Archive | September 10th, 2012

Dangerous Crossroads: America Pressures ASEAN Bloc to Contain China


By Tony Cartalucci

Global Research

URL of article: 

Supranational ASEAN is Super Folly for Southeast Asia.
US reveals ASEAN as neo-imperial consolidation as Clinton calls on bloc to present a “united front” against China.

In the literary classic “Gulliver’s Travels,” the protagonist, Lemuel Gulliver, finds himself shipwrecked on an island of tiny people called, “Lilliputians.” While he slept, the Lilliputians used their tiny rope and stakes to tie Gulliver down. When he awoke, though many times larger than any one of the Lilliputians, he was immobilized and at their mercy.

Image: Lemuel Gulliver on the island of Lilliput, having been overtaken while asleep by ropes and stakes by the diminutive but numerous Lilliputians. Western corporate-financier interests envision organizing Southeast Asia into a supranational bloc, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), to use the smaller nations as a combined front to “tie down” China in a similar manner. Unlike in the story “Gulliver’s Travels,” China may well break free of its binds and stomp the Lilliputian leaders flat for their belligerence.


This analogy is important because it represents the precise example used by Wall Street-London corporate-financier interests in producing policy for the containment of China. In 1997, a very different world from today, where the idea of a multipolar world order uprooting Anglo-American hegemony was still a fanciful notion, Western policy makers literally used this analogy to describe their strategy of encircling and containing China.

Containment of China Has Been US Policy for Decades.

Corporate-financier subsidized policy scribe, Robert Kagan, is a notorious warmonger and so-called “Neo-Conservative,” a signatory to many of the West’s most recent crimes against humanity, including the deceitful invasion and occupation of Iraq based on lies regarding “weapons of mass destruction,” the deceitful invasion and overthrowing of the Libyan government based on lies regarding the “responsibility to protect” (R2P), and the most insidious plot to-date, the premeditated organizing and arming of sectarian extremists aligned with Al Qaeda to violently overthrow Syria, paving the way for war with Iran.

In 1997, Kagan penned, “What China Knows That We Don’t: The Case for a New Strategy of Containment,” which spells out the policy Wall Street and London were already in the process of implementing even then, albeit in a somewhat more nebulous manner. In his essay, Kagan literally states (emphasis added):

The present world order serves the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it. And it is poorly suited to the needs of a Chinese dictatorship trying to maintain power at home and increase its clout abroad. Chinese leaders chafe at the constraints on them and worry that they must change the rules of the international system before the international system changes them.

Here, Kagan openly admits that the “world order,” or the “international order,” is simply American-run global hegemony, dictated by US interests. These interests, it should be kept in mind, are not those of the American people, but of the immense corporate-financier interests of the Anglo-American establishment. Kagan continues (emphasis added):

In truth, the debate over whether we should or should not contain China is a bit silly. We are already containing China — not always consciously and not entirely successfully, but enough to annoy Chinese leaders and be an obstacle to their ambitions. When the Chinese used military maneuvers and ballistic-missile tests last March to intimidate Taiwanese voters, the United States responded by sending the Seventh Fleet. By this show of force, the U.S. demonstrated to Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of our Asian allies that our role as their defender in the region had not diminished as much as they might have feared. Thus, in response to a single Chinese exercise of muscle, the links of containment became visible and were tightened.

The new China hands insist that the United States needs to explain to the Chinese that its goal is merely, as [Robert] Zoellick writes, to avoid “the domination of East Asia by any power or group of powers hostile to the United States.” Our treaties with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia, and our naval and military forces in the region, aim only at regional stability, not aggressive encirclement.

But the Chinese understand U.S. interests perfectly well, perhaps better than we do. While they welcome the U.S. presence as a check on Japan, the nation they fear most, they can see clearly that America’s military and diplomatic efforts in the region severely limit their own ability to become the region’s hegemon. According to Thomas J. Christensen, who spent several months interviewing Chinese military and civilian government analysts, Chinese leaders worry that they will “play Gulliver to Southeast Asia’s Lilliputians, with the United States supplying the rope and stakes.”

Indeed, the United States blocks Chinese ambitions merely by supporting what we like to call “international norms” of behavior. Christensen points out that Chinese strategic thinkers consider “complaints about China’s violations of international norms” to be part of “an integrated Western strategy, led by Washington, to prevent China from becoming a great power.


What Kagan is talking about is maintaining American preeminence across all of Asia and producing a strategy of tension to divide and limit the power of any single player vis-a-vis Wall Street and London’s hegemony. Kagan would continue (emphasis added):

The changes in the external and internal behavior of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s resulted at least in part from anAmerican strategy that might be called “integration through containment and pressure for change.”

Such a strategy needs to be applied to China today. As long as China maintains its present form of government, it cannot be peacefully integrated into the international order. For China’s current leaders, it is too risky to play by our rules — yet our unwillingness to force them to play by our rules is too risky for the health of the international order. The United States cannot and should not be willing to upset the international order in the mistaken belief that accommodation is the best way to avoid a confrontation with China.

We should hold the line instead and work for political change in Beijing. That means strengthening our military capabilities in the region, improving our security ties with friends and allies, and making clear that we will respond, with force if necessary, when China uses military intimidation or aggression to achieve its regional ambitions. It also means not trading with the Chinese military or doing business with firms the military owns or operates. And it means imposing stiff sanctions when we catch China engaging in nuclear proliferation.

A successful containment strategy will require increasing, not decreasing, our overall defense capabilities. Eyre Crowe warned in 1907 that “the more we talk of the necessity of economising on our armaments, the more firmly will the Germans believe that we are tiring of the struggle, and that they will win by going on.” Today, the perception of our military decline is already shaping Chinese calculations. In 1992, an internal Chinese government document said that America’s “strength is in relative decline and that there are limits to what it can do.” This perception needs to be dispelled as quickly as possible.


Clearly, however, this “perception” of US military decline has only been heightened as the Wall Street-London financier model of “economic growth” has been revealed as an untenable global Ponzi scheme versus the Chinese model of industrial production and infrastructure expansion. The military might required to contain China is also politically and economically unjustifiable, and increasingly so.

It appears possible at least, that US policy makers committed to a losing strategy based on inaccurate interpretations and projections regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union and its comparison to the Chinese. US policy makers have led the populations of Western civilization down a dead-end in pursuit of global hegemony instead of one of economic and technological progress.

The West is Now Militarily Confronting China (and Russia).

In hindsight, we see that the West has indeed applied a double game vis-a-vis China, using a combination of geopolitical-socioeconomic incentives and lures to win over Chinese corporate-financier interests -to provide them with an attractive stake in the Anglo-American “international order” while simultaneously creating a geopolitical landscape across both Asia and the world to prevent China from cultivating its own interests independent of Wall Street and London.

The hope is to undermine nationalist elements in China, while promoting and cultivating suitable proxies eager to merge China into a Wall Street-London dominated global order.

This has manifested itself in direct political attacks based on “human rights” within China itself (and here), and in the sweeping devastation of the Arab World via the US-engineered “Arab Spring.” What it has effectively done is overturn and threatened both Chinese and Russian interests across Africa, the Middle East and into Central Asia. During the early stages of the Arab Spring, where Russian and Chinese investments were literally being destroyed by US-proxy forces, hubris in Washington revealed that Western policy makers intended to drive the political instability all the way to Moscow and Beijing’s doorsteps.

Image: From the Strategic Studies Institute’s 2006 “String of Pearls” report detailing a strategy of containment for China, the evolution of Kagan’s 1997 paper.


US Senator John McCain, chairman of the International Republican Institute which played a pivotal role in organizing the so-called “spontaneous” “Arab Spring,” said in 2011 of the unrest his IRI had helped fund in Egypt, “I would be a little less cocky in the Kremlin with my KGB cronies today if I were Vladimir Putin. I would be a little less secure in the seaside resort [of] President Hu and a few men who govern and decide the fate of 1.3 billion people.”

The West is already creating a united front against both Russia and China in the Middle East. The violence in Syria is aimed directly at Iran. A successful war against Iran would leave US proxies on Russia’s doorstep, and with US occupied Afghanistan beside it, form a front threatening both Pakistan and Western China where the US is already hard at work inciting Tibetan and Uyghur terrorists.


ASEAN is Poorly Dressed Recolonization.

But China is a vast nation, and this Afro-Eurasian front stretching from Africa to the Himalayas still isn’t big enough. In Southeast Asia, the West is attempting to create a European Union-style supranational bloc – the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Its proponents and leadership are notorious servants and affiliates of institutions synonymous with Western hegemony.

Image: The supranational ASEAN bloc consists of Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and the Philippines with a combined population of 600 million (as of 2010). The logo of bound rice padi stalks allegedly represents all of Southeast Asia “bound together in friendship and solidarity.” In reality, it represents Southeast Asia bound together for a Wall Street-London corporate-financier “harvest.” With English made the official “working language” of ASEAN, harking back to the age of British imperialism, and the US already tasking ASEAN to form a “united front” against China, it is clear whose interests it serves.


The current ASEAN secretary general for example, Surin Pitsuwan of Thailand, leads current efforts to implement the Asian Economic Community (AEC) 2015 blueprint. Pitsuwan sits as a Member of the Board of Trustees of the globalist Asian Foundation, funded by amongst many others, Boeing, Chevron, The Ford Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Halliburton, Raytheon Company, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. He joined the Rockefeller Foundation’s Board of Trustees in 2010. He also sat on the Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) International Advisory Board as of 2009, and even gave a talk before the CFR on May 14, 2008, regarding a “one unified Southeast Asia.”

The official language of ASEAN is English – bizarre since only one ASEAN member counts English as its official language – the minute city-state of Singapore which also counts Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil as official languages. Modern day Singapore is increasingly shifting demographically and linguistically toward Chinese, with English use a vestigial feature of British colonialism. The irony of consolidating Southeast Asia under a supranational English-speaking bloc extends to other former British holdings including Malaysia and Myanmar, both of whom fought hard to achieve relatively recent independence.

The Asian Economic Community (AEC) being pushed for implementation by 2015 mirrors other supranational, Wall Street-London dominated free trade blocs and monetary unions, including the European Union, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFA), and the upcoming US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with which the AEC will mesh.

Military cooperation is defined under the ASEAN Security Community “plan of action.” It is designed to incrementally integrate the foreign policy of ASEAN members. Since ASEAN is dominated by leadership entwined with Western hegemonic interests, ASEAN’s collective foreign policy will be thus aligned with that of the West, enforcing its corporate-financier as well as geopolitical agenda. Already, the US is employing a strategy of tension to mobilize ASEAN to do its bidding.

Hillary Clinton Test Drives ASEAN as Vehicle of US Foreign Policy.

Geopolitical shake ups, although less chaotic than the US-engineered “Arab Spring” have also recently unfolded in Southeast Asia. While US State Department trained and funded mobs cluttered the streets of Egypt and Tunisia, and terrorists rampaged through Libya and Syria, US State Department-funded opposition groups staged protests in Malaysia, Bangkok, and Myanmar. US proxies, including Thailand’s Thaksin Shinawatra and Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi have made political resurgences while the US’ Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia is positioning himself for upcoming elections with the US-funded Bersih street movement.

While US-proxies clawed their way into power, the US announced America’s “Pacific Century.” Published under US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s name, Foreign Policy Magazine stated:

“As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region.”

It would continue by stating:

“Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia. Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, countering the proliferation efforts of North Korea, or ensuring transparency in the military activities of the region’s key players.”


Clearly, by “open markets” and American firms’ ability to “tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia,” we see an overt declaration of intent for Wall Street and London’s corporate-financier interests to overrun and dominate Asian markets with the same monopolies they have pillaged and exploited their own populations with – to devastating socioeconomic consequences.

Clinton continues:

As we update our alliances for new demands, we are also building new partnerships to help solve shared problems. Our outreach to China, India, Indonesia, Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia, Mongolia, Vietnam, Brunei, and the Pacific Island countries is all part of a broader effort to ensure a more comprehensive approach to American strategy and engagement in the region. We are asking these emerging partners to join us in shaping and participating in a rules-based regional and global order.

Mention of a”global order” harks back to Kagan’s 1997 piece and is a theme that pervades all Western corporate-financier driven policy papers (and consequently actual policy). In fact, Clinton’s entire tirade is merely Kagan’s policy paper, updated and repackaged for public consumption, touching on each and every facade Kagan had suggested the US use to lure the Chinese into Western ambitions to encircle and contain its growth while maintaining US global preeminence.

The predication the US is using to not only reassert itself in Asia Pacific, but to both create and dominate the agenda of ASEAN was alluded to as well:

To pave the way, the United States has opened a new U.S. Mission to ASEAN in Jakarta and signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with ASEAN. Our focus on developing a more results-oriented agenda has been instrumental in efforts to address disputes in the South China Sea. In 2010, at the ASEAN Regional Forum in Hanoi, the United States helped shape a regionwide effort to protect unfettered access to and passage through the South China Sea, and to uphold the key international rules for defining territorial claims in the South China Sea’s waters.

The US is openly encouraging confrontation with China over disputes in the South China Sea. These disputes will be expanded to economic and eventually geopolitical issues. As US proxy-regimes claw their way into power across Southeast Asia, this confrontation will become more pronounced.

The Washington Post has recently reported in their article, ” Clinton to press for ASEAN unity in South China Sea disputes with Chinese,” that, “U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Monday for Southeast Asian states to present a united front to the Chinese in dealing with territorial disputes in the South China Sea to “literally calm the waters.”

Clearly, this is just the first step in creating a much wider and more permanent “united front,” just as the US is doing in the Middle East regarding Iran, and eventually Russia and China directly.

Throwing A Wrench Into the Cogs of Imperialism.

The morbid machinations of Wall Street and London are driven by and for their collective corporate-financier interests. These are corporations, institutions, and services we use (globally) on a daily basis. For Americans and Asians alike, recognizing that our daily patronage of seemingly benign corporations like Unilever, Pepsi, and Coca-Cola is in fact the engine driving global conflict and wars of hegemony, is the best first step. Effectively boycotting and replacing them with local alternatives is the next step.

By boycotting and replacing these corporate-financier interests with local alternatives, specifically with a model of local and national self-sufficiency, we not only hem in the global-spanning machinations of megalomaniacs, we also shift the balance of power back into our own hands. Because freedom cannot exist when individuals, communities, even entire provinces and nations are dependent on multinational corporations and institutions. Economics, policy, and progress both technological and social must be organized and driven from the grassroots up, not the other way around.

Organizations like ASEAN are created to enhance and further empower the collective corporate-financier interests that are represented throughout its leadership and by the sponsors of its various arms and initiatives. These benefit special interests at the cost of the vast majority of the population – as clearly demonstrated by the European Union as it finally reveals its true purpose – consolidating the wealth of nations for economic exploitation and plundering.

Image: Greek riots unfold as the European Union’s economy collapses and austerity measures are imposed on vast swaths of the population to bail out corporate-financier interests – the very ones behind the reckless “globalization,” economic and monetary interdependencies that made the plundering and destruction of Europe’s economies possible in the first place. It is painfully obvious that the ASEAN union will unfold in a similar manner with the exact same Western corporate-financier interests behind its creation, and already plotting to plunder the collective economies of Southeast Asia while proxy-regimes bleed national treasuries dry in pursuit of Western foreign policy objectives.


Through reckless systems of interdependence, Europeans had been led into regional economic collapse. Had each nation been building up a sustainable, self-reliant, full-set economy with trade as a supplement rather than an imperative, the economic woes of one nation would be effectively isolated from the next.

Southeast Asians should be asking themselves who will be the first “Greece” or “Iceland” amongst ASEAN should the same economic, monetary, and political interdependencies be foisted upon them – victims of financial speculators brought in under the auspices of “free trade” seeking new marks for their global Ponzi scheme, uninhibited by national borders and protectionist measures.

As individuals we can pursue models of local and national full-set, self-reliant economics that trade only to supplement our prosperity. We can do this by voting with our wallets for local businesses, becoming entrepreneurs ourselves, and supporting local and national leaders who promote localism and the primacy of the nation-state.

To proceed with the development of ASEAN and the 2015 Asian Economic Community in the face of an unraveling West – Asia prevailing solely because it has not yet implemented the vast economic and political unions and interdependencies the West has – will be looked back at by future generations as supreme folly.

Posted in USA, ChinaComments Off on Dangerous Crossroads: America Pressures ASEAN Bloc to Contain China

Why Americans Must End America’s Self-Generating Wars

By Prof. Peter Dale Scott
Global Research
Asia-Pacific Journal

The most urgent political challenge to the world today is how to prevent the so-called “pax Americana” from progressively degenerating, like the 19th-century so-called “pax Britannica” before it, into major global warfare. I say “so-called,” because each “pax,” in its final stages, became less and less peaceful, less and less orderly, more and more a naked imposition of belligerent competitive power based on inequality.

To define this prevention of war as an achievable goal may sound pretentious. But the necessary steps to be taken are above all achievable here at home in America. And what is needed is not some radical and untested new policy, but a much-needed realistic reassessment and progressive scaling back of two discredited policies that are themselves new, and demonstrably counterproductive.

I am referring above all to America’s so-called War on Terror. American politics, both foreign and domestic, are being increasingly deformed by a war on terrorism that is counter-productive, producing more terrorists every year than eliminates. It is also profoundly dishonest, in that Washington’s policies actually contribute to the funding and arming of the jihadists that it nominally opposes.

Above all the War on Terror is a self-generating war, because, as many experts have warned, it produces more terrorists than it eliminates. And it has become inextricably combined with America’s earlier self-generating and hopelessly unwinnable war, the so-called War on Drugs.

The two self-generating wars have in effect become one. By launching a War on Drugs in Colombia and Mexico, America has contributed to a parastate of organized terror in Colombia (the so-called AUC, United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia) and an even bloodier reign of terror in Mexico (with 50,000 killed in the last six years).1 By launching a War on Terror in Afghanistan in 2001, America has contributed to a doubling of opium production there, making Afghanistan now the source of 90 percent of the world’s heroin and most of the world’s hashish.2

Americans should be aware of the overall pattern that drug production repeatedly rises where America intervenes militarily – Southeast Asia in the 1950s and 60s, Colombia and Afghanistan since then. (Opium cultivation also increased in Iraq after the 2003 US invasion.)3 And the opposite is also true: where America ceases to intervene militarily, notably in Southeast Asia since the 1970s, drug production declines.4

Both of America’s self-generating wars are lucrative to the private interests that lobby for their continuance.5 At the same time, both of these self-generating wars contribute to increasing insecurity and destabilization in America and in the world.

Thus, by a paradoxical dialectic, America’s New World Order degenerates progressively into a New World Disorder. And at home the seemingly indomitable national security state, beset by the problems of poverty, income disparity, and drugs, becomes, progressively, a national insecurity state and one gripped by political gridlock.

The purpose of this paper is to argue, using the analogy of British errors in the late 19th century, for a progressive return to a more stable and just international order, by a series of concrete steps, some of them incremental. Using the decline of Britain as an example, I hope to demonstrate that the solution cannot be expected from the current party political system, but must come from people outside that system.

The Follies of the Late 19th Century Pax Britannica

The final errors of British imperial leaders are particularly instructive for our predicament today. In both cases power in excess of defense needs led to more and more unjust, and frequently counter-productive, expansions of influence. My account in the following paragraphs is one-sidedly negative, ignoring positive achievements abroad in the areas of health and education. But the consolidation of British power led to the impoverishment abroad of previously wealthy countries like India, and also of British workers at home.6

A main reason for the latter was, as Kevin Phillips has demonstrated, the increasing outward flight of British investment capital and productive capacity:

Thus did Britain slip into circumstances akin to those of the United States in the 1980s and most of the 1990s – slumping nonsupervisory wage levels and declining basic industries on one hand, and at the other end of the scale a heyday for banks, financial services, and securities, a sharp rise in the portion of income coming from investment, and a stunning percentage of income and assets going to the top 1 percent.7

The dangers of increasing income and wealth disparity in Britain were easily recognized at the time, including by the young politician Winston Churchill.8 But only a few noticed the penetrating analysis by John A. Hobson in his book Imperialism (1902), that an untrammeled search for profit that directed capital abroad created a demand for an oversized defense establishment to protect it, leading in turn to wider and wilder use abroad of Britain’s armies. Hobson defined the imperialism of his time, which he dated from about 1870, as “a debasement … of genuine nationalism, by attempts to overflow its natural banks and absorb the near or distant territory of reluctant and inassimilable peoples.”9

The earlier British empire could be said by a British historian in 1883 to have been “acquired in a fit of absence of mind,” but this could not be said of Cecil Rhodes’s advances in Africa. Maldistribution of wealth was an initial cause of British expansion, and also an inevitable consequence of it. Much of Hobson’s book attacked western exploitation of the Third World, especially in Africa and Asia.10 He thus echoed Thucydides description of

how Athens was undone by the overreaching greed (pleonexia) of its unnecessary Sicilian expedition, a folly presaging America’s follies in Vietnam and Iraq [and Britain’s in Afghanistan and the Transvaal]. Thucydides attributed the rise of this folly to the rapid change in Athens after the death of Pericles, and in particular to the rise of a rapacious oligarchy.11

Both the apogee of the British empire and the start of its decline can be dated to the 1850s. In that decade London instituted direct control over India, displacing the nakedly exploitative East India Company.

The British empire during the Victorian Era 

But in the same decade Britain sided with France’s nakedly expansionist Napoleon III (and the decadent Ottoman empire) in his ambitions against Russia’s status in the Holy Land. Although Britain was victorious in that war, historians have since judged that victory to be a chief cause of the breakdown in the balance of power that had prevailed in Europe since the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Thus the legacy of the war for Britain was a more modernized and efficient army, together with a more insecure and unstable world. (Historians may in future come to judge that NATO’s Libyan venture of 2011 played a similar role in ending the era of U.S.-Russian détente.)

The Crimean War also saw the emergence of perhaps the world’s first significant antiwar movement in Britain, even though that movement is often remembered chiefly for its role in ending the active political roles of its main leaders, John Cobden and John Bright.12 In the short run, Britain’s governments and leaders moved to the right, leading (for example) to Gladstone’s bombardment of Alexandria in 1882 to recover the debts owed by the Egyptians to private British investors.

Reading Hobson’s economic analysis in the light of Thucydides, we can focus on the moral factor of emergent hubristic greed (pleonexia) fostered by unrestrained British power. In 1886 the discovery of colossal gold deposits in the nominally independent Boer Republic of the Transvaal attracted the attention of Cecil Rhodes, already wealthy from South African diamonds and mining concessions he had acquired by deceit in Matabeleland. Rhodes now saw an opportunity to acquire goldfields in the Transvaal as well, by overthrowing the Boer government with the support of the uitlanders or foreigners who
had flocked to the Transvaal.

French caricature of Rhodes, showing him trapped in Kimberley during the Boer War, seen emerging from tower clutching papers with champagne bottle behind his collar. 

In 1895, after direct plotting with the uitlanders failed, Rhodes, in his capacity as Prime Minister of the British Cape Colony, sponsored an invasion of Transvaal with the so-called Jameson Raid, a mixed band of Mounted Police and mercenary volunteers. The raid was not only a failure, but a scandal: Rhodes was forced to resign as Prime Minister and his brother went to jail. The details of the Jameson raid and resulting Boer War are too complex to be recounted here; but the end result was that after the Boer War the goldfields fell largely into the hands of Rhodes.

The next step in Rhodes’ well-funded expansiveness was his vision of a Cape-to-Cairo railway through colonies all controlled by Britain. As we shall see in a moment, this vision provoked a competing French vision of an east-east railway, leading to the first of a series of crises from imperial competition that progressively escalated towards World War I.

According to Carroll Quigley, Rhodes also founded a secret society for the further expansion of the British empire, an offshoot of which was the Round Table which in turn generated the Royal Institute of International Affairs. In 1917 some members of the American Round Table also helped found the RIIA’s sister organization, the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).13

Some have found Quigley’s argument overstated. But whether one agrees with him or not, one can see a continuity between the expansionist acquisitiveness of Rhodes in Africa in the 1890s and the post-war acquisitiveness of UK and American oil corporations in the CFR-backed coups in Iran (1953), Indonesia (1965), and Cambodia (1970).14 In all these cases private acquisitive greed (albeit of corporations rather than an individual) led to state violence and/or war as a matter of public policy. And the outcomes enriched and strengthened private corporations in what I have called the American war machine, thus rendering less weak those institutions representing the public interest.

My main point is that the progressive build-up of the British navy and armies provoked, predictably, a responsive build-up from other powers, particularly France and Germany; and this ultimately made World War I (and its sequel, World War II) all but inevitable. In retrospect it is easy to see that the arms build-up contributed, disastrously, not to security but to more and more perilous insecurity, dangerous not just to the imperial powers themselves but to the world. Because American global dominance surpasses what Britain’s ever was, we have not hitherto seen a similar backlash in competitiveness from other states; but we are beginning to see a backlash build-up (or what the media call terrorism) from increasingly oppressed peoples.

In retrospect one can see also that the progressive impoverishment of India and other colonies guaranteed that the empire would become progressively more unstable, and doomed in its last days to be shut down. This was not obvious at the time; and comparatively few Britons in the 19th century, other than Hobson, challenged the political decisions that led from the Long Depression of the 1870s to the European “Scramble for Africa,” and the related arms race.15 Yet when we look back today on these decisions, and the absurd but ominous crises they led to in distant corners of Africa like Fashoda (1898) and Agadir (1911), we have to marvel at the short-sighted and narrow stupidity of the so-called statesmen of that era.16

We also note how international crises could be initially provoked by very small, uncontrolled, bureaucratic cabals. The Fashoda incident in South Sudan involved a small troupe of 132 French officers and soldiers who had trekked for 14 months, in vain hopes of establishing a west-to-east French presence across Africa (thus breaching Rhodes’ vision of a north-to-south British presence.17 The 1911 provocative arrival (in the so-called “Panther leap” or Panzersprung) of the German gunboat Panzer at Agadir in Morocco was the foolish brainchild of a Deputy Secretary of Foreign Affairs; its chief result was the cementing of the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale, thus contributing to Germany’s defeat in World War I.18

The Pax Americana in the Light of the Pax Britannica

The world is not condemned to repeat this tragedy under the Pax Americana. Global interdependence and above all communications have greatly improved. We possess the knowledge, the abilities, and the incentives to understand historical processes more skillfully than before. Above all it is increasingly evident to a global minority that American hypermilitarism, in the name of security, is becoming – much like British hypermilitarism in the 19th century — a threat to everyone’s security, including America’s, by inducing and increasingly seeking wider and wider wars.

There is one consolation for Americans in this increasing global disequilibrium. As the causes for global insecurity become more and more located in our own country, so also do the remedies. More than their British predecessors, Americans have an opportunity that other peoples do not, to diminish global tensions and move towards a more equitable global regimen. Of course one cannot predict that such a restoration can be achieved. But the disastrous end of the Pax Britannica, and the increasingly heavy burdens borne by Americans, suggest that it is necessary. For American unilateral expansionism, like Britain’s before it, is now contributing to a breakdown of the understandings and international legal arrangements (notably those of the UN Charter) that for some decades contributed to relative stability.

It needs to be stated clearly that the American arms build-up today is the leading cause in the world of a global arms build-up – one that is ominously reminiscent of the arms race, fuelled by the British armaments industry, that led to the 1911 Agadir incident and soon after to World War I. But today’s arms build-up cannot be called an arms race: it is so dominated by America (and its NATO allies, required by NATO policy to have compatible armaments) that the responsive arms sales of Russia and China are small by comparison:

In 2010 …the United States maintained its dominating position in the global arms bazaar, signing $21.3 billion in worldwide arms sales, or 52.7 percent of all weapons deals, ….

Russia was second with $7.8 billion in arms sales in 2010, or 19.3 percent of the market, compared with $12.8 billion in 2009. Following the United States and Russia in sales were France, Britain, China, Germany and Italy.19

A year later America’s total dominance of overseas arms sales had more than doubled, to represent 79 percent of global arms sales:

Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011. Russia was a distant second, with $4.8 billion in deals.20

And what is NATO’s primary activity today requiring arms? Not defense against Russia, but support for America in its self-generating War on Terror, in Afghanistan as once in Iraq. The War on Terror should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military, in an increasingly unstable exercise of unjust power.

In other words America is by far the chief country flooding the world with armaments today. It is imperative that Americans force a reassessment of this incentive to global poverty and insecurity. We need to recall Eisenhower’s famous warning in 1953 that “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, is in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”21

It is worth recalling that President Kennedy, in his American University speech of June 10, 1963, called for a vision of peace that would explicitly not be “a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.”22 His vision was wise, if short-lived. After sixty years of the American security system – the so-called “Pax Americana” – America itself is ever more caught up in an increasingly paranoid condition of psychological insecurity. Traditional features of American culture – such as respect for habeas corpus and international law – are being jettisoned at home and abroad because of a so-called terrorist threat that is largely of America’s own making.

The Covert US-Saudi Alliance and the War on Terror

Of the $66.3 billion in U.S. overseas arms sales in 2011, over half, or $33.4 billion, consisted of sales to Saudi Arabia. This included dozens of Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, weapons described by theNew York Times, as needed for defense against Iran, but more suitable for Saudi Arabia’s increasing involvement in aggressive asymmetric wars (e.g. in Syria).23

These Saudi arms sales are not incidental; they reflect an agreement between the two countries to offset the flow of US dollars to pay for Saudi oil. During the oil price hikes of 1971 and 1973 Nixon and Kissinger negotiated a deal with both Saudi Arabia and Iran to pay significantly higher prices for crude, on the understanding that the two countries would then recycle the petrodollars by various means, prominently arms deals.24

The wealth of the two nations, America and Saudi Arabia, has become ever more interdependent. This is ironic. In the words of a leaked US cable, “Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda.”25 The Rabita or Muslim World League, launched and largely funded by the Saudi royal family, has provided an international meeting place for international Salafists including some al Qaeda leaders.26

Obama with Saudi King Abdullah, 2010 

In short, the wealth generated by the Saudi-American relationship is funding both the al Qaeda-type jihadists of the world today and America’s self-generating war against them. The result is an incremental militarization of the world abroad and America at home, as new warfronts in the so-called War on Terror emerge, predictably, in previously peaceful areas like Mali.

The media tend to present the “War on Terror” as a conflict between lawful governments and fanatical peace-hating Islamist fundamentalists. In fact in most countries, America and Britain not excepted, there is a long history of occasional collaboration with the very forces which at other times they oppose.

Today America’s foreign policies and above all covert operations are increasingly chaotic. In some countries, notably Afghanistan, the US is fighting jihadists that the CIA supported in the 1980s, and that are still supported today by our nominal allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In some countries, notably Libya, we have provided protection and indirect support to the same kind of jihadis. In some countries, notably Kosovo, we have helped bring these jihadis to power.27

One country where American authorities conceded its clients were supporting jihadis is Yemen. As Christopher Boucek reported some years ago to the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace,

Islamist extremism in Yemen is the result of a long and complicated set of developments. A large number of Yemeni nationals participated in the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan during the 1980s. After the Soviet occupation ended, the Yemeni government encouraged its citizens to return and also permitted foreign veterans to settle in Yemen. Many of these Arab Afghans were co-opted by the regime and integrated into the state’s various security apparatuses. Such co-optation was also used with individuals detained by the Yemeni government after the September 11 terrorist attacks. As early as 1993, the U.S. State Department noted in a now-declassified intelligence report that Yemen was becoming an important stop for many fighters leaving Afghanistan. The report also maintained that the Yemeni government was either unwilling or unable to curb their activities. Islamism and Islamist activists were used by the regime throughout the 1980s and 1990s to suppress domestic opponents, and during the 1994 civil war Islamists fought against southern forces.28

In March 2011 the same scholar, Christopher Boucek, observed that America’s war on terror had resulted in the propping up of an unpopular government, thus helping it avoid needed reforms:

Well, I think for — our policy on Yemen has been terrorism — has been terrorism and security and al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, to the exclusion of almost everything else. I think, despite what — what people in the administration say, we have been focused on terrorism. We have not been focused on the systemic challenges that Yemen faces: unemployment, governance abuses, corruption. I think these are the things that will bring down the state. It’s not AQAP….. everyone in Yemen sees that we’re supporting the regimes, at the expense of the Yemeni people.29

Stated more bluntly: One major reason why Yemen (like other countries) remains backward and a fertile ground for jihadi terrorism is America’s war on terror itself.

America’s is not the only foreign security policy contributing to the crisis in Yemen. Saudi Arabia has had a stake in reinforcing the jihadi influence in republican Yemen, ever since the Saudi royal family in the 1960s used conservative hill tribes in northern Yemen to repel an attack on southern Saudi Arabia by the Nasser-backed republican Yemeni government.30

These machinations of governments and their intelligence agencies can create conditions of impenetrable obscurity. For example, as Sen. John Kerry has reported, one of the top leaders of Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP) “is a Saudi citizen who was repatriated to Saudi Arabia from Guantanamo in November 2007 and returned to militancy [in Yemen] after completing a rehabilitation course in Saudi Arabia.”31

Like other nations, America is no stranger to the habit of making deals with al Qaeda jihadis, to aid them to fight abroad in areas of mutual interest — such as Bosnia – in exchange for not acting as terrorists at home. This practice clearly contributed to the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, when at least two of the bombers had been protected from arrest because of their participation in a Brooklyn-based program preparing Islamists for Bosnia. In 1994 the FBI secured the release in Canada of a U.S.-Al Qaeda double agent at the Brooklyn center, Ali Mohamed, who promptly went on to Kenya where (according to the 9/11 Commission Report) he “led” the organizers of the 1998 attack on the U.S. Embassy.32

Saudi Arabian Support for Terrorists

Perhaps the foremost practitioner of this game is Saudi Arabia, which has not only exported jihadis to all parts of the globe but (as previously noted) has financed them, sometimes in alliance with the United States. A New York Times article in 2010 about leaked diplomatic cables quoted from one of the diplomatic dispatches: “Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda.”33

Back in 2007 the London Sunday Times also reported that

wealthy Saudis remain the chief financiers of worldwide terror networks. ‘If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia,’ said Stuart Levey, the US Treasury official in charge of tracking terror financing.34

Similar reports of Saudi funding have come from authorities in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, according to Rachel Ehrenfeld:

Pakistani police reported in 2009 that Saudi Arabia’s charities continue to fund al Qaeda, the Taliban and Pakistan’s Lashkar-e-Tayyiba. The report said the Saudis gave $15 million to jihadists, including those responsible for suicide attacks in Pakistan and the death of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

In May 2010, Buratha News Agency, an independent news source in Iraq, reported on a leaked Saudi intelligence document showing continued Saudi governmental support for al Qaeda in Iraq in the form of cash and weapons…. An article in the May 31, 2010, edition ofThe Sunday Times in London revealed that the Afghan financial intelligence unit, FinTRACA, reported that since 2006, at least $1.5 billion from Saudi Arabia was smuggled into Afghanistan, headed most probably to the Taliban.”35

However the Saudi backing of al Qaeda was not, according to the Times, limited to funds:

In recent months, Saudi religious scholars have caused consternation in Iraq and Iran by issuing fatwas calling for the destruction of the great Shi’ite shrines in Najaf and Karbala in Iraq, some of which have already been bombed. And while prominent members of the ruling al-Saud dynasty regularly express their abhorrence of terrorism, leading figures within the kingdom who advocate extremism are tolerated.

Sheikh Saleh al-Luhaidan, the chief justice, who oversees terrorist trials, was recorded on tape in a mosque in 2004, encouraging young men to fight in Iraq. “Entering Iraq has become risky now,” he cautioned. “It requires avoiding those evil satellites and those drone aircraft, which own every corner of the skies over Iraq. If someone knows that he is capable of entering Iraq in order to join the fight, and if his intention is to raise up the word of God, then he is free to do so.”36

The Example of Mali

Something similar is happening today in Africa, where Saudi Wahhabist fundamentalism “has grown in recent years in Mali with young imams returning from studying on the Arab peninsula.”37 The world

press, including Al Jazeera, has reported on the destruction of historic tombs by local jihadis:

Fighters from the al-Qaeda-linked group Ansar Dine, controlling northern Mali, have destroyed two tombs at the ancient Djingareyber mud mosque in Timbuktu, an endangered World Heritage site, witnesses say…. The new destruction comes after attacks last week on other historic and religious landmarks in Timbuktu that UNESCO called “wanton destruction”. Ansar Dine has declared the ancient Muslim shrines “haram”, or forbidden in Islam. The Djingareyber mosque is one of the most important in Timbuktu and was one of the fabled city’s main attractions before the region became a no-go area for tourists. Ansar Dine has vowed to continue destroying all the shrines “without exception” amid an outpouring of grief and outrage both at home and abroad.38


But most of these stories (including al Jazeera’s) have failed to point out that the destruction of tombs has long been a Wahhabi practice not only endorsed but carried out by the Saudi government:

In 1801 and 1802, the Saudi Wahhabis under Abdul Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud attacked and captured the holy Muslim cities of Karbala and Najaf in Iraq, massacred parts of the Muslim population and destroyed the tombs of Husayn ibn Ali who is the grandson of Muhammad, and son of Ali (Ali bin Abu Talib), the son-in-law of Muhammad). In 1803 and 1804 the Saudis captured Makkah and Medina and destroyed historical monuments and various holy Muslim sites and shrines, such as the shrine built over the tomb of Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, and even intended to destroy the grave of Muhammad himself as idolatrous. In 1998 the Saudis bulldozed and poured gasoline over the grave of Aminah bint Wahb, the mother of Muhammad, causing resentment throughout the Muslim World.39

The Chance of Peace and Insecurity, the Chief Impediment to It

Today one must distinguish between the Saudi Arabian Kingdom and the Wahhabism promoted by senior Saudi clerics and some members of the Saudi Royal Family. King Abdullah in particular has reached out to other religions, visiting the Vatican in 2007 and encouraging an interfaith conference with Christian and Jewish leaders, which took place in 2008.

In 2002 Abdullah, as Crown Prince, also submitted a proposal for Arab-Israeli peace to a summit of Arab League nations. The plan, which has been endorsed by Arab League governments on many occasions, called for normalizing relations between the entire Arab region and Israel, in exchange for a complete withdrawal from the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem) and a “just settlement” of the Palestinian refugee crisis based on UN Resolution 194. It was spurned in 2002 by Israel’s Sharon and also by Bush and Cheney, who at the time were determined to go to war in Iraq. But as David Ottaway of the Woodrow Wilson Center has noted,

Abdullah’s 2002 peace plan remains an intriguing possible basis for U.S.-Saudi cooperation on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Abdullah’s proposal was endorsed by the entire Arab League at its 2002 summit; Israeli President Shimon Peres and Olmert both referred to it favorably; and Barack Obama, who chose the Saudi-owned al Arabiya television station for his first interview after taking office, praised Abdullah for his “great courage” in making the peace proposal. However, the presumed new Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has strongly opposed the Saudi plan, particularly the idea that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state.40

The plan has no traction in 2012, with Israel hinting at action against Iran and America paralyzed by an election year. However Israeli President Shimon Peres welcomed the initiative in 2009; and George Mitchell, President Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East, announced in the same year that the Obama administration intended to “incorporate” the initiative into its Middle East policy.41

These voices of support indicate that a peace agreement in the Middle East is theoretically possible, but by no means do they make it likely. Any peace settlement would require trust, and trust is difficult when all parties are beset by a sense of insecurity about their nations’ futures. Pro-Zionist commentators like Charles Krauthammer recall that for thirty years before Camp David, the destruction of Israel was “the unanimous goal of the Arab League.”42 Many Palestinians, and most of Hamas, fear that a peace settlement would leave unsatisfied, and indeed extinguish, their demands for a just settlement of grievances.

Insecurity is particularly widespread in the Middle East because of the widespread resentment there against injustice, which insecurity both grows from and propagates. Much of the global status quo has its origins in injustice; but the injustice in the Middle East, on all sides, is extreme, recent, and ongoing. I say this only to offer this advice to Americans: to keep in mind that the issues of security and justice cannot be separated.

Above all, one thing called for is compassion. We as Americans must understand that both Israelis and Palestinians live in conditions not remote from a state of war; yet both have reason to fear that a peace settlement might leave them even worse off than in their present uncomfortable situation. Too many innocent civilians have been killed in the Middle East. American actions should not increase that number.

This sense of insecurity, the major impediment to peace, is not confined to the Middle East. Since 9/11 Americans have experienced the anguish of insecurity, and this is the major reason why there is so little American resistance to the manifest follies of the Bush-Cheney-Obama War on Terror.

The War on Terror promises to make America more secure, yet in fact continues to guarantee the proliferation of America’s terrorist enemies. It also continues to disseminate the War into new battlefields, notably Pakistan and Yemen. By thus creating its own enemies, the War on Terror, now solidly entrenched in bureaucratic inertia, seems likely to continue unabated. In this it is much like the equally ill-considered War on Drugs, dedicated to maintaining the high costs and profits that attract new traffickers.

Above all this contributes to Islamic insecurity as well, causing more and more Muslims to deal with the fear that civilians, not just jihadi terrorists, will be the victims of drone attacks. Insecurity in the Middle East is the major obstacle to peace there. Palestinians live in daily fear of oppression by West Bank settlers and retaliation by the Israeli state. The Israelis live in constant fear of hostile neighbors. So does the Saudi royal family. Insecurity and instability have increased together since 9/11 and the War on Terror.

Middle Eastern insecurity replicates itself on a wider and wider scale. Israeli fear of Iran and Hizbollah is matched by Iranian fear of Israeli threats of massive attacks on its nuclear installations. And recently former U.S. hawks like Zbigniew Brzezinski have warned that an Israeli attack on Iran could lead to a longer war that spreads elsewhere.43

Above all, in my opinion, Americans should fear the insecurity spread by

drone attacks. If not soon stopped, America’s drone attacks threaten to do what America’s atomic attacks did in 1945: lead to a world in which many powers, not just one, possess this weapon and may possibly use it. In this case the most likely new target by far would be the United States.

How long will it be, I wonder, before a prevailable force of Americans will recognize the predictable course of this self-generating war, and mobilize against it?

What Is to Be Done?

This paper has argued, using the analogy of British errors in the late 19th century, for a progressive return to a more stable and just international order, by a series of concrete steps, some of them incremental:

1) a progressive reduction of America’s bloated military and intelligence budgets, over and above that already contemplated for financial reasons.

2) a progressive phase-out of the violent aspects of the so-called war on terror, while retaining traditional law enforcement means for dealing with terrorists

3) Much of the recent intensification of American militarism can be traced to the “state of emergency” proclaimed on September 14, 2001, and renewed annually by American presidents ever since. We need an immediate termination of this state of emergency, and a reassessment of all the so-called “continuity of government” (COG) measures associated with it – warrantless surveillance, warrantless detention, and the militarization of domestic American security.44

4) a return to strategies for dealing with the problem of terrorists that rely primarily on civilian policing and intelligence.

Forty years ago I would have appealed to Congress to take these steps to defuse the state of paranoia we are living under. Today I have come to see that Congress itself is dominated by the powers that profit from what I have called America’s global war machine. The so-called “statesmen” of America are as dedicated to the preservation of American dominance as were their British predecessors.

But to say this is not to despair of America’s ability to change direction. We should keep in mind that four decades ago domestic political protest played a critical role in helping to end an unjustified war in Vietnam. It is true that in 2003 similar protests – involving one million Americans – failed to impede America’s entry into an unjustified war in Iraq. Nevertheless, the large number of protesters, assembled under relatively short notice, was impressive. The question is whether protesters can adapt their tactics to new realities and mount a sustained and effective campaign.

Under the guise of COG planning, the American war machine has been preparing for forty years to neutralize street antiwar protests. Taking cognizance of this, and using the folly of British hypermilitarism as an example, today’s antiwar movement must learn how to apply coordinated pressure within American institutions – not just by “occupying” the streets with the aid of the homeless. It is not enough simply to denounce, as did Churchill in 1908, the increasing disparity of wealth between rich and poor. One must go beyond this to see the origins of this disparity in dysfunctional institutional arrangements that are corrigible. And one of the chief of these is the so-called War on Terror.

No one can predict the success of such a movement. But I believe that global developments will persuade more and more Americans that it is necessary. It should appeal to a broad spectrum of the American electorate, from the viewers of Democracy Now on the left to the libertarian followers of Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, and Lew Rockwell on the right.

And I believe also that a well-coordinated nonviolent antiwar minority – of from two to five million, acting with the resources of truth and common sense on their side – can win. America’s core political institutions at present are both dysfunctional and unpopular: Congress in particular has an approval rating of about ten percent. A more serious problem is the determined resistance of corporate and personal wealth to reasonable reforms; but the more nakedly wealth shows its undemocratic influence, the more evident will become the need to curb its abuses. Currently wealth has targeted for removal Congress members who have been guilty of compromise to solve government problems. Surely there is an American majority out there to be mobilized for a return to common sense.

Clearly new strategies and techniques of protest will be needed. It is not the purpose here to define them, but future protests – or cyberprotests – will predictably make more skillful use of the Internet.

I repeat that one cannot be confident of victory in the struggle for sanity against special interests and ignorant ideologues. But with the increasing danger of a calamitous international conflict, the need to mobilize for sanity is increasingly clear. The study of history is one of the most effective ways to avoid repeating it.

Are these hopes for protest mere wishful thinking? Very possibly. But, wishful or not, I consider them to be necessary.

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of Drugs Oil and WarThe Road to 9/11, and The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War. His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan. His website, which contains a wealth of his writings, is here.

Recommended citation: Peter Dale Scott, “Why Americans Must End America’s Self-Generating Wars,” The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 10, Issue 36, No. 2, September 3, 2012.


1 Oliver Villar and Drew Cottle, Cocaine, Death Squads, and the War on Terror: U.S. Imperialism and Class Struggle in Colombia (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2011); Peter Watt and Roberto Zepeda,Drug War Mexico: Politics, Neoliberalism and Violence in the New Narcoeconomy (London: Zed Books, 2012); Mark Karlin, “How the Militarized War on Drugs in Latin America Benefits Transnational Corporations and Undermines Democracy,” Truthout, August 5, 2012.

2 Peter Dale Scott, American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010), 217-37.

3 Patrick Cockburn, “Opium: Iraq’s deadly new export,” Independent (London), May 23, 2007.

4 Scott, American War Machine, 134-40.

5 See Mark Karlin, “How the Militarized War on Drugs in Latin America Benefits Transnational Corporations and Undermines Democracy,” Truthout, August 5, 2012.

6 Sekhara Bandyopadhyaya, From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2004), 231.

7 Kevin Phillips, Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich (New York: Broadway Books, 2002), 185.

8 “The seed of imperial ruin and national decay – the unnatural gap between the rich and the poor…. the swift increase of vulgar, jobless luxury – are the enemies of Britain” (Winston Churchill, quoted inPhillips, Wealth and Democracy, 171).

9 John A. Hobson, Imperialism (London: Allen and Unwin, 1902; reprint, 1948), 6. The book’s chief impact in Britain at the time was to permanently stunt Hobson’s career as an economist.

10 Hobson, Imperialism, 12. Cf. Arthur M. Eckstein, “Is There a ‘Hobson–Lenin Thesis’ on Late Nineteenth-Century Colonial Expansion?” Economic History Review, May 1991, 297–318, especially 298-300.

11 Peter Dale Scott, “The Doomsday Project, Deep Events, and the Shrinking of American Democracy,” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, January 21, 2011,

12 See Ralph Raico, “Introduction,” Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal (Auburn, AL: Mises Institute, 2010),

13 Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (G,S,G, & Associates, 1975); Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment (GSG Associates publishers, 1981), Discussion in Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, The Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States Foreign Policy (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977), 12-14; Michael Parenti,Contrary Notions: The Michael Parenti Reader , 332.

14 For the little-noticed interest of oil companies in Cambodian offshore oilfields, see Peter Dale Scott,The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War (Ipswich, MA: Mary Ferrell Foundation, 2008), 216-37.

15 Thomas Pakenham, Scramble for Africa: The White Man’s Conquest of the Dark Continent from 1876-1912 (New York: Random House, 1991).

16 See the various books by Barbara Tuchman, notably The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam(New York: Knopf, 1984).

17 Pakenham, Scramble for Africa.

18 E. Oncken, Panzersprung nach Agadir. Die deutsche Politik wtihrend der zweiten Marokkokrise 1911 (Dilsseldorf, 1981). Panzersprung in German has come to be a metaphor for any gratuitous exhibition of gunboat diplomacy.

19 Thom Shanker, “Global Arms Sales Dropped Sharply in 2010, Study Finds,” New York Times,September 23, 2011.

20 Thom Shanker, “U.S. Arms Sales Make Up Most of Global Market,” New York Times, August 27, 2012.

21 Stephen Ambrose, Eisenhower: Soldier and President (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), 325,

22 Robert Dallek, An unfinished life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963 (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 2003.). 50.

23 Shanker, “U.S. Arms Sales Make Up Most of Global Market,” New York Times, August 27, 2012.

24 Scott, The Road to 9/11, 33-37.

25 Scott Shane and Andrew W. Lehren, “Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy,” New York Times, Hovember 29, 2010. Cf. Nick Fielding and Sarah Baxter, “Saudi Arabia is hub of world terror: The desert kingdom supplies the cash and the killers,” Times (London), 2007,

26 The United Nations has listed the branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines of the Rabita’s affiliate, the International Islamic Relief Organization, as belonging to or associated with al-Qaeda.

27 See Peter Dale Scott, “Bosnia, Kosovo, and Now Libya: The Human Costs of Washington’s On-Going Collusion with Terrorists,” Asian-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, July 29, 2011; also William Blum, “The United States and Its Comrade-in-Arms, Al Qaeda,” Counterpunch, August 13, 2012,

28 Christopher Boucek, “Yemen: Avoiding a Downward Spiral,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 12.

29 “In Yemen, ‘Too Many Guns and Too Many Grievances’ as President Clings to Power,” PBS Newshour, March 21, 2011,

30 Robert Lacey, The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Sa’ud (New York: Avon, 1981), 346-47, 361.

31 John Kerry, Al Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia: A Ticking Time Bomb: a Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations (Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 2010), 10.

32 Scott, The Road to 9/11, 152-56.

33 Scott Shane and Andrew W. Lehren, “Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy,” New York Times, November 29, 2010.

34 Nick Fielding and Sarah Baxter“Saudi Arabia is hub of world terror,” Sunday Times (London), November 4, 2007: “Extremist clerics provide a stream of recruits to some of the world’s nastiest trouble spots. An analysis by NBC News suggested that the Saudis make up 55% of foreign fighters in Iraq. They are also among the most uncompromising and militant.”

35 Rachel Ehrenfeld, “Al-Qaeda’s Source of Funding from Drugs and Extortion Little Affected by bin Laden’s Death,” Cutting Edge, May 9, 2011,

36 Sunday Times (London), November 4, 2007.

37 BBC, July 17, 2012,

38 Al Jazeera, July 19, 2012,

39 The Weekly Standard, May 30, 2005, Cf. Newsweek, May 30, 2005. Adapted from Hilmi Isik Advice for the Muslim, (Istanbul: Hakikat Kitabevi).

40 David Ottaway, “The King and Us: U.S.-Saudi Relations in the Wake of 9/11, Foreign Affairs, May-June 2009.

41 Barak Ravid, “U.S. Envoy: Arab Peace Initiative Will Be Part of Obama Policy,” Haaretz, April 5, 2009. David Ottaway, “The King and Us Subtitle: U.S.-Saudi Relations in the Wake of 9/11, Foreign Affairs, May-June 2009.

42 Charles Krauthammer, “At Last, Zion: Israel and the Fate of the Jews,” Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998.

43 “We have no idea how such a wald r wouend,” [Brzezinski] said. “Iran has military capabilities, it could retaliate by destabilizing Iraq” (Salon, March 14, 2012).

44 See Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 183-242; Peter Dale Scott, “Is the State of Emergency Superseding our Constitution? Continuity of Government Planning, War and American Society,” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, November 28, 2010, http:/1/

Posted in USAComments Off on Why Americans Must End America’s Self-Generating Wars

The Ugly Truth Broadcast

TUT Broadcast Sept 10, 2012

by crescentandcross


Download Here


Posted in InterviewComments Off on The Ugly Truth Broadcast



By Eric Walberg

On 7 September, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced that Canada is suspending all diplomatic relations with Iran, expelling all Iranian diplomats, closing its embassy in Tehran, and authorizing Turkey to act on Canada’s behalf for consular services there. Baird cited Iran’s enmity with Israel, its support of Syria and terrorism. “Canada views the government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today,” Baird said at the Asia Pacific Economic Conference in Vladivostok, Russia.

Canada has not had a full ambassador in Iran since 2007. Relations between the two countries cooled after Iranian-Canadian free-lance photographer Zahra Kazemi died in Iran in 2003 under disputed circumstances, and went from bad to worse under the Conservative government in power in Ottawa since then.

While indeed Iran has been the nation most outspokenly critic of Israel, and is actively working to thwart the Western-backed insurgency in Syria, there is no evidence of its support for “terrorism”. It is in fact the victim of terrorism on the part of Israel and the US, which boast about assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists and destroying Iranian computers with viruses made-to-order, among other officially-sponsored acts of subversion.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast suggested that the real reason for Harper’s latest targeting of Iran was because of Iran’s successful hosting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in Tehran in August. Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says Tehran’s hosting of the 16th NAM Summit was a “humiliating defeat” for the West.

Humiliation is indeed the operative word for Canada in particular. The past five years of Conservative rule in Canada under the fiercely pro-Israeli Prime Minister Stephen Harper have brought nothing but disgrace to Canada internationally, and this present move adds further humiliation.

As if scripted, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately commended Canada’s decision. With good cause, as it looks suspiciously like a response to a direct Israeli request. Canadian foreign policy is now made in consultation with Israeli advisers under a public security cooperation “partnership” signed in 2008 by Canada and Israel to “protect their respective countries’ population, assets and interests from common threats”. Israel security agents now officially assist Canada’s security services, the RCMP and CSIS, in profiling Canadians citizens who are Muslims and monitoring individuals and/or organisations in Canada involved in supporting the rights of Palestinians and other such nefarious activities.

The barring of British MP George Galloway from entering Canada in 2009 on a North American tour was done as a result of this cooperation. Baird’s claim that Iran supports terrorism is one that Israeli agents have been making in Ottawa under this partnership. Harper has publicly stated he is convinced that Iran is trying “beyond any doubt” to develop nuclear weapons, with ‘evidence’ supplied by these advisers, though it is unlikely that such claims convince anyone, but rather merely confirm public perception of his devotion to Israel.

“It’s hard to find a country friendlier to Israel than Canada these days,” chirped Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on his official visit in 2010. He is right. Stephen Harper’s Conservatives
-called Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon a “measured response” (Two Canadian UN peacekeepers were targeted and killed by Israeli in the invasion. Harper refused to protest, asking rhetorically in parliament what they were doing there in the first place.)
-refused to condemn the invasion of Gaza in December 2008 or the siege of Gaza (the only “Nay” at the UN Human Rights Council)
-refused to condemn the Israeli murder of nine members of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in May 2009
-opposed an attempted IAEA probe of Israel’s nuclear facilities as part of an effort to create a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East
-cut off UN humanitarian aid to Gaza because it was going through the Hamas government there
-allow goods manufactured in occupied territories by illegal settlers to be labelled “Made in Israel” under the 1997 Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement 1997.

And as is the case in the Obama/Romney ‘race’ next door, there is no peep of protest from Canada’s opposition liberals or socialists. Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae (whose wife Arlene Perly is past vice president of the Canadian Jewish Congress) met with Netanyahu on his official visit to Canada in February this year, and afterwards said the visit “gives all Canadians the chance to reflect on the deep friendship and strong ties between Israel and Canada”.

In a bizarre non sequitur, the ‘Liberal’ leader added, “Iran’s regime is a threat to the security of the region and the world. A nuclear armed Iran would mean the threat of even greater proliferation and instability in the region, is a direct flouting of international law, and obviously raises the deepest concerns in Israel for its security.” Apparently a very much ‘nuclear armed Israel’ which daily threatens to bomb Iran does not raise his ‘deepest concerns ‘ for Iran’s security.

After meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres during his official visit to Canada this May, New Democrat leader Tom Mulcair, told the press, “My in-laws are Holocaust survivors. Their history is part of my daily life. That’s why I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all circumstances.” Mulcair’s wife, Catherine Pinhas, was born in France to a Sephardic Jewish family from Turkey. Canadians for Peace and Justice in the Middle East and Independent Jewish Voices criticized Mulcair for accepting financial support from pro-Israel lobbyists.

So there will be little if any protest in parliament over Harper’s unprovoked violation of diplomatic norms. In fact, rumor has it that this Canadian move is in preparation for an Israeli-US attack on Iran, though Baird demurred when asked about this as the motive for advising all Canadians to leave Iran immediately. However, the Harper government actually supports Israel’s threats of a pre-emptive air strike against Iran as being within its rights. Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the Americas Peter Kent told the G8 in Toronto in 2010, “It’s a matter of timing and it’s a matter of how long we can wait without taking more serious pre-emptive action.”

It appears Ottawa is ready and willing to join Israel in any attack. Harper has said, “An attack on Israel is an attack on Canada.” There have already been US-conducted military ‘exercises’ involving Canadian ships off Iran’s coast. 160 Canadian troops have died senselessly in Afghanistan over the past decade. Now Harper wants them to die for Israel in an invasion of Iran, orchestrated to look like it is in defense of Israel.

The NAM summit clearly ruffled some feathers. Iran is supported by the great majority of the world’s people and governments, both as a courageous opponent to US and Israeli imperial intrigues, and as a model for countries that want to develop independent, peaceful nuclear power as an alternative to oil. The summit strongly supported Iran on both counts.

Iranian leadership of NAM during the next three years promises to be innovative and energetic. Even as Baird embarrassed Canadians with his undocumented accusations and violations of diplomatic norms, Mehmanparast called on the UN to fulfill its obligations towards Palestinians and respond forcefully to Israel’s killing of six Palestinians in besieged Gaza last week. “As the rotating president of NAM, the Islamic Republic of Iran expects all international institutions affiliated to the United Nations to adhere to their responsibilities towards the Palestinian nation.” The hysteria in Tel Aviv, Washington, and now Ottawa is not without cause.
A version of this appeared at
Eric Walberg is author of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games You can reach him at

Posted in CanadaComments Off on CANADA’S DIPLOMATIC DISASTER



By Gilad Atzmon

American legendary band Red Hot Chili Peppers has now reacted to the BDS call to cancel their scheduled concert in Tel Aviv. As they landed this morning in the Holy Land, the band hurried straight to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem – the band will also, I’m sure, visit Yad Vashem and the Museum of Jewish Tolerance.

By now I’d expect that some within the BDS movement would have gathered the obvious: that ‘show-business’ like banking, media and so much other ‘business’ is controlled by tribal interests. Show-biz, as the Red Hot Chili Peppers today proved, is just a continuation of Hasbara.

Understanding this might just help BDS enthusiasts around the world achieving a little more next time.

Red Hot Chilli Peppers at Chabad Centre in Jerusalem


Bombing kills 27, injures 64 in northern Syria


The burnt-out wreckage of a Syrian military vehicle lies on al-Thawra street on May 5, 2012.

The burnt-out wreckage of a Syrian military vehicle lies on al-Thawra street on May 5, 2012.
A bomb attack in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo has killed at least 27 people in the latest attack of a series of bombings targeting the country over the past few weeks.

The terrorist attack in the municipal stadium district near Al-Haya hospital and Aleppo central hospital killed 27 people and wounded 64 others, Syria’s official news agency SANA reported.

The attack, occurred late on Sunday, targeted a hospital and a school, which were reportedly being used to house government soldiers fighting against foreign-backed insurgents.

The blast took place in the Malaab al-Baladi neighborhood of Aleppo, which is located 355 kilometers north of Damascus.

The SANA report said that the force of the blast caused great damage to the nearby buildings and created a big crater in the ground. Bodies of women and children were buried under piles of debris.

Earlier in the day, four people were killed and 35 others wounded after a roadside bomb ripped through a bus in the central province of Homs.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011. Damascus says outlaws, saboteurs, and armed terrorists are the driving factor behind the unrest and deadly violence while the opposition accuses the security forces of being behind the killings.

The Syrian government says that the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the armed militants are foreign nationals.

Damascus also says the insurgents are supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said on August 1 that the country is engaged in a “crucial and heroic” battle that will determine the destiny of the nation.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Bombing kills 27, injures 64 in northern Syria

Netanyahu accepts 20% uranium enrichment by Iran


Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (file photo)

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (file photo)
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accepted production of 20-percent enriched uranium by the Islamic Republic saying that enrichment to higher levels should be the “red line” for Tehran’s nuclear energy program.

In a meeting with German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle on Sunday, Netanyahu said the international community must set enriching uranium above 20 percent as the “red line” for Iran’s nuclear program.

The Israeli premier stated that if Iran enriched uranium above 20 percent it would indicate that Tehran had decided to exceed the level of refinement suitable for civilian energy and build an atomic bomb.

According the Israeli daily Haaretz, Westerwelle said Germany is opposed to any possible unilateral Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The US, Israel and some of their allies accuse Tehran of pursuing military objectives in its nuclear energy program.

Tel Aviv has repeatedly threatened Tehran with a military strike to pressure it to halt its nuclear energy work.

Iran refutes the allegations over its nuclear energy program and maintains that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a committed member of the International Atomic Energy Agency it has every right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Iranian officials have also promised a crushing response to any military strike against the country.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on Netanyahu accepts 20% uranium enrichment by Iran

Ex-ambassador to Iran castigates Canada embassy closure


Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (file photo)

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (file photo)

Canada’s reasons for acting so suddenly are not convincing. Iran seems as surprised by our action as other countries are. In the absence of… concrete information the question remains why have we taken this drastic action and in particular, why now?”

Canada’s last ambassador to Iran, John Mundy

Canada’s last ambassador to Iran John Mundy has sharply criticized his government for its abrupt severance of ties with the Islamic Republic.

“Canada’s action reduces our presence on the ground in Iran to zero. We will no longer have the ability to communicate directly with Iran’s government in Iran,” Mundy wrote in a column published in the Globe and Mail on Monday.

Canada announced on Friday that it is closing its embassy in Iran and asked the Iranian diplomats to leave the Canadian soil within five days.

The Canadian government has also frozen the bank accounts of many Iranian nationals living in Canada and banned money transfers to Iran.

Mundy, who served as ambassador in Tehran up to 2007, lambasted the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper for not offering convincing reasons for the embassy shutdown.

“Canada’s reasons for acting so suddenly are not convincing. Iran seems as surprised by our action as other countries are. In the absence of… concrete information the question remains why have we taken this drastic action and in particular, why now?”

The former diplomat called on the Canadian parliament to put the issue to debate. “Our opposition parties should move for an immediate debate in Parliament on our foreign policy towards Iran so that the Canadian people know where the government is leading us.”

“The government should explain how it sees a peaceful resolution of the nuclear [energy] issue with Iran given that [it] believes further diplomacy to be futile…. Our policy towards Iran is the first time in decades that a Canadian prime minister has acted to reduce the diplomatic opportunities for peace during a crisis,” wrote Mundy, currently Visiting Associate at the Center for International Policy Studies, University of Ottawa.

Mundy also held out the possibility of Harper government’s commitment to Israel in its threats of military strike on Iran. “Has the Canadian government decided to provide this type of support to Israel and seeing the danger to our diplomats, acted to pull them out in advance?…Parliament should know how committed Canada is to Israel, particularly in the event of [possible] Israeli military actions.”

Posted in Canada, IranComments Off on Ex-ambassador to Iran castigates Canada embassy closure

US not setting deadlines on Iran: Clinton


US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

 US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says Washington is “not setting deadlines” for a diplomatic resolution of the Western dispute over Iran’s nuclear energy program.

In an interview with Bloomberg Radio, Clinton claimed the US administration still considers a diplomatic solution as “by far the best approach,” but repeated the US rhetoric of pressure against the Islamic Republic.

In early 2012, the US and the EU approved new sanctions against Iran’s oil and financial sectors. The illegal embargoes aim to prevent other countries from purchasing the Iranian oil or transacting with the Central Bank of Iran.

The illegal US-engineered sanctions were imposed over the unfounded accusation that Iran is pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program.

Iran has vehemently refuted the allegation, arguing that as a committed signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, it is entitled to use nuclear technology for peaceful objectives.

“We’re convinced that we have more time to focus on these sanctions,” Clinton said in the interview.

In response to a question on whether the Obama administration would ‘lay out sharper red lines’ as requested by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Clinton said, “We’re not setting deadlines.”

On September 2, Netanyahu called on the international community to set a “clear red line” for Iran to halt its nuclear energy program.

Posted in USA, IranComments Off on US not setting deadlines on Iran: Clinton

Canada being steadily Zionized


File photo shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Canadian counterpart Stephen Harper.

File photo shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Canadian counterpart Stephen Harper.
By Wayne Madsen

Harper has also held on to power by showing utter contempt for Canada’s democratic institutions, including Parliament and the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms. This is the same contempt that pro-Israel neocon political leaders in the United States showed for American democratic institutions – the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the US Congress – in the wake of the neocon-contrived 9/11 terror attacks.”

If anyone wants to see what a US administration under Mormon-Zionist Mitt Romney would look like, one only has to look at the steady Zionization of Canada under the government of Tory Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Canada, a one-time independent-minded NATO member whose diplomatic offices were once valued by Third World governments as a trusted liaison to Washington, is now considered by many nations as more right-wing and anti-Muslim and anti-Arab than the United States. Canada’s recent decision to expel the Iranian embassy staff in Ottawa and call home Canadian diplomats in Tehran at the behest of Israel supporters in the Canadian Conservative Party and their allies in the right-wing government of Israel is a testament to Canada’s far-right foreign policy.

Immediately, after Canada’s suspension of relations with Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Israeli President Shimon Peres, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations praised Harper’s decision.

On September 4, Parti Quebecois (PQ) leader Pauline Marois was celebrating her victory in Quebec’s election in Montreal when a gunman named Richard Henry Bain, a local businessman, shot his way into the victory celebration venue, shooting two PQ supporters, killing one. Montreal law enforcement officials claimed later that Marois was the target of an assassination attempt. The history of the PQ, which advocates independence for Quebec, strongly suggests that Marois was targeted because of the pro-Palestinian policies of the PQ. Many PQ supporters, who feel that French-speaking Quebec deserves independence, have affinity with the plight of Palestine.

In 2000, Yves Michaud, a strongly pro-secession PQ member, said that Quebec’s Jews had little sympathy for Quebec nationalism because they believed that they were the only people who have suffered. Michaud accused Jewish organizations, including B’nai B’rith, of opposition to Quebec sovereignty.

Backing up Michaud was the former PQ Prime Minister of Quebec Jacques Parizeau. Many PQ supporters believe that it was the moneyed anti-secession Jewish interests of Montreal who helped narrowly defeat a 1995 Quebec independence referendum.

With the attempted assassination of Marois, Quebec independence supporters suspect, once again, Jewish involvement in the assassination plot. The supporters of secession also point to the increasingly anti-Quebec policies of Harper, who rules in lockstep with Israeli interests and the bloc of “Christian Zionists” who support Israel at any cost.

The anti-Quebec policies of Canada’s Zionists and neo-conservatives, which are basically synonymous terms, was seen in 2006 when many Quebec pro-sovereignty politicians came to the support of Lebanon when that nation was the target of a surprise Israeli attack.

Barbara Kay, a columnist for the neocon National Post, wrote a screed against pro-sovereignty Quebec politicians who attended an August 2006 rally in Montreal in support of Lebanon. The article, titled “The Rise of Quebecistan,” likened the PQ and BQ leaders to the Ku Klux Klan, Osama bin Laden, and the Nazis. It was later condemned by the Quebec Press Council as an example of “undue provocation” and “generalizations suitable to perpetuate prejudices.”

Among the targets of Canada’s Zionist infrastructure was the former Quebec PQ Minister for Citizenship and Immigration and Social Solidarity Minister and former PQ leader Andre Boisclair as well as former federal Bloc Quebecois (BQ) leader Gilles Duceppe, both of whom attended the Montreal rally in support of Lebanon.

The anti-Quebec nature of Israel’s supporters in Montreal and Ottawa necessarily begs the question of who was behind the violence against the PQ and the assassination attempt against the PQ’s Prime Minister-elect Marois.

Although there are three times as many Muslim and Arab Canadians as there are Canadian Jews, Harper only retains political control because of his favorable treatment by the Zionist media in Canada and the deep pockets of Canadian Jewish donors swelling his coffers. Harper has attempted to purge the government-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) of those who maintain an even-handed approach to Middle East issues in the same way that the Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio in the United States has seen a similar purge.

To cover their interests and bets, Canada’s Israel Lobby managed to place the opposition left-of-center New Democratic Party (NDP) into the control of Thomas Mulcair, who is unabashedly pro-Israel. The third largest party, the Liberals, have been led by pro-Israeli politicians since the premiership of Jean Chretien, who did not support the neo-con contrived invasion and occupation of Iraq. Michael Ignatieff, a former Liberal Party leader, was forced to apologize after he accused Israel of war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon while attending the UN Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa. Ignatieff was subsequently dumped from the Liberal Party leadership.

But Israel’s influence over Canadian policy lies within the ranks of the Conservative Party and Harper, who once declared, “I will defend Israel whatever the cost.” That clarion call led to a number of wealthy Jewish leaders of the Liberal Party defecting to Harper’s Tories. Harper‘s rabid policies are backed by a number of his Cabinet ministers, including Environment Minister Peter Kent, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney (who has barred from Canada leading pro-Palestinian activists and political leaders from around the world and cut off government funding for the Canadian Christian aid group KAIROS), and former International Trade and Public Security Minister Stockwell Day.

Harper has also held on to power by showing utter contempt for Canada’s democratic institutions, including Parliament and the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms. This is the same contempt that pro-Israel neocon political leaders in the United States showed for American democratic institutions – the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the US Congress – in the wake of the neocon-contrived 9/11 terror attacks.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, CanadaComments Off on Canada being steadily Zionized

Shoah’s pages


September 2012
« Aug   Oct »