Reinvent Democracy by Creating Three Dimensional 3D Democracy

Posts tagged ‘New World Order’

Transnational Secret Societies and the New World Order

Transnational Secret Societies and the New World Order

Transnational Secret Societies and the New World Order

It is for sure that many people agree that transnational secret societies are behind the Western economic system & the subsequent governments & political regimes in Western states.
It shall be of great service from individuals and states to the people of world if they would launch international campaigns aiming at exposing such web and their activities and roles.

All their big fat bankers, the 1% and corporations are from the web and they are the kings makers since the time of the European Spring or Turmoil in 1848 and they are still going on. The so-called “French Revolution” and other “Revolutions” in addition to WW1, WW2, and the Nazi are all their designs.

In this regard, I would like to mention two article on my blog:
Exposing Capitalism; Communism; & International Secret Societies,
and, Islamist Western Secret Societies of Turkey

Modern liberal democracy prevailing in Western countries & their economic system & way of life which are being imposed upon developing states has serious & mounting shortcomings & threats to domestic & international affairs.

Treaty of Darin (1915): New Saudi Land Came in to Existence

Treaty of Darin (1915): New Saudi Land Came in to Existance

Treaty of Darin (1915): New Saudi Land Came in to Existance

In 1901, Abdul Rahman’s son, Abdul Aziz (the future Ibn Saud), asked the Emir of Kuwait for men and supplies for an attack on Riyadh. Already involved in several wars with the Rashidis, the Emir agreed to the request, giving Ibn Saud horses and arms. Although the exact number of men waxed and waned during the subsequent journey, he is believed to have left with around 40 men.
In January 1902, Ibn Saud and his men reached Riyadh. With only a small force, he felt that the only way to take the city was to capture Al Masmak Castle and kill Ibn Ajlan, Chief of Riyadh. Ibn Saud’s force captured the castle and killed Ibn Ajlan according to plan, and took the city within the night.
1903–1907, Warfare period of sporadic battles ended with Saudi takeover of the al-Qassim region.
In 1913, with the aid of the Ikhwan, irregular raiders traveled mainly on camels and some horses, Ibn Saud captured Hasa from the Ottomans. Ibn Saud annexed Al-Hasa and Qatif into his domain of Emirate of Riyadh.
In December, the British government (started early 1915) attempted to cultivate favor with Ibn Saud via its secret agent, Captain William Shakespear, and this resulted in the Treaty of Darin.
The Battle of Jarrab was a territorial battle between the Al Sa’ud and their traditional enemies the Al Rashid in January 1915. It was a proxy battle of World War I between the British-supported Sa’udis and the Ottoman-supported Rashidis.
The main significance of the battle was the death of Ibn Sa’ud’s British Military Advisor, Captain William Shakespear.
The Treaty of Darin, or the Darin Pact, of 1915 was between the United Kingdom and Abdul-Aziz Al Saud (sometimes called Ibn Saud) ruler of Nejd, who would go on to found the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932.
The Treaty was signed on the island of Darin (also known as Tarout Island) in the Persian Gulf, on 26 December 1915 by Abdul-Aziz and Sir Percy Cox on behalf of the British Government.
Terms:
The Treaty made the lands of the House of Saud a British protectorate and attempted to define its boundaries. The British aim of the treaty was to guarantee the sovereignty of Kuwait, Qatar and the Trucial States. Abdul-Aziz agreed not to attack these British protectorates, but gave no undertaking that he would not attack the Sharif of Mecca.
Significance:
The Treaty was the first to give international recognition to the fledgling Saudi state. Also, for the first time in Nejdi history the concept of negotiated borders had been introduced. Additionally, although the British aim was to secure its Gulf protectorates, the Treaty had the unintended consequence of legitimising Saudi control in the adjacent areas. The Treaty was superseded by the Treaty of Jeddah (1927).
Source of the above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Darin

[After Darin, he stockpiled the weapons and supplies which the British provided him, including a ‘tribute’ of £5,000 per month. After World War I, he received further support from the British, including a glut of surplus munitions. He launched his campaign against the Al Rashidi in 1920; by 1922 they had been all but destroyed.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud

[ On  the issue of  succession, Ibn  Saud stated  that  he would either  appoint  a successor himself  or have a semi-public  selection  process. Cox  preferred  an inherited  kingship which  would  reduce  the unpredictability  of an elected leader. ]
[Foreign  Secretary  to  the  Government  of India,  January  10,1916,  PRO  FO  371/2769 #41504.]
(more…)

National and Correct Policy of Privatization

National and Correct Policy of Privatization

National and Correct Policy of Privatization

The objectives of privatization policy in African countries and in all developing and developed countries should not include the attraction of foreign direct investments.

Governments must build all sorts of services; businesses; and industries not to keep them under their control or management but rather to sell them to the public in shares. This way private ownership can be served.

Governments should own no business simply because they own no wealth. It is the people who should own the national wealth and every thing including the government itself. But governments  and private foreign companies must create all sorts of businesses and transfer their ownership to the citizens.

This is more national and the correct interpretation of privatization. Selling big businesses to foreign investors is not privatization but it is  in most cases treason and exploitation.

Globalist Infiltration: Obama, Israel and the Muslim Brotherhood

Obama, Israel and the Muslim Brotherhood

Globalist Infiltration

by Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
July 20, 2012

The Source: The Globalist Infiltration: Obama, Israel and the Muslim Brotherhood

The global Elite’s puppets are beginning to show their true alliances and rat out each other in an obvious move to find some sort of false sense of security.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann recently accused Huma Abedin, aide to Hillary Clinton US Secretary of State, as being an infiltrated spy for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Bachmann says that the US government has been compromised by the MB and Abedin is working for “America’s demise”.

Bachmann pointed out that Abedin has “routine access to [Clinton] and policymaking.”

While her peers have been denouncing her claims, Bachmann asserts that her investigations into federal agencies has turned up conclusions that there is an obvious influence over intelligence operations with regard to foreign policy by the MB within the US government.

Abedin, who is of Pakistani decent, is married to House Representative Anthony Weiner who is Jewish. Weiner is a self-proclaimed Zionist , as he proudly stated: “Support for Israel was always a very big focus in my household growing up. I am a Zionist.”

Weiner has aligned himself with Morton Klien, president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and has continuously pushed pro-Israeli agendas on Capitol Hill while demanding that the US military assist Israel in fighting against any other Middle Eastern nation that is named as an enemy.

Both The US State Department and Senator John McCain are outraged by Bachmann’s comments; McCain calling the Congresswoman “specious and degrading” while the USSD stated the remarks were “vicious and disgusting lies.”

McCain is a member of the board of directors of the Soros funded International Republican Institute (IRI) which uses coercion of foreign governments to promote “US interests”. They strategically intercede with political agendas to ensure that other nations preform as the globalists would want them to and aid civil society in those nations to guarantee “good governance”.

McCain defended Adebin on a personal level, stating she is “hardworking and loyal servant of our country and our government. These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis and no merit. They need to stop now.”

Bachmann, believing that there is an influential Islamic element in the US government, has written requests for information in the MB. This “deep penetration” into the US government was addressed in Bachmann’s speech at the Washington summit of Christians United for Israel , a pro-Zionist group masquerading as an evangelical support for Israel. Bachmann spoke to the audience about the ties between Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood.

In April of this year, after Obama announced that the “war on terror is over” he inserted that his administration is working in tandem with the MB , who has been integral in the recent Middle Eastern uprisings. Placing Morsi into power in Egypt was a strategic move that the US has been known for; helping dictators like Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and others get into positions where their actions can support the US/Israeli agenda to control the Middle Easter region.

In celebration of the elections, Obama gave the MB $1.5 billion in foreign aid to the MB. Having a terrorist group in control of this prominent Arab nation is a big coup for the Obama administration. This bribe is obviously a clear indicator that the MB will do the bidding of the US covertly, while appearing to be against the US government on the surface.

The Center for Security Policy (CSP) comes into play as a Washington, DC globalist think-tank that promotes “peace through strength”. CSP believes that “military might and a belief in America’s national power must be preserved and properly used . . . [as] a unique global role in maintaining peace and stability.”

In translation: America is the ultimate military might, policing the world for the sake of supporting peace. How this oxymoron became a credo is suspect.

The CSP strategically works with the USSD, although they claim to be a non-profit and non-specifically affiliated with a political agenda. They force governments to:

  • Choose between supporting terrorism or their critical partnerships
  • Coerce corporations to invest in (approved by the USSD) designated non-terrorist groups
  • Advocate more military defense and nuclear weapons development for the sake of US by participating in UN arms control treaties
  • Develop the War of Ideas Project that interjects propaganda that supports international relations and control into policymakers and defines who is an adversary
  • Develop the Islamist Project aimed at singling out their predefined radical Islamic groups as terrorists, then creating fear-mongering around their new Boogeyman
  • Develop Security and Democracy in Asia Project that promotes the unsubstantiated claims by the CSP that geopolitical control must be obtained in the Asian nations at all costs.

Clinton, who stated publicly that she perceives Israel to be the 51st American state is focusing her talks with the Israeli government on the MB Morsi presidency in Egypt and the Palestinian “problem” that Israel faces.

Previously both Ari Fleischer, President George W. Bush’s former spokesman, and Matthew Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), were involved in recent pro-Israeli events to gain American support for the Zionist movement. Fleischer asserts about presidential candidate Romney: “I don’t want to have a president where we have to wonder does he or does he not have Israel’s back. The choice is between pushing Israel around as President Obama has done, and Governor Romney, who will stand strong by Israel’s side.”

Obama has made his stance on Israel known well with his push for HR 4133 where he gives the Israeli government:

  • Full backing of US military for endeavors of Israel against her enemies
  • Unlimited funds from the Federal Reserve Bank
  • Special training and intelligence to assist Israel government in defeating their adversaries

Within the Israeli government, there have been drastic changes to the internal laws of the nation to provide for a concerted Zionist approach. This fact was causational in the decision of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition partner, Kadima, to leave the allied partnership.

The marriage of Israeli agendas in the Middle East to the military might of the US government is playing out as plans are being enacted against Syria and ultimately Iran in a move toward WW III.

In November, Israel and the US plan to hold a joint military training session in October of this year. Included will be military drills of thousands of soldiers and advanced anti-missile defense systems exercises. It appears to be coincidental that these “war games” will take place just prior to presidential elections in the US.

The two nations, who have become closer over the recent months, are planning to deal with Iran and Syria with as much aggression as they see fit.

A few military analysts have dubbed the drills a “dress rehearsal”, mocking the severity of Obama and Netanyahu’s campaign. Amidst the UN and US sanctions against the two Middle Eastern nations, there is a clear threat of military strike that would serve both the US and Israeli interests.

The preparations for an attack on Iran is being downplayed by the UN while the international community is escalating their claims that Iran’s supposed nuclear endeavors are a violation of treaties; as well as the Iranian government’s failure to properly cooperate with UN inspectors.

Bachmann, who is a supporter of CUFI and the Zionist movement, is preforming a part in the theater of psychological operations. The MB, who are poised to replace al-Qaeda as the next Islamic extremist group and Boogeyman for the American public to fear, are controlled by the Obama administration as part of their adherence to the Israeli/Zionist agenda. This fact validates Bachmann’s assertions that the US government has been infiltrated by a foreign entity. Yet the infiltration was purposefully enacted to the benefit of the global Elite in their march toward global governance by way of elimination of all sovereign nations.

[This article is also posted on Global Research, on July 20, 2012]

Global Research Articles by Susanne Posel

SYRIA: NATO’s Next “Humanitarian” War?

SYRIA NATO's Next Humanitarian War

US Ambassador Ford in Hama in July 2011

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, July 15, 2012, GLOBAL RESEARCH ONLINE INTERACTIVE READER SERIES
GR I-BOOK No.  3

SYRIA: NATO’s Next “Humanitarian” War?

INTRODUCTION

“In order to facilitate the action of liberative (sic) forces, …a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. …[to] be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention, …

Once a political decision has been reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS (MI6) will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals. …Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus …

Further : a “necessary degree of fear .. frontier incidents and (staged) border clashes”, would “provide a pretext for intervention… the CIA and SIS [MI6] should use … capabilities in both psychological and action fields to augment tension.”(Joint US-UK leaked Intelligence Document, London and Washington, 1957)

In this online interactive I-book, we bring to the attention of our readers a selection of feature articles on the Syrian crisis.

Our objective is to dispel the tide of media lies and government propaganda, which presents the events in Syria as a “peaceful protest movement”.

The “protests” did not emanate from internal political cleavages as described by the mainstream media. From the very outset, they were the result of  a covert US-NATO intelligence operation geared towards triggering social chaos, with a view to eventually discrediting the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad and destabilizing Syria as a Nation State.

Since the middle of March 2011, Islamist armed groups –covertly supported by Western and Israeli intelligence– have conducted terrorist attacks directed against government buildings including acts of arson. Amply documented, trained gunmen and snipers including mercenaries have targeted the police, armed forces as well as innocent civilians. There is ample evidence, as outlined in the Arab League Observer Mission report, that these armed groups of mercenaries are responsible for killing civilians.

While the Syrian government and military bear a heavy burden of responsibility. it is important to underscore the fact that these terrorist acts –including the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children– are part of a US-NATO-Israeli initiative, which consists is supporting, training and financing  “an armed entity” operating inside Syria.

The evidence confirms that foreign intelligence operatives, according to reports, have integrated rebel ranks:

“As the unrest and killings escalate in the troubled Arab state, agents from MI6 and the CIA are already in Syria assessing the situation, a security official has revealed. Special forces are also talking to Syrian dissident soldiers. They want to know about weapons and communications kit rebel forces will need if the Government decides to help.

“MI6 and the CIA are in Syria to infiltrate and get at the truth,” said the well-placed source. “We have SAS and SBS not far away who want to know what is happening and are finding out what kit dissident soldiers need.” Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star). (emphasis added)

The Free Syrian Army (FSA) is a creation of the US and NATO. The objective of this armed insurrection is to trigger the response of the police and armed forces, including the deployment of tanks and armored vehicles with a view to eventually justifying a  military intervention, under NATO’s  “responsibility to protect” mandate.

 A NATO-led intervention is on the drawing board. It was drafted prior to the onset of the protest movement in March 2011. According to military and intelligence sources, NATO, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been discussing “the form this intervention would take”.

US, British and Turkish operatives are supplying the rebels with weapons. Britain’s Ministry of Defence confirms that it “is drawing up secret plans for a NATO-sponsored no-fly zone [in coordination with its allies] “but first it needs backing from the United Nations Security Council.” (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star). According to these secret plans: “fighting in Syria could be bigger and bloodier than the battle against Gaddafi”.(Ibid ).

A “humanitarian” military intervention modeled on Libya is contemplated. NATO Special Forces from Britain, France, Qatar and Turkey are already on the ground inside Syria in blatant violation of international law. Reports from British military sources (November 2011) confirm that:

British Special forces have met up with members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA)… The apparent goal of this initial contact was to establish the rebel forces’ strength and to pave the way for any future training operations. … More recent reports have stated that British and French Special Forces have been actively training members of the FSA, from a base in Turkey. Some reports indicate that training is also taking place in locations in Libya and Northern Lebanon. British MI6 operatives and UKSF (SAS/SBS) personnel have reportedly been training the rebels in urban warfare as well as supplying them with arms and equipment. US CIA operatives and special forces are believed to be providing communications assistance to the rebels.” Elite Forces UK, January 5, 2012 (emphasis added)

The Social and Political Context in Syria

There is certainly cause for social unrest and mass protest in Syria: unemployment has increased in recent years, social conditions have deteriorated, particularly since the adoption in 2006 of sweeping economic reforms under IMF guidance. The later include austerity measures, a freeze on wages, the deregulation of the financial system, trade reform and privatization. (See IMF Syrian Arab Republic — IMF Article IV Consultation Mission’s Concluding Statement,  2006).

Moreover, there are serious divisions within the government and the military. The populist policy framework of the Baath party has largely been eroded. A faction within the ruling political establishment has embraced the neoliberal agenda. In turn, the adoption of IMF “economic medicine” has served to enrich the ruling economic elite. Pro-US factions have also developed within the upper echelons of the Syrian military and intelligence.

But the “pro-democracy” movement integrated by Islamists and supported by NATO and the “international community” did not emanate from the mainstay of Syrian civil society.

The wave of violent protests represents a very small fraction of Syrian public opinion. They are terrorist acts of a sectarian nature. They do not in any way address the broader issues of social inequality, civil rights and unemployment.

The majority of Syria’s population (including the opponents of  the Al Assad government) do not support the “protest movement” which is characterised by an armed insurgency. In fact quite the opposite.

Ironically, despite its authoritarian nature, there is considerable popular support for the government of President Bashar Al Assad, which is confirmed by the large pro-government rallies.

Syria constitutes the only (remaining) independent secular state in the Arab world. Its populist, anti-Imperialist and secular base is inherited from the dominant Baath party, which integrates Muslims, Christians and Druze. It supports the struggle of the Palestinian people.

The objective of the US-NATO alliance is to ultimately displace and destroy the Syrian secular State, displace or co-opt the national economic elites  and eventually replace the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad with an Arab sheikdom, a pro-US Islamic republic or a compliant pro-US “democracy”.

The Insurgency: The Libya Model

The insurgency in Syria has similar features to that of Libya: it is integrated by paramilitary brigades affiliated to Al Qaeda, which are directly supported by NATO and Turkey.

Reports confirm that NATO and Turkey’s High Command are providing the rebels with weapons and training: “NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers for beating back the government armored forces.” (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011)

Military sources also confirm that Syrian rebels “have been training in the use of the new weapons with Turkish military officers at makeshift installations in Turkish bases near the Syrian border.” (DEBKAfile, Ibid).  Recent reports confirm that British and Qatari Special forces are on the ground in the city of Homs, involved in training rebel forces as well as organizing the supply of weapons in liaison with the Turkish military.

As in the case of Libya, financial support is being channelled to the Syrian rebel forces by Saudi Arabia: “Ankara and Riyadh will provide the anti-Assad movements with large quantities of weapons and funds to be smuggled in from outside Syria” (Ibid). The deployment of Saudi and GCC troops is also contemplated in Southern Syria in coordination with Turkey (Ibid).

NATO’s activities are not limited to training and the delivery of weapons systems, the recruitment of thousands of “freedom fighters”` is also envisaged, reminiscent of  the enlistment of  Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:

This recruitment of Mujahideen was part of NATO`s strategy in Libya, where mercenary forces were dispatched to fight under the helm of “former” Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Commander  Abdel Hakim  Belhadj.

The Libyan model of rebel forces integrated by “Islamic brigades” together with NATO special forces has been applied to Syria, where “Islamist fighters” supported by Western and Israeli intelligence are deployed. In this regard,  Abdel Hakim`s LIFG brigade has now been dispatched to Syria, where it is involved in terrorist acts under the supervision of  NATO Special Forces.

The Central Role of US Ambassador Robert S. Ford

US Ambassador Robert S. Ford was dispatched to Damascus in late January 2011 at the height of the protest movement in Egypt. (The author was in Damascus on January 27, 2011 when Washington’s Envoy presented his credentials to the Al Assad government).

At the outset of my visit to Syria in January 2011,  I reflected on the significance of this diplomatic appointment and the role it might play in a covert process of political destabilization. I did not, however, foresee that this destabilization agenda would be implemented within less than two months  following the instatement of Robert S. Ford as US Ambassador to Syria.

The reinstatement of a US ambassador in Damascus, but more specifically the choice of Robert S. Ford as US ambassador, bears a direct relationship to the onset of the protest movement in mid-March against the government of Bashar al Assad.

Robert S. Ford was the man for the job. As “Number Two” at the US embassy in Baghdad (2004-2005) under the helm of Ambassador John D. Negroponte, he played a key role in implementing the Pentagon’s “Iraq Salvador Option”. The latter consisted in supporting Iraqi death squadrons and paramilitary forces modelled on the experience of  Central America.

It is worth noting that Obama’s newly appointed CIA head, General David Petraeus played a key role the organization of covert support to rebel forces and “freedom fighters”, the infiltration of Syrian intelligence and armed forces, etc.  Petraeus led the Multi-National Security Transition Command (MNSTC)  “Counterinsurgency” program in Baghdad in 2004 in coordination with John Negroponte and Robert S Ford at the US Embassy in Baghdad.

The Insidious Role of the Western media

The role of the US-NATO-Israel military alliance in triggering an armed insurrection is not addressed by the Western media. Moreover, several “progressive voices” have accepted the “NATO consensus” at face value. The role of CIA-MI6 covert intelligence operations in support of armed groups is simply not mentioned. Salafist paramilitary groups involved in terrorist acts, are, according to reports, supported covertly by Israeli intelligence (Mossad). The Muslim Brotherhood has been supported by Turkey, as well as by MI6, Britain’s Secret Service (SIS) since the 1950s

More generally, the Western media has misled public opinion on the nature of the Arab protest movement by failing to address the support provided by the US State Department as well as US foundations (including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)) to selected pro-US opposition groups.

Known and documented, the U.S. State Department “has been been funding opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad, since 2006. (U.S. admits funding Syrian opposition – World – CBC News April 18, 2011).

The protest movement in Syria was upheld by the media as part of the “Arab Spring”, presented to public opinion as a pro-democracy protest movement which spread spontaneously from Egypt and the Maghreb to the Mashriq. There is reason to believe, however,  that events in Syria, however, were planned well in advance in coordination with the process of regime change in other Arab countries including Egypt and Tunisia.

The outbreak of the protest movement in the southern border city of Daraa was carefully timed to follow the events in Tunisia and Egypt.

In chorus they have described recent events in Syria as a “peaceful protest movement” directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad, when the evidence amply confirms that Islamic paramilitary groups are involved in terrorist acts. These same Islamic groups have infiltrated the protest rallies.

Western media distortions abound. Large “pro-government” rallies (including photographs) are casually presented as “evidence” of a mass anti-government protest movement. The reports on casualties are based on unconfirmed “eye-witness reports” or on Syrian opposition sources in exile.  The London based Syria Observatory for Human Rights are profusely quoted by the Western media as a “reliable source” with the usual disclaimers. Israeli news sources, while avoiding the issue of an armed insurgency, tacitly acknowledge that Syrian forces are being confronted by an organized professional paramilitary.

The absence of verifiable data, has not prevented the Western media from putting forth “authoritative figures” on the number of casualties. What are the sources of this data? Who is responsible for the casualties?

Dangerous Crossroads: Towards a Broader Middle East Central Asian War

Escalation is an integral part of the military agenda. Destabilization of sovereign states through “regime change” is closely coordinated with military planning. There is a military roadmap characterised by a sequence of US-NATO war theaters.

War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in “an advanced state of readiness” for several years.

US, NATO and Israeli military planners have outlined the contours of a “humanitarian” military campaign, in which Turkey (the second largest military force inside NATO) would play a central role.

We are at dangerous crossroads. Were a US-NATO military operation to be launched against Syria, the broader Middle East Central Asian region extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with China would be engulfed in the turmoil of an extended regional war.

There are at present four distinct war theaters: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya.

An attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters, eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war.

In Part I of the online interactive I-Book, an introductory essay is presented.

Part II examines the nature of the US-NATO-Israel sponsored insurgency, including the recruitment of terrorists and mercenaries. It also includes an examination of a 1957 Anglo-American covert intelligence plan to destabilize Syria and implement “regime change”. The 1957 plan envisaged the triggering of “internal disturbances as well as the mounting of “sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents” by the CIA and MI6.  What this essay suggests is continuity, i.e. today’s Intel. Ops, while more sophisticated than those of the Cold War era, belong to realm of DÉJÀ VU.

Part III examines the complicity of the “international community” focussing respectively on the role of non-governmental organizations, the dynamics within the United Nations Security Council and role of the Arab League, acting on behalf of Washington.

Part IV centers on the insidious role of the corporate media, which has carefully distorted the facts, providing systematically a biased understanding of the causes and consequences of the Syrian crisis.

Part V focusses on the broader military agenda and the process of military escalation in the Middle East.

The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (“regime change”) including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.

A war on Syria could evolve towards a US-NATO military campaign directed against Iran, in which Turkey and Israel would be directly involved. It would also contribute to the ongoing destabilization of Lebanon.

It is crucial to spread the word and break the channels of media disinformation.

A critical and unbiased understanding of what is happening in Syria is of crucial importance in reversing the tide of military escalation towards a broader regional war.

Michel Chossudovsky, Montreal, February 11, 2012

[Spread the word. forward this online interactive reader far and wide. Post it on Facebook]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I
Introduction
A “Humanitarian War” on Syria? Military Escalation. Towards a Broader Middle East-Central Asian War?
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-08-09
The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (“regime change”) directed against Syria.

VIDEO: US-NATO “Humanitarian Intervention” in Syria: Towards a Regional War?
Latest report now available on GRTV
– by Michel Chossudovsky, Nile Bowie – 2012-06-08 [*]

PART II  
Covert Operations: US-NATO-Israel Support to an Armed Insurgency
SYRIA: CIA-MI6 Intel Ops and Sabotage
– by Felicity Arbuthnot – 2012-02-07

DÉJÀ VU? “The CIA is prepared, and MI6 will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents within Syria,… [using] capabilitites in both psychological and action fields to augment tension.” (Joint US-UK leaked Intelligence Document, London and Washington, 1957)

The Al Qaeda Insurgency in Syria: Recruiting Jihadists to Wage NATO’s “Humanitarian Wars”
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-09-02
The objective of this armed insurrection is to trigger the response of the police and armed forces, with a view to justifying a “humanitarian” military intervention by NATO

VIDEO: Death Squads in Syria Part of Intelligence Operation
New interview now on GRTV
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-08-18

The Pentagon’s “Salvador Option”: The Deployment of Death Squads in Iraq and Syria
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-08-16
Recent developments in Syria point to a full-fledged armed insurgency, integrated by Islamist “freedom fighters” covertly supported, trained and equipped by foreign powers.

NATO and Turkey Support Armed Rebels in Syria. Campaign to Recruit Muslim “Freedom Fighters”
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-08-15

VIDEO: NATO Recruiting Jihadists to Syria
New interview now on GRTV
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-09-19

PART III
Building a Justification to Wage War. NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect”
The Roles of the United Nations, The Arab League and the NGOs

Libya Déjà Vu in Syria: Using Human Rights Organizations to Launch Wars – by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-11-20

Syria and the Russia-China Veto: Towards a Break Point at the UN Security Council? – by Carla Stea – 2012-02-08

How the Arab League Has Become a Tool of Western Imperialism – by Finian Cunningham – 2012-02-09

VIDEO: Arab League Gives Green Light to US-NATO to Intervene in Syria
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-11-13

SYRIA. TEXT OF LEAKED ARAB LEAGUE MISSION REPORT Report Reveals Media Lies Regarding Syria
Commentary by Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-02-01

VIDEO: SYRIA: Armed Opposition Groups Supported by “Foreign Powers”
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-02-03

PART  IV
The Media Disinformation Campaign

VIDEO: Skeptical on Syria: ‘Media reports framed & manipulated’
Watch now on GRTV – by James Corbett – 2011-08-31

Syria Regime Change PR in High Gear: More ‘Newborn Baby Slaughter’ Propaganda – by Patrick Henningsen – 2012-02-09

Media Lies Used to Provide a Pretext for Another “Humanitarian War”: Protest in Syria: Who Counts the Dead?
– by Julie Lévesque – 2011-11-25

The reliance of the mainstream media on information emanating from anonymous groups provides a biased understanding of the Syrian protests

Media Lies: Syria’s President Bashar Al Assad Sets ABC News Senior Propagandist Barbra Walters Straight.
– by Tony Cartalucci – 2011-12-12

Most Syrians back President Assad, but you’d never know from western media
Assad’s popularity, Arab League observers, US military involvement: all distorted in the west’s propaganda war
– by Jonathan Steele – 2012-01-18

Media Manipulation and the Drums of War: How Media is used to Whip the Nation into Wartime Frenzy
Faking It: How the Media Manipulates the World into War – by James Corbett – 2012-01-03

PART V
Syria and the Broader War
The Destabilization of Syria and the Broader Middle East War – by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-06-17
If a military operation were to be launched against Syria, Israel would in all likelihood also be involved, leading to a process of escalation

Syria: The West’s Strategic Gateway For Global Military Supremacy – by Rick Rozoff – 2011-11-15

The March to War: Iran and the Strategic Encirclement of Syria and Lebanon – by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-12-24

Obama’s Secret Letter to Tehran: Is the War against Iran On Hold? “The Road to Tehran Goes through Damascus” – by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2012-01-20

VIDEO: A NATO Intervention in Syria would Engulf the Entire Middle East Central Asian Region
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-09-04

Beating the Drums of a Broader Middle East War
Israel, Syria, and Lebanon Prepare the “Home Fronts” – by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2008-05-07
Israel, Syria, and Lebanon Prepare the “Home Fronts”. The Levant could be the starting point of a major international conflict, with global ramifications, which could quickly spin out of control.

PART VI
War Propaganda and The Massacre of Innocent Civilians [*]

SYRIA: Killing Innocent Civilians as part of a US Covert Op. Mobilizing Public Support for a R2P War against Syria
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-05-30

US military doctrine envisages the central role of “massive casualty producing events” in which innocent civilians are killed. The killings are carried out as part of a covert operation. The enemy is blamed for the resulting atrocities.

Report: Rebels Responsible for Houla Massacre. Armed rebels murdered “entire Alawi families” in village of Taldo in Houla – by John Rosenthal – 2012-06-10

Propaganda War: Houla Massacre Committed by US-NATO Sponsored “Free Syrian Army”. But They Accuse Syrian Government – by Thierry Meyssan – 2012-06-09

“Humanitarian War Criminals” in High Office: Was the Houla Massacre Ordered by the Western Military Alliance?
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-06-11

Who is behind these rebel groups? What is the precise nature of the relationship between the FSA and the Western military alliance? What is the command structure? What is the nature of this diabolical covert operation? Who ordered these atrocities against the Syrian people?

VATICAN NEWS: Foreign Fighters, Mercenaries, Terrorists, behind Syria Massacre
“The desolation of Homs and the war of information “: the Words of a Greek-Catholic Bishop
– by Vatican News (Agenzia Fides) – 2012-06-04

THE HOULA MASSACRE: Opposition Terrorists “Killed Families Loyal to the Government”
Detailed Investigation – by Marat Musin – 2012-06-01
The terrorists were not pro-government shabbiha militia as conveyed, in chorus, by the mainstream media, they were in large part mercenaries and professional killers operating under the auspices of the self-proclaimed Free Syrian Army (FSA).

VIDEO: US-NATO “Humanitarian Intervention” in Syria: Towards a Regional War?
Latest report now available on GRTV
– by Michel Chossudovsky, Nile Bowie – 2012-06-08

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the globalresearch.ca  website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism”(2005). His most recent book is entitled Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011).

He has taught as Visiting Professor at universities in Western Europe, South East Asia, Latin America and the Pacific, acted as an adviser to governments of developing countries and as a consultant for several international organizations.

Prof. Chossudovsky is a signatory of the Kuala Lumpur declaration to criminalize war and recipient of the Human Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin. He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.

This Online Interactive I-Reader is made available to Global Research readers with a view to curbing the flow of media disinformation and war propaganda.

Our ultimate objective is to reverse the tide of war and restore World peace.

THE GLOBAL RESEARCH ONLINE INTERACTIVE I-BOOKS SERIES

  • WAR PLAN IRAN: Dispelling the Lies, Telling the Truth about Western Aggression in the Persian Gulf
    – by Finian Cunningham, Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-02-16
    GR ONLINE NEWS READER. The region is on a hair-trigger for a conflagration that would involve nuclear weapons and the collision of global powers…
  • The Globalization of War: The “Military Roadmap” to World War III
    – by Michel Chossudovsky, Finian Cunningham – 2012-02-10
    The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.
  • Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War: The Unspoken Crisis of Worldwide Nuclear Radiation
    – by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-01-25
    GR ONLINE READER. The dumping of highly radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean constitutes a potential trigger to a process of global radioactive contamination… Eventually all major regions of the World will be affected.
  • Libya and “The Arab Spring”: Neoliberalism, “Regime Change” and NATO’s “Humanitarian Wars”  – by Michel Chossudovsky, Finian Cunningham, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-12-25  Washington’s agenda for Egypt and Tunisia was to hijack the protest movement; what prevails in Egypt is the maintenance of a de facto military regime. In Tunisia, following the October 2011 parliamentary elections, the neoliberal policy framework remains unscathed.

Forthcoming

The War on Iraq
ONLINE INTERACTIVE I-READER 4
MARCH 2012

Please read the original article as published by the author (Prof. Michel Chossudovsky) on: GLOBAL RESEARCH ONLINE INTERACTIVE READER SERIES

 

The Financial Times Admits Agenda For Centralized Dictatorial Global Government

The Financial Times Admits Agenda For Centralized Dictatorial Global Government

The Financial Times Admits Agenda For Centralized Dictatorial Global Government

The Financial Times Editorial Openly Admits Agenda For A Centralized, Anti-Democratic, Dictatorial Global Gov’t

The 4th Media News | Tuesday, June 26, 2012, 11:52 Beijing

The Financial Times, one of the most respected and widely read newspapers on the planet, features an editorial today that openly admits the agenda to create a world government based on anti-democratic principles and concedes that the term “global governance” is merely a euphemism for the move towards a centralized global government.

For years we were called paranoid nutcases for warning about the elite’s plans to centralize global power and destroy American sovereignty. Throughout the 1990’s people who talked about the alarming move towards global government were smeared as right-wing lunatics by popular culture and the media.

Now the agenda is out in the open and in our faces, the debunkers have no more ammunition with which to deride us.

A jaw-dropping editorial written by the Financial Times’ chief foreign affairs commentator Gideon Rachman entitled ‘And now for a world government’ lays out the plan for global government and how it is being pushed with deceptive language and euphemisms in order to prevent people from becoming alarmed.

“For the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible,” writes Rachman, citing the financial crisis, “global warming” and the “global war on terror” as three major pretexts through which it is being introduced.

Rachman writes that “global governance” could be introduced much sooner than many expect and that President elect Barack Obama has already expressed his desire to achieve that goal, making reference to Obama’s circle of advisors which includes Strobe Talbott, who in 1992 stated, “In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”

Rachman then concedes that the more abstract term “global governance,” which is often used by top globalists like David Rockefeller as a veil to offset accusations that a centralized global government is the real agenda, is merely a trick of “soothing language” that is used to prevent “people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland”.

Meet Henry Kissinger Baritone

Meet Henry Kissinger Baritone

“But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on,” says Rachman. “Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

Rachman proceeds to outline what the first steps to an official world government would look like, including the creation of “A legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force”.

“A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations,” writes Rachman. “It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.”

“So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government,” concludes Rachman, before acknowledging that the path to global government will be “slow and painful”.

Tellingly, Rachman concedes that “International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic,” citing the continual rejection of EU expansion when the question is put to a vote. “In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters,” writes Rachman.

So there you have it – one of the world’s top newspapers, editorially led by chief economics commentator Martin Wolf, a top Bilderberg luminary, openly proclaiming that not only is world government the agenda, but that world government will only be achieved through dictatorial measures because the majority of the people are dead against it.

Will we still be called paranoid conspiracy theorists for warning that a system of dictatorial world government is being set up, even as one of the world’s most influential newspapers admits to the fact?

Or will people finally wake up and accept that there is a globalist agenda to destroy sovereignty, any form of real democracy, and freedom itself in the pursuit of an all-powerful, self-interested, centralized, unrepresentative and dictatorial world government?

Related articles:

The CIA-MI6-Mossad Installed Muslim Brotherhood into Power

Installed Muslim Brotherhood into Power

Installed Muslim Brotherhood into Power

The Muslim Brotherhood is a Western Trojan Horse that has come to power in Egypt thanks to the indispensable support of the CIA-MI6-Mossad brotherhood.

The 4th Media News | Friday, June 29, 2012, 14:48 Beijing

“The West’s ability to install a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, with it’s substantial regional standing and influence would be a serious blow not only to Syria, but to Iran as well. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is already echoing calls by the US and Israel for “intervention” in Syria.” – Tony Cartalucci,“US Struggles to Install Proxy “Brotherhood” in Egypt.”

“The USA has got its candidate into power in Egypt.” – Aangirfan, “USA Takes Over Egypt.”

Stuxnet and Flame are not the only viruses that have been created by the U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies. The Muslim Brotherhood is perhaps Washington’s most successful and dangerous virus that it has injected into the veins of the Middle East. It is an intellectual virus that destroys critical thinking among Muslims, excites their animal passions, and makes them act against their own interests.

With this virus firmly embedded in Egypt’s social and political life, Washington has guaranteed its position in the region for years to come. But by no means does the Muslim Brotherhood have anything close to a majority of popular support in Egypt. Since half the country didn’t vote in the election, the new president Mohammed Morsi only has the backing of “26% of the full electorate.”

Whatever course Morsi decides to take Egypt in the coming months, it is already clear that his government will resemble a gang even more than the one currently in power. The only difference is that Washington wanted the Muslim Brotherhood on top in Egypt, so it won.

What does Morsi’s win in Egypt mean for relations between the Western world and the Islamic world? I don’t know. But say goodbye to the Arab Spring, and say hello to the Islamist Summer. Washington’s Muslim Brotherhood is the new face of Egypt. In the past year, similar radical Islamist groups have taken over in Libya and Tunisia as the result of illegal Western interventions.

Well played, Washington, London, and Tel Aviv. Now you have your war against Islam. Now you can point at the bad guys, the rising Islamists, and tell your populations to hate and fear.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a Western Trojan Horse that has come to power in Egypt thanks to the indispensable support of the CIA-MI6-Mossad brotherhood.

9/11 didn’t do enough to stir the passions and subdue the Western mind under a dark cloud of terror. The rise of Islamists in the wake of the CIA’s Arab Spring might do the trick. The West has the jitters now. The Muslim Brotherhood is in power. Oooooh, so scary. “Oh my God, not the Muslim Brotherhood. O’ Government Master, please keep me safe from those bad guys. I’ll do anything you want.”

The success of the Muslim Brotherhood at the polls is a big win for the Israeli government, which was secretly supporting Morsi all along.

How does Israel win? It can identify the Muslim Brotherhood as a powerful enemy of Israel that’s been democratically elected by Egyptian voters, and continue to portray Arabs as anti-Jewish extremists. Israel’s PR machine was spinning into gear even before the votes were counted. Israel was like, “Let’s go Muslim Brothers. Win, baby, win. Win so we can have war.”

After helping Washington to put Islamic extremists in power across North Africa, Israel can say to the world, “Look, we’re surrounded by our enemies, the rising Islamic extremists. Help! Help! I’m drowning! I’m drowning! Help!” And Washington will respond, “Oh, my dear Israel, you poor thing, here are more weapons for your new acts of aggression. Start new wars, as much as you like. We’re right here behind you, and we’re not going to let you drown.”

Washington’s new Islamist pawns in power in the Arab world could become very unpopular and an anti-Islamist coalition may rise and defeat them. Or not. The victory of the Muslim Brotherhood shows that America’s last days in the heartland of Arabia are still very far away.

The Excavator

http://disquietreservations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/cia-mi6-mossad-brotherhood-trick-egypt.html

Related:

5 Facts That Prove Radical Islam Is A Child of American-British-Israeli Intelligence 
Whose Spring? The CIA’s Hand In The Rise of Islamists And International Terrorist Groups
Giving Americans And Muslims Reasons To Fight: 9/11, Al-Qaeda, Drones, And Counterinsurgency

How America Went Rogue

America's Shadow Wars

America's Shadow Wars

What We All Need to Know About Our Government’s Shadow Wars

Reagan’s shadow government was a disaster, but it was a pygmy compared with Obama’s.

April 22, 2012   The Nation / By Juan Cole

Covert operations are nothing new in American history, but it could be argued that during the past decade they have moved from being a relatively minor arrow in the national security quiver to being the cutting edge of American power. Drone strikes, electronic surveillance and stealth engagements by military units such as the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), as well as dependence on private corporations, mercenary armies and terrorist groups, are now arguably more common as tools of US foreign policy than conventional warfare or diplomacy. But these tools lend themselves to rogue operations that create peril for the United States when they blow back on us. And they often make the United States deeply unpopular.

Shadow power has even become an issue in the presidential campaign. Newt Gingrich advocates ramped-up “covert operations” inside Iran. President Obama replied to Mitt Romney’s charge that he is an “appeaser” by suggesting that his critics “ask bin Laden” about that.

Obama often speaks of the “tide of war receding,” but that phrase refers only to conventional war. In Afghanistan, where the administration hopes to roll up conventional fighting by the end of 2013, it is making plans for long-term operations by special forces through units such as JSOC. It is unclear what legal framework will be constructed for their activities, other than a wink and a nod from President Hamid Karzai.

Although the Iraqis managed to compel the withdrawal of US troops by the end of last year, Washington is nevertheless seeking to remain influential through shadow power. The US embassy in Baghdad has 16,000 employees, most of them civilian contractors. They include 2,000 diplomats and several hundred intelligence operatives. By contrast, the entire US Foreign Service corps comprises fewer than 14,000. The Obama administration has decided to slash the number of contractors, planning for an embassy force of “only” 8,000. This monument to shadow power clearly is not intended merely to represent US interests in Iraq but rather to shape that country and to serve as a command center for the eastern reaches of the greater Middle East. The US shadow warriors will, for instance, attempt to block “the influence of Iran,” according to the Washington Post. Since Iraq’s Shiite political parties, which dominate Parliament and the cabinet, are often close to Iran, that charge would inescapably involve meddling in internal Iraqi politics.

Nor can we be sure that the CIA will engage only in espionage or influence-peddling in Iraq. The American shadow government routinely kidnaps people it considers dangerous and has sent them to black sites for torture, often by third-party governments to keep American hands clean. As usual with the shadow government, private corporations have been enlisted to help in these “rendition” programs, which are pursued outside the framework of national and international law and in defiance of the sensibilities of our allies. How the United States might behave in Iraq can be extrapolated from its recent behavior in other allied countries. In November 2009 an Italian court convicted in absentia twenty-three people, most of them CIA field officers who had kidnapped an alleged Al Qaeda recruiter, Abu Omar, on a Milan street in the middle of the day and sent him to Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt for “interrogation.” Obama has explicitly continued this practice as a “counterterrorism tool,” though he says torture has been halted. Iraq is likely to continue to be an arena of such veiled struggles.

The Obama administration’s severe unilateral sanctions on Iran and attempts to cut that country off from the world banking system have a shadow power aspect. Aimed at crippling Iran’s oil exports, they are making it difficult for Iran to import staples like wheat. Although Washington denies carrying out covert operations in Iran, the US government and allies like Israel are suspected of doing just that. According to anonymous US intelligence officials and military sources interviewed by The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh, the United States has trained members of the MEK (Mojahedin-e Khalq, or People’s Jihadis), based in Iraq at Camp Ashraf, to spy on Iran and carry out covert operations there, just as Saddam Hussein had done, though any American support for the organization would directly contradict the State Department listing of it as a terrorist organization. The MEK is suspected of carrying out a string of assassinations against Iranian nuclear scientists, but US intelligence leaks say Israel’s Mossad, not the CIA, is the accomplice. Indeed, the difficulty of disentangling Washington’s shadow power from that of its junior partners can be seen in the leak by US intelligence complaining that Mossad agents had impersonated CIA field officers in recruiting members of the Jundullah terrorist group in Iranian Baluchistan for covert operations against Iran. Jundullah, a Sunni group, has repeatedly bombed Shiite mosques in Zahedan and elsewhere in the country’s southeast. Needless to say, the kind of overt and covert pressure Obama is putting on Iran could easily, even if inadvertently, spark a war.

The recent release of more than 5 million e-mails hacked from the server of the private intelligence firm Stratfor shows that it did more than analysis. It engaged in surveillance and intelligence activities on behalf of corporate sponsors. Dow Chemical, for example, hired Stratfor to monitor a protest group agitating on the issue of the catastrophic 1984 gas leak in Bhopal, India, which killed at least 3,500. WikiLeaks maintains that Stratfor exemplifies the “revolving door” between private intelligence firms and the US government agencies that share information with them.

The increasingly frequent use of civilian “security contractors” — essentially mercenaries — should be a sore point for Americans. The tens of thousands of mercenaries deployed in Iraq were crucial to the US occupation of that country, but they also demonstrate the severe drawbacks of using shadow warriors. Ignorance about local attitudes, arrogance and lack of coordination with the US military and with local police and military led to fiascoes such as the 2007 shootings at Baghdad’s Nisour Square, where Blackwater employees killed seventeen Iraqis. The Iraqi government ultimately expelled Blackwater, even before it did the same with the US military, which had brought the contractors into their country.

* * *

The bad feelings toward the United States generated by hired guns can also be seen in the infamous Raymond Davis incident in Lahore, Pakistan. On January 27, 2011, Davis, a CIA contractor, was waiting at a traffic light when two Pakistanis pulled up next to him on a motorcycle. Davis, who later alleged that one of them had a gun, became alarmed and shot the men. The driver survived the initial volley and tried to run away, but Davis shot him twice in the back. Instead of fleeing the scene, he spent time searching and then photographing the bodies and calling the US consulate for an extraction team. Undercover CIA field officers raced toward the site of the shooting in a consulate SUV, hoping to keep Davis out of the hands of Pakistani authorities, who were approaching, sirens blaring. In its haste, the extraction team killed a motorcyclist and failed in its mission. Davis was taken into custody. His cellphone yielded the identities of some forty-five members of his covert network in Pakistan, who were also arrested.

The incident provoked rolling street demonstrations and enraged Pakistanis, who are convinced that the country is crawling with such agents. Davis was jailed and charged with double homicide, and only released months later, when a Persian Gulf oil monarchy allegedly paid millions on behalf of the United States to the families (in Islamic law, families of a murder victim may pardon the murderer on payment of a satisfactory sum). It was a public relations debacle for Washington, of course, but the salient fact is that a US public servant shot two Pakistanis (likely not terrorists) in cold blood, one of them in the back.

American drone strikes on individuals and groups in the tribal belt of northwestern Pakistan, as well as in Yemen, also typify Washington’s global shadow wars. The United States has 7,000 unmanned aerial vehicles, which it has deployed in strikes in six countries. Both the CIA and the US military operate the drones. Rather than being adjuncts to conventional war, drone strikes are mostly carried out in places where no war has been declared and no Status of Forces Agreement has been signed. They operate outside the framework of the Constitution, with no due process or habeas corpus, recalling premodern practices of the English monarchy, such as declaring people outlaws, issuing bills of attainder against individuals who offend the crown and trying them in secret Star Chamber proceedings.

Despite President Obama’s denials, the Britain-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism has found that not only are civilians routinely killed by US drone strikes in northern Pakistan; often people rushing to the scene of a strike to help the wounded are killed by a second launch. The BIJ estimates that the United States has killed on the order of 3,000 people in 319 drone strikes, some 600 of them civilian bystanders and 174 of those, children. Some 84 percent of all such strikes were launched after Obama came to office.

Moreover, the drone operations are classified. When asked about strikes, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refuses to confirm or deny that they have occurred. The drones cannot be openly debated in Congress or covered in any detail by the US media. Therefore, they cannot be the subject of a national political debate, except in the abstract. The Congressional intelligence committees are briefed on the program, but it is unlikely that any serious checks and balances can operate in so secret and murky a realm, and the committees’ leaders have complained about the inadequacy of the information they are given. No hearing could be called about them, since the drone strikes cannot be publicly confirmed. Classified operations create gods, above the law.

* * *

The WikiLeaks State Department cables reveal that Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh secretly authorized US drone strikes, pledging to take the blame from their angry publics. But a private conversation with a single leader, repeatedly denied thereafter in public, is hardly a treaty. The only international legal doctrine (recognized in the United Nations charter) invoked to justify drone strikes is the right of the United States to defend itself from attack. But it cannot be demonstrated that any drone strike victims had attacked, or were in a position to attack, the United States. Other proposed legal justifications also falter.

The doctrine of “hot pursuit” does not apply in Yemen or Somalia, and often does not apply in Pakistan, either. The only due process afforded those killed from the air is an intelligence assessment, possibly based on dubious sources and not reviewed by a judge. Those targeted are typically alleged to belong to Al Qaeda, the Taliban or some kindred group, and apparently thought to fall under the mandate of the September 14, 2001, Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force by the president against those behind the September 11 attacks and those who harbored them. The AUMF could probably legitimately be applied to Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Al Qaeda faction, which still plots against the United States. But a new generation of Muslim militants has arisen, far too young to be implicated in 9/11 and who may have rethought that disastrous strategy.

Increasingly, moreover, “Al Qaeda” is a vague term somewhat arbitrarily applied by Washington to regional groups involved in local fundamentalist politics, as with the Partisans of Sharia, the Yemeni militants who have taken over the city of Zinjibar, or expatriate Arab supporters in Pakistan of the Haqqani network of Pashtun fighters — former allies of the United States in their struggle against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. How long will the AUMF be deployed in the Muslim world to authorize cowboy tactics from the skies? There is no consistency, no application of the rule of law. Guilt by association and absence of due process are the hallmarks of shadow government. In September the Obama administration used a drone to kill a US citizen in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki. But since the Supreme Court had already ruled, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), that the AUMF could not authorize military tribunals for Guantánamo detainees that sidestepped civil due process — and since the subsequent Military Commissions Act of 2006 allows such tribunals only for aliens — it is hard to see how Awlaki’s right to a trial could be summarily abrogated. Two weeks after he was killed, his 16-year-old son, also a US citizen and less obviously a menace to the superpower, was also killed by a drone.

By contrast, the United States and its allies are sanguine about a figure like the Libyan Abdel Hakim Belhadj, now in charge of security in Tripoli, who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union and was later held in US black sites. Released, he emerged as a rebel leader in Libya last year. The circumstantial case against him would easily allow a US drone strike on him even now under the current rules, but he was rehabilitated because of his enmity toward Muammar el-Qaddafi.

* * *

Among the greatest dangers to American citizens from Washington’s shadow power is “blowback,” the common term for a covert operation that boomerangs on its initiator. Arguably, the Reagan administration marked a turning point in the history of US infatuation with shadow power. Reagan strong-armed King Fahd of Saudi Arabia into providing funds to the right-wing Contras in Nicaragua, and the president developed his own resources for the Contras by illegally selling weapons to Iran (despite its being on the terrorist watch list and ineligible for such sales). Washington also joined Fahd in giving billions of dollars of arms and aid to the fundamentalist mujahedeen in Afghanistan (“freedom fighters,” Reagan called them, “the equivalent of America’s founding fathers”), where Arab volunteers ultimately coalesced into Al Qaeda. They later used the tradecraft they had absorbed from CIA-trained Afghan colleagues to stage operations in the Middle East against US allies and to carry out the 9/11 attacks. Two allied groups that received massive aid from the Reagan administration became among the deadliest US enemies in Afghanistan after 2002: the Haqqani network and the Hizb-i-Islami. Blowback goes hand in hand with covert operations.

The use of mercenaries and black units by the US government undermines discipline, lawfulness and a strong and consistent chain of command. Regular armies can be deployed and then demobilized, but Al Qaeda-like networks, once created, cannot be rolled up so easily, and they often turn against former allies. Black intelligence and military operations with virtually no public oversight can easily go rogue.

Reagan’s shadow government was a disaster, but it was a pygmy compared with Obama’s. Americans will have to be prepared for much more blowback to come if we go on like this — not to mention further erosion of civil liberties at home, as the shadow government reaches back toward us from abroad. (Electronic surveillance without a warrant and the militarization of our police forces are cases in point.) Moreover, the practices associated with the shadow government, because of the rage they provoke, deepen mistrust of Washington and reduce the international cooperation that the United States, like all countries, needs. The shadow government masquerades as a way to keep the United States strong, but if it is not rolled back, it could fatally weaken American diplomacy.
Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and the director of the Center for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. His latest book, Engaging the Muslim World, is available in a revised paperback edition from Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the Informed Comment website.

Copyright © 2012 The Nation – distributed by Agence Global

Stories by Juan Cole

Juan Cole is a professor of history at the University of Michigan and maintains the popular blog Informed Comment.

How America Went Rogue: What We All Need to Know About Our Government’s Shadow Wars

Posted on Apr 22, 2012, Source: The Nation

Reagan’s shadow government was a disaster, but it was a pygmy compared with Obama’s.

Why Washington’s Iran Policy Could Lead to Global Disaster

Posted on Apr 12, 2012, Source: TomDispatch.com

What history should teach us about blockading Iran.

10 Catholic Teachings Conservatives Reject While Obsessing About Birth Control

Posted on Feb 13, 2012, Source: JuanCole.com

Santorum and Gingrich are both Catholics, and wear their faith on their sleeves, but they are hypocritical in picking and choosing when they wish to listen to the bishops.

How Students Landed on the Front Lines of Class War

Posted on Nov 23, 2011, Source: Truthdig

University students find themselves victimized by the same neoliberal agenda that has created the current economic crisis.

What Norway’s Terrorist Has in Common With the American Tea Party and Right Wing

Posted on Jul 24, 2011, Source: Informed Comment

Why seeing the world in black and white is so dangerous.

Police Downloading Your Data off Your Phone After Pulling You Over — A Nightmare Reality

Posted on Apr 20, 2011, Source: Truthdig

Obama is siding with police who want to use GPS devices to track you without a warrant.

Was the West’s Intervention in Libya Justified?

Posted on Mar 29, 2011, Source: Democracy Now!

Juan Cole defends the use of force to aid the Libyan rebel movement. Professor Prashad warns the US has involved itself in a decades-long internal Libyan struggle.

An Open Letter to the Left on Libya: Why Intervention in Libya Is a Good Thing

Posted on Mar 29, 2011, Source: JuanCole.com

Juan Cole: “I am unabashedly cheering the liberation movement on, and glad that the UNSC-authorized intervention has saved them from being crushed.”

Uprisings in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt — America Is Paying the Price for Supporting Corrupt Dictatorships in the Muslim World

Posted on Jan 25, 2011, Source: TomDispatch.com

Paranoia about Muslim fundamentalist movements and terrorism is causing Washington to make bad choices that will ultimately harm American interests and standing abroad.

Tunisian Revolution Shakes and Inspires Middle East

Posted on Jan 19, 2011, Source: Truthdig

Every state and movement in the Middle East is reading into the events in Tunisia its own anxieties and aspirations.

WikiLeaks: Israel Plans Total War on Lebanon, Gaza

Posted on Jan 3, 2011, Source: Informed Comment

The Israeli military is planning out massive bombings of areas full of innocent civilians.

Afghanistan: Obscenely Well-Funded, But Largely Unsuccessful War Rages on Out of Sight of the American Public

Posted on Nov 18, 2010, Source: Truthdig

That there has been heavy fighting in Afghanistan this fall would come as a surprise to most Americans. 10 NATO troops were killed this past Saturday and Sunday alone.

Asian Powers Are Starting to Call the Shots, and the US Can’t Do Anything About It

Posted on Nov 11, 2010, Source: TomDispatch.com

Just how weakened the United States has been in Asia is easily demonstrated by the series of rebuffs its overtures have suffered from regional powers.

Harvard Professor’s Shocking Proposal: Starve the Palestinians in Gaza into Having Fewer Babies

Posted on Feb 26, 2010, Source: JuanCole.com

At a recent conference, Prof. Martin Kramer called for population growth in the Muslim world to be restrained and made a series of other outrageous claims.

The Ten Worst Nightmares Bush Inflicted on America

Posted on Dec 22, 2009, Source: Informed Comment

Here are my picks for the top ten worst things about the wretched period, which will continue to follow us until citizens stand up to fix them.

100 Years of Imperial Paranoia About the Pashtuns

Posted on Jul 28, 2009, Source: TomDispatch.com

The doomsday rhetoric in Washington over lightly settled, mountainous Pashtun tribal lands is strikingly similar to that of the British Empire.

Let’s Hope India Doesn’t React Like We Did to 9/11

Posted on Dec 2, 2008, Source: Outlook India

The choices India makes now about the threat of terrorism will help determine what kind of superpower it will be.

Forget the Surge — Violence Is Down in Iraq Because Ethnic Cleansing Was Brutally Effective

Posted on Jul 29, 2008, Source: JuanCole.com

The bloodbath in Baghdad has resulted in fewer ethnically mixed neighborhoods, leading to the recent drop in violence.

Juan Cole — Iraq Civil War Round-Up

Posted on Mar 28, 2008, Source: Informed Comment

The latest, as violence flares up across Iraq.

Iraq’s Three Civil Wars

Posted on Mar 6, 2008, Source: MIT Center for International Studies

There are three major conflicts in Iraq — and the U.S. is virtually powerless to stop them.

New Iraqi Law on Baath Worries Ex-Baathists

Posted on Jan 14, 2008, Source: Informed Comment

The passage of the new law will be hailed by the War party as a major achievement. But as usual they’re misreading what really happened.

Romney: Some Beliefs are More Equal than Others

Posted on Dec 9, 2007, Source: Informed Comment

Romney’s “landmark” speech didn’t follow in Kennedy’s footsteps — it was the antithesis of JFK’s call for religious tolerance.

Iraq Oil Bonanza for Hunt; Displacement, Hunger, Alcoholism, Addiction for Iraqis

Posted on Sep 10, 2007, Source: Informed Comment

Texas oil cronies readying to clean up.

Big Lies Surround the Iraq “Surge”

Posted on Sep 1, 2007, Source: Informed Comment

Juan Cole slices and dices the administration’s spin.

Bush and Napoleon Both Believed Their Own Propaganda About a “Greater Middle East”

Posted on Aug 25, 2007, Source: TomDispatch.com

There are times when the resonances of history are positively eerie. The parallels of Napoleon’s occupation of Egypt with Bush’s disaster in Iraq are enough to make you jump out of your chair.

Al-Maliki Declines Turkish Terror Treaty; Kurds Pass Oil Law

Posted on Aug 8, 2007, Source: Informed Comment

Iraqi-Turkish relations are strained, and the Kurds pass an oil law before the national government in Baghdad.

Top Ten Iraq Myths for 2006

Posted on Dec 29, 2006, Source: Informed Comment

Sunnis, Civil War, Sadr and the prospects of ‘victory.’

A Ceasefire Call in Lebanon Bush Can’t Ignore

Posted on Aug 3, 2006, Source: Informed Comment

Shiite leader Ayatollah Sistani’s call for a ceasefire should be heeded, or else the U.S. military mission in Iraq could quickly become untenable.

Hitchens the Warmongering Hacker

Posted on May 5, 2006, Source: AlterNet

Juan Cole chastises Christopher Hitchens and tells warmongers to ‘sit down and shut up.’

Fishing for a Pretext to Squeeze Iran

Posted on Mar 17, 2006, Source: Truthdig

Despite Bush’s new national security report, it’s clear that Iran presents little threat, so the administration must have other motivations.

The Democracy Lie

Posted on Mar 19, 2005, Source: TomPaine.com

President Bush and his supporters are taking credit for spreading freedom across the Middle East. But where changes are genuinely occurring they have nothing to do with the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Elections: A Baby Step

Posted on Feb 2, 2005, Source: Informed Comment

The details behind the ballyhooed elections – that Bush first opposed them and then postponed them for his own benefit – tend to get lost in the media’s boosterism.

The Other Shoe Drops: bin Laden Weighs in

Posted on Oct 30, 2004, Source: Informed Comment

In a new video, bin Laden indicts Bush for still hiding the truth from Americans, saying that the reasons for attacking the U.S. are still there. In other words, Bush has not made us safer.

The New and Improved Iraq

Posted on Jun 28, 2004, Source: In These Times

The so-called handover is merely a symbolic act that does little to alter the daunting reality on the ground. The only move that could bring real change is the complete withdrawal of the United States.

The Cleric Who Would Be Rousseau

Posted on Jun 10, 2004, Source: TomPaine.com

The man who will determine the shape of the new Iraq is not Iyad Allawi but Shi’ite leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The good news: He’s no Khomeini.

Battle of the Photographs

Posted on May 3, 2004, Source: TomDispatch.com

The problem of war images from Iraq alienating Iraqis and Arabs has dogged the Bush administration from the start of the war. Now, the administration is losing the battle of images with the American public, as well.

The European Union Is an Evil Plan

European Union Treaty of Nice

European Union Treaty of Nice

1986 was a turning point in the history of Europe in which the  Single  European  Act  was  signed  by  EU  governments. The Act was meant for providing  for  the creation of a single market in which people, goods, capital and services can move freely around the EC. But are they the real objectives of transforming the EC to EU?

The Treaty of Nice was signed by European leaders on 26 February 2001 and came into force on 1 February 2003. It amended the Maastricht Treaty (or the Treaty on European Union) and the Treaty of Rome (or the Treaty establishing the European Community).

It was widely accepted that the Treaty of Nice has failed to deal with the basic question of wide-ranging institutional reform, the European Union institutions being widely viewed as overly complicated, and hence the establishment of the European Convention, leading to a new IGC (Intergovernmental Conference) in 2004, was agreed at Nice.

Opponents of the Treaty claimed that it was a “technocratic” rather than “democratic” treaty, which would further diminish the sovereignty of national and regional parliaments, and would further concentrate power into a centralised and unaccountable bureaucracy. They also claimed that five applicant countries could have joined the EU without changing the EU’s rules, and that others could have negotiated on an individual basis; something opponents to the treaty argued would have been to the applicants’ advantage. They also claimed that the Treaty of Nice would create a two-tier EU. Opponents pointed out that leading pro-treaty politicians had admitted if referendums had been held in countries other than Ireland, it would probably have been defeated there as well.

The Commission and the European Parliament were disappointed that the Nice IGC did not adopt many of their proposals for reform of the institutional structure or introduction of new Community powers, such as the appointment of a European Public Prosecutor. The European Parliament threatened to pass a resolution against the Treaty; although it has no formal power of veto, the Italian Parliament threatened that it would not ratify without the European Parliament’s support. However, in the end this did not come to pass and the European Parliament approved the Treaty.

Nationalism and national sovereignty have no place in the new EU which is totally different from the original Treaties  of  Rome of the EC. With such plans it is very obvious that big economies in Europe are the only masters and winners in a vast European superstate.

To Be Part of the Global “WE”? Sell The Arabs! (Turkey’s Policy)

Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu

Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu

This is the very definition of Erdogan’s, and Davutoglu’s, ambitions.

In the recent batch of State Department cables disclosed by WikiLeaks, one scholar was quoted as anointing the Turkish foreign minister “Turkey’s Kissinger,” while in 2004 a secondhand source was quoted as calling him “exceptionally dangerous.” But his abilities, and his worldview, matter because of the country whose diplomacy he drives: an Islamic democracy, a developing nation with a booming economy, a member of NATO with one foot in Europe and the other in Asia. Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a canny, forward-thinking populist who has drastically altered Turkish politics. Erdogan and Davutoglu share a grand vision: a renascent Turkey, expanding to fill a bygone Ottoman imperial space.

Davutoglu is seen as a champion of Turkish greatness.

Henri Barkey, a Turkey scholar at Lehigh University, pronounces his book “Strategic Depth” as“mumbo jumbo,” adding that Davutoglu “thinks of himself as God”.

Foreign Policy magazine ranked him No. 7 in its recent list of “100 Global Thinkers,” writing that under his leadership, “Turkey has assumed an international role not matched since a sultan sat in Istanbul’s Topkapi Palace.”

Davutoğlu is generally linked to the notion of Turkish neo-Ottomanism, which favours a commonwealth with its neighbours and old Ottoman connections. Although his foreign policies have been regarded as neo-Ottomanist by Western and especially U.S. media, Davutoğlu does not accept such a characterization.

One of Davutoglu’s greatest diplomatic achievements was the creation of a visa-free zone linking Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, thus reconstituting part of the old Ottoman space.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

The victory of the moderate Islamist AK party in the 2002 parliamentary elections was a seismic event in Turkey, culturally as well as politically. Turkey had been an aggressively secular republic since its establishment in 1923; Turkey’s Westernized intellectuals, living in the coastal cities, especially Istanbul, looked upon the Islamists as bumpkins from the Anatolian hinterland. “These people came out of nowhere,” as Candar puts it.

On the flight home from Brussels, where he conferred privately with Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and met with his European counterparts, Davutoglu was in an ebullient mood. He feels the wind of history filling his sails. Turkey, the crossroads of civilizations, the land where East and West, North and South, converge, is pointing the way to the world’s future. “Turkey is the litmus test of globalization,” he told me. “Success for Turkey will mean the success of globalization.” The world, as Davutoglu likes to say, expects great things from Turkey.