Media Monitors Network

.....where truth prevails

Advertise @ MMN
Posted: September 12, 2001

Toll-free: 1 866 MediaNet 

E-mail: Editor@MediaMonitors.net

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America in Terror
Causes and Context: The Foundational Principles of Western Foreign Policy and The Structure of World Order

by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
 
    I. Fundamental Principles: Straight Power Concepts
    I.I Decolonization and the Rise of American Hegemony
    II.I The Real Threat: Third World Independence
    II.I Global Western Hegemony
    III.II The Pentagon On US Objectives
    III.III Further Documentation on US Global Strategy
IV. Military Humanism
    IV.I Military Expansionism in Space
    V.I The Islamic Threat, Among Others
    V.II Manufactured Images
    V.III The Reality Behind the Image
 

In the space of an hour, the United States faced a sample of the same brand of terrorism that has been inflicted on vast swathes of the world’s population throughout the twentieth century by its own military forces. The destruction of the World Trade Centre, the explosion that racked the Pentagon, and the plane crash near Camp David have left America in shock and on high alert. The attacks have resulted in most probably thousands of casualties. Innocent civilians have been killed and injured. Many states throughout the country have declared states of emergency.

What has happened is an atrocious, but predictable, backlash rooted in decades, and indeed centuries of oppression. And if the world is genuinely interested in averting future acts of terrorism such as this, then the causes of this backlash in the West’s ongoing terrorisation and repression of the majority of the world’s population must be understood. For it is that sort of intolerable matrix of policies, which produces people desperate enough to carry out such intolerable atrocities as were carried out on the 11th September: people who have been driven by their circumstances of hopelessness, terror and impoverishment to the point of insanity.

The media has labeled Tuesday’s crisis as the worst act of terrorism in history, yet this is not true. No one has paused to consider that the United States itself has carried out and supported some of the worst acts of terrorism. Tuesday’s attacks, horrendous as they were, can barely be compared to the scale of atrocities carried out, for instance, by U.S.-backed terrorists in South America to secure U.S. interests, resulting in the mass murder of hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians. U.S. and Western support for terrorism around the world has elicited widespread anger and resentment among the majority of the world’s population who are victims of the policies of military, economic and political repression employed by the powers in their pursuit of profit. It thus seems that the assaults in Washington and New York will be used as a pretext to escalate the West’s crackdown on the Muslim countries of the Third World. World leaders are preparing to gather together and discuss new measures to strengthen their security without compromising their global hegemony. It is no surprise that despite a total lack of evidence, media and academic commentators prompted by Western government hints have immediately speculated about the so-called involvement of “Islamic fanatics”. U.S. officials have spoken of the need to indiscriminately target states where terrorists are suspected to reside or with a record of being implicated in terrorist acts, rather than merely focus specifically on the perpetrators of this particular crime. Countries to be included in this are Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine, and so on. Speculation by innumerable esteemed personalities including U.S. officials, academics and journalists about the role of Osama Bin Laden and his legendary terror network – once more without producing any actual evidence – has also fueled anti-Muslim suspicion and hostility. Despite the prolific talking, not a shred of real evidence has been produced for the idea that “Islamic fanatics” are behind the current atrocities.

The reaction of the United States speaks volumes about the real nature of the new programme of indiscriminate targeting of the entire Muslim world. Former spokesman for the U.S. State Department James Rubin outlined the future vision on BBC 2’s Newsnight: “We lead. We go around the world and we make people be counted whether they’re on our side, or on the side of the terrorists.”[1] In other words, the U.S. solution is to categorise “people” around the world into two types: those who support U.S. and Western terrorism around the world whether they know it or not and who are thus “on our side”; and those who do not, who will inevitably be labeled those “on the side of the terrorists”. And accordingly those who are not “on our side” will be targeted indiscriminately.

The baseless, inflammatory and indeed racist reaction of the media mimics its previous response to the Oklahoma bombing which wrongly blamed “Arabs” and “Muslims” for the attack. Although it was eventually discovered that the perpetrator was actually a former U.S. soldier - notwithstanding many months of the unwarranted demonisation of Islam and Muslims – the lesson apparently has not been properly absorbed. We are seeing a repeat of the hysterical reaction of those days. Tuesday’s attacks must be condemned in the strongest terms, but they must also be understood. They are the inevitable consequence of systematically pursuing policies of mass murder and pillage throughout the world.

This working paper documents the interests and policies since the end of the Second World War implemented by the former colonial powers, which were instrumental in the construction of the present world order. It also discusses the structure of that order, particularly its inherent tendency to search for more “enemies” that need to be destroyed. It is hoped that this paper not only places the current crisis in a clear historical and political context, but refutes some of the widespread myths being freely bandied about by media and academia who appear to have little understanding of the implications of the present world order for such events. It is also hoped that the coming response of the Western powers to the events of the 11th can be understood correctly not in terms of the misleading humanitarian jargon used by the media, but in terms of the facts of U.S./Western interests, strategy and policy.

According to conventional opinion – and the claims of the Western powers – the protection of human rights plays an inextricable role in Western foreign policy. However, this view is contested by a variety of political documents, both top secret and public, which suggest an altogether different picture of the objectives of Western foreign policy. These documents and statements by policy-makers indicate that policy is formulated entirely on principles of economic and strategic self-interest, with humanitarian principles playing little – if any – role at all in the development and actualization of foreign policy. These key documents and statements reveal that Western foreign policy has been devoid of any significant humanitarian basis since the Cold War and into the post-Cold War era. They also throw light on the real objectives of Western foreign policy both then and now, in terms of securing and expanding Western hegemony for the sake of various regional economic and strategic interests. Policy, in fact, is formulated on principles totally at odds with the protection and promotion of human rights, and conducive to the perpetration of terrorism.

I. Fundamental Principles: Straight Power Concepts

The fundamental aims of Western foreign policy under American leadership, were stated in a now declassified top-secret planning report produced by the US State Department’s policy planning staff, headed at the time (February 1948) by the ‘liberal’ George Kennan: “We have about 50 per cent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives [including that of “devis[ing] a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain” the “position of disparity” between the West and the rest of the world]. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction... We should cease to talk about vague and... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we will have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”[2]

This document is astoundingly unambiguous in articulating the fundamental motivations behind US policy. It affirms that primary US goals are not humanitarian at all, but are orientated toward economic domination. The achievement of such domination, which takes the form of a monopoly over the world’s wealth, must be institutionalized via the manufacture of a pattern of political relationships throughout the world, in which this economical monopoly can be maintained, unimpeded. Altruism and world-benefaction are therefore not relevant to US goals, and anyone who genuinely believes so is apparently deceiving themselves. In fact, the very ideals that the US government has always publicly espoused are here being dismissed under the category of “vague” and “unreal objectives”. As opposed to such “idealistic slogans”, the US has preferred to take upon itself the task of perpetuating a global disparity, in which the US monopolizes the wealth of the world at the expense of the human rights, living standards, and decisions of the populations of the non-Western world.

This desire for such economical domination of the world was put in context with the recognition by all the Western powers, that genuine decolonisation was to the detriment of Western dominance, power and wealth, i.e. maintenance of the position of disparity. A British top-secret Treasury document of April 1950, admitted the consequences that would follow Britain’s loss of infiltration and manipulation of its colonial domains: “Any general withdrawal by the United Kingdom on the political and military fronts would have an adverse effect on our economic position.”[3] A Foreign Office Memorandum came to the same conclusion: “...if the United Kingdom were voluntarily to abandon her position of political influence in selected areas, she would probably find herself not only without economic access to those areas but unable, through loss of prestige, to prevent a further involuntary decline in her influence elsewhere and consequently a general decline in the strength of the Western powers.”[4] Other documents express in categorical terms the interest of the Western powers in the wealth and resources belonging to their officially independent colonies. For example, the United States’ desire to continue its domination of the Middle East was “based upon their interest in oil producing areas, e.g. Saudi Arabia and Persia, and upon their growing realization that there is a growing market both for commercial enterprise and for ancillary services, e.g. civil aviation.”[5] It was also pointed out that “the United States realizes the importance to her own economy, in peace and war, of many British colonial resources and the possibilities of further development.”[6]

The West’s ongoing self-centered attitude towards the colonies is therefore evident. British historian Mark Curtis, a former research fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, points out that according to the Western powers, “African resources are ‘ours’; Pacific islands captured by Britain are ‘our islands’; uranium supplies in the Congo and a colony of Belgium are ‘their’ (Belgian) minerals.”[7] Similarly, in Latin America, the US State Department noted that “the protection of our resources” from the indigenous population was America’s foremost concern. In fact, the US admitted, “the final answer might be an unpleasant one”, constituting “police repression by the local government”. “Harsh government measures of repression” should be instituted as long as “the results are on balance favorable to our purposes” - namely, “the protection our resources” from the indigenous population.[8] Thus, in accord with the appreciation that the natural resources of colonies were still ‘ours’, the Western powers, led by the US, agreed that they would retain control of these resources. The Foreign Office, in 1950, confirmed that “there is a basic agreement on the long term objectives of colonial policy as conceived by the United Kingdom and United States”.[9]

These “long-term objectives” essentially consisted of maintaining control over the resources of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. On this basis, the Western powers accepted “arrangements whereby a union of Western European nations would undertake jointly the economic development and exploitation of the colonial and dependent areas of the African continent”, a policy that, it was agreed, “has much to recommend it”.[10]

It was similarly noted that in “the UK view, the economic development of South and Southeast Asia should contribute not only to the welfare of Southeast Asia but also to the balance of world trade by developing sources of raw material for the United States and Europe.”[11] This was in accord with the agreement between the UK, the US and France that “it is important for the economy of Western Europe that Western European trading and business interests in Southeast Asia should be maintained” because “countries of Southeast Asia are rich in natural resources and certain countries in the area at present produce surplus foodstuffs.”[12]

In addition, Britain expressly noted that the Middle East was “a vital prize for any power interested in world influence or domination”, since control of the world’s oil reserves also means control of the world economy.[13] In 1945, the US had also explicitly confirmed the desire to maintain control over the Middle East: “our petroleum policy towards the United Kingdom is predicated on a mutual recognition of a very extensive joint interest and upon control, at least for the moment, of the great bulk of the free petroleum resources of the world... US-UK agreement upon the broad, forward-looking pattern for the development and utilisation of petroleum resources under the control of nationals of the two countries is of the highest strategic and commercial importance.”[14] Similarly, a 1953 internal US document states thoroughly without ambiguity: “United States policy is to keep the sources of oil in the Middle East in American hands.”[15]

The result of these observations was the formation of an overall scheme of Western consolidation, designed specifically to retain control over and exploit the resources of former colonies: “... it is essential that we should increase our strength in not only the diplomatic but also the economic and military spheres. This can best be done by enrolling France and the lesser Western European powers and, of course, also the Dominions, as collaborators with us in this tripartite system”, in which the world would be divided into three spheres of influence belonging to the United States, Europe and the Soviet Union.[16]

I.I Decolonization and the Rise of American Hegemony

In other words, it was explicitly recognized that a new kind of covert colonialism needed to be created to fulfill Western hegemonic interests, as the British Treasury noted in 1945: “We have to devise techniques for bringing influence to bear upon other countries’ internal decisions” was one formulation of the new form of exploitation to be known as “development”. “We should be able to exert a very great influence upon the structure of that development” and “we could usefully begin with parts of the world in which we already have great influence - the colonial empire, the Middle East and India.”[17] One of the methods advocated to bring this about was noted as follows: “It is important to maintain in friendly hands areas which contain or protect sources of metals, oil and other national resources, which contain strategic objectives, or areas strategically located, which contain a substantial industrial potential, which possesses manpower and organised military forces in important quantities.”[18]

Decolonization therefore constituted a front for covert colonialism - or rather, neo-colonialism. Professor Cranford Pratt of the University of Toronto observes that “all that Hailey, Cohen and other colleagues [the British planners who drew up the plans for decolonization] advocated can be interpreted as shrewdly designed to protect and advance British economic and political interests in these changing circumstances.”[19] In fact, the planners even admitted that the essence of the so-called process of decolonization “was a plan to convert (or reconvert) formal into informal empire as the need arose” emphasising that “such colonial reform would extend the life of colonial control.”[20]

The US gladly led the Western powers towards their newly formulated neo-colonial objectives, taking Britain in particular under its hegemonic wing as a “junior partner in an orbit of power predominantly under the American aegis”.[21] This ‘special relationship’ between the US and the UK was accepted and enforced by the British government at the time (Churchill’s) and subsequent governments, both Labour and Conservative. Thus, the neo-colonial hegemony would be primarily an American one, with Britain as junior partner, followed by the European states: “The United States believes in the advancement of the economic and, where suitable, the strategic advantages to France and the United Kingdom, of their colonies and trust territories. The United States expects that equal economic treatment will be given to American capital and American nationals who engage in trade in the... colonial areas... The United States desires to have access to raw materials, air and sea facilities, air routes and communications points and to guaranteed right of equal economic treatment in the... colonial territories.” In other words, Western Europe was to be integrated into a US-dominated global system.[22]

Hence, it had been fully recognised that “the British Empire as it existed in the past will never reappear... the United States may have to takes its place.”[23] Thus, policy planners set out to fulfil the “requirement[s] of the United States in a world in which it proposes to hold unquestioned power” (1940). This meant the implementation of “an integrated policy to achieve military and economic supremacy for the United States”, with this policy including the plan “to secure the limitation of any exercise of sovereignty by foreign nations that constitutes a threat to the world area essential for the security and economic prosperity of the United States and the Western Hemisphere.” It is important to accurately understand what the terms “security” and “economic prosperity” signify in this “Grand Area”. As Kennan’s document demonstrates, these terms are essentially synonymous with the desire to control “50 per cent of the world’s wealth”, to extend this control, and to “maintain” the resultant “position of disparity”. As the above documents also show, it was well understood that the relinquishment of control over and access to resources of former colonies, would result in a drastic reduction of Western hegemony, i.e. the wealth and power of Western elites. Hence, movements by former colonies to use domestic resources for their own purposes, limiting Western control and access to them, was considered to be the fundamental threat to Western “security” and “economic prosperity”.

It was therefore advocated that the United States “must cultivate a mental view toward world settlement after this war which will enable us to impose our own terms, amounting perhaps to a pax-Americana.” It was also advocated that the concept of the ‘security interests’ of the United States be appropriately extended to include the domination of areas “strategically necessary for world control”. A State Department memorandum of April 1944 clarified the philosophy behind this concept of Western ‘access to resources’.[24] The philosophy was: equal access for American companies to world resources - but not for others;[25] the US domination of Western Hemispheric production while US holdings are diversified elsewhere;[26] and in summary “the preservation of the absolute position presently obtaining, and therefore vigilant protection of existing concessions in United States hands coupled with insistence upon the Open Door principle of equal opportunity for the United States companies in new areas.”[27]

It was well understood that these policies, if expressed honestly, would be highly unpalatable to the Western and non-Western public. For example, in mid-1941 it was recognised that a “formulation of a statement of war aims for propaganda purposes is very different from a formulation of one defining the true national interest.” It was further noted: “If war aims are stated, which seem to be concerned solely with Anglo-American imperialism, they will offer little to people in the rest of the world... Such aims would also strengthen the most reactionary elements in the United States and the British Empire. The interests of other peoples should be stressed, not only those of Europe, but also of Asia, Africa and Latin America. This would have a better propaganda effect.”[28] Thus, the scene was set for the Western powers to embark upon the great neo-imperial voyage of Western consolidation.

II. Constructing the Cold War Enemy

To legitimise their disregard for humanitarian ‘idealistic slogans’, it was essential for the Western powers to construct a pretext on which to enforce the neo-colonial hegemony; for post-colonial populations would certainly refuse to accept this annulment of their genuine independence. The pretext was achieved along the following lines: By fabricating a malignant global threat to the very existence of Western civilisation, the great powers could legitimise the use of force against indigenous people under the guise of fighting for the survival of the free world. It is thus that the Cold War, the apparently noble defence against global Communist aggression originating from the USSR, began its escalation.

Former US statesman and noted scholar George F. Kennan, who himself had proposed the US strategy of Russian containment, admits that the threat of Russian military expansion that was utilised to justify US policy was actually false: “I… went to great lengths to disclaim the view, imputed to me by implication… that containment was a matter of stationing military forces around the Soviet borders and preventing any outbreak of Soviet military aggressiveness. I protested… against the implication that the Russians were aspiring to invade other areas and that the task of American policy was to prevent them from doing so. ‘The Russians don’t want’, I insisted, ‘to invade anyone. It is not their tradition… They don’t want war of any kind’.”[29] Kennan also noted that “the image of a Stalinist Russia poised and yearning to attack the West, and deterred only by [US] possession of atomic weapons, was largely a creation of Western imagination.”[30]

Of course, the Cold War was not solely the fault of the United States, and rivalry between Russia and the West did indeed exist. Nevertheless, the ongoing Cold War and the alleged Soviet/Communist threat was evidently exaggerated far beyond its reality by the West, so that excessive military buildups and foreign invasions could be legitimised on the pretext of self-defence against contrived Communist attempts to attack or subvert independent colonies. This was in accord with the recognition that the “interests of other peoples should be stressed, not only those of Europe, but also of Asia, Africa and Latin America. This would have a better propaganda effect.” The fact that the military interventions undertaken by the Western powers, particularly America and Britain, were not really motivated by self-defence - or the defence of others - against Communist aggression, but were employed to ensure a monopoly over the world’s natural resources, is evident from their own internal documents, as shall become clear.

The official Cold War history refuted by George Kennan espouses that Western military operations constituted attempts to contain Soviet expansionism, whose aggressive endeavours to take control of other nations forced the West into defencive foreign policies involving massive military build-ups and frequent foreign interventions. Soviet aggression is supposed to have been typical of Communism, which needed to be contained due to its “monolithic and ruthless conspiracy” to take over the world, as John F. Kennedy construed it. This assumption has been established dogma for some time. 

A glance at the relevant documents clearly discloses the absence of a viable Soviet threat of this kind. This dispels the notion that Western foreign policy was motivated toward defence against aggressive Soviet/Communist expansionism. In this regard, it is possible to consider the alleged imminent Communist threat region by region. A December 1950 Foreign Office paper pointed out that “only three Middle Eastern countries - Turkey, Persia and Afghanistan - are exposed to direct Soviet attack.” It then went on to illustrate that such an attack was considered pretty much inconceivable in all three cases. “Short of general war... an attack on Turkey is unlikely owing to the Western guarantees which she enjoys.” As for Iran (Persia), “the Soviet government must be aware that any attack on her would carry a grave risk of general war, and it is more likely that Soviet efforts to gain control of Persia will be confined to propaganda, diplomatic and subversive activity.” Regarding Afghanistan, “there is little danger of attack”.[31]

Another document noted that “the success of indirect or subversive action by the Soviet government in any of the Arab states or in Israel is also improbable in the immediate future”.[32] The following statement sums up the facts fittingly: “the Arab states are all orientated towards the West in varying degrees, opposed to communism and generally successful at present in minimizing or suppressing existing communist activities through restrictive measures.” In fact, Communist parties were “non-existent in Yemen and Saudi Arabia; outlawed in Iraq, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon and apparently unorganised in Jordan.” Moreover, “throughout the Arab states, at the present time, extreme rightist or ultra-nationalist elements may exercise greater influence and form a greater threat to maintenance of a pro-Western orientation than the communists”. Thus, the real threat to Western interests in world domination constituted the “anti-Western orientation of ultra-nationalist elements”, not Communism, for “the Soviet government does not appear to be exercising direct pressure upon the governments of these states.”[33]

Regarding Africa, the State Department observed during 1950 that “today ‘Black’ Africa is orientated towards the non-Communist world. Communism has made no real progress in the area.”[34] It was specifically noted that in North Africa “communism presents no menace at the present time”, as opposed to nationalism which “constitutes the real force of the future in this area” according to Assistant Secretary of State McGhee in 1950.[35]

Concerning Asia, McGhee noted in 1950 that “Nationalism is the strongest force in Asia”, rather than Communism. In the Far East, Kennan, the head of US Policy Planning Staff affirmed that “the problem is not one primarily of Russians but of basic relations of Americans with Asiatics”.[36] The State Department commented in 1950 that “communism does not immediately threaten the governments of South Asia”. Additionally, the “prospect for the period 1950 to 1955 is that... the non-Communist elements now governing in South Asia can be expected to retain power.”[37] The US State Department reported in 1950 that “in most of Southeast Asia there is no fear of communism as we understand it.”[38]

It is ironic that the widespread dogma of the Soviet threat was even disproved in a mainstream British broadsheet. On 1 January 1999, the Guardian newspaper of London reported on newly declassified British government documents from 1968. Among the documents was one based on an analysis by the Foreign Office joint intelligence committee. The newspaper summarised this as follows: “The Soviet Union had no intention of launching a military attack on the West at the height of the Cold War, British military and intelligence chiefs privately believed, in stark contrast to what Western politicians and military leaders were saying in public about the ‘Soviet threat’. ‘The Soviet Union will not deliberately start general war or even limited war in Europe,’ a briefing for the British chiefs of staff - marked Top Secret, UK Eyes Only, and headed The Threat: Soviet Aims and Intentions - declared in June 1968. ‘Soviet foreign policy had been cautious and realistic’, the department argued, and despite the Vietnam war, the Russians and their allies had ‘continued to make contacts in all fields with the West and to maintain a limited but increasing political dialogue with NATO powers’...”

In light of these details one sees that there was negligible Soviet/Communist threat to the Middle East, ‘Black’ Africa, North Africa, the Far East, South Asia and Southeast Asia; all of which are supposed to have been under the poise of Communist takeover according to allegedly indisputable mainstream traditions. Clearly, this does not entail that there was no Soviet power at all that was at least worth consideration. But it certainly removes the standard justification for the majority of military interventions undertaken by the West, and leaves one to wonder what the real reasons behind such interventions were.

Other documents point directly to the absurdity of the West’s attempts to justify Western military interventions and buildups in terms of the Russian threat. It has just been shown that the regions over which the “Evil Empire” of Communism - as Ronald Reagan rendered it - was poised to extend its clutches according to the conventional wisdom, were actually empty of viable Communist influence. Apart from this, in terms of military and economic strength, Russia was alleged to have been escalating to a level superior to that of the Western powers. The following excerpts from two internal documents expose the flagrant absurdity of this idea: “it is hard to accept a conclusion that the USSR is approaching a straight-out military superiority over us when, for example (1) our Air Force is vastly superior qualitatively, is greatly superior numerically in the bombers, trained crews and other facilities necessary for offensive warfare; (2) our supply of fission bombs is much greater than that of the USSR, as is our thermonuclear potential; (5) our Navy is so much stronger than that of the USSR that they should not be mentioned in the same breath; (4) the economic health and military potentials of our allies is, with our help, growing daily; and (5) while we have treaties of alliance with and are furnishing arms to countries bordering the USSR, the USSR has none with countries within thousands of miles of us”;[39] “... the expansion of the US economy was double that of the USSR during the previous 1949, and that was probably below our rate of expansion for the previous year... In fact, all the evidence... points the other way, that the actual gap is widening in our favour.”[40]

II.I The Real Threat: Third World Independence

That self-defence against the Soviet/Communist threat did not constitute the central motivation for the Western military buildups and operations, is further evident from a section of the very document that strongly espoused the doctrine of the Soviet threat: National Security Council Directive - NSC68 - which clearly affirms that such policies would have been pursued regardless of the Soviet Union. “Our overall policy at the present time,” it indicates, “may be described as one designed to foster a world environment in which the American system can survive and flourish... This broad intention embraces two subsidiary positions. One is a policy which we would probably pursue even if there were no Soviet threat.” One witnesses here that the Soviet threat was not the central motivation for the aforementioned policy of “developing a healthy international community” (with this phrase, in light of other documents, referring simply to a pattern of relationships involving the West’s domination of the resources of the world).[41] Rather, it is evident that the Soviet threat was essentially irrelevant. The policies of the West at this time would be followed through even if there were no such threat - which, it so happens, there was not.  It is not surprising then that former Under-Secretary of State and future Deputy Secretary of Defence Robert Lovett, pointed out regarding the alleged international Communist threat, “if we can sell every useless article known to man in large quantities, we should be able to sell our very fine story in larger quantities.”[42]

All this also reminds us of another important question: Why fear Communism? Given that Kennedy’s global “monolithic and ruthless conspiracy” was basically non-existent, and given that fear of Communism nevertheless appeared to be a genuine component of Western foreign policy, what exactly was it about Communism that was feared? For there was no imminent Communist danger throughout most of the globe, and this is particularly highlighted by the fact that even where Communist activities were occurring, there was negligible implication in potential world domination. Indeed, one wonders why the notion of a global Communist threat was so excessively contrived by the Western governments even in some of their other now declassified secret documents, when Soviet inaction was self-evident. It seems that regardless of the facts, the Communists’ “monolithic and ruthless conspiracy” to take control of the world had to be presupposed as an indisputable logical axiom. Since this axiom would henceforth remain independent of the evidence, it could be effectively utilised to justify self-interested military interventions.

All this is clearer when one recalls the ultimate objective of Western foreign policy, as led by the United States: to maintain the “position of disparity” in which a nation such as the US could retain at least “50 per cent of the world’s wealth” regardless of “human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization” which are only “idealistic slogans”. These aims should be understood in context with the basic definition of Communism and Communists adopted by policy makers. According to a 1949 State Department intelligence report, the term ‘Communists’ refers to those people who are committed to the belief that “the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the people”.[43] Naturally, such a broad definition applies to a whole range of people who wish their government to defend “human rights”, contribute to the “raising of living standards” and consult with its people in the name of “democratization”.

A Foreign Office memorandum of 1950, affirms the above definition of ‘Communism’: “... it is obvious that when an area falls into Communist hands, its economic and trading value to the Western world becomes greatly reduced, while Western capital assets are liquidated with little or no compensation”.[44] In other words, the primary sign of ‘Communism’ is merely the reduction of a region’s economic and trading value to the West: a threat to the maintenance of disparity. Similar conclusions were reached in 1955 in a study conducted by a study group from the Woodrow Wilson Foundation and the National Planning Association, headed by Williams Professor of Government at Harvard, William Yandell Eliot. The study affirmed that the essential threat constituted by the ‘Communist’ powers is the instigation of economic transformation “in ways which reduce their willingness and ability to complement the industrial economies of the West.”[45] As Professor Chomsky has observed, the logical implication of these simple definitions is that any non-Western government which takes on itself “the direct responsibility for the welfare of the people” becomes party to the “monolithic and ruthless conspiracy”.[46] This is because, when non-Western governments begin establishing “human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization”, they naturally do so by harnessing the raw materials within their own lands. Clearly, such indigenous self-determination is in direct contradiction to Western interests that involve the “protection of our raw materials”[47] from non-Western populations, to effectively plunder them for Western interests - the fundamental element of US-led Western foreign policy. Thus, in accord with the definition of Communism adopted by policy makers, nationalist movements for self-determination and independent development were categorised as Communist movements. It was only a short step to then add that the Soviet Union was directing these movements.

Therefore, in the recognition that genuine independent development in the non-Western world meant the destabilisation of Western hegemony and the loss of the position of disparity organically linked to that hegemony, a policy was necessary to enforce that hegemony against indigenous populations with ideas of their own. Thus, the British Treasury observed in 1945 that the maintenance of the position of disparity could stabilise “only if there is a high US national income and a rapid and non-autarkic [non-self-sufficient] economic growth of the underdeveloped countries and we must manifestly do all in our power... to secure these.” Furthermore, “the danger to us of autarkic [self-sufficient] industrialisation undertaken for its own sake” was emphasised.[48] Therefore, in light of Western elite interests, the only viable “economic growth” of the underdeveloped countries was synonymous with their being “non-autarkic” - dependent upon the Western powers. Independent development was a “danger” since it would mean independence from the West, the loss of Western access and control over raw materials, and the consequent disruption of the position of disparity. Thus, the megalomaniacal communist threat, which barely existed in the form that was publicly alleged, could be pinpointed as the basis for “securing non-autarkic growth” via military invasions in non-Western nations where indigenous populations began struggling for genuine independence to the detriment of Western greed. It has already been shown that the objective communist threat did not exist in the megalomaniacal form preached then and now, and that this was well understood within powerful circles responsible for policy planning, as is evident from certain internal documents. Certainly, one cannot deny the fact of Russia’s sphere of influence, or the fact that Russia was a horribly repressive anti-humanitarian regime. However, what is unequivocally demonstrated by the documents discussed is that the Cold War was ideologically exaggerated and manipulated to justify military operations that were orientated toward self-interested Western consolidation.

In this context it is worth emphasising how the wholly nationalistic character of these movements - as opposed to communistic - was also often explicitly acknowledged in the documentary record, as can be understood region by region. Mark Curtis has demonstrated this quite unequivocally, and we shall review a few of these explicit acknowledgements despite danger of repetition.

The State Department in 1950 stated that “throughout the Arab states, at the present time, extreme rightist or ultra-nationalist elements may exercise greater influence and form a greater threat to maintenance of a pro-Western orientation than the communists”, acknowledging that “the Soviet government does not appear to be exercising direct pressure upon the governments of these states.”[49] Another document observes that “In some territories” of ‘Black’ Africa, there was a “growing spirit of nationalism on the part of the natives, which should not, however, be confused with communism.”[50] In North Africa, not Communism, but nationalism “constitutes the real force of the future in this area”, according to Assistant Secretary of State McGhee in 1950.[51] McGhee also affirmed that: “Nationalism is the strongest force in Asia.”[52] The US summarised the basic universal principle in 1954, when acknowledging that “ultranationalist” tendencies need to be suppressed, because US interests are threatened by “radical and nationalist regimes” that propose popular policies designed to foster “immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses”. Such “ultranationalist” policies are to be eliminated since they are at odds with the US/Western desire for “a political and economic climate conducive to private investment” and the accompanying profits for US/Western investors.[53] Thus, the West was endeavouring to subvert, sabotage and destroy local ‘nationalist’ movements that believed in independence from the West; genuine self-determination; real participation of the people; and utilisation of domestic resources for the sake of genuine socio-economic progress.

While the West exaggerated the so-called Soviet threat to legitimise the countless military operations perpetrated to subjugate non-Western populations and enforce the “position of disparity” under Western hegemony, the former USSR utilised the West - particularly the US - in the same way. However, the US remained the dominant force in the world thanks to the results of the Second World War. Boston University historian Howard Zinn observes: “The war not only put the United States in a position to dominate much of the world; it created conditions for effective control at home.” Professor Zinn notes that the US administrations of the time “worked to create an atmosphere of crisis and cold war”. Even though “the rivalry with the Soviet Union was real”, the United States “presented the Soviet Union as not just a rival but an immediate threat. In a series of moves abroad and at home, it established a climate of fear - a hysteria about Communism - which would steeply escalate the military budget, stimulate the economy with war-related orders. This combination of policies would permit more aggressive actions abroad, more repressive actions at home... Revolutionary movements in Europe and Asia”, that were in fact ‘nationalist’ in orientation, “were described to the American public as examples of Soviet expansionism”.[54]

The prediction of Western foreign policy from hereon is simple, given that the Western powers - following the lead of the United States and its junior partner, the United Kingdom - are interested in monopolising the economic resources of the world. They are by no means adverse to doing all in their power to secure this access, and are willing to subvert, sabotage and destroy in the name of enforcing the position of disparity. Any attempt to rebel against this institutionalisation of Western hegemony constitutes a danger to self-orientated Western trading and business interests, and will therefore be met with whatever means necessary to enforce that hegemony by exterminating the indigenous aggression, be it through political, economic or military channels. Terrorism, in other words, is an integral dimension of U.S.-led Western foreign policy.

III. New Plans for a New Order

There is no dispute over the fact that the United States, as the last remaining superpower, is the primary driving force behind world order. A brief review of the recent considerations of the policy elite highlights what is in store for the world in the coming years. In the post-Cold War era, the Western powers continue to derive strategies to expand, enforce and stabilise the global order under US/Western hegemony. The absence of the Soviet threat has only lent the United States a virtually free reign to pursue its economic and strategic interests without deterrence. Today the Western powers, under American leadership, are continuing to implement policies designed to consolidate this hegemony in toto.

III.I Global Western Hegemony

A forum of the Western industrialised nations established in 1975, the G6 (evolving to become the G7 and G8) focused initially on macroeconomic policy coordination. With time this forum has steadily increased its influence over world affairs in all crucial respects. Tom Barry, a senior analyst at the Interhemispheric Resource Center, observes: “At the center of the current debate of global governance is the G8/G7, a self-constituted forum of the major free-market democracies, whose deliberations and declarations have come to shape key decisions in the management of global political and economic affairs… By virtue of its combined economic, military, and diplomatic power and influence, the G8/G7 exercises tremendous influence over the multilateral institutions of global governance. This power gives the G8/G7 great influence on the policies, programs, and decisions of the UN Security Council, World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).” Barry notes that the G8/G7 behaves in a way suitable only of “a wealthy club whose main concern is maintaining the global economic and political stability necessary for its members to continue accumulating wealth.” Not only has the G8/G7 “failed to implement many of the recommendations of past summits”, especially those committing the Western powers to “debt relief, reductions of carbon emissions, conflict prevention, and reform of the international financial architecture”, but the consistent failure of the US to execute policy within the “UN framework or to pay its UN dues” strongly suggests that “the US-dominated G8/G7 functions as the actual center of global governance.” Furthermore, the policies consistently employed by the G8/G7 reinforce the view that this international forum “is more concerned about increasing the most powerful nations’ wealth than about its professed goal of increasing global prosperity and democracy.”[55]

It is therefore clear that global hegemony belongs ultimately to the United States. A 46-page Pentagon draft document leaked by Pentagon officials in March 1992 is very useful to understand the ongoing principles behind US policy, confirming the predictable fact that US policy planning has remained much the same as it was around 50 years ago. This is predictable because domestic political structures in the West have changed little in the previous century. Hence, it is safe to assume that the basic policies that are characterised by these structures are the same.

III.II The Pentagon On US Objectives

The Pentagon document states that the United States’ “first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival”, who may threaten America’s domination of global resources in the post-Cold War era. This would naturally involve the US endeavour “to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.” This world order must “account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from seeking to overturn the established political and economic order” under US hegemony. US military dominance must be maintained as “the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role”. Such military dominance implicates the preservation of “NATO as the primary instrument of Western defence and security”, since NATO extends US hegemony over Western Europe. Thus, the US “must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO” and thereby US hegemony over Europe. A “dominant consideration underlying the new regional defence strategy” is the necessity for the US to “endeavour to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power”, these regions including Western Europe, East Asia, the former Soviet Union and the Middle East, which should therefore be integrated into the US-dominated global capitalist system, and thereby brought under US hegemony. What is therefore paramount to maintain is “the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the US... The US should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated.” There is no doubt that this Pentagon draft document reflects the fundamental motivations and concerns of US policy planners today; it is clear already that its principles have been acted on in Iraq and Kosovo.[56]

Such essentially self-interested aims have therefore continued to motivate Western policies in their US-led pursuit of constructing, enforcing and stabilising their conception of the ‘new world order’. The fact remains, however, that despite the public rhetoric of politicians, the ‘new world order’ is not so new in its basic principles, and its implications for the majority of the world’s population are not very hopeful. On the contrary, the ‘new world order’ is merely the continuation of the old in a post-Cold War (i.e. post-Soviet Union) framework, with domination of the world’s resources being the primary motivation underlying the formulation of policy objectives and plans. With most of the West’s puppet-regimes throughout the non-Western world already established, the West continues to ensure that these clients are equipped to repress their restless populations sufficiently. Meanwhile, the West continues to maintain its own military spending at monumental levels to preserve its global military hegemony, which is the fundamental basis of the ‘new world order’. NATO-expansionism is being propelled with these factors in mind. As former US President George Bush commented on the Pentagon document: “We are the leaders and we must continue to lead.”[57]

III.III Further Documentation on US Global Strateg

Other reports throw light on the strategies to be adopted in following through with the basic aims outlined in the Pentagon document. Then Senator William Cohen of the Armed Services Committee (later US Defense Secretary) has noted, in accord with the above fundamentals, the continuing need to “project power into other regions and maintain access to distant markets and resources”. Effectively elaborating on this ‘need’, Marine Corps Commandant General A. M. Gray observes that the end of the Cold War would barely effectuate changes in US/Western foreign policies. This is because: “In fact, the majority of the crises we have responded to since the end of World War II have not directly involved the Soviet Union” - rather they have involved subjugating indigenous populations. Thus, as was the case then, and therefore remains the case now, “The underdeveloped world’s growing dissatisfaction over the gap between rich and poor nations”, which has widened thanks to the West’s monopolisation over the underdeveloped world’s domestic resources, “will create fertile breeding ground for insurgencies. These [popular] insurgencies have the potential to jeopardize regional stability” in terms of US/Western hegemony “and our access to vital economic and military resources” - “vital”, of course, for the maximisation of US/Western elite profits and power. “This situation will become more critical as our Nation and its allies, as well as potential adversaries, become more and more dependent on these strategic resources” to maximise corporate profits. “If we are to have” the “stability” of US-led Western hegemony “in these regions, maintain access to their resources, protect our citizens abroad, defend our vital installations, and deter conflict, we must maintain within our active force structure a credible military power projection capable with the flexibility to respond to conflict across the spectrum of violence throughout the globe.” Thus, the ultimate aim of “maintain[ing] military credibility in the next century” is to ensure continued “unimpeded access” to “developing economic markets throughout the world” and “to the resources needed to support our” profit-orientated “manufacturing requirements”.[58

These clearly self-interested objectives can be further comprehended in light of careful reading of other US statements and documents, which reveal that the NATO bombing of Kosovo is simply a single step in an overall strategy to maintain a world order under US hegemony, while expanding that hegemony. This US strategic vision, designed in accord with the objectives just discussed, can be seen to have three primary components. These were discussed by Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College Michael T. Klare, in the Nation magazine. Klare notes that firstly, there is an increasingly pessimistic appraisal of the global security environment; he cites the testimony of CIA Director George Tenet on 2 February 1999: “In this last annual threat assessment of the twentieth century I must tell you that US citizens and interests are threatened in many arenas and across a wide spectrum of issues”, ranging from regional conflict and insurgency to terrorism, criminal violence and unrest; most of which originates in people oppressed within the established system of injustice.

The real meaning of Tenet’s observation is therefore clear from the second component of the new strategic vision, elucidated by Klare: “the assumption that as a global power with far-flung economic interests, the United States has a vested interest in maintaining international stability.” Integrating all this with the objectives outlined previously, it is clear that the US conception of “international stability” is equated to its “far-flung economic interests” - such as unimpeded access to the resources of the world - which may be threatened “in many arenas and across a wide spectrum of issues” by indigenous populations. Accordingly, as Michael Klare observes, in order to maintain the “international stability” of world order under US hegemony, juniored by the other Western powers, “the United States must be prepared to act on its own or in conjunction with its most trusted allies (meaning NATO)”.

This, of course, has further logical implications leading to the third component: “a conviction that to achieve global stability, the United States must maintain sufficient forces to conduct simultaneous military operations in widely separated areas of the world against multiple adversaries, and it must revise its existing security alliances - most of which, like NATO, are defensive in nature - so that they can better support US global expeditionary operations.” This has led to the less publicised “US effort to convert NATO from a defensive alliance in Western Europe into a regional police force governed by Washington. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright first unveiled this scheme this past December at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels.” This conversion of NATO would allow the US to mobilise militarily almost immediately and without obstruction from international law (i.e. from the UN), allowing it to strike at will anywhere when the “stability” of US hegemony is under threat from indigenous populations and other “potential adversaries”. Klare cites a revealing statement by Albright at the meeting in this regard, calling on NATO to extend its operational zone into distant areas and to combat a wide range of such emerging threats: “Common sense tells us that it is sometimes better to deal with instability when it is still at arm’s length than to wait until it is at our doorstep.” Notably, one aspect of this third component - the maintenance of the ability “to conduct simultaneous military operations in widely separated areas of the world against multiple adversaries” led to the simultaneous military interventions in Iraq and Kosovo. It is clear, therefore, that the Kosovo intervention was conducted in part as a test of this aspect of US strategic objectives, confirming the US ability to conduct multiple wars.

As Professor Klare observes, these three components combine to constitute an overall “strategic template for the US military establishment”, which is evident, for instance, “in the $112 billion the President wants to add to the Defense Department budget over the next six years, which will be used to procure additional warships, cargo planes, assault vehicles and other equipment intended for ‘power projection’ into distant combat zones.” This new strategic template can therefore be summarised in “the proposition that the best way to maintain stability in the” resource-rich “areas that truly matter to the United States... is to combat instability in other areas, however insignificant it may seem, before it can intensify and spread.” In this light, the selectivity of US-led Western ‘humanitarian’ interventions can be fully understood, since the actual motivating principle is not humanitarianism, but the maintenance of “international stability” under US/Western hegemony.[59]

Professor Edward Said of Columbia University, who has written extensively on current affairs in the Middle East, elucidates the essence of this actual motivating principle. He notes that once one “demystif[ies] the debased language and images used to justify American practices and hypocrisy” it is simple “to connect US policies in places like Burma, Indonesia, Iran and Israel with what it is now doing in Europe [i.e. in the Balkans] - making it safe for US investments and business”.[60] Thus, the slaughter and ethnic cleansing of Kurds in Turkey, which far surpasses what has happened to the Kosovan Albanians, does not threaten “international stability” in terms of US hegemony, and is therefore irrelevant. In fact, due to the fact that southeastern Turkey is thereby being cleared of its Kurdish population to make way for the installation of US pipelines to Caspian oil, the humanitarian catastrophe actually falls into the category of crises contributing significantly to the expansion of US hegemony, and therefore to “international stability”.

The overall implications of these strategic considerations are that US/Western interests are primarily to ensure a favourable climate of investment, including unimpeded access to resources. Ongoing military expansion is designed expressly to allow the US-led West to enforce the “stability” of its global hegemony anywhere, anytime, without obstruction, and on the slightest signs of an emerging threat. The source of these objectives is the US corporate/military-industrial complex - probably the ultimate centre of power in the ‘new’ world order. This fact and its implications are noted by Interhemispheric Resource Center analyst Tom Barry: “To a large degree, how the US government defines its ‘national interests’ and regards its ‘national security’ determines the way it exercises its leadership. Thus far it has opted for a narrow definition of national interests and a broad definition of national security. Increasingly, the United States regards its national interests as the economic interests of corporate America: what’s good for US-based global corporations is good for America. More difficult to define is the current concept of national security, although it clearly extends far beyond the US government’s sovereign right to defend national borders.”[61] The current US conception of national security is, of course, formulated in accordance with the desire to protect and secure US “national interests”. Once America’s interests are defined in terms of “the economic interests of corporate America”, then the concept of security is logically subservient to the objective of protecting those interests globally. It is this that results in the brand of military strategies discussed, in which military intervention becomes subordinate to the task of imposing a “stability” throughout the world whose bedrock is the establishment of conditions suitable for US corporate investment.

It is for this reason that the “collapse of the Soviet Union did not result in any downsizing of national security doctrine; on the contrary, US national security was globalized.” This is because whereas previously the former USSR constituted a significant deterrant to the prospect of global US hegemony, its collapse has opened the way for the US to freely impose the “stability” required to establish conditions throughout the globe that are conducive to the fulfilment of “the economic interests of corporate America”. As the New York Times noted: “Now, in the years after the cold war, the United States is again establishing suzerainty over the empire of a former foe. The disintegration of the Soviet Union has prompted the United States to expand its zone of military hegemony into Eastern Europe (through NATO) and into formerly neutral Yugoslavia. And - most important of all - the end of the cold war has permitted America to deepen its involvement in the Middle East.”[62]

Accordingly, Tom Barry notes that “the major components of US national security include the right to maintain overwhelming US military superiority, to intervene decisively throughout the world, and to identify and target threats to global stability. William D. Hartung of the World Policy Institute concludes that the United States seeks to ‘retain the capability to serve as a sort of ‘globocop,’ charging to the rescue to restore order, stability, and ‘free markets’ when they are threatened by the forces of evil and chaos’.”[63] The problem, in other words, is that “Washington allows corporate America to dictate the rules of the world economy. As John Cavanagh of the Institute for Policy Studies notes, ‘Utilizing their trade associations, pressure groups, and thousands of well-paid lobbyists, corporations have been able to shape US policy so they are the prime beneficiaries’.”[64] For this reason, according to Robert J. Art - a research associate at the Olin Institute at Harvard, and Herter Professor of International Relations at Brandeis University - America’s “overarching stake” in Europe consists partly of “the valuable investment the United States has to protect [which] is the politico-economic cohesion of Western Europe”, the objective being to “produce an outward-looking, liberal trading community, not an inward-looking protectionist one”,[65] thus maintaining the integration of the whole of Europe under the “stability” a US-dominated international economic system. It is in this context that we may note the particular objective of eradicating socialism in the Balkans and throughout the region in general, to enforce and secure US corporate economic interests.[66] The inseparable linkage between US/Western militarism and US/Western corporate economic interests is thus absolutely clear.[67]

One high-ranking and experienced Western European diplomat put it succintly: “The United States presence in Europe is crucial. The role of the United States goes beyond balancing the Soviet Union. The United States keeps our national rivalries down. We are now faced with the emergence of a friendly local superpower - Germany. Our chances of succeeding are greater if the United States stays. If it goes, however, the effects will be felt way beyond the security field - in GATT, agriculture, and so forth. If NATO breaks up, our economic structures are threatened also.”[68] By strengthening NATO and expanding US military hegemony over Europe through NATO, not only does the US manage to prevent the arisal of an independent European security apparatus that may rival NATO, but furthermore, all European nations become subordinate within the US-dominated NATO alliance, thus once more eliminating the possibility of any significant rivalry. In this way, US economic hegemony is maintained within the global “economic structures” of the international system, protected under a military hegemony dominated by American leadership.

Of particular note in this regard is a 1997 paper by former US National Security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, outlining a new ‘Geostrategy for Asia’.[69] “America’s status as the world’s premier power is unlikely to be contested by any single challenger for more than a generation,” he observes. “No state is likely to match the United States in the four key dimensions of power - military, economic, technological, and cultural - that confer global political clout.” With US power already consolidated in the Western Hemisphere, it is now necessary to extend this power over Europe and Asia, contributing, of course, to “international stability”. “America’s emergence as the sole global superpower now makes an integrated and comprehensive strategy for Eurasia imperative.”

Brzezinski further notes that “After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there [i.e. in Eurasia], as are all but one of the world’s overt nuclear powers, and all but one of the covert ones. Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world’s population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia’s potential power overshadows even America’s.

“Eurasia is the world’s axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world’s three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa.” These crucial political, strategic and economic considerations provide the United States with an overriding imperative to not only prevent the region from pursuing a course of development independent from the US which may then go on to constitute a challenge to US hegemony; but also to strengthen and expand  hegemony over this highly lucrative region in accord with securing US elite interests.

“With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard,” Brzezinsky observes, “it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and historical legacy.” Brzezinski thus concludes: “In volatile Eurasia, the immediate task is to ensure that no state or combination of states gains the ability to expel the United States or even diminish its decisive role”, a role which he describes as a “benign American hegemony.” NATO is naturally the most suitable basis for this supposedly “benign” expansion of US hegemony. “Unlike America’s links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland. With the allied European nations still highly dependent on US protection, any expansion of Europe’s political scope is automatically an expansion of US influence. Conversely, the United States’ ability to project influence and power relies on close transatlantic ties.

“A wider Europe and an enlarged NATO will serve the short-term and longer-term interests of US policy. A larger Europe will expand the range of American influence without simultaneously creating a Europe so politically integrated that it could challenge the United States on matters of geopolitical importance, particularly in the Middle East.”[70]

The US drive to establish its domination in Europe in accordance with the hegemonically imperialistic objectives previously outlined is therefore an undeniable fact. Other policy elites have elaborated on US plans. For example, Richard Holbrooke, the US Assistant Secretary of State for European affairs has gone so far to describe the United States as a “European power”. In a paper published in Foreign Affairs, Holbrooke outlined the objectives of the US for the whole of Europe and beyond in relation to the system of collective security - including NATO - established by the Western powers after the Second World War: “This time, the United States must lead in the creation of a security architecture that includes and thereby stabilizes all of Europe - the West, the former Soviet satellites of Central Europe and, most critically, Russia and the former republics of the Soviet Union.” The official policy of the US is thus to integrate the whole of Europe under a Western politico-economic system, established first and foremost under “American leadership”. Holbrooke further discusses the necessity of expanding NATO, particularly into Central Europe, with the purpose of securing the “stability” of the entire continent. He argues that the “expansion of NATO is an essential consequence of the raising of the Iron Curtain.”[71] Included in this objective was the task of eradicating socialism in the Balkans to help integrate the region into the international capitalist system under US hegemony.[72]

The Caspian region has featured prominently in all this. According to official estimates, anywhere from 25 to 200 trillion barrels of oil and comparable reserves of natural gas lie below the Caspian seabed. As Laura Payne of the Center for Defense Information observes: “The five nations that border the Caspian Sea (Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan) in addition to major Western oil corporations are eager to explore and further develop Caspian oil and gas reserves.”[73] At a February 1998 meeting of the US House Committee on International Relations, committee chairman Doug Bereuter accordingly revealed that “the collapse of the Soviet Union has unleashed a new great game”, dominated by “the interests of... Unocal and Total, and many other organizations and firms.” He continued: “Stated US policy goals regarding energy resources in this region include fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; breaking Russia’s monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies.”[74] Energy Secretary Bill Richardson similarly told Stephen Kinzer of the New York Times in 1999: “We’re trying to move these newly independent countries towards the West. We would like to see them reliant on Western commercial and political interests rather than going the other way. We’ve made a substantial political investment in the Caspian and it’s very important to us that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right.”[75] Frederick Starr, Director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at John Hopkins University, noted in 1998 that half the NATO states had a heavy commercial stake in the Caspian. He further revealed that “the potential economic rewards of Caspian energy will draw in their train Western military forces to protect that investment if necessary.”[76]

Recent military interventions appear to have had just that motivation, by securing a politico-economic environment conducive to foreign investment. Erika Weinthal, assistant Professor of Political Science at Tel-Aviv University, observes: “Washington’s underlying goal in Central Asia has been the creation of a stable political and economic climate favorable to American business interests, especially in the energy sector. The US sought to gain access to the newly discovered oil reserves in the Caspian Basin in order to lessen its dependence upon Persian Gulf oil.”[77] NATO expansion thus allows the US to integrate the whole of Europe and the Caspian region under a system of US hegemony. Developments in Europe also seem to be moving the continent to the achievement of this objective.

IV. Military Humanism

It is thus worth noting the acute analysis of American analyst Tom Barry, who observes that the doctine of the United States as benevolent “global peacekeeper” is “untenable: morally, financially, and politically. Washington is not an impartial arbiter and enforcer of global peace and security. It is a globocop but a selective one”, undertaking interventions only in accordance with what is “regarded to be strategically or economically important.” Barry notes, for instance, that even after “a half century the US still has not ratified one of the two Geneva human rights accords, and recently Washington has sought to undermine accords banning land mines, prohibiting the use of child soldiers, and establishing an international criminal court.” In other words, “Rather than being an operative principle of US foreign policy, advancing human rights is part of the US foreign policy toolbox, increasingly used during the past couple of decades, although only selectively and rarely against countries regarded to be strategically or economically important. The credibility of US human rights policy is further undermined by US unwillingness to subject itself to scrutiny of its own practices”. The US foreign policy agenda “likely to continue into the next administration”, therefore consists of the following five factors: “It is (1) retrograde, (2) driven by [corporate] special interests, (3) guided by short-term objectives, (4) interventionist and above international law, and (5) domineering.”[78]

IV.I Military Expansionism across the Earth

It is therefore unsurprising to see that the United States is propelling military expansion with the view to dominate the Earth climatically. Extensive documentation indicates the existence of a US programme of research on the inducement of climatic manipulations for military purposes. A recent study commissioned for the US Air Force called for “US aerospace forces to ‘own the weather’ by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications... From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary... In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.”[79]

This plan has resulted in the establishment of the High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokoma Alaska. HAARP, jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy, is being pursued under the auspices of the US Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) and is operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate. The respected scientist Dr Rosalie Bertell has described HAARP as follows: “It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere. It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States. HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature. The military implications of combining these projects is alarming... The ability of the HAARP/Spacelab/rocket combination to deliver very large amount of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening. The project is likely to be ‘sold’ to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons, or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone layer.”[80]

The specifically military nature of HAARP has been confirmed by US military documents confirming that the programme’s primary aim is to “exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes… HAARP could contribute to climate change by intensively bombarding the atmosphere with high-frequency rays... Returning low-frequency waves at high intensity could also affect people’s brains, and effects on tectonic movements cannot be ruled out.”[81] Scientist Dr Nicholas Begich describes HAARP as “A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere [upper layer of the atmosphere] by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything - living and dead.”[82] According to Dr. Bertell HAARP acts as “a gigantic heater that can cause major disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet.”[83]

The catastrophic implications of HAARP for the environment have been acknowledged by the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy. Public hearings were held in Brussel in February 1998 on the issue.[84] According to the Committee’s ‘Motion for Resolution’ submitted later to the European Parliament, the Committee “Considers HAARP... by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body”. Additionally, the Committee expressed “regrets [at] the repeated refusal of the United States Administration... to give evidence to the public hearing... into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program.”[85] Unfortunately, the Committee’s call was dismissed on the pretext that “the links between environment and defense” are not within the European Commission’s jurisdiction.[86]

IV.II Military Expansionism in Space

It is therefore also unsurprising to see that the United States is propelling military expansion with the view to dominate space. According to Professor of Journalism at the State University of New York, Karl Grossman: “The US military explicitly says it wants to ‘control’ space to protect its economic interests and establish superiority over the world.”[87] Grossman cites several crucial documents elucidating the new military vision and its inextricable linkage to US economic imperialism. A 1996 report of the US Space Command entitled Vision for 2020, begins by asserting: “US Space Command - dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict.” The report reminisces that a century ago “Nations built navies to protect and enhance their commercial interests”; in the nuclear age, however, military domination to “protect and enhance” American “commercial interests” must pertain to all spectrums. “The medium of space is the fourth medium of warfare - along with land, sea, and air… The emerging synergy of space superiority with land, sea, and air superiority will lead to Full Spectrum Dominance.” Karl Grossman reports that “Corporate interests are directly involved in helping set the US space doctrine - a fact the military flaunts. In its 1998 ‘Long Range Plan’, the US Space Command acknowledges seventy-five participating corporations - including Aerojet, Hughes Space, Lockheed Martin, and TRW.” Grossman notes that contrary to the “PR spin” that this expansion into space is related to issues of defence, “the volumes of material coming out of the military are concerned mainly with offense - with using space to establish military domination over the world below.”[88]

Commander-in-chief of US Space Command Richard B. Myers admitted that “space is increasingly at the center of our national and economic security… The threat I believe is real.” Elaborating on what he implied by “threat”, Myers stated to his audience: “It’s a threat to our economic well-being. This is why we must work together to find common ground between commercial imperatives and the President’s tasking to me for space control and protection.”[89] Similarly, the Council on Foreign Relations advocated that: “The most immediate task of the United States in the years ahead is to sustain and extend its leadership in the increasingly intertwined fields of military and commercial space. This requires a robust and continuous presence in space.”[90] Grossman reports that as a result the US government is “pouring massive amounts of public money - $6 billion a year, not counting what is secretly spent - into the military development of space.”[91]

These US moves toward unprecedented military expansion are ominous. Considering the increasingly volatile state of world affairs, as well as the unaccountable nature of world order and its subservience to unhindered elite interests, the prospects for future peace and stability appear to be on the wane.

V. New Threats for a New Order

The maintenance of high levels of military spending, of course, has entailed the manufacturing of new threats by which to justify such spending. In the current world order, the Soviet/Communist “threat” has become defunct. One of the major new ideological constructions being highlighted as an alleged threat to national security, and thus being utilised as a pretext on which to maintain massive investment in the military, is ‘Islamic fundamentalism’. This phenomenon can be found within the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe.[92]

V.I The Islamic Threat, Among Others

Former bureau chief of the Jerusalem Post and adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute, Leon T. Hadar, documented in the early 1990s the move of the US towards the demonisation of Islam, among other appropriate “threats”: “Now that the Cold War is becoming a memory, America’s foreign policy establishment has begun searching for new enemies. Possible new villains include ‘instability’ in Europe - ranging from German resurgence to new Russian imperialism - the ‘vanishing’ ozone layer, nuclear proliferation, and narcoterrorism. Topping the list of potential new global bogeymen, however, are the Yellow Peril, the alleged threat to American economic security emanating from East Asia, and the so-called Green Peril (green is the color of Islam). That peril is symbolized by the Middle Eastern Moslem fundamentalist - the ‘Fundie’, to use a term coined by The Economist.”[93]

Thus, according to Amos Perlmutter in the Washington Post, “Islamic fundamentalism is an aggressive revolutionary movement as militant and violent as the Bolshevik, Fascist and Nazi movements of the past”. It is “authoritarian, anti-democratic, anti-secular” and by its inherent nature cannot be reconciled with the “Christian-secular universe”. Its goal is the establishment of a “totalitarian Islamic state” in the Middle East. Thus, the US should ensure that the movement is “stifled at birth”.[94] The rise of Islamic movements throughout countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia are contributing to an elitist “urge to identify Islam as an inherently anti-democratic force that is America’s new global enemy now that the Cold War is over”, writes Jim Hoagland.[95] The rise of political Islam, unless quelled with appropriate Western policy, will thus lead “the Middle East and the once Soviet Central Asian republics [to] become in a few years the cultural and political dependencies of the most expansionist militarized regime in the world today, a regime for which terrorism is the governing norm.”[96] This view stems directly from the official perspective of the Western political establishment. Then Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Willy Claes, described Islam as “at least as dangerous as communism was.” He added: “NATO is much more than a military alliance. It has committed itself to defending basic principles of civilization that bind North American and Western Europe.”[97]

Accordingly, numerous think-tank studies have purported to analyse the ‘Islamic threat’ to the US/Western global order, and the ‘Islamic threat’ has now become a genuine Western foreign policy issue. US Congress also conducted several hearings on the issue, beginning in the early 1990s.[98] Mamoun Fandy of the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University reports: “The US has placed counterterrorism at the top of its international and domestic agendas, and much of the political mobilization to win support for antiterrorism measures has been focused on the need to confront and overcome ‘Muslim fundamentalism’ or ‘Islamic terror’. Domestically, the US government won support for sweeping new antiterrorism legislation through repeated references, both veiled and overt, to the threat posed by Islamic terrorists. In speeches before the United Nations General Assembly in both 1995 and 1996, Clinton urged greater international cooperation against terrorism.” Despite fervent US claims to have “no quarrel with Islam”, “The US identifies all political activities that mobilize using Islamic symbols as ‘terrorism’ aimed at undermining Washington’s grand strategy in the Middle East.” “US policymakers continue to use ‘Islamic terror’ as the replacement for ‘the communist menace’ or the ‘evil empire’, as the ideological enemy against which all US policy should be aimed. The US is still thinking in state-based, cold war terms”.[99]

Thus in 1999, Islamic fundamentalism was explicitly pinpointed by the United States as a new threat necessitating the maintenance of high levels of military spending. Apart from the so-called global ‘Islamic threat’, other potential enemies were rogue states and nuclear outlaws. The manufacturing of these new threats in place of the now obsolete Soviet Union, was used to justify a $124 billion increase in military spending over seven years, jeopardising much needed investment within the US on domestic issues such as education, social security, medicare and programmes for the poor. News commentator Enver Masud notes that the absence of an official enemy necessitated the fabrication of new ones, including ‘Islamic fundamentalism’: “Anxious to protect cold war levels of defense spending, the Pentagon manufactured the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, rogue states and nuclear outlaws.”[100] In a June 2000 report to Congress, L. Paul Bremmer III, Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, stated that the threat of terrorism to the US “is becoming more deadly”. The commission, established in the aftermath of the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa includes a majority of Muslim countries in its list of countries allegedly sponsoring terrorism, especially Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Sudan - as well as Cuba and North Korea.[101]

V.II Manufactured Images

All this has followed as a result of the fact that “the arms industry has launched a concerted lobbying campaign aimed at increasing military spending and arms exports”, as Senior Fellow of the World Policy Institute William Hartung points out. “These initiatives are driven by profit and pork barrel politics, not by the objective assessment of how to best defend the United States in a post-cold war period.”[102]

Military interventions such as Kosovo and East Timor have therefore also supplied new ‘humanitarian’ pretexts on which to legitimise the massive military budget from which corporate elites alone benefit. Countries such as Iraq and North Korea, and their alleged (but non-existent) weapons of mass destruction have additionally been categorised as dangerous “rogue states”, providing further false justification to maintain ‘defence’ spending.[103] We have already dealt with Iraq’s actual lack of weapons and the vacuous nature of the alleged Iraqi threat; North Korea’s alleged programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction similarly appear to be fabrications. For instance, the Times reported: “A privately launched spy satellite has revealed what American Intelligence has kept secret for years - that North Korea’s only operational missile test centre is a primitive facility consisting of a ‘shed, a dirt road, a launch pad and a rice paddy’. Missile experts in the United States dismissed Washington’s fears that the rogue nation now posed a serious threat to America’s security.”[104] Ironically, while military spending is rocketing on the pretext of ‘defence’ against international terrorism, acts of terrorism have actually been on the decrease since the beginning of the 1990s, including those apparently perpetrated in the name of Islam - the numbers of which are relatively minute.[105]

“Here we go again”, commented Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, USN (Ret.), Deputy Director of the Center for Defense Information, on Clinton’s 1999 budget plans. “The US already spends substantially more for military forces than any other nation, with no significant threats to our national security [italics added]. We’re engaged in an arms race with ourselves. Americans don’t need to spend more money for national security. What we should do is quit wasting money on forces and weapons; we don’t need need to fight non-existent enemies abroad. Instead, we ought to use the same dollars to address pressing national needs such as improved education, medical care, housing and law enforcement right here at home.”[106] Carroll’s comments are echoed by John and Karl Mueller writing in Foreign Affairs that: “On average far fewer Americans are killed each year by terrorists than are killed by lightning, deer accidents, or peanut allergies. To call terrorism a threat to national security is scarcely plausible… [E]conomic sanctions may well have been a necessary cause of the deaths of more people in Iraq than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history.”[107]

The new threat of Islamic fundamentalism thus plays a particularly important role within the new world order, permitting the West to formulate and justify strategies by which to enforce and stabilise hegemony within the Middle East in particular, as well as in Africa and Asia. Due to this, it is essential for us to discuss in detail the relation of Islam to the global order, the reasons for this relationship, and its ideological and political ramifications. The major reason that Western institutions have taken it upon themselves to demonise Islam, is inseparable from the structure of the global politico-economic order; in fact it is a direct logic consquence of that order and its relations to the Muslim people throughout the world.[108]

Thanks to the efforts of media and academic commentators, most Westerners are aware of the apparent Islam-West divide, in which Islam (or at least some aspect of Islam) is supposed to constitute a fundamental danger to the allegedly ‘free world’. Samuel Huntington and his infamous “clash of civilisations” thesis concerning the developments within the global order is a particularly stark example of an academic justification for the concept of an unfathomable Islam-West divide and a new inevitable Cold War with Islam.[109] However, as is pointed out by J. A. Progler, Assistant Professor of Social Studies at the School of Education in the City University of New York, Brooklyn College: “The long history of encounters between Western civilization and Islam has produced a tradition of portraying, in largely negative and self-serving ways, the Islamic religion and Muslim cultures. There is a lot of literature cataloguing (and sometimes correcting) these stereotypes… Western image-makers, including religious authorities, political establishments, and corporate-media conglomerates, conceptualize for their consumers images of Muslims and/or Arabs in sometimes amusing and other times cruel or tragic ways. Upon closer examination, these images seem to serve essential purposes throughout the history of Western civilization. At times these purposes are benign, at others quite sinister. Often, there are tragic consequences for Muslims resulting from the socio-political climate fostered by images.”[110] Within the US, anti-Muslim/anti-Islam sentiment is being successfully generated and escalated. “In a recent Roper poll”, reports Angela Stephens, “more than half the respondents described Islam as inherently anti-American, anti-Western or supportive of terrorism - though only 5 percent said they’d had much contact with Muslims themselves. Incidents of harassment and violence against American Muslims and Arabs have risen sharply following dramatic and devastating events such as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and 1996 crash of TWA flight 800, even though in both events there was no connection to Islam or the Middle East.”[111] The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) thus reported a massive 60 per cent rise in discrimination against Muslims in 1997 compared to 1996.[112]

V.III The Reality Behind the Image

That these images manufactured by the media and academia in tandem are actually quite contrary to documented facts is clear. However, it is not correct to totally deny or ignore the existence of “Islam-West” tension. The real reasons behind this confrontation in the inherent structure of the present global order have been lucidly explained by the distinguished US analyst and journalist, former State Department official William Blum:

“When asked ‘What is it that these terrorists want from the United States?’, Richard Haas, head of the foreign policy department at the Brookings Institution, replied: ‘Well, the answer is it’s not anything we’re simply doing.  It is who we are. It’s the fact that we’re the most powerful country in the world. It’s the fact that we’re a secular country... It is simply who we are and it is our existence that really bothers them.’

“‘Americans are targets of terrorism, in part, because we act to advance peace and democracy and because we stand united against terrorism’, said President Clinton.” Blum continues: “These are some of the platitudes our leaders and policy makers feed us after each terrorist attack against an American installation. What they never let slip is that the terrorists - whatever else they might be - might also be rational human beings; which is to say that in their own minds they have a rational justification for their actions; and that the justification is usually retaliation for various American actions.

“The massive bombing of the Iraqi people; the continuing sanctions against Iraq; the unmitigated support of Israel; the double standard applied to Israeli terrorism, such as the massacre of 106 Lebanese at the UN base at Qana in 1996; the large military and hi-tech presence in Islam’s holiest land, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region; the unceasing persecution of Libya; the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane... these are some of the American actions that can turn an Arab or a Muslim into a fanatic, into a terrorist. And their terrorist acts will continue as long as the United States gives them so many reasons for retaliation.”[113]

John Pilger offers a similar assessment: “How is it that Western establishments can invert the public truth of their own power and terrorism? The answer is that it is apostasy in Britain and the United States to describe the democracies as terrorist states... Stereotypes are much preferred, such as the ‘Muslim fanatic’. In fact, not only have Muslims been responsible for a tiny proportion of deaths caused by terrorism, but in recent years it is they who have been the greatest sufferers from state terrorism: in Palestine, Iraq, Bosnia, Chechnya and Somalia.”[114]

Thus, the fact of the matter is that what has been called ‘Islamic terrorism’ by the West in tandem with its slavish mass media is actually the retaliation by oppressed Muslims against the West’s own policies of perpetuating intense repression, war and injustice, in the form of dictatorial regimes as well as direct military interventions.  Muslims in fact have only “been responsible for a tiny proportion of deaths caused by terrorism”, points out Pilger. Meanwhile, the rights of the majority of Muslim people throughout the world are continuously trampled under repressive regimes shored up by the West to secure its strategic and economic interests.

In fact, statistics show that the majority of acts of terrorism are undertaken against Muslims, not by Muslims. In Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1998, the Department of State reports that “the number of international terrorist attacks actually fell again in 1998, continuing a downward trend that began several years ago.”

According to the State Department report the ‘Total US Citizen Casualties Caused by International Attacks’ are as follows:

 

 1993

 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

 Dead

 7

6

10

25

6

12

 Wounded

 1004

5

60

510

21

11

Another useful statistic is ‘Total International Attacks by Region’ which states as follows:

 

 1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

 Africa

 6

25

10

11

11

21

 Asia

 37

24

16

11

21

49

 Eurasia

 5

11

5

24

42

14

 Latin America

 97

58

92

84

128

110

 Middle East

 100

116

45

45

37

31

 North America

 1

0

0

0

13

0

 West Europe

 185

88

272

121

52

48

As far as “Islamic terrorism” is concerned, the most pertinent statistic is ‘Total Anti-US Attacks’ which lists attacks by region as follows: Africa-3, Europe-3, West Europe-13, Middle East-5, and Latin America-87.[115] Conversely, extensive documentation shows that 80 per cent of all human rights violations in the world are committed against Muslims.[116] Muslims throughout the world, then, are in fact the primary victims of terrorism, not its cause. For example, the prestigious international newsmagazine the New Statesman explains how “Arabs must put up with stereotypes about Islamic fundamentalism and violence, when, in fact, not only have Muslims been responsible for a tiny proportion of deaths caused by terrorism, but in recent years it is they who have been the greatest sufferers from state terrorism: in Palestine, Iraq, Bosnia, Chechnya and Somalia.”[117] From these facts, it is evident that the Western people have little to fear from terrorism, and even less from “Islamic terrorism.”[118]

Rather, the US corporate-military-industrial complex - which is the driving force behind the contemporary world order - is also the force that bears prime responsibility for manufacturing new false threats in the post-Cold War period to justify an ongoing anti-humanitarian foreign policy, whose objective is nothing other than global economic domination. Under the imperatives of US hegemonic expansionism, the world is likely to see escalating turmoil, violence and instability as the US extends its tentacles of consolidation to new regions, and faces increasing threats from popular demands for social change within the Global North as well as the Global South.

The unprecedented attacks on key U.S. buildings on the 11th September mark a shift in the way the US-led West normally conducts its profit-orientated wars on the rest of the world. It is simply inaccurate for the U.S. to claim that the perpetrators of Tuesday’s horrific atrocities constitute a “declaration of war” on America. America, leading the other Western powers, declared war on the non-Western Third World many decades ago. Now the war has come home. The victims of the system of global apartheid - in which the Western powers control the world’s resources while the majority of the population toils under regimes of extreme oppression and deprivation propped up by the international community - are becoming increasingly intolerant of the inhumane conditions in which they are forced to attempt to survive. Unfortunately, this has meant that a few, finding no other way out, are resorting to desperate measures to change an increasingly ruthless status quo. If we are to genuinely stop such acts of terror from being repeated, then we must dismantle the unjust system that creates such inhumane conditions from which individuals arise with so little hope that they feel compelled to use violence. On the contrary, a response calculated to label and target everyone not “on our side” indiscriminately, based on the same strategic principles and economic interests, will only exacerbate the systematic injustices of world order and create conditions conducive to a spiral of violence and war, from which no one will benefit.

Notes:

[1] BBC 2, Newsnight, London, 11 September 2001

[2] Policy Planning Staff, ‘Review of current trends: US foreign policy’, 24 February, 1948, FRUS, Volume 1, Part 2, pp. 510-29

[3] Brief by E. Plowden for S. Cripp, April 1950 in Great Britain, FCO, Documents on British Foreign Policy Overseas, Series II, Volume II, HMSO (later referred to simply as DBFP), p. 131

[4] Memorandum for the Permanent Under-Secretary’s Committee, 27 April 1950, DBFP, Ser. II, Vol. II, p. 171

[5] Minute by Mason, 4 April 1946, DBFP, Ser. I, Vol. IV. p. 208

[6] Memorandum by McGhee, 7 March 1950, FRUS, 1950, Vol. 1, p. 188

[7] see Curtis, The Ambiguities of Power, op. cit., p. 15

[8] for references see Chomsky, Noam, Turning the tide: US Interventions in Central America and the Struggle for Peace, Black Rose, Montreal, 1987;  Kolko, Gabriel, Confronting the Third World: United States foreign policy 1945-1980, Pantheon, New York, 1988; La Feber, Walter, Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America, Norton, 1983

[9] Brief by Wright for Bevin, 6 May 1950, DBFP, Ser. II, Vol. II, pp. 244-5

[10] Policy Planning Staff, ‘Review of current trends: US foreign policy’, 24 February 1948, FRUS, 1948, Vol. 1, Part 2, p. 511

[11] Tripartite Drafting Group, ‘Southeast Asia’, 1 September 1950, FRUS, 1950, Vol. III, p. 1174

[12] Agreed tripartite mines on Southeast Asia, 22 May 1950, FRUS, 1950, Vol. III, p. 1083

[13] Introductory paper on the Middle East by the UK, undated [1947], FRUS, 1947, Vol. V, p. 569

[14] Memorandum by the Acting Chief of the Petroleum Division, 1 June 1945, FRUS, 1945, Vol. VIII, p. 54

[15] NSC 5401, quoted in Heikal, Mohammed, Cutting the lion’s tail; Suez through Egyption eyes, Andre Deutsch, London, 1986, p. 38. It is essential to note in this connection that the ongoing Western desire to control Middle East oil has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with the simple maximisation of corporate profits. Michael Shuman of the Institute for Policy Studies based in Washington DC, points out that “greater energy efficiency could enable the United States to reduce its dependence on foreign oil supplies and the associated military risks of the Persian Gulf.” For example, “before the United States sent its troops to Saudi Arabia, it was calculated that investing a single year’s budget for the Rapid Deployment Force in efficiency improvements could eliminate the United States’ need for Middle East oil, as well as the risks posed by the force itself.” In other words, “had the United States invested as much as a quarter of the price it is paying for the war against Iraq on energy savings, the country could have permanently unplugged itself from Persian Gulf oil. Just increasing the efficiency of American cars by three miles per gallon could replace all US oil imports from Iraq and Kuwait.” (Shuman, Michael, ‘Participatory peace policies’, in Hartman, Chester and Vilanova, Pedro, Paradigms lost: The post Cold War era, Pluto Press, London, 1992, p. 133)

[16] by Orme Sargent, ‘Stocktaking after V.E. Day’, 11 July 1945; refer to Ross, Graham (ed.), The Foreign Office and the Kremlin: British documents on Anglo-Soviet relations 1941-45, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984, p. 211

[17] Memorandum by Richard Clarke, 11 May 1945; refer to Cairncross, Alec (ed.), Anglo-American economic collaboration in war and peace 1942-1949, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1982, p. 110

[18] US report of the Special ‘Ad Hoc’ Committee of the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee, 21 April 1947, FRUS, 1947, Vol. III, p. 209

[19] cited in Gifford, Prosser and Louis, W. Roger (eds.), The transfer of power in Africa: Decolonisation 1940-1960, Yale University Press, London, 1982, p. 261

[20] cited in ibid., pp. 42, 51

[21] spoken by John Balfour of the British embassy in Washington, to Bevin, 9 August 1945, DBFP, Ser. II, Vol. II, pp. 244-5

[22] UK/US ministerial talks, 8 May 1950, DBFP, Calender to Ser. II, Vol. II, pp. 494-5. For more on the integration of Western Europe within the US-dominated global system, see Kolko, Gabriel, The Politics of War, Random House, New York, 1969; Kolko, Joyce and Gabriel, The Limits of Power, Harper & Row, New York, 1972; Block, Fred L., The Origins of International Economic Disorder, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1977

[23] From the series of memoranda of the War and Peace Studies Project of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) during the Second World War, whose participants included top government planners and members of the foreign policy establishment; this and the following comments made in the next three paragraphs rely on Shoup, Laurence H., ‘Shaping the Postwar World’, Insurgent Sociologist, Vol. 5, No. 3, Spring 1975, which includes references for the quotes in the next three paragraphs; see also, Shoup, L. and Minter, W., Imperial Brain Trust, Monthly Review Press, New York, 1977; Chomsky, Noam, Towards a New Cold War: Essays on the Current Crisis and How We Got There, Sinclair Brown, London, 1982

[24] State Department Memorandum, ‘Petroleum Policy of the United States’, April 1944

[25] cited in Kolko, Gabriel, The Politics of War, Random House, New York, 1968, pp. 302f

[26] see Blair, John, The Control of Oil, Pantheon, New York, 1976

[27] see ‘Multinational Oil Corporations and US Foreign Policy (MNOC), Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 2 January 1975, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1975

[28] cited in Chomsky, Noam, Towards a New Cold War, op. cit., p. 100; for further analyses of the design and execution of US imperial planning as documented in the Pentagon Papers see Du Boff, Richard B., ‘Business Ideology and Foreign Policy’, in Chomsky, Noam and Zinn, Howard (eds.), Critical Essays, published as volume 5 of the Gravel edition of the Pentagon Papers (Beacon Press, Boston, 1972); see also Dower, John, ‘The Superdomino in Postwar Asia’ in the same volume; and Chomsky, Noam, ‘The Pentagon Papers and US Imperialism in South East Asia’, The Spokesman, Winter 1972/3; Chomsky, Noam, For Reasons of State, op. cit. As Chomsky comments, the central aim espoused in the Pentagon Papers involved the integration of Southeast Asia into a US dominated global system that would ensure American “access to resources”, by preventing any possibility of independent domestic utilisation of resources. This provided the primary basis for policies toward, for example, Vietnam, under the guise of self-defence against the Communist threat - in actuality the only “threat” was to American economic hegemony.

[29] Kennan, George F., Memoirs, Little, Brown, Boston, 1967, p. 361

[30] cited in Talbott, Strobe, ‘Rethinking the Red Menace’, Time, 1 January 1990

[31] Foreign Office, ‘Russian strategic intentions and the threat to peace’, 7 December 1950, DBFP, Calender to Ser. II, Vol. IV, p. 9/57

[32] Chief of Staff, ‘Korea: Effect on British interests in the Far East,’ 7 July 1950, ibid., p. 2/65

[33] Office of Near Eastern Affairs, ‘Regional policy statement: Near East’, 28 December 1950, FRUS, 1950, Vol. V, pp. 271-2

[34] Bureau of Near Eastern, South Asian and African Affairs, ‘Regional policy statement on Africa south of the Sahara’, 29 December 1950, ibid., p. 1587

[35] Summary of Remarks by McGhee, 25 October 1950, ibid., pp. 1570, 1572

[36] Minutes of a Policy Planning Staff meeting, 11 October 1950, FRUS, 1949, Vol. I, p. 400

[37] Office of South Asian Affairs, ‘Regional policy statement: South Asia’, 9 October 1950, FRUS, 1950, Vol. V, pp. 246-7

[38] Report of the Mutual Defence Assistance Programme Mission to Southeast Asia, 6 December 1950, FRUS, Vol. VI, p. 168

[39] Schaub to Lay, 8 May 1950, FRUS, 1950, Vol. 1, p. 301

[40] Thorp to Secretary of State, 5 April 1950, ibid., pp. 218-19. Also see, for example, Holzman, Franklyn, ‘Are the Soviets Really Outspending the US on Defense?’, International Security, Spring 1980; Holzman, Franklyn, ‘The Military Expenditure Gap - Fact or Fiction’, Tufts University, 1981

[41] see FRUS, 1950, Vol. 1, pp. 234-92

[42] Record of a meeting of the State-Defence Policy Review Group, 16 March 1950, FRUS, 1950, Vol. 1, p. 198

[43] State Deparment intelligence report, 1949, cited in Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader, op. cit., p. 319

[44] Memorandum for the Permanent Under-Secretary’s Committee, 27 April 1950, DBFP, Ser. II, Vol. II, p. 162

[45] Elliot, William Y. (ed.), The Political Economy of American Foreign Policy, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1955; also see Chomsky, Noam, At War with Asia, Pantheon Books, New York, 1970

[46] Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader, op. cit.

[47] Kennan on US policy towards Latin America cited in ibid.

[48] Memorandum by Richard Clarke, 11 May 1945, ‘Anglo-American economic collaborations’, pp. 111-12. It is in this light that the real import of the term ‘development’, in connection to the “underdeveloped countries”, can be understood. Historian David Fieldhouse summarises the essence of this colonial ‘development’ programme for what is now known as the ‘Third World’: “That is, one way or another, the colonies were lent or given some £40 million by Britain but were forced to lend or tie up in London about £250 million.” In other words, ‘development’ meant that the colonies gave to a Western power six times more than they received from that power. “This was disinvestment on a grand scale, the most accurate assessment of the extent of British imperial exploitation.” (Fieldhouse, David K., ‘The Labour governments and the empire-commonwealth, 1941-51’ in Ovendale, Richie (ed.), The foreign policy of the British Labour governments, 1945-1951, Leicester University Press, Leicester, 1984, p. 98)

[49] Office of Near Eastern Affairs, ‘Regional policy statement: Near East’, 28 December 1950, FRUS, 1950, Vol. V, pp. 271-2

[50] Bureau of Near Eastern, South Asian and African Affairs, ‘Regional policy statement on Africa south of the Sahara’, 29 December 1950, ibid., p. 1587

[51] Summary of Remarks by McGhee, 25 October 1950, ibid., pp. 1570, 1572

[52] policy paper by McGhee, ‘A new approach in Asia’, 30 August 1950, FRUS, 1950, Vol. VI, p. 138.

[53] NSC 5432/1, 1954

[54] Zinn, Howard, A People’s History of the United States, Harper & Row, New York, 1980, Chapter 16. In general, orthodox realist assumptions provide a plausible structural explanation of the Cold War’s existence. The mutual preeminent position of both the United States and the Soviet Union at the top of the international heirarchy essentially made rivalry between them inescapable. This made them naturally suspicious of the other side, and ignited reasons to struggle against the global hegemony of either side. (For a review of the various interpretations see: Gaddis, John Lewis, We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History, Oxford University Press, New York, 1997; Melanson, Richard A., Writing History and Making Policy: The Cold War, Vietnam, and Revisionism, University Press of America, Lanham, Md., 1983.) However, in light of the facts produced here this explanation - among the others most widely accepted - is in itself inadequate. Clearly, the United States displayed a hegemonic interest in expansion and domination of global resources, and the former Soviet Union similarly had interests in sealing its own sphere of influence at the expense of US interests. This mutual conflict of hegemonic interests, in which both sides had essentially neo-imperialistic imperatives, led to the escalation of conflict. Moreover, the real losers of this conflict were neither the US nor the USSR, but rather the populations of those countries who were caught in this crossfire of ruthlessly competing hegemonic interests.

In fact, this view has been adopted by Professor Chomsky as follows: “The Cold War is generally described as a ‘zero-sum game’ in which the gains of one antagonist equal the losses of the other. But this is a highly questionable interpretation” in light of the documentary record (e.g. the Pentagon Papers). “It would be more realistic to regard the Cold War system as a macabre dance of death in which the rulers of the superpowers mobilize their own populations to support harsh and brutal measures directed against victims within what they take to be their respective domains, where they are ‘protecting their legitimate interests’. Appeals to the alleged threat of the powerful global enemy has proven to be a useful device for this purpose. In this respect, the Cold War has proven highly functional for the superpowers... When the United States moves to overthrow the government of Iran or Guatemala or Chile, or to invade Cuba or Indochina or the Dominican Republic, or to bolster murderous dictatorships in Latin America or Asia, it does so in a noble effort to defend free peoples from the imminent Russian (or earlier, Chinese) threat. Similarly, when the USSR sends its tanks to East Berlin, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, or Afghanistan, it is acting from the purest of motives, defending socialism and freedom against the machinations of US imperialism and its cohorts. The rhetoric employed on both sides is similar, and is generally parroted by the intelligentsia in each camp.” (Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader, op. cit., p. 207-8)

[55] Barry, Tom, ‘G8/G7 and Global Governance’, Foreign Policy In Focus, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 2000, http://www.igc.org/infocus

[56] The New York Times, 8 March 1992; The International Herald Tribune, 9 March 1992; The Washington Post, 22 March 1992; The Times, 25 May 1992

[57]  Bush statement cited in Flounders, Sara, essay in Clark, Ramsey (ed.), Nato in the Balkans, op. cit.

[58] Cohen cited in Klare, Michael, ‘The US Military Faces South’, The Nation, 18 June 1990; Gray, A. M., Marine Corps Gazette, May 1990

[59] Klare, Michael T., ‘The Clinton Doctrine’, The Nation, 19 April 1999. It is worth noting that the “new strategic concept” not only sees NATO extending throughout Eastern and Baltic Europe, but may even reach Asia, with a US-led military alliance connecting Pacific and Southeast Asian states. Zbigniew Brzezinski defines NATO as part of an “integrated, comprehensive and long-term geostrategy for all of Eurasia” (Talbot, Karen, Covert Action Quarterly, No. 68, 1999)

[60] Al-Ahram Weekly, 24-30 June 1999

[61] Barry, Tom, Special Report - ‘Challenges and Conundrums of a New Global Affairs Agenda’, Foreign Policy In Focus, May 2000

[62] New York Times, 2 January 1996

[63] Barry, Tom, Special Report - ‘Challenges and Conundrums of a New Global Affairs Agenda’, Foreign Policy In Focus, May 2000

[64] ibid.

[65] Art, Robert A., ‘Why Western Europe Needs the United States and NATO’, Political Science Quarterly, 111, Spring 1996

[66] Hoey, Joan, ‘The US “Great Game” in Bosnia’, Nation, 30 January 1995

[67] See especially Hartung, William D., ‘Military-Industrial Complex Revisited: How Weapon Makers Are Shaping US Foreign and Military Policies’, Foreign Policy In Focus, 8 June 1999, http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/micr/; Shields, Janice C., Special Report, ‘Corporate Welfare and Foreign Policy’, Foreign Policy In Focus, http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/cw

[68] Interview with a Western European ambassador to NATO, Brussels, 10 January 1992; cited in Art, Robert A., ‘Why Western Europe Needs the United States and NATO’, Political Science Quarterly, 111, Spring 1996

[69] Brzezinski, Zbigniew, ‘A Geostrategy for Asia’, Foreign Affairs, September/October 1997

[70] ibid.

[71] Holbrooke, Richard, ‘America: A European Power’, Foreign Affairs, March/April 1995

[72] Hoey, Joan, ‘The US “Great Game” in Bosnia’, Nation, 30 January 1995

[73] Payne, Laura, ‘US-Russia Security Relations’, Foreign Policy In Focus, Vol. 3, No. 26, September 1998

[74] Doug Bereuter, US House Committee on International Relations, February 1998

[75] New York Times, March 1999

[76] cited in Editorial Board, ‘Why is NATO at war with Yugoslavia? World power, oil and gold’, World Socialist Web Site, 24 May 1999, http://www.wsws.org

[77] Weinthal, Erika, ‘Central Asia: Aral Sea Problem’, Foreign Policy In Focus, Vol. 5, No. 6, March 2000

[78] Barry, Tom, Special Report - ‘Challenges and Conundrums of a New Global Affairs Agenda’, Foreign Policy In Focus, May 2000, http://www.igc.org/infocus

[79] Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025

[80] Rosalie Bertell, Background of the HAARP Program, 5 November, 1996, http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/weapons.htm

[81] Begich, Nicholas and Manning, Jeane, The Military's Pandora’s Box, Earthpulse Press, http://www.xyz.net/~nohaarp/earthlight.html

[82] Ibid.

[83] Briarpatch, January, 2000

[84] European Report, 7 February 1998.

[85] European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999.

[86] ‘EU Lacks Jurisdiction to Trace Links Between Environment and Defense’, European Report, 3 February 1999.

[87] Grossman, Karl, ‘Master of Space’, The Progressive, Vol. 64, No. 1, January 2000

[88] ibid.

[89] Myers, Richard B., ‘Implementing Our Vision for Space-Control’, speech delivered to the US Space Foundation in Colorado Springs, April 1999; cited in ibid.

[90] Klotz, Frank, Space, Commerce and National Security, Council on Foreign Relations, 1998; cited in Grossman, Karl, ‘Master of Space’, The Progressive, Vol. 64, No. 1, January 2000

[91] ibid.

[92] For discussion see Said, Edward, Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World, Vintage, London, 1997

[93] Hadar, Leon T., ‘The “Green Peril”: Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat’, Policy Analysis, Cato Institute, No. 177, 27 August 1992

[94] Perlmutter, Amos, ‘Wishful Thinking About Islamic Fundamentalism’, Washington Post, 19 January 1992

[95] Hoagland, Jim, ‘Washington’s Algerian Dilemma’, Washington Post, 6 February 1992

[96] Beichman, Arnold, ‘Iran’s Covetous Glances’, Washington Times, 28 February 1992. Also see Miller, Judith, ‘The Challenge of Radical Islam’, Foreign Affairs, Spring 1993.

[97] Guardian, 3 February 1995. Similar such quotes from the Western press and academia are cited copiously in Said, Edward, Covering Islam, op. cit.

[98] Hadar, Leon T., ‘The “Green Peril”: Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat’, Policy Analysis, Cato Institute, No. 177, 27 August 1992

[99] Fandy, Mamoun, ‘In Focus: Islamists and US Policy’, Foreign Policy In Focus, Vol. 1, No. 21, December 1996

[100] Masud, Enver, ‘Clinton’s $124 Billion Defense Increase Jeopardizes Social Security, Medicare: `Islamic terrorism` helps justify defense spending’, Wisdom Fund, Arlington, 18 January 1999, http://www.twf.org/index.html  also see references cited here

[101] Masud, Enver, ‘Commission Hypes Terror, Doubles Budget’, The Wisdom Fund, Arlington, 15 June 2000

[102] Hartung, William, Milwaukee Sentinel & Journal, 11 January 1999

[103] Masud, Enver, ‘Clinton’s $124 Billion Defense Increase Jeopardizes Social Security, Medicare: `Islamic terrorism` helps justify defense spending’, Wisdom Fund, Arlington, 18 January 1999, http://www.twf.org/index.html  also see references cited here

[104] Evans, Michael, ‘Spy Pictures Show Korea’s Empty Threat’, Times, 12 January 2000

[105] For references and discussion see Masud, Enver, ‘Islamic Fundamentalism $500 Billion Bogey: Welfare `reform` expected to save $55 billion in six years’, Wisdom Fund, 2 August 1996; Enver, ‘Facts Belie Hype About `Islamic Terrorism`’, Wisdom Fund, 31 December 1999. For a deeper analysis see Hadar, Leon T., ‘The “Green Peril”: Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat’, Policy Analysis, No. 177, 27 August 1992 - the general analysis is very illuminating. For another interesting analysis of Islamic ‘fundamentalism’ in the contemporary world see Sayyid, Bobby S., A Fundamental Fear: Eurocentrism and the Emergence of Islamism, Zed Books, 1997; read in tandem with Edward Said’s Orientalism and Culture & Imperialism, the result a very illuminating insight into relations between “East” and “West”, which undercuts the essentially Western chauvinist ‘clash’ thesis of Samuel Huntington. Finally, especially see Esposito, John L., The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?, Oxford University Press, New York, 1992; also see Masud, Enver, The War On Islam, The Wisdom Fund, Madrasah Books Division, Arlington, 2000.

[106] cited in Masud, Enver, ‘Clinton’s $124 Billion Defense Increase Jeopardizes Social Security, Medicare’, The Wisdom Fund, Arlington, 18 January 1999

[107] Mueller, John and Mueller, Karl, ‘Sanctions of Mass Destruction’, Foreign Affairs, May/June 1999

[108] For some insight into what is meant by this, see especially Said, Edward, Orientalism, Random House, New York, 1979; also see Said, Covering Islam, Pantheon, New York, 1981.

[109] Huntington, Samuel, Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1996. For a skillful online dissection of the the myth of Islamic terrorism supported by the media and academia, see the cutting edge web-site of the University of Colorado’s Religious Studies Deparment established by Kevin Choi, True Lies: The Construction of “Islamic” Terrorism in Politics and Academia, It is also worth noting Professor Huntington’s extraordinary ignorance of the “civilizations” he purports to discuss - he seems quite unaware of the abundant scholarly literature disproving the redundant thesis of the inherently aggressive nature of Islam and Muslims (for example: “Muslims have problems living with their neighbours… The evidence is overwhelming.” [p. 256]). His “overwhelming evidence”appears to merely manifest only his poor and prejudiced scholarship, by  undertaking an exceedingly shallow analysis of a few cases, thus distorting them, and furthermore generalising the conclusions without warrant. Suffice it to say that specialists in the field have long dismissed such essentially Eurocentric views of Islam and Muslims. As early as the 1950s, James Michener commented in the American edition of Reader’s Digest: “No other religion spread so rapidly as Islam… The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts that idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience.” (Michener, James A., ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion’, Reader’s Digest [American edition], May 1955) Professor K. S. Ramakrishna Rao, Head of the Department of Philosophy at the Government College for Women, University of Mysore, in his brief summation of Islam and its Prophet remarks on recent scholarship on Islam: “My work today is further lightened because those days are fast disappearing when Islam was highly misrepresented by some of its critics for reasons political and otherwise… My problem in writing this monograph is easier because we are now generally not fed on this kind of history and much time need not be spent pointing out our misrepresentation of Islam. The theory of Islam and Sword for instance is not heard now frequently in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that there is no compulsion in religion is well known. Gibbon, a historian of world repute says, ‘A pernicious tenet has been imputed to Mohammadans, the duty of extirpating all the religions by sword.’ This charge based on ignorance and bigotry, says the eminent historian, is refuted by Quran, by history of Musalman conquerors and by their public and legal toleration of Christian worship.” (Rao, K. S. Ramakrishna, ‘Islam and Mohammad the Prophet’, Islam and the Modern Age, Hydrabad, March 1978) It is certainly a shame that the esteemed Harvard scholar has to resort to regurgitating chauvinistic myths to support his untenable position.

[110] Progler, J. A., ‘The Utility of Islamic Imagery in the West: An American Case Study’, Winter 1997, Al-Tawhid: A Journal of Islamic Thought & Culture, Vol. XIV, No. 4

[111] Stephens, Angela, ‘Terror in East Africa: fundamentally un-Islamic’, The Progressive Media Project, September 1998

[112] cited in ibid. Also see Commission on British Muslims & Islam, Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, 23 October 1997; report on Islamophobia of the Runnymede Trust, 22 October 1997; IHRC report, Anti-Muslim Discrimination and Hostility in the United Kingdom, Islamic Human Rights Commission, 2000.

[113] Blum, William, ‘The bombings of the US embassies, Afghanistan, Sudan, and the war on terrorism’, Foreign Policy Watch, can be accessed via ZNet, http://www.zmag.org  also go to http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm

[114] Pilger, John, Hidden Agendas, Vintage, London, 1998, p. 34

[115] Masud, Enver, ‘Facts Belie Hype About Islamic Terrorism’, The Wisdom Fund [TWF], Arlington, 31 December 1999

[116] figure cited by Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), London, http://www.ihrc.org . The figure is confirmed by other leading human rights organisations.

[117] ‘Who are the most enduring terrorists?’, New Statesman, 21 August 1998

[118] Masud, Enver, ‘Facts Belie Hype About Islamic Terrorism’, op. cit.

Mr. Nafeez Ahmed is a political analyst and human rights activist based in London. He is Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and a Researcher at the Islamic Human Rights Commission.

Source:

by courtesy & © 2001 Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

by the same author:

                     More in 'Perspective' or 'Archive'
 
Copyright © 2001 Media Monitors Network. All rights reserved.  
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
 

 
 

SUPPORT MMN

MMN SERVICES

 
  Recent Content

 
 
 
 

COMMENTS

News

 
 
 
 
  

Today's Feature

 

Content Needed On

 
 
 

Volunteer for MMN

 

 

 

 

 

Advertise @ MMN