly, we’ve got many more examples.

The Cop Is On the Take

Government corruption has become rampant:
  • Senior SEC employees spent up to 8 hours a day surfing porn sites instead of cracking down on financial crimes
  • NSA spies pass around homemade sexual videos and pictures they’ve collected from spying on the American people
  • Investigators from the Treasury’s Office of the Inspector General found that some of the regulator’s employees surfed erotic websites, hired prostitutes and accepted gifts from bank executives … instead of actually working to help the economy
  • The Minerals Management Service – the regulator charged with overseeing BP and other oil companies to ensure that oil spills don’t occur – was riddled with “a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity”, which included “sex with industry contacts
  • Agents for the Drug Enforcement Agency had dozens of sex parties with prostitutes hired by the drug cartels they were supposed to stop (they also received money, gifts and weapons from drug cartel members)
  • The former chief accountant for the SEC says that Bernanke and Paulson broke the law and should be prosecuted
  • The government knew about mortgage fraud a long time ago. For example, the FBI warned of an “epidemic” of mortgage fraud in 2004. However, the FBI, DOJ and other government agencies then stood down and did nothing. See this and this. For example, the Federal Reserve turned its cheek and allowed massive fraud, and the SEC has repeatedly ignored accounting fraud (a whistleblower also “gift-wrapped and delivered” the Madoff scandal to the SEC, but they refused to take action). Indeed, Alan Greenspan took the position that fraud could never happen
  • Paulson and Bernanke falsely stated that the big banks receiving Tarp money were healthy, when they were not. The Treasury Secretary also falsely told Congress that the bailouts would be used to dispose of toxic assets … but then used the money for something else entirely
  • Congress has exempted itself from the healthcare rules it insists everyone else follow
  • Law enforcement also grabs massive amounts of people’s cash, cars and property … even when people aren’t CHARGED with – let alone convicted of – any crime
  • Private prisons are huge profit-making centers for giant companies, and private prison corporations obtain quotas from the government, where the government guarantees a certain number of prisoners at any given time
  • The government covered up the health risks to New Orleans residents associated with polluted water from hurricane Katrina, and FEMA covered up the cancer risk from the toxic trailers which it provided to refugees of the hurricane.  The Centers for Disease Control – the lead agency tasked with addressing disease in America – covered up lead poisoning in children in the Washington, D.C. area (the Centers for Disease Control has also been outed as receiving industry funding)
  • In response to new studies showing the substantial dangers of genetically modified foods, the government passed legislation more or less PUSHING IT onto our plates
  • The Bush White House worked hard to smear CIA officers, bloggers and anyone else who criticized the Iraq war
  • The FBI smeared top scientists who pointed out the numerous holes in its anthrax case. Indeed, the head of the FBI’s investigation agrees that corruption was rampant
  • The government has intentionally whipped up hysteria about terrorism for cynical political purposes.  For example, former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge admitted that he was pressured to raise terror alerts to help the president win reelection
  • When the American government got caught assassinating innocent civilians, it changed its definition of “enemy combatants” to include all young men – between the ages of say 15 and 35 – who happen to be in battle zones. When it got busted killing kids with drones, it changed the definition again to include kids as “enemy combatants”
  • The government treats journalists who report on government corruption as CRIMINALS OR TERRORISTS.  And it goes to great lengths to smear them. For example, when USA Today reporters busted the Pentagon for illegally targeting Americans with propaganda, the Pentagon launched a SMEAR CAMPAIGN against the reporters
The biggest companies own the D.C. politicians. Indeed, the head of the economics department at George Mason University has pointed out that it is unfair to call politicians “prostitutes”. They are in fact pimps … selling out the American people for a price.
Government regulators have become so corrupted and “captured” by those they regulate that Americans know that the cop is on the take. Institutional corruption is killing people’s trust in our government and our institutions.
Neither the Democratic or Republican parties represent the interests of the American people.  Elections have become nothing but scripted beauty contests, with both parties ignoring the desires of their own bases.
Indeed, America is no longer a democracy or republic … it’s officially an oligarchy. And the allowance of unlimited campaign spending allows the oligarchs to purchase politicians more directly than ever.
No wonder polls show that the American people say that the system is thoroughly corrupt.
Moreover, there are two systems of justice in Americaone for the big banks and other fatcats … and one for everyone else. Indeed, Americans have .
Big Corporations Are Also Thoroughly Corrupt
But the private sector is no better … for example, the big banks have literally turned into criminal syndicates engaged in systemic fraud.
Wall Street and giant corporations are literally manipulating every single market.
And the big corporations are cutting corners to make an extra penny … wreaking havoc with their carelessness. For example:
  • U.S. military contractors have pocketed huge sums of money earmarked for humanitarian and reconstruction aid. And see this (whistleblowers alerted the government about the looting of Iraq reconstruction funds, but nothing was done)
  • There is systemic corruption among drug companies, scientific journals, university medical departments, and medical groups which set the criteria for diagnosis and treatment
(Further examples here, here, here, here and here.)
We’ve Forgotten the Lessons of History
The real problem is that we need to learn a little history:
  • We’ve known for thousands of years that – when criminals are not punished – crime spreads
  • We’ve known for centuries that powerful people – unless held to account – will get together and steal from everyone else
Beyond Partisan Politics
Liberals and conservatives tend to blame our country’s problems on different factors … but they are all connected.
The real problem is the malignant, symbiotic relationship between big corporations and big government.



Tidak ada komentar:

Poskan Komentar