CHAPTER VII
America’s War Machine
The 1999 war in Yugoslavia—which coincided with the formation of
GUUAM and NATO enlargement into Eastern Europe—marked an important
turnaround in East-West relations.
Aleksander Arbatov, Deputy Chairman of the Defense Committee of the
Russian State Duma US-Russian Relations, described the war in
Yugoslavia as the “worst, most acute, most dangerous juncture since
the US-Soviet Berlin and Cuban missile crises”.1 According to
Arbatov:
START II is dead, co-operation with
NATO is frozen, co-operation on missile defense is out of the
question, and Moscow’s willingness to co-operate on
non-proliferation issues is at an all-time low. Moreover,
anti-US sentiment in Russia is real, deep and more widespread
than ever, and the slogan describing NATO action—“today Serbia,
tomorrow Russia,” is deeply planted in Russians’minds.2
Despite President Boris Yeltsin’s
conciliatory statements at the 1999 G-8 Summit in Cologne, Russia’s
military establishment had openly expressed its distrust of the US:
“The bombing of Yugoslavia could turn out in the very near future to
be just a rehearsal for similar strikes on Russia.”3
Mary-Wynne Ashford, co-President of the International Physicians for
the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), warned that, whereas Russia
was moving towards integration with Europe, they (the Russians) now:
… perceive their primary threat [to
be] from the West. Officials in [Russia’s] Foreign Affairs (Arms
Control and Disarmament) told us [the IPPNW] that Russia has no
option but to rely on nuclear weapons for its defense, because
its conventional forces are inadequate …. [T]he changes in
Russia’s attitude toward the West, its renewed reliance on
nuclear weapons with thousands on high alert and its loss of
confidence in international law leave us vulnerable to
catastrophe … . This crisis makes de-alerting nuclear weapons
more urgent than ever. To those who say the Russian threat is
all rhetoric, I reply that rhetoric is what starts wars.4
Post 1999 Military Buildup
Meanwhile, in Washington, a major build-up of America’s military
arsenal was in the making. The underlying objective was to achieve a
position of global military hegemony. Defense spending in 2002 was
hiked up to more than $300 billion, an amount equivalent to the
entire Gross Domestic Product of the Russian Federation
(approximately $325 billion). An even greater increase in US
military spending was set in motion in the wake of the October 2001
bombing of Afghanistan:
More than one-third of the $68
billion allocated for new weapons in the 2003 budget is for Cold
War-type weapons. Several billion dollars are allocated for
cluster bomb systems that have been condemned by human rights
groups around the world. There is no rationale for this level of
military spending other than a clear intent for the United
States to be the New World Empire, dominating the globe
economically and militarily, including the militarization of
space.5
In the largest military buildup since
the Vietnam War, the Bush administration plans to increase military
spending by $120 billion over a five-year period, “bringing the 2007
military budget to an astounding $451 billion”.6
This colossal amount of money allocated to America’s war machine
does not include the enormous budget of the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) allocated from both “official” and undisclosed sources
to finance its covert operations. The official budget of the CIA is
in excess of $30 billion (10 per cent of Russia’s GDP). This amount
excludes the multi-billion dollar earnings from narcotics accruing
to CIA shell companies and front organizations.7
From the overall defense budget, billions of dollars have been
allocated to “refurbishing America’s nuclear arsenal”. A new
generation of “cluster missiles”—with multiple nuclear warheads— has
been developed, capable of delivering (from a single missile launch)
up to 10 nuclear warheads directed at 10 different cities. These
missiles are now targeted at Russia. In this context, Washington has
clung to its “first strike” nuclear policy, which in principle is
intended to deal with “rogue states” but, in fact, is largely
directed against Russia and China.
Meanwhile, the US have also developed a new generation of “tactical
nuclear weapons” or “mini-nukes” to be used in conventional war
theatres. Already during the Clinton administration, the Pentagon
was calling for the use of the “nuclear” B61-11 bunker buster bomb,
suggesting that because it was “underground”, there was no toxic
radioactive fallout which could affect civilians:
Military officials and leaders of
America’s nuclear weapon laboratories are urging the US to
develop a new generation of precision low-yield nuclear weapons
… which could be used in conventional conflicts with Third World
nations.8
America’s War Economy
The military buildup initiated during the Clinton administration has
gained a new momentum. September 11 and Bush’s “war on terrorism”
are used as an excuse for expanding America’s military machine and
fuelling the growth of the military-industrial complex. A new
“legitimacy” has unfolded. Increased military spending is said to be
required “to uphold freedom” and defeat “the axis of evil”:
It costs a lot to fight this war. We
have spent more than a billion dollars a month—over $30 million
a day—and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan
proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and
spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to
replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile, to put
our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely … . My
budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two
decades—because while the price of freedom and security is high,
it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country,
we will pay.9
Since September 11, 2001, billions of
dollars have been channeled towards developing new advanced weapons
systems, including the F22 Raptor fighter plane and the Joint
Fighter (JF) program.
The Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”) not only includes the
controversial “Missile Shield”, but also a wide range of “offensive”
laser-guided weapons with striking capabilities anywhere in the
world, not to mention instruments of weather and climatic warfare
under the High Altitude Auroral Research Program (HAARP). The latter
has the ability of destabilizing entire national economies through
climatic manipulations, without the knowledge of the enemy, at
minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment
as in a conventional war.10
Long-term planning pertaining to advanced weapons systems and the
control of outer space is outlined in a US Space Command document
released in 1998, entitled “Vision for 2020”. The underlying
objective consists in:
… dominating the space dimension of
military operations to protect US interests and investment ….
The emerging synergy of space superiority with land, sea and air
superiority will lead to Full Spectrum Dominance.11
Nuclear Weapons in the Wake of
September 11
In the wake of September 11, the “war on terrorism” is also being
used by the Bush administration to redefine the assumptions
underlying the use of nuclear weapons. The concept of “nuclear
deterrence” has been scrapped.
“They’re trying desperately to find
new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited
to deterrence.”12
In early 2002, a secret Pentagon report
confirmed the Bush administration’s intent to use nuclear weapons
against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. The
secret report, leaked to the Los Angeles Times, states that nuclear
weapons “could be used in three types of situations: against targets
able to withstand non-nuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with
nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or in the event of
surprising military developments”.13
With a Strangelovian genius, they
cover every conceivable circumstance in which a president may
wish to use nuclear weapons— planning in great detail for a war
they hope never to wage.
In this top-secret domain, there has always been an
inconsistency between America’s diplomatic objectives of
reducing nuclear arsenals and preventing the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction on the one hand, and the military
imperative to prepare for the unthinkable on the other.
Nevertheless, the Bush
administration plan reverses an almost two-decade-long trend of
relegating nuclear weapons to the category of weapons of last
resort. It also redefines nuclear requirements in hurried
post-September 11 terms.17
TEXT BOX 7.1
America’s Tactical Nuclear Weapons
In the 2002 war in Afghanistan, the US Air Force was
using GBU-28 “bunker buster bombs” capable of creating
large scale underground explosions. The official story
was that these bombs were intended to target “cave and
tunnel complexes” in mountainous areas in southern
Afghanistan, which were used as hideaways by Osama bin
Laden. Dubbed by the Pentagon “the Big Ones”, the GBUs
(guided bomb units) are 5000-lb laser guided bombs with
improved BLU-113 warheads capable of penetrating several
meters of reinforced concrete. The BLU-113 is the most
powerful conventional “earth penetrating warhead” ever
created.
While the Pentagon’s “Big Ones” are classified as
“conventional weapons”, the official statements fail to
mention that the same “bunker buster bombs” launched
from a B-52, a B-2 stealth bomber, or an F-16 aircraft
can also be equipped with a nuclear device. The B61-11
is the “nuclearversion” of its “conventional” BLU-113
counterpart.
The nuclear B61-11 is categorized as a “deep earth
penetrating bomb” capable of “destroying the deepest and
most hardened of underground bunkers, which the
conventional warheads are not capable of doing.”
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stated that
while the ‘conventional’ bunker buster bombs “‘are going
to be able to do the job’ …. He did not rule out the
eventual use of nuclear weapons.”14
The Bush administration needs a
justification, as well as public support, for the use of tactical
nuclear weapons as part of its “war against international
terrorism”. It is also anxious to test its “low yield” B61-11 bombs.
First, it is saying that these “low yield” nuclear weapons do not
affect civilians, therefore justifying their being used in the same
way as conventional weapons. Second, the Administration is hinting
that the use of nuclear bunker busters may be justified as part of
“the campaign against international terrorism”, because Osama bin
Laden’s Al Qaeda network possesses nuclear capabilities and could
use them against us. America’s tactical nuclear weapons are said to
be “safe” in comparison to those of Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda.
Administration statements suggest, in this regard, that a
“low-yield” earth penetrating tactical nuclear weapon such as the
B61-11 would “limit collateral damage” and therefore be relatively
safe to use.15
These new buzzwords are being spread by the US media to develop
public support for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Yet, the
scientific evidence on this issue is unequivocal: the impacts on
civilians of the “low yield” B61-11 would be devastating “because of
the large amount of radioactive dirt thrown out in the explosion,
the hypothetical 5-kiloton weapon … would produce a large area of
lethal fallout”.16 |
While identifying a number of “rogue states”, the not-so-hidden
agenda of the Bush administration is to deploy and use nuclear
weapons against Russia and China in the context of America’s
expansionary policy into Central Asia, the Middle East and the Far
East:
The report says the Pentagon should
be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict,
in a war between China and Taiwan or in an attack from North
Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an
attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor, it said.
The report says Russia is no longer
officially an “enemy”. Yet it acknowledges that the huge Russian
arsenal, which includes about 6,000 deployed warheads and
perhaps 10,000 smaller “theatre” nuclear weapons, remains of
concern.
Pentagon officials have said publicly that they were studying
the need to develop theatre nuclear weapons, designed for use
against specific targets on a battlefield, but had not committed
themselves to that course.18
The thrust of this secret report,
presented to the US Congress in early 2002, has been endorsed by the
Republican Party:
[C]onservative analysts insisted
that the Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies,
especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist
groups, are engaged in secret weapons’ development programs ….
They argued that smaller weapons have an important deterrent
role because many aggressors might not believe that the US
forces would use multi-kiloton weapons that would wreak
devastation on surrounding territory and friendly populations.
We need to have a credible deterrence against regimes involved
in international terrorism and development of weapons of mass
destruction,” said Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the
conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. He said the
contents of the report did not surprise him and represent “the
right way to develop a nuclear posture for a post-Cold War
world”.19
Encircling China
In the wake of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, the Clinton
administration boosted its military support to Taiwan against China,
leading to a significant military buildup in the Taiwan Straits.
Taiwan’s Air Force had been previously equipped with some 150 F16A
fighter planes from Lockheed Martin. In this regard, the Clinton
administration had argued that military aid to Taiwan was required
to maintain “a military balance with the People’s Republic of China”
as part of Washington’s policy of “peace through deterrence”.20
US-built Aegis destroyers equipped with state-of-the-art
surface-to-air missiles, ship-to-ship missiles, and Tomahawk cruise
missiles were delivered to Taiwan to boost its naval capabilities in
the Taiwan Straits.21 Beijing responded to this military buildup by
taking delivery in 2000, of its first Russian-built guided missile
destroyer, the Hangzhou, equipped with SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship
missiles, “capable of penetrating the state-of-the-art defenses of a
US or Japanese naval battle group”.22
Military assumptions have been radically changed since September 11.
The Bush administration has scrapped the “peace through deterrence”
doctrine. The post-September 11 military buildup in the Taiwan
Straits is an integral part of Washington’s overall military
planning, which now consists in deploying “on several fronts”.
Supported by the Bush administration, Taiwan has been,
“conducting active research aimed at
developing a tactical ballistic missile capable of hitting
targets in mainland China. … The alleged purpose of these
missiles is to degrade the PLA’s (People’s Liberation Army)
strike capability, including missile infrastructure and
non-missile infrastructure (airfields, harbors, missile sites,
etc.).”23
In turn, US military presence in
Pakistan and Afghanistan (and in several former Soviet republics),
on China’s western border, are being coordinated with Taiwan’s naval
deployment in the South China Sea.
China has been encircled: The US military is present in the South
China Sea and the Taiwan Straits, in the Korean Peninsula and the
Sea of Japan, as well as in the heartland of Central Asia and on the
Western border of China’s Xinjiang-Uigur autonomous region.
“Temporary” US military bases have been set up in Uzbekistan (which
is a member of the GUUAM agreement with NATO), in Tajikistan and in
Kyrgyztan, where airfields and military airport facilities have been
made available to the US Air Force.
Using Nuclear Weapons Against China
In early 2002, the Bush administration confirmed its intent to use
nuclear weapons against China if there was a confrontation in the
Taiwan Straits:
China, because of its nuclear forces and “developing strategic
objectives”, is listed as “a country that could be involved in an
immediate or potential contingency”. Specifically, the NPR lists a
military confrontation over the status of Taiwan as one of the
scenarios that could lead Washington to use nuclear weapons.24
The Anglo-American Axis
The 1999 war in Yugoslavia contributed to reinforcing strategic,
military and intelligence ties between Washington and London. After
the war in Yugoslavia, US Defense Secretary William Cohen and his
British counterpart, Geoff Hoon, signed a “Declaration of Principles
for Defense Equipment and Industrial Cooperation” so as to “improve
cooperation in procuring arms and protecting technology secrets”,
while at the same time “easing the way for more joint military
ventures and possible defense industry mergers”.25
Washington’s objective was to encourage
the formation of a,
“trans-Atlantic bridge across which
DoD [US Department of Defense] can take its globalization policy
to Europe ….Our aim is to improve interoperability and war
fighting effectiveness via closer industrial linkages between US
and allied companies.”26
In the words of President Clinton’s
Defense Secretary William Cohen:
[The agreement] will facilitate
interaction between our respective [British and American]
industries so that we can have a harmonized approach to sharing
technology, working cooperatively in partnership arrangements
and, potentially, mergers as well.27
The agreement was signed in 1999 shortly
after the creation of British Aerospace Systems (BAES) resulting
from the merger of British Aerospace (BAe) with GEC Marconi. British
Aerospace was already firmly allied to America’s largest defense
contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing.28
The hidden agenda behind the Anglo-American “trans-Atlantic bridge”
is to eventually displace the Franco-German military conglomerates
and ensure the dominance of the US military industrial complex (in
alliance with Britain’s major defense contractors).
Moreover, this integration in the area of defense production has
been matched by increased cooperation between the CIA and Britain’s
MI6 in the sphere of intelligence and covert operations, not to
mention the joint operations of British and US Special Forces.
The United States and Germany
The British military-industrial complex has become increasingly
integrated into that of the US. In turn, significant rifts have
emerged between Washington and Berlin. Franco-German integration in
aerospace and defense production is ultimately directed against US
dominance in the weapons market. The latter hinges upon the
partnership between America’s Big Five and Britain’s defense
industry under the trans-Atlantic bridge agreement.
Since the early ‘90s, the Bonn government has encouraged the
consolidation of Germany’s military industrial complex dominated by
Daimler, Siemens and Krupp. Several important mergers in Germany’s
defense industry took place in response to the mega-mergers between
America’s aerospace and weapons producers.29
By 1996 Paris and Bonn had already set up a joint armaments agency
with the mandate “to manage common programs [and] award contracts on
behalf of both governments”.30 Both countries had stated that they
“did not want Britain to join the agency”.
France and Germany also now control Airbus industries, which is
competing against America’s Lockheed-Martin. (Britain’s BAES owns
the remaining 20 per cent.) The Germans are also collaborating in
the Ariane Space satellite-launching program in which Deutsche
Aerospace (DASA) is a major shareholder.
In late 1999, in response to the “alliance” of British Aerospace
with Lockheed Martin, France’s Aerospatiale-Matra merged with
Daimler’s DASA, forming the largest European defense conglomerate.
The following year the European
Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. (EADS) was formed, integrating DASA,
Matra and Spain’s Construcciones Aeronauticas, SA. EADS and its
Anglo-American rivals are competing for the procurement of weapons
to NATO’s new Eastern European members. (Europe’s third largest
defense contractor is Thomson, which in recent years has several
projects with US weapons producer Raytheon.)
While EADS still cooperates with Britain’s BAES in missile
production and has business ties with the US “Big Five”, including
Northrop Grumman, the Western defense and aerospace industry tends
to be split into two distinct groups: EADS dominated by France and
Germany on the one hand, the Anglo-US “Big Six”, which includes the
US Big Five contractors (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General
Dynamics, Boeing and Northrop Grumman) plus Britain’s powerful BAES
on the other.
Integrated into US Department of Defense procurement under the
Atlantic bridge arrangement, BAES was the Pentagon’s fifth largest
defense contractor in 2001. Under the Anglo-American “transatlantic
bridge”, BAES operates freely in the US market through its
subsidiary BAE Systems North America.31
Franco-German Integration in Nuclear
Weapons
The Franco-German alliance in military production under EADS opens
the door for the integration of Germany (which does not officially
possess nuclear weapons) into France’s nuclear weapons program. In
this regard, EADS already produces a wide range of ballistic
missiles, including the M51 nuclear-tipped ballistic
submarine-launched ICBMs for the French Navy.32
What this means is that Germany, through
its alliance with France, is a de facto nuclear power.
Euro versus Dollar - Rivalry Between
Competing Business Conglomerates
The European common currency system has a direct bearing on
strategic and political divisions. London’s decision not to adopt
the common European currency is consistent with the integration of
British financial and banking interests with those of Wall Street,
as well as the Anglo-American alliance in the oil industry (as in
BP-Amoco) and weapons production (“Big Five” plus BAES). In other
words, this shaky relationship between the British pound and the US
dollar is an integral part of the new Anglo-American axis.
What is at stake is the rivalry between two competing global
currencies: the Euro and the US dollar, with Britain’s pound being
torn between the European and the US-dominated currency systems.
Thus two rival financial and monetary systems are competing
worldwide for control over money creation and credit. The
geopolitical and strategic implications are far-reaching because
they are also marked by splits in the Western defense industry and
the oil business.
In both Europe and America, monetary policy, although formally under
state jurisdiction, is largely controlled by the private banking
sector. The European Central Bank based in Frankfurt— although
officially under the jurisdiction of the European Union— is, in
practice, overseen by a handful of private European banks, including
Germany’s largest banks and business conglomerates.
The US Federal Reserve Board is formally under state
supervision—marked by a close relationship to the US Treasury.
Unlike the European Central Bank, the 12 Federal Reserve banks (of
which the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the most important)
are controlled by their shareholders, which are private banking
institutions.
In other words, “the Fed” as it is known
in the US, which is responsible for monetary policy and hence money
creation for the nation, is actually controlled by private financial
interests.
Currency Systems and ‘Economic
Conquest’
In Eastern Europe, in the former Soviet Union and in the Balkans,
extending into Central Asia, the dollar and the Euro are competing
with one another. Ultimately, control over national currency systems
is the basis upon which countries are colonized. While the US dollar
prevails throughout the Western Hemisphere, the Euro and the US
dollar are clashing in the former Soviet Union, Central Asia,
Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.
In the Balkans and the Baltic States, central banks largely operate
as colonial style “currency boards” invariably using the Euro as a
proxy currency. What this means is that German and European
financial interests are in control of money creation and credit. In
other words, the pegging of the national currency to the Euro—
rather than to the US dollar—means that both the currency and the
monetary system will be in the hands of German-EU banking interests.
More generally, the Euro dominates in Germany’s hinterland: Eastern
Europe, the Baltic States and the Balkans, whereas the US dollar
tends to prevail in the Caucasus and Central Asia. In GUUAM
countries (which have military cooperation agreements with
Washington) the dollar tends (with the exception of the Ukraine) to
overshadow the Euro.
The “dollarization” of national currencies is an integral part of
America’s SRS. The SRS consists of first destabilizing and then
replacing national currencies with the American greenback over an
area extending from the Mediterranean to China’s Western border. The
underlying objective is to extend the dominion of the Federal
Reserve System—namely, Wall Street—over a vast territory.
What we are dealing with is an “imperial” scramble for control over
national currencies. Control over money creation and credit is an
integral part of the process of economic conquest, which in turn is
supported by the militarization of the Eurasian corridor.
While American and German-EU banking interests are clashing over the
control of national economies and currency systems, they seem to
have agreed on “sharing the spoils”—i.e., establishing their
respective “spheres of influence”. Reminiscent of the policies of
“partition” in the late 19th century, the US and Germany have agreed
upon the division of the Balkans: Germany has gained control over
national currencies in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, where the Euro is
legal tender. In return, the US has established a permanent military
presence in the region (i.e., the Bondsteel military base in
Kosovo).
Cross-cutting Military Alliances
The rift between Anglo-American and Franco-German weapons
producers—including the rifts within the Western military
alliance—seem to have favored increased military cooperation between
Russia on the one hand, and France and Germany on the other.
In recent years, both France and Germany have entered into bilateral
discussions with Russia in the areas of defense production,
aerospace research and military cooperation. In late 1998, Paris and
Moscow agreed to undertake joint infantry exercises and bilateral
military consultations. In turn, Moscow has been seeking German and
French partners to participate in the development of its military
industrial complex.
In early 2000, Germany’s Defense Minister, Rudolph Sharping, visited
Moscow for bilateral consultations with his Russian counterpart. A
bilateral agreement was signed pertaining to 33 military cooperation
projects, including the training of Russian military specialists in
Germany.33 This agreement was reached outside the framework of NATO,
and without prior consultation with Washington.
Russia also signed a “long term military cooperation agreement” with
India in late 1998, which was followed a few months later by a
defense agreement between India and France. The agreement between
Delhi and Paris included the transfer of French military technology,
as well as investment by French multinationals in India’s defense
industry. The latter investment includes facilities for the
production of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads, in which the
French companies have expertise.
This Franco-Indian agreement has a direct bearing on Indo-Pakistani
relations. It also impinges upon US strategic interests in Central
and South Asia. While Washington has been pumping military aid into
Pakistan, India is being supported by France and Russia.
Visibly, France and the US are on opposite sides of the
India-Pakistan conflict.
With Pakistan and India at the brink of war, in the immediate wake
of September 11, 2001, the US Air Force had virtually taken control
of Pakistan’s air space, as well as several of its military
facilities. Meanwhile, barely a few weeks into the 2001 bombing of
Afghanistan, France and India conducted joint military exercises in
the Arabian Sea.
Also in the immediate wake of September
11, India took delivery of large quantities of Russian weapons,
under the Indo-Russian military cooperation agreement.
Moscow’s New National Security Doctrine
US post-Cold War era foreign policy had designated Central Asia and
the Caucasus as a “strategic area”. Yet this policy no longer
consisted in containing the “spread of communism”, but rather in
preventing Russia and China from becoming competing capitalist
powers. In this regard, the US had increased its military presence
along the entire 40th parallel, extending from Bosnia and Kosovo to
the former Soviet republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan, all of which had entered into bilateral military
agreements with Washington.
The 1999 war in Yugoslavia and the subsequent outbreak of war in
Chechnya in September 1999 were crucial turning points in
Russian-American relations. They also marked a rapprochement between
Moscow and Beijing and the signing of several military cooperation
agreements between Russia and China.
US covert support to the two main Chechen rebel groups (through
Pakistan’s ISI) was known to the Russian government and military.
(For further details, see Chapter II.) However, it had never
previously been made public or raised at the diplomatic level. In
November 1999, the Russian Defense Minister, Igor Sergueyev,
formally accused Washington of supporting the Chechen rebels.
Following a meeting held behind closed doors with Russia’s military
high command, Sergueyev declared that:
“The national interests of the
United States require that the military conflict in the Caucasus
[Chechnya] be a fire, provoked as a result of outside forces,”
while adding that “the West’s policy constitutes a challenge
launched to Russia with the ultimate aim of weakening her
international position and of excluding her from geo-strategic
areas”.34
In early 2000, in the wake of the
Chechen war, a new “National Security Doctrine” was formulated and
signed into law by President Vladimir Putin. Barely acknowledged by
the international media, a critical shift in East-West relations had
occurred. The document reasserted the building of a strong Russian
state, the concurrent growth of the military and the reintroduction
of state controls over foreign capital.
The document carefully spelled out what it described as “fundamental
threats” to Russia’s national security and sovereignty. More
specifically, it referred to “the strengthening of
military-political blocs and alliances” (namely GUUAM), as well as
to “NATO’s eastward expansion” while underscoring “the possible
emergence of foreign military bases and major military presences in
the immediate proximity of Russian borders”.35
The document confirmed that “international terrorism is waging an
open campaign to destabilize Russia”. While not referring explicitly
to CIA covert activities in support of armed terrorist groups, such
as the Chechen rebels, it nonetheless called for appropriate
“actions to avert and intercept intelligence and subversive
activities by foreign states against the Russian Federation”.36
Undeclared War Between Russia and
America
The cornerstone of US foreign policy was to encourage—under the
disguise of “peace-keeping” and “conflict resolution”—the formation
of small pro-US states, which lie strategically at the hub of the
Caspian Sea basin, which contains vast oil and gas reserves:
The US must play an increasingly
active role in conflict resolution in the region. The boundaries
of the Soviet republics were intentionally drawn to prevent
secession by the various national communities of the former USSR
and not with an eye towards possible independence …. Neither
Europe, nor our allies in East Asia, can defend our [US] mutual
interests in these regions.
If we [the US] fail to take the lead
in heading off the kinds of conflicts and crises that are
already looming there, that will eventually exacerbate our
relations with Europe and possibly Northeast Asia. It will
encourage the worst kind of political developments in Russia.
This linkage, or interconnectedness, gives the Transcaucasus and
Central Asia a strategic importance to the United States and its
allies that we overlook at huge risk.
To put it another way, the fruits
accruing from ending the Cold War are far from fully harvested.
To ignore the Transcaucasus and Central Asia could mean that a
large part of that harvest will never be gathered.37
Russia’s Military Industrial Complex
Alongside the articulation of Moscow’s National Security doctrine,
the Russian State was planning to regain economic and financial
control over key areas of Russia’s military industrial complex. For
instance, the formation of “a single corporation of designers and
manufacturers of all anti-aircraft complexes” was envisaged in
cooperation with Russia’s defense contractors.38
This proposed “re-centralization” of Russia’s defense industry, in
response to national security considerations, was also motivated by
the merger of major Western competitors in the area of military
procurement. The development of new production and scientific
capabilities was also contemplated, based on enhancing Russia’s
military potential as well as its ability to compete with its
Western rivals in the global weapons market.
The National Security Doctrine also
“eases the criteria by which Russia could use nuclear weapons …
which would be permissible if the country’s existence were
threatened”.39
Russia reserves the right to use all forces and means at its
disposal, including nuclear weapons, in case an armed aggression
creates a threat to the very existence of the Russian Federation as
an independent sovereign state.40
In response to Washington’s “Star Wars” initiative, Moscow had
developed “Russia’s Missile and Nuclear Shield”. The Russian
government announced in 1998 the development of a new generation of
intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as Topol-M (SS-27). These
new single-warhead missiles (based in the Saratov region) are
currently in “full combat readiness”, against a “pre-emptive first
strike” from the US, which (in the wake of 9/11) constitutes the
Pentagon’s main assumption in an eventual nuclear war.
“The Topol M is lightweight and
mobile, designed to be fired from a vehicle. Its mobility means
it is better protected than a silo-based missile from a
pre-emptive first strike.”41
Following the adoption of the National
Security Document (NSD) in 2000, the Kremlin confirmed that it would
not exclude “a first-strike use” of nuclear warheads “if attacked
even by purely conventional means”.42
Political ‘Turnaround’under President
Vladimir Putin
The foreign policy directions of the Putin Administration remain
unclear. There are significant divisions within both the political
establishment and the military. On the diplomatic front, President
Putin has sought a “rapprochement” with Washington and the Western
Military Alliance in the “war on terrorism”.
In the wake of 9/11, a significant turnaround in Russian foreign
policy, largely orchestrated by President Putin, has occurred. The
Putin Administration, acting against the Russian Duma, has,
nonetheless, accepted the process of “NATO Enlargement” into the
Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) implying the
establishment of NATO military bases on Russia’s western border.
Meanwhile, Moscow’s military cooperation agreement signed with
Beijing after the 1999 war in Yugoslavia was virtually on hold:
China is obviously watching with
deep concern Russia surrendering these positions. China is also
concerned by the presence of the US Air Force close to its
borders in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrghyz Republic. …
Everything that Mr. Putin has earned through the spectacular
improvement of Russia’s relations with China, India, Vietnam,
Cuba and some other countries collapsed nearly overnight. What
has surfaced is a primitive Gorbachev concept of “common human
values”—i.e., the subordination of Russia’s interests to those
of the West.43
Ironically, the Russian President was
supporting America’s “war on terrorism”, which is ultimately
directed against Moscow. Washington’s hidden agenda is to dismantle
Russia’s strategic and economic interests in the Eurasian corridor
and close down or take over its military facilities, while
transforming the former Soviet republics (and eventually the Russian
Federation) into American protectorates:
It becomes clear that the intention
to join NATO, expressed by Mr. Putin in an offhand manner last
year [2000], reflected a long matured idea of a far deeper
(i.e., in relation to the positions previously taken by
Gorbachev or Yeltsin) integration of the Russian Federation into
the “international community”. In fact, the intention is to
squeeze Russia into the Western economic, political and military
system. Even as a junior partner. Even at the price of
sacrificing an independent foreign policy.44
Notes
1. Quoted in Mary-Wynne Ashford,
“Bombings Reignite Nuclear War Fears”, The Victoria
Times-Colonist. 13 May 1999, p. A15. Mary-Wynne Ashford is
co-president of the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPPNW.
2. Quoted in Mary-Wynne Ashford, op. cit.
3. According to Viktor Chechevatov, a Three-star General and
Commander of ground forces in Russia’s Far East, quoted in The
Boston Globe, 8 April 1999, emphasis added.
4. Ashford, op. cit.
5. Douglas Mattern, “The United States of Enron-Pentagon, Inc”,
Centre for Research on Globalization,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAT202A.html, February
2002.
6. Ibid.
7. See “Intelligence Funding and the War on Terror”, CDI
Terrorism Project at
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/intel-funding-pr.cfm, 2
February 2002. See also Patrick Martin, “Billions for War and
Repression: Bush Budget for a Garrison State”, World Socialist
Website (WSWS),
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/mili-f06.shtml, 6
February 2002.
8. Federation of American Scientists (FAS) at
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/
9. George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 29 January 2002.
10. For further details on HAARP, see Michel Chossudovsky,
“Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to
Trigger Climate Change”, Centre for Research on Globalization at
globalresearch.ca,
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html, January
2002.
11. See Bob Fitrakis, “Chemtrails Outlaw”, Centre for Research
on Globalization (CRG),
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FIT203A.html, 6 March
2002. See also Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final
Report, http://
www.au.af.mil/au/2025/
12. John Isaacs, President of the Council for a Livable World
quoted in Paul Richter,“US Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear
Arms”, Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.
13. Paul Richter, “US Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms”, Los
Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.
14. Quoted in The Houston Chronicle, 20 October 2001.
15. Cynthia Greer, The Philadelphia Inquirer, 16 October 2000.
16. Ibid.
17. William Arkin, “Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable”, Los
Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Mother Jones, “Taiwan wants bigger Slingshot”,
http://www.mojones.com/arms/taiwan.html, 2000.
21. Deutsche Press Agentur, 27 February 2000.
22. Japan Economic Newswire, March 4, 2000.
23. AFP, 12 December 2001.
24. William Arkin, op. cit.
25. Reuters, 5 February 2000.
26. For further details see Vago Muradian, “Pentagon Sees Bridge
to Europe”, Defense Daily, Vol. 204, No. 40, 1 December 1999.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid. See also Michel Collon’s analysis in Poker Menteur,
Editions EPO, Brussels, 1998, p. 156.
29. Ibid., p. 156.
30.“American Monsters, European Minnows: Defense Companies.” The
Economist, 13 January 1996.
31. British Aerospace Systems’home page at:
http://www.BAESystems.com/globalfootprint/northamerica/northamerica.htm
32. “BAES, EADS Hopeful that Bush will broaden Transatlantic
Cooperation”, Defense Daily International, 29, 2001.
33. Interfax, 1 March 2000.
34. See The New York Times, 15 November 1999; see also the
article of Steve Levine, The New York Times, 20 November 1999.
35. To consult the document, see Federation of American
Scientists (FAS),
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/doctrine/gazeta012400.htm
36. Ibid.
37. Joseph Jofi, Pipeline Diplomacy: The Clinton
Administration’s Fight for Baku-Ceyhan, Woodrow Wilson Case
Study, No. 1. Princeton University, 1999.
38. Mikhail Kozyrev, “The White House Calls for the Fire”,
Vedomosti, Nov. 1, 1999, p.1.
39. See Andrew Jack, “Russia Turns Back Clock”, Financial Times,
London, 15 January 2000, p.1.
40. Quoted in Nicolai Sokov, “Russia’s New National Security
Concept: The Nuclear Angle”, Centre for Non Proliferation
Studies, Monterrey,
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/sokov2.htm, January 2000.
41. BBC, “Russia Deploys New Nuclear Missiles”, London, 27
December 1998.
42. Stephen J. Blank, “Nuclear Strategy and Nuclear
Proliferation in Russian Commission to Assess the Ballistic
Missile Threat to the United States”, Appendix III: Unclassified
Working Papers, Federation of American Scientists (FAS),
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/rumsfeld/toc-3.htm.
Washington DC, undated.
43. V. Tetekin, “Putin’s Ten Blows”, Centre for Research on
Globalization (CRG)
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/TET112A.html, 27 December
2001.
44. Ibid.
Back to Contents
|