An Imperial Strategy for a New
World Order:
The Origins of World War III:
Part 1
by Andrew Gavin Marshall
http://globalresearch.ca/, October
16, 2009
Introduction
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 "War
on Terror." Part 2 analyzes the nature of "soft revolutions"
or "colour revolutions" 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 "containing" 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 "New World Order."
The Defense Planning Guidance document was leaked in 1992, and
revealed that, "In 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," and that, "The 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."
Further, "the new draft sketches a world in which there is
one dominant military power whose leaders 'must maintain the mechanisms
for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger
regional or global role'." Among the necessary challenges
to American supremacy, the document "postulated regional
wars against Iraq and North Korea," and identified China
and Russia as its major threats. It further "suggests 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."[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 "wreaked economic
and political havoc... The economic crisis threatened political
stability ... it also threatened to aggravate simmering ethnic
tensions."[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 "reforms fueled secessionist tendencies
that fed on economic factors as well as ethnic divisions, virtually
ensuring the de facto secession of the republic," 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 "cemented Croatian independence."
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 "green light" to
Iran to arm the Bosnian Muslims and "from 1992 to January
1996, there was an influx of Iranian weapons and advisers into
Bosnia." Further, "Iran, 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."
It was "Western 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."[7]
During the war in Bosnia, there "was 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." Further, "the secret
services of Ukraine, Greece and Israel were busy arming the Bosnian
Serbs."[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 "Military 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."
Further, The Dutch "were convinced that US special forces
were involved in training the Bosnian army and the Bosnian Croat
Army (HVO)."[10]
As far back as 1988, the leader of Croatia met with the German
Chancellor Helmut Kohl to create "a joint policy to break
up Yugoslavia," and bring Slovenia and Croatia into the "German
economic zone." So, US Army officers were dispatched to Croatia,
Bosnia, Albania, and Macedonia as "advisers" 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, "especially those allied
with Hashim Thaci."[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 "may have
been killed" 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, "the war created a raison
d'être 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." Further, "The 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." This was viewed as
a great threat. Thus, "much of the tense relations between
the United States and Russia over the past decade can be traced
to the 1999 war on Yugoslavia."[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, "the United States
must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple
simultaneous large-scale wars."[23] Further, there is "need
to retain sufficient combat forces to fight and win, multiple,
nearly simultaneous major theatre wars,"[24] and that "the
Pentagon needs to begin to calculate the force necessary to protect,
independently, US interests in Europe, East Asia and the Gulf
at all times."[25]
Interestingly, the document stated that, "the 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."[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, "Further,
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."[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 "Project" after
they got their "new Pearl Harbor."
The plans for war were "already 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." To do this, "the 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."
Among the people involved in PNAC and the plans for empire, "Dick
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," who became Ambassador
to both Afghanistan and Iraq following the regime changes in those
countries.[28]
Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard"
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, "For 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." Further, "how America 'manages' 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."[29]
He continued in outlining a strategy for American empire, stating
that, "it 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."[30] He explained
that, "Two 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."[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 "offset, co-opt, and/or control" 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, "To 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."[32]
Brzezinski referred to the Central Asian republics as the "Eurasian
Balkans," writing that, "Moreover, 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."[33] He further wrote that, "It 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."[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 "infinitely more important,"
is to secure an "economic prize" for "the global
community." In other words, the United States is an imperial
hegemon working for international financial interests.
Brzezinski also warned that, "the 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,"[35] and he, "puts 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."
Thus, "The 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."[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, "Full
Spectrum Dominance," as the blueprint for the Department
of Defense in the future. "Full-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." The report "addresses 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." Further, "The development of a global information
grid will provide the environment for decision superiority."[37]
As political economist, Ellen Wood, explained, "Boundless
domination of a global economy, and of the multiple states that
administer it, requires military action without end, in purpose
or time."[38] Further, "Imperial 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."[39]
Following 9/11, the "Bush doctrine" was put in place,
which called for "a unilateral and exclusive right to preemptive
attack, any time, anywhere, unfettered by any international agreements,
to ensure that '[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'."[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,
"Transporting 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 'diversifying energy supply'
and to penetrate the world's most lucrative markets."[42]
As the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out a mere two weeks following
the 9/11 attacks, "Beyond 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." Explaining
further, "The 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."
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, "this region accounts for more than 65 percent
of the world's oil and natural gas production." Further,
"It 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."[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 "Saudi Arabian
and United Arab Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature a map
of each country's oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker
terminals."[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
regions 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 "colour revolutions" 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 "colour
revolutions" 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
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.
New World Order
Home Page