“DEMOCRACY MADE IN USA” and THE TRUE FACE OF IMPERIALISM: EXPANDING HEGEMONY, INSTALLING PUPPET REGIMES AND CONTROLLING OIL & GAS
by Syarif Hidayat
If you don’t come to Democracy, the US Democrazy will come to you by raining your countries with all kinds of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), killing your fellow countrymen indiscriminately, occupying your countries and installing the corrupt puppet regimes (destroying democracies) there first and leave your countries in a total mess later.
”Democracy Made In USA” is (aimed) very effective for expanding the US hegemony, installing (corrupt) puppet regimes, securing oil reserves and supplies as well as controlling international oil trade.
The US War and Diplomacy:
Nowadays many countries especially the USA and the US-led western civilization regimes practice the unconventional ways of diplomacy including he old style “Gun Diplomacy” or using the more modern and sophisticated version: “WMD diplomacy.”
Diplomacy (European style) is the art of telling someone to go to Hell in such a way…that he will be looking forward to go there.
Diplomacy (the US style1) is the art of telling someone to go to Hell in such a way…and making him looking forward to go there.
Diplomacy (the US style2) is the art of preaching Democracy and Human Rights to the world, exporting Democracy by using weapons of mass destruction and invading the targeted countries as well as installing the CORRUPT puppet regimes there first and leaving those countries in a total mess later.
Diplomacy (the US style3) is the art of invading the other countries based on the fabricated justifications first and forcing the UN to make resolutions supporting the actions later.
Diplomacy (the US style4) is the art of cooking up terrorism including financing, arming and training terrorist groups like Al Qaeda as well as preparing terrorist attacks first and blaming Islamic countries for alleged supports of terrorists actions later.
U.S. foreign policy analyst Edward Herman, Professor Emeritus of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania, in like manner observes: “As to the record, the United States has given frequent and enthusiastic support to the overthrow of democracy in favor of ‘investor friendly’ regimes, including Marcos’s Philippines in 1972, Pinochet’s Chile in 1973, and that of the Brazilian generals in 1964; and it has often shifted policy from the support of friendly fascists like the Somozas in Nicaragua and Ubico in Guatemala to hostility and active subversion of successor reformist or radical democrats like the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and Arevalo and Arbenz in Guatemala.”
This category of profit-orientated policies has been a systematic feature of international relations since the colonial era of the 1500s into the 21st century’s age of globalisation. Such policies are thus an inherent dimension of the centuries old structure of Western institutions. The internationally acclaimed American political analyst Michael Parenti provides a particularly acute overview:
“Since World War II, the US government has given more than $200 billion in military aid to train, equip, and subsidize more than 2.3 million troops and internal security forces in more than eighty countries, the purpose being not to defend them from outside invasions but to protect ruling oligarchs and multinational corporate investors from the dangers of domestic anti-capitalist insurgency.
Among the recipients have been some of the most notorious military autocracies in history, countries that have tortured, killed or otherwise maltreated large numbers of their citizens because of their dissenting political views… US leaders profess a dedication to democracy. Yet over the past five decades, democratically elected reformist governments… were overthrown by pro-capitalist militaries that were funded and aided by the US national security state.”
“Since 1945, by deed and by example, the US has overthrown 50 governments, including democracies, crushed some 30 liberation movements and supported tyrannies from Egypt to Guatemala (see William Blum’s histories).”
Exceptionalism: “America’s right to rule and order the world”, August 10, 2009, John Pilger, The National Forum [Australia]
IMPERIALISM AND COLONIALISM ARE ALIVE AND WELL!
BEWARE of the West imperialist regimes ploys to “Divide and Conquer” or “Divide and Rule” your countries!
In politics and sociology, divide and rule (derived from Latin: divide et impera) (also known as divide and conquer) is a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up.
I think that the US-led Western civilization regimes invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and now the intervention in Libya as well as the alleged western and Zionist covert operations in Syria are just the other forms of the old Western imperialism improvisations to become interventionism.
The reasons for going to wars mentioned by Governments especially in the imperialist, the Zionist and the colonialist countries are mostly LIES. They lied to their own citizens!
“There is nothing new in a government lying to their people to start a war. Indeed because most people prefer living in peace to bloody and horrific death in war, any government that desires to initiate a war usually lies to their people to create the illusion that support for the war is the only possible choice they can make.” – Sun Tzu, The Art of War: “All war is based on deception.”
The Western imperialism has now become interventionism using “The Disguised Intervention to Protect or Liberate The Local Citizens” as “the pretext or justification Made In USA” for employing an all out military force against those targeted countries with the main goals to expand and strengthen their global hegemony as well as to occupy and to squeeze those countries out of their natural resources especially oil!!
Under the guise of hypocritical declarations of “war of Liberation” to liberate Iraq from the West so-called Dictator Saddam Hussein that turned out to be the killing of millions of Iraqi people indiscriminately, “war to hunt for Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Talibans” in Afghanistan that turned out to be the killing of hundreds of thousands of Afghan people indiscriminately and the “humanitarian” war to “save” the Libyan people from the West so-called Dictator Gaddafi that turned out to be the killing of hundreds of Libyan people indiscriminately and noe the Zionist and US-led imperialists covert operation in Syria, the U.S-led western civilization regimes were in fact aiming to occupy Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and gain control of the world oil reserves and international oil trade as well as dominate the whole Middle East and Africa by their military powers (and ultimately the whole world).
The Face of Imperialism:
“Michael Parenti’s The Face of Imperialism is a powerful, frightening, and honest book. It will be hated by those who run the Empire, and it will be loved by people who are searching for truth amidst the piles of garbage of Western propaganda. Above all, this book will be like a bright spark of hope for billions of men, women, and children who are fighting this very moment for survival, defending themselves against the Empire and against all monstrous faces and masks of imperialism.” – Andre Vltchek, author of Western Terror: From Potosi to Baghdad http://youtu.be/jKhRE61VE0E
IMPERIALIST AMBITIONS AND Wars for Oil
The United States of America inherited Britain’s imperialist ambitions. Starting from a group of colonies in “New England” it expanded by stealing land on which Native Americans had lived for tens of thousands of years (killing millions of them in the process). It also stole half of Mexico. In 1898 the U.S. expanded its imperialist program overseas when it annexed the Philippines to benefit American companies wanting to exploit the land and the people. Since then it has maintained the same predatory attitude to the rest of the world. It will not stop until it has gained control of the entire planet or it has been destroyed (or destroys itself).
Skipping over a long history of U.S. imperialist aggression against other countries, we may note that the U.S. did not go to war in the Persian Gulf in 1991 to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi aggression (to which its ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had given a green light) but rather to move military forces into the area and to establish military bases so as to exercise greater control over the area’s oil. Talk of removing “that evil dictator Saddam Hussein” is simple obfuscation. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are lying to the American people when they pretend to be outraged at the actions of the Iraqi dictator (whom the U.S. supported right up until 1991, including Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against the Kurds). In fact it is control of Middle Eastern oil which is the primary motivation for U.S. military plans for that area.
Even before assuming the office of President it was announced by George W. Bush that war was planned. And so one of Secretary [of Defense] Rumsfeld’s first tasks will be … to develop a strategy necessary to have a force equipped for warfare of the 21st century. — George W. Bush, Washington DC, December 28, 2000
And, conveniently enough, the attacks of September 11th provided just the excuse needed for a yet greater military build up (and justification for Bush’s $344 billion war budget) — in particular the already-planned development of “defensive” missiles, allegedly to foil attacks by “international terrorists” (even though they neither possess nor need intercontinental nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles), but which might also prove quite useful in defending the U.S. from retaliation by any nation which it chooses to attack.
The US violates the UN Charter
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind … — Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations
As a member of the United Nations the U.S. has committed itself to the principles expressed in the Charter. Since 1980, however, the U.S. has consistently flouted these principles, abrogating treaties and attacking other nations without international consent.
Indeed, the U.S. government, in violation of the United Nations charter and international law, has now given itself permission — in the form of a congressional resolution — to attack whoever it wants to, to engage openly in political assassinations in the manner of Israel, and generally to wage war upon whoever it chooses to label as its enemy.
Actually Congress excused itself from any direct responsibility for this aggression since it resolved “That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines [emphasis added] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons …” So if George W. Bush thinks (to the extent that he is able to think) that, say, Iran “harbors terrorists” then Congress has said it’s OK by them for George to nuke Teheran.
The number of innocent civilians who have died as a result of U.S. military action in Afghanistan and Iraq is far greater than the number of those who died in the WTC attack. But, of course, since those killed by American firepower were not Americans, British or Australians, this is of no concern, except insofar as it might result in international condemnation, making it difficult to maintain the “international coalition” (the coalition of the willingly bribed) that the U.S. seeks to provide a fig-leaf for its planned military aggression against those countries that stand in the way of its global domination. And, by the way, such aggression and the collateral regional wars that it will cause in various parts of Asia will, of course, be good for U.S. arms manufacturers, and other American companies with friends in the U.S. government, which profit from war.
Not only did Bush announce a “War on Terrorism”, he even spoke stupidly of a “crusade”, invoking memories of the medieval Christian crusades against Islam to recover “the Holy Land” (conveniently forgetting that the Crusaders held Palestine for a comparatively brief period before they were defeated by Muslim forces under Saladin on July 4th, 1187, and subsequently driven into the sea). These days, for some people, oil is the holy grail, and recovery of the Holy Land means gaining control of the oil fields, the primary reason why America has given itself permission to invade whatever countries it chooses to.
The Caspian Basin
And it’s not just Middle Eastern oil — there are huge oil deposits in the Caspian Basin (larger than in Saudia Arabia). In 1998 John J. Maresca, vice-president of Unocal, testified before the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific that a pipeline across Afghanistan was crucial to transport Caspian Basin oil to the Indian Ocean. Bush and the American oil companies dearly wanted to lay such a pipeline across Afghanistan but they could not do so while the Taleban ruled Afghanistan because the Taleban demanded too large a per centage as their cut for allowing the pipeline project to proceed. Hence, the oil monopoly need[ed] to overthrow the Kabul government, install their own government, and proceed with the pipeline project. — Sherman H. Skolnick, The Overthrow of the American Republic, Part 2
In fact from February to August 2001 the Bush administration conducted detailed negotiations with the Taliban to lay this hoped-for pipeline across Afghanistan and Pakistan so as to profit from lucrative sales to oil-hungry Asian countries. In August the negotiations broke down, after a U.S. negotiator threatened military action against the Taliban, saying, accept our offer of a carpet of gold or you will get a carpet of bombs (see Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth). One month later the rationale for the carpet-bombing was provided by the destruction of the WTC.
And, sure enough, in September 2002 plans for this pipeline were being implemented.
Oil ministers from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan [were] to meet in the Afghan capital Kabul Monday [2002-09-16] to review progress on the 1,500-kilometer, $2billion Afghan-Pakistan-Turkmenistan gas pipeline, officials said. … The pipeline is to carry gas from Turkmenistan’s Dauletabad-Donmez field to Afghanistan and Multan, Pakistan. It is supported by the United States. — Islamic Republic News Agency
And in December 2002 the deal was signed.
Turkmen President Sapamurat Niyazov, Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali and Afghan President Hamid Karzai finalised a vital gas pipeline agreement here on Thursday [2002-12-26]. The leaders of the three countries would sign the framework agreement to build the 1,500-kilometre Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) gas pipeline project from Turkmenistan’s Dauletabad fields across Afghanistan to Pakistan on Friday. — HiPakistan.com
As is obvious, the modern West (and those countries which have followed its lead) have been built on a ruthless exploitation of the Earth’s resources, particularly oil. For these countries oil is an addiction, and there is no political will to break the habit. The hyperactivity of the global economy during the last century is like the hyperactivity of a speed freak, and in the end both will crash. If the dominance of the oil industry over government is not broken then in the near future of the human race global famine and disease are a certainty (and don’t think Americans, Europeans or Australians will be spared).
The System may or may not understand that it’s only buying time. And that time is an artificial resource to begin with, of no value to anyone other than the System, which must sooner or later crash to its death, when its addiction to energy has become more than the rest of the World can supply, dragging with it innocent souls all along the chain of life. — Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
And, by the way, there’s something in Central Asia that’s a lot more profitable than oil. This region has the main transit routes for Afghani heroin being smuggled to Western countries. When one recalls that American military cargo planes were returning from Central America in the 1980s loaded with cocaine for distribution in the U.S. by the CIA and the Mafia one has to wonder what might be in American military cargo planes currently flying out of recently-established U.S. bases and airports in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. http://www.serendipity.li/wtc9.htm
America’s oil Pipeline Dream
The Puppet Regime in place: A pro-western regime in Kabul should give the US an Afghan route for Caspian oil.
“Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here,” Woodrow Wilson asked a year after the first world war ended, “that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?” In 1919, as US citizens watched a shredded Europe scraping up its own remains, the answer may well have been no. But the lessons of war never last for long.
According to George Monbiot in his article “America’s Pipe Dream,” the invasion of Afghanistan is certainly a campaign against terrorism, but it may also be a late colonial adventure. British ministers have warned MPs that opposing the war is the moral equivalent of appeasing Hitler, but in some respects our moral choices are closer to those of 1956 than those of 1938. Afghanistan is as indispensable to the regional control and transport of oil in central Asia as Egypt was in the Middle East.
Afghanistan has some oil and gas of its own, but not enough to qualify as a major strategic concern. Its northern neighbours, by contrast, contain reserves which could be critical to future global supply. In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: “I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian.” But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan, says George Monbiot.
Transporting all the Caspian basin’s fossil fuel through Russia or Azerbaijan would greatly enhance Russia’s political and economic control over the central Asian republics, which is precisely what the west has spent 10 years trying to prevent. Piping it through Iran would enrich a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate. Sending it the long way round through China, quite aside from the strategic considerations, would be prohibitively expensive. But pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its aim of “diversifying energy supply” and to penetrate the world’s most lucrative markets. Growth in European oil consumption is slow and competition is intense. In south Asia, by contrast, demand is booming and competitors are scarce. Pumping oil south and selling it in Pakistan and India, in other words, is far more profitable than pumping it west and selling it in Europe.
As the author Ahmed Rashid has documented, in 1995 the US oil company Unocal started negotiating to build oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian sea. The company’s scheme required a single administration in Afghanistan, which would guarantee safe passage for its goods. Soon after the Taliban took Kabul in September 1996, the Telegraph reported that “oil industry insiders say the dream of securing a pipeline across Afghanistan is the main reason why Pakistan, a close political ally of America’s, has been so supportive of the Taliban, and why America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan”. Unocal invited some of the leaders of the Taliban to Houston, where they were royally entertained. The company suggested paying these barbarians 15 cents for every thousand cubic feet of gas it pumped through the land they had conquered.
For the first year of Taliban rule, US policy towards the regime appears to have been determined principally by Unocal’s interests. In 1997 a US diplomat told Rashid “the Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco [the former US oil consortium in Saudi Arabia] pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that.” US policy began to change only when feminists and greens started campaigning against both Unocal’s plans and the government’s covert backing for Kabul.
Even so, as a transcript of a congress hearing now circulating among war resisters shows, Unocal failed to get the message. In February 1998, John Maresca, its head of international relations, told representatives that the growth in demand for energy in Asia and sanctions against Iran determined that Afghanistan remained “the only other possible route” for Caspian oil. The company, once the Afghan government was recognised by foreign diplomats and banks, still hoped to build a 1,000-mile pipeline, which would carry a million barrels a day. Only in December 1998, four months after the embassy bombings in east Africa, did Unocal drop its plans.
But Afghanistan’s strategic importance has not changed. In September, a few days before the attack on New York, the US energy information administration reported that “Afghanistan’s significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from central Asia to the Arabian sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan”.
Given that the US government is dominated by former oil industry executives, we would be foolish to suppose that such plans no longer figure in its strategic thinking. As the researcher Keith Fisher has pointed out, the possible economic outcomes of the war in Afghanistan mirror the possible economic outcomes of the war in the Balkans, where the development of “Corridor 8”, an economic zone built around a pipeline carrying oil and gas from the Caspian to Europe, is a critical allied concern.
American foreign policy is governed by the doctrine of “full-spectrum dominance”, which means that the US should control military, economic and political development worldwide. China has responded by seeking to expand its interests in central Asia. The defence white paper Beijing published last year argued that “China’s fundamental interests lie in … the establishment and maintenance of a new regional security order”. In June, China and Russia pulled four central Asian republics into a “Shanghai cooperation organisation”. Its purpose, according to Jiang Zemin, is to “foster world multi-polarisation”, by which he means contesting US full-spectrum dominance.
If the US succeeds in overthrowing the Taliban and replacing them with a stable and grateful pro-western government and if the US then binds the economies of central Asia to that of its ally Pakistan, it will have crushed not only terrorism, but also the growing ambitions of both Russia and China. Afghanistan, as ever, is the key to the western domination of Asia.
We have argued on these pages about whether terrorism is likely to be deterred or encouraged by the invasion of Afghanistan, or whether the plight of the starving there will be relieved or exacerbated by attempts to destroy the Taliban. But neither of these considerations describes the full scope and purpose of this war. As John Flynn wrote in 1944: “The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells.” I believe that the US government is genuine in its attempt to stamp out terrorism by military force in Afghanistan, however misguided that may be. But we would be naïve to believe that this is all it is doing.(OSHSH)
1. The Guardian (UK), 2001-10-23.