EMPIRIA Magazin XIII. évfolyam 3. szám. 2014. július-szeptember. © Kuliffay. Minden jog fenntartva.

Kuliffay Hanna

AZ OBAMA LÁNCSZEM

 

 

"Én mindig az igazat fogom mondani az amerikai népnek. Mindig megmondom a véleményemet. Így teszek a kampányom során, (és) így fogok csinálni elnökként is. A nyitottság új érájának vezére leszek, ígérte még Illinois államból Washingtonba akreditált szenátoraként Barack Obama a DePaul Egyetemen tartott emlékezetes beszédében, majd azzal folytatta:  az én megmérettetésem nem a (párt)hűség lesz, hanem az igazság." Hasonlóan hangzatos általánosításai közé "Következetességre és integritásra van szükségünk..."   zengzetes szlogeneket ékelt MI VAGYUNK, AKIKRE VÁRTUNK   mintegy utalásként arra, amennyiben hatalomra jut, a birodalmi törekvésű BushCheney-erőszakpolitikát felváltja egy felelős jogrenden alapuló, békére és nemzetközi kooperációra törekvő 'puha hatalom'. ('soft power') Ugyan mi másra utalt volna, mint erre az amerikai tömegek által áhított fordulatra a másik tipikus Obama szlogen is: VÁLTOZÁS AMIBEN HIHETÜNK. (CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN)

 

 

  Clinton hat országot bombázott, W. Bush négyet, Obama eddig hetet. (kép: Mark Wilson/Getty)

 

Az ún. 'puha hatalom'(*1) hívei szerint a neokonzervatívok nehézfegyveres "demokrácia-terjesztő" és "rezsimváltó" elméletének befellegzett, mivel a gyakorlatban csúfosan megbukott. Primitívnek és veszélyesen polarizálónak tartva elutasítói a Fehér Házban uralkodóvá vált "velünk vagy ellenünk" mentalitásnak. Ellenzői a birodalmi ambícióból indított totális háborúzásnak, amelyet Stephen P. Rosen azzal  népszerűsített 2002 tavaszán a Harvard Magazine elemzésében, hogy a maximális erőbevetés pszichológiai hatása révén (is) demonstrálja, semmilyen birodalom elleni kihívás nem ússza meg büntetlenül.

 

Az idealizmusuk miatt a hatalomból háttérbe szorítottak szerint egy békés egyensúlyra  törekvő multipoláris világban az államok/országok/nemzetek közt felmerülő ellentétek közösen elfogadott értékrendre és jogalapra épülő diplomáciai megoldásokat igényelnek, melyeknek legfontosabb kitétele, hogy figyelembe vegyék a civil lakosság helyzetét és elvárásait.  A 2008-as elnökváltást megelőző időszakban egy politikai VÁLTOZÁSnak ez a lehetősége egy alkotmányt és polgárjogokat tisztelő(*2), nemzetközi konszenzusra kész, az ipari és finánc oligarchát megregulázó(*3), tehát népérdekű politizálás esélye valahogy még naivitása ellenére sem tűnt teljesen lehetetlen ábrándnak. És ez az ábránd a királycsinálók új felfedezettje, Barack Obama személyében tűnt fel, meglepetésszerűen, magabiztos eleganciával az amerikai nagypolitika értékes emberanyagban szűkölködő porondján.

 

Híre futótűzként terjedt az országban, mikor azzal a konkrét ígéretettel állt elő, hogy nem lesz állandó megszállás és nem lesznek végleges bázisok Irakban és 2008 márciusára, legkésőbb 2009-re teljesen befejeződik a "dumb war", a "buta háború". A fiatal szenátor váratlan, szinte robbanásszerű népszerűségét jellemezte, hogy elnökségre pályázása még a saját pártjabelieket is megosztotta;  számos, korábban a Clinton-táborhoz tartozó politikus is Obama támogatójává lett.  Az átállását nyíltan megvalló szimpatizánsok közül a 76 éves Ted Kennedy szenátor lelkesítő beszédet mondott  2008 augusztusában a Denverben tartott  Demokratikus Nemzeti Pártgyűlésen, amelyre, ha még élne, bizonyára gyötrődve gondolna vissza:

 

"Azért jöttem el ide ma este, hogy együttesen megváltoztassuk Amerikát, hogy visszaadjuk a jövőjét, hogy a legmagasabb eszményeinkhez érjünk fel, és  Barack Obamát válasszuk elnöknek. (...) Most novemberben ismét Amerika új generációjának lesz továbbadva a fáklya. Országunk az ő célkitűzésüknek lesz elkötelezettje. A munka újra beindul. A remény újra éled. És az álom folytatódik."(*4)

 

Kennedy, aki 3 évig együtt dolgozott Obamával a szenátusban, úgy érezte, elég jól ismeri ahhoz, hogy rábízná a Bush sötét múltjával való leszámolást és a presztízsét vesztett ország felemelését. Kétezernyolc január 28-án Washingtonban az American University diáksága, professzorai és meghívott vendégei hatalmas érdeklődése közepette tartott másik beszédében Kennedy olyan jövendőbeli elnöknek festette le Obamát, aki "elutasítja a múlt automatikus követésének végzetes csapdáját". Olyan vezéregyéniségként mutatta be, aki tisztán lát, anélkül, hogy cinikus lenne, és szenvedélyesen harcol azokért az ügyekért, amelyekben hisz, anélkül, hogy démonizálná a más véleményen levőket.

 

Kennedy mintegy biztosítékot látott kollégája néhány állásfoglalásában és megnyerő személyiségében az áhított hazai és közvetve egy globális sorfordulat megvalósítására, de feltételezhetően nem tudott (vagy ő sem akart tudni) róla, hogy Obama 2004-ben úgy nyilatkozott, „Irakot illetően nincs nagy különbség az én állásfoglalásom és George Bush állásfoglalása között.”  Bár a "totális háborúkkal" és "USA dominanciával" jellemzett (M. A. Ledeen) geopolitikai irányzatnak vállalása lényeges meghatározója (feltétele?) volt hirtelen felfelé ívelő pályájának, ennek ellenére még ellenlábasai és (valamiért visszafogott hangú) médiakritikusai is figyelmen kívül hagyták.  Olyan fojtott csend volt róla, mintha el se hangzott volna. Vajon Hillary Clinton, aki szavazók tömegeit idegenítette el magától a Bush külpolitika támogatásával, miért nem hozakodott elő vele még akkor sem, mikor éreznie kellett, hogy vesztésre áll?

 

Mint e sorok írója korábban is megjegyezte, számára az évtized egyik legnagyobb rejtélye, hogyan sikkadhatott el, hogy merülhetett a feledés áldott homályába Obama előjelzése a Bush-politikát folytató szándékáról. Ráadásul nem is egyszer. Jelen sorok írója 2009 decemberében így írt erről a furcsa jelenségről Obama szerint ugyanaz az út vezethet máshova című elemzésében:

 

Ma már szinte hívei megcsúfolásának tűnik, amiket Obama a kampánya során mondott, például a sokrétű változás elengedhetetlen szükségességét hangsúlyozva: „Nem engedhetjük meg, hogy John McCain-nek alkalma legyen George Bush harmadik terminusára, nem (engedélyezhető) további négy év a korporációs vállalatok adókedvezményének, további négy év a vállalati vezetőségek adókedvezményének, további négy év egy olyan egészségügyi tervezetnek, amely csak az egészségesek, és a gazdagok gondját viselné, további négy év az olajtársaságok által írt energiapolitikának és természetesen további négy év egy pusztító háborúnak.” Akik azonban azt feltételezik, hogy ennek a 'mindenmásképpenlesz' programnak ismeretében Obamát az ellenzéki republikánusok és neokonzervatívok annak idején vadul támadták, és támadják azóta is éjt nappallá téve, vagy, hogy a média kritizálja orrvérzésig, azok hatalmasat tévednek. Ellenkezőleg, annyira elégedettek vele, hogy egy Nobel-békedíjat adattak neki, és szintén 2008-ban első helyezettnek nyilvánították a TIME magazin évente szokásos népszerűségi listáján.  

 

*

Mivel a barikádépítésnek nincs nagy múltja az Egyesült Államokban, és az iraki háború elleni tömegmozgalmak letaglózó eredménytelensége következtében évek óta semmi sem viszi utcára az embereket, gyakran felmerült a kérdés, egyáltalán milyen lehetősége maradt azoknak, akik az ország hanyatló állapotát felmérve komoly VÁLTOZÁSt  akarnak?  (Minden 4 évben felvetődik egy harmadik párt indításának égető szüksége, hogy aztán magától elhaljon.) Az alternatív médiában írók és olvasók a BushCheney-évek alatt sokat gyötrődtek ezen a kérdésen, de épkézláb javaslat híján a tehetetlenségérzet miatti kétségbeesés csak fokozódott, mikor is valami váratlan dolog történt.

 

Kétezerhét őszén az elnökválasztáson mindenáron nyerni akaró demokrata vezetés lépéskényszerben érezte magát. A két megszállást és további fegyverkezéseket folyamatosan pártoló-pénzelő  politikájával elégedetlenek lecsendesítésére és a lemorzsolódó progresszív, független és az ún. XXI. századi szocialista szavazók visszahódítására, mintegy végszükségként,  a 'háborús héja' Clinton mellett elkezdték futtatni a 'háborúellenes' Obamát.  Zseniális húzás volt.

 

Már maga a  nemzedékváltás pártállástól függetlenül is a megújulás reményét ébresztette széles néptömegekben, amit csak fokozott egy olyan karizmatikus, rátermett, bizalmat keltő jelölt feltűnése, aki háború és béke kérdésben filozofikusan megfontoltnak mutatkozott, nemzetközi síkon is pozitív benyomást keltett, alkotmánytisztelőnek vallotta magát és szabad információáramlást, felelős és transzparens kormányzást, valamint 40 millió biztosítást nélkülözőnek egészségügyi reformot ígért. Mi több, 2008 áprilisában azt hangoztatta, hogy elszámoltatja az iraki fiaskót szándékosan és tervszerűen előidézőket. Ezt 2008 őszén megerősítette egy floridai nagygyűlés lelkes tömege előtt:

 

„Amennyiben (jogi szakértők) megalapozottnak találják, bűnügyi eljárás fog indulni a törvényszegők ellen, nem bosszúból, vagy visszavágásként, hanem abból a szükségszerűségből, hogy érvényességet kapjon az az elv, amely szerint senki, sem az igazságügyminiszter, sem az elnök, senki sem áll a törvény felett”.

 

Ebben a Toledoban tartott beszédében Obama már egy egész új korszak eljövetelét ígérte ha már lúd, legyen kövér , amelyben mind a Wall Street, mind pedig Washington felelős és elszámoltatható lesz. 

 

 

A VÁLTOZÁS AMIBEN HIHETÜNK (battlefieldusa.wordpress.com)

 

A légkör annyira optimista volt abban az időszakban -- Obama tömegbázisában szinte eufórikus --, hogy az olvasók gátlástalan ellenpropagandistának vélték Charles Scaligert a New American-ban megjelent cikkéért, amiben 12 nappal a hivatalos elnöki beavatás előtt azt írta: jól hangzó szólamai ellenére Obamának nincs szándékában megszüntetni, vagy akárcsak korlátozni is Amerika világcsendőri szerepét.  "Akik a változás reményében Obamára szavaztak, hamarosan csalódni fognak, mivel az új elnök ugyanazon térkép alapján veszi majd az útját, amely alapján elődei haladtak majdnem egy évszázadon át" jósolta Scaliger, konkrétan utalva ezzel az államapparátus várható növekedésére, az afganisztáni és iraki fegyveres megszállás folytatására, újabb katonai beavatkozásokra Szíriában, Líbiában, Szudánban, de máshol is, és a szabadságjogok (Patriot act révén történő K.H.) fokozott korlátozására –következésképpen – a  jólét  további csökkenésére.

 

Scaliger utólag vállon veregetheti magát, amiért a közhangulat ellenére sem sodródott az Obama-mániával. Feltételezhetően mintegy kijózanító figyelmeztetésként tette közzé átfogó képet festő elemzését, amivel végül is elméletben lehetőséget teremtett arra, hogy minél előbb, akár a győzelem napjától kezdve országos tömegmozgalom szerveződjön Obama választási programjának beindítására. (Ezt indokolta volna az is, hogy kampánya során Obama maga is közös összefogásra buzdította követőit: MEGVÁLTOZTATJUK AZ ORSZÁGOT, MEGVÁLTOZTATJUK A VILÁGOT!)

 

Mindazok, akik torkig voltak a 'folyamatos terror elleni  háborúskodással', saját békevágyuk és a világközösségbe való visszailleszkedés reményének megtestesülését, sőt, egy John Kennedy kaliberű államfőt láttak benne. Ez többek között arra épült, hogy 2002-ben, a 9-11-es terrortámadás utáni feszült légkörben, mikor ritka vagány dolog volt a hivatalos állásponttól kicsit is eltérni, nyíltan kritizálta Bush "meggondolatlan háborúba" ugrását.  Kampánya során hatásosan ki is játszotta ezt az ütőkártyáját, mikor a Bushnak adott korlátlan meghatalmazásért és közvetve az iraki vérontásért két komoly ellenfelét, Clintont és John McCaint is felelősnek ítélte, sőt, tömegsikerén felbuzdulva az egész elidegenedett hatalmi rendszert:

 

"... az amerikai nép nem csak az elnök  által lett rászedve Washington nagy része is kijátszotta. A média is (félre vezette), mikor a tények helyett gyakran közölt kitalációkat. A külpolitikai elit is, amely többségében egy húron pendült velük a háborút illetően. És leginkább a kongresszus nagy hányada, amely a kormány más szerveivel egyenrangúként megszavazta az elnöknek azt a korlátlan autoritást, amellyel mai napig is él. Tisztázzuk: anélkül a (bizonyos) szavazás nélkül nem lett volna háború. Némelyek igyekeznek átírni a történelmet. Azt állítják, hogy valójában nem a háborúra szavaztak, hanem a (fegyver)inspektorokra, vagy a(z elhibázott) diplomácia kérdésére. De (valójában) a kongresszus, az adminisztráció, a média és az amerikai nép egyöntetűen értette, hogy miről vitáztunk 2002 őszén. Ez a szavazás arról szólt, hogy menjünk-e háborúba, vagy ne. És (mellesleg) számon kell kérni azoktól, akik a háborúra szavaztak: hogy adhat valaki egy biankó csekket az elnöknek, majd tettetheti, hogy meg van lepve, mikor beváltja?"

 

*

Obama, akit 2008 június első hétvégén 'leigazolt' az Új Világrend megvalósulása szempontjából döntő befolyású Bilderberg társaság, az elkövetkező rövid kampányidőszakban már egyre bátrabban mondhatott a pódiumról jól hangzó ígéreteket mint "Hivatalba lépésem első napján kiadom az új utasítást a vezérkaromnak a háború felelősségteljes, megfontolt, de határozott befejezésére"  , melyek célja csupán a felzúgó tapsvihar elérése és a babérkoszorú megszerzése volt.(*5) December elején, a megválasztása után  viszont már cinikusnak  hangzott, mikor közölte, hogy nem vállal mindent, amit a "kampány hevében" mondott mégha szószerinti idézés is tőle. (A "kampány hevében"? Ez már csak azért is furcsa kibúvás volt, mert ha valaki, ő abszolút hidegfejű és józan volt az egész időszakban.)

 

A nyilvánvaló cinizmust az válthatta ki, hogy a vártnál is több dologgal kellett kiegyeznie a különböző érdekcsoportok és nagy pénzeket áldozó pártfogók kívánságára, mint amire számított. (150 millió dollárt söpört be egyetlen hónap alatt 2008 szeptemberében, és 36 milliót október első 2 hetében.) Akik azt összedobták, nyilván nem rá bízták a döntést, hogy kikkel fog új kormányt alakítani. (A plagizáló, rágalmazó, álszent karrierista Joe Bident kellett elfogadnia helyettesének; a Wall Street és Soros támogatta Hillary Clintont külügyminiszterének ezt a békát különösen nehéz lehetett lenyelnie; Susan Rice Madeleine Albright protezsáltjaként  lett nemzetbiztonsági tanácsadó, és valószínűleg Rahm Emanuel, volt Clinton-asszisztens, korábban az izraeli hadsereg önkéntese sem azért lett Fehér Házbeli stábja vezetője, mert nála megbízhatóbbat ne tudott volna találni.) 

 

Bill Clinton egyszer egy őszinte pillanatában azt mondta, "mire odajutsz, hogy elnök leszel, rájössz, hogy semmiben sem döntesz." Nixon pedig azt állította, soha nem is hallott Kissingerről, mikor ki kellett nevezze nemzetbiztonsági tanácsadójának.

Obama bravúrosan ráérzett és rájátszott mindkét oldal elvárásaira, de nem lehettek kétségei, hogy hivatalba lépése után csak egy zenére táncikálhat. Az Irak-USA közti erőviszonyokról kötött egyezmény (SoFA) értelmében Washingtonnak jogában áll saját érdekeinek megfelelően a végtelenségig hosszabbítgatni a megszállás időtartamát és mindenkori megítélése szerint beavatkozni az ország belügyeibe. Végül is az amerikai-angol-izraeli status quo számára ez volt az iraki háború legnagyobb eredménye. Mindenkit megelőzve, a saját pártja buktatta volna meg Obamát, ha nem lett volna hajlandó élni ezzel az egész régióra kiható kontrolllehetőséggel. 

 

Nyilván már a beleegyezés (kényszerű megadás?) jegyében fogalmazott 'másképpen' 2008 decemberében, mikor azt mondta, hogy az aktív haderő visszavonása után "valószínűleg" szükség lesz hátrahagyni egy bizonyos létszámú hadtestet, amely kiképzési és logisztikai segítséget ad az irakiaknak és védelmet nyújt "a saját Irakban tartózkodó civiljeinknek". (A fegyveres védelemre szoruló civilek száma nagyrészt a Pentagon és a State Department szerződéses alkalmazottai   előző évben meghaladta a százezret.) Egy csökkentett létszámú, de legkorszerűbben felfegyverzett haderővel való sok évtizedes megszállás volt  Bush és Rumsfeld eredeti terve is, és ezt volt hivatott a kezdeti Obama-években beindítani Robert Gates republikánus hadügyminiszter, akit Obama átvett (át kényszerült venni?) a Bush-kormánytól, és 3 évig megtartott kabinet pozíciójában.

 

Hogy érzékelni lehessen, a két párt időnkénti kormányváltása ellenére mennyire  változatlan a geopolitikai stratégia, mennyire bebetonozott maga a rendszer, érdemes visszaidézni, hogy 1993 januárjában a hivatalos beiktatása előtt álló Bill Clinton szükségét érezte hangsúlyozni, hogy "az ő iraki politikája pontosan ugyanaz, mint az elődjéé volt". A demokrata Clinton közbeiktatott láncszem volt a két republikánus Bush, apa és fia között, mint ahogy a demokrata Obama is láncszem George W. Bush és az őt követő leginkább esélyesnek tartottak, demokrata Hillary Clinton vagy republikánus Jebb Bush között. Mikor 2008-ban nyilvánosságra hozták a nyertes Demokrata Párt új programját, az ugyanúgy az ország veszélyeztetettségére hivatkozón agresszív ('csípőből lövő') volt, és ugyanannyira világbirodalmi aspektusú, mint a Bush által gyakorlatban megvalósított republikánus pártprogram. 

 

Szembenézünk ezekkel (a terrorista) fenyegetésekkel, miközben együtt működünk a szövetségeseinkkel, és helyreállítjuk a világban elfoglalt (elsődleges) helyünket. Keménykezű, okos és elvi alapokon álló nemzetbiztonsági stratégiát folytatunk. Ez a stratégia elismeri, hogy nemcsak Bagdadban van  érdekeltségünk, hanem Kandaharban és Karacsiban, Pekingben és Berlinben, Brazíliában és Bamakóban is. Ez a stratégia megküzd az évszázadot formáló  legkülönbözőbb erőhatásokkal, beleértve: a szabadság elleni alapvető kihívást, az új hatalmak feltűnését, mint Kína, India, Oroszország és az Európai Únió. (...) Barack Obama VI. célkitűzése a demokráciaterjesztés és (állam)fejlesztés további előmozdítása...

 

Bár a demokrata párt az új elnök iránti elvárásoknak megfelelően a(z amerikai) demokrácia globális terjesztését, és a (Washington iránt elkötelezetté váló illetve kényszerülő államrendek megszilárdítását és gazdasági felvirágzást ígérő) 'nemzetépítést' ('nation building') hangoztatta céljául, a Samantha Power-féle(*6) 'puha hatalom' megtévesztő álcája mögött azonban G. W. Bush rakétái, nehézbombázói, kínzókamrái, kikényszerített szerződései biztosították Obama megszálló és intervenciós politizálásának tudomásulvételét. Jóllehet Bush volt az, aki figyelmeztette a világot, bármelyik ország katonai támadás alanya lehet, és még csak kiváltó eseményre sincs szükség a veszélyessé váló időkben, Obama elnök nem határolódott el ettől  a világbirodalmi ambíciójú doktrínától, amely az ún. megelőző háború ('preemptive war') hidegháborút indukáló, sőt világégést provokálható őrültségével való azonosulás vitathatatlan jele.

 

 

*1  ability to attract others by our example, culture and values

*2  "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution." (Szenátor Barack Obama. 2007)

*3 Az Obama adminisztráció teljes kudarcot vallott  a széleskörű üzleti panamákat elkövető, az ország gazdaságát visszavető  'kövér macskák" - saját megnevezéssel 'üzletember-filantrópok' - felelősségre vonásában.

*4  Kennedy itt nyilvánvalóan Dr. Martin L. King vágyálmára utalt

*5  Példa a vezető Obama tanácsadó, Samantha Power  árulkodó cinizmusára: az Irakból való, 16 hónaposnak mondott kivonulási terv kapcsán riporterekkel közölte, hogy bár az a "várható  legjobb szenárió", ennek ellenére Obama nincs kötve az elnökjelöltként vagy szenátorként meghirdetett programjához.

*6  John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, Lindsey Graham és Hillary Clinton szenátorok voltak az álhumanitárius Samantha Power  legfőbb támogatói abban, hogy az Obama kormányban az Egyesült Nemzetek Szervezetének követe legyen. Power, Susan Rice külügyminiszterrel karöltve kulcsfigura volt Obama meggyőzésében a Líbia elleni, könnyű győzelmet ígérő aszimmetrikus háború elkerülhetetlen szükségét illetően.

Addenda

 

Obama vagy katasztrofálisan naiv, vagy nem volt beleszólása, hogy a 'Rubinista' (minden pénzügyi szabályzót ellenző), privát adócsalást is elkövető Timothy Geithner lett a pénzügyminisztere, akinek ráadásul egyes számú embere a Goldman Sachs egy korábbi lobbistája. (Kuliffay. Lapszemlék-kommentárok rovat, 2008)

 

Az amerikai birodalmi politika folyamatosságáról és "lelkületéről" írja a következőt Larry Chin: With the film Bobby, director-writer Emilio Estevez captures a snapshot of 1968 America, and the many hopes and dreams lifted and crushed on the night Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. But the real story that still begs to be told begins where Bobby leaves off: with the assassination itself. For it is only through investigation of the assassination and its cover-up, the murder’s direct connection to the other 1960s assassinations (JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and others), and its relevance to subsequent (and also directly connected) wars and political crimes (Nixon/Watergate, Iran-Contra, and both Bush administrations) -- that the soul of the American Empire is truly revealed. (Larry Chin:  Beyond "Bobby": Exposing the continuing conspiracy and cover-up of the RFK assassination. Online Journal.  Nov 27, 2006)

 

A világbirodalmi kontroll megvalósításához elkerülhetetlenül szükséges a Közel-Kelet fregmentálása -- a jelentősebb, nyersanyagban gazdag, ’önállóskodó’ országok felszámolása. A CIA igazgatója, Michael Hayden szerint ennek megfeleően "Irak már 2006-ban atomizálva lett."  "Iraq no longer exists as a coherent governmental entity. It is being atomized, according to cia Director Michael Hayden, into "smaller and smaller groups fighting over smaller and smaller issues over smaller and smaller pieces of territory." (Joe Klein: Inadvertent Wisdom from George H. W. Bush. TIME. November 25, 2006)

 

It is a time, on this sad Sunday, to revisit Jack Kennedy's criticism of European colonialism in the Third World during the 1950's. George W. Bush speaks of democracy but his war policy is the lineal descendant of the colonial practices that John Kennedy so wisely spoke against. (...)  It is time to bring back the American foreign and security policies of John and Robert Kennedy rooted in American purpose and aspirational ideals that offer the hope of a better life, not endless war. (Brent Budowsky:  Sad Sunday: Iraq War Longer Than World War Two. JFK Was Right, George Bush Is Wrong. Huff Post. May 25, 2011)

 

While a lot of the media hype today focuses on the U.S. "withdrawal," that is hardly the reality. As previously reported, U.S. military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq presence for another 15-20 years, the U.S. embassy is the size of Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded. The Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) between the U.S. and Iraq gives the U.S. the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum. Article 27 of the SoFA allows the U.S. to undertake military action, "or any other measure," inside Iraq's borders "In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq." (Jeremy Scahill: Iraq’s “National Sovereignity Day” is U.S.-Stile Hallmark Hype. June 30, 2009)

 

Your candidacy has inspired a wave of political enthusiasm like nothing seen in this country for decades. In your speeches, you have sketched out a vision of a better future--in which the United States sheds its warlike stance around the globe and focuses on diplomacy abroad and greater equality and freedom for its citizens at home--that has thrilled voters across the political spectrum. Hundreds of thousands of young people have entered the political process for the first time, African-American voters have rallied behind you, and many of those alienated from politics-as-usual have been re-engaged. You stand today at the head of a movement that believes deeply in the change you have claimed as the mantle of your campaign. The millions who attend your rallies, donate to your campaign and visit your website are a powerful testament to this new movement's energy and passion. This movement is vital for two reasons: First, it will help assure your victory against John McCain in November. The long night of greed and military adventurism under the Bush Administration, which a McCain administration would continue, cannot be brought to an end a day too soon. (Howard Zinn: Change We Can Believe In - An Open Letter to Barack Obama. The Nation. July 31, 2008)

"I think that there are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed in the president, who believe that with regard to Social Security and a number of other issues, he said one thing as a candidate and is doing something very much else as a president, who cannot believe how weak he has been — for whatever reason — in negotiating with Republicans, and there’s deep disappointment. So my suggestion is, I think, you know one of the reasons the president has been able to move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him. And I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing. (...) And I think one of the reasons President Obama has moved as far to the right as he has, is he thinks he can go all the way and no one will stand up to him." (Senator Bernie Sanders. July 22, 2011)

 

“If people liked the Bush economic policy, you’re going to like Romney. I thought the Bush economic policy was a disaster. … So I think Obama is by far the preferable candidate. Is Obama doing everything I want, absolutely not, and among other things he has not been as strong as he should standing up to Wall Street.” (Senator Bernie Sanders. CNN interview. May 16, 2012)

 

Barack Obama volt külügyminiszterei, Clinton és Kerry kritika nélküli támogatói a republikánus Donald Trump elnök agresszív és illegális Szíria-politikájának: With Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer and a slew of liberal pundits supporting Donald Trump’s airstrikes against Syria, the president finds himself in an unusual position. Even CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, who has twice called Trump a BS’er on the air (using the actual word), said the military attack was the moment that Trump became president. (Howard Kurtz: Trump wins praise on Syria, but coverage starting to turn more skeptical. Fox News. April 10, 2017)

 

Íme a leginkább ijesztő korlátoltságával jellemezhető republikánus láncszem, Lindsey Graham szenátor -- John McCain izzadásig testi-lelki jóbarátja, az intervenciós külpolitikában a demokrata Hillary Clinton hasznos idiótája --,  legújabb háborús uszítása: "I've never been more encouraged by the Trump administration than I am today. I think ISIS should be Germany and Assad should be Japan, like World War II analogies here." (Sen. Lindsey Graham. NBC's meet the press. April 9, 2017)

 

*

 

Akik érdekeltek jobban belemerülni, mélyebbre ásni, vagy munkásságuk során eredetiben akarnak idézni 'az Új Világrend tervszerű és folyamatos megvalósítása' témakörben, azoknak ajánlom és bocsátom rendelkezésére  az 1990-2008-ig terjedő időszakból származó, időrendbe sorolt, eredetileg csak személyes használatra szánt, de megjelentetésre előkészületben lévő  jegyzetgyűjteményem vonatkozó válogatását.

 

© Kuliffay Hanna

 

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, curtailed or otherwise distributed, except by linking to this site, EMPIRIA Magazin and the author-owner of the web-site, Hanna Kuliffay.

 

 

Reference -  Hanna Kuliffay: Political Notecards -- Quotes, Quips, Excerpts

 

 

“In breaking the mindset of the American people about the use of force in the post-Vietnam era, Panama established an emotional predicate that permitted us to build the public support so essential for the success of Operation Desert Storm some thirteen months later.” (Secretary of State James Baker. 1990)

*

"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge: a new era – freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony.... A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak." (George H. W. Bush: Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Persian Gulf Crisis and the Federal Budget Deficit. Speech delivered September 11, 1990)

*

(...) But it was H. W. who first rolled out a “freedom agenda” to legitimize the illegal invasion of Panama. (Grag Grandin, American historian, and professor of history at New York University)

*

(From now on) "what we say, goes". (President Geoge H. W. Bush stated in 1990 before launching of Desert storm.)

*

There is much pious talk about a new multilateral world and the promise of the United Nations as guarantor of a new post- Cold War order. But this is to mistake cause and effect, the United States and the United Nations. The United Nations is guarantor of nothing. Except in a formal sense, it can hardly be said to exist. Collective security? In the Gulf, without the United States leading and prodding, bribing and blackmailing, no one would have stirred. The world would have written off Kuwait the way the last body pledged to collective security, the League of Nations, wrote off Abyssinia. (Charles Krauthammer: The Unipolar Moment. 1990)

*

Historically...the Cold War served the interests of both the USSR and the United States. For this reason neither sought to alter the nature of the relationship once it had been established. Their goal, therefore, was not so much victory over the other as the maintenance of balance. In this sense the Cold War was more of a carefully controlled game with commonly agreed rules than a contest where there could be clear winners and losers.  (Michael Cox: From the Truman Doctrine to the Second Superpower Détente: The Rise and Fall of the Cold War. 1990)

*

It has been assumed that the old bipolar world would beget a multipolar world with power dispersed to new centers in Japan, Germany (and/or “Europe”), China and a diminished Soviet Union/Russia. [This is] mistaken. The immediate post-Cold War world is not multipolar. It is unipolar. The center of world power is an unchallenged superpower, the United States, attended by its Western allies. (Charles Krauthammer: The Unipolar Moment. 1990)

*

”American preeminence is based on the fact that it is the only  country with the military, diplomatic, political and economic assets to be a decisive player in any conflict in whatever part of the world it chooses to involve itself. (...) U.S. policymakers should be prepared to provide the strength and will to lead a unipolar world, unashamedly laying down the rules of world order and being prepared to enforce them. (…) There is no alternative to confronting, deterring and, if necessary, disarming states that brandish and use weapons of mass destruction… The alternative to unipolarity is chaos.” (Charles Krauthammer: The Unipolar Moment. Foreign Affairs. 1990/1991 issue)

*

“But one thing we did learn [from the first Gulf War] is that we can use our military anywhere in the Middle East and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about five or 10 years to clean out those old Soviet client regimes. Syria, Iran, Iraq and other countries – multiple wars essential before the next great superpower comes along to challenge us.”  (Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. After the ’victorious’ Operation Desert Storm. 1991)

*

Unjust intentionality consists of the intention to obtain power or gain for oneself. While the U.S. war on Iraq was stated by Bush to be for “the liberation of Kuwait,” it is very hard to understand how the purpose of this liberation was other than the desire to have military power over Iraq, especially by destroying its power to wage chemical and nuclear warfare (fears that were greatly distorted). The U.S., thus, was seeking power over the Arab world and over the price of oil. This use of power shows that the second condition of intentionality was not met. (Robert Lichtenbert: The Injustice of the U.S. War Against Iraq. Newsletter of the Concerned Philosophers for Peace. Spring 1991)

*

“Today America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by the World Government.” (Henry Kissinger. Bilderberg Conference. 1991)

*

“The appropriate goal of American foreign policy is to preserve that hegemony as far into the future as possible.” (Paul Wolfowitz doctrine. 1991)

 

*

"There come times when we have to fight for peace. Out of the war in the Gulf may come a new peace and, as suggested by the President, a New World Order." (Billy Graham. CBS broadcast of his Long Island, New York crusade. March 12, 1991) [Quote is in reference to the Persian Gulf War. Graham was supportive of U.S. Cold War policy and the Vietnam War.]

 

*

“A world once divided into two armed camps now recognizes one sole and preeminent superpower: the United States of America. And they regard this with no dread. For the world trusts us with power—and the world is right. They trust us to be fair and restrained; they trust us to be on the side of decency. They trust us to do what’s right. U.S. policymakers understand the reasoning that underlies balance of threat theory, and — with words, though much less with deeds -- they have incorporated it into the United States’ grand strategy.” (President George H. W. Bush. State of the Union address. January 1992)

*

As former Secretary of State James Baker observed, “In breaking the mindset of the American people about the use of force in the post-Vietnam era, Panama established an emotional predicate that permitted us to build the public support so essential for the success of Operation Desert Storm some thirteen months later.” James Baker and Thomas DeFrank: The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War and Peace, 1989-1992 (Published: New York, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1995)

*

 

The first attempt by the neocons to put into policy their grand strategy of U.S. imperial primicy was in 1992, during the George H. W. Bush administration. (Kenneth J. Campbell: A Tale of Two QuagmaresIraq, Vietnam, and the Hard Lessons of War. Paradigm Publishers. 2007)

 

*

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia. There are three additional aspects to this objective: First, the U.S. must show the leadership necessary 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. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military position in the world. (Defense Strategy Objectives. March 7, 1992)

*

 In a broad new policy statement that is in its final drafting stage, the Defense Department asserts that America's political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to insure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territory of the former Soviet Union. (…) The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy. To perpetuate this role, the United States "must sufficiently account for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order," the document states. (Patrick Tyler: U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring no Rivals Develop. The New York Times. March 8, 1992)

*

"We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."  (Defense Strategy Objectives called also Wolfowitz Doctrine. Advocated pre-emptive military action to suppress POTENTIAL threats from other nations and to prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status. Written in 1991. Leaked March 7, 1992 to the New York Times)

*

"In the next century, nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th-century — ‘citizen of the world’ — will have assumed real meaning." (Strobe Talbott: The Birth of a Global Nation. TIME magazine. 1992. [Talbott is former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State]

*

“President-elect Bill Clinton made a point of saying that his policy toward Iraq was exactly the same as his predecessor's.” (The New York Times. January 15, 1993)

*

“…the only alternative to American leadership is global anarchy.”  (Zbigniew Brzezinski: Out of Control. 1993. (p.146)

*

“We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” (Arthur SchlesingerJr.in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995)

*

“The U. N. is a tool of American foreign policy.” (Madeleine Albright,  Ambassador to the United Nations. 1995)

*

How America ‘manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources. (Zbigniew Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. 1997)

*

“The state is not disappearing, it is disaggregating into its separate, functionally distinct parts. These parts—courts, regulatory agencies, executives, and even legislatures—are networking with their counterparts abroad, creating a dense web of relations that constitutes a new, transgovernmental order,” and that, “transgovernmentalism is rapidly becoming the most widespread and effective mode of international governance.” (Anne-Marie Slaughter: The Real New World Order. Foreign Affairs. September/October, 1997)

*

“The idea gliding and dancing before our eyes like a willow – a wish at last frames itself into a plan. Why should we not join (or form as other writers have interpreted Rhodes’ handwriting) a secret society with but one object: the furtherance of the British Empire, for the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.” (Alan B. Jones: How The World Really Works.  ABJ Press. 1997)

*

We cannot avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge and to meet treats before they become dire…. We need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles. (New American Century Project. 1997)

*

"We have to steel ourselves and be determined. This is about the security of the 21st century and the problems everybody is going to have to face dealing with chemical weapons. The U.N. inspection program was essential to keep the region free of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. (…) Their work is important to the safety of Saddam's neighbors and indeed to people all around the world." (President Bill Clinton. White House press conference. November 15, 1997)

*

The traditional Balkans represented a potential geopolitical prize in the struggle for European supremacy. The Eurasian Balkans, astride the inevitably emerging transportation network meant to link more directly Eurasia’s richest and most industrious western and eastern extremities, are also geopolitically significant….the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold. (Zbigniew Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard. 1997. [Brzezinski is co-founder with David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission, 1973])

*

 

"There is an alternative: to open our eyes, to do more than sit and wait for the next crisis, and to shift fundamentally the direction of U.S. policy toward Saddam. Containment is no longer enough. Rather than try to contain Saddam, a strategy that has failed, our policy should now aim to remove him from power by any and all means necessary… We hope the president and his advisers will begin to… prepare for the coming crisis. And we hope that Republicans rouse themselves from their post-Cold War torpor and see the Iraqi threat for what it is. (...)  Obviously, we are gratified that the Iraq strategy we have long advocated--and whose contours were further specified in that December 1, 1997, issue, in articles by Zalmay Khalilzad and Paul Wolfowitz, Frederick W. Kagan, and Peter Rodman--has become the policy of the U.S. government, because we believe it is the right policy for the country and the world. (The Weekly Standard editorial: Saddam must go. December 1, 1997)

*

Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

 

*

President William J. Clinton signs the Iraq Liberation Act into law. The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." (October 31, 1998)

*

 

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. (Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998.  The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton). [Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, 105th Congress, 2nd Session. September 29, 1998]

*

„The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is.” (Dick Cheney’s speech in the Cato Institute. June 23, 1998)

*

"Our policy has been to support opposition groups (all over the world), and it continues to be our policy…" (Defense Secretary William Cohen. Town meeting held in St. John Arena at Ohio State University. February 18, 1998) [Cohen began to answer a student’s questions, but he was drowned out by chants of "Bull----! Bull----!"]

*

'This is not just a replay of the Gulf War. This is about the security of the 21st century and the problems everybody is going to have to face dealing with chemical weapons.' This is the truth. We should act on it." (President William J. Clinton. February 1998)

*

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.  If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." (President Bill Clinton. Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff.  February 17, 1998)

*

"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world.  On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security. We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers.  These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they (the terrorists) will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands. Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them.  Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."  (President Bill Clinton.  State of the Union address.  January 27, 1998)

*

We urge you to seize [the] opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that secure the interests of the US and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf war coalition to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades the UN inspections. If Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil, will all be put at hazard secure the interests of the US and our friends and allies around the world. (PNAC letter to President Bill Clinton. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm. January 26, 1998)

*

The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We believe the US has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the Security Council.

(PNAC letter to President Clinton. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter. January 26, 1998)

*

 

“We are accused of trying to dominate others, of seeing the world in zero-sum terms in which any other country’s gain must be our loss. But that is an utterly mistaken view. It’s not just because we are the first global power in history that is not an imperial power. It’s because for 50 years, we have consciously tried to define and pursue our interests in a way that is consistent with the common good—rising prosperity, expanding freedom, collective security.” (Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Adviser. 1999)

*

"Let's at least have a real air war. ... It should be lights out in Belgrade: Every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road, and war-related factory has to be targeted. Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation (the Serbs certainly think so), and the stakes have to be very clear: Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set back your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too." (Thomas Friedman, foreign affairs columnist, made a plea for heavier attacks on Serb civilians. The New York Times. April 23, 1999)

 

*

"Diplomacy is perceived by an imperial power as a waste of time and prestige and a sign of weakness." (Boutros Boutros-Ghali: Unvanquished, a United Nations-United State Saga. I.B.Tauris. p. 198. 1999)

*

 

The Second Cold War will be fought over the same issues as the first one: freedom and self-determination for nations. Arrayed on one side will be the United States promoting its ideology of "market democracy," supported by its small, weak but noisy pup, Great Britain. Arrayed on the other side will be Russia, China, India and much of Asia and Latin America. As in the First Cold War, Europe is up for grabs. Doubtless, the neoconservative magazines, The New York Times and the various half-mad foreign policy intellectuals who pop up on CNN will soon be trying to whip us into line. We will be told that the new Cold War is all about "American" values. We will hear chilling tales of Russian nationalists, crazy generals, xenophobes, anti-Semites, former Communists and religious fanatics. We will hear hoary tales of Chinese-sponsored terrorism. As before, anyone opposing the Second Cold War will be smeared. Today's America is waging war against the values yesterday's America fought for. (George Szamuely: Proud To Be Un-American. New York Press. June 23, 1999)

 

*

''Single-superpower hegemony is a transitory phenomenon, but globalization is an irreversible force on a scale heretofore unseen. Globalization introduces unfamiliar problems, and the only truly global mechanism for addressing them is the United Nations.''  (Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in the article: Barbara Crossette: The Unmaking of a Secretary. Boutros Boutros-Ghali gives his side of the story of his ouster. The New York Times. June 13, 1999)

*

A "core mission" for the transformed U.S. military is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," according to the PNAC. The strategic "transformation" of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to "a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually," the PNAC plan said.  "The process of transformation," the plan said, "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor." From the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) document ”Rebuilding America's Defenses”. (2000)

 

*

The lack of U.N. authorization also asset of an unfortunate precedent. NATO’s action in Kosovo could be seen implying that disregard international law when it so chooses. Or, it might lead some to conclude more generally that both individual states and regional organizations, may act unilaterally when it serves their purpose. (Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Senate of Canada. P. 47. Ottawa, April 2000)

*

The system (shaping the international order, H. K.) is founded on the largely latent, but evident, supreme power of the United States. The United States sits atop all three major hierarchies of power -- political, military, and economic. Its influence is accompanied not by ever vaster expenditures of money around the world but by wide adherence to its norms for the international order.  (Philip Zelikow: The United States, the Cold War, and the Post-Cold War Order. Yale University Press. 2000)

*

“America is in a position to reshape norms, alter expectations, and create new realities. How? By unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will.” (Charles Krauthammer, neoconservative newspaper columnist and leading soloist in the chorus of the self-glorifying news media. Time magazine. March 2001)

 

*

Targeting innocent civilians for murder is always and everywhere wrong. Brutality against women is always and everywhere wrong. There can be no neutrality between justice and cruelty, between the innocent and the guilty. We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name. By confronting evil and lawless regimes, we do not create a problem, we reveal a problem. And we will lead the world in opposing it. (President George W. Bush. West Point speech. June 1, 2001)

*

 “America must not act as an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world, taking down governments." (VP candidate Dick Cheney. Julius 27, 2000)

*

Even though we cannot yet be sure who directed and carried out the attacks against us, we do know that there are those in the world who hate us. (…)  They hate us because we champion a ''new world order'' of capitalism, individualism, secularism and democracy that should be the norm everywhere. We orchestrate a global economic system that dictates what others shall produce, what they shall be paid, and whether or not they will find work. We proudly declare that we are the world's undisputed Number One. Then we are surprised that others might hold us responsible for all that they find threatening in the modern world. (Ronald Steel: The Weak at War With the Strong. The New York Times. September 14, 2001)

 

*

“We haven’t seen this kind of barbarism in a long period of time….This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.” (President George W. Bush. September 16, 2001)

*

 

Americans are asking, "How will we fight and win this war?'' We will direct every resource at our command--every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war--to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.  Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.  Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. (President Bush Addresses the Nation. September 20, 2001)

*

“Asked if it is not hypocritical to punish Burma for human rights violations while refraining from sanctions on China for similar actions, Albright replied, ‘We have consistent principles and flexible tactics’.”  The same “flexible tactics” (English translation: hypocrisy) are evident in the policies embraced by Albright toward Cuba, Libya, Iraq, et al, as opposed to the policies toward Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. (William Blum: Madeleine Albright, ethically challenged. 2001) [Blum is author, historian, and U.S. foreign policy critic.]

*

Pentagon Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle and featuring Henry Kissinger and Newt Gingrich, declares that Iraq should be invaded after Afghanistan. (Public knowledge: October 12, 2001) [Bush has been briefed by intel community that there is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. September 21, 2001]

*

"Ideally, the first crisis would be something with Iraq. It would be a way to make the point that it's a new world." (Kenneth Adelman, the former head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and a member of the Cheney-Rumsfeld camp. Personal interview with Nicholas Lemann: The Iraq Factor: Will the new Bush team's old memories shape its foreign policy? The New Yorker. 2001)

*

....the prize for the most crackpot reason to attack Iraq must go to a 'liberal', Geraldine Brooks, the former Middle East correspondent for the Wall Street Journal. Not even bothering to claim that Iraq threatens world peace or has any links with al-Qa'eda, Ms Brooks argues that the country should nonetheless be bombed 'for the sake of the Iraqi people', to help free them from the 'bleak and terrible regime of Saddam Hussein'. It really does seem that modern humanitarian imperialism knows no limits. Today Baghdad, tomorrow Beijing? We await Ms Brooks's call. (Neill Clark: Hands off IraQ. Spectator. March 30, 2002)

*

 

The maximum amount of force can and should be used as quickly as possible for psychological impact—to demonstrate that the empire cannot be challenged with impunity... [W]e are in the business of bringing down hostile governments and creating governments favorable to us. (Stephen P. Rosen: The Future of War and the American Military. Harvard Magazine.  May-June 2002, vol 104, no 5)

 

*

Gen. Wayne A. Downing was one of the most vocal advocates of a limited deployment of troops, arguing that the U.S. could topple Hussein by supporting existing Iraqi opposition groups with a mix of special units and airstrikes. Recently, Downing was said to be heading an effort to identify groups that could lead Iraq if Hussein's regime were ousted. But the so-called Downing plan has faced dug-in opposition from many uniformed leaders at the Pentagon. Downing's faith in the capabilities of special forces stems from a military career in which he ascended from West Point graduate to Army commando to commander of U.S. Special Operations forces. (Greg Miller: Counter-Terrorism Official Resigns White House Job. LA Times. June 28, 2002)

*

"The Bush Doctrine" of taking pre-emptive action to deprive rogue states and terrorists of WMD will very likely end up saving millions of lives and spare us far more chaos and destruction in the world. (Rick Joyner: The War for Peace)

*

 

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.' The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'. The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. (Neil Mackay: Lets Not Forget: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President. Information Clearing House. September 15, 2002)

*

The sweeping authority sought by President Bush to confront Iraq would allow him to ignore the United Nations and fight Saddam Hussein at the time, place and manner of his choosing. Some legal experts said the proposed resolution would even permit the president to use military force beyond Iraq's borders. (…) Though White House officials insisted the resolution was limited to Iraq, legal experts said talk about restoring peace and stability in the region is unusually broad and could eventually be applied to other terrorist havens.  (Ron Fournier: Bush Seeks Wide Authority on Iraq. AP. September 20, 2002)

 

*

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller of Standard Oil Chase Manhattan and the Council on Foreign Relations from his Memoirs in 2002)

„If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.” (Benjamin Netanyahu, addressing the U.S. Congress. September 12, 2002)

*

Today, the world’s great powers find ourselves on the same side— united by common dangers of terrorist violence and chaos. The United States will build on these common interests to promote global security. We are also increasingly united by common values. Russia is in the midst of a hopeful transition, reaching for its democratic future and a partner in the war on terror. Chinese leaders are discovering that economic freedom is the only source of national wealth. In time, they will find that social and political freedom is the only source of national greatness. America will encourage the advancement of democracy and economic openness in both nations, because these are the best foundations for domestic stability and international order. (President George W. Bush: The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The White House. September 17, 2002

 

*

President George W. Bush, who followed William J. Clinton, often referred to the Iraq Liberation Act and its findings to argue that the Clinton administration supported regime change in Iraq – and, further, that it believed Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in October 2002. (Wikipedia)

*

And as outlined in Vice President Cheney’s “Defense Planning Guidance for 1994-1999 and 2004 –2009, “The Plan” is for the U.S. to rule the world by the unilateral use of force. We are to demonstrate our overwhelming military superiority by conducting multiple-theatre wars, pre-emptive military strikes, including the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, and by using weapons from space. All this, of course, will necessitate significant increases in military budgets and further decreases in spending on social programs at home such as Social Security. For this cause, the American’s themselves must be kept in fear and terror. Vice President Cheney is doing his best to accomplish this, with statements such as: “I think that the prospects of a future attack on the U.S. are almost a certainty… It could happen tomorrow, it could happen next week, it could happen next year, but they will keep trying. And we have to be prepared…” (Eric Thor Karlstrom, Ph.D.: Reflections on the Origins of 9/11: Three Scenarios. November 20, 2002)

*

Europeans have a better opinion of President George W. Bush than they did before the Sept. 11 attacks, but they remain highly critical of the president, most of his policies, and what they see as his unilateral approach to international affairs. (Americans and Europeans Differ Widely on Foreign Policy Issues -- Bush's Ratings Improve but He's Still Seen as Unilateralist. April 17, 2002) [A multinational survey conducted in association with the International Herald Tribune and Council on Foreign Relations]

*

As the crisis in Israeli-occupied Palestine deepens, Tony Blair will meet George W Bush today to plan an attack on another country, Iraq. Their decision may condemn to death more than 10,000 civilians. That is the "medium case scenario" drawn up by the Pentagon. If the Americans implement their current strategy of "total war" and target Iraq's electricity and water, the consequences will be even more horrific. There is no mandate in any United Nations resolution for this invasion. (John Pilger: How dare George Bush preach peace to Israel when he's meeting Blair to plan war on Iraq. April 5, 2002)

*

In the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002 General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia and US Presidential candidate in 2004, testified before Congress that some 10 days after 9/11, he had been told by a general in the Pentagon that the decision had been made to go to war against Iraq. He said he saw the same man a few weeks later and asked him: “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” the answer was: “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He was then told by this general how the Secretary of Defence’s office (Donald Rumsfeld) had passed down a memo stating that “we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” (General Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia. In 2004 he unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic presidential nomination.  We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran.”  Video interview. Democracy now! March 2, 2007)

*

The maximum amount of force can and should be used as quickly as possible for psychological impact—to demonstrate that the empire cannot be challenged with impunity... [W]e are in the business of bringing down hostile governments and creating governments favorable to us. (Stephen P. Rosen: The Future of War and the American Military. Harvard Magazine.  May-June 2002)

*

The events of September 11, 2001 opened vast, new opportunities. (The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (page 28) Published September 2002 [www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html])

*

"I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan, and when he spoke about 'total war,' I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America's 'war on terror.' 'No stages,' he said. 'This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now.' "(John Pilger reveals the American plan. New Statesman. December 16, 2002) [Richard Perle was one of Project for the New American Century’s (PNAC) founding members]

*

“It is a Biblical principle that God uses one nation to execute His judgments upon another nation. America and its allies could become God's instruments to execute specific judgments that God has decreed will take place at some time.” (Bill Hamon: Prophecy for the Year 2003. 2002)

*

The 21st century imperium is a new invention in the annals of political science, an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known. It is the imperialism of a people who remember that their country secured its independence by revolt against an empire, and who like to think of themselves as the friend of freedom everywhere. It is an empire without consciousness of itself as such, constantly shocked that its good intentions arouse resentment abroad. But that does not make it any less of an empire, with a conviction that it alone, in Herman Melville's words, bears ''the ark of the liberties of the world.'' (Michael Ignatieff: The American Empire; The Burden. The New York Times. January 5, 2003)

*

Multilateralism is the liberal internationalist’s means of saving us from this shameful (isolated, H. K.) condition. But the point of the multilateralist imperative is not merely psychological. It has a clear and coherent geopolitical objective. It is a means that defines the ends. Its means—internationalism (the moral, legal and strategic primacy of international institutions over national interests) and legalism (the belief that the sinews of stability are laws, treaties and binding international contracts)—are in service to a larger vision: remaking the international system in the image of domestic civil society. The multilateralist imperative seeks to establish an international order based not on sovereignty and power but on interdependence—a new order that, as Secretary of State Cordell Hull said upon returning from the Moscow Conference of 1943, abolishes the “need for spheres of influence, for alliances, for balance of power.” (Charles Krauthammer: The Unipolar Moment Revisited - Realism and the New Unilaterism. February 26, 2003)

 

*

The new unilateralism argues explicitly and unashamedly for maintaining unipolarity, for sustaining America’s unrivaled dominance for the foreseeable future. It could be a long future, assuming we successfully manage the single greatest threat, namely, weapons of mass destruction in the hands of rogue states. This in itself will require the aggressive and confident application of unipolar power rather than falling back, as we did in the 1990s, on paralyzing multilateralism. The future of the unipolar era hinges on whether America is governed by those who wish to retain, augment and use unipolarity to advance not just American but global ends, or whether America is governed by those who wish to give it up—either by allowing unipolarity to decay as they retreat to Fortress America, or by passing on the burden by gradually transferring power to multilateral institutions as heirs to American hegemony. The challenge to unipolarity is not from the outside but from the inside. The choice is ours. To impiously paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: History has given you an empire, if you will keep it. (Charles Krauthammer: The Unipolar Moment Revisited - Realism and the New Unilaterism. February 26, 2003)

"The Bush Doctrine" of taking pre-emptive action to deprive rogue states and terrorists of WMD will very likely end up saving millions of lives and spare us far more chaos and destruction in the world. (Rick Joyner: The War for Peace. March 28, 2003)  [Joyner is co-founder and executive director of MorningStar Ministries, and Heritage International Ministries. He is author of more than forty books. He is an adherent of Dominion Theology, which advocates the involvement in and eventual takeover of civil government by Christians]

*

“God bless America, because God is with you. This nation did not become a strong nation, getting on its knees to despots and tyrants, we have defeated them from George Washington to George Bush and as a nation we are going to stand on our feet and defeat the tyrants of the world, and now is the time to do it. God bless George Bush.” (Executiv Pastor John Hagee. March 28, 2003) [Hagee is an American founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, a non-denominational megachurch with more than 20,000 active members.]

*

No one argues much now about whether these (technologically superior) forces are capable of crushing even very serious opposition, and almost no one argues that Iraq offers serious opposition. Rather, the argument concerns whether the employment of this almost unfathomable power will be largely for good, leading to the liberation of a tyrannized people and the spread of freedom, or largely for bad, leading to imperialism and colonialism, with a consequent corruption of America's own values and freedoms. This question is real enough and more: probably the next hundred years hinges on the answer. (Michael Kelly: What Now? A letter from Kuwait City. Published posthumous in The Atlantic, May 1, 2003) [Michael Kelly was The Atlantic's editor at large. He was killed in Iraq on April 3, 2003]

*

While itself avoiding the difficult word "empire," the Bush administration has been rather clear about its long-term aims. According to their official national security strategy and the documents published by the Project for a New American Century (which served as an administration-in-waiting during the Clinton years) their goal is to assure U.S. dominance and prevent the emergence of any rival powers. First step in that agenda is the remaking of the Middle East - and they're quite open about this as well. We all know the countries that are on the list; the only remaining issues are sequence and strategy. But that's not the whole of the agenda. They're essentially promising a permanent state of war, some overt, some covert, but one that could take decades. (Michael Ledeen: Crappy little countries. Left Business Observer. April 2003)

*

We are an awesome revolutionary force. Creative destruction is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day... Seeing America undo old conventions, they [our enemies] fear us, for they do not wish to be undone... We wage total war because we fight in the name of an idea... Stability is for those older, burnt-out countries, not for the American dynamo (Michael A. Ledeen: We'll Win This War. The American Enterprise Online. 2003) [Ledeen is Freedom Chair holder at the American Enterprise Institute]

*

The US and Britain were even more isolated in enforcing the so called “no–fly zones” in northern and southern Iraq. Creation of the zones, and the bombing raids within them were illegal, imposed by the two countries without any UN authorization. Several years later President Clinton would claim that the continual air strikes and bombing campaigns  were legal, even necessary, because „enforcing the no fly zone (is what) we’re still bound to do under the United Nations resolution”. His claim may have reflected the belief of his former UN ambassador Madeleine Albright who admitted she viewed the UN as "a tool of American foreign policy.”  But US tool or not, no such no-fly zones, and certainly no such lethal “enforcement”, had ever been authorized or even mentioned in any UN resolution. (Phillis Bennis: Before and after. 2003. Olive Branch Press. P. 66)

 

*

"If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush Doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq."  (Vice President Dick Cheney. West Point military Academy. DoD News.  June 2, 2003)

*

"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq. I think our success will have a positive influence not just on Iraq but on the whole region. Some people are afraid of that influence and they are targeting us." (Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense. Chicago Tribune. July 22, 2003)

*

"The sorrows of empire are the inescapable consequences of the national policies American elites chose after September 11, 2001. Militarism and imperialism always bring with them sorrows. (…) Four sorrows ... are certain to be visited on the United States. Their cumulative effect guarantees that the U.S. will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787. First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a spreading reliance on nuclear weapons among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut. Second is a loss of democracy and Constitutional rights as the presidency eclipses Congress and is itself transformed from a co-equal 'executive branch' of government into a military junta. Third is the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power, and the military legions. Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens." (Historian Chalmers Johnson: Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic. 2003)

*

“We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire.” (President George W. Bush. State of the Union address. January 2004)

*

Kerry and his comrades in the 'progressive internationalist' movement are as gung-ho as their counterparts in the White House. The only noteworthy difference between the two groups battling for power in Washington is that the neocons are willing to pursue their imperial ambitions in full view of the international community, while the progressive internationalists prefer to keep their imperial agenda hidden behind the cloak of multilateralism. (Mark Hand: “It's Time to Get Over It": Kerry Tells Anti-War Movement to Move On. Information Clearing House. February 18, 2004)

 

*

One year later, the Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, published a 19-page manifesto for the "New Democrats," who include all the principal Democratic Party candidates, and especially John Kerry. This called for "the bold exercise of American power" at the heart of "a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party's tradition of muscular internationalism." Such a strategy would "keep Americans safer than the Republicans' go-it-alone policy, which has alienated our natural allies and overstretched our resources. We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of US global leadership…" (John Pilger: Bush or Kerry? No Difference. March 5, 2004)

*

"And democracy will succeed in Iraq because our coalition is strong, because our resolve is firm, and because the people of Iraq desire and deserve to live in freedom."  (President Bush's Radio Address on Iraq. May 1, 2004)

*

The 2004 speech is strangely disconnected from reality. Reading Krauthammer, one gets the impression that the Iraq War--the archetypical application of American unipolarity--had been an unqualified success, with all of the assumptions and expectations on which the war had been based fully vindicated. There is not the slightest nod towards the new empirical facts that have emerged in the last year or so: the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the virulent and steadily mounting anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East, the growing insurgency in Iraq, the fact that no strong democratic leadership had emerged there, the enormous financial and growing human cost of the war, the failure to leverage the war to make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front, and the fact that America's fellow democratic allies had by and large failed to fall in line and legitimate American actions ex post. (Francis Fukuyama: The Neoconservative Moment. National Interest. Summer 2004)

*

When the Soviet Union fell, something new was born, something utterly new — a unipolar world dominated by a single superpower unchecked by any rival and with decisive reach in every corner of the globe…This is a staggering new development in history, not seen since the fall of Rome…Even Rome is no model for what America is today,…because we do not have the imperial culture of Rome. We are an Athenian republic, even more republican and infinitely more democratic than Athens…" (Columnist Charles Krauthammer. Irving Kristol Lecture at the annual AEI dinner. 2004)

*

“My return to the White House, at Bush's invitation, had proved once again that, in the end, we are held together by this grand system of ours -- and most of the time we get it right." (Former US President Bill Clinton. [Mary Curtius: The Picture of Political Civility - Bush praises his predecessor's 'forward-looking spirit' during the unveiling of the Clintons' official White House portraits. LA Times. June 15, 2004])

*

It was at one of these dinners (the annual board dinner of the National Interest, H. K.) that Charles Krauthammer first articulated the idea of American unipolarity. In the winter of 1990–91, he wrote in Foreign Affairs of the "unipolar moment"; in the Winter 2002/03 issue of The National Interest, he expanded the scope of his thesis by arguing that "the unipolar moment has become the unipolar era." (Francis Fukuyama: The Neoconservative Moment. National Interest. Summer 2004)

*

"We are history’s designated custodians of the international system.” (Neoconservativ columnist Charles Krauthammer. 2004)

 

*

Pentagon-generated analyses, (...) will provide the backbone for the new U.S. policy initiative, which will be openly articulated as regime change. (Philip Giraldi: Deep Background. The American Conservative. March 14, 2005)

*

One such document is the “National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” published by the Bush administration in September of 2002. David North says, not unfairly, that this document “asserts as the guiding policy of the United States the right to use military force  against any country it believes to be, or it believes may at some point become, a threat to American interests. No other country in modern history has asserted such a sweeping claim to world domination.” (David Ray Griffin: 9/11 and the American Empire. May 10, 2005)

*

 

Nearly fifteen years have passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union (on December 26, 1991) and the end of US-USSR bipolar world order. Since then, we have had a unipolar world order. (…) On the other hand, in “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Report” of September 17, 2002, the US argues that unipolarity is a good thing and should be maintained for a long time, if not forever.( Derek Kelly: Unipolar and Multipolar World Orders Are Unworkable. May 21, 2005)

*

U.S. hegemony is the product of two factors. First, the United States enjoys a commanding preeminence in both military and economic power. Second, since the Soviet Union’s disappearance, no other great power has emerged to challenge U.S. preponderance. In this sense, U.S. hegemony is the result of objective material conditions. At the same time, however, since the early 1990s the George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations each have pursued a grand strategy aimed at preventing the emergence of new great powers that could challenge U.S. hegemony; in this respect, the perpetuation of U.S. primacy is a matter of policy. (Christopher Layne: The Unipolar Illusion Revisited. The coming end of the US’ Unipolar Moment. Cornell University Press. 2006)

*

In 2006, I interviewed Duane “Dewey” Clarridge, who ran the CIA in Latin America in the 1980s. Here was a true “realist”. Like Kissinger and Nixon on the tapes, he spoke his mind. He referred to Salvador Allende as “whatshisname in Chile” and said “he had to go because it was in our national interests”. When I asked what gave him the right to overthrow governments, he said, “Like it or lump it, we’ll do what we like. So just get used to it, world.” (John Pilger: In an Age of ‘Realists’ and Vigilantes, there is Cause for Optimism)

*

 U.S. hegemony marks the fulfillment of long-standing grand strategic objectives. Since the early 1940s, the United States has striven to create a unipolar distribution of power in the international system. And in the three regions that matter the most to it—Western Europe, East Asia, and the Persian Gulf—it has maintained a permanent military presence both to prevent the emergence of new poles of power and to establish the kind of regional stability necessary to uphold a U.S.-dominated international order by more or less replacing anarchy with hierarchy in those regions. (Christopher Layne: The Unipolar Illusion Revisited. The coming end of the US’ Unipolar Moment. Cornell University Press. 2006)

 

*

"This is the great war of our times. It is going to take forty years. In forty years the world would know if the war on terrorism, and conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, had reduced extremism, helped moderates, and promoted democracy." President George W. Bush. (Quote from  Richard Engel: WAR JOURNAL - My Five Years in Iraq. Published: 2007)

*

The first attempt by the neocons to put into policy their grans strategy of U.S. imperial primacy was in 1992, during the George H. W. Bush administration (Bush 41). Neocons Paul Wolfowitz and Zalmay Khalilzad (the current U. S. ambassador to Iraq), at the behest of their boss, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, put force a draft “Defense Planning Guide” that explicitly aimed to prevent the rise of any challengers -- whether hostile or friendly -- to U.S. global hegemony in any region of the world. (Kenneth J. Campbell: A Tale of Two Quagmires – Iraq, Vietnam, and the Hard Lessons of War. Paradigm Publisher. 2007)

*

“This is an existential conflict. It is the kind of conflict that's going to drive our policy and our government for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years. We have to prevail and we have to have the stomach for the fight long term.”  (Vice President Dick Cheney. Fox News Sunday.)  [Response to the opposition against sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq] January 14, 2007)

*

“They [American forces] are there as an expression of the American national interest to prevent the Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend.” (Henry Kissinger, advisor to G. W. Bush. January 18, 2007)

*

What was this agenda? It was, in essence, that the United States should use its military supremacy to establish an empire that includes the whole world--a global Pax Americana. Three major means to this end were suggested. One of these was to make U.S. military supremacy over other nations even greater, so that it would be completely beyond challenge. This goal was to be achieved by increasing the money devoted to military purposes, then using this money to complete the “revolution in military affairs” made possible by the emergence of the information age. The second major way to achieve a global Pax Americana was to announce and implement a doctrine of preventive-preemptive war, usually for the sake of bringing about “regime change” in countries regarded as hostile to U.S. interests and values. The third means toward the goal of universal empire was to use this new doctrine to gain control of the world’s oil, especially in the Middle East, most immediately Iraq. (David Ray Griffin: Neocon Imperialism, 9/11, and the Attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. February 27, 2007)

*

The first attempt by the neocons to put into policy their grand strategy of U.S. imperial primicy was in 1992, during the George H. W. Bush administration (Bush 41). (Kenneth J. Campbell: A Tale of Two QuagmaresIraq, Vietnam, and the Hard Lessons of War. Paradigm Publishers. 2007)

 

*

 "Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force - military force - in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.  We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations.” (Vladimir Putin's Prepared Remarks at 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy. Courtesy Munich Conference on Security Policy. February 12, 2007)

 

*

"The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign -- one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within. . .  What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization. Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension." (Russian President Vladimir Putin. Munich Conference. February 12,  2007)

*

The United States has overstepped its borders in all spheres - economic, political and humanitarian, and has imposed itself on other states. It was a formula that had led to disaster: local and regional wars did not get fewer, the number of people who died did not get less but increased. We see no kind of restraint - a hyper-inflated use of force. The US has gone from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them." (Russian President Vladimir Putin. 43rd Munich Security Conference. BBC News. February 12, 2007)

*

 

In the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002 General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia and US Presidential candidate in 2004, testified before Congress that some 10 days after 9/11, he had been told by a general in the Pentagon that the decision had been made to go to war against Iraq. He said he saw the same man a few weeks later and asked him: “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” the answer was: “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He was then told by this general how the Secretary of Defence’s office (Donald Rumsfeld) had passed down a memo stating that “we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” (“We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran.” Video Interview with General Wesley Clark. Democracy now! March 2, 2007)

*

In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty. (Antonia Juhasz: Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?  March 13, 2007)

*

"Matters of war and peace are used as political tools to bludgeon the other side. We get subjected to endless spin to keep our troops at war, but we don't get to see the flag-draped coffins of our heroes coming home. We get secret task forces, secret budgeting, slanted intelligence, and the shameful smearing of people who speak out against the President's policies. All of this has left us where we are today: more divided, more distrusted, more in debt, and mired in an endless war. A war to disarm a dictator has become an open-ended occupation of a foreign country. This is not America. This is not who we are. It's time for us to stand up and tell George Bush that the government in this country is not based on the whims of one person, the government is of the people, by the people and for the people." (US Senator Barack Obama’s speech at DePaul University. October 1, 2007)

*

Imperialism, I have become convinced over the years, never results simply from the rapacity of richer nations. A stronger and a weaker nation cannot be brought into a relationship without the stronger tending to corrupt the weaker, and the real question is not whether the stronger nation will acquire influence, but how much it will try to acquire. As long as the Middle East pumps enormous quantities of oil, its politics and ours will remain intertwined. (David Kaiser: Plans for Iraq. June 21, 2008)

*

On November 26, 2007 the Venezuelan government broadcast and circulated a confidential memo from the US embassy to the CIA which is devastatingly revealing of US clandestine operations and which will influence the referendum this Sunday, December 2, 2007. The memo sent by an embassy official, Michael Middleton Steere, was addressed to the Director of Central Intelligence, Michael Hayden. The memo was entitled ‘Advancing to the Last Phase of Operation Pincer’ and updates the activity by a CIA unit with the acronym ‘HUMINT’ (Human Intelligence) which is engaged in clandestine action to destabilize the forth-coming referendum and coordinate the civil military overthrow of the elected Chavez government. (…) With strong financial backing from the US Embassy ($8 million dollars in propaganda alone according to the Embassy memo) and the business elite and ‘free time’ by the right-wing media, the Right has organized a majority of the upper middle class students from the private universities, backed by the Catholic Church hierarchy, large swaths of the affluent middle class neighborhoods, entire sectors of the commercial, real estate and financial middle classes and apparently sectors of the military, especially officials in the National Guard.  (James Petras: CIA Venezuela Destabilization Memo Surfaces. Counterattack as Fateful Referendum Looms. November 28, 2007)

*

“The neoconservatives represent the greatest danger ever faced by the United States and the world. Humanity has no greater enemy.” (Paul Craig Roberts: The Neocons Do Georgia. Humanity's Greatest Enemy? August 15, 2008)

*

President-elect Barack Obama introduced his principal national-security Cabinet selections to the world Monday and left no doubt that he intends to start his administration on a war footing. (Amy Goodman: Chevron in the White House. December 2, 2008)

*

For the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible. A ‘world government’ would involve much more than co-operation between nations. 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. (Gideon Rachman: And now for a world government. The Financial Times. December 8, 2008) [Rachman is a former Bilderberg and Chatham House attendee]

*

Rachman wrote that the European model could “go global” and that a world government “could be done,” as “The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.” He quoted an adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy as saying, “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government,” and that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law.” However, Rachman states that any push towards a global government “will be a painful, slow process.” He then states that a key problem in this push can be explained with an example from the EU, which “has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for ‘ever closer union’ have been referred to the voters. 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. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic. (William F. Jasper: Rooting for World Government. New American. December 16, 2008) [For decades the Rachman-types in the media have ridiculed as raving paranoiacs all who have attempted to expose and oppose the schemes of globalists to establish a world government piecemeal, brick by brick, institution by institution. Now he admits world government is closer than we think. (Jasper)]

*

After decades of denying that their “globalization” efforts have anything to do with building world government, the globalists are switching gears; now they will begin to call more openly for world government as the only solution to what they claim are imminent, planet-threatening global crises. (William F. Jasper: Dropping All Pretenses About “Global Governance. December 17, 2008)

 

© Kuliffay Hanna

 

This above material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed, except by linking to this site and the author of the web-site.

 

Reference -  Hanna Kuliffay: Political Notecards -- Quotes, Quips, Excerpts

 

VISSZA  az EMPIRIA Magazin Jelenkor rovatának címjegyzékéhez

VISSZA  az EMPIRIA Magazin nyitólapjára