(added to CFRWatch page)
“I have been often to I guess the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
Who are the CFR? Individually I have little idea but to me they represent the corporatocracy. So to place her speech in context it is necessary to know that, and focus on what the corporatocracy wants. What the corporatocracy wants does not require any insight, they govern with the sole purpose of making a profit. Whilst the corporatocracy is composed of faceless individuals it does have an institutional identity – it wants profit and it does not care how. To understand global politics and US foreign policy it is necessary to see that what is described as politics is a public version of this private agenda – to make profits for the corporatocracy. But I think it is also important to understand that these faceless manipulators have different agendas, their profits come from different sources. The MIC make profits from war, do the banks? Oil companies make profits by controlling the flow of oil so in the Middle East the interests of the oil companies coincide with the interests of the MIC. But in a recession most of the interests coincide – the people are poor they cannot buy so there are no profits. The interests of the MIC are always war, and it is a clear indication that the Republicans are backed by the MIC, for example in the US budget deficit discussion the war budget was off the table. And quite naturally from both parties at the time so was taxing the rich. I suspect Obama has put “taxing the rich” back on the table as an election ploy.
So the recession is hitting the corporatocracy now. The banking section of the corporatocracy has pocketed huge amounts of taxpayers’ money from the bailout, but they have been so greedy not even Obama can sweetmouth them into getting more. So now the corporatocracy need to fight the recession, a recession they created – see Money Masters and Inside Job. And this is where the foreign policy comes in. Until 2006 US Foreign Policy was belligerent and isolationist, now they realise that to make more profits the world needs to trade with the US, and this is what Hillary’s speech is about.
But that speech has to be balanced, the corporatocracy has to see that what she presents represents their interests. Historically if you look at foreign policy as represented by Pax Americana and RAD, there was aggression of Pax Americana, cooling off during the Clinton administration, aggression during Bush Junior as represented by RAD, and now there is a recession where there is economic need. And this is where Hillary’s speech comes in, here is the clip and here is a transcript.
To begin with she ingratiates with their egos by playing to the power of the War Council, and then she states the position of the US in the world. For those who still believe the US contributes to democracy, look at this embedded clip as to how assured she is of the US position as world leader:-
The positive aspect of this clip is that she says in concert with others, would Bush ever have said this? What is clear throughout the talk is that she stresses this leadership position, and as a response to those who maybe would want to take advantage of her less hawkish position she said this:-
“And to these foes and would-be foes let me say our focus in diplomacy and development is not an alternative to our national security arsenal. Our willingness to talk is not a sign of weakness to be exploited. We will not hesitate to defend our friends, our interests and above all our people, vigorously and when necessary with the world’s strongest military.” Appeasing the hawks.
However she does promote some caring values typically:-
“I’ve also seen how hope, hard work, and ingenuity can overcome the longest of odds. For almost 36 years I have worked as an advocate for children, women, and families here at home. I’ve traveled across our country listening to everyday concerns of our citizens. I’ve met parents struggling to keep their jobs, pay their mortgages, cover their children’s college tuition, and afford health care. And all that I have done and seen has convinced me that our foreign policy must produce results for people. The laid-off auto worker in Detroit whose future will depend on global economic recovery. The farmer or small business owner in the developing world whose lack of opportunity can drive political instability and economic stagnation. The families whose loved ones are risking their lives for our country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Children in every land who deserve a brighter future.”
She is a politician and interested in power, she is willing to accept Bilderberg manipulation to gain that power. I see this apparent caring side of her as a political address to her audience that they need to be something other than just the War Council in this day and age, for the US to come out of recession the world needs to perceive a US caring side to give others an excuse to trade with a caring nation. But in truth I see it as a bit of conscience sneaking through as well – secondary to her political ambition of power of course.
The context of this talk is that she is saying to the hawks we will still be belligerent, but to finance she says the emphasis is enforced international cooperation to enable economic exploitation under the guise of trade:-
“We want to seek global economic recovery and growth by strengthening our own economy, advancing a robust development agenda, expanding trade that is free and fair, and boosting investment that creates decent jobs.
…. We’ll use our power to convene, our ability to connect countries around the world, and sound foreign policy strategies to create partnerships aimed at solving problems. “
“We’ll use our power to convene”.
“Today we must acknowledge two inescapable facts that define our world. First, no nation can meet the world’s challenges alone. The issues are too complex. Too many players are competing for influence, from rising powers to corporations to criminal cartels, from NGOs to al Qaeda, from state-controlled media to individuals using Twitter.
Second, most nations worry about the same global threats — from nonproliferation to fighting disease to counter-terrorism, but also face very real obstacles for reasons of history, geography, ideology, and inertia. They face these obstacles and they stand in the way of turning commonality of interest into common action.
So these two facts demand a different global architecture, one in which states have clear incentives to cooperate and live up to their responsibilities, as well as strong disincentives to sit on the sidelines or sow discord and division. So we will exercise American leadership to overcome what foreign policy experts at places like the Council call “collective action problems,” and what I call obstacles to cooperation. For just as no nation can meet these challenges alone, no challenge can be met without America.”
So what are her foreign policy strategies? Smart power appears to be a buzzword of her approach:-
“Smart power translates into specific policy approaches in five areas: First, we intend to update and create vehicles for cooperation with our partners; second, we will pursue principled engagement with those who disagree with us; third, we will elevate development as a core pillar of American power; fourth, we will integrate civilian and military action in conflict areas; and fifth, we will leverage key sources of American power, including our economic strength and the power of our example.”
Vehicles of Cooperation
Enforced cooperation – the US provide the vehicles and will engage with all. They will impose development using the leverage of economic strength and the world will follow US example. And in areas of conflict Halliburton will be happy as there will still be 100% exploitation – munitions, mercenary security and civilian reconstruction contracts using the money of those countries (integrating civilian and military in conflict).
In the end these strategies will maybe be as harmful as war. The rest of the world will be forced to comply. Allies such as NATO will gather round the flame, do the US bidding to gain from economic fallout. Meanwhile money will start redirecting itself towards the US through enforced economic trade – the unfairness of Fair Trade. The consequence of such development strategies will have to be further hunger and starvation in the Third World as the weak are further bullied by the Big and supporting cronies. But surely that has got to be better than the death and the destruction of the “War on Terror”:-
Again appealing to US jingoism she finished with:-
“More than 230 years ago, Thomas Paine said, “We have it within our power to start the world over again.” Today, in a new and very different era, we are called upon to use that power. I believe we have the right strategy, the right priorities, the right policies. We have the right president and we have the American people — diverse, committed and open to the future. Now all we have to do is deliver.”
Posts Tagged ‘cfr’
(added to NWO Plan page)
Here are the PNAC’s statement of principles:-
“June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• 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.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.”
There was a recent discussion in which Thai expats were concerned that Americans were being tarnished with aggression. This is a statement of principle of a Think Tank whose paper, “RAD,” became the “National Security Strategy of the United States of America” – with adjustments. One has to be naive to see global democracy as an aim of people who can produce this document ie the corporatocracy through its governmental wing. It is noticeable that this policy begins as a reaction to the Clinton administration which it did not consider belligerent enough – “the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.” Note for the intentionally naive, or those politically motivated to not accept the truth, strong military and bold foreign policy stands for war. It is noticeable that Reagan is described as “military strength and moral clarity“, morality was not something I associated with Reagan when you consider actions in Central and Latin America, along with Irangate the Contras and many more. Would Nicaraguans consider Reagan moral or democratic?
In this William Rivers Pitt article, he discusses PNAC and RAD:-
The fundamental essence of PNAC’s ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.” In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
Most ominously, this PNAC document described four “Core Missions” for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” and to “perform the ‘constabulary’ duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions.” Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.
Can you see the War on Terror in this? “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars“, doesn’t that describe the Middle East during the first term of George W Bush? Note, this was written in September 2000 – a year before 9/11 “surprised” the Bush administration, a year before the war machine started on its well-planned way to Afghanistan and then Iraq. “Simultaneous major theater wars.” On 20th September, 2001, the “National Security Strategy of the United States of America” was released – based on the PNAC’s “RAD.”
Let us consider one position stated early in the PNAC paper “At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. [p 8]” Is it acceptable for a global power to promote a bully’s charter? Again I say to those who would claim moral integrity for US foreign policy, please open your eyes – how can moral policy be based on a bully’s charter? To ensure that this charter works RAD states that there is a necessity for the government to facilitate “preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future.” [p8]
And what are they going to preserve? “we saw the project as building upon the defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department in the
I would note 2 policies in the “National Security Strategy of the United States of America“.
Firstly V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction
“The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology—when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends—and we will oppose them with all our power.”
Secondly VI. Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade
“When nations close their markets and opportunity is hoarded by a privileged few, no amount-no amount-of development aid is ever enough. When nations respect their people, open markets, invest in better health and education, every dollar of aid, every dollar of trade revenue and domestic capital is used more effectively.”
I have not completed a study of the RAD paper as it is not current policy, if there is a need to contrast current practice with Bush practice I know where to look.
Tags: cfr, Corporatocracy
(added to top of NWO Plan page)
NWO Plan – Introduction
This page began as a discussion of the New World Order but the question that really needs considering is this:-
Is there a New World Order?
There are no doubts that the puppets of the corporatocracy since George Bush Senior have been using the term, but for me I am not certain why the term is being used. What is new? In examining history we can see changes. To begin with we have aristocracy and serfdom, then gradually the aristocracy merged with business so that we had a working class of industrial workers and peasants. Because of the level of transportation this occurred within national boundaries. To begin with power existed within land-ownership, then there was a gradual change as financial power started to grow. Through piracy and then colonial trade, global wealth began to be accumulated to the landowners, businesses and financeers within a few western nation states. Once trade expanded beyond national boundaries – colonialism, the businessess grew and grew to what they are – transnationals. At the same time financial organisations took on international character, leading to the corporatocracy we have at present – transnational corporations, international banking and finance institutions. These power-brokers control governments and the global finance bodies such as the banks and IMF, but there is no change in the global order – money and power has simply accrued to fewer and fewer people.
Indicative of this is the publicity surrounding the Bilderberg group (their official site here). This group appears to be very influential in public affairs – and influence is very important in the way our world is run; of course I am not a member so I cannot know for sure what goes on. Various people try to promote awareness of the Bilderberg group and the New World Order, one specifically being Alex Jones. Now Alex Jones is charismatic although I find him egotistical. Mostly I find him on the money. His description of the power of the bankers, the manipulation of the American people to suit the aims of the few seems absolutely correct – as far as I can know. But he appears to preceive a change in governemnt post-Kennedy, and he appears to suggest that this is the New World Order. Now whilst his movies appear accurate he offers very little hard evidence – mind you neither do I, I am however surprised that I could not join his website. In a nice way I would like to ask him (or someone who understands him) about his Republican position, would he accept the analysis I started this entry with? I looked at Aaron Russo, and he appears to have a similar Republican position. Does it matter that they are Republican? As a rule of thumb what Alex Jones describes of the corporatocracy is true, I am unsure of all the freemason talk, but tend to ignore that because what is important is action rather than attributing demonics. I support Alex Jones’ call for democratic action, you must choose how.
There is no doubt in my mind that the corporatocracy are moving towards a position of directing the global arena to increase their profits – both to the corporations and finance institutions; this is in line with the accumulation strategy described above. In terms of the UN, the US through the Security Council already control UN actions, but also because of the US the UN lacks teeth. Maybe it will be powerful.
However the corporatocracy maintains control through US Foreign Policy, I therefore felt it important to try to understand recent US foreign policy. Alex Jones talked of the Council on Foreign Relations, and he was absolutely correct there. In seeing what the NWO plan is the CFR is a good place to start, and watching CFR is what this page is for now.
(added to NWO Plan page)
Pax Americana is the first policy approach that I want to briefly mention. There has been a history of Cheney foreign policy that led to the Defense Strategy of the 90’s , discussed here, it had developed from the late 80’s once the end of the Cold War was foreseen. I see this Pax Americana developed in the Defense Strategy of the 90’s as significant in what led to the War on Terror.
The DPG stated that the “first objective” of U.S. defense strategy was “to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival.” Achieving this objective required that the United States “prevent any hostile power from dominating a region” of strategic significance. America’s new mission would be to convince allies and enemies alike “that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.”
Another new theme was the use of preemptive military force. The options, the DPG noted, ranged from taking preemptive military action to head off a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack to “punishing” or “threatening punishment of” aggressors “through a variety of means,” including strikes against weapons-manufacturing facilities.
The DPG also envisioned maintaining a substantial U.S. nuclear arsenal while discouraging the development of nuclear programs in other countries. It depicted a “U.S.-led system of collective security” that implicitly precluded the need for rearmament of any king by countries such as Germany and Japan. And it called for the “early introduction” of a global missile-defense system that would presumably render all missile-launched weapons, including those of the United States, obsolete. (The United States would, of course, remain the world’s dominant military power on the strength of its other weapons systems.)
“While the U.S. cannot become the world’s policeman,” the document said, “we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends.” Among the interests the draft indicated the United States would defend in this manner were “access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, [and] threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism.”
This approach became known as Pax Americana – Delaware Senator Joseph Biden criticized the Plan’s vision of a “Pax Americana, a global security system where threats to stability are suppressed or destroyed by U.S. military power.”
But Bill Clinton got in the way of this plan, and by the time Bush Junior got into office the Cheney hawks were demanding far more as described in “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” – RAD.
Tags: cfr, Corporatocracy
(added to NWO Plan page)
Are all left-wing parties the same? Of course not, I have discussed it a little here. So why does the position of the left generally assume that the policy of the corporatocracy remains the same? If it doesn’t, is it possible to discern from the outside – we are not privy to the inner workings of the Bilderberg group, Washington, Downing Street etc. Do we listen to the politicians? If we are wise, not, when they are talking they present positions we want to hear – to facilitate their agendas – usually maintaining power. But politicians such as Obama and Hillary need to be able to inform foreign governments of their true agenda – to enable their diplomacy to work, so if we know where that agenda is presented then we can begin to observe.
For example are the actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya the same? If they are not the same then what are the differences? Can a connection between the actions and foreign policy be discerned?
I contend that the current era of US neo-colonialism began with Reagan. there was a Reagan-Thatcher alliance that was well touted in the press. Significantly at the time the economic policy of monetarism was presented. I was teaching at the time and we were all angry at the possible privatisation of teaching – it is happening now on a grand scale first in the US and to a less extent in the UK. In the US big money is being invested through benefaction supposedly of people like Broad, Gates and Walmart, and we are beginning to see the results with school failures whilst owners profit. This is an example of seeing policy become practice, and it doesn’t always take 30 years.
It is not my intention to go back as far as Reagan but in the last 15 years there have been good indications of US foreign policy that have been borne out in practice beginning with Pax Americana, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” – RAD, and now Hillary’s speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. To begin with I want to look at Obama’s foreign policy through Hillary’s speech and then Chomsky’s analysis of that policy.
I have watched the first 20 minutes of Hillary’s speech to the War Council (Council of Foreign Relations) on July 15 2009,and it feels like an important speech – similar to the RAD a policy setter. It is hard to judge these matters not having tried to analyse US Foreign Policy before but it does appear positive in the immediate future. Pax Americana sets the agenda as a US hegemony – sole power, but this hegemony was warlike establishing the hegemony as a giant to be afraid hoping that you are not one of the unlucky countries that has oil and a dictatorship in the Middle East. They tried a dubious invasion of Afghanistan and their power was not threatened internally, how could Afghanistan be considered a threat? This set the tone for the corporatocratic hawks to make war profits in Iraq and Libya. In the early Bush junior years it looked like Iran and others would follow.
I think this speech is very important as a statement of current US policy. First of all it is to the War Council, and the CFR is a powerful policy-setting body. Next it is Hillary, and let’s try to understand why that is so important. Obama is the ultimate in political charades, he will say and do anything to get into power and stay there, but policy and practice is not important, this he leaves to his appointees. And when you look at his appointees you see the corporatocracy, bankers run his finance etc. So it would be reasonable to conclude he would allow Hillary to run foreign policy. Now Hillary is connected to Bilderberg so she has those credentials, she is talking to the War Council – what you might consider as the public policy face of the corporatocracy. She is trying to win the non-voting election, will the War Council back her?
Without going into detail let me summarise an important point in what her speech contains – enforced international economic cooperation. You WILL do business with us – our way. This is imprtant in two ways. First of all it says that the isolationist policies of improving the economy by War on Terror is not working. Whilst clearly the MIC has gained the economy as a whole has not. The bankers are under severe threat with the recession. There is growing public awareness of banking policy that exploits, fails and causes recession, bailout that also fails, and the greed that awards huge bonuses. Attempts to work through the recession internally have not produced dividend as unemployment rises, there is increased social tension, and most significantly not enough money circulating in the economy to create an economic upturn.
So US foreign policy is turning outwards in search of that money. Whilst certain companies are benefitting through the 100% exploitation of war (discussed here), there is little knock-on effect. These companies have a complete stranglehold on the Iraqi economy, for example. Oil is now controlled by the US and the soldiers are there to guard it. The contractors (40,000 military 60,000 contractors) have moved in, and with the complicity of the puppet government are extracting the available money out of the country. However policy is reflecting a recognition that this 100% exploitation is worthwhile and can be extended. British colonialism has taught that maintaining troops in colonies is far too expensive, and not an efficient way of extracting wealth. British neo-colonialism developed from this recognition but they were gazumped by the Bretton Woods strategy that saw US exploitation of the Second World War. The US gained the wealth from taking over the British Empire without having to pay the price of military occupation. And of course Hiroshima gave them the ultimate opportunity to demonstrate their willingness to be as forceful as necessary if they were threatened. War on Terror is the latest example of that ultimate threat where a war continues in Afghanistan whilst their supposed objective – Osama bin Laden – is dead. In Iraq Saddam Hussein has also been exceuted, puppets have been installed, huge Iraqi casualties have resulted, and all this demonstrates the callousness with which the corporatocracy and the US government will enforce its foreign policy. They will go to war without an enemy – War on Terror, simply to create war profits.
OK so the threat has been established and reinforced, but the economy is only partially improving; the profits are not occurring across the board Foreign policy is not that internationally countries must cooperate economically – far more than in the past. Having been isolated such economic imperiousness was not a requirement. Subjugation does not produce a free flow of money. Economically it is well known that stability produces more economic wealth. The War on Terror is not stable, it is violent and exploitative. Enforced cooperation is far more stable, this is Hillary’s policy.
As a peace activist I hope this works. We have had nearly two decades of war exploitation, moving back to economic exploitation might well produce less deaths if there is sufficient cooperation – if governments can forget the damage done. And if Obama is voted back in.
Here now is a brief look at Chomsky’s view of Obama’s foreign policy
This is based on a discussion on Democracy Now on 15th March 2010, nearly a year after Hillary’s speech at the CFR. Here is the whole interview, but it is mostly about Chomsky, himself, and not just on Obama’s foreign policy. The current policy discussed focused on Iran (2010 before Libya), and what was discussed fitted clearly within Hillary’s foreign policy. Again this is good news as a Peace activist. He says that Obama’s policy follows on from a shift in The Bush administration policy. Chomsky said When Obama came into office, or when he was elected, one high Bush official — I think it was Condoleeza Rice — predicted that Obama’s foreign policy would be a continuation of Bush’s second term. The first and second term of Bush were quite different. The first term was aggressive, arrogant, kicking the world in the face, even allies, and it had such a negative effect—this is in action as well as manner—that US prestige in the world sank to the lowest point it’s ever been. That was really harmful to the interests of those who actually set foreign policy—business world and corporate interests and, you know, state planners and so on. So there was a lot of criticism of Bush right from the mainstream in the first term. Well, you know, the second term was somewhat different. For one thing, some of the most extreme figures were kicked out. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, a couple of others, were sent off to pasture. They couldn’t get rid of Cheney, because he was the administration, so can’t dismantle it. But a lot of the others went, and policy shifted more towards the norm, to the more-or-less centrist norm.
Hillary’s speech is in line with this but the strategy of enforced cooperation is much more stridently expressed by her. In the discussion on Iran the emphasis was not on US confrontation with Iran but US partners, in this case Russian and China doing the dirty work. In fact Chomsky saw as a stumbling block to US policy the failure of Brazil to work for the US enforced cooperation. He discussed an FT article in which Hillary Clinton’s failure to convince Brazil to go along with the United States on calling for harsher sanctions was that problem, a problem enhance by “President Lula’s insistence that there should be engagement with Iran, commercial relations, and so on, and that it has a right to enrich uranium for producing nuclear energy, as do all signers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty”. I suspect there will be the engagement with Russia and China over time, the Arab Spring and NATO support for Libya being temporary events that I have diverted focus from Iran.
As far as I can see Hillary’s CFR policy fits in with US response to the Arab Spring – with the apparent exception of Libya? At present (18/09/11) most right-minded pundits are angry about the excessive NATO involvement with Libya. Obama quickly jumped in with support for Libya’s rag, tag and bobtail even to the extent where his support is illegal under the constitution. This could be seen as an extension of first-term Bush policy, or it could be interpreted as an opportunity fitting in with Hillary’s CFR policy. Look at the Arab Spring, there have been many opportunities for a war-like Bush approach to jump in, get troops on the ground and make vast profits by exploiting several Middle Eastern debacles of the Iraq style. Tunisia and Egypt have passed by without a war footing. Then came Libya and there was a chance to oust Qaddafi, a major thorn in the US vision. With years of difficult cooperation with Qaddafi they could get rid of him. But even then Gilbert Achcar believed that US partners, Britain particularly, were attempting to keep the Qaddafi infrastructure there:-
But Libya could be seen differently in light of Hillary’s statement. The US took a backseat, and quite clearly the NATO aggression became focused on the UK and France for their acrive involvement in the Rebels struggle. As the violence in Libya gets worse the UK and France will become the targets. What is interesting are the fears of the African Union discussed here by Mahmood Mamdani on Democracy Now Wednesday Sept 15:-
And what about Syria? If Syria is not ripe for an early Bush-style NATO intervention, I don’t know what is. This crazy dictator, al Assad, is killing many democracy protestors. It would be very easy for the US to find Syrian rag, tag and bobtails but they are attempting to support the democratic movement by official sanctions and rumoured NATO forces giving support.
When you combine this analysis of Libya and Syria with Hillary’s CFR policy, you see a consistency, and evidence for global stability. Hopeful but it does mean that we need to fear the consequences of the policy even more for the Third world. But it is not WAR, thank God.
I had been aware of the Council on Foreign Relations. A Think Tank is supposedly acceptable within a democracy but when you have Western democracies in the state they are in then Think Tanks become very dangerous. However at the same time organisations such as the Council on Foreign Relations do bring some transparency to the process because on their website you can see the formation of US policy – all you need to find it is cfr.org. There are always people who put career first – here are some promoting the 9/11 war agenda:-
And the headline on the website “Lost US Opportunities after 9/11”, here is an interview with the head of CFR. Pleasingly there are no wars in sight, although it angers me a little when he says “the Iraq War never should have happened, but that the main shortcoming in the past decade was the U.S. failure to take advantage of “this extraordinary moment in history, where the United States enjoyed an absolute as well as relative position vis-à-vis the rest of the world that really was without precedent.” Haass says progress has been made in the past decade against terrorism, but it will never be completely eradicated. The biggest threats, he says, “to the quality of life in this country, to our ability to lead in the world come from within: the economy, the deficit, the debt, problems of infrastructure, problems of education, problems of productivity, persistent unemployment.” What is interesting about this is that there is then a project called Renewing America where the Think Tank is thinking about these 6 issues – so you can see where the US is going.
But what angers me is this:-
yet the head of the Council Foreign Relations simply describes US involvement in Iraq as a mistake. How many dead mistakes?
** (added 20/9/11)
The David Rockefeller Studies Program. Does that not point to it the CFR being bankrolled to follow a Bildeberg agenda?**
It is important to keep an eye on what they are doing, I will be looking at RAD – Rebuilding America’s Defenses from here. Today I have realised that I am taking on too much, there is not the balance and calm that I discuss on my Insight page. It has become necessary to rationalise and to that extent I am going to limit what I focus on – I have been trying to focus on too much during my catch-up. It is important to watch what the plans of these people are. The main purpose of this blog is to struggle for peace by using insight into the corporatocracy, this page is going to be looking at the plans they are making in terms of US foreign policy.