An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Recently
by Andrew Gavin Marshall: The
Economic Recovery Is an Illusion

In the face
of total global economic collapse, the prospects of a massive international
war are increasing. Historically, periods of imperial decline and
economic crisis are marked by increased international violence and
war. The decline of the great European empires was marked by World
War I and World War II, with the Great Depression taking place in
the intermediary period.

Currently,
the world is witnessing the decline of the American empire, itself
a product born out of World War II. As the post-war imperial hegemon,
America ran the international monetary system and reigned as champion
and arbitrator of the global political economy.

To manage the
global political economy, the US has created the single largest
and most powerful military force in world history. Constant control
over the global economy requires constant military presence and
action.

Now that both
the American empire and global political economy are in decline
and collapse, the prospect of a violent end to the American imperial
age is drastically increasing.

This essay
is broken into three separate parts. The first part covers US-NATO
geopolitical strategy since the end of the Cold War, at the beginning
of the New World Order, outlining the western imperial strategy
that led to the war in Yugoslavia and the u201CWar on Terror.u201D Part
2 analyzes the nature of u201Csoft revolutionsu201D or u201Ccolour revolutionsu201D
in US imperial strategy, focusing on establishing hegemony over
Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Part 3 analyzes the nature of the
imperial strategy to construct a New World Order, focusing on the
increasing conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Latin America,
Eastern Europe and Africa; and the potential these conflicts have
for starting a new world war with China and Russia.

Defining
a New Imperial Strategy

In 1991, with
the collapse of the Soviet Union, US-NATO foreign policy had to
re-imagine its role in the world. The Cold War served as a means
of justifying US imperialist expansion across the globe with the
aim of u201Ccontainingu201D the Soviet threat. NATO itself was created and
existed for the sole purpose of forging an anti-Soviet alliance.
With the USSR gone, NATO had no reason to exist, and the US had
to find a new purpose for its imperialist strategy in the world.

In 1992, the
US Defense Department, under the leadership of Secretary of Defense
Dick Cheney [later to be George Bush Jr.'s VP], had the Pentagon's
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz [later to
be George Bush Jr.'s Deputy Secretary of Defense and President of
the World Bank], write up a defense document to guide American foreign
policy in the post-Cold War era, commonly referred to as the u201CNew
World Order.u201D

The Defense
Planning Guidance document was leaked in 1992, and revealed that,
u201CIn a broad new policy statement that is in its final drafting phase,
the Defense Department asserts that America's political and military
mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure that no rival
superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territories
of the former Soviet Union,u201D and that, u201CThe classified document
makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position
can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military
might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American
primacy.u201D

Further, u201Cthe
new draft sketches a world in which there is one dominant military
power whose leaders u2018must maintain the mechanisms for deterring
potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or
global role'.u201D Among the necessary challenges to American supremacy,
the document u201Cpostulated regional wars against Iraq and North Korea,u201D
and identified China and Russia as its major threats. It further
u201Csuggests that the United States could also consider extending to
Eastern and Central European nations security commitments similar
to those extended to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab states
along the Persian Gulf.u201D[1]

NATO
and Yugoslavia

The wars in
Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s served as a justification for the
continued existence of NATO in the world, and to expand American
imperial interests in Eastern Europe.

The World Bank
and IMF set the stage for the destabilization of Yugoslavia. After
long-time dictator of Yugoslavia, Josip Tito, died in 1980, a leadership
crisis developed. In 1982, American foreign policy officials organized
a set of IMF and World Bank loans, under the newly created Structural
Adjustment Programs (SAPs), to handle the crisis of the $20 billion
US debt. The effect of the loans, under the SAP, was that they u201Cwreaked
economic and political havoc… The economic crisis threatened political
stability … it also threatened to aggravate simmering ethnic tensions.u201D[2]

In 1989, Slobodan
Milosevic became President of Serbia, the largest and most powerful
of all the Yugoslav republics. Also in 1989, Yugoslavia's Premier
traveled to the US to meet President George H.W. Bush in order to
negotiate another financial aid package. In 1990, the World Bank/IMF
program began, and the Yugoslav state's expenditures went towards
debt repayment. As a result, social programs were dismantled, the
currency devalued, wages frozen, and prices rose. The u201Creforms fueled
secessionist tendencies that fed on economic factors as well as
ethnic divisions, virtually ensuring the de facto secession of the
republic,u201D leading to Croatia and Slovenia's succession in 1991.[3]

In 1990, US
the intelligence community released a National Intelligence Estimate
(NIE), predicting that Yugoslavia would break apart, erupt in civil
war, and the report then placed blame on Serbian President Milosevic
for the coming destabilization.[4]

In 1991, conflict
broke out between Yugoslavia and Croatia, when it, too, declared
independence. A ceasefire was reached in 1992. Yet, the Croats continued
small military offensives until 1995, as well as participating in
the war in Bosnia. In 1995, Operation Storm was undertaken by Croatia
to try to retake the Krajina region. A Croatian general was recently
put on trial at The Hague for war crimes during this battle, which
was key to driving the Serbs out of Croatia and u201Ccemented Croatian
independence.u201D The US supported the operation and the CIA actively
provided intelligence to Croat forces, leading to the displacement
of between 150,000 and 200,000 Serbs, largely through means of murder,
plundering, burning villages and ethnic cleansing.[5] The Croatian
Army was trained by US advisers, and the general on trial was even
personally supported by the CIA.[6]

The Clinton
administration gave the u201Cgreen lightu201D to Iran to arm the Bosnian
Muslims and u201Cfrom 1992 to January 1996, there was an influx of Iranian
weapons and advisers into Bosnia.u201D Further, u201CIran, and other Muslim
states, helped to bring Mujihadeen fighters into Bosnia to fight
with the Muslims against the Serbs, ‘holy warriors’ from Afghanistan,
Chechnya, Yemen and Algeria, some of whom had suspected links with
Osama bin Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan.u201D

It was u201CWestern
intervention in the Balkans [that] exacerbated tensions and helped
to sustain hostilities. By recognising the claims of separatist
republics and groups in 1990/1991, Western elites – the American,
British, French and German – undermined government structures
in Yugoslavia, increased insecurities, inflamed conflict and heightened
ethnic tensions. And by offering logistical support to various sides
during the war, Western intervention sustained the conflict into
the mid-1990s. Clinton’s choice of the Bosnian Muslims as a cause
to champion on the international stage, and his administration’s
demands that the UN arms embargo be lifted so that the Muslims and
Croats could be armed against the Serbs, should be viewed in this
light.u201D[7]

During the
war in Bosnia, there u201Cwas a vast secret conduit of weapons smuggling
though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine agencies of
the US, Turkey and Iran, together with a range of radical Islamist
groups, including Afghan mojahedin and the pro-Iranian Hizbullah.u201D
Further, u201Cthe secret services of Ukraine, Greece and Israel were
busy arming the Bosnian Serbs.u201D[8] Germany's intelligence agency,
the BND, also ran arms shipments to the Bosnian Muslims and Croatia
to fight against the Serbs.[9]

The US had
influenced the war in the region in a variety of ways. As the Observer
reported in 1995, a major facet of their involvement was through
u201CMilitary Professional Resources Inc (MPRI), a Virginia-based American
private company of retired generals and intelligence officers. The
American embassy in Zagreb admits that MPRI is training the Croats,
on licence from the US government.u201D Further, The Dutch u201Cwere convinced
that US special forces were involved in training the Bosnian army
and the Bosnian Croat Army (HVO).u201D[10]

As far back
as 1988, the leader of Croatia met with the German Chancellor Helmut
Kohl to create u201Ca joint policy to break up Yugoslavia,u201D and bring
Slovenia and Croatia into the u201CGerman economic zone.u201D So, US Army
officers were dispatched to Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, and Macedonia
as u201Cadvisersu201D and brought in US Special Forces to help.[11] During
the nine-month cease-fire in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, six
US generals met with Bosnian army leaders to plan the Bosnian offensive
that broke the cease-fire.[12]

In 1996, the
Albanian Mafia, in collaboration with the Kosovo Liberation Army
(KLA), a militant guerilla organization, took control over the enormous
Balkan heroin trafficking routes. The KLA was linked to former Afghan
Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden.[13]

In 1997, the
KLA began fighting against Serbian forces,[14] and in 1998, the
US State Department removed the KLA from its list of terrorist organizations.[15]
Before and after 1998, the KLA was receiving arms, training and
support from the US and NATO, and Clinton's Secretary of State,
Madeline Albright, had a close political relationship with KLA leader
Hashim Thaci.[16]

Both the CIA
and German intelligence, the BND, supported the KLA terrorists in
Yugoslavia prior to and after the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
The BND had KLA contacts since the early 1990s, the same period
that the KLA was establishing its Al-Qaeda contacts.[17] KLA members
were trained by Osama bin Laden at training camps in Afghanistan.
Even the UN stated that much of the violence that occurred came
from KLA members, u201Cespecially those allied with Hashim Thaci.u201D[18]

The March 1999
NATO bombing of Kosovo was justified on the pretense of putting
an end to Serbian oppression of Kosovo Albanians, which was termed
genocide. The Clinton Administration made claims that at least 100,000
Kosovo Albanians were missing and u201Cmay have been killedu201D by the
Serbs. Bill Clinton personally compared events in Kosovo to the
Holocaust. The US State Department had stated that up to 500,000
Albanians were feared dead. Eventually, the official estimate was
reduced to 10,000, however, after exhaustive investigations, it
was revealed that the death of less than 2,500 Albanians could be
attributed to the Serbs. During the NATO bombing campaign, between
400 and 1,500 Serb civilians were killed, and NATO committed war
crimes, including the bombing of a Serb TV station and a hospital.[19]

In 2000, the
US State Department, in cooperation with the American Enterprise
Institute, AEI, held a conference on Euro-Atlantic integration in
Slovakia. Among the participants were many heads of state, foreign
affairs officials and ambassadors of various European states as
well as UN and NATO officials.[20] A letter of correspondence between
a German politician present at the meeting and the German Chancellor,
revealed the true nature of NATO's campaign in Kosovo. The conference
demanded a speedy declaration of independence for Kosovo, and that
the war in Yugoslavia was waged in order to enlarge NATO, Serbia
was to be excluded permanently from European development to justify
a US military presence in the region, and expansion was ultimately
designed to contain Russia.[21]

Of great significance
was that, u201Cthe war created a raison d’tre for the continued existence
of NATO in a post-Cold War world, as it desperately tried to justify
its continued existence and desire for expansion.u201D Further, u201CThe
Russians had assumed NATO would dissolve at the end of the Cold
War. Instead, not only has NATO expanded, it went to war over an
internal dispute in a Slavic Eastern European country.u201D This was
viewed as a great threat. Thus, u201Cmuch of the tense relations between
the United States and Russia over the past decade can be traced
to the 1999 war on Yugoslavia.u201D[22]

The
War on Terror and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

When Bill Clinton
became President, the neo-conservative hawks from the George H.W.
Bush administration formed a think tank called the Project for the
New American Century, or PNAC. In 2000, they published a report
called, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources
for a New Century. Building upon the Defense Policy Guidance document,
they state that, u201Cthe United States must retain sufficient forces
able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale
wars.u201D[23] Further, there is u201Cneed to retain sufficient combat forces
to fight and win, multiple, nearly simultaneous major theatre wars,u201D[24]
and that u201Cthe Pentagon needs to begin to calculate the force necessary
to protect, independently, US interests in Europe, East Asia and
the Gulf at all times.u201D[25]

Interestingly,
the document stated that, u201Cthe United States has for decades sought
to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification,
the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends
the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.u201D[26] However, in advocating
for massive increases in defense spending and expanding the American
empire across the globe, including the forceful destruction of multiple
countries through major theatre wars, the report stated that, u201CFurther,
the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change,
is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event — like a new Pearl Harbor.u201D[27] That event came one year later
with the events of 9/11. Many of the authors of the report and members
of the Project for the New American Century had become officials
in the Bush administration, and were conveniently in place to enact
their u201CProjectu201D after they got their u201Cnew Pearl Harbor.u201D

The plans for
war were u201Calready under development by far right Think Tanks in
the 1990s, organisations in which cold-war warriors from the inner
circle of the secret services, from evangelical churches, from weapons
corporations and oil companies forged shocking plans for a new world
order.u201D To do this, u201Cthe USA would need to use all means –
diplomatic, economic and military, even wars of aggression –
to have long term control of the resources of the planet and the
ability to keep any possible rival weak.u201D

Among the people
involved in PNAC and the plans for empire, u201CDick Cheney – Vice
President, Lewis Libby – Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld
– Defence Minister, Paul Wolfowitz – Rumsfeld’s deputy,
Peter Rodman – in charge of ‘Matters of Global Security’, John
Bolton – State Secretary for Arms Control, Richard Armitage
– Deputy Foreign Minister, Richard Perle – former Deputy
Defence Minister under Reagan, now head of the Defense Policy Board,
William Kristol – head of the PNAC and adviser to Bush, known
as the brains of the President, Zalmay Khalilzad,u201D who became Ambassador
to both Afghanistan and Iraq following the regime changes in those
countries.[28]

Brzezinski's
u201CGrand Chessboardu201D

Arch-hawk strategist,
Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with
David Rockefeller, former National Security Adviser and key foreign
policy architect in Jimmy Carter's administration, also wrote a
book on American geostrategy. Brzezinski is also a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group, and has also
been a board member of Amnesty International, the Atlantic Council
and the National Endowment for Democracy. Currently, he is a trustee
and counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS), a major US policy think tank.

In his 1997
book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski outlined a strategy
for America in the world. He wrote, u201CFor America, the chief geopolitical
prize is Eurasia. For half a millennium, world affairs were dominated
by Eurasian powers and peoples who fought with one another for regional
domination and reached out for global power.u201D Further, u201Chow America
u2018manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent
and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would
control two of the world's three most advanced and economically
productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that
control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail African subordination.u201D[29]

He continued
in outlining a strategy for American empire, stating that, u201Cit is
imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating
Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of
a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore
the purpose of this book.u201D[30] He explained that, u201CTwo basic steps
are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic
Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important
shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher
the central external goals of their respective political elites
and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them: [and]
second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or
control the above.u201D[31]

What this means
is that is it of primary importance to first identify states that
could potentially be a pivot upon which the balance of power in
the region exits the US sphere of influence; and secondly, to u201Coffset,
co-opt, and/or controlu201D such states and circumstances. An example
of this would be Iran; being one of the world's largest oil producers,
and in a strategically significant position in the axis of Europe,
Asia and the Middle East. Iran could hold the potential to alter
the balance of power in Eurasia if it were to closely ally itself
with Russia or China, or both — giving those nations a heavy supply
of oil as well as a sphere of influence in the Gulf, thus challenging
American hegemony in the region.

Brzezinski
removed all subtlety from his imperial leanings, and wrote, u201CTo
put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age
of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy
are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among
the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep
the barbarians from coming together.u201D[32]

Brzezinski
referred to the Central Asian republics as the u201CEurasian Balkans,u201D
writing that, u201CMoreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are
of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions
to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors,
namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing
political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely
more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration
of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition
to important minerals, including gold.u201D[33] He further wrote that,
u201CIt follows that America’s primary interest is to help ensure that
no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that
the global community has unhindered financial and economic access
to it.u201D[34] This is a clear example of America's role as an engine
of empire; with foreign imperial policy designed to maintain US
strategic positions, but primarily and u201Cinfinitely more important,u201D
is to secure an u201Ceconomic prizeu201D for u201Cthe global community.u201D In
other words, the United States is an imperial hegemon working for
international financial interests.

Brzezinski
also warned that, u201Cthe United States may have to determine how to
cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia,
thereby threatening America’s status as a global power,u201D[35] and
he, u201Cputs a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent
the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek
to challenge America’s primacy.u201D Thus, u201CThe most immediate task
is to make certain 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.u201D[36]

The
War on Terror and Surplus Imperialism

In 2000, the
Pentagon released a document called Joint Vision 2020, which outlined
a project to achieve what they termed, u201CFull Spectrum Dominance,u201D
as the blueprint for the Department of Defense in the future. u201CFull-spectrum
dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with
allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across
the range of military operations.u201D The report u201Caddresses full-spectrum
dominance across the range of conflicts from nuclear war to major
theater wars to smaller-scale contingencies. It also addresses amorphous
situations like peacekeeping and noncombat humanitarian relief.u201D
Further, u201CThe development of a global information grid will provide
the environment for decision superiority.u201D[37]

As political
economist, Ellen Wood, explained, u201CBoundless domination of a global
economy, and of the multiple states that administer it, requires
military action without end, in purpose or time.u201D[38] Further, u201CImperial
dominance in a global capitalist economy requires a delicate and
contradictory balance between suppressing competition and maintaining
conditions in competing economies that generate markets and profit.
This is one of the most fundamental contradictions of the new world
order.u201D[39]

Following 9/11,
the u201CBush doctrineu201D was put in place, which called for u201Ca unilateral
and exclusive right to preemptive attack, any time, anywhere, unfettered
by any international agreements, to ensure that u2018[o]ur forces will
be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing
a military build-up in hope of surpassing, or equaling, the power
of the United States'.u201D[40]

NATO undertook
its first ground invasion of any nation in its entire history, with
the October 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The Afghan
war was in fact, planned prior to the events of 9/11, with the breakdown
of major pipeline deals between major western oil companies and
the Taliban. The war itself was planned over the summer of 2001
with the operational plan to go to war by mid-October.[41]

Afghanistan
is extremely significant in geopolitical terms, as, u201CTransporting
all the Caspian basin’s fossil fuel through Russia or Azerbaijan
would greatly enhance Russia’s political and economic control over
the central Asian republics, which is precisely what the west has
spent 10 years trying to prevent. Piping it through Iran would enrich
a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate. Sending it the
long way round through China, quite aside from the strategic considerations,
would be prohibitively expensive. But pipelines through Afghanistan
would allow the US both to pursue its aim of u2018diversifying energy
supply' and to penetrate the world’s most lucrative markets.u201D[42]

As the San
Francisco Chronicle pointed out a mere two weeks following the 9/11
attacks, u201CBeyond American determination to hit back against the
perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, beyond the likelihood of longer,
drawn-out battles producing more civilian casualties in the months
and years ahead, the hidden stakes in the war against terrorism
can be summed up in a single word: oil.u201D Explaining further, u201CThe
map of terrorist sanctuaries and targets in the Middle East and
Central Asia is also, to an extraordinary degree, a map of the world’s
principal energy sources in the 21st century. The defense of these
energy resources – rather than a simple confrontation between
Islam and the West – will be the primary flash point of global
conflict for decades to come.u201D

Among the many
notable states where there is a crossover between terrorism and
oil and gas reserves of vital importance to the United States and
the West, are Saudi Arabia, Libya, Bahrain, the Gulf Emirates, Iran,
Iraq, Egypt, Sudan and Algeria, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan,
Chechnya, Georgia and eastern Turkey. Importantly, u201Cthis region
accounts for more than 65 percent of the world’s oil and natural
gas production.u201D Further, u201CIt is inevitable that the war against
terrorism will be seen by many as a war on behalf of America’s Chevron,
ExxonMobil and Arco; France’s TotalFinaElf; British Petroleum; Royal
Dutch Shell and other multinational giants, which have hundreds
of billions of dollars of investment in the region.u201D[43]

It's no secret
that the Iraq war had much to do with oil. In the summer of 2001,
Dick Cheney convened an Energy Task Force, which was a highly secret
set of meetings in which energy policy was determined for the United
States. In the meetings and in various other means of communication,
Cheney and his aides met with top officials and executives of Shell
Oil, British Petroleum (BP), Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Conoco, and Chevron.[44]
At the meeting, which took place before 9/11 and before there was
any mention of a war on Iraq, documents of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines,
refineries and terminals were presented and discussed, and u201CSaudi
Arabian and United Arab Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature
a map of each country's oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker
terminals.u201D[45] Both Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum have
since received major oil contracts to develop Iraqi oilfields.[46]

The war on
Iraq, as well as the war on Afghanistan, also largely serve specifically
American, and more broadly, Western imperial-strategic interests
in the region. In particular, the wars were strategically designed
to eliminate, threaten or contain regional powers, as well as to
directly install several dozen military bases in the region, firmly
establishing an imperial presence. The purpose of this is largely
aimed at other major regional players and specifically, encircling
Russia and China and threatening their access to the region’s oil
and gas reserves. Iran is now surrounded, with Iraq on one side,
and Afghanistan on the other.

Concluding
Remarks

Part 1 of this
essay outlined the US-NATO imperial strategy for entering the New
World Order, following the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The primary aim was focused on encircling Russia and China and preventing
the rise of a new superpower. The US was to act as the imperial
hegemon, serving international financial interests in imposing the
New World Order. The next part to this essay examines the u201Ccolour
revolutionsu201D throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia, continuing
the US and NATO policy of containing Russia and China; while controlling
access to major natural gas reserves and transportation routes.
The u201Ccolour revolutionsu201D have been a pivotal force in geopolitical
imperial strategy, and analyzing them is key to understanding the
New World Order.

Endnotes

[1] Tyler,
Patrick E. U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop:
A One Superpower World. The New York Times: March 8, 1992. http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm

[2] Louis Sell,
Slobodan Milosevic and the Destruction of Yugoslavia. Duke University
Press, 2002: Page 28

Michel Chossudovsky,
Dismantling Former Yugoslavia, Recolonizing Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Global Research: February 19, 2002: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=370

[3] Michel
Chossudovsky, Dismantling Former Yugoslavia, Recolonizing Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Global Research: February 19, 2002: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=370

[4] David Binder,
Yugoslavia Seen Breaking Up Soon. The New York Times: November 28,
1990

[5] Ian Traynor,
Croat general on trial for war crimes. The Guardian: March 12, 2008:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/12/warcrimes.balkans

[6] Adam LeBor,
Croat general Ante Gotovina stands trial for war crimes. The Times
Online: March 11, 2008: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3522828.ece

[7] Brendan
O'Neill, ‘You are only allowed to see Bosnia in black and white’.
Spiked: January 23, 2004: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA374.htm

[8] Richard
J. Aldrich, America used Islamists to arm the Bosnian Muslims. The
Guardian: April 22, 2002: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/22/warcrimes.comment/print

[9] Tim Judah,
German spies accused of arming Bosnian Muslims. The Telegraph: April
20, 1997: http://www.serbianlinks.freehosting.net/german.htm

[10] Charlotte
Eagar, Invisible US Army defeats Serbs. The Observer: November 5,
1995: http://charlotte-eagar.com/stories/balkans110595.shtml

[11] Gary Wilson,
New reports show secret U.S. role in Balkan war. Workers World News
Service: 1996: http://www.workers.org/ww/1997/bosnia.html

[12] IAC, The
CIA Role in Bosnia. International Action Center: http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/ciarole.htm

[13] History
Commons, Serbia and Montenegro: 1996-1999: Albanian Mafia and KLA
Take Control of Balkan Heroin Trafficking Route. The Center for
Cooperative Research: http://www.historycommons.org/topic.jsp?topic=country_serbia_and_montenegro

[14] History
Commons, Serbia and Montenegro: 1997: KLA Surfaces to Resist Serbian
Persecution of Albanians. The Center for Cooperative Research: http://www.historycommons.org/topic.jsp?topic=country_serbia_and_montenegro

[15] History
Commons, Serbia and Montenegro: February 1998: State Department
Removes KLA from Terrorism List. The Center for Cooperative Research:
http://www.historycommons.org/topic.jsp?topic=country_serbia_and_montenegro

[16] Marcia
Christoff Kurop, Al Qaeda’s Balkan Links. The Wall Street Journal:
November 1, 2001: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/561291/posts

[17] Global
Research, German Intelligence and the CIA supported Al Qaeda sponsored
Terrorists in Yugoslavia. Global Research: February 20, 2005: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=431

[18] Michel
Chossudovsky, Kosovo: The US and the EU support a Political Process
linked to Organized Crime. Global Research: February 12, 2008: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8055

[19] Andrew
Gavin Marshall, Breaking Yugoslavia. Geopolitical Monitor: July
21, 2008: http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/content/backgrounders/2008-07-21/breaking-yugoslavia/

[20] AEI, Is
Euro-Atlantic Integration Still on Track? Participant List. American
Enterprise Institute: April 28-30, 2000: http://www.aei.org/research/nai/events/pageID.440,projectID.11/default.asp

[21] Aleksandar
Pavi, Correspondence between German Politicians Reveals the Hidden
Agenda behind Kosovo’s “Independence”. Global Research: March 12,
2008: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8304

[22] Stephen
Zunes, The War on Yugoslavia, 10 Years Later. Foreign Policy in
Focus: April 6, 2009: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6017

[23] PNAC,
Rebuilding America's Defenses. Project for the New American Century:
September 2000, page 6: http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

[24] Ibid.
Page 8

[25] Ibid.
Page 9

[26] Ibid.
Page 14

[27] Ibid.
Page 51

[28] Margo
Kingston, A think tank war: Why old Europe says no. The Sydney Morning
Herald: March 7, 2003: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826528748.html

[29] Brzezinski,
Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic
Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Pages 30-31

[30] Brzezinski,
Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic
Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page xiv

[31] Brzezinski,
Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic
Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page 41

[32] Brzezinski,
Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic
Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page 40

[33] Brzezinski,
Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic
Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page 124

[34] Brzezinski,
Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic
Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page 148

[35] Brzezinski,
Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic
Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page 55

[36] Brzezinski,
Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic
Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page 198

[37] Jim Garamone,
Joint Vision 2020 Emphasizes Full-spectrum Dominance. American Forces
Press Service: June 2, 2000:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45289

[38] Ellen
Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 144

[39] Ellen
Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 157

[40] Ellen
Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 160

[41] Andrew
G. Marshall, Origins of Afghan War. Geopolitical Monitor: September
14, 2008:
http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/content/backgrounders/2008-09-14/origins-of-the-afghan-war/

[42] George
Monbiot, America’s pipe dream. The Guardian: October 23, 2001:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/23/afghanistan.terrorism11

[43] Frank
Viviano, Energy future rides on U.S. war. San Francisco Chronicle:
September 26, 2001:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/26/MN70983.DTL

[44] Dana Milbank
and Justin Blum, Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force.
Washington Post: November 16, 2005:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842_pf.html

[45] Judicial
Watch, CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS.
Commerce Department: July 17, 2003: http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml

[46] TERRY
MACALISTER, Criticism as Shell signs $4bn Iraq oil deal. Mail and
Guardian: September 30, 2008: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-09-30-criticism-as-shell-signs-4bn-iraq-oil-deal

Al-Jazeera,
BP group wins Iraq oil contract. Al Jazeera Online: June 30, 2009:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200963093615637434.html

This originally
appeared on Global Research.

October
16, 2009

Andrew Gavin
Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on
Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy
and History at Simon Fraser University.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts