The American Empire is Being Put in Place
Published in L'Expression
(Algeria) on April 4th, 2008
by Pr Chems Eddine Chitour (link to original)
(Algeria) on April 4th, 2008
by Pr Chems Eddine Chitour (link to original)
Translated from
by Ashley Bell.
Edited by .
“Keep the Americans in, the Soviets out and the Germans down”
Slogan of Lord Ismay, first Secretary-General of NATO
The Romanian President Traian Basesu, who welcomed the grand summit of NATO's 26 state members, declared that to introduce Ukraine and Georgia in the MAP is a logical following from the Romanian point of view. However, the invitation for Macedonia to rejoin NATO has not yet concluded. Greece, a member of NATO, is opposed because the old Yugoslav Republic has the same constitutional name as a Greek province. After the NATO summit in Bucarest, Presidents Bush and Putin, met each other again for a bilateral meeting at Sotchi, April 5 and 6. “Vladmir Poutin and George Bush have not succeeded with agreeing on any of the key issues on the American-Russian agenda. In fact, the two departing presidents leave their successors with a host of problems: the anti-missile American shield, the new treaty on conventional forces, the enlarging of NATO with Georgia and Ukraine.”
“The negotiations were very difficult,” confided a source at the heart of the Russian delegation after the departure of Bush, reports the Nezavissimaia Gazeta. The Washington Post underlines that “this meeting touched on the same issues that had colored the first interview between the two men in June 2001; antimissile defense, energy, expansion of NATO and non-proliferation. Between business and nostalgia, this last meeting has shown how the relations between the two countries have changed while still remaining similar”. (1)
A return in brief to the history of the organization, spearhead of American imperialism on the European Continent. April 4 1949--the USA, Canada, and ten other Western European States signed the treaty in Washington to create the North Atlantic Trade Organization. Article five of the treaty stipulates that “the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." May 6 1955-–West Germany rejoins NATO. Eight days later, the Soviet Union assembles eight Eastern Europe States in the Warsaw Pact. March 10 1966-–President Charles de Gaulle removes the France from the NATO's integral military structure. The general headquarters of NATO move from Paris to Brussels the following year. November 19th 1990, the end of the Cold War, NATO and the Warsaw Pact make a joint, public declaration of non-aggression. Eight months later, the Treaty of Warsaw Organization is officially dissolved. December 6 1995, NATO launches its largest military attack in support of the Bosnian peace accord. September 12th 2001--After the attacks of September 11th against the United States, NATO invokes article five for the first time, deploying radar systems and aerial control on the United States. August 11th 2003--NATO takes command of peacekeeping forces based in Kabul, Afghanistan. April 2 2004--NATO enlarges to 26 members with the entrance of former Communist states. June 25 2007--The Secretary General of NATO, Jappa de Hoop Scheffer, positions himself in favor of the US plan to install an anti-missile defense system in Eastern Europe. (2)
France aligns itself
One could have believed that with the end of the Cold War, there would have been a dismantling of NATO like that of the Warsaw Pact. There was nothing. As the first Secretary General of the transatlantic organization, Lord Ismay, said it is “Keep the Americans in, the Soviets out and the Germans down”. Or if the Soviets are “out” since 1989 and if there is no longer reason to keep Germany “down”, the Americans are, themselves, always very in. An explanation is given by Ron Paul, Republican candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination who intervened before the US Congress concerning Resolution 997 “expressing a strong support for NATO to activate a plan of joining for Georgia and Ukraine”.
“Mr. Spokesman, I place myself in opposition to this resolution calling for the expansion of NATO to the frontiers of Russia. NATO is an organization whose objective finished with the end of the Warsaw Pact. When NATO was activated to redefine its future after the Cold war, it ended up attacking a sovereign state, Yugoslavia, who had never invaded or threatened any member state of NATO. The expansion of NATO benefits only the military-industrial complex US, which is going to profit from the increase in arm sales to new members of NATO. The “modernization” of old Soviet weapons in Ukraine and in Georgia, would mean tens of millions of sales for the US and European industries. Mr. Spokesperson, NATO should be dismantled and not enlarged.” (3)
One of the scoops of this summit is the French decision to re-enter the ranks. In an Le Monde editorial, we read: “Symbols count. In politics, as elsewhere, one does not lead badly without risk. Since 1966, France was no longer part of the integral commandment of NATO. De Gaulle judged, forty-two years ago, that the maintenance of France in a military structure dominated by Washington was a limit to national sovereignty. Ever since, this posing as an ally of America not exactly like the others, is one of the markers of French identity in foreign politics. A symbol, in sum, as one of the elements of national consensus. It is this symbol that Mr. Sarkozy is about to undermine."
In France, on the right and on the left, some see this as a crime of “Bushist alignment,” the return to a status as a vassal for the United States; they stigmatize the treason of a Gaullist legacy never called into question. (4)
To return to the maintenance of NATO one must try to decode, following the example of Paul-Marie of La Gorce, the temptation of world control by the United States based primarily on their army, which is in fact, an essential part of NATO. “The American army, is ready for everything that our commander in chief will ask us to do,” declared General Richard Myers, Chief of Staff of the US Army, at the end of February. Behind President George W. Bush's war rhetoric, reaffirmed during his recent Asian tour, the enormous American military machine is preparing itself for the next assaults against the countries accused of the forming the “axis of Evil” with first place going to Iraq. On January 31st, 2002 in Washington, Donald Rumsfeld, the American Secretary of Defense, exposed the new military doctrine of the United States before the officer trainees of the University of National Defense. “We must act now,” he declared, “to have a deterrent capability on four major theaters of operation,” adding that he had to be able “defeat two aggressors while at the same time having the possibility to lead a major counter-offensive and to occupy the capital of the enemy in order to install a new regime.” (5)
“Before the beginning of the 70s, American defense politics had as its objective the preparation of “two and a half wars.” In the spirit of the Cold War, where the communist states seemed to constitute a unique block, it was necessary to prevent an eventual war against the Soviet Union, another of the same nature against China, and in the same time, another reduced to a regional dimension, against the enemy countries, without military capacity comparable to those of the two Greats, such as the war of Korea, that of Vietnam, or the military expeditions conducted in Lebanon, Guatemala, or Santo Domingo. The divorce between the USSR and China lead the President Richard Nixon to adopt a concept of “war and a half” that foresaw a major conflict, either with the Soviet Union or with China, and a limited conflicted as one had envisaged up until that point.” (5)
Planetary Hegemony
Finally, right after the end of the Cold War, the Bush Administration (senior) published, in 1991, a document entitled Base Force Review; this new doctrine envisaged for the future “two major regional conflicts”. The Clinton Administration confirmed its orientations in 1993 in Bottom-Up Review, then in 1997 in the Quadrennial Defense Review, where these conflicts were re-baptized as “major theatre wars”. The defenders and artisans of the American military doctrine expose, without embarrassment or complexity, the tie between this concept of “strategic control” and the actual projects of antimissile defense. The lesson is clear. The American Administration having announced that, to reach its objectives, recourse to force becomes necessary and legitimate, it rallies all means of force.” (5)
It appears to be a planetary hegemony. To recall, as Habit Kharroubi writes: “NATO in the West and the Warsaw Pact, its counterpart in the Soviet camp, emerged in the context of the “Cold War” and have marked East-West relations after 1945. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Empire provoked the breakup of the Warsaw Pact. One moment, it seemed that its disappearance was going to train the military organization that was its competitor on the western side. This was counting without the calculations of the United States concerning the establishment of a new world order that they had decided to impose on the planet”. (...) The enlargement of NATO to the east of Europe, in his opinion, worries Russia directly, who sees a desire of the United States to reproach, at the nearest to its national frontiers, the operational camp of this military organization. (...) NATO became the sword arm of the United States and the executor of their international politics. Now, this has as its objective the consolidation of the American Empire ruling over the world, even at the price of armed interventions against States that question US hegemony. One must be naïve not to see that NATO is at the service of American expansionist projects and that these are camouflaged by the putting forward of the necessity of the coordinated fight against terrorism and the preservation of international legality”. (6)
The reality of the world: The Empire is being put in place
In fact the worries of the West are far from being founded. The unsaid hides the reality: the privatization of the world. Nothing else should oppose itself to the globalization rolling mill, to borrow the words of Jacque Chirac. This Government shadows substitutes for the forums put in place after the Second World War, a new organization of the world based on the right of force, NATO will be the sword arm of the new forums put in place to control the world for the U.S.'s greatest profits and, consequentially, of their allies and vassals, to be more precise. Ignacio Ramonet sees it in this invisible commandment: a strategy on all fronts. “Citizens must know that liberal globalization attacks society on three fronts. Central because it concerns the “humanity of its ensemble, the first front is that of the economy, it remains focused on the conduct of what one must truly call the “Axis of Evil” constituted of the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. This evil axis continues to impose on the world the dictatorship of the market, the preeminence of the private sector, the culture of profit, and to cause, in the entirety of the planet, terrifying damages”
“The second front, clandestine, silence, invisible, is that of ideology. With the active collaboration of universities, prestigious research institutes (Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institutes), the big media (CNN, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Economist, imitated in France and elsewhere by a crowd of subservient journalist), a true industry of persuasion has been put into place in order to convince the planet that liberal globalization will finally bring universal happiness. By leaning on the power of information, the ideologues have also constructed, with the passive complicity of the dominated, what one can call a delicious despotism. The third front, inexistent until the present, is military. It was opened following the traumatism of September 11th 2001. And it is aimed at equipping liberal globalization with a security tool in good and due form. One moment tempted to trust this mission to NATO, the United States decided to assume this mission alone and to take considerable means to exercise it with most impressing efficiency.”
“The function of vassals is to bow, and America aspires henceforth to exercise an absolute political domination." ‘The Unites States is in some sorts the first proto-world State,’ states Wiliam Pfaff. They have the capacity to take the head of a modern vision of universal empire, a spontaneous empire whose members submit themselves voluntarily to its authority.’ This empire aspires to realize, in the facts, free globalization. All the opposition, all the dissidents and all resistors must now know that they will be fought on three fronts: economic, ideological and military. And that the time for the respect for human rights seems to be over as this scandalous “tropical bath” in Guantanamo, where many Europeans are sequestered in cagesm proves…The axis of Evil (IMF, World Bank, WTO) hid its true face. Now we know it.
1. Putin and Bush 24th and Last Unsuccesful Meeting Courrier International. April 7, 2008
2. NATO: Mireille Delamarre Synthesis. Reuters: 03.31.08
3. Ron Paul. Speech in Congress. Source www.antiwar.com 01/04/08
4. Editorial: France and NATO. Le Monde 04.04.08
5. P.M de la Gorce: The Great Lie of Wars, March 2002, Le Monde Diplomatique
6. H. Kharroubi. Nato in place of the UN, http:/lequotieidne-oran.com/?news=5101617
7. Ignacio Ramonet: The Axis of Evil Le Monde Diplomatique. March 2002.
Slogan of Lord Ismay, first Secretary-General of NATO
The Romanian President Traian Basesu, who welcomed the grand summit of NATO's 26 state members, declared that to introduce Ukraine and Georgia in the MAP is a logical following from the Romanian point of view. However, the invitation for Macedonia to rejoin NATO has not yet concluded. Greece, a member of NATO, is opposed because the old Yugoslav Republic has the same constitutional name as a Greek province. After the NATO summit in Bucarest, Presidents Bush and Putin, met each other again for a bilateral meeting at Sotchi, April 5 and 6. “Vladmir Poutin and George Bush have not succeeded with agreeing on any of the key issues on the American-Russian agenda. In fact, the two departing presidents leave their successors with a host of problems: the anti-missile American shield, the new treaty on conventional forces, the enlarging of NATO with Georgia and Ukraine.”
“The negotiations were very difficult,” confided a source at the heart of the Russian delegation after the departure of Bush, reports the Nezavissimaia Gazeta. The Washington Post underlines that “this meeting touched on the same issues that had colored the first interview between the two men in June 2001; antimissile defense, energy, expansion of NATO and non-proliferation. Between business and nostalgia, this last meeting has shown how the relations between the two countries have changed while still remaining similar”. (1)
A return in brief to the history of the organization, spearhead of American imperialism on the European Continent. April 4 1949--the USA, Canada, and ten other Western European States signed the treaty in Washington to create the North Atlantic Trade Organization. Article five of the treaty stipulates that “the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." May 6 1955-–West Germany rejoins NATO. Eight days later, the Soviet Union assembles eight Eastern Europe States in the Warsaw Pact. March 10 1966-–President Charles de Gaulle removes the France from the NATO's integral military structure. The general headquarters of NATO move from Paris to Brussels the following year. November 19th 1990, the end of the Cold War, NATO and the Warsaw Pact make a joint, public declaration of non-aggression. Eight months later, the Treaty of Warsaw Organization is officially dissolved. December 6 1995, NATO launches its largest military attack in support of the Bosnian peace accord. September 12th 2001--After the attacks of September 11th against the United States, NATO invokes article five for the first time, deploying radar systems and aerial control on the United States. August 11th 2003--NATO takes command of peacekeeping forces based in Kabul, Afghanistan. April 2 2004--NATO enlarges to 26 members with the entrance of former Communist states. June 25 2007--The Secretary General of NATO, Jappa de Hoop Scheffer, positions himself in favor of the US plan to install an anti-missile defense system in Eastern Europe. (2)
France aligns itself
One could have believed that with the end of the Cold War, there would have been a dismantling of NATO like that of the Warsaw Pact. There was nothing. As the first Secretary General of the transatlantic organization, Lord Ismay, said it is “Keep the Americans in, the Soviets out and the Germans down”. Or if the Soviets are “out” since 1989 and if there is no longer reason to keep Germany “down”, the Americans are, themselves, always very in. An explanation is given by Ron Paul, Republican candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination who intervened before the US Congress concerning Resolution 997 “expressing a strong support for NATO to activate a plan of joining for Georgia and Ukraine”.
“Mr. Spokesman, I place myself in opposition to this resolution calling for the expansion of NATO to the frontiers of Russia. NATO is an organization whose objective finished with the end of the Warsaw Pact. When NATO was activated to redefine its future after the Cold war, it ended up attacking a sovereign state, Yugoslavia, who had never invaded or threatened any member state of NATO. The expansion of NATO benefits only the military-industrial complex US, which is going to profit from the increase in arm sales to new members of NATO. The “modernization” of old Soviet weapons in Ukraine and in Georgia, would mean tens of millions of sales for the US and European industries. Mr. Spokesperson, NATO should be dismantled and not enlarged.” (3)
One of the scoops of this summit is the French decision to re-enter the ranks. In an Le Monde editorial, we read: “Symbols count. In politics, as elsewhere, one does not lead badly without risk. Since 1966, France was no longer part of the integral commandment of NATO. De Gaulle judged, forty-two years ago, that the maintenance of France in a military structure dominated by Washington was a limit to national sovereignty. Ever since, this posing as an ally of America not exactly like the others, is one of the markers of French identity in foreign politics. A symbol, in sum, as one of the elements of national consensus. It is this symbol that Mr. Sarkozy is about to undermine."
In France, on the right and on the left, some see this as a crime of “Bushist alignment,” the return to a status as a vassal for the United States; they stigmatize the treason of a Gaullist legacy never called into question. (4)
To return to the maintenance of NATO one must try to decode, following the example of Paul-Marie of La Gorce, the temptation of world control by the United States based primarily on their army, which is in fact, an essential part of NATO. “The American army, is ready for everything that our commander in chief will ask us to do,” declared General Richard Myers, Chief of Staff of the US Army, at the end of February. Behind President George W. Bush's war rhetoric, reaffirmed during his recent Asian tour, the enormous American military machine is preparing itself for the next assaults against the countries accused of the forming the “axis of Evil” with first place going to Iraq. On January 31st, 2002 in Washington, Donald Rumsfeld, the American Secretary of Defense, exposed the new military doctrine of the United States before the officer trainees of the University of National Defense. “We must act now,” he declared, “to have a deterrent capability on four major theaters of operation,” adding that he had to be able “defeat two aggressors while at the same time having the possibility to lead a major counter-offensive and to occupy the capital of the enemy in order to install a new regime.” (5)
“Before the beginning of the 70s, American defense politics had as its objective the preparation of “two and a half wars.” In the spirit of the Cold War, where the communist states seemed to constitute a unique block, it was necessary to prevent an eventual war against the Soviet Union, another of the same nature against China, and in the same time, another reduced to a regional dimension, against the enemy countries, without military capacity comparable to those of the two Greats, such as the war of Korea, that of Vietnam, or the military expeditions conducted in Lebanon, Guatemala, or Santo Domingo. The divorce between the USSR and China lead the President Richard Nixon to adopt a concept of “war and a half” that foresaw a major conflict, either with the Soviet Union or with China, and a limited conflicted as one had envisaged up until that point.” (5)
Planetary Hegemony
Finally, right after the end of the Cold War, the Bush Administration (senior) published, in 1991, a document entitled Base Force Review; this new doctrine envisaged for the future “two major regional conflicts”. The Clinton Administration confirmed its orientations in 1993 in Bottom-Up Review, then in 1997 in the Quadrennial Defense Review, where these conflicts were re-baptized as “major theatre wars”. The defenders and artisans of the American military doctrine expose, without embarrassment or complexity, the tie between this concept of “strategic control” and the actual projects of antimissile defense. The lesson is clear. The American Administration having announced that, to reach its objectives, recourse to force becomes necessary and legitimate, it rallies all means of force.” (5)
It appears to be a planetary hegemony. To recall, as Habit Kharroubi writes: “NATO in the West and the Warsaw Pact, its counterpart in the Soviet camp, emerged in the context of the “Cold War” and have marked East-West relations after 1945. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Empire provoked the breakup of the Warsaw Pact. One moment, it seemed that its disappearance was going to train the military organization that was its competitor on the western side. This was counting without the calculations of the United States concerning the establishment of a new world order that they had decided to impose on the planet”. (...) The enlargement of NATO to the east of Europe, in his opinion, worries Russia directly, who sees a desire of the United States to reproach, at the nearest to its national frontiers, the operational camp of this military organization. (...) NATO became the sword arm of the United States and the executor of their international politics. Now, this has as its objective the consolidation of the American Empire ruling over the world, even at the price of armed interventions against States that question US hegemony. One must be naïve not to see that NATO is at the service of American expansionist projects and that these are camouflaged by the putting forward of the necessity of the coordinated fight against terrorism and the preservation of international legality”. (6)
The reality of the world: The Empire is being put in place
In fact the worries of the West are far from being founded. The unsaid hides the reality: the privatization of the world. Nothing else should oppose itself to the globalization rolling mill, to borrow the words of Jacque Chirac. This Government shadows substitutes for the forums put in place after the Second World War, a new organization of the world based on the right of force, NATO will be the sword arm of the new forums put in place to control the world for the U.S.'s greatest profits and, consequentially, of their allies and vassals, to be more precise. Ignacio Ramonet sees it in this invisible commandment: a strategy on all fronts. “Citizens must know that liberal globalization attacks society on three fronts. Central because it concerns the “humanity of its ensemble, the first front is that of the economy, it remains focused on the conduct of what one must truly call the “Axis of Evil” constituted of the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. This evil axis continues to impose on the world the dictatorship of the market, the preeminence of the private sector, the culture of profit, and to cause, in the entirety of the planet, terrifying damages”
“The second front, clandestine, silence, invisible, is that of ideology. With the active collaboration of universities, prestigious research institutes (Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institutes), the big media (CNN, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Economist, imitated in France and elsewhere by a crowd of subservient journalist), a true industry of persuasion has been put into place in order to convince the planet that liberal globalization will finally bring universal happiness. By leaning on the power of information, the ideologues have also constructed, with the passive complicity of the dominated, what one can call a delicious despotism. The third front, inexistent until the present, is military. It was opened following the traumatism of September 11th 2001. And it is aimed at equipping liberal globalization with a security tool in good and due form. One moment tempted to trust this mission to NATO, the United States decided to assume this mission alone and to take considerable means to exercise it with most impressing efficiency.”
“The function of vassals is to bow, and America aspires henceforth to exercise an absolute political domination." ‘The Unites States is in some sorts the first proto-world State,’ states Wiliam Pfaff. They have the capacity to take the head of a modern vision of universal empire, a spontaneous empire whose members submit themselves voluntarily to its authority.’ This empire aspires to realize, in the facts, free globalization. All the opposition, all the dissidents and all resistors must now know that they will be fought on three fronts: economic, ideological and military. And that the time for the respect for human rights seems to be over as this scandalous “tropical bath” in Guantanamo, where many Europeans are sequestered in cagesm proves…The axis of Evil (IMF, World Bank, WTO) hid its true face. Now we know it.
1. Putin and Bush 24th and Last Unsuccesful Meeting Courrier International. April 7, 2008
2. NATO: Mireille Delamarre Synthesis. Reuters: 03.31.08
3. Ron Paul. Speech in Congress. Source www.antiwar.com 01/04/08
4. Editorial: France and NATO. Le Monde 04.04.08
5. P.M de la Gorce: The Great Lie of Wars, March 2002, Le Monde Diplomatique
6. H. Kharroubi. Nato in place of the UN, http:/lequotieidne-oran.com/?news=5101617
7. Ignacio Ramonet: The Axis of Evil Le Monde Diplomatique. March 2002.
Next article![]( "Pennsylvania – A State Apart")
