Frederick William Engdahl
(born August 9, 1944)
is an American German historian, economic researcher, and freelance journalist:
For this installment of my free geopolitical newsletter I want to share a piece I wrote in 2014 well before the 2016 elections showed the overwhelming power of money in the US political spectrum, when a putative billionaire, Donald Trump, becomes President in one of the most bizarre election campaigns in not only US but world history and then, after promising to “drain the swamp” names a cabinet with more billionaires than any US President in history, and then goes on to push through a monumental tax “reform” that uniquely benefits the 1% to the detriment of the vast majority. I share this with you to give an indication from a quite other perspective how policies and politics in the United States over the course of the past decades has become so dangerously skewed to the one interest group which cares least about the health and welfare of the citizens of America or anywhere else for that matter.
If you find the installments of my free newsletter as well as my articles and interviews helpful to gain a clearer view of our world, I would very much hope that you purchase one or another of my several books via Amazon. I would also encourage you to consider making a support contribution at my website, www.williamengdahl.com, that I am able to continue offering my content for free.
For a better reading experience I converted the text to a pfd-file which You can find in the attachment of this mail. It's 4 pages in A4 format.
Thank you again for your interest,
F. William Engdahl
Princeton makes it official USA Has Become Oligarchy No Democracy
November 11, 2014 Author: F. William Engdahl
American media is fond of speaking about “Russian Oligarchs” as if Russia were the only nation that allowed accumulation of such unprecedented wealth. The Yeltsin days of dis-order and collapse indeed saw the rapid rise of many fortunes and oligarchs—persons of very much wealth. Some of them have proven patriotic citizens, some like Khodokorvsky or the late unlamented Boris Berezhovsky proved to be loveless gangsters. A new study, however by a Princeton University Professor of the influence of very wealthy or economically powerful persons on American political policies makes clear for the first time in such a study that a genuine American Oligarchy has staged a slow coup d’etat over US foreign and domestic policy over the past three decades since the era of Ronald Reagan. This American oligarchy today is the major force for war and dis-order across the planet.
I completed my undergraduate university studies in one of America’s most elite universities, Princeton. It was during the early 1960’s and classmates came from elite preparatory private schools like Andover or Exeter. Classmates with names like Firestone or Prince Faisal were attending. Then in those days tuition cost $650 a year, the price I paid for my used 1956 Chevy. I was only able to pay that because I was awarded a full university scholarship. Today tuition for one year at Princeton costs $43,450. Princeton speaks of money and elite families. So I noted with great interest a new study published by a Princeton professor and a colleague from Northwestern on wealth in America since 1981.
Martin Gilens is Professor of Politics at Princeton University together with Benjamin I. Page Professor at Northwestern University have published results of a unique analysis “using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.”
The study concludes that, “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination…”
Their study further concluded, “When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”
Finally they conclude, “…Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.”
In a subsequent media interview, Gilens noted what they concluded in their analysis of volumes of data from 1981-2002 for government policy decisions and the role of elites versus ordinary citizens in some 1,800 different policy initiatives: “One central factor is the role of money in our political system, and the overwhelming role that affluent individuals that affluent individuals and organized interests play, in campaign finance and in lobbying. And the second thing is the lack of mass organizations that represent and facilitate the voice of ordinary citizens. Part of that would be the decline of unions in the country which has been quite dramatic over the last 30 or 40 years. And part of it is the lack of a socialist or a worker’s party.”
The study verifies with ample empirical data what I have witnessed during the course of my own life as an American over the past four decades. There has been a silent coup d’etat of the monied class, an American oligarchy. Names such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, Sheldon Adelson (main financier of Mitt Romney for President in 2012), the Koch Brothers (main financiers of the Tea Party political movement), George H.W. Bush and family. The top 1% have reshaped the fundamentals of American life, culture and above all politics. A decision to wage war today against Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria depends not on the will of average Americans. Obama was elected on a pledge to close the US Army torture center at Guantanamo and six years on has yet to do. He won a Nobel Peace Prize in his first month and proceeded to wage more war in Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya and most recently Syria and Ukraine.
It is important to have this huge shift in mind when judging “America.” The United States of America today bears little resemblance to that I knew when I grew up in the early 1960’s, when a used good Chevy cost $650 and college tuition could be afforded by ordinary Americans if they were willing to study.
The oligarchy that has taken policy control behind a thin façade of “democracy” has ultimately ruined the industrial and social fabric of the United States. They are the ones behind the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or bank deregulation so they can loot the planet. This new study by Princeton’s Prof. Gilens is a refreshing attempt, even if academic, from one of the most elite academic universities, to shed some light on what is fundamentally wrong with America over the past three decades.
Hello Again Dear Reader,
This issue of my free newsletter I would like to devote to a selection from my book titled Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the new World Order. The book described the emergence of a radical new US military doctrine, officially called "Full Spectrum Dominance" by the Pentagon. It means that the stated US military policy is total domination across the spectrum--land, sea, air, space, outer space and cyber space. It chronicles the rise of the Washington warhawks, commonly called neo-conservatives, and what the true Pentagon agenda is that today is leading the United States into wars everywhere from Ukraine to Libya, from the South China Sea to Syria. The book details the systematic Washington strategy since the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War in late 1989-1990 to bring the borders of NATO to the doorstep of Russia in a manner so threatening to the future existence of the Russian Federation that she has been forced to completely revise her post-Cold War military strategy in self-defense. If you wish to have a clearer grasp of what is really going on in these global conflicts, I strongly suggest you will benefit from getting the book.
For a better reading experience I converted the text to a pfd-file (below) which You can find in the attachment of this mail. It's 10 pages in A4 format.
If You like the book, it would mean a lot to me if you leave a review on amazon. This helps me continue to create great content for you.
My thanks for your interest and best wishes,
F. William Engdahl
Amazon Reader Reviews of Full Spectrum Dominance:
"Essential reading" - Lori "The Rogue Reader Mom"
"A book everyone needs to read!" - William Fetty
"I highly recommend William Engdahl's Full Spectrum Dominance" - ThePrize
"A Valuable Read" - C. A. Fitts
"Great book!!" - ed
"Well researched and informative." - Isabella Hale
"Must read!" - Robin J. Zaleski
GET IT HERE: PAPERBACKKINDLE
Full Spectrum Dominance or Fully Mad?
‘Potentially the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia and perhaps Iran, an ‘anti-hegemonic’ coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances...Averting this contingency...will require a display of US geostrategic skill on the western, eastern and southern perimeters of Eurasia simultaneously.’--
Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1997 
During the eight years of the Bush Presidency, the role of America’s military might underwent a radical transformation. The annual official Pentagon budget, including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and their bloody aftermath, had exploded beyond all precedent. In the Fiscal Year 2001 before the declaration of the War on Terror influenced spending, the Pentagon had spent $333 billion on arms and manpower around the world to ‘defend democracy,’ above all what was defined as America’s ‘national security interests.’ By 2009 that annual sum had more than doubled, when "off-budget" Iraq and Afghan costs were included, to $711 billion. 
In comparison with the rest of the world’s spending on military the sums spent by Washington were even more impressive. United States was far and away the global leader in military spending. In 2008 it spent more than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined. Its Pentagon and related budget accounted for 48 percent of the world's total military spending, almost one half of every military dollar. Compared with potential rivals, the US spent on its military almost six times more than China, ten times more than Russia, and nearly one hundred times more than Iran. China, with the world’s second largest defense budget, spent $122 billion or some one-sixth of the US spending.
When the combined military budgets of the United States and all its NATO allies as well as key Pacific allies Japan, South Korea and Australia were totaled, the US-dominated alliance spent annually $1.1 trillion on their militaries combined, representing 72 percent of the world's total military spending. If sheer dollars and hardware were the sole criterion, the world would long ago have been a helpless vassal colony under US Full Spectrum Dominance.
The extent of permanent US military bases over that eight-year period had expanded enormously from the Middle East to Central Asia to Afghanistan and Pakistan and across Africa. The Pentagon had deployed every weapon in its arsenal from raw military conquest in Iraq to a more ‘soft power’ regime change into a pro-US dictatorship such as in Ukraine or the Republic of Georgia in the oil-rich Caucasus region of the former Soviet Union, or to support of a failed state as in Kosovo.
The strategic focus of that overwhelming US military buildup was the control of potential rivals on the Eurasian Continent, most directly, Russia and China.
Kosovo: Washington’s mafia state in the Balkans
Washington’s bizarre diplomatic recognition of the tiny breakaway province of Kosovo in the Balkans was indicative of their determination to use any and all means to extend their military reach into vital strategic areas of the globe after 2001.
In early 2008 the tiny breakaway region of Kosovo adjacent to Serbia declared its ‘independence.’ President Bush, then on a visit in Tanzania lost no time to declare, "The Kosovars are now independent." Washington formally recognized Kosovo as an independent country soon afterward, despite the objections of several European Union governments. It didn’t seem to bother the US State Department that Kosovo independence and its recognition openly violated UN resolutions for Kosovo and made a farce of the entire UN rule of international law.
The new Kosovo regime was headed by man identified by Interpol as well as German BND intelligence reports as a criminal, a boss of Kosovo organized crime responsible for drug running, extortion and prostitution. That was well known in Washington. It didn’t seem to matter.
Kosovo, formerly part of Yugoslavia, then Serbia, was being made into a de facto NATO client state run by organized crime ganglord, Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, in order to provide the US military unfettered control over the entire region extending to the Middle East and the Balkans. 
The 39 year old Thaci had earlier been a personal prot├ég├é of Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright during the 1990s, when he was a mere 30-year old gangster. The so-called Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was supported from the outset by the US Defense Intelligence Agency and British MI6 and reportedly also the German BND.
During the 1999 NATO war against Serbia the KLA was directly supported by NATO. Thaci, whose nom de guerre was Snake, was alleged to have ordered the killing of his KLA rivals back then as well.  He allegedly financed his arms purchases for the Kosovo Liberation Army by dealing in heroin trade across the Balkans. 
The question then became, why were Washington, NATO, the EU and the German Government so eager to legitimize the breakaway Kosovo? The answer was not hard to find. A Kosovo run internally by organized criminal networks was easy for NATO to control. It insured a weak state that was far easier to bring under NATO domination. Immediately after the bombing of Serbia in 1999 the Pentagon had seized a 1000 acre large parcel of land in Kosovo at Uresevic near the border to Macedonia, and awarded a contract to Halliburton when Dick Cheney was CEO, to build one of the largest US overseas military bases in the world, Camp Bondsteel as noted earlier. Camp Bondsteel was later revealed to be a site of alleged illegal CIA torture prisons.
Thaci’s dependence on US and NATO good graces insured Thaci’s government would do what it is told in matters of key foreign policy. That assured the US a major military gain consolidating its permanent presence in the strategically vital southeast Europe. It was a major step in consolidating NATO control of Eurasia, especially of Russia, and gave the US a large tilt its way in the European balance of power.
Little wonder Moscow did not welcome the development. Kosovo was part of a far larger and more dangerous Pentagon project to militarize the entire Greater Middle East as the Pentagon termed it. The US role was also instrumental in shaping the policies of its hand-picked President of nearby Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili, not just regarding membership in NATO but in provoking a military strike which threatened to restart the Cold War or worse in August 2008.
Georgia’s mad military play
In August 2008 after months of building tensions, Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakashvili ordered an invasion of the breakaway province South Ossetia. His decision was no lone act. He had met with former Bush strategist, Karl Rove in Ukraine three weeks prior to the invasion and had had frequent phone contact with Republican Presidential candidate John McCain, and met Secretary of State Condi Rice in Tbilisi July 10, one day after Rice had signed an agreement with the Czech Republic allowing the US to station advanced ballistic missile defense radar there. Rice, a Russian expert by background, reportedly backed Saakashvili’s plan to launch the attack while publicly claiming distance. 
Days after the war began, Saakashvili and his Defense Minister, a dual citizen with an Israeli passport and fluent Hebrew language command, told the press, much to the embarrassment of Tel Aviv officials, that Georgia’s military owed a debt to Israel for arming and training its forces. "Israel should be proud of its military, which trained Georgian soldiers," Georgian Minister for Reintegration, Temur Yakobashvili, told Israel's Army Radio in Hebrew, shortly after the fighting erupted, raising more than a few eyebrows in European diplomatic circles. Israel had reportedly sold Georgia some 200 million dollars worth of equipment since 2000, including remotely piloted planes, rockets, night-vision equipment, other electronic systems and training by former senior Israeli officers.
Israel claimed it was not a major supplier of arms to Georgia, insisting that the US and France supplied Tbilisi with most of its weapons. Debka, an Israeli news service with reportedly close Mossad ties, reported:
Israel’s interest in the conflict from its[Debka] exclusive military sources: Jerusalem owns a strong interest in Caspian oil and gas pipelines reach the Turkish terminal port of Ceyhan, rather than the Russian network. Intense negotiations are afoot between Israel Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan for pipelines to reach Turkey and thence to Israel’s oil terminal at Ashkelon and on to its Red Sea port of Eilat. From there, supertankers can carry the gas and oil to the Far East through the Indian Ocean.’ 
In the event, Israel promptly announced suspension of all arms sales to Georgia, fearing, according to diplomatic sources, that Russia would retaliate by selling advanced anti-missile missiles to Iran. 
Months later a special Ukrainian Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into allegations of illegal arms sales by Ukraine’s pro-NATO President, Viktor Yushchenko. The commission found that the President was implicated in an illegal arms sale and fraudulent under-reporting of it to Ukraine tax authorities. Ukraine had supplied weapons to Georgia even after the war with Russia had broken out. Valery Konovaliuk, head of the Ukrainian Parliamentary Ad Hoc Investigation Commission stated to the press that the commission held documents confirming that Ukraine went on with its supplies of arms to Georgia even after the conflict with Russia started. He claimed certain documents indicated that ammunition and artillery guns, disguised as humanitarian aid, were shipped to Batumi September 22, 2008, long after the end of the conflict.
The Ukraine commission also found that there had been embezzlement of revenues from the arms sales, with large sums not reaching the state treasury and defense ministry accounts. According to calculations, Ukraine sold $2 billion worth of arms over three years, while $840 million were officially declared. The rest presumably lined the pockets of Yushchenko and friends.
Washington’s de facto client regimes in Ukraine and Georgia after 2004 were being exposed as ill-disguised gangster dictatorships posing as ‘democracies,’ a form of totalitarian democracy in which laws were irrelevant when it hindered the goals of the US-backed Yushchenko in Ukraine or Saakashvili in the Republic of Georgia.
As Washington was engaged in heating up the Balkans and Ukraine against Russia, it was simultaneously also upping the stakes against China in the developing war over oil and strategic raw materials taking place in, especially, Africa.
AFRICOM, China and Resource Wars
Just weeks after President George W. Bush signed the Order creating AFRICOM, the new US military command dedicated to Africa, events on the mineral-rich continent erupted which suggested a major agenda of the incoming Obama Presidency would be to focus US resources, military and other, on dealing with the Republic of Congo, the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea, the oil-rich Darfur region of southern Sudan, and increasingly the Somali ‘pirate threat’ to sea lanes in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.
The African Continent had what most geologists believed contained the planet’s most abundant mineral riches. With China, Russia, India and other potential ‘rivals’ for hegemony beginning to develop ties to various African nations and their raw materials, the Washington response was clearòÀÔmilitary.
No sooner had AFRICOM become operational on October 1, 2008 than major new crises broke out Kivu Province in the Republic of Congo. The common thread connecting Kivu and Darfur in southern Sudan, was the strategic importance of both regions for China’s future strategic raw materials flow. Washington policy was simple. It intended to get into a position of what military circles termed ‘strategic denial,’ the ability to cut off those vital mineral and oil flows to a potential rival such as China.
Curiously enough, unlike the case of Darfur, no Washington outcry of genocide was heard over the staggering number of deaths in the Republic of the Congo, even though the numbers mentioned for Congo were orders of magnitude larger than cited as proof of Darfur genocide. According to the International Rescue Committee, more than 5,400,000 Congolese civilians had died due to war during the ten years after 1998. Most of the deaths occurred in eastern Congo where rebel leader Laurent Nkunda continued to wage a resources war against a democratically elected and internationally recognized government. Laurent Nkunda alleged that he was protecting the minority Tutsi ethnic group in the Congo against remnants of the Rwandan Hutu army that fled to the Democratic Republic of the Congo after the Rwandan genocide in 1994.
The most intense fighting in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) had broken out in late August 2008 when Tutsi militiamen from Nkunda’s Congr├ès National pour la D├éfense du Peuple (CNDP) forced loyalist troops of the Congo’s Forces arm├ées de la R├épublique d├émocratique du Congo (FARDC) to retreat from their positions near Lake Kivu, sending hundreds of thousands of displaced civilians fleeing and prompting the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, to warn of the imminent risk of ‘huge massacres.’
Nkunda, like his patron, Rwanda’s Washington-backed dictator Paul Kagame, was an ethnic Tutsi. UN peacekeepers reported no such atrocities against the minority Tutsi in northeast, the mineral rich Kivu region. Congolese sources reported that attacks against Congolese of all ethnic groups were a daily occurrence in the region. Laurent Nkunda's troops were responsible for most of these attacks, they claimed.
The political chaos in Congo was furthered in September when the Democratic Republic of Congo’s 83 year old Prime Minister, Antoine Gizenga, resigned. Then in October 2008, with suspicious timing, the commander of the United Nations peacekeeping operation, the Mission de l'Organisation des Nations-Unies au Congo (MONUC), Spanish Lieutenant General Vicente Diaz de Villegas resigned after less than two months on the job citing, ‘lack of confidence’ in the leadership of DRC President Joseph Kabila.
Kabila, the Congo’s first democratically elected President, had himself been involved in negotiating a major $9 billion trade agreement between the DRC and China, something which Washington was clearly not happy about. In April 2008 Kabila had given an interview to a Belgian newspaper, Le Soir, where he declared that China was now Congo's most important trade and development partner, promising that its influence would expand further at the cost of Europe. The interview was made after a Belgian government delegation raised human rights and corruption concerns during an official visit to Congo, which the president considered arrogant and provocative. The Belgian colonial record for human rights abuses in the Congo was hardly exemplary.
Kabila was quoted as saying that Congo had made an "irreversible choice" to pick China as its preferred partner instead of Europe and Belgium, Congo's former colonial master. 
Not long after the Le Soir interview Nkunda launched his new offensive. Nkunda was a long-standing henchman of Rwandan President, US-trained Kagame. All signs pointed to a heavy, if covert, USA role in the Congo killings by Nkunda’s men. Nkunda himself was a former Congolese Army officer, a teacher and Seventh Day Adventist pastor. But killing seemed to be what he was best at.
Much of Nkunda's well-equipped and relatively disciplined forces were from the bordering country of Rwanda, where US military trainers had been active. The rest had been recruited from the minority Tutsi population of the Congolese province of North Kivu. Supplies, finance and political support for his Congolese rebel army came from Rwanda. According to the American Spectator magazine, ‘President Paul Kagame of Rwanda has long been a supporter of Nkunda, who originally was an intelligence officer in the Rwanda leader's overthrow of the Hutu despotic rule in his country.’
The Congo News Agency declared that it was not to protect his native Tutsi brothers that Nkunda was fighting, but charged, ‘his true motives which are to occupy the mineral-rich North-Kivu province, pillage its resources, and act as a proxy army in eastern Congo for the Tutsi-led Rwandan government in Kigali. Kagame wants a foothold in eastern Congo so his country can continue to benefit from the pillaging and exporting of minerals such as Columbite-Tantalite (Coltan). Many experts on the region agree today that resources are the true reason why Laurent Nkunda continues to create chaos in the region with the help of Paul Kagame.’ 
 Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: America’s Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, New York, Basic Books, 1997, p. 55.
 Travis Sharp, US Defense Spending, 2001-2009, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Washington D.C., accessed in http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/defense_spending_since_2001/.
 Ibid, Global Military Spending.
 Robert Wielaard, Kosovo recognition irritates Russia and China, The Associated Press, February 19, 2008.
 Guenther Lachmann, BND Kosovo affair: German spy affair might have been revenge, Die Welt online,
November 30, 2008, accessed in http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2806537/German-spy-affair-might-have-been-revenge.html. In their February 22, 2005 report then marked ‘Top Secret,’ the German BND, its equivalent to the CIA, described the band around Thaci as follows: ‘├Über die Key-Player (wie z.B. Haliti, Thaci, Haradinaj) bestehen engste Verflechtungen zwischen Politik, Wirtschaft und international operierenden OK-Strukturen im Kosovo. Die dahinter stehenden kriminellen Netzwerke f├╢rdern dort die politische Instabilit├ät. Sie haben kein Interesse am Aufbau einer funktionierenden staatlichen Ordnung, durch die ihre florierenden Gesch├äfte beeintr├ächtigt werden k├╢nnen.┬ë (OK = Organisierte Kriminalit├ät or Organized Crime): [‘In regard to the key players (for example Haliti, Thaci, Haradinaj) there exists the closest of links between political life, the economy and international organized crime structures in Kosovo. The criminal network behind them produces political instability. They have no interest whatsoever in building a functioning orderly state which might possibly threaten their booming business.’]
 The Scotsman, Glasgow, 29 August 1999. Canadian researcher, Michel Chossudovsky, reported, ‘Confirmed by British military sources, the task of arming and training of the KLA had been entrusted in 1998 to the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Britain's Secret Intelligence Services MI6, together with "former and serving members of 22 SAS [Britain's 22nd Special Air Services Regiment], as well as three British and American private security companies." (Michel Chossudovsky, ‘Osamagate,’ October 9, 2001, accessed in http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html.
 Chris Hedges, Leaders of Kosovo Rebels Tied to Deadly Power Play, The New York Times, June 25, 1999.
 Jerry Seper, "KLA finances fight with heroin sales Terror group is linked to crime network," The Washington Times, Washington, D.C., May 3, 1999.
 Yalta European Strategy (YES), 5th Yalta Annual Meeting,Yalta, Ukraine, 10 òÀÓ 13 July 2008, accessed in http://www.yes-ukraine.org/en/programyes5.html. Helene Cooper and Thom Shanker, After Mixed US Messages, a War Erupted in Georgia, The New York Times, August 12, 2008.
 Peter Hirschberg, Georgia: Israeli Arms Sales Raise New Concerns, IPS, August 12, 2008, accessed in http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43524.
 Debka File, Israel backs Georgia in Caspian Oil Pipeline Battle with Russia, August 8, 2008, accessed in http://www.prisonplanet.com/israel-backs-georgia-in-caspian-oil-pipeline-battle-with-russia.html.
 Peter Hirschberg, Op. Cit.
 ZIK, Ukraine continued supplies of arms to Georgia even after the conflict erupted òÀÓ Valery Konovaliuk, October 8, 2008, accessed in http://zik.com.ua/en/news/2008/10/08/152825.
 Daniel Volman, Africom: From Bush to Obama, December 3, 2008, accessed in http://pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/52409.
 Congo News Agency, War Crimes in the Congo by Laurent Nkunda and Paul Kagame,
Congo News Agency, October 30, 2008, accessed in www.congoplanet.com.
 The irony of a Belgian government attacking a Congolese government’s human rights record was not lost on Kabila. Belgium’s colonial history in the Congo is one of the most brutal of the European colonial powers in the period before the Second World War. Belgian King Leopold actually carried out systematic torture and murder of Congolese on his rubber plantations until his death in 1909. See Genocide Studies Program, Yale University, Belgian Congo, accessed in http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/belgian_congo/index.html.
 ____, Belgian paper: Kabila says China is now key trade partner for Congo at expense of EU, The International Herald Tribune, April 24, 2008, accessed in http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/24/europe/EU-GEN-Belgium-Congo-China.php.
 George H. Wittmann, Another Congo Crisis, November 21, 2008, American Spectator, accessed in http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/21/another-congo-crisis.
 Congo News Agency, Op. Cit.
Strasse der Republik 17
Wiesbaden Hessen 65203
Dear GHA peacemakers:
This book: Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the new World Order is the best work about the USA totalitarian and militaristic democracy in the 21st century. I was happy to publish its 11th Chapter on the Dr. William Engdahl personal page here: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=659
Question to the President Trump: What is your catharsis, the cleansing of America from this Obama-Clinton's heritage of "complete and total disaster"?: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=685
Question to the President Trump's opponents and zombie enemies (Troy Davis, Zwarich and 50% of Americans): Why do you prevent your elected President to clear America from the "complete and total disaster" of totalitarian militaristic democracy? Because you are the enemies of the true democracy, because you are zombie militarists manipulated by your fake mainstream media? Maybe you are massively ill "neo-conservative, neo-liberal paranoia" as Jacob Aitken writes (Ibid)? Or why else? Please, read this book to understand your true democracy and your true essence and to help your President in your and his Catharsis from totalitarian militaristic democracy!
Many thanks to Dr. William Engdahl for this genius and courageous book for all schools and universities as part and great introduction to Global Peace Science.
Best wishes for peace from harmony of SPHERONS,
Dr Leo Semashko
GHA Honorary President
F. William Engdahl. Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order (2009):
For the faction that controls the Pentagon, the military industry and the oil industry, the Cold War never ended. It went on 'below the radar' creating a global network of bases and conflicts to advance their long-term goal of Full Spectrum Dominance, the total control of the planet: land, sea, air, space, outer space and cyberspace. Their methods included control of propaganda, use of NGOs for regime change, Color Revolutions to advance NATO east, and a vast array of psychological and economic warfare techniques, a Revolution in Military Affairs as they termed it. The events of September 11, 2001 would allow an American President to declare a war on an enemy who was everywhere and nowhere, who justified a Patriot Act that destroyed that very freedom in the name of the new worldwide War on Terror. This book gives a disturbing look at that strategy of Full Spectrum Dominance, at what is behind a strategy that could lead us into a horrific nuclear war in the very near future, and at the very least, to a world at continuous war.
Äëÿ ýëèòû, êîòîðàÿ êîíòðîëèðóåò Ïåíòàãîí, âîåííóþ èíäóñòðèþ è íåôòÿíóþ ïðîìûøëåííîñòü, õîëîäíàÿ âîéíà íèêîãäà íå çàêàí÷èâàëàñü. Îíà èäåò "íèæå âèäèìîñòè ðàäàðà", ñîçäàâàÿ ãëîáàëüíóþ ñåòü áàç è êîíôëèêòîâ, ÷òîáû äîñòè÷ü ñâîè äîëãîñðî÷íûå öåëè ïîëíîãî ñïåêòðà äîìèíèðîâàíèÿ, òîòàëüíîãî êîíòðîëÿ ïëàíåòû: çåìëè, ìîðÿ, âîçäóõà, êîñìîñà è êèáåðïðîñòðàíñòâà. Åå ìåòîäû âêëþ÷àþò êîíòðîëü ïðîïàãàíäû, èñïîëüçîâàíèå ÍÏÎ äëÿ ñìåíû ðåæèìîâ, Öâåòíûå ðåâîëþöèè äëÿ ïðîäâèæåíèÿ ÍÀÒÎ íà âîñòîê, îãðîìíûé ìàññèâ ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèõ è ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ ìåòîäîâ âåäåíèÿ âîéíû, ðåâîëþöèþ â âîåííîì äåëå, êàê îíè íàçûâàþò ýòî. Ñîáûòèÿ 11 ñåíòÿáðÿ 2001 ãîäà ïîçâîëèëè àìåðèêàíñêîìó ïðåçèäåíòó îáúÿâèòü âîéíó âðàãó, êîòîðûé áûë âåçäå è íèãäå, ïðèíÿòü Çàêîí î ïàòðèîòèçìå, êîòîðûé ðàçðóøèë ñàìó ñâîáîäó ðàäè íîâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû ñ òåððîðîì. Ýòà êíèãà – áåñïîêîéíûé âçãëÿä íà Ïåíòàãîíîâñêóþ ñòðàòåãèþ «Ïîëíîãî ñïåêòðà äîìèíèðîâàíèÿ», íà òî, ÷òî íàõîäèòñÿ çà íåé, ÷òî ìîãëî áû ïðèâåñòè íàñ ê óæàñàþùåé ÿäåðíîé âîéíå â ñàìîì áëèæàéøåì áóäóùåì, è, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, ê ìèðó â íåïðåðûâíîé âîéíå.)
Jacob Aitken: This book by William Engdahl succinctly explains the neo-conservative, neo-liberal paranoia (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7273174-full-spectrum-dominance)
“Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order”
Review of F. William Engdahl's book
By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, June 22, 2009
For over 30 years, F. William Engdahl has been a leading researcher, economist, and analyst of the New World Order with extensive writing to his credit on energy, politics, and economics. He contributes regularly to business and other publications, is a frequent speaker on geopolitical, economic and energy issues, and is a distinguished Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Engdahl’s two previous books include “A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order” explaining that America’s post-WW II dominance rests on two pillars and one commodity – unchallengeable military power and the dollar as the world’s reserve currency along with the quest to control global oil and other energy resources.
Engdahl’s other book is titled “Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation” on how four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting all life forms to force-feed GMO foods on everyone – even though eating them poses serious human health risks.
Engdahl’s newest book is reviewed below. Titled “Full Strectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order,” it discusses America’s grand strategy, first revealed in the 1998 US Space Command document – Vision for 2020. Later released in 2000 as DOD Joint Vision 2020, it called for “full spectrum dominance” over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any adversary, including with nuclear weapons preemptively.
Other means as well, including propaganda, NGOs and Color Revolutions for regime change, expanding NATO eastward, and “a vast array of psychological and economic warfare techniques” as part of a “Revolution in Military Affairs” discussed below.
September 11, 2001 served as pretext to consolidate power, destroy civil liberties and human rights, and wage permanent wars against invented enemies for global dominance over world markets, resources, and cheap labor – at the expense of democratic freedoms and social justice. Engdahl’s book presents a frightening view of the future, arriving much sooner than most think.
After the Soviet Union’s dissolution in late 1989, America had a choice. As the sole remaining superpower, it could have worked for a new era of peace and prosperity, ended decades of Cold War tensions, halted the insane arms race, turned swords into plowshares, and diverted hundreds of billions annually from “defense” to “rebuild(ing) civilian infrastructure and repair(ing) impoverished cities.”
Instead, Washington, under GHW Bush and his successors, “chose stealth, deception, lies and wars to attempt to control the Eurasian Heartland – its only potential rival as an economic region – by military (political, and economic) force,” and by extension planet earth through an agenda later called “full spectrum dominance.”
As a result, the Cold War never ended and today rages with over a trillion dollars spent annually on “defense” in all forms even though America has no enemy, nor did it after the Japanese surrendered in August 1945. So the solution was to invent them, and so they were.
Post-Soviet Russia, “The ‘new’ Cold War assumed various disguises and deceptive tactics until September 11, 2001″ changed the game. It let George Bush “declare (a) permanent (Global War on Terror) against an enemy who was everywhere and nowhere, who allegedly threatened the American way of life, justified (police state) laws,” and is now destroying our freedoms and futures.
The roots of the scheme go back decades – at least to 1939 when powerful New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) insiders planned a post-war world with one nation alone triumphant and unchallengeable.
Engdahl’s book is a geopolitical analysis of the past two decades – peering into “the dark corners of Pentagon strategy and actions and the extreme dangers (‘full spectrum dominance’ holds for) the future,” not just to America but the entire world.
Things are so out-of-control today that democratic freedoms and planetary life itself are threatened by “the growing risk of nuclear war by miscalculation” or the foolhardy assumption that waging it can be limited, controlled, and safe – like turning a faucet on and off. The very notion is implausible and reckless on its face, yet powerful forces in the country think this way and plan accordingly.
The Guns of August 2008
On the 8th day of the 8th month of the 8th year of the new century, a place few people in the West ever heard of made headlines when Georgia’s army invaded South Ossetia – its province that broke away in 1991 and declared its independence. For a brief period, world tensions were more heightened than at any time since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when only cooler heads avoided possible nuclear war.
Like then, the crisis was a Washington provocation with tiny Georgia a mere pawn in a dangerous high-stakes confrontation – a new Great Game that former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski described in his 1997 book, “The Grand Chessboard.”
He called Eurasia the “center of world power extending from Germany and Poland in the East through Russia and China to the Pacific and including the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.” He explained that America’s urgent task was to assure that “no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.” Dominating that part of the world is key to controlling the planet, and its the main reason for NATO’s existence. From inception, its mission was offense.
Post-Cold War, Washington used the illusion of democracy to dominate everywhere – with the long arm of the Pentagon and NATO as enforcers. Euphoric East Europeans couldn’t know that American-style democracy was even more repressive than what had ended. Decades of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe propaganda was soon revealed to be no different than the Soviet system they rejected and in some ways much worse.
Western-imposed “shock therapy” meant “free market” hokum, mass privatizations, ending the public sphere, unrestricted access for foreign corporations unemcumbered by pesky regulations, deep social service cuts, loss of job security, poverty wages, repressive laws, and entire economies transformed to benefit a powerful corporate ruling class partnered with corrupted political elites. Globally, Russia got billionaire “oligarchs,” China “the princelings,” Chile “the piranhas,” and in new millennium America the Bush-Cheney “Pioneers” and Obama Wall Street Top Guns wrecking global havoc for self-enrichment.
As for ordinary people, Russia is instructive for what’s heading everywhere:
– mass impoverishment;
– an epidemic of unemployment;
– loss of pensions and social benefits;
– 80% of farmers bankrupted;
– tens of thousands of factories closed and the country de-industrialized;
– schools closed;
– housing in disrepair;
– skyrocketing alcoholism, drug abuse, HIV/AIDS, suicides, and violent crime; and
– a declining population and life expectancy because the country was looted for profit and all safety nets ended; what Milton Friedman called “freedom.”
Mikhail Gorvachev tried to revitalize Soviet Russia with Glasnost and Perestroika but failed. In return for agreeing to “shock therapy” and nuclear disarmament, GHW Bush promised no eastward NATO extension into newly liberated Warsaw Pact countries. The Russian Duma, in fact, ratified Start II, providing a firm disarmament schedule – contingent on both countries prohibiting a missile defense deployment as stipulated under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM).
On December 14, 2001, the Bush administration withdrew from ABM and much more. It claimed the right to develop and test new nuclear weapons (in violation of NPT), rescinded the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, greatly increased military spending, refused to consider a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to increase already large stockpiles, and claimed the right to wage preventive wars under the doctrine of “anticipatory self-defense” using first-strike nuclear weapons.
The door was now open for enhanced militarization, creation of the US Missile Defense Agency, and proof again that trusting America is foolhardy and dangerous. Both GHW Bush and Bill Clinton lied by enticing former Warsaw Pact countries into NATO, one by one.
At the beginning of the 1990s, Zbigniew Brzezinski described America’s arrogance this way:
“Presidential travels abroad assumed the trappings of imperial expeditions, overshadowing in scale and security demands the circumstances of any other statesman (reflecting) America’s anointment as the world’s leader (to be) in some respects reminiscent of Napoleon’s self-coronation.”
Brzezinski understood the dangers of imperial arrogance, causing the decline and fall of previous empires. Even a superpower like the US is vulnerable. He was very comfortable with an American Century, only leery of the means to achieve and keeping it. In 2008, with 28 NATO country members, including 10 former Warsaw Pact ones, Washington sought admission for Georgia and Ukraine, and did so after announcing in early 2007 the planned installation of interceptor missiles in Poland and advanced tracking radar in the Czech Republic, both NATO members.
Allegedly for defense against Iran and other “rogue” states, it clearly targeted Russia by guaranteeing America a nuclear first-strike edge, and that provoked a sharp Kremlin response. Washington’s deployment is for offense as are all US/NATO installations globally.
Vladimir Putin expressed outrage in his February 2007 Munich International Conference on Security address stating:
“NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders. (It) does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. on the contrary, it represent a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have a right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?”
Putin’s speech drew a storm of US media Russia-bashing. Last August, it got this writer to comment in an article titled “Reinventing the Evil Empire,” saying: Russia is back, proud and re-assertive, and not about to roll over for America, especially in Eurasia. For Washington, it’s back to the future with a new Cold War, but this time for greater stakes and with much larger threats to world peace.
Over the past two decades, Washington upped the ante, encroaching on Russia’s borders and encircling it with NATO/US bases clearly designed for offense and to block the spread of democratic freedoms to former Soviet Republics. “Diabolical propaganda” made it work by projecting imperial America as a colonial liberator bringing “free market” capitalism to the East. It succeeded as “long as the United States was the world’s largest economy and American dollars were in demand as (the) de facto world reserve currency….” For decades, America “portray(ed) itself as the beacon of liberty for newly independent nations of Africa and Asia,” as well as former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact nations.
Geopolitical Reality – America’s New Manifest Destiny, Global Expansion to the Vastness of Eurasia
For over a century, America sought “total economic and military control over (Soviet) Russia” through the full strength of its military-industrial-security sectors – by war or other means. From 1945, the Pentagon planned a first-strike nuclear war, an “all out conventional war (called) TOTALITY (as) drafted by General Dwight Eisenhower” per Harry Truman’s order, the same man who used atomic weapons against a defeated Japan instead of accepting its requested surrender.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, America’s superpower supremacy depends on “precluding Eurasian countries from developing their own defense pillars or security structures independent of US-controlled NATO,” especially to prevent a powerful China-Russia alliance capable of serious challenge, along with other Eurasian states, notably oil rich ones.
As geopolitical strategist Halford Mackinder (1861 – 1947) observed in his most famous dictum:
“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
Who rules the World-Island commands the World.”
Mackinder’s World-Island was Eurasia, all of Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
Early in the last century and notably post-WW II, America determined to rule even at the risk of all out nuclear war. For its part, Britain intended to stay in the game, and in April 1945, Winston Churchill urged Dwight Eisenhower and Franklin Roosevelt “to launch an immediate full-scale war against the Soviet Union, using up to 12 captured German divisions (as) cannon fodder to destroy Russia once and for all.”
Instead, Washington invented a post-war enemy, and got Europe and Asian countries to feel threatened enough to agree to US dictates, even ones contrary to their own interests. As for America, in 1945, Truman ordered Eisenhower “to prepare secret plans for a surprise nuclear strike on some (Soviet) cities (despite knowing the Kremlin) posed no direct or immediate threat to the United States” or its close allies.
A nuclear-armed Russia with intercontinental missile capabilities halted the threat – until the 2001 Bush Doctrine asserted the right to wage preventive wars, with first-strike nuclear weapons, to depose foreign regimes perceived dangerous to US security and interests. That was the strategy behind the 2008 Georgian conflict that could have escalated into nuclear war.
Defused for the moment, “a number of leading US policy makers (see Russia today) as unfinished business (and seek its) complete dismemberment (as) an independent pivot for Eurasia.” Nuclear superiority, encirclement, and “diabolical propaganda” are three tools among others to finish the job and leave America the sole remaining superpower. Disempowering Russia and China will create an open field for a “total global American Century – the realization of ‘full spectrum dominance,’ as the Pentagon called it.”
Today, under Obama as under Bush, the risk of nuclear war by miscalculation is highest in nearly half a century. With America the clear aggressor, Russia may feel its only option is strike first while able or delay and face the consequences when it’s too late. The closer offensive nuclear missiles are to its borders, the nearer it gets to disempowerment, further dismemberment, and possible nuclear annihilation.
Its reaction left few doubts of its response. In February 2007, Strategic Rocket Forces commander Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov said “Moscow would target US Ballistic Missile Defense sites with its nuclear arsenal if Washington” proceeded with its plans. Putin delivered harsh rhetoric and announced Russia would spend $190 billion over the next eight years to modernize its military by 2015 and that state-of-the-art weapons would take precedence. His message was clear. A New Cold War/nuclear arms race was on with Russia ready to contend “out of national survival considerations,” not a desire for confrontation.
“Missile Defense” for Offense
On March 23, 1983, Ronald Reagan proposed the idea in a speech calling for greater Cold War military spending, including a huge R & D program for what became known as “Star Wars” – in impermeable anti-missile space shield called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). The idea then (and now) was fantasy, but a glorious one for defense contractors who’ve profited hugely ever since.
The Clinton administration gave it modest support until the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 proposed an active missile defense “as soon as is technologically possible….”
When George Bush became president, Donald Rumsfeld wanted war preparations to include missile defense and space-based weapons to destroy targets anywhere in the world quickly for “full spectrum dominance.” The strategy included “deployment of a revolutionary new technique of regime change to impose or install ‘US-friendly’ regimes throughout the former Soviet Union and across Eurasia.”
Controlling Russia – Color Revolutions and Swarming Coups
“Swarming” is a RAND Corporation term referring to “communication patterns and movement of” bees and other insects and applying it to military conflict by other means. It plays out through covert CIA actions to overthrow democratically elected governments, remove foreign leaders and key officials, prop up friendly dictators, and target individuals anywhere in the world.
Also through propaganda and activities of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and National Democratic Institute (NDI) – posing as NGOs but, in fact, are US government-funded organizations charged with subverting democracy, uprooting it where it exists, or preventing its creation by criminally disruptive means. Methods include non-violent strikes, mass street protests, and major media agitprop for regime change – much like what’s now playing out in Iran after its presidential election.
Other recent examples include the Belgrade 2000 coup against Slobodan Misosevic, Georgia’s 2003 Rose Revolution ousting Eduard Shevardnadze for the US-installed stooge, Mikheil Saakashvili, and the 2004-05 Ukraine Orange Revolution, based on faked electoral fraud, to install another Washington favorite, Viktor Yushchenko. The idea is to isolate Russia by cutting off its economic lifeline – the “pipeline networks that (carry its) huge reserves of oil and natural gas from the Urals and Serbia to Western Europe and Eurasia…” They run through Ukraine, a nation “so intertwined (with Russia) economically, socially and culturally, especially in the east of the country, that they were almost indistinguishable from one another.”
Achieving geopolitical aims this way is far simpler and cheaper than waging wars “while convincing the world (that regime change was the result of) spontaneous outbursts for freedom. (It’s) a dangerously effective weapon.”
In 1953, cruder CIA methods toppled democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh – the agency’s first successful coup d’etat to install Reza Shah Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran.
In 1954, it deposed the popularly elected Jacobo Arbenz and replaced him with a military dictator – on the pretext of removing a non-existent communist threat. Arbenz, like other targets, threatened US business interests by favoring land reform, strong unions, and wealth distribution to alleviate extreme poverty in their countries.
Short of war, various tactics aim to prevent them: “propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, bought elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, transportation strikes, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination (culminating in) a military (or other coup to install) a ‘pro-American’ right-wing dictator” – while claiming it’s democracy in action. For decades, countries in Latin America, the Middle East, and other world regions have been frequent victims.
Since the CIA’s 1947 creation, “national security” and a fake communist threat justified every imaginable crime from propaganda to economic warfare, sabotage, assassinations, coup d’etats, torture, foreign wars and much more.
However, by the 1960s, new forms of covert regime change emerged along the lines that RAND studies called “swarming” – the idea being to develop social manipulation techniques or disruptive outbreaks short of wars or violent uprisings. After 2000, as mentioned above, they played out in Central Europe’s Color Revolutions. According to State Department and intelligence community officials, “It seemed to be the perfect model for eliminating regimes opposed to US policy,” whether or not popularly elected. Every regime is now vulnerable to “new methods of warfare” by other means, including economic ones very much in play now and earlier.
Organizations like the Gene Sharp Albert Einstein Institution, George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, Freedom House and others are very much involved, and Sharp’s web site admits being active with “pro-democracy” groups in Burma, Thailand, Tibet, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, and Serbia. They all conveniently “coincided with the US State Department’s targets for regime change over the same period.”
Eurasian Pipeline Wars
Central to the current conflict is control of the region’s vast oil and gas reserves, and as long as Russia can use its resources “to win economic allies in Western Europe, China, and elsewhere, it (can’t) be politically isolated.” As a result, Moscow reacts harshly to military encirclement and bordering Color Revolutions – hostile acts, the geopolitical equivalence of war.
For America to remain the sole superpower, controlling global oil and gas flows is crucial along with cutting off China from Caspian Sea reserves and securing the energy routes and networks between Russia and the EU.
It’s why America invaded and occupies Afghanistan and Iraq, incited Baltic wars in the 1990s, attacked Kosovo and Serbia in 1999, threatens Iran repeatedly and imposes sanctions, and keeps trying to oust Hugo Chavez. For its part under Vladimir Putin, Russia’s economy began to grow for the first time in decades. It’s rich in oil and gas, and uses them strategically to gain influence enough to rival Washington, especially in alliance with China and other former Soviet states like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, united in the 2001-formed Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Iran and India having observer status.
Under Bush-Cheney, Washington reacted aggressively. “full spectrum dominance” is the aim with Russia and China the main targets. Controlling world energy resources is central, and nothing under Obama has changed. Iraq’s occupation continues and Afghanistan operations are enhanced with increased troop deployments under newly appointed General Stanley McChrystal’s command – a hired gun, a man with a reputation for brutishness that includes torture, assassinations, indifference to civilian deaths, and willingness to destroy villages to save them.
As long as Russia and China stay free from US control, “full spectrum dominance” is impossible. Encircling the former with NATO bases, Color Revolutions, and incorporating former Soviet states into NATO and the EU are all part of the same grand strategy – “deconstruct(ing) Russia once and for all as a potential rival to a sole US Superpower hegemony.”
Vladimir Putin stands in the way, “a dynamic nationalist (leader) committed to rebuilding” his country. In 2003, a defining geopolitical event occurred when Putin had billionaire oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, arrested on charges of tax evasion and put his shares in giant Yukos Oil group under state control.
It followed a decisive Russian Duma (lower house) election in which Khodorkovsky “was reliably alleged” to have used his wealth for enough votes to gain a majority – to challenge Putin in 2004 for president. Khodorkovsky violated his pledge to stay out of politics in return for keeping his assets and stolen billions provided he repatriate enough of them back home.
His arrest also came after a report surfaced about a meeting with Dick Cheney in Washington, followed by others with ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco. They discussed acquiring a major stake of up to 40% of Yukos or enough to give Washington and Big Oil “de facto veto power over future Russian oil and gas pipelines and oil deals.” Khodorkovsky also met with GHW Bush and had ties to the Carlyle Group, the influential US firm with figures like James Baker one of its partners.
Had Exxon and Chevron consummated the deal, it would have been an “energy coup d’etat. Cheney knew it; Bush knew it; Khodorkovsky knew it. Above all, Vladimir Putin knew it and moved decisively to block it” and hit hard on Khodorkosky in the process. It “signaled a decisive turn….towards rebuilding Russia and erecting strategic defenses.” By late 2004, Moscow understood that a New Cold War was on over “strategic energy control and unilateral nuclear primacy,” and Putin moved from defense to a “new dynamic offensive aimed at securing a more viable geopolitical position by using (Russia’s) energy as the lever.”
It involves reclaiming Russia’s oil and gas reserves given away by Boris Yeltsin. Also strengthening and modernizing the country’s military and nuclear deterrent to enhance its long-term security. Russia remains a military powerhouse and displays impressive technology at international trade shows, including the S-300 and more powerful S-400, reportedly more potent than comparable US systems.
Controlling China with Synthetic Democracy
From the 1940s to today, America’s China strategy has been “divide and conquer,” only tactics have varied from “big stick” to “carrot-and-stick” diplomacy. Key is to keep Russia and China from cooperating economically and militarily, “maintain a strategy of tension across Asia, and particularly Eurasia” (that, of course includes the Middle East and its oil riches) – for the overarching goal of total “control of China as the potential economic colossus of Asia.”
With America embroiled in Eurasian wars, policy now “masquerad(es) behind the issues of human rights and ‘democracy’ as weapons of psychological and economic warfare.”
Another initiative as well is ongoing – the 2007 AFRICOM authorization, the US Africa Command to control the continent’s 53 countries no differently than the rest of the world, using military force as necessary. China’s increasing need for Africa’s resources (including oil), not terrorism, is the reason.
The 2008 Army Modernization Strategy (AMS) focuses on “full spectrum dominance,” controlling world resources, and the prospect of wars for three to four decades to secure them. China and Russia are most feared as serious competitors – the former for its explosive economic growth and resource requirements and the latter for its energy, other raw material riches, and military strength.
AMS also included another threat – “population growth” threatening America and the West with “radical ideologies” and hence instability as well as unwanted “resource competition” that expanding economies require – everything from food to water, energy and other raw materials. These issues lay behind AFRCOM’s creation and strategy for hardline militarism globally.
America’s second president, John Adams, once said: “there are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. one is by the sword. The other is by debt,” or more broadly economic warfare. With much of US manufacturing offshored in China, both methods are constrained so an alternative scheme is used – human rights and democracy by an America disdaining both at home or abroad.
Nonetheless, in 2004, the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor targeted China on these issues with millions in funding, headed by a right-wing conservative, Paula Dobriansky. She’s a CFR member, NED vice chairman, Freedom House board member, senior fellow at the neo-conservative Hudson Institute, and member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) at which she endorsed attacking Iraq in 1998. Now she targets China with “soft warfare” strategy that’s just as deadly.
Other tools include the Dalai Lama organizations in Tibet, Falun Gong in China, “an arsenal of (global) NGOs” carefully recruited for their mission, and, of course, the Western media, including public television and radio in America and BBC globally.
Weaponizing Human Rights – From Darfur to Myanmar to Tibet
In targeting China, Washington’s human rights/democracy offensive focused on Myanmar, Tibet, and oil-rich Darfur. Called the “Saffron Revolution” in Myanmar (formerly Burma), it featured Western media images of saffron-robed Buddhist Monks on Yangon (formerly Rangoon) streets calling for more democracy. “Behind the scenes, however, was a battle of major geopolitical consequence” with Myanmar’s people mere props for a Washington-hatched scheme – employing Eurasian Color Revolution tactics:
– “hit-and-run swarming” mobs of monks;
– connecting protest groups through internet blogs and mobile text-messaging links; and
– having command-and-control over protest cells, dispersed and re-formed as ordered with no idea who pulled the strings or why – a hidden sinister objective targeting China for greater geopolitical control and destabilizing Myanmar to do it.
Also at stake is control of vital sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea with the Myanmar coastline “providing shipping and naval access to one of the world’s most strategic waterways, the Strait of Malacca, the narrow ship passage between Malaysia and Indonesia.”
Since 9/11, the Pentagon tried but failed to militarize the region except for an airbase on Indonesia’s northernmost tip. Myanmar rejected similar overtures – hence its being targeted for its strategic importance. “The Strait of Malacca, linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans, (is) the shortest sea route between the Persian Gulf and China. (It’s) the key chokepoint in Asia” so controlling it is key. China has close ties to Myanmar. It’s provided billions in military assistance and developed the infrastructure. The country is also oil-rich, on its territory and offshore.
China is the world’s fastest growing energy market. Over 80% of its oil imports pass through the Strait. Controlling it keeps a chokehold over China’s life-line, and if it’s ever closed, about half the world’s tanker fleet would have thousands of extra miles to travel at far higher freight costs.
In summer 2007, Myanmar and PetroChina signed a long-term Memorandum of Understanding – to supply China with substantial natural gas from its Shwe gas field in the Bay of Bengal. India was the main loser after China offered to invest billions for a strategic China-Myanmar oil and gas pipeline across the country to China’s Yunnan Province. The same pipeline could give China access to Middle East and African oil by bypassing the Malacca Strait. “Myanmar would become China’s ‘bridge’ linking Bangladesh and countries westward to the China mainland” trumping Washington should it succeed in controlling the Strait – a potential geopolitical disaster America had to prevent, hence the 2007 “Saffron Revolution” that failed.
India’s Dangerous Alliance Shift
From 2005, India was “pushed into a strategic alliance with Washington” to counter China’s growing influence in Asia and to have a “capable partner who can take on more responsibility for low-end operations” – directed at China and to provide bases and access to project US power in the region. To sweeten the deal, the Bush administration offered to sell (nuclear outlaw) India advanced nuclear technology. At the same time, it bashed Iran for its legitimate commercial operations, and now Obama threatens hardened sanctions and perhaps war without year end 2009 compliance with clearly outrageous demands.
Part II continues Engdahl’s important analysis to conclusion.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at email@example.com.Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday – Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.
The review was published here:
- Target: China -- How Washington and Wall Street Plan to Cage the Asian Dragon. San Diego: Progressive Press, 2014. German and Chinese editions published 2013.
- Myths, Lies and Oil Wars. Wiesbaden: Edition.Engdahl, 2012.ISBN 978-3981326369
- Gods of Money: Wall Street and the Death of the American Century.edition.engdahl, 2010,ISBN 978-3-9813263-1-4; Progressive Press, 2011,ISBN 1-61577-805-5
- Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order.Boxboro, MA: Third Millennium Press, 2009,ISBN 978-0-9795608-6-6; Progressive Press, 2011,ISBN 1-61577-654-0
- Seeds of Destruction. The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation. Centre for Research on Globalization Publishing, 2007,ISBN 0-9737147-2-7
- A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London:Pluto2004, rev. ed., 303 p., ill.,ISBN 0-7453-2309-X; Progressive Press, 2012, 339 p.,ISBN 1-615774-92-0