Das deutsche Entwicklungsministerium unterstützt die Aufrüstungspolitik in den Ländern der arabischen Halbinsel

BERLIN/ABU DHABI/RIAD (Eigener Bericht) – Das deutsche
Entwicklungsministerium unterstützt die Aufrüstungspolitik in den
Ländern der arabischen Halbinsel. Mit Mitteln der staatlichen
„Entwicklungshilfe“ wird unter anderem der Bau eines riesigen
unterirdischen Trinkwasserreservoirs in den Vereinigten Arabischen
Emiraten gefördert. Es ist speziell gegen „äußere Eingriffe“
abgesichert und soll insbesondere die Wasserversorgung der Hauptstadt
Abu Dhabi im „Krisenfall“ gewährleisten. An dem Projekt, das parallel
zur vom Westen betriebenen Aufrüstung der Emirate gegen Iran
durchgeführt wird, beteiligen sich die dem Entwicklungsministerium
unterstehende Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) und das
Unternehmen Dornier Consulting, eine Tochterfirma der
deutsch-europäischen Rüstungsschmiede EADS. Ähnliche Vorhaben sind
auch in Saudi-Arabien geplant, wo EADS zudem die Implementierung eines
umfassenden „Grenzsicherungssystems“ übernommen hat. Letzteres soll
dazu dienen, eine etwaige „Infiltration“ durch „Terroristen“ aus dem
Jemen und dem Irak abzuwehren.

mehr
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/fulltext/57950

Бајка о Безалтернативној

Бајка о Безалтернативној

  • apsorg.rs.

Била једном једна Унија, зачета у страсним економским загрљајима и надама две даме: Француске и Немачке.

(Још се не зна која је од те две даме у зачећу Уније имала улогу мушкарца, мада су се у дугој предисторији своје везе често смењивале у тој роли. Непроверене гласине тврде да је мала Унија зачета вештачком оплодњом, од генетски модификованог семена пренесеног из Америке.)

Време је пролазило, а мала Унија је расла и имала безбрижно детињство.У то време њене две маме су јој тепале зовући је Економском Унијом.

Гледајући ту малу лепотицу и друге европске даме су пожелеле да јој буду маме.

И миц по миц број њених мама, које су се међусобно звале и около представљале као Чланице Фан Клуба мале Уније, је растао.

Постао је двоцифрен, са тенденцијом даљег раста.

Окупљене у љубави према све већој Унији, мама-чланице су решиле да се међусобно повезују не само економски, него и политички.

Био је то један сретан клуб Унијиних родитељки и обожаватељки.

Понесене том срећом и преспективом раста, како среће, тако и Уније, мама-чланице решише да од свог Фан-клуба направе такорећи једну државу, без обзира што је свака од њих већ имала своју (државу).

И тако су радосне маме некад малу, а сад све већу Унију преименовале од чисто економске и у политичку.

За њих је она дефинитивно постала не више само француско-немачка Економска, него Европска Унија. Од миља су јој дали име Еунија, а често је називали и сасвим кратко: ЕУ.

Расла је ЕУ као и клуб њених фанова.

Држава која је настала од љубави према ЕУ је ускоро добила и заједничку валуту: еуро.

Додуше, у тој сретној, валутом јединственој заједници, није постојала и заједничка монетарна политика, као што је иначе случај, чак и у мање сретним, па и несретним државама као што је , од пре десет година у ЕУ чежњиво загледана, Србија.

Чланице ЕУ-клуба и ајмокасти државе су повукле још један заносан, па и храбар потез.

Укинуле су своје границе и визе, па се по ЕУ-држави сада шпартало уздуж и попреко са еурима у џепу и без пасоша у истом.

Многа је лепа имена и атрибуте током свог одрастања  задобила мала, па све већа Унија.

Али, најлепше и најувлакачкије име и епитет јој је дала постпетооктобарска у њу чежњиво загледана Србија, епитет Безалтернативне.

(Верујем да се многим читаоцима на овом месту закотрљала бар једна, ако не и више суза у једном или и у оба ока. Понеком од дирљивости и звучности тог епитета, понеком од беса, а понеком, као на пример, приповедачу, и од смеха.)

Али, авај!

Ђаво и америчке приватне  банке не мирују.

У јеку раста и проширења ЕУ, око чега су се већ забринули и поједини евроскептични нутриционисти, Америка, а за њом и такорећи држава, названа Европска Унија, изненада, готово без најаве, мада сасвим логично, упадоше у WC (World Crisis илити светску кризу).

О, како је то погодило све већу и све ширу ЕУ!

ЕУ којој су постале маме, тј. чланице чак и тако чувене земље као што су Бугарска и Румунија! А све опасније се ближио час да се том клубу придружи и Мишколенд Србија!

WC је почео да узима свој данак.

Најпре је, због непостојања заједничке монетарне политике у ЕУ,  замало па начисто пукла једна од старих мама-чланица Грчка, која је скоро банкротирала, што не значи да и неће.

У то банкрот-друштво се залетела и мама-чланица Шпанија, за њом Португал, а и Ирска, па богме притрчава и Италија…

У матичним државама чланица Фан Клуба Еуније, почеше да на изборима добијају све већу подршку неке десне, према ЕУ баш нерасположене партије…

Додуше, у стану и апартману Еуније у Бриселу се још понашају као да се не дешава то што се дешава или бар као да то баш и нема неки значај.

Вредне пчелице, ЕУ-комесари, на челу са бумбаром Кацином,  и даље зује по Србији и гатају да ли је у њој Младић.

Промилима мере видан напредак Србије у евроинтеграцијама.

Рекло би се да се ништа посебно не догађа и да ће ЕУ не само доживети дубоку старост, каква је од стране Адолфа била планирана за хиљадугодишњи немачки рајх, него да ће потрајати бар до судњег дана. А можда и дуже, ако и Бог реши да ЕУ стандарде угради у структуру свог вечног царства.

У сваком случају сачекаћемо крај па оценити да ли је онакав какав је у свакој бајци и ред да буде. Или ће се бајка, како је кренуло, претворити у причу за коју бисмо наслов могли да позајмимо од Балзаковог романа: „Изгубљене илузије“.

Драган Атанацковић Теодор

АНТИПОЛИТИЧАРСКА ПАРТИЈА СРБИЈЕ – УСТАНАК

www.apsorg.rs

Diana Johnstone on NATO Strategic Concept summit today

http://www.counterpunch.com/johnstone11182010.html

CounterPunch November 18, 2010Encircling Russia, Targeting China NATO’S True
Role in US Grand StrategyBy DIANA JOHNSTONE On November 19 and 20, NATO leaders
meet in Lisbon for what is billed as a summit on „NATO’s Strategic Concept“.
Among topics of discussion will be an array of scary „threats“, from cyberwar to
climate change, as well as nice protective things like nuclear weapons and a
high tech Maginot Line boondoggle supposed to stop enemy missiles in mid-air.
The NATO leaders will be unable to avoid talking about the war in Afghanistan,
that endless crusade that unites the civilized world against the elusive Old Man
of the Mountain, Hassan i Sabah, eleventh century chief of the Assassins in his
latest reincarnation as Osama bin Laden. There will no doubt be much talk of
„our shared values“.

Most of what they will discuss is fiction with a price tag.
The one thing missing from the Strategic Concept summit agenda is a serious
discussion of strategy.
This is partly because NATO as such has no strategy, and cannot have its own
strategy. NATO is in reality an instrument of United States strategy. Its only
operative Strategic Concept is the one put into practice by the United States.
But even that is an elusive phantom. American leaders seem to prefer striking
postures, „showing resolve“, to defining strategies.

The description perfectly fits the Lisbon „Strategic Concept“ conference. Last
week, NATO’s Danish secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, announced that „we
are pretty close to a consensus“. And this consensus, according to the New York
Times, „will probably follow President Barack Obama’s own formulation: to work
toward a non-nuclear world while maintaining a nuclear deterrent“.
Wait a minute, does that make sense? No, but it is the stuff of NATO consensus.
Peace through war, nuclear disarmament through nuclear armament, and above all,
defense of member states by sending expeditionary forces to infuriate the
natives of distant lands.

A strategy is not a consensus written by committees.
The American method of „continuous bargaining, dialogue, diffusion, and quest
for formal consensus“ wears down whatever resistance may occasionally appear.
Thus Germany and France initially resisted Georgian membership in NATO, as well
as the notorious „missile shield“, both seen as blatant provocations apt to set
off a new arms race with Russia and damage fruitful German and French relations
with Moscow, for no useful purpose. But the United States does not take no for
an answer, and keeps repeating its imperatives until resistance fades. The one
recent exception was the French refusal to join the invasion of Iraq, but the
angry U.S. reaction scared the conservative French political class into
supporting the pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy.In search of „threats“ and
„challenges“
The very heart of what passes for a „strategic concept“ was first declared and
put into operation in the spring of 1999, when NATO defied international law,
the United Nations and its own original charter by waging an aggressive war
outside its defensive perimeter against Yugoslavia. That transformed NATO from a
defensive to an offensive alliance. Ten years later, the godmother of that war,
Madeleine Albright, was picked to chair the „group of experts“ that spent
several months holding seminars, consultations and meetings preparing the Lisbon
agenda. Prominent in these gatherings were Lord Peter Levene, chairman of
Lloyd’s of London, the insurance giant, and the former chief executive of Royal
Dutch Shell, Jeroen van der Veer. These ruling class figures are not exactly
military strategists, but their participation should reassure the international
business community that their worldwide interests are being taken into
consideration.

Indeed, a catalogue of threats enumerated by Rasmussen in a speech last year
seemed to suggest that NATO was working for the insurance industry. NATO, he
said, was needed to deal with piracy, cyber security, climate change, extreme
weather events such as catastrophic storms and flooding, rising sea levels,
large-scale population movement into inhabited areas, sometimes across borders,
water shortages, droughts, decreasing food production, global warming, CO2
emissions, the retreat of Arctic ice uncovering hitherto inaccessible resources,
fuel efficiency and dependence on foreign sources, etc.

Most of the enumerated threats cannot even remotely be construed as calling for
military solutions. Surely no „rogue states“ or „outposts of tyranny“ or
„international terrorists“ are responsible for climate change, yet Rasmussen
presents them as challenges to NATO.

On the other hand, some of the results of these scenarios, such as population
movements caused by rising sea levels or drought, can indeed be seen as
potentially causing crises. The ominous aspect of the enumeration is precisely
that all such problems are eagerly snatched up by NATO as requiring military
solutions.
The main threat to NATO is its own obsolescence. And the search for a „strategic
concept“ is the search for pretexts to keep it going. NATO’s Threat to the World
While it searches for threats, NATO itself is a growing threat to the world. The
basic threat is its contribution to strengthening the U.S.-led tendency to
abandon diplomacy and negotiations in favor of military force. This is seen
clearly in Rasmussen’s inclusion of weather phenomena in his list of threats to
NATO, when they should, instead, be problems for international diplomacy and
negotiations. The growing danger is that Western diplomacy is dying. The United
States has set the tone: we are virtuous, we have the power, the rest of the
world must obey or else. Diplomacy is despised as weakness. The State Department
has long since ceased to be at the core of U.S. foreign policy. With its vast
network of military bases the world over, as well as military attachés in
embassies and countless missions to client countries, the Pentagon is
incomparably more powerful and influential in the world than the State
Department. Recent Secretaries of State, far from seeking diplomatic
alternatives to war, have actually played a leading role in advocating war
instead of diplomacy, whether Madeleine Albright in the Balkans or Colin Powell
waving fake test tubes in the United Nations Security Council. Policy is defined
by the National Security Advisor, various privately-funded think tanks and the
Pentagon, with interference from a Congress which itself is composed of
politicians eager to obtain military contracts for their constituencies.

NATO is dragging Washington’s European allies down the same path. Just as the
Pentagon has replaced the State Department, NATO itself is being used by the
United States as a potential substitute for the United Nations. The 1999 „Kosovo
war“ was a first major step in that direction. Sarkozy’s France, after rejoining
the NATO joint command, is gutting the traditionally skilled French foreign
service, cutting back on civilian representation throughout the world. The
European Union foreign service now being created by Lady Ashton will have no
policy and no authority of its own.

Bureaucratic Inertia
Behind its appeals to „common values“, NATO is driven above all by bureaucratic
inertia. The alliance itself is an excrescence of the U.S. military-industrial
complex. For sixty years, military procurements and Pentagon contracts have been
an essential source of industrial research, profits, jobs, Congressional
careers, even university funding. The interplay of these varied interests
converge to determine an implicit U.S. strategy of world conquest.

An ever-expanding global network of somewhere between 800 and a thousand
military bases on foreign soil.

Bilateral military accords with client states which offer training while
obliging them to purchase U.S.-made weapons and redesign their armed forces away
from national defense toward internal security (i.e. repression) and possible
integration into U.S.-led wars of aggression.

Use of these close relationships with local armed forces to influence the
domestic politics of weaker states.

Perpetual military exercises with client states, which provide the Pentagon with
perfect knowledge of the military potential of client states, integrate them
into the U.S. military machine, and sustain a „ready for war“ mentality.

Deployment of its network of bases, „allies“ and military exercises so as to
surround, isolate, intimidate and eventually provoke major nations perceived as
potential rivals, notably Russia and China.

The implicit strategy of the United States, as perceived by its actions, is a
gradual military conquest to ensure world domination. One original feature of
this world conquest project is that, although extremely active, day after day,
it is virtually ignored by the vast majority of the population of the conquering
nation, as well as by its most closely dominated allies, i.e., the NATO states.
The endless propaganda about „terrorist threats“ (the fleas on the elephant) and
other diversions keep most Americans totally unaware of what is going on, all
the more easily in that Americans are almost uniquely ignorant of the rest of
the world and thus totally uninterested. The U.S. may bomb a country off the map
before more than a small fraction of Americans know where to find it.
The main task of U.S. strategists, whose careers take them between think tanks,
boards of directors, consultancy firms and the government, is to justify this
giant mechanism much more than to steer it. To a large extent, it steers itself.
Since the collapse of the „Soviet threat“, policy-makers have settled for
invisible or potential threats. U.S. military doctrine has as its aim to move
preventively against any potential rival to U.S. world hegemony. Since the
collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia retains the largest arsenal outside the
United States, and China is a rapidly rising economic power. Neither one
threatens the United States or Western Europe. On the contrary, both are ready
and willing to concentrate on peaceful business.
However, they are increasingly alarmed by the military encirclement and
provocative military exercises carried on by the United States on their very
doorsteps. The implicit aggressive strategy may be obscure to most Americans,
but leaders in the targeted countries are quite certain they understand what it
is going on.The Russia-Iran-Israel Triangle
Currently, the main explicit „enemy“ is Iran. Washington claims that the
„missile shield“ which it is forcing on its European allies is designed to
defend the West from Iran. But the Russians see quite clearly that the missile
shield is aimed at themselves. First of all, they understand quite clearly that
Iran has no such missiles nor any possible motive for using them against the
West. It is perfectly obvious to all informed analysts that even if Iran
developed nuclear weapons and missiles, they would be conceived as a deterrent
against Israel, the regional nuclear superpower which enjoys a free hand
attacking neighboring countries. Israel does not want to lose that freedom to
attack, and thus naturally opposes the Iranian deterrent. Israeli propagandists
scream loudly about the threat from Iran, and have worked incessantly to infect
NATO with their paranoia.

Israel has even been described as „Global NATO’s 29th member“. Israeli officials
have assiduously worked on a receptive Madeleine Albright to make sure that
Israeli interests are included in the „Strategic Concept“. During the past five
years, Israel and NATO have been taking part in joint naval exercises in the Red
Sea and in the Mediterranean, as well as joint ground exercises from Brussels to
Ukraine. On October 16, 2006, Israel became the first non-European country to
reach a so-called „Individual Cooperation Program“ agreement with NATO for
cooperation in 27 different areas. It is worth noting that Israel is the only
country outside Europe which the U.S. includes in the area of responsibility of
its European Command (rather than the Central Command that covers the rest of
the Middle East).
At a NATO-Israel Relations seminar in Herzliya on October 24, 2006, the Israeli
foreign minister at the time, Tzipi Livni, declared that „The alliance between
NATO and Israel is only natural….Israel and NATO share a common strategic
vision. In many ways, Israel is the front line defending our common way of
life.“
Not everybody in European countries would consider that Israeli settlements in
occupied Palestine reflect „our common way of life“. This is no doubt one reason
why the deepening union between NATO and Israel has not taken the open form of
NATO membership. Especially after the savage attack on Gaza, such a move would
arouse objections in European countries. Nevertheless, Israel continues to
invite itself into NATO, ardently supported, of course, by its faithful
followers in the U.S. Congress.
The principal cause of this growing Israel-NATO symbiosis has been identified by
Mearsheimer and Walt: the vigorous and powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United
States. Israeli lobbies are also strong in France, Germany and the UK. They have
zealously developed the theme of Israel as the „front line“ in the defense of
„Western values“ against militant Islam. The fact that militant Islam is largely
a product of that „front line“ creates a perfect vicious circle.
Israel’s aggressive stance toward its regional neighbors would be a serious
liability for NATO, apt to be dragged into wars of Israel’s choosing which are
by no means in the interest of Europe.
However, there is one subtle strategic advantage in the Israeli connection which
the United States seems to be using… against Russia. By subscribing to the
hysterical „Iranian threat“ theory, the United States can continue to claim with
a straight face that the planned missile shield is directed against Iran, not
Russia. This cannot be expected to convince the Russians. But it can be used to
make their protests sound „paranoid“ – at least to the ears of the Western
faithful. Dear me, what can they be complaining about when we „reset“ our
relations with Moscow and invite the Russian president to our „Strategic
Concept“ happy gathering?
However, the Russians know quite well that:
The missile shield is to be constructed surrounding Russia, which does have
missiles, which it keeps for deterrence.

By neutralizing Russian missiles, the United States would free its own hand to
attack Russia, knowing that the Russia could not retaliate.

Therefore, whatever is said, the missile shield, if it worked, would serve to
facilitate eventual aggression against Russia.Encircling Russia
The encirclement of Russia continues in the Black Sea, the Baltic and the Arctic
circle.
United States officials continue to claim that Ukraine must join NATO. Just this
week, in a New York Times column, Zbigniew’s son Ian J. Brzezinski advised Obama
against abandoning the „vision“ of a „whole, free and secure“ Europe including
„eventual Georgian and Ukrainian membership in NATO and the European Union.“ The
fact that the vast majority of the people of Ukraine are against NATO membership
is of no account. For the current scion of the noble Brzezinski dynasty it is
the minority that counts. Abandoning the vision „undercuts those in Georgia and
Ukraine who see their future in Europe. It reinforces Kremlin aspirations for a
sphere of influence…“ The notion that „the Kremlin“ aspires to a „sphere of
influence“ in Ukraine is absurd considering the extremely close historic links
between Russia and Ukraine, whose capital Kiev was the cradle of the Russian
state. But the Brzezinski family hailed from Galicia, the part of Western
Ukraine which once belonged to Poland, and which is the center of the
anti-Russian minority. U.S. foreign policy is all too frequently influenced by
such foreign rivalries of which the vast majority of Americans are totally
ignorant.

Relentless U.S. insistence on absorbing Ukraine continues despite the fact that
it would imply expelling the Russian Black Sea fleet from its base in the
Crimean peninsula, where the local population is overwhelmingly Russian speaking
and pro-Russian. This is a recipe for war with Russia if ever there was one.
And meanwhile, U.S. officials continue to declare their support for Georgia,
whose American-trained president openly hopes to bring NATO support into his
next war against Russia. Aside from provocative naval maneuvers in the Black
Sea, the United States, NATO and (as yet) non-NATO members Sweden and Finland
regularly carry out major military exercises in the Baltic Sea, virtually in
sight of the Russia cities Saint Petersburg and Kaliningrad. These exercises
involve thousands of ground troops, hundreds of aircraft including F-15 jet
fighters, AWACS, as well as naval forces including the U.S. Carrier Strike Group
12, landing craft and warships from a dozen countries.
Perhaps most ominous of all, in the Arctic region, the United States has been
persistently engaging Canada and the Scandinavian states (including Denmark via
Greenland) in a military deployment openly directed against Russia. The point of
these Arctic deployment was stated by Fogh Rasmussen when he mentioned, among
„threats“ to be met by NATO, the fact that „Arctic ice is retreating, for
resources that had, until now, been covered under ice.“ Now, one might consider
that this uncovering of resources would be an opportunity for cooperation in
exploiting them. But that is not the official U.S. mind set.

Last October, US Admiral James G Stavridis, supreme Nato commander for Europe,
said global warming and a race for resources could lead to a conflict in the
Arctic. Coast Guard Rear Admiral Christopher C. Colvin, in charge of Alaska’s
coastline, said Russian shipping activity in the Arctic Ocean was „of particular
concern“ for the US and called for more military facilities in the region. The
US Geological Service believes that the Arctic contains up to a quarter of the
world’s unexplored deposits of oil and gas. Under the 1982 United Nations Law of
the Sea Convention, a coastal state is entitled to a 200-nautical mile EEZ and
can claim a further 150 miles if it proves that the seabed is a continuation of
its continental shelf. Russia is applying to make this claim. After pushing for
the rest of the world to adopt the Convention, the United States Senate has
still not ratified the Treaty. In January 2009, NATO declared the „High North“
to be „of strategic interest to the Alliance,“ and since then, NATO has held
several major war games clearly preparing for eventual conflict with Russia over
Arctic resources.
Russia largely dismantled its defenses in the Arctic after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, and has called for negotiating compromises over resource control.
Last September, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called for joint efforts to
protect the fragile ecosystem, attract foreign investment, promote
environmentally friendly technologies and work to resolve disputes through
international law. But the United States, as usual, prefers to settle the issue
by throwing its weight around. This could lead to a new arms race in the Arctic,
and even to armed clashes.
Despite all these provocative moves, it is most unlikely that the United States
actually seeks war with Russia, although skirmishes and incidents here and there
cannot be ruled out. The U.S. policy appears to be to encircle and intimidate
Russia to such an extent that it accepts a semi-satellite status that
neutralizes it in the anticipated future conflict with China. Target China

The only reason to target China is like the proverbial reason to climb the
mountain: it is there. It is big. And the US must be on top of everything.
The strategy for dominating China is the same as for Russia. It is classic
warfare: encirclement, siege, more or less clandestine support for internal
disorder. As examples of this strategy:
The United States is provocatively strengthening its military presence along the
Pacific shores of China, offering „protection against China“ to East Asian
countries.
During the Cold War, when India got its armaments from the Soviet Union and
struck a non-aligned posture, the United States armed Pakistan as its main
regional ally. Now the U.S. is shifting its favors to India, in order to keep
India out of the orbit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and to build it
as a counterweight to China.

The United States and its allies support any internal dissidence that might
weaken China, whether it is the Dalai Lama, the Uighurs, or Liu Xiaobo, the
jailed dissident.

The Nobel Peace Prize was bestowed on Liu Xiaobo by a committee of Norwegian
legislators headed by Thorbjorn Jagland, Norway’s echo of Tony Blair, who has
served as Norway’s prime minister and foreign minister, and has been one of his
country’s main cheerleaders for NATO. At a NATO-sponsored conference of European
parliamentarians last year, Jagland declared: „When we are not able to stop
tyranny, war starts. This is why NATO is indispensable. NATO is the only
multilateral military organization rooted in international law. It is an
organization that the U.N. can use when necessary — to stop tyranny, like we did
in the Balkans.“ This is an astoundingly bold misstatement of fact, considering
that NATO openly defied international law and the United Nations to make war in
the Balkans – where in reality there was ethnic conflict, but no „tyranny“.
In announcing the choice of Liu, the Norwegian Nobel committee, headed by
Jagland, declared that it „has long believed that there is a close connection
between human rights and peace.“ The „close connection“, to follow the logic of
Jagland’s own statements, is that if a foreign state fails to respect human
rights according to Western interpretations, it may be bombed, as NATO bombed
Yugoslavia. Indeed, the very powers that make the most noise about „human
rights“, notably the United States and Britain, are the ones making the most
wars all over the world. The Norwegian’s statements make it clear that granting
the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu (who in his youth spent time in Norway) amounted in
reality to an endorsement of NATO.“Democracies“ to replace the United Nations
The European members of NATO add relatively little to the military power of the
United States. Their contribution is above all political. Their presence
maintains the illusion of an „International Community“. The world conquest being
pursued by the bureaucratic inertia of the Pentagon can be presented as the
crusade by the world’s „democracies“ to spread their enlightened political order
to the rest of a recalcitrant world.

The Euro-Atlantic governments proclaim their „democracy“ as proof of their
absolute right to intervene in the affairs of the rest of the world. On the
basis of the fallacy that „human rights are necessary for peace“, they proclaim
their right to make war.

A crucial question is whether „Western democracy“ still has the strength to
dismantle this war machine before it is too late.NoteDiana Johnstoneis the
author of Fools Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions.She can be
reached at diana.josto@yahoo.fr: Grateful thanks to Rick Rozoff for his constant
flow of important information. One who does presume to define strategy is
Zbigniew Brzezinski, godfather of the Afghan Mujahidin back when they could be
used to destroy the Soviet Union. Brzezinski was not shy about bluntly stating
the strategic objective of U.S. policy in his 1993 book The Grand Chessboard:
„American primacy“. As for NATO, he described it as one of the institutions
serving to perpetuate American hegemony, „making the United States a key
participant even in intra-European affairs.“ In its „global web of specialized
institutions“, which of course includes NATO, the United States exercises power
through
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158367084X/counterpunchmagahttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158367084X/counterpunchmaga„continuous
bargaining, dialogue, diffusion, and quest for formal consensus, even though
that power originates ultimately from a single source, namely, Washington, D.C.“