This war came from a think tank
repost | 10.03.2003 06:43
From the Sidney Morning Herald (Australia)
A think tank war: Why old Europe says no
By Margo Kingston
March 7 2003
Reader Alun Breward writes: "I found this article on
the website of German news magazine Der Spiegel this
week. I thought it was one of the best pieces of
journalism on the Iraq conflict I have read and so I
translated it." Thanks Alun! Here we go.
***
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,238643,00.html
This war came from a think tank
by Jochen Boelsche, spiegel
It was in no way a conspiracy. As far back as 1998,
ultra right US think tanks had developed and published
plans for an era of US world domination, sidelining
the UN and attacking Iraq. These people were not taken
seriously. But now they are calling the tune.
German commentators and correspondents have been
confused. Washington has tossed around so many types
of reasons for war on Baghdad "that it could make the
rest of the world dizzy", said the South German Times.
And the Nuremburg News reported on public statements
last week by Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer to
an inner circle in the US that war can only be avoided
if Saddam not only disarms, but also leaves office.
Regime change is a condition that is in none of the
barely remembered 18 UN resolutions. The Nuremburg
News asked in astonishment whether Fleischer had made
the biggest Freudian slip of his career or whether he
spoke with the President's authority.
It's not about Saddam's weapons
So it goes. Across the world critics of President Bush
are convinced that a second Gulf War is actually about
replacing Saddam, whether the dictator is involved
with WMD or not. "It's not about his WMD," writes the
German born Israeli peace campaigner, Uri Avnery, "its
purely a war about world domination, in business,
politics, defence and culture".
There are real models for this. They were already
under development by far right Think Tanks in the
1990s, organisations in which cold-war warriors from
the inner circle of the secret services, from
evangelical churches, from weapons corporations and
oil companies forged shocking plans for a new world
order.
In the plans of these hawks a doctrine of "might is
right" would operate, and the mightiest of course
would be the last superpower, America.
Visions of world power on the Web
To this end the USA would need to use all means -
diplomatic, economic and military, even wars of
aggression - to have long term control of the
resources of the planet and the ability to keep any
possible rival weak.
These 1990's schemes of the Think Tanks, from
sidelining the UN to a series of wars to establish
dominance - were in no way secret. Nearly all these
scenarios have been published; some are accessible on
the Web.
For a long time these schemes were shrugged off as
fantasy produced by intellectual mavericks -
arch-conservative relics of the Reagan era, the
coldest of cold-war warriors, hibernating in
backwaters of academia and lobby groups.
At the White House an internationalist spirit was in
the air. There was talk of partnerships for universal
human rights, of multi-lateralism in relations with
allies. Treaties on climate-change, weapons control,
on landmines and international justice were on the
agenda.
Saddam's fall was planned in 1998
In this liberal climate there came, nearly unnoticed,
a 1997 proposal of the Project for the New American
Century (PNAC) that forcefully mapped out "America's
global leadership". On 28 Jan 1998 the PNAC project
team wrote to President Clinton demanding a radical
change in dealings with the UN and the end of Saddam.
While it was not clear whether Saddam was developing
WMD, he was, they said, a threat to the US, Israel,
the Arab States and "a meaningful part of the world's
oil reserves". They put their case as follows:
"In the short term this means being ready to lead
military action, without regard for diplomacy. In the
long term it means disarming Saddam and his regime. We
believe that the US has the right under existing
Security Council resolutions to take the necessary
steps, including war, to secure our vital interests in
the Gulf. In no circumstances should America's
politics be crippled by the misguided insistence of
the Security Council on unanimity."
( http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm)
Blueprint for an offensive
This letter might have remained yellowing in the White
House archives if it did not read like a blue-print
for a long-desired war, and still might have been
forgotten if ten PNAC members had not signed it. These
signatories are today all part of the Bush
Administration. They are Dick Cheney - Vice President,
Lewis Libby - Cheney's Chief of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld
- Defence Minister, Paul Wolfowitz - Rumsfeld's
deputy, Peter Rodman - in charge of 'Matters of Global
Security', John Bolton - State Secretary for Arms
Control, Richard Armitage - Deputy Foreign Minister,
Richard Perle - former Deputy Defence Minister under
Reagan, now head of the Defense Policy Board, William
Kristol - head of the PNAC and adviser to Bush, known
as the brains of the President, Zalmay Khalilzad -
fresh from being special ambassador and kingmaker in
Afghanistan, now Bush's special ambassador to the
Iraqi opposition.
But even before that - over ten years ago - two
hardliners from this group had developed a defence
proposal that created a global scandal when it was
leaked to the US press. The suggestion that was
revealed in 1992 in The New York Times was developed
by two men who today are Cabinet members - Wolfowitz
and Libby. It essentially argued that the doctrine of
deterrence used in the Cold War should be replaced by
a new global strategy.
Its goal was the enduring preservation of the
superpower status of the US - over Europe, Russia and
China. Various means were proposed to deter potential
rivals from questioning America's leadership or
playing a larger regional or global role. The paper
caused major concerns in the capitals of Europe and
Asia.
But the critical thing, according to the
Wolfowitz-Libby paper, was complete American dominance
of Eurasia. Any nation there that threatened the USA
by acquiring WMD should face pre-emptive attack, they
said. Traditional alliances should be replaced by
ad-hoc coalitions.
This 1992 masterplan then formed the basis of a PNAC
paper that was concluded in September 2000, just
months before the start of the Bush Administration.
That September 2000 paper (Rebuilding America's
Defences) was developed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz
and Libby, and is devoted to matters of "maintaining
US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping
the global security system according to US interests".
( http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)
The cavalry on the new frontier
Amongst other things, this paper said, the USA must
re-arm and build a missile shield in order to put
itself in a position to fight numerous wars
simultaneously and chart its own course. Whatever
happened, the Gulf would have to be in US control:
"The US has sought for years to play an ongoing role
in the security architecture of the Gulf. The
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides a clear basis
for our presence, but quite independent of the issue
of the Iraqi regime, a substantial US presence in the
Gulf is needed."
The paper describes these US forces stationed overseas
in the raw language of the Wild West, calling them
"the Cavalry on the New American Frontier". Even peace
efforts, the paper continues, should have the stamp of
the USA rather than the UN.
Gun-at-the-head diplomacy
Scarcely had President Bush (jnr) won his
controversial election victory and replaced Clinton
than he brought the hardliners from the PNAC into his
administration. The old campaigner Richard Perle (who
once told the Hamburg Times about 'gun-at-the-head
diplomacy') found himself in the key role at the
Defense Policy Board. This board operates in close
cooperation with Pentagon boss Rumsfeld.
At a breath-taking pace the new power-bloc began
implementing the PNAC strategy. Bush ditched
international treaty after international treaty,
shunned the UN and began treating allies as inferiors.
After the attacks of 11 September, as fear ruled the
US and anthrax letters circulated, the Bush cabinet
clearly took the view that the time was ripe to dust
off the PNAC plans for Iraq.
Just six days after 11 September, Bush signed an order
to prepare for war against the terror network and the
Taliban. Another order went to the military, that was
secret initially, instructing them to develop
scenarios for a war in Iraq.
A son of a bitch, but our son of a bitch
Of course the claims of Iraqi control of the 11
September hijackers never were proven, just like the
assumption that Saddam was involved with the anthrax
letters (they proved to be from sources in the US
Military). But regardless, Richard Perle claimed in a
TV interview that "there can be no victory in the war
on terror if Saddam remains in power".
The dictator, demanded Perle, must be deposed by the
US as a matter of priority "because he symbolises
contempt for all Western values". But Saddam had
always been that way, even when he gained power in
Iraq with US backing.
At that time a Secret Service officer from the US
embassy in Baghdad reported to CIA Headquarters: "I
know Saddam is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of
a bitch". And after the US had supported the dictator
in his war with Iran, the retired CIA Director Robert
Gates says he had no illusions about Saddam. The
dictator, says Gates "was never a reformer, never a
democrat, just a common criminal".
But the PNAC paper does not make clear why Washington
now wants to declare war, even without UN support, on
its erstwhile partner.
A shining example of freedom
There is a lot of evidence that Washington wants to
remove the Iraqi regime in order to bring the whole
Middle East more fully under its economic sphere of
influence. Bush puts it somewhat differently - after a
liberation that is necessitated by breaches of
international law, Iraq "will serve as a dramatic and
shining exampled of freedom to other nations of the
region".
Experts like Udo Steinbach, Director of the
German-Orient Institute in Hamburg, have doubts about
Bush's bona fides. Steinbach describes the President's
announcement last week of a drive to democratise Iraq
as "a calculated distortion aimed at justifying war".
There is nothing currently to indicate that Bush truly
is pursuing democratisation in the region.
"Particularly in Iraq," says Steinbach, "I cannot
convince myself that after the fall of Saddam
something democratic could take shape."
Control the flow of oil, control your rivals
This so called pre-emptive war that the PNAC
ideologues have longed for against Iraq also serves,
in the judgement of Uri Avnery, to take the battle to
Europe and Japan. It brings US dominance of Eurasia
closer.
Avnery notes:
"American occupation of Iraq would secure US control
not only of the extensive oil reserves of Iraq, but
also the oil of the Caspian Sea and the Gulf States.
With control of the supply of oil the US can stall the
economies of Germany, France and Japan at will, just
by manipulating the oil price. A lower price would
damage Russia, a higher one would shaft Germany and
Japan. That's why preventing this war is essential to
Europe's interests, apart from Europeans' deep desire
for peace."
"Washington has never been shy about its desire to
tame Europe," argues Avnery. In order to implement his
plans for world dominance, says Avnery, "Bush is
prepared to spill immense quantities of blood, so long
as it's not American blood".
The world will toe the American line
The arrogance of the hawks in the US administration,
and their plan to have the world toe their line while
they decide on war or peace, shocks experts like the
international law expert Hartmut Schiedermair from
Cologne. The American "crusading zeal" that can make
such statements he says is "highly disturbing".
Similarly Harald Mueller - a leading peace researcher
- has long criticised the German Government for
"assiduously overlooking and tacitly endorsing" the
dramatic shift in US foreign policy of 2001. He says
the agenda of the Bush administration is unmistakable:
"America will do as it pleases. It will obey
international law if it suits, and break that law or
ignore it if necessary ... The USA wants total freedom
for itself, to be the aristocrat of world politics."
Infatuated with war
Even senior politicians in countries backing a second
Gulf War are appalled by the radicals in the White
House.
Beginning last year, responding to the PNAC study,
long-serving Labour MP Tam Dalyell raged against it in
the House of Commons:
"This is rubbish from right wing think tanks where
bird-brained war-mongers huddle together - people who
have never experienced the horror of war, but are
infatuated with the idea of it."
Even his own leader got a broad-side: "I am appalled
that a Labour PM would hop into bed with such a troop
of moral pygmies."
Across the Atlantic in mid February, Democrat Senator
Robert Byrd (at 86 years of age the so-called "Father
of the Senate") spoke out. The longest serving member
of that Chamber warned the pre-emptive war that the
Right were advocating was a "distortion of
long-standing concepts of the right of self-defence"
and "a blow against international law". Bush's
politics, he said "could well be a turning point in
world history" and "lay the foundation for
anti-Americanism" across much of the world. (Byrd's
speech is at A lonely voice in a US Senate silent on
war.)
Holding the rest of the world in contempt
One person who is absolutely unequivocal about the
problem of anti-Americanism is former President Jimmy
Carter. He judges the PNAC agenda in the same way. At
first, argues Carter, Bush responded to the challenge
of September 11 in an effective and intelligent way,
"but in the meantime a group of conservatives worked
to get approval for their long held ambitions under
the mantle of 'the war on terror'".
The restrictions on civil rights in the US and at
Guantanamo, cancellation of international accords,
"contempt for the rest of the world", and finally an
attack on Iraq "although there is no threat to the US
from Baghdad" - all these things will have devastating
consequences, according to Carter.
"This entire unilateralism", warns the ex-President,
"will increasingly isolate the US from those nations
that we need in order to do battle with terrorism".
www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826528748.html
add your comments
repost
Comments
Display the following 7 comments