|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
|News||American Exceptionalism||Recommended Links||Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism||"Fight with Corruption" as a smoke screen for neoliberal penetration into host countries||Color revolutions||Neoliberalism|
|Manipulation of the term "freedom of press"||Pussi Riot Provocation||Berezovsky case||Khodorkovski case||William Browder and Magnitsky Death||The art of manufacturing of prisoners of consciousness||Sect of fraudulent election witnesses|
|Right to protect||Fifth column||Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair||New American Militarism||Anatol Leiven on American Messianism||Machiavellism||British hypocrisy|
|Neoliberal Brainwashing: Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few||The Guardian Slips Beyond the Reach of Embarrassment||Usage of sexual minorities||Democracy as a universal opener for access to natural resources||Media domination strategy||Humor||Etc|
As Robert W. Cox noted in his review of Power, Profit and Prestige- A History of American Imperial Expansion
"The ultimate question he raises is whether American leadership can renounce the idea of being the indispensable centre of world order so as to accept a plural world, working out with others a moving consensus on global governance.
This insightful book is an abundant resource for serious reflective thinking on the trajectory of world politics today."
The most vivid example of so called "diplomacy by deception" are Color revolutions, a new method of warfare, achieving "regime change" without actual engagement on US military on the ground. See Color revolutions
When in Middle East and xUSSR region the USA speaks about democracy it really speaks about oil. See Democracy as a universal opener for access to natural resources.
In a similar fashion the USA perverted fight for "human rights" into a tool of neoliberal expansion. It has also become clear since the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, the opening and continuation of the U.S. Iraqi war, and, especially, behavior of NGO run by Western countries in xUSSR space that the idea of human rights can serve as a smoke screen for very questionable actions including destabilizing of legitimate government and is often abused by major Western powers. See Parasitism on Human rights: children of Lieutenant Schmidt.
There are several books that touch his theme. For example Crusade 2.0 examines the resurgence of anti-Islamic sentiment and goes beyond a "clash of civilizations" critique to offer concrete ways to defuse the ticking bomb of Islamophobia. Here is one interesting Amazon review from Crusade 2.0: The West's Resurgent War on Islam
Preston C. Enright
Exposes the West's delusions. May 28, 2012
I can imagine the amount of flak John Feffer has received from the rabid Muslim-bashers of the American Empire. Right-wingers like Sean Hannity, Robert Spencer, and many others have been cultivating resentment towards Islam for years. On top of that, we have an "entertainment" industry that further advances Islamophobia. The documentary, "Reel Bad Arabs," gives several examples of how Arabs are caricatured by Hollywood Reel Bad Arabs How Hollywood Vilifies A People. (DVD).
The "Christian" right of this country has a very hard time hearing anything that challenges their prejudices, and an even harder time taking an honest look at the evil their own country commits around the world Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II--Updated Through 2003; so it's not surprising that Feffer has received some one-star reviews.
No doubt, some of the most committed Muslim-bashers have careers in the military or the oil industry, and they don't want to consider their role in the harm that war profiteers and resource firms have caused the region Blood and Oil, the cognitive dissonance would be overwhelming. Even some liberal people have absorbed narratives that make us more comfortable with what the U.S. and the rest of the so-called "civilized" West does in the world; but, for those who are interested, Feffer's book provides an honest analysis of the racism, delusion, and militarism of the West. He includes a segment on "blowback," which is actually a term from the CIA that suggests that some people may strike back in response to the state terrorism the West inflicts on other nations Blowback, Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire.
Feffer also discusses our society's militant "Christianity", such as the fanatical "Christian" movement cultivated at the U.S. Air Force With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military.
Feffer won't find much support in our military disinfotainment media complex, but I'm glad he appeared on C-SPAN's BookTV, and that he has appeared on independent media forums like "Democracy Now!" with Amy Goodman The Exception to the Rulers : Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media That Love Them.
A couple additional resources to challenge the propaganda of empire and Islamophobia:
- A documentary on the military industrial complex, Why We Fight
- Nicholas Turse on how the military complex has colonized our lives,
The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives (American Empire Project)
- A documentary on how U.S. citizens are manipulated regarding Palestine,
Peace Propaganda & the Promised Land: U.S. Media & the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict! Media Education
- A documentary on U.S. interventions in Latin America,
The War on Democracy
- The classic documentary that exposes the corporate media, "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media"
And for an alternative to all the right-wing merchants of hate on the radio, check out the progressive talk radio host, Thom Hartmann, whose books include, "Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became "People" - And How You Can Fight Back."
Russophobia is another related subject. In Russophobia- Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by ANDREI P. TSYGANKOV is Professor at the Departments of Political Science and International Relations, San Francisco State University, USA argues that this is short sighted policy that harms long term interests of the USA as a nations. But the problem is that the USA government protects mainly the rights of global corporations and international financial oligarchy, not so much interests of the American people. From reviews:
The author painstakingly reconstructs and analyzes most visible expressions of Russophobia in various segments of American political class and convincingly shows that Russia-hostile elites hold images of Moscow’s eternal authoritarianism at home and ‘permanent imperialism’ abroad.
Andrei Tsygankov shows how fear and loathing of Russia’s political system as fundamentally incompatible with the interests and values of the West have distorted American popular perceptions of Russia and misguided U.S. policies toward the former Soviet Union. Arguing for a reorientation of U.S. attitudes and policies, Tsygankov calls for engagement, reciprocity, and patience as the keys to improving relations with an enormous, resource-rich, and strategically important country.”
-- David S. Foglesong, Associate Professor of History at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and author of The American Mission and the “Evil Empire”
March 27, 2015 | McClatchy DC
The Pentagon rebuffed efforts to remove a Chilean professor accused of torturing and murdering political prisoners, keeping him on the payroll of a prestigious U.S. military school for almost three years after the State Department revoked his visa because of the alleged human rights violations.
Exploiting legal loopholes and inaction across several government agencies, the accused torturer was able to remain in the United States, renew his work contract twice and even travel widely despite his visa revocation, a McClatchy investigation reveals.
The Pentagon now promises changes to its vetting process for foreign nationals working throughout its National Defense University, with an emphasis on accusations of human rights violations.
Officials with the U.S. military school – the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies – knew by at least 2008 that Jaime Garcia Covarrubias had been accused of being part of Chile's brutal secret police and stood accused of torture and murder.
Yet after the State Department revoked his Defense Department-sponsored visa on June 18, 2011, and a special U.S. human rights violator unit notified defense officials afterward, Garcia Covarrubias was paid sick leave and collected an annual salary in excess of $100,000 until February 2014.
The compensation was paid despite recommendations from the U.S. Embassy in Chile that Garcia Covarrubias face deportation proceedings and potential removal from the United States because of the allegations.
The handling of the matter, some critics say, casts doubt on the U.S. commitment to human rights. Multiple government sources, who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, confirmed that once the State Department revoked his visa, no one else moved aggressively against Garcia Covarrubias, partly in deference to the Defense Department.
Garcia Covarrubias was not called in for a hearing by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which reached out to the Defense Department. Pentagon lawyers shrugged off the visa revocation and said the school had no grounds to fire Garcia Covarrubias, even renewing his contract to teach after he took advantage of immigration laws to remain in the country.
"This is extremely troubling. Someone has to be held accountable within the Obama administration and in the Defense Department," said Jose Miguel Vivanco, director of the Americas division of Human Rights Watch, an advocacy group. "It's really hard to believe that it was just a lack of oversight by the Pentagon."
The allegations against Garcia Covarrubias, reported in detail by McClatchy on March 12, sparked disagreement between the U.S. military and the diplomatic corps over how to deal with the case.
U.S. immigration laws allow revocation of visas or expulsion from the United States over the accusation of being a human rights violator. The State Department usually makes this determination but the Department of Homeland Security has ultimate say.
In Garcia Covarrubias' case, U.S. Embassy officials in Chile were struck by a compelling account from one of the alleged victims and early on recommended that the professor be subjected to deportation proceedings.
"It was a very troubling, poignant and compelling rendition," said a former U.S. official with close knowledge of the case, having never discussed the accuser's account before with the media. The former official demanded anonymity because the Garcia Covarrubias affair remains an open legal matter in Chile.
Despite the accusations, Defense Department lawyers repeatedly concluded that the school, part of the National Defense University, was not compelled to fire Garcia Covarrubias because he had not been convicted of a crime. And school officials thought highly of his teaching abilities and expertise in the transition from military to civilian rule in Latin America. Garcia Covarrubias was a military leader during Chile's dictatorship and in subsequent elected governments.
"Termination of a faculty member for misconduct must be based on a determination that the allegations are substantiated, after the employee is provided due process," said a written response from the Pentagon to McClatchy's questions about the case, adding that "Dr. Garcia had not been found guilty in any case brought against him in the Chilean justice system."
In a separate followup statement, the Pentagon noted human rights accusations sometimes occur decades after the fact, and an internal review underscored the need for a "stringent new process to scrutinize the background of new hires." This would include input from human rights groups.
"To further support these checks, (the Pentagon) has developed formal guidance that specifically states all future foreign hires will undergo ongoing human rights vetting for the duration of their employment," the statement said.
The burden of proof cited by the Defense Department for its inaction isn't necessary for the State Department, because many countries have weak justice systems that allow violators to escape any real consequences for their actions.
In the Chilean professor's case, former school officials said he was hit by the State Department with a "provisional revocation." This type of action was ushered in following the 9/11 terror attacks and makes it easier for the government to quickly bar the holder of a revoked visa from re-entering the United States without a new visa.
So how did an accused murderer and torturer remain in the United States with a revoked visa and was even permitted to travel abroad?
Even though his visa was revoked, there were no deportation proceedings or even a notice to appear before an immigration judge. Garcia Covarrubias was actually entitled to remain in the United States until this revoked visa would have expired, on Jan. 30, 2012, current and former government officials confirmed.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement had little room to move. His visa was sponsored by the Defense Department, limiting the ability to pursue criminal or immigration fraud charges. Defense officials were put on notice about the revocation and chose not to terminate his contract, even renewing it later.
As a result, Garcia Covarrubias was able to apply on Nov. 14, 2011, for lawful permanent residency. He was granted what's called "advance parole," and he acquired related permission to work and to travel. Those actions trumped the visa revocation when, according to one former school official, Garcia Covarrubias returned to the United States on separate occasions from the Dominican Republic and Mexico and was screened and permitted back into the country by Customs and Border Protection supervisors.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/03/27/261255/pentagon-paid-accused-chilean.html#storylink=cpy
March 8, 1992 | NYT
Following are excerpts from the Pentagon's Feb. 18 draft of the Defense Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999: This Defense Planning guidance addresses the fundamentally new situation which has been created by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the disintegration of the internal as well as the external empire, and the discrediting of Communism as an ideology with global pretensions and influence. The new international environment has also been shaped by the victory of the United States and its coalition allies over Iraqi aggression -- the first post-cold-war conflict and a defining event in U.S. global leadership. In addition to these two victories, there has been a less visible one, the integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic "zone of peace."
U.S. blueprint for proxy Israel's role in conquering a 'new world order' agenda for incoming Benjamin Netanyahu regime, compatible with fascist 'eretz israel' agenda: 1996 A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
Following is a policy blueprint prepared by The U.S. Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies' "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.
1997 A Geostrategy For Eurasia, by Zbigniew Brzezinski [major democratic strategist] Foreign Affairs,76:5, September/October 1997 Council on Foreign Relations Inc. http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.h...
much more at http://www.burbankdigest.com/
REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES – A Summary
"Rebuilding America's Defenses" – A Summary
Blueprint of the PNAC Plan for U.S. Global Hegemony
Some people have compared it to Hitler's publication of Mein Kampf, which was ignored until after the war was over.
Full text of Rebuilding America's Defenses here
By Bette Stockbauer
05/06/03: When the Bush administration started lobbying for war with Iraq, they used as rationale a definition of preemption (generally meaning anticipatory use of force in the face of an imminent attack) that was broadened to allow for the waging of a preventive war in which force may be used even without evidence of an imminent attack. They also were able to convince much of the American public that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks of 9/11, despite the fact that no evidence of a link has been uncovered. Consequently, many people supported the war on the basis of 1) a policy that has no legal basis in international law and 2) a totally unfounded claim of Iraqi guilt.
What most people do not know, however, is that certain high ranking officials in the Bush administration have been working for regime change in Iraq for the past decade, long before terrorism became an important issue for our country. In 1997 they formed an organization called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). They have sought the establishment of a much stronger U.S. presence throughout the Mideast and Iraq's Saddam Hussein has been their number one target for regime change. Members of this group drafted and successfully passed through Congress the Iraqi Liberation Act, giving legal sanctions for an invasion of the country, and funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to Hussein opposition groups called the Iraqi National Congress and The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
The PNAC philosophy was formed in response to the ending of Cold War hostilities with Russia and the emergence of America as the world's only preeminent superpower. Claiming that this is a "strategic moment" that should not be squandered, members of PNAC say that America should use its position to advance its power and interests into all areas of the globe. They believe the time is ripe for establishing democracies in regimes considered hostile to U.S. interests and are not hesitant to advise the use of military means to achieve those ends.
PNAC members on the Bush team include Vice-President Dick Cheney and his top national security assistant, I. Lewis Libby; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton; and former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Other PNAC members exerting influence on U.S. policy are the President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq Randy Scheunemann, Republican Party leader Bruce Jackson and current PNAC chairman William Kristol, conservative writer for the Weekly Standard. Jeb Bush, the president's brother and governor of Florida, is also a member.
Their campaign to overthrow Hussein was unsuccessful during the Clinton presidency and early days of Bush's term, but on 9/11 they found the event they needed to push for the overthrow of Hussein. Within 24 hours both Wolfowitz and Cheney were calling for an invasion of Iraq, even before anyone knew who had been responsible for the attacks.
Individuals who now belong to PNAC have been influencing White House policy since the Reagan era, calling for coups in Central America and claiming that a nuclear war with Russia could be "winnable." Richard Perle is one of their most prominent spokesmen. He and Michael Ledeen (of the American Enterprise Institute), who is currently lobbying for war with Syria and Iran, have adopted a stance that they call "total war" - the ability to wage multiple simultaneous wars around the globe to achieve American ends. Recently Perle commented on America's war on terrorism: "No stages," he said, "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
Members of PNAC are so self-assured they are advancing America's best interests that they publish policy papers specifically outlining their plans, plans that many fear may be laying the groundwork for a third world war. Their ideas are peculiarly atavistic, considering the friendly ties that have been forged between most of the major nations during the past ten years.
Their central policy document is entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD)," published on their website at http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf. It outlines a plan for American hegemony in the coming years, pinpointing "problem areas" of the world and suggesting regime change of unfavorable governments so that eventually the whole world will be unified under the banner of American democracy.
Already we are seeing evidence of PNAC influence on U.S. policy. For instance, the concept of "Homeland Defense" comes straight from "RAD." Iran, Iraq and North Korea, nations that George Bush calls the "Axis of Evil", are listed together in "RAD" several times as possible military threats to the U.S. There is a suggestion that military spending be increased to 3.8 percent of the GDP, exactly the amount (over and above present expenses for the Iraqi campaign) Bush has proposed for next year's budget. Its basic statement of policy bespeaks and advocates the very essence of the idea of preemptive engagement.
Bush's National Security Strategy of September 20, 2002, adopted PNAC ideas and emphasized a broadened definition of preemption. Since we are already hearing accusations against regimes in Iran and Syria, will they be slated next for invasion?
The document is written with all of the single-mindedness, unilateralism and inattention to international ramifications (with either friend or foe) that the Bush administration displayed in its current build-up for war with Iraq. There is even assertion of the necessity of American political leadership overriding that of the U.N. (p. 11), a policy that was sadly played out when the U.S. invaded Iraq without the approval of either the U.N. or the international community.
Rebuilding America's Defenses
I believe that "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is a must-read for anyone concerned about the future of our planet. Since the document is over 80 pages long I have created a summary of its major ideas in order to make it more accessible.
Subject areas are arranged under 4 categories:
A. Pax Americana - outlining the rationale for global empire,
B. Securing Global Hegemony - pinpointing regions that are considered trouble spots for U.S. policy,
C. Rebuilding the Military - plans for expansion of U.S. military might, and
D. Future Wars of Pax Americana - the "RAD" vision of complete control of land, sea, air, space and cyberspace.
As much as possible I have used direct quotations followed by page numbers so that the reader can consult the original. My personal comments are in italics.
For further reading about the PNAC, see the following articles:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm (Information Clearing House has many excellent articles about the PNAC.)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2326.htm (this article is followed by a long list of links to published articles about the plans of the Bush Administration influenced by the PNAC.)
A. Pax Americana
"It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace" (p. 76).
The building of Pax Americana has become possible, claims "RAD," because the fall of the Soviet Union has given the U.S. status as the world's singular superpower. It must now work hard not only to maintain that position, but to spread its influence into geographic areas that are ideologically opposed to our influence. Decrying reductions in defense spending during the Clinton years "RAD" propounds the theory that the only way to preserve peace in the coming era will be to increase military forces for the purpose of waging multiple wars to subdue countries which may stand in the way of U.S. global preeminence.
Their flaws in logic are obvious to people of conscience, namely, 1) a combative posture on our part will not secure peace, but will rather engender fear throughout the world and begin anew the arms race, only this time with far more contenders, and 2) democracy, by its very definition, cannot be imposed by force.
Following is the preamble to the document:
"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
"[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
"Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership" (from the Project's Statement of Principles).
Four Vital Missions
PNAC members believe that there are four vital missions "demanded by U. S. global leadership," but claim that "current American armed forces are ill-prepared to execute" these missions.
"Homeland Defense. America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was the key element in homeland defense; it remains essential. But the new century has brought with it new challenges. While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority.
"Large Wars. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the 'two-war' standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.
"Constabulary Duties. Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. A decade's experience and the policies of two administrations have shown that such forces must be expanded to meet the needs of the new, long-term NATO mission in the Balkans, the continuing no-fly-zone and other missions in Southwest Asia, and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia. These duties are today's most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations.
"Transform U.S. Armed Forces. Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the so-called 'revolution in military affairs,' sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets" (p. 6).
"In conclusion, it should be clear that these four essential missions for maintaining American military preeminence are quite separate and distinct from one another – none should be considered a 'lesser included case' of another, even though they are closely related and may, in some cases, require similar sorts of forces. Conversely, the failure to provide sufficient forces to execute these four missions must result in problems for American strategy. The failure to build missile defenses will put America and her allies at grave risk and compromise the exercise of American power abroad. Conventional forces that are insufficient to fight multiple theater wars simultaneously cannot protect American global interests and allies. Neglect or withdrawal from constabulary missions will increase the likelihood of larger wars breaking out and encourage petty tyrants to defy American interests and ideals. And the failure to prepare for tomorrow's challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an early end" (p. 13).
On Usurping the Power of the UN
"Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate violence than traditional 'peacekeeping' missions. For one, they demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations, as the failure of the UN mission in the Balkans and the relative success of NATO operations there attests.
"Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality; the preponderance of American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political outcome in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf or even when it deploys forces in Africa. Finally, these missions demand forces basically configured for combat. While they also demand personnel with special language, logistics and other support skills, the first order of business in missions such as in the Balkans is to establish security, stability and order. American troops, in particular, must be regarded as part of an overwhelmingly powerful force" (p. 11).
On Preserving American Preeminence
"Since today's peace is the unique product of American preeminence, a failure to preserve that preeminence allows others an opportunity to shape the world in ways antithetical to American interests and principles. The price of American preeminence is that, just as it was actively obtained, it must be actively maintained" (p. 73).
"The fourth element in American force posture – and certainly the one which holds the key to any longer-term hopes to extend the current Pax Americana – is the mission to transform U.S. military forces to meet new geopolitical and technological challenges" (p. 11).
"America's armed forces, it seemed, could either prepare for the future by retreating from its role as the essential defender of today's global security order, or it could take care of current business but be unprepared for tomorrow's threats and tomorrow's battlefields" (p. i).
"Moreover, America stands at the head of a system of alliances which includes the world's other leading democratic powers. At present the United States faces no global rival. America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it, if they can, in directions that endanger the relatively peaceful, prosperous and free condition the world enjoys today. Up to now, they have been deterred from doing so by the capability and global presence of American military power. But, as that power declines, relatively and absolutely, the happy conditions that follow from it will be inevitably undermined" (p. i).
B. Securing Global Hegemony
"In a larger sense, the new president will choose whether today's 'unipolar moment,' to use columnist Charles Krauthammer's phrase for America's current geopolitical preeminence, will be extended along with the peace and prosperity that it provides" (p. 4).
"RAD" takes the posture that only the U.S. should manipulate international relations and points out "trouble spots" that may cause future problems, like Iraq, Iran, Korea and all of East Asia. There is concern that several nations might come together to challenge U.S. interests. Consequently any nation that produces nuclear weapons or engages in significant arms build-up will be viewed as a potential threat.
"America's global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy-producing region, and East Asia; and the general stability of the international system of nation-states relative to terrorists, organized crime, and other 'non-state actors.' The relative importance of these elements, and the threats to U.S. interests, may rise and fall over time. Europe, for example, is now extraordinarily peaceful and stable, despite the turmoil in the Balkans. Conversely, East Asia appears to be entering a period with increased potential for instability and competition. In the Gulf, American power and presence has achieved relative external security for U.S. allies, but the longer-term prospects are murkier. Generally, American strategy for the coming decades should seek to consolidate the great victories won in the 20th century – which have made Germany and Japan into stable democracies, for example – maintain stability in the Middle East, while setting the conditions for 21st century successes, especially in East Asia.
"A retreat from any one of these requirements would call America's status as the world's leading power into question. As we have seen, even a small failure like that in Somalia or a halting and incomplete triumph as in the Balkans can cast doubt on American credibility. The failure to define a coherent global security and military strategy during the post-Cold War period has invited challenges; states seeking to establish regional hegemony continue to probe for the limits of the American security perimeter" (p. 5).
Iraq and the Persian Gulf
"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region" (p. 17).
"In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semi-permanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (p. 14).
"Although the no-fly-zone air operations over northern and southern Iraq have continued without pause for almost a decade, they remain an essential element in U.S. strategy and force posture in the Persian Gulf region. Ending these operations would hand Saddam Hussein an important victory, something any American leader would be loath to do. Likewise, withdrawing from the Balkans would place American leadership in Europe – indeed, the viability of NATO – in question. While none of these operations involves a mortal threat, they do engage U.S. national security interests directly, as well as engaging American moral interests" (p. 11).
"In Europe, the Persian Gulf and East Asia, enduring U.S. security interests argue forcefully for an enduring American military presence" (p. 74).
"The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a vital one for U.S. military strategy, and the United States should consider it a de facto permanent presence, even as it seeks ways to lessen Saudi, Kuwaiti and regional concerns about U.S. presence" (p. 35).
Axis of Evil
"It is now commonly understood that information and other new technologies – as well as widespread technological and weapons proliferation – are creating a dynamic that may threaten America's ability to exercise its dominant military power. Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate" (p. 4).
"The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself. The blessings of the American peace, purchased at fearful cost and a century of effort, should not be so trivially squandered" (p. 75).
"Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the U.S. fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia (p. 39).
"As stressed several times above, the United States should seek to establish – or reestablish – a more robust naval presence in Southeast Asia, marked by a long-term, semi-permanent home port in the region, perhaps in the Philippines, Australia, or both" (p. 44).
"In Southeast Asia, American forces are too sparse to adequately address rising security requirements….Except for routine patrols by naval and Marine forces, the security of this strategically significant and increasingly tumultuous region has suffered from American neglect…..Southeast Asia region has long been an area of great interest to China, which clearly seeks to regain influence in the region. In recent years, China has gradually increased its presence and operations in the region.
"Raising U.S. military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great-power status. For this to proceed peacefully, U.S. armed forces must retain their military preeminence and thereby reassure our regional allies. In Northeast Asia, the United States must maintain and tighten its ties with the Republic of Korea and Japan. In Southeast Asia, only the United States can reach out to regional powers like Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia and others. This will be a difficult task requiring sensitivity to diverse national sentiments, but it is made all the more compelling by the emergence of new democratic governments in the region. By guaranteeing the security of our current allies and newly democratic nations in East Asia, the United States can help ensure that the rise of China is a peaceful one. Indeed, in time, American and allied power in the region may provide a spur to the process of democratization inside China itself….A heightened U.S. military presence in Southeast Asia would be a strong spur to regional security cooperation, providing the core around which a de facto coalition could jell" (pp. 18-19).
"The prospect is that East Asia will become an increasingly important region, marked by the rise of Chinese power….A similar rationale argues in favor of retaining substantial forces in Japan. In recent years, the stationing of large forces in Okinawa has become increasingly controversial in Japanese domestic politics, and while efforts to accommodate local sensibilities are warranted, it is essential to retain the capabilities U.S. forces in Okinawa represent. If the United States is to remain the guarantor of security in Northeast Asia, and to hold together a de facto alliance whose other main pillars are Korea and Japan maintaining forward-based U.S. forces is essential" (p. 18).
"As discussed above, the focus of American security strategy for the coming century is likely to shift to East Asia. This reflects the success of American strategy in the 20th century, and particularly the success of the NATO alliance through the Cold War, which has created what appears to be a generally stable and enduring peace in Europe. The pressing new problem of European security – instability in Southeastern Europe – will be best addressed by the continued stability operations in the Balkans by U.S. and NATO ground forces supported by land-based air forces. Likewise, the new opportunity for greater European stability offered by further NATO expansion will make demands first of all on ground and land-based air forces. As the American security perimeter in Europe is removed eastward, this pattern will endure, although naval forces will play an important role in the Baltic Sea, eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea, and will continue to support U.S. and NATO operations ashore" (pp. 43-44).
"The Balkans, and southeastern Europe more generally, present the major hurdle toward the creation of a Europe 'whole and free' from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The delay in bringing security and stability to southeastern Europe has not only prevented the consolidation of the victory in the Cold War, it has created a zone of violence and conflict and introduced uncertainty about America's role in Europe" (pp. 15-16).
"Despite the shifting focus of conflict in Europe, a requirement to station U.S. forces in northern and central Europe remains. The region is stable, but a continued American presence helps to assure the major European powers, especially Germany, that the United States retains its longstanding security interest in the continent. This is especially important in light of the nascent European moves toward an independent defense 'identity' and policy; it is important that NATO not be replaced by the European Union, leaving the United States without a voice in European security affairs" (p. 16).
"Although U.S. Navy and Marine forces generally operate on a regular cycle of deployments to European waters, they rely on a network of permanent bases in the region, especially in the Mediterranean. These should be retained, and consideration given to establishing a more robust presence in the Black Sea" (p. 17).
Several statements advocating the possible necessity of removing hostile regimes can be found in the document.
"American military preeminence will continue to rest in significant part on the ability to maintain sufficient land forces to achieve political goals such as removing a dangerous and
hostile regime when necessary" (p. 61).
"The need to respond with decisive force in the event of a major theater war in Europe, the Persian Gulf or East Asia will remain the principal factor in determining Army force structure for U.S.-based units. However one judges the likelihood of such wars occurring, it is essential to retain sufficient capabilities to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion, including the possibility of a decisive victory that results in long-term political or regime change" (p. 25).
"America's adversaries will continue to resist the building of the American peace; when they see an opportunity as Saddam Hussein did in 1990, they will employ their most powerful armed forces to win on the battle-field what they could not win in peaceful competition; and American armed forces will remain the core of efforts to deter, defeat, or remove from power regional aggressors" (p. 10).
C. Rebuilding the Military
"If an American peace is to be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence" (p. 4).
One stated objective of "RAD" is "to outline the large, 'full-spectrum' forces that are necessary to conduct the varied tasks demanded by a strategy of American preeminence for today and tomorrow" (p. 5). Much of the document is an elucidation of those missions and includes specific recommendations about weaponry, deployment patterns, increased personnel and defense spending.
"In sum, the 1990s have been a 'decade of defense neglect'. This leaves the next president of the United States with an enormous challenge: he must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership, or he must pull back from the security commitments that are the measure of America's position as the world's sole superpower and the final guarantee of security, democratic freedoms and individual political rights" (p. 4).
"Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future. But years of cuts in defense spending have eroded the American military's combat readiness, and put in jeopardy the Pentagon's plans for maintaining military superiority in the years ahead. Increasingly, the U.S. military has found itself undermanned, inadequately equipped and trained, straining to handle contingency operations, and ill-prepared to adapt itself to the revolution in military affairs" (p. i).
The four core missions of PNAC referred to below were outlined in section A. Pax Americana.
"To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today's force to roughly the levels anticipated in the 'Base Force' outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.
MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey 'tilt-rotor' aircraft for the Marine Corps.
CANCEL 'ROADBLOCK' PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
CONTROL THE NEW 'INTERNATIONAL COMMONS' OF SPACE AND 'CYBERSPACE,' and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.
EXPLOIT THE 'REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS' to ensure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
• ?maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies, and,
• ?produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually" (p. v).
"In general terms, it seems likely that the process of transformation will take several decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons systems for a decade or more. Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will in fact be a two-stage process: first of transition, then of more thoroughgoing transformation. The break-point will come when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to enter service, perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be very wary of making large investments in new programs – tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, for example – that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for many decades to come" (p. 13).
List of recommendations for modernizing the Army (see p. 23).
"American landpower remains the essential link in the chain that translates U.S. military supremacy into American geopolitical preeminence. Even as the means for delivering firepower on the battlefield shift – strike aircraft have realized all but the wildest dreams of air power enthusiasts, unmanned aerial vehicles promise to extend strike power in the near future, and the ability to conduct strikes from space appears on the not-too-distant horizon – the need for ground maneuvers to achieve decisive political results endures. Regimes are difficult to change based upon punishment alone. If land forces are to survive and retain their unique strategic purpose in a world where it is increasingly easy to deliver firepower precisely at long ranges, they must change as well, becoming more stealthy, mobile, deployable and able to operate in a dispersed fashion. The U.S. Army, and American land forces more generally, must increasingly complement the strike capabilities of the other services. Conversely, an American military force that lacks the ability to employ ground forces that can survive and maneuver rapidly on future battlefields will deprive U.S. political leaders of a decisive tool of diplomacy" (p. 30).
Air Force - Toward a Global First-Strike Force
List of recommendations for modernizing the Air Force (See p. 31).
"Although air power remains the most flexible and responsive element of U.S. military power, the Air Force needs to be restructured, repositioned, revitalized and enlarged to assure continued 'global reach, global power'" (p. 31).
"Because of its inherent mobility and flexibility, the Air Force will be the first U.S. military force to arrive in a theater during times of crisis; as such, the Air Force must retain its ability to deploy and sustain sufficient numbers of aircraft to deter wars and shape any conflict in its earliest stages. Indeed, it is the Air Force, along with the Army, that remains the core of America's ability to apply decisive military power when its pleases. To dissipate this ability to deliver a rapid hammer blow is to lose the key component of American military preeminence" (p. 37).
"A gradual increase in Air Force spending back to a $110 billion to $115 billion level is required to increase service personnel strength; build new units, especially the composite wings required to perform the 'air constabulary missions' such as no-fly zones; add the support capabilities necessary to complement the fleet of tactical aircraft; reinvest in space capabilities and begin the process of transformation" (p. 37).
"The ability to have access to, operate in, and dominate the aerospace environment has become the key to military success in modern, high-technology warfare. Indeed, as will be discussed below, space dominance may become so essential to the preservation of American military preeminence that it may require a separate service. How well the Air Force rises to the many challenges it faces – even should it receive increased budgets – will go far toward determining whether U.S. military forces retain the combat edge they now enjoy" (pp. 38-39).
"A recent study done for the Air Force indicates that a worldwide network of forward operating bases….might cost $5 billion to $10 billion through 2010. The study speculates that some of the cost might be paid for by host nations anxious to cement ties with the United States, or, in Europe, be considered as common NATO assets and charged to the NATO common fund" (p. 20).
List of recommendations for modernizing the Navy (See pp. 39-40).
List of recommendations for modernizing the Marines (See pp. 47-48).
"The end of the Cold War leaves the U.S. Navy in a position of unchallenged supremacy on the high seas, a dominance surpassing that even of the British Navy in the 19th and early parts of the 20th century. With the remains of the Soviet fleet now largely rusting in port, the open oceans are America's, and the lines of communication open from the coasts of the United States to Europe, the Persian Gulf and East Asia. Yet this very success calls the need for the current force structure into question. Further, the advance of precision-strike technology may mean that naval surface combatants, and especially the large-deck aircraft carriers that are the Navy's capital ships, may not survive in the high-technology wars of the coming decades. Finally, the nature and pattern of Navy presence missions may be out of synch with emerging strategic realities. In sum, though it stands without peer today, the Navy faces major challenges to its traditional and, in the past, highly successful methods of operation" (p. 39).
"Thus, while naval presence, including carrier presence, in the western Pacific should be increased, the Navy should begin to conduct many of its presence missions with other kinds of battle groups based around cruisers, destroyers and other surface combatants as well as submarines. Indeed, the Navy needs to better understand the requirement to have substantial numbers of cruise-missile platforms at sea and in close proximity to regional hot spots, using carriers and naval aviation as reinforcing elements" (p. 46).
"The Navy's force of attack submarines also should be expanded. It is unclear that the current and planned generations of attack submarines (to say nothing of new ballistic missile submarines) will be flexible enough to meet future demands. The Navy should reassess its submarine requirements not merely in light of current missions but with an expansive view of possible future missions as well" (p. 46).
"The Navy must begin to transition away from its heavy dependence on carrier operations….. Design and research on a future CVX carrier should continue, but should aim at a radical design change to accommodate an air wing based primarily on unmanned aerial vehicles" (p. 40).
"To offset the reduced role of carriers, the Navy should slightly increase its fleets of current-generation surface combatants and submarines for improved strike capabilities in littoral waters and to conduct an increasing proportion of naval presence missions with surface action groups. Additional investments in counter-mine warfare are needed, as well" (p. 40).
"In particular, the Marine Corps, like the Navy, must turn its focus on the requirements for operations in East Asia, including Southeast Asia. In many ways, this will be a 'back to the future' mission for the Corps, recalling the innovative thinking done during the period between the two world wars and which established the Marines' expertise in amphibious landings and operations" (p. 47).
"As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under long-term basing arrangements, the United States should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces. Not only will such an approach improve the ability to project force to outlying regions, it will help circumvent the political, practical and financial constraints on expanding the network of American bases overseas" (p. 19).
"There should be a strong strategic synergy between U.S. forces overseas and in a reinforcing posture: units operating abroad are an indication of American geopolitical interests and leadership, provide significant military power to shape events and, in wartime, create the conditions for victory when reinforced. Conversely, maintaining the ability to deliver an unquestioned 'knockout punch' through the rapid introduction of stateside units will increase the shaping power of forces operating overseas and the vitality of our alliances. In sum, we see an enduring need for large-scale American forces" (p. 74).
"Further, improvements should be made to existing air bases in new and potential NATO countries to allow for rapid deployments, contingency exercises, and extended initial operations in times of crisis. These preparations should include modernized air traffic control, fuel, and weapons storage facilities, and perhaps small stocks of prepositioned munitions, as well as sufficient ramp space to accommodate surges in operations. Improvements also should be made to existing facilities in England to allow forward operation of B-2 bombers in times of crisis, to increase sortie rates if needed" (p. 34).
"The Air Force should be redeployed to reflect the shifts in international politics. Independent, expeditionary air wings containing a broad mix of aircraft, including electronic warfare, airborne command and control, and other support aircraft, should be based in Italy, Southeastern Europe, central and perhaps eastern Turkey, the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia"
"…significant reductions in U.S. nuclear forces might well have unforeseen consequences that lessen rather than enhance the security of the United States and its allies" (p. 8).
"Over the past decade, efforts to design and build effective missile defenses have been ill-conceived and underfunded, and the Clinton Administration has proposed deep reductions in U.S. nuclear forces without sufficient analysis of the changing global nuclear balance of forces" (p. 6).
"Rather than maintain and improve America's nuclear deterrent, the Clinton Administration has put its faith in new arms control measures, most notably by signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The treaty proposed a new multilateral regime, consisting of some 150 states, whose principal effect would be to constrain America's unique role in providing the global nuclear umbrella that helps to keep states like Japan and South Korea from developing the weapons that are well within their scientific capability, while doing little to stem nuclear weapons proliferation. Although the Senate refused to ratify the treaty, the administration continues to abide by its basic strictures. And while it may make sense to continue the current moratorium on nuclear testing for the moment – since it would take a number of years to refurbish the neglected testing infrastructure in any case – ultimately this is an untenable situation. If the United States is to have a nuclear deterrent that is both effective and safe, it will need to test." (pp. 7-8).
"…of all the elements of U.S. military force posture, perhaps none is more in need of reevaluation than America's nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons remain a critical component of American military power but it is unclear whether the current U.S. nuclear arsenal is well-suited to the emerging post-Cold War world. Today's strategic calculus encompasses more factors than just the balance of terror between the United States and Russia. U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small nuclear arsenals – from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq – and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force. Moreover, there is a question about the role nuclear weapons should play in deterring the use of other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological, with the U.S. having foresworn those weapons' development and use. It addition, there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep under-ground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries" (p. 8).
"But what should finally drive the size and character of our nuclear forces is not numerical parity with Russian capabilities but maintaining American strategic superiority – and, with that superiority, a capability to deter possible hostile coalitions of nuclear powers. U.S. nuclear superiority is nothing to be ashamed of; rather, it will be an essential element in preserving American leadership in a more complex and chaotic world" (p. 8).
D. Future Wars of Pax Americana
"Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring military mission – worthy of a constant allocation of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn" (p. 60).
"RAD" envisions a future in which the United States is in complete control of land, sea, air, space and cyberspace of planet Earth. It finds objectionable the limitations imposed by the ABM treaty and urges a newer rendition of Reagan's 'Star Wars' defense shield program. Three missions are seen as crucial.
1. Global Missile Defenses - "A network against limited strikes, capable of protecting the United States, its allies and forward-deployed forces, must be constructed. This must be a layered system of land, sea, air and space-based components" (p. 51).
"The first element in any missile defense network should be a galaxy of surveillance satellites with sensors capable of acquiring enemy ballistic missiles immediately upon launch" (p. 52).
"At the same time, the administration's devotion to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with the Soviet Union has frustrated development of useful ballistic missile defenses. This is reflected in deep budget cuts – planned spending on missile defenses for the late 1990s has been more than halved, halting work on space-based interceptors, cutting funds for a national missile defense system by 80 percent and theater defenses by 30 percent. Further, the administration has cut funding just at the crucial moments when individual programs begin to show promise. Only upgrades of currently existing systems like the Patriot missile – originally designed primarily for air defense against jet fighters, not missile defense – have proceeded generally on course.
"Most damaging of all was the decision in 1993 to terminate the 'Brilliant Pebbles' project. This legacy of the original Reagan-era 'Star Wars' effort had matured to the point where it was becoming feasible to develop a space-based interceptor capable of destroying ballistic missiles in the early or middle portion of their flight – far preferable than attempting to hit individual warheads surrounded by clusters of decoys on their final course toward their targets. But since a space-based system would violate the ABM Treaty, the administration killed the 'Brilliant Pebbles' program, choosing instead to proceed with a ground-based interceptor and radar system – one that will be costly without being especially effective" (p. 52).
2. Control of Space - "RAD" advises instituting a new "Space Service" thereby escalating U.S. military preparedness "from the theatre level to the global level" in order to achieve worldwide dominance, both militarily and commercially.
"Yet to truly transform itself for the coming century, the Air Force must accelerate its efforts to create the new systems – and, to repeat, the space-based systems – that are necessary to shift the scope of air operations from the theater level to the global level" (p. 64).
"…control of space – defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space' – must be an essential element of our military strategy" (p. 55).
"Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new 'international commons' be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the 'infosphere' will find it difficult to exert global political leadership" (p. 51).
"The proliferation of technologies for delivering highly accurate fires over increasingly great distances poses a great challenge for both the Army and the Marine Corps, but rather than attempting to compete in the game of applying long-range fires, both services would be better off attempting to complement the vastly improved strike capabilities of the Navy and Air Force, and indeed in linking decisive maneuvers to future space capabilities as well" (p. 68).
"Target significant new investments toward creating capabilities for operating in space, including inexpensive launch vehicles, new satellites and transatmospheric vehicles, in preparation for a decision as to whether space warfare is sufficiently different from combat within earth's atmosphere so as to require a separate 'space service'. Such a transformation would in fact better realize the Air Force's stated goal of becoming a service with true global reach and global strike capabilities" (p. 64).
"Given the advantages U.S. armed forces enjoy as a result of this unrestricted use of space, it is shortsighted to expect potential adversaries to refrain from attempting to disable or offset U.S. space capabilities. And with the proliferation of space know-how and related technology around the world, our adversaries will inevitably seek to enjoy many of the same space advantages in the future. Moreover, 'space commerce' is a growing part of the global economy. In 1996, commercial United States, and commercial revenues exceeded government expenditures on space. Today, more than 1,100 commercial companies across more than 50 countries are developing, building, and operating space systems.
"The complexity of space control will only grow as commercial activity increases. American and other allied investments in space systems will create a requirement to secure and protect these space assets; they are already an important measure of American power. Yet it will not merely be enough to protect friendly commercial uses of space.
"As Space Command also recognizes, the United States must also have the capability to deny America's adversaries the use of commercial space platforms for military purposes in times of crises and conflicts. Indeed, space is likely to become the new 'international commons', where commercial and security interests are intertwined and related. Just as Alfred Thayer Mahan wrote about 'sea-power' at the beginning of the 20th century in this sense, American strategists will be forced to regard 'space-power' in the 21st" (pp. 54-55).
"In short, the unequivocal supremacy in space enjoyed by the United States today will be increasingly at risk" (p. 55).
"As Colin Gray and John Sheldon have written, 'Space control is not an avoidable issue. It is not an optional extra.' For U.S. armed forces to continue to assert military preeminence, control of space – defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space' – must be an essential element of our military strategy. If America cannot maintain that control, its ability to conduct global military operations will be severely complicated, far more costly, and potentially fatally compromised" (p. 55).
"But, over the longer term, maintaining control of space will inevitably require the application of force both in space and from space, including but not limited to anti-missile defenses and defensive systems capable of protecting U.S. and allied satellites; space control cannot be sustained in any other fashion, with conventional land, sea, or airforce, or by electronic warfare. This eventuality is already recognized by official U.S. national space policy, which states that the 'Department of Defense shall maintain a capability to execute the mission areas of space support, force enhancement, space control and force application.' (Emphasis added.)" (p. 56).
3. Control of Cyberspace - "Although many concepts of 'cyber-war' have elements of science fiction about them, and the role of the Defense Department in establishing 'control,' or even what 'security' on the Internet means, requires a consideration of a host of legal, moral and political issues, there nonetheless will remain an imperative to be able to deny America and its allies' enemies the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks.
"Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner. Taken together, the prospects for space war or 'cyberspace war' represent the truly revolutionary potential inherent in the notion of military transformation. These future forms of warfare are technologically immature, to be sure. But, it is also clear that for the U.S. armed forces to remain preeminent and avoid an Achilles Heel in the exercise of its power they must be sure that these potential future forms of warfare favor America just as today's air, land and sea warfare reflect United States military dominance" (p. 57).
Strategy for Transforming Conventional Forces
Read below notions of how conventional warfare will be conducted in the future, including the use of microbes and "advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes."
"In exploiting the 'revolution in military affairs,' the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces. This process will have two stages: transition, featuring a mix of current and new systems; and true transformation, featuring new systems, organizations and operational concepts. This process must take a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions. Any successful process of transformation must be linked to the services, which are the institutions within the Defense Department with the ability and the responsibility for linking budgets and resources to specific missions" (p. 51).
"Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and 'combat' likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, 'cyber-space,' and perhaps the world of microbes. Air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On land, the clash of massive, combined-arms armored forces may be replaced by the dashes of much lighter, stealthier and information-intensive forces, augmented by fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in soldiers' pockets. Control of the sea could be largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but from land- and space-based systems, forcing navies to maneuver and fight underwater. Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems – combatants and noncombatants – will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool" (p. 60).
Changes in Naval Warfare: "Beyond immediate opportunities such as conversion of Trident submarines, consideration should be given to employing a deactivated carrier to better understand the possibilities of operating large fleets of UAVs at sea. Likewise, submerged 'missile pods,' either permanently deployed or laid covertly by submarines in times of crisis, could increase strike capabilities without risking surface vessels in littoral waters. In general, if the Navy is moving toward 'network-centric' warfare, it should explore ways of increasing the number of 'nodes on the net'" (p. 67).
Army of the Future: "Consider just the potential changes that might effect the infantryman. Future soldiers may operate in encapsulated, climate-controlled, powered fighting suits, laced with sensors, and boasting chameleon-like 'active' camouflage. 'Skin-patch' pharmaceuticals help regulate fears, focus concentration and enhance endurance and strength. A display mounted on a soldier's helmet permits a comprehensive view of the battlefield – in effect to look around corners and over hills – and allows the soldier to access the entire combat information and intelligence system while filtering incoming data to prevent overload. Individual weapons are more lethal, and a soldier's ability to call for highly precise and reliable indirect fires – not only from Army systems but those of other services – allows each individual to have great influence over huge spaces. Under the 'Land Warrior' program, some Army experts envision a 'squad' of seven soldiers able to dominate an area the size of the Gettysburg battlefield – where, in 1863, some 165,000 men fought" (p. 62).
Comment section added to this article on October 30, 2011
17 June 2013According to the material seen by the Guardian, GCHQ generated this product by attacking both the computers and the telephones of delegates.
One document refers to a tactic which was "used a lot in recent UK conference, eg G20". The tactic, which is identified by an internal codeword which the Guardian is not revealing, is defined in an internal glossary as "active collection against an email account that acquires mail messages without removing them from the remote server". A PowerPoint slide explains that this means "reading people's email before/as they do".
The same document also refers to GCHQ, MI6 and others setting up internet cafes which "were able to extract key logging info, providing creds for delegates, meaning we have sustained intelligence options against them even after conference has finished". This appears to be a reference to acquiring delegates' online login details.
Another document summarises a sustained campaign to penetrate South African computers, recording that they gained access to the network of their foreign ministry, "investigated phone lines used by High Commission in London" and "retrieved documents including briefings for South African delegates to G20 and G8 meetings". (South Africa is a member of the G20 group and has observer status at G8 meetings.)
A detailed report records the efforts of the NSA's intercept specialists at Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire to target and decode encrypted phone calls from London to Moscow which were made by the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, and other Russian delegates.
Other documents record apparently successful efforts to penetrate the security of BlackBerry smartphones: "New converged events capabilities against BlackBerry provided advance copies of G20 briefings to ministers … Diplomatic targets from all nations have an MO of using smartphones. Exploited this use at the G20 meetings last year."
It's not just about embarrassing politcal elite but also about exposing criminality. For decades we have been lecturing rest of the world about freedom and democracy. We have killed millions in the name of human rights.
Our mainstream media has spent millions of hours to advocate lies war propaganda and demonize nations who don't fully submit to our ideology and it turns out we are worse than evil socialist KGB?
Somebody said who's better than west...I'd say nobody really no ones better at intruding and spying on others as West
UK govt leading the way as a role model for responsible and trustworthy international relations.
To be honest the UK and the West deserves to have all its soft power revealed as for vacuous pile of crap it is.
We kill children in the name of human rights. We arm fanatics to promote democracy and we attack democracies to protect fanatics.
@StivBator 16 June 2013 9:07pm. Get cifFix for Chrome.
The myth that we are the keepers of decent society in the world needs to be exposed as the total bullshit it really is. Anything bad you can think of we do. Except until things like this, the rest of us are comfortable in the fact of our willful ignorance about it.
Wake the fuck up.
@UnIikelylad - I believe Atilla the Hun respected the sanctity of ambassadors. Diplomatically, it is beyond awful. Some things you just don't do, and to do it for an economic the summit stage managed to make Brown look good...
@richkid 16 June 2013 9:06pm. Get cifFix for Chrome.
Hang on people. Let's be patriotic and stop bringing out secret things into the open.
""Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Samuel Johnson, April 7, 1775.
@richkid - Blind trust in elites in general and ignorance of war in particular and a particularly unhealthy form of patriotism led to WW 1 - Resulting in over 20 million dead.
It also set in train events that arguably led to WW2 and further carnage and suffering.
The Guardian is taking a principled and courageous stand.
Lets not resort to the last refuge of the scoundrel at this early stage.
@Hedropsforglory - "Every nation that can, does this."
How do you know that? Or are you just using your imagination?
If every nation were in fact doing this, then no country's representatives would ever send any sensitive information - i.e. anything worth knowing - by these means. So it wouldn't be worth going to all this trouble to bug them.
This article crosses the line and is close to treasonous, and I'm not using the term as an ad hominem insult. This has the potential to do very serious harm to the UK.
The patriot loves their country, but is willing to expose, discuss and address its failings. The nationalist, however, believes their country can do little or no wrong, and will jump to condemn those who criticise it and expose its failings.
@onomatopoiia - In days gone by the enemy was invited to dinner and then poisoned. Such is the advance of civilisation that we now only pry into their emails and phone calls.
@Strummered - Or, more like striptease. All the pretentious garbs of moral and ethical leadership are being dropped to a fast tempo. The real condition is becoming obvious. May be Mahatma Gandhi understood it well in 1930 at Southampton, when he responded to a question from a reporter: "What do you think of Western Civilisation?' His reply: "That would be a good idea."
@onomatopoiia - Treason? International meetings should be based on trust, as otherwise nothing could be achieved at all. All this article reviels is the fact, that the UK is betraying everybody al all times an in so doing, assures, that no such meeting will ever be taking place in Britain unless it is just a publicity stunt. Britain was and always will be number one in the leage of trachery.
@onomatopoiia - "This article crosses the line and is close to treasonous,..."
This article and the way The Guardian is providing platform to Edward Snowden comes to show we still have press worth reading. I well and truly hope that if their right to deliver truthful information is challenged we will be there to help defend them. Democracy and freedom of speech favours the people, secrecy and concentration of power favours those who buy and sell governments. Whose side are you on?
@JamesHalfpenny - Can you honestly say we have a free press when things like this go on? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1522875/Revealed-how-the-BBC-used-MI5-to-vet-thousands-of-staff.html
We dont know what vetting the Guardian has employed, obviously a left wing bias will get you some of the way, but is it coincidental that most public sector jobs are almost exclusively advertised in the Guardian at great taxpayers expense for a start, or that the Guardian is the preferred paper for exclusives from the Labour party, Telegraph being the Tories, & the Independent has been known to publish things for the Security Services, not to mention the political parties carrying out clandestine meetings with Murdoch to get his papers leading public opinion to help win elections?
The methods of these "democratic" political parties are arguably just as bad as the hypocritical hacking methods employed by the spooks!
@doog1972 - "The idea that hacking some emails means that the 'West' is crap is equally absurd."
The US and the UK as its lapdog are claiming to be leading the world, and they certainly are having a major influence. If the biggest military power in the world is setting up a fascist rule and acts as aggressively as it does, both in terms of military and intelligence operations, it requires other countries to respond in a similar fashion. If you are leading the world and it turns out it is a shit place to be, whose fault is it?
"The idea that the UK or in fact any country would not use as much of its power to gain leverage over economic or political rivals is laughably naive." Hitler had a huge military advantage before the second world war, and he used it to defeat his rivals - should I take it you find that natural and acceptable? To put this in a more current context, do you accept bankers and corporations screwing over the millions just so they can get more money and power and screw us even more. It would be naive to think we can build a better world for us and our kids?
"No doubt, more liberal left west bashing although am very curious as to what countries you think are paragons of virtue?" Iceland is an exemplary democracy at the moment.
The West cannot legitimately claim any moral high-ground after this dirty trick by the British Government. Who can trust the West?
@qy paddy -
The system that we strive for...basic human privacy and true freedom the we though we already had.
You thought you had that? How charmingly and touchingly naive.
If you had anything close to that it is partly because clever men who you never knew were doing sneaky and sometimes dodgy things without your knowledge and in your interests.
Western hegemony is morally bankrupt.
The system that we strive for...basic human privacy and true freedom the we though we already had.
You thought you had that? How charmingly and touchingly naive.
If you had anything close to that it is partly because clever men who you never knew were doing sneaky and sometimes dodgy things without your knowledge and in your interests.
In your interest ? How touchingly and charmingly naive.
To regard the interests of our ruling elite as being the same as the interest of rest of us is surely naive.
@onomatopoiia - Harm to the uk government but what about harm to the British people?
As someone said below while they were spying on our allies they mandated the police to use lethal violence on the British public
I say mandated because most police were hiding their identities that day and the one police officer that killed someone was let off and all that were accused of violence were let off
You lefty morons don't understand that the world is still a hostile place and that intelligence gathering is essential to protect your county and it's interests.
I like how people who don't share your opinions are 'morons' but you somehow have reached enlightenment and all-knowledge,
Please oh beneficent one! Share with us your font of kno- oh, wait, you're just being narrow minded. My bad, sorry.
This is going to get really interesting.
I still doubt it will lead to any new legislation though.
@Roman78 - MI6 spying on foreign governments is 'really interesting'...
@Roman78 - Well at least GCHQ's powerpoint skills are better than the NSA's, if I'm going to be spied on I'd rather it was done a bit more stylishly.
True, but stuff like this is likely to make the elites distrust each other more.
In fact, I think the main benefit of leaks like these is making coordination between elite interests less likely. The more they fight between themselves, the best for us.
A very interesting insight. Julian Assange wrote an essay or two on exactly this topic in 2006:
Thanks for the link... I was struck by this quotation at the beginning:
Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul this unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the ﬁrst task of statesmanship.
President Theodore Roosevelt
@giveusaclue - The 'elite' has nothng to do with visible government, beyond using them as a puppet show to give the illusion of choice to keep pedants squabbling. The monkeys fighting over a banana on top of the organ means nothing in real terms.
In fact, I think the main benefit of leaks like these is making coordination between elite interests less likely. The more they fight between themselves, the best for us.
Until they start a war between themselves and we're the ones who die.
@noamericano - I could understand the leak about the interception of private emails and phone messages. While hardly a surprise it was good to have it confirmed.
I fail to see the public interest here however. Governments spying on each other is not news. Just like the Assange story, the Guardian sails right past the important story in it's usual shrill, hysterical manner and in the process tarnishes what good there was in the leak.
@scipio16 - Hard to see what good can come of this, do all countries spy on each other? Yes. Will publishing the fact that they do it stop this? No, never. Will publishing the methodology of how the UK did it in the past make it harder for the UK in future and put it at a disadvantage? Yes.
I suppose we'll have to get used to this diplomatic tittle tattle coming out like rabbit poo now when it clearly has no use or is not in the public interest other than this newspaper has got a man on the inside so they have to milk it for all it's worth, for no other reason than 'because they can'.
@scipio16 - Agreed. There is a huge difference between spying and tracking citizens going about their daily business, and this. This is espionage between governments and is entirely par for the course. All publishing this does is distract from the original and much more serious issue (I doubt it will affect relationships at these meetings; it's not as though each host doesn't do it to some degree when it is their turn).
An overexcited Greenwald has shot himself in the foot here.
This reveals the KABUKI theatre of our geo-political world quite well. And maybe it will help awaken some parts of the population to what is done (not) in our name.
@P-Ride - Standard intelligence work? Come for a heads of state meeting and get your private emails spied on? Should do wonders for the art of 'british diplomacy'.
@ConkerGatsby - Reminds of the old Vietnam era slogan of the American right--'My country right or wrong' thereby absolving themselves of any need to question what is going on. This is my country. I would like to know what is going on and approve of it, as far as possible. Fake interrnet cafes for the purpose of spying on our allies and trading partners stinks, and I don't find it acceptable
@P-Ride - Apparently the UK intelligence services are spying for their real master, Washington. How do you think a NSA consultant got this info?
Cheers Guardian, thanks for intervening to undermine the work of the UK intelligence services. This isn't domestic citizens being spied on; this is standard intelligence work.
The significance of these leaks is that they establish beyond any doubt - not that any but the most naive ever doubted it - that surveillance is driven primarily by advantage. This undermines successive governments' insistence that increased surveillence is driven by security:
The disclosure raises new questions about the boundaries of surveillance by GCHQ and its American sister organisation, the National Security Agency, whose access to phone records and internet data has been defended as necessary in the fight against terrorism and serious crime. The G20 spying appears to have been organised for the more mundane purpose of securing an advantage in meetings. Named targets include long-standing allies such as South Africa and Turkey.
If that is the case - that surveillance is driven by advantage - then the dragnetting of our metadata, which is sufficient to complete a profile of each and every one of us - is certainly of more interest to the state for the advantage it offers in controlling and exploiting us than it is for the security it provides. The notion that surveillance exists simply for our protection has been dealt a deathblow by these revelations. All you then need to do is think of the Prism programme, and put two and two together.
@Roman78 - flouting international treaties in your name? How many years has Europe been flouting international treaties and letting northern European countries seize power and impoverish southern Europe with no appeal, in YOUR name?
But the UK didn't bother because it is not affected. Now it is affected, by this spy scandal, there is outrage. Austerity and spying, both imposed by the elite illegally in YOUR name and for their own convenience or gain. That's the (new?) world order.
@Forthestate - Wish I could "recommend" your comment a hundred times. The claims about protection from terrorists and criminals are hogwash. The information dragnet has a different purpose and everyday citizens are the target.
@PrivateTrancer - The interesting point is the objectives of the spying (economics, negotiating advantages) and the fact that the notion of 'ally' seems to be entirely contextual. This is all very much worth reporting and a reminder to those in power that it is fleeting and only by consent.
@ConkerGatsby - Whether you agree or not, do you really need to know any further details? Is it in this countries interests to reveal further details. Because you know, a spying agency in the public eye is pretty bloody useless.
Exactly how do you define 'in this countries interest' ? We are spying on a conference we are hosting. One of the duties of a host is surely security ? Not to spy on them but to prevent them being spied on ?This is not a war situation, its largely about trade and finance, where we are spying on those who we publicly regard as our allies, for the financial advantage not of the general population, but, as usual, for the advantage of the financial and political elites.
''The GCHQ intent is to ensure that intelligence relevant to HMG's desired outcomes for its presidency of the G20 reaches customers ''
It's bent. It's not defensible in open daylight, and its pointless a few of you trying to convince the rest of us that its all perfectly OK. If you have no 'moral compass' then it you just carry on but our government has been exposed as no better and possibly worse than any other set of lying, spying crooks.
@Carl Sixsmith - Dunno if you noticed, but they already are, and it's not just our trans-Atlantic calls.
This is pretty much the response of the typical statist little sheep most people have become and the mainstream media. For the entirety of the last decade you were branded a lunatic conspiracy nut for even suggesting Western governments were conducting surveillance anywhere near what they're actually doing, but as soon as it's brought to everyone's attention and confirms what most people apparently feared, the response is a resounding "meh, we knew this all along. Old news". And ironically, despite the fact such news is apparently so unimportant we can just ignore it, the people who release or publish such news are terrorists, and traitors, and treasonous dogs, and we should have them hung, drawn and quatered before parliament.
What are we gonna do when they start using tear gas and water cannons, or even live rounds, on protestors in the UK? Are we gonna say, "meh, it was bound to happen anyway"? It looks that way at this point, and frankly I have little hope for this country ever climbing out of its fascistic quagmire at this point.
Well all public diplomacy and negotiation is something of a game with accepted rules. Often a government needs to state a certain position in public in order to satisfy its domestic supporters, but in practice (and behind closed doors) they are willing to compromise on certain matters (but not others) to reach agreements that benefit the country.
In fact, it is part of the game of all negotiation that the party states one extreme position (e.g. I want to sell this car for £10,000) when in reality they secretly hold another position (I would sell it for £8,000). All countries do this in public to get the most advantageous terms from a negotiation.
So one purpose of the espionage is to find out which issues are ones on which governments are willing to compromise on, and which are non-negotiable (given that the government will publicly give the impression that all of their interests are non-negotiable)
Remember this is an economic summit, the purpose is nothing sinister, it is to negotiate an agreement between 20 different nations on matters of mutual interest.
Now, that is a bloody difficult thing to achieve in a short timeframe - there are 20 different nations with divergent interests and many different issues to get agreement on. It really helps purely on an efficiency basis to know what the actual limits are to each government's negotiating position. By knowing this, you can then better frame an agreement that has a chance of being accepted by everyone.
It is arguable that without espionage, or some form of 'behind the scenes' knowledge by all parties, that these types of summits would find it impossible to reach any real or meaningful agreements.
Also I said that nations are aware it goes on, in fact many governments and diplomats probably welcome spying, even on themselves, because it allows them to 'unofficially' get across their position in ways that it would be unacceptable for them to say in public@Lockean -
Remember this is an economic summit, the purpose is nothing sinister, it is to negotiate an agreement between 20 different nations on matters of mutual interest.
Exactly! So why are we spying on them then?
Now, that is a bloody difficult thing to achieve in a short timeframe - there are 20 different nations with divergent interests and many different issues to get agreement on. It really helps purely on an efficiency basis to know what the actual limits are to each government's negotiating position. By knowing this, you can then better frame an agreement that has a chance of being accepted by everyone.
You really just come across as a spokesman for GCHQ here. It's all about being practical and sensible, nevermind that you're invading their right to talk confidentially.
It is arguable that without espionage, or some form of 'behind the scenes' knowledge by all parties, that these types of summits would find it impossible to reach any real or meaningful agreements.
Well I would say that other people and countries have a certain right to be able to keep their final position to themselves, just like a car salesman wants to keep his final position to himself. It is not your place to say that they should just accept being spied on.
As corporations and top-level money launderers have more or less subverted Western democracies this is where we are.
Privatised services prioritise profits above the services they're supposed to provide. Wars are started by the influence of lobbyists. Intelligence agencies are the backbone of civilian government: there to neutralise expressions of discontent. A parallel society exists for the super-rich 1% - their own schools, hospials, private jets, secure living & leisure compounds, priority response from police. Widespread cheap adulterated drugs & crime gangs. Shite services and rapid persecution for minor crimes for the 99%
This is pretty much the response of the typical statist little sheep most people have become and the mainstream media
No, I've known this was going on since I was old enough to realize what government actually is. A coercive, evil entity intent on maintaining power for the elite,
This is not an attribute of government though, it is an attribute of power. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it, it occurs anywhere there is a power imbalance,
Trying to sound super intelligent by referring to others as statist-sheep doesn't become you,
@frostedw - Britain will never be trusted as honest broker nor a welcoming host again.
You're another one who doesn't seem to understand the difference between spying on foreign governments regarding foreign policy issues, and spying on delegates at an economic conference which is trying to sort out economic issues.
@frostedw - Why not? If it leads to economic advantage everyone in the UK could benefit.
Is there anything that is unethical in your world?
Why not? If it leads to economic advantage everyone in the UK could benefit.
"Economic advantage" to whom? To the pensioners, who have their benefits cut? To the students, who have to pay more for their education? To everybody else, who has to work more for less pay? Look around you and ask yourself whether you are among those benefiting from this economic espionage.
@RadicalLivre - You mentioned vague "economic benefits", but there's no evidence of economic benefits.
The Guardian seems to think so, given in their other article on this topic they state:
The aim – which appears to have been largely successful – was to improve the UK's negotiating positions on the economic matters under discussion.
We won't be seeing any more benefits after their expose.
The aim – which appears to have been largely successful – was to improve the UK's negotiating positions on the economic matters under discussion.
If you think that UK's negotiating positions have anything to do with economic benefits for people like you or me, then you are either hopelessly ignorant, or a paid astroturfer.
@ConkerGatsby - well the M stands for Military, but they are collecting economic/business information. It does demonstrate bad faith - like playing poker with marked cards.
Not exactly cricket is it?
I wonder if any individuals took personal advantage of these spying operations...
of course they do
Oh yes! What everyone knows to be true, but revealed for once. I, for one, can't wait for the politicians to squirm around this one. And they wonder why people have little respect for them. Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook
@ZeroZero2 - I suspect a certain R.Murdoch feels the same. After all he and his superlative news organisation were only using similar techniques for similar aims and look what the polies did to the poor man.
Key-logger software? so amateur.
@Leela Prasad - May well have been key-logger hardware - that way you get credentials and content even if the subject boots the computer into a secure OS.
One way to mitigate against this kind of attack would be for the secure OS to only use a virtual onscreen keyboard to login, with the positions of the keys changing randomly with each instance. This would be enough to work around key-logger credential capture, but wouldn't work against eg video hardware recording the display or sending it in real time to analysts.
Bottom line is, don't trust hardware that you don't control and don't trust networks that you don't control.
@Conundrum64 - From the editorial:
Documents leaked by Snowden show that foreign politicians and officials taking part in the G20 summit in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their phone calls intercepted by GCHQ, with some involvement from the NSA. The aim – which appears to have been largely successful – was to improve the UK's negotiating positions on the economic matters under discussion.
The techniques included setting up internet cafes where unsuspecting delegates' passwords were collected, enabling "sustained intelligence options against them even after the conference has finished". The G20 summit took place at a time of financial crisis. The participants were overwhelmingly Britain's friends. The bugging and snooping appears to have been carried out with high political authority under a 1994 legislative clause that sanctioned espionage on the grounds of "the economic wellbeing of the UK".
That's why it's eye-opening. On the eve of the G8, too.
@frostedw - That's because some of us have been around long enough to see this before...
Far more interesting for those of us remember, was the actions of right wing elements of both MI5 and the Tory party to 'remove' Harold Wilson..
Now a coup d'état, (even if in this case it was botched, and fell flat), is far more interesting than who, is reading whose e-mails...
So yes it is all a bit passé...
Especially as Peter Wright in 'Spycatcher' admitted bugging and burgling all over London years ago, including the talks on the move to majority rule in Rhodesia...
As for why I read the Guardian, it's wonderful to see bright young things like you and Circumbendibus , discovering what has been going on for years, and thinking it's all so new and exciting...
@Conundrum64 - As another nearly-annuated leftover, I also find it amusing to see you fellows tut-tutting the young 'uns for finding anything shocking.
The real and actual "Coup," long in progress, is the wealthy finding ever-more efficient ways to Have It All and leave us (and you!) with doodly-squat.
The world has only and ever changed for the better because people finally got tired of your brand of craven "wisdom." We are not perfect, but we can certainly do better.
Isn't that worth a smidgen of your effort? You and I won't be around long enough to have to live in the mess we're leaving to the future. Have a little respect for those who will.
As for why I read the Guardian, it's wonderful to see bright young things like you and Circumbendibus , discovering what has been going on for years, and thinking it's all so new and exciting...
Oh really, that's why you bother to read the Guardian? It's not just to make snide and cynical comments then?
Anyway, I would say three things:
Firstly, there is a massive difference in suspecting something than in actually having the evidence of it.
Secondly, there is a huge difference in the capabilities of the spy agencies these days compared to previous decades.
Thirdly, they were spying on an economic summit; what has that got to do with terrorism or other nations' foreign policy?
@KatieL - And that's end-to-end encryption with proper scrutiny of the certificates to avoid MITM attacks. This sort of stuff is available to enterprises - governments should be routinely using it (hardware, software and training).
I'd be very embarrassed if I was a delegate at an event like this whose email login had been sniffed by GCHQ.
It's interesting how this sort of thing is normally associated with Russia or China or Iran but never with countries like the United Kingdom.
It seems all you need to do to set up a strong state apparatus is throw the population the sop of some elections every 4-5 years and you can then create the illusion that you conform to a different set of morals from so-called rogue states.
Delightfully diabolical, devious and deceitful.
DIPLOMACY BY DECEPTION
Grand Larceny - United States Oil Policies Abroad
U.S. oil policies in foreign countries provides a consistent history of diplomacy by deception. In researching State Department documents for this book, I discovered numerous documents which openly pro claimed support for Standard Oil in Mexico and U.S. petroleum companies in the Middle East. It then became clear to me that the State Department was involved in a gigantic plot of diplomacy by deception in the foreign oil business.
A State Department directive dated Aug.16,1919 to all consuls and embassies in foreign countries urged massive spying and redoubling of foreign service personnel to assist the major American oil companies, an extract of which follows:
"Gentlemen: The vital importance of securing adequate supplies of mineral oil both for present and future needs of the United States has been forcibly brought to the attention of the Department The development of proven fields and exploration of new areas is being aggressively conducted in many parts of the world by nationals of various countries and concessions for mineral rights are being actively sought It is desired to have the most complete and recent information regarding such activities by either United States citizens or by others.
"You are accordingly instructed to obtain and forward promptly from time to time information regarding mineral oil concession, change of ownership of oil property, or important changes in ownership, or control of corporate companies concerned with oil production or distribution.
"Information regarding development of new fields or increased output of producing areas should also be forwarded. Comprehensive data are desired and reports should not be limited to points specifically mentioned above, but should include information regarding all matters of interest affecting the mineral oil industry which may arise from time to time..."
This directive was issued following a long and bitter fight with the Mexican government As we shall see in the account that follows, A.C. Bedford, chairman of Standard Oil, had demanded that the U.S. government come into the picture:
"All proper diplomatic support in obtaining and operating oil producing property abroad should be backed by the government."
The Federal Trade Commission promptly recommended "diplomatic support" of such oil ventures abroad.
Charles Evans Hughes also testified before the Coolidge Federal Oil Conservation Board, insisting that State Department and oil company policies be synonymous:
"The foreign policy of the government, expressed in the phrase 'Open Door', consistently prosecuted by the Department of State, has made it possible for our American interests abroad to be intelligently fostered and the needs of our people, to no slight extent, to be appropriately safeguarded."
This really meant that a merging of government and private oil interests was necessary. It was not by accident that Evans just happened to be counsel of the American Petroleum Institute and Standard Oil.
A Case History: Exploitation of Mexican Oil
The history of exploitation of Mexican oil also serves as an example of how diplomacy by deception attains its desired ends. The conquest of Mexico's main natural resource-its oil -remains an ugly, open blot in the pages of American history.
Oil was discovered in Mexico by British construction magnate, Weetman Pearson, whose company was part of the global network of Committee of 300 companies. Pearson was not in the oil business but was backed by the British oil companies, particularly the Royal Dutch Shell Company. He soon became the leading producer in Mexico.
Mexican President Porfirio Diaz officially gave Pearson sole rights to prospect for oil, after he had already given the "sole right" to Edward Dahoney of Standard oil, who was known as "the czar of Mexican oil." As we shall see, Diaz fought for the interests of his elitist backers. He was also firmly under the influence of Dahoney and President Warren Harding.
One must go back to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, in terms of which Mexico ceded Upper California, New Mexico and northern Sonora, Coahuila and Tampaulis to the United States for $15 million. Texas had been annexed by the United States in 1845. One of the main reasons for annexing Texas was that geologists knew of the vast oil fields that lay beneath its lands.
In 1876, Diaz overthrew Leordo de Tejada, and on May 2,1877, was declared president of Mexico. He remained in office until 1911, except for four years (1880-1884.) Diaz stabilized finances, undertook industrial projects, built railways and increased commerce during his dictatorial rule while remaining true to those who put him in power. Mexico's "royalty" was closely linked to the royalty of Britain and Europe.
It was the promulgation of a new mining code on Nov. 22,1884, that opened the door for Pearson to get into the oil business. Contrary to the old Spanish law, the new law provided that a title to land carried ownership of subsoil products. It also permitted the communal lands belonging to the Indians and mestizos to pass into the hands of the 1.5 million "upper class" of Mexico. It was against this background that Diaz started giving concessions to foreign investors.
The first to receive a concession was Dahoney, the close associate Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall and President Harding, to whom Dahony had donated large amounts of campaign money. In Harding's cabinet were no less than four oilmen, notably Fall. In 1900, Dahoney bought280,000 acres of Hacienda del Tulillo for $325,000. By "rewarding" President Diaz, Dahoney was literally able to steal land, or buy it at ridiculously low prices.
After four years of operations, Dahoney was producing most of the 220,000 barrels of oil coining out of Mexico. Thinking he was well established, Dahoney, on instructions from the United States government declined to increase "reward" payments to President Diaz, although the Potrero and Cero Azul fields were producing in excess of $1 million a week. This was rather typical of the selfish greed of John D., a streak that ran through the entire Rockefeller brood. At this point, Diaz, upset with Dahoney, gave Pearson a "sole concession." By 1910, Pearson's Mexican Eagle Company had acquired 58 percent of the total Mexican production.
In response, Rockefeller ordered Pearson's wells dynamited and his workers fired upon by peasants his money had armed for the purpose. Large bands of brigands were armed and trained to smash Mexican Eagle pipelines and oil installations. All of the dirty tricks taught by William "Doc" Avery Rockefeller, surfaced in John D. Rockefeller's war on Pearson.
But Pearson proved to be more than a match for Rockefeller, fighting back with similar tactics. Calculating that there was not enough oil in Mexico to continue fighting over (a grave error as it turned out), Rockefeller backed off and left the field to Pearson. Later, John D. regretted his decision to pull out of the struggle and pledged Standard's resources to create bloody chaos in Mexico. In this country we called the unrest "Mexican revolutions" which no one understood.
In recognition of his services to British oil interests, Pearson was granted the title of "Lord Cowdray," and was henceforth known by that title. He was also made a permanent member of the Committee of 300. Lord Cowdray was on good terms with President Wilson, but behind the scenes, John D. was working to undermine the relationship and get back into the business of exploiting Mexico's oil. Lord Cowdray, however, was determined to keep the bulk of Mexican oil profits in the coffers of the British government
Oil diplomacy in London and Washington differ little in aggression. Motives and methods have remained remarkably unchanged. After all, international power remains, above all, economic. On Jan. 21, 1928, Rear Admiral Charles Plunkett, commander of the Brooklyn Navy Yard, let the cat out of the bag, defending President Calvin Coolidge's $800 million navy program when he said:
"The penalty for commercial and industrial efficiency inevitably is war."
This was in reference to the great demand for oil for oil-fired navy ship. Plunkett had his eye on Mexico's oil.
Logically, the nation that is in control of raw material assets of the world, rules it When Britain had a large navy which it needed to guard its world trade, diplomacy by deception was the key to British operations in oil-producing countries. America learned fast especially after the advent of the Dulles Illuminati family, as we shall see.
Let us return to Mexico, where, in 1911, Diaz was ousted by Francisco Madero, and uncover the role played by Standard Oil in that endeavor. Gen. Victoriano Huerto alarmed British oil interests by declaring his intention to regain control of Mexico's oil, and the British asked Lord Cowdray (who by that time had sold his Mexican operation to Shell) to get President Wilson to help them unseat Huerta.
This was a fine piece of diplomacy by deception, because the British knew that Standard Oil was behind the 1911 Madero revolution that downed President Diaz. It was a revolution Standard oil thought was necessary to stop British rape of "their" Mexican oil. Francisco Madero, who became president of Mexico on Nov. 6,1911, had little understanding of the forces who were pulling his strings, and played the political game, not realizing that politics is based solely on economics. But Huerta, who replaced him, knew how the game was played.
Standard Oil was very much involved in the downfall of Porfirio Diaz. Testimony given by a number of witnesses at the 1913 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, implicated Dahoney and Standard Oil for financing the 1911 Madero revolution.
One witness, Lawrence E. Converse, told the committee members a lot more than Standard wished them to hear:
"Mr. Madero told me that as soon as the rebels (Madero's forces) made a good showing of strength, several leading bankers in El Paso (Texas) stood ready to advance him. I believe the sum was $100,000, and that Standard Oil interests had bought over the provisional government of Mexico... They (Gov. Gonzalez and Secretary of State Hernandez) said Standard Oil interests were backing Madero in his revolution..."
The Wilson government, anxious to curb Cowdray's concessions, established diplomatic relations with the Madero government, order ing an arms embargo against any counter-revolutionists. Cowdray was cast in the role of villain by Col. House, (Woodrow Wilson's controller) when Francisco Huerta overthrew Madero.
"We do not love him (Cowdray), for we think that between him and Carden (Sir Lionel Carden, British Minister to Mexico), are large part of our troubles are made," said House.
Col. House correctly charged that Huerta was brought to power by the British so that Standard's concessions could be crimped by expanding Lord Cowdray's oil exploitation. President Wilson refused to recog nize the Huerta government, although Britain and the other major powers did so. Wilson said:
"we can have no sympathy with those who seek to seize the power of government to advance their own personal interests or ambitions."
A Committee of 300 spokesman told President Wilson "you talk just like a Standard Oilman." The question was posed,
"...what does the oil or commerce of Mexico amount to, in comparison with the close friendship between the United States and Great Britain? The two countries should agree on this primary principle - to leave their oil interest to fight their own battles, legal and financial."
Those close to President Wilson said he was visibly shaken by British intelligence MI6 having uncovered his direct links with Standard's Mexican enterprises, which was starting to tarnish his Democratic president image. House warned him that the example set by Huerto in defying American power might be felt all across Latin America if the United States (read Standard Oil), did not assert itself. Here was a fine conundrum for a "Liberal Democrat" to confront.
Secretary of the Interior Fall urged the U.S. Senate to send American military forces into Mexico to "protect American lives and property." This rationale was also used by President Bush to send American troops to Saudi Arabia to "protect the lives and property" of British Petroleum and its employees, not to mention his own family's business, Zapata Oil Company. Zapata was one of the first American oil companies to become friendly with the Al Sabahs of Kuwait.
In 1913, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee convened hearings on what it called "Revolutions in Mexico." The American public, then as now, had no idea what was going on, and were led by the newspapers to believe that a whole lot of "crazy Mexicans were running around shooting at each other."
Mr. Dahoney, appearing as an expert witness was quite lyrical in his veiled request that the Washington government use force to restrain Huerta. He said:
"...it seems to me that the United States must avail itself of the enterprise and ability and the pioneer spirit of its citizens to acquire and to have and to hold a reasonable portion of the world's petroleum supplies. If it does not, it will find that supplies of petroleum not within the boundaries of the United States territory will be rapidly acquired by citizens and governments of other nations..."
Seems like we have heard a similar quote in more recent times, where "madman" Saddam Hussein was supposed to be a threat the world's oil supplies. Secretary Fall added to his appeals in the Senate for armed intrusion into Mexico:
"...and lend their assistance (i.e. U.S. military forces) to the restoration of order and maintenance of peace in that unhappy country and the placing of administrative functions in the hands of capable and patriotic citizens of Mexico."
The resemblance between the deception perpetrated against the Senate and the people of the United States by Dahoney of Standard Oil and Secretary Fall bears an eerie resemblance to the rhetoric of Bush prior to and during his illegal war against Iraq. Bush said it was necessary for American soldiers to "return democracy to Kuwait".
Once America succeeded in reclaiming Kuwait for British Petroleum (an example of the special friendship between The United States and Britain talked about by the Committee of 300 messenger during his visit to President Wilson), Bush turned his attention to "the sad and unhappy country of Iraq."
Like Wilson, who believed that "tyrant Huerta" had to be removed and Mexico restored to "order and maintenance of peace in that unhappy country by placing the administrative functions in the hands of capable and patriotic citizens of Mexico," Bush, using a similar form of diplomacy by deception said that America has got to get rid of the "tyrant Saaaddam." (Misspelling intentional.)
American were soon convinced that President Hussein was the cause of all of Iraq's problems which is what Colonel House through Wilson told the American people about President Huerta of Mexico. In both cases, the common denominator is diplomacy by deception, in Mexico and Iraq is oil and greed. Today, Council on Foreign Relations Secretary of State Warren Christopher, has replaced Dahoney, Fall and Bush, and is perpetuating the pretence that Hussein must be brought down to save the people of Iraq.
Christopher is merely continuing to use falsehoods in order to cover the Committee of 300's goal for total seizure of Iraq's oilfields. It is no different than Wilson's policy toward Huerta.
While in 1912, Wilson presented the "Huerta menace" as a danger to the Panama Canal, Bush presented Hussein as a threat to U.S. oil supplies out of Saudi Arabia. In neither case was this the truth: Wilson lied about the "threat" to the Panama Canal, and Bush lied about a "pending invasion" of Saudi Arabia by the Iraqi military. In both cases, there was no such threat Wilson's verbal assault on Heurta was made public in an address to the Inter-Allied Petroleum Council.
In a speech prepared for him by Col. House, Wilson told Congress that,
"The present situation in Mexico is incompatible with the fulfillment of international obligations on the part of Mexico, with the civilized development of Mexico herself, and with the maintenance of tolerable political and economic conditions in Central America," Wilson said.
"Mexico lies at last where all the world looks on. Central America is about to be touched by great routes of the world's trade and intercourse running from Ocean to Ocean at the Isthmus..."
In effect Wilson was announcing that, henceforth, the politics of American petroleum companies would become the policies of the United States of America.
President Wilson was completely in the grip of Wall Street and Standard Oil. Notwithstanding the fact that on May 1, 1911, the Supreme Court had ordered an anti-trust action against Standard Oil, he instructed U.S. consuls in Central America and Mexico to,
"convey to the authorities an intimation that any maltreatment of Americans is likely to raise the question of intervention."
The quote is taken from a long State Department document, and from hearings held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1913.
Following up on this message, Wilson instructed Secretary of State William Bryan to make it plain that he desired an early removal of President Huerta:
"It is the clear judgment that it is the immediate duty of Huerta to retire from the Mexican government, and that the United States government must now proceed to employ such means as may be necessary to secure this result"
In the best style of an imperialist designed United States, Wilson followed up with yet another broadside at President Huerta on Nov. 12,1912:
"Huerta has to be cut off from foreign sympathy and aid and from domestic credit, whether moral or material, and to force him out If General Huerta does not retire by force of circumstances, it will become the duty of the United States to use less peaceful means to put him out" Wilson's belligerent statement is all the more shocking when we consider that it followed a peaceful election in which
President Huerta was returned to office.
One wonders why if that was the case concerning Panama, John D's heir, David Rockefeller, fought so hard to give the Canal at Panama away to Colonel Torrijos, but that is the subject of another chapter under the heading of Panama and the fraudulent Carter-Torrijos treaty.
One should not be amazed that at the time the American people accepted Wilson's belligerent attack on Mexico, thinly disguised as "patriotic" and in the best interests of the United States. After all, didn't the bulk of the population, and I believe it was 87 percent of Americans, fully support Bush in his attack on Iraq, and aren't we guilty of allowing to stand, the inhuman and totally unjustified embargo against Iraq?
We ought not to be amazed at the similarity of Wilson and Bush rhetoric, for both were controlled by our upper-level, parallel secret government, even as Clinton is controlled from Chatham House in London, through the person of Mrs. Pamela Harriman. No wonder then that Warren Christopher is continuing the big lie against Iraq. Oil and greed is the driving factor in 1993, even as it was in 1912. The charges I make here against Wilson are well documented by author Anton Mohr in his book "The Oil War."
It was America that hurt Mexico the most in 1912, plunging it into a civil war falsely labeled as "revolution", even as we are the nation that hurt Iraq the most in 1991, and continue to do so, in defiance of our Constitution, which those in Congress who swore an oath to uphold, have lamentably and miserably failed to do.
Secretary Bryan, told European powers who did not like what they saw happening in Mexico, that,
"there is a more hopeful prospect of peace, of security of property and early payment of foreign obligations if Mexico is left to the forces now reckoning with one another there."
This was classic diplomacy by deception. What Bryan did not tell the Europeans was that, far from leaving Mexico "to the forces now reckoning with one another there," Wilson had already begun to isolate Huerta using a financial and armament embargo. At the same time, he armed and financially supported the forces controlled by Venustiano Carranza and Francisco Villa, and urged them to over throw Gen. Huerta.
On April 9,1914, a stage-managed crisis was arranged in Tampico by the U.S. Consul which resulted in the arrest of a group of American Marines. The United States government demanded an apology, and, when it was not forthcoming, broke contact with the Huerta government. By April 21, the incident had been blown out of all proportion, to the point that U.S. troops received their orders to march on Vera Cruz.
By capitalizing on the Tampico incident, Wilson was able to justify ordering American naval forces into Vera Cruz. An offer by Huerta to submit the Vera Cruz affair to the Hague Court was refused by Wilson. Like his successor, Bush, in the case of President Hussein, Wilson did not let anything stand in the way of ending the rule of Gen. Huerta. In this, Wilson was ably assisted by Dahoney of Standard Oil, who advised Wilson and Bryan that he had given the rebel Carranza $100,000 in cash and $685,000 in fuel credits.
By mid-1914, Mexico was reduced to utter chaos by President Wilson's interference in its affairs. On July 5, Huerta was elected president by popular vote but resigned on July 11, when it became apparent that Wilson would foment trouble as long as he held the reins of Mexico's government.
A month later, Gen. Obregon gained control of Mexico City and installed Carranza as president. But in the north, Francisco Villa became a dictator. Villa opposed Carranza, but the United States recognized Carranza anyway. By now, Latin American countries feared U.S. intervention, which was heightened by fighting between Villa's troops and U.S. forces at Carrizal.
As a result of the clamor raised in Latin America, and especially heeding the feedback from his consultants on Latin America, Wilson ordered U.S. forces withdrawn from Mexico on Feb. 5,1917. Carranza disappointed his American backers in that he did nothing to help their cause. Rather, he tried to justify the 1911 revolution, which he said was necessary to preserve Mexico's integrity. This was not what the American oil companies had ordered him to say.
By January of 1917, the new Mexican Constitution was ready, and it came as a shock for Standard Oil and Cowdray's companies. Carranza was elected for four years. The new constitution which, in effect declared oil an inalienable natural resource of the Mexican people, took effect on Feb. 19,1918 and a new tax was also levied on oil lands and contracts made before May 1,1917.
This additional tax, covered by Article 27 of the document said the United States was "confiscatory" and in essence urged American companies in Mexico not to pay taxes. The Carranza government told Washington that taxation was a matter for "the sovereign state of Mexico." Try as it did, the U.S. State Department was unable to budge Carranza from his position that Mexican oil belonged to Mexico and, while foreigners could still invest in it they could only do so at a price - taxation. The oil companies woke up to find that Carranza had turned the tables on them.
At this point, Cowdray went to the American president with a request "to face the common enemy (nationalization) together." Carranza was now persona non grata and Cowdray tried to sell his shares because he saw more confusion coming as the three leading Mexican generals vied for power. Cowdray's offer to sell was taken up by the Royal Dutch Shell Company. Although the conditions were uncertain, Cowdray made a handsome profit from the sale of his shares.
After much fighting, in which Carranza was killed and Villa assassinated, Gen. Obregon was elected president on Sept 5,1923. On Dec. 26, Huerta led a revolt against Obregon but was defeated. Obregon was supported by Washington on the condition that he restrict application of the constitution found so objectionable by foreign oil companies. Instead, Obregon slapped a 60 percent tax on oil exports. The U.S. government and the oil companies were angered by what
For nearly five years, Washington kept up its attack on the Mexican Constitution, while hiding its real motivations. By 1927, Mexico was in civil uproar and its treasury almost empty. The Mexican government was forced to capitulate.
There is no better description of what the Mexicans felt about being plundered of the editorial in "El Universal" of Mexico City, Oct. 1927:
"American imperialism is a fatal product of economic evolution. It is useless to try and persuade our northern neighbor not to be imperialistic; they cannot help being so, no matter how excellent their intentions. Let us study the natural laws of economic imperialism, in the hope that some method may be found, by which instead of blindly opposing them, we mitigate their action and turn it to our advantage."
What followed was a complete and utter retreat from the Mexican Constitution by President Plutarco Calles. The retreat was continued by successive Mexican governments. Mexico paid for the rapprochement, retreating from the principles for which she had fought for in 1911 and 1917. On July 1,1928, Gen. Obregon was reelected president but was assassinated 16 days later. Foreign oil companies were accused of the crime and of keeping Mexico in a state of flux.
The U.S. government was acting in an alliance with Standard Oil and Lord Cowdray to force the Mexican government to roll back the Feb. 19,1918 decree which declared oil an inalienable natural resource of the Mexican people. On July 2, 1934, Gen. Lazaro Cardenas was chosen by Calles to be his successor. Cardenas then turned on Calles, calling him "too conservative," and, under pressure from British and American oil interests, had Calles arrested when he returned from the
U.S. in 1936. State Department documents leave no doubt about the hand of the U.S. government in these events.
Cardenas showed sympathy for the American and British oil companies, but was vigorously opposed by Vincente Lombardo Toledano, leader of the Confederation of Mexican Workers. Cardenas was forced to bow to demands from this group, and on Nov. 23, 1936, a new expropriation law empowered the government to seize property, especially oil lands. This was the reverse of what the U.S. government and oil companies were expecting, and panicked the oil companies.
By 1936, there were 17 foreign companies busily engaged in pumping the oil that rightfully belonged to Mexico. The situation was some thing akin to South Africa, where, ever since the Anglo Boer War (1899-1902), the Oppenheimer family of the Committee of 300 drained South Africa of its gold and diamonds, shipping them to London and Zurich, while the South African people got little benefit. The Anglo-Boer War was the first open demonstration of the might and the power of the Committee of 300.
Both with "black gold" and "yellow gold," the national resources of Mexico and South Africa, which really belong to the people, were plundered. This was accomplished under cover of diplomacy by deception, which fell apart only when national leaders of strength emerged, such as Daniel Malan, of South Africa and Lazaro Cardenas, of Mexico.
But unlike Malan, who was unable to hold back the robbing conspirators by nationalizing the gold mines, Cardenas promulgated a decree on Nov. 1,1936, in which the subsoil rights of Standard Oil and other companies was declared nationalized. The net effect of the decree deprived the oil companies of operating in Mexico and repatriating their profits to the United States. For years, Mexican oil workers had lived on the edge of poverty while Rockefeller and Cowdray added to their bloated profit coffers. Cowdray became one of the richest men in England; Americans know all to well the magnitude of the Rockefeller empire.
The blood of thousands of Mexicans had needlessly been shed because of the greed of Standard Oil, Eagle, Shell, et al. Revolutions were deliberately caused by the manipulators in the United States, always backed by the appropriate U.S. government officials. While Cowdray lived in absolute luxury and frequented the best clubs in London, Mexican oil workers were worse off than the slaves of the Pharaohs, living in squalor and huddled together in misery in shanty towns that beggared description.
On Mar.18,1938, the Cardenas government nationalized the properties of American and British oil companies. Diplomacy by deception then took a back seat to the iron fist The United States retaliated by halting the purchase of silver from Mexico. The British government broke off diplomatic relations. Secretly, Standard Oil and the British oil companies funded General Saturnino Cedillo, urging him to revolt against Cardenas. However, a massive show of support for Cardenas by the populace, ended the attempted revolt within weeks.
The United States and Britain soon instituted a boycott of Mexican oil, which devastated the national oil company known as PEMEX. Cardenas then arranged for barter agreements with Germany and Italy. Such deceitful conduct by both governments - which most people considered to be pillars of Western civilization -continued still when the Communists tried to gain control of Spain and the Mexican government attempted to break the oil boycott by sending oil to Gen. Franco's government.
In the Franco-Communist War, known as the "Spanish Civil War," Roosevelt backed the Communist side, and allowed them to recruit men and munitions in the United States. Washington adopted an official policy of "neutrality," but this piece of deception was ill concealed, t stop the Bolsheviks from recruiting in the United States, or from obtaining munitions and financing from Wall Street Texaco did not act out of sympathy for Franco or Mexico: its motive was profit This demonstrates what happens when a Fabian Socialist such as Roosevelt, directs a country that is opposed to socialism.
It was not until 1946 that a semblance of good order came to Mexico with the election of President Miguel Aleman, On Sept. 30,1947, the Mexican government made a final settlement of all American and British expropriation claims. This cost the Mexican people dearly and still left control of the oil de facto in the hands of American and British oil companies. Thus, the 1936 expropriation decree signed by Cardenas was only partially successful.
In 1966, when several writers exposed the greed and corruption of Lord Cowdray, he hired Desmond Young to write a book whitewashing and playing down his involvement with Diaz and Huerta. In 1970, President Richard Nixon, at the behest of the Council on Foreign Relations, signed an agreement with President Diaz Ordaz which called for peaceful settlement of future border and other (meaning oil) disputes.
This agreement still holds good today, and, while the methods of plundering Mexican oil have changed, the intent and motivation has not There is a common misconception over Nixon's agreement, namely, that it represented a change in Washington policy. It was meant to convey the impression that we now recognize Mexico's right to its natural resources. This is a repeat of the period when Morrow negotiated a settlement with Calles-Obregon in what the people of America were told was a "large concession by the United States," when in fact, it was hardly any concession at all as far as Washington was concerned.
Such is diplomacy by deception.
Oscar L. Vazquez
Very, very good book As an avid history reader, the information that Dr. Coleman exposed in this book explained the unexplainable about historical facts, the manipulation of the situations and the secret purposes behind the reality. I really like Chapter VIII. "Panama: the naked truth." and the logic behind the invasion. It is a very hard book to understand for those who are...
Give me Documentation
This book has much information helpful to those following government intrusion into world affairs. The history book MI6, can verify some, but I found this book lacking in documentation. The author has source notes, but most of his statements can't be used due to the poor documentation. I am hesitant to qoute statements he makes in the book. His Index is also poor...
Cwn_Annwn (Copenhagen, Denmark)
Overall good but has its flaws, February 23, 2008
Coleman starts this one off by going into how the United States funding and donating troops for the U.N is completely unconstitutional and a violation of various other laws that are on the books. He also exposes the sneaky actions of the world elites in the forming of the Unites Nations. He then shows how various CIA/MI6 covert operations had a hand in the overthrow of various governments. You also get good stuff on the multitudes of holes in the "official" story of the Martin Luther King assassination.
Overall this is a good political/conspiracy book but Coleman really mangles his chapter on the Balkan/Serbian conflict in the 90s. I honestly don't think he got anything right in that chapter. He likes to quote his anonymous "sources" in the intelligence community and I don't doubt that he has them but whose to say that they aren't intentionally feeding him disinformation? Coleman gets most of what makes it into this book correct I think but he also comes up with stuff that is hard for me to swallow and I would consider some of it disinfo. He needs to do more to back up some of his claims besides quoting anonymous "sources". Most of whats in Diplomacy by Deception can be verified and have been written about in depth by left wing academic types though. This, like most books that I read, is one that I'd recomend reading if you can borrow it, check it out from the library or buy it super cheap at a used book store. Colemans books tend to get close to warranting 5 stars book but he always seems to miss the mark just a little so I can't recomend dropping the $15-30 that most books will run you these days on it
Was Milosevic a MI6 agent?, March 3, 2006
Dear Dr. Coleman, I was really surprised reading on page 199 of this book that "the constitutional crisis arose at the instigation of MI6 on may 15, 1991, with Milosevic, his MI6 trained Bolsheviks [...]" Does it exist any kind of proof or evidence about it? Dr. Coleman, readers of this book, can you prove it? (see chapter IX, Yugoslavia in Focus) Whitout evidence it is worth nothing...unfortunately... I am ready to rate this book 5 stars if someone is able to prove it.
Paul LaCross Simonton (Lynnwood, Washington United States)
Dr. John Coleman's best, April 29, 2002
Every chapter in Diplomacy by Deception is a new subject. I am just guessing, but, it appears to me that Dr. Coleman took a selection of monographs he wrote, and, made them into a book.
Jeffrey Leach (Omaha, NE USA)
Yuck!, August 5, 2001
I went back through each of my reviews to ascertain whether I ever gave a book or film one star. I haven't, until now. I like to read books on radical politics, conspiracy theories and other unusual stuff. However, nothing could prepare me for this car wreck of a book. This book reeks, and it reeks to high heaven. I will say that if John Coleman actually holds a Ph.D. (he goes by "Dr." John Coleman), I should be a shoo-in at Harvard or Yale when I begin applying for admission to graduate school.
Where should I start in criticizing this debacle? How about Coleman's grammar? This book is so loaded with every kind of grammatical error that it is hard to even understand what points the author is trying to convey. Misplaced commas, misspelled words, confusing sentences, and a total lack of organization are staples here. In one chapter, for instance, Coleman inserts a fairly lengthy section about the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. While this might not be a problem if done correctly, why isn't this put in his later chapter about assassinations? One sentence that sticks out in my mind, and which is indicative of the whole book, is one in which the word "livers" is substituted for "lives." Horrible, absolutely horrible. If someone actually edited this book, they should be executed.
Coleman tries to make plenty of connections to another book he wrote about the so-called "Committee of 300", a secret cabal of power brokers who are trying to bring about a world-socialist system in which they rule over a world of slaves. That is one of the big problems in this book. Coleman drops information into the text that leaves the reader scratching his head in wonder. This "Committee" is never explained or elaborated on in any way. Apparently they consist of British and American officials, with the Brits coming under especially stern criticism. MI5 and MI6 are made out to be nothing short of the spawn of Satan, and the CIA is also taken to task. Coleman also homes in on the oil industry, blaming them for the revolutions in Mexico, the Middle East crisis, and the subversion of governments worldwide.
I just realized I could write more, but I don't want to think about this book any longer. I'll use it to help light logs in my fireplace this winter. It's a shame, because some of Coleman's ideas do have merit. We all know that the oil industry has had dirty hands for years, and anyone who thinks the Gulf War had nothing to do with oil is living in fairyland. This book can actually cause blindness and a precipitous drop in IQ. Avoid!
dan friedman (ridge, ny USA)
Ties the ribbon on the conspiracy bow., July 20, 2000
I have been reading directly and indirectly about the conspiracy for at least ten years. This book finally places people and events together. It tells how the conspiracy worked and is working. It is truly horrible to think that so many people died because a few wanted it that way. The future looks even worse, if that is possible.
, March 6, 2012There is a terrible rule of war. Whatever new weapon that you introduce onto the battlefield, your adversary will eventually acquire it as well. Indeed, they will often use an industrial-strength version of that very same weapon against you.
Hiram Maxim invented the modern machine gun – automated and oil-cooled – but the British army dismissed the invention. Not so the Germans, who used it with deadly accuracy against the British in World War I. The French, meanwhile, were the first to use modern chemical warfare in 1915 by deploying tear gas against the Germans with little effect. The Germans quickly improved on the innovation by developing chlorine gas, and later mustard gas, with devastating effect. And, of course, Americans invented nuclear weapons and then spent the next half-century trying to forestall their use by others.
The perfect weapon, however, has no odor and makes no sound. It has no half-life. It doesn't require huge factories and production lines. There are no truly effective defenses.
The perfect weapon, of course, is ideology. And the United States, in the nuclear age, believed that it had created just such a perfect weapon. Washington would export the American version of liberal democracy and refashion the world in its own image. In so doing, America would make the world safe not so much for democracy, but for Americans.
But a funny thing happened on the way to hegemony. The very ideology that the United States assumed would defeat all comers has in fact been turned against the United States. Liberal democracy contains within it the very seeds of the American empire's destruction. Call it blowback, TINA-style.
But before tackling the paradox of There Is No Alternative (TINA), let's first look at how liberal democracy was supposed to work.
The first component of America's ideology of export is the market. According to the late 17th-century theory of le doux commerce, sweet commerce, trade smoothes the rough edges of human interaction. "There was much talk, from the late seventeenth century on, about the douceur of commerce," writes theorist Albert O. Hirschman. "Sweetness, softness, calm, and gentleness [are] the antonym of violence." Countries that trade together, in other words, are less likely to attack each other.
In the Cold War era, the United States promoted this approach, for instance, by supporting the creation of the European Union, a collection of previously antagonistic countries that turned toward building a cooperative trade organization. Washington might have "wars" with its allies during this period – with Japan, for instance – but these were only trade wars. As the Cold War faded, the World Trade Organization represented the triumph of sweet commerce as China and Russia entered a new international community dedicated to reducing trade barriers. As Francis Fukuyama argued, the great passions that prompted armed struggle and tremendous acts of heroism had been transmuted into the considerably less martial interests of the marketplace. The existential threat of Soviet communism was no more. Not only was capitalism triumphant but it had established a measure of security for the United States. No one would attack the country of the Treasury bond, Morgan Stanley, Apple Computer, and America's Got Talent. No one would see red when there was serious green to be had.
The yin to the market's yang has been, of course, democracy. The corollary to le doux commerce is that cornerstone of modern political theory: democracies don't go to war with one another. According to this theory, democracies are more likely to compromise with one another; democracies inherently respect other democracies; and democratic leaders fear losing elections if they lose wars. During the Cold War, the United States gathered around itself a league of democracies to counter the influence of communism. And when democracies produced leaders that were skeptical of American intentions – Mossadegh in Iran, Allende in Chile – we didn't go to war with those countries. We simply engaged in the more cost-effective techniques of subterfuge and subversion to install more malleable leaders.
The Cold War necessitated alliances with some bad apples, Washington realists contended. But the end of the Cold War unleashed a new wave of democracy – in the former Soviet bloc, in South Africa, throughout Latin America, and most recently in the Middle East. The autocratic rogues that Washington once needed –Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi – were no more (though a few, like Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, continue to cling to power). The expanded arsenal of democracy provided another layer of security for the United States. Democrats might get testy with one another, they might bristle at leaders like George W. Bush, but they would never dream of using arms against the United States.
The combination of the market and democracy became the political economy equivalent of peanut butter and jelly: the default combo of simple comfort food for the leaders of the Free World. Margaret Thatcher coined the phrase TINA because she was convinced that the demise of the Soviet Union meant that she and Ronald Reagan had solved all of human history's thorny questions. Market democracies would prevail forever after. A decade later, here in America, the crowd around George W. Bush modified the TINA principle so that it would be our version of market democracy – without the peculiar deformations of capitalism and electoral politics practiced in quasi-socialist Europe – that would occupy the top spot in political economy's greatest hits.
In the same way that the dollar's status as the global currency sustains U.S. economic supremacy, the victory of the U.S. version of market democracy would sustain U.S. geopolitical hegemony.
It hasn't quite worked out this way, however. The United States currently faces the challenge of the "rise of the rest." Countries like China have used market forces to challenge the economic advantages of the United States. And the Arab Spring has demonstrated once again that democracy can easily produce nationalist or religiously inspired parties that steer their countries away from U.S. influence.
Let's begin with China. The once-communist country has ruthlessly used its comparative advantage – cheap labor – to attract an incredible amount of U.S. manufacturing, including the firms that originally relocated across the border in Mexico. The United States could have "broken the rules" and passed laws that would have made outsourcing very difficult. But U.S. corporations were more interested in profit than in helping maintain U.S. geopolitical hegemony. They don't call them "transnational" for nothing. Washington's adherence to laissez-faire capitalism has come back to haunt it. Unfettered markets unleash the forces of "creative destruction." And the United States is currently the epicenter of this tornado, with the 99 percent bearing the brunt of the gale-force winds.
Once China democratizes, so the argument goes, it will gradually come into line with internationally established economic practices. Independent labor unions will drive up wages. The government will respect intellectual property rights. The exchange rate will float into place. This might be true. But by the time these trends materialize, China will have already become the world's largest economy and the United States will already be shrinking in its rear-view mirror.
The spread of democracy worldwide promises a similar blowback, which is why Washington realists fear the spread of popular uprisings against the remaining authoritarian allies of the United States in Bahrain, Yemen, and elsewhere. U.S. post-Cold War anxiety about the geopolitical implications of democracy began in Algeria where, in local elections in 1990, an Islamic party won 62 percent of the vote. In the national elections the following year, the new party Front Islamique du Salut won more seats than any other. The Algerian government took a dim view of this democratic development, however. With French support, it banned the new party, threw its leaders in jail, and sent thousands of activists to detention camps in the Sahara desert. A civil war ensued that left more than 100,000 dead.
"The overturning of an election followed by gross human rights abuses would ordinarily have elicited a strong condemnation from Washington," I write in my new book, Crusade 2.0.
"Instead, the United States acquiesced to the changes, just as it did a couple years earlier when the Turkish military's 'soft coup' of 1997 removed an Islamist prime minister. To avoid charges of anti-Islamic bias, U.S. officials couched their 'Islamist exception' in universalist terms. The U.S. government opposed what it called 'one person, one vote, one time.' In common parlance, this translated into a fear that Islamist parties would use democratic means to rise to power and then kick away the democratic ladder beneath them."
Washington once feared that communists would rise to power through democratic means – in Italy, Congo, Guatemala. After the end of the Cold War, Islamists quickly substituted for communists with the Algerian scenario now being replayed today throughout the Middle East. Islamist parties have won majorities in Tunisia and Egypt, as elections have provided an opportunity for these long-suppressed movements to appeal directly to the people. A similar future beckons for Libya and, possibly, Syria as well.
Elections have invariably produced leaders, whether Islamist or nationalist or socialist, who have questioned their country's alliance with the United States. The shift may not be immediate. Yukio Hatoyama in Japan, for instance, lasted less than a year before Washington exerted sufficient pressure to quash him. The Justice and Development Party in Turkey was skeptical about the U.S. war in Iraq and has broken relations with Israel, but it remains a NATO member. Lula in Brazil ultimately presided over a generally amicable relationship with Washington. Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood is not going to suddenly reverse all the agreements made under Hosni Mubarak. But in all these countries, the governments have been hedging their bets, cultivating closer ties with China or Russia or Iran. And the United States cannot take for granted any military basing agreement, from Bahrain to Okinawa.
Elections in America's rivals will not necessarily produce liberals. The recent re-coronation of Vladimir Putin in Russia, even acknowledging the widespread voting regularities, testifies to the popularity of the "iron fist," particularly outside the Moscow-Petersburg intelligentsia. The prevailing ideology in China, meanwhile, is remarkably similar. The Chinese people, if elections were held today, would not elect prominent dissidents or human rights lawyers. They would likely elect candidates as nationalist or more so than the Communist Party officials currently in charge. "A more democratic China would be less able to restrain public tendencies toward a kind of aggrieved nationalism," writes Richard Bernstein in The New York Review of Books, "with their components of anti-American and anti-Japanese sentiment."
The center of economic gravity is shifting toward China. The spread of democracy has complicated America's alliance structure and created new challenges to U.S. global leadership. The result of all this political and economic blowback will not likely be a war against the United States. China is not marshalling its strength to attack the Pacific Fleet. Iran is not waiting for the day when it can launch a nuclear-tipped missile at Topeka (much less Tel Aviv). Rather, the American empire will suffer a death of a thousand cuts. It will be like the failure of your computer: one virus, then another, then the inevitable slowing of the operating system, a patch that doesn't work properly, a program that stops responding, and one day it all adds up to the blue screen of death.
The weapons that will destroy the U.S. empire will be weapons of our own fashioning. The Chinese economy only became a threat to the United States when it copied our economic example. The leaders that will create the new international alliances that replace U.S. hegemony will be democratically elected. We will be hoisted by our own TINA. Perhaps only then will the world be able to enter the post-TINA era. Perhaps only then will we find a more nourishing meal than the PB-and-J ideology that has dominated our menu of options since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Torture and Complicity
In 1963, the CIA funded research into psychological techniques to break down potential informants. U.S. interrogators used this KUBARK Manual throughout Latin America and Southeast Asia. After 9/11, KUBARK returned in a different form.
"Although some of the material in KUBARK remained in use, psychologists augmented already- existing material with newer techniques, some of which had been developed from torture resistance protocols used to train U.S. military personnel to survive capture and interrogation themselves," write Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) contributors Laura Melendez-Pallitto and Robert Pallitto in Psychologists and Torture, Then and Now. "Discoveries initially applied to help possible torture victims were later used to break interrogation subjects held in U.S. custody. Psychologists were complicit in designing and using techniques to break subjects rather than aid them, and in so doing they made a mockery of their ethical obligation to 'do no harm.'"
The United States and North Korea are on the verge of making nice. A new deal will freeze North Korea's uranium enrichment program and establish a moratorium on nuclear and missile tests. All the United States has to do is fulfill an earlier promise to provide humanitarian assistance.
"As the Obama administration attempts a 'Pacific pivot' to refocus its geopolitical energies from the Middle East to Asia, North Korea has been executing a pivot of its own," I write in North Korea's Pivot. "The centennial of the birth of the country's founder Kim Il Sung, 2012 is also the year that North Korea has pledged to achieve the status of kangsong taeguk: an economically prosperous and militarily strong country. To attract the economic investment necessary to achieve this goal, North Korea has reached out to friend and foe alike."
The United Kingdom, meanwhile, is trying to broker a deal on Somalia. But as FPIF contributor Francis Njubi Nesbitt argues, it will not be so easy to put the pieces of the Somali Humpty Dumpty together again. "It seems the West is still tied to the concept of a unified Somalia with a strong centralized state based Mogadishu," he writes in UK Takes the Lead in Somalia. "This notion, however, is a pipe dream. The Somali people have a long history of decentralized administration based on the traditional clan structure run by councils of elders and Islam. The idea that a centralized government based on the Western model can be transplanted to Somalia is unrealistic at best."
Oil, Cuba, War
The discovery of oil in Ghana promises a future of wealth or a future of discord. "There is a multi-directional tug of war in Ghana's petroleum industry among the Ghanaian government, the multinational oil companies, the citizens of the country, and the environment," writes FPIF columnist Kwei Quartey in Oil Over Troubled Waters. "Like most contests, it is unlikely that they will all be winners. Ghanaians in the homeland and abroad fear that the country and the environment will be the eventual losers and that the dreaded specter of another Niger Delta looms."
FPIF contributor Sam Farber has a new book out on Cuba. FPIF contributor Rebecca Whedon writes that "Farber's analysis leaves no topic uncovered. Cuba Since the Revolution of 1959 is a comprehensive, thoughtful treatment of a topic that has usually generated more heat than light in U.S. coverage in the past."
Our poem this week comes from Jose Padua. Here is a short excerpt from To the Valley in the Morning with Blood and Guts and Fear:
When there's war all the time, there's no such thing as
after the war anymore, no victory over our enemies day,
no victory worth selling tickets for day, just
days to celebrate that we're still the killers and not
Finally, in our Focal Points blog, you can read Paul Mutter on Iraq, Conn Hallinan on Syria, and Michael Walker on Iran.
Google matched content
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2018 by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) in the author free time and without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|You can use PayPal to make a contribution, supporting development of this site and speed up access. In case softpanorama.org is down you can use the at softpanorama.info|
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other organization the author may be associated with. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.
Last modified: March, 18, 2019