Project for a New American Century

[Anonymous]

...is a thinktank made up of some famous names that dates back from the Clinton administration. Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. They've published a statement of principles here, dated 1997, over four years prior to 9/11. Have a read through, then take a look at some of the signatories. Provides an interesting insight into the machinations behind the foreign policy of the Bush administration...

 

[Anonymous]

It would seem that World Domination is no longer just for baldies in grey Nehru suits.

 

[NilesCalder]

A foundation upon which can be built numerous Conspiracy Theories...

 

[Anonymous]

It's one thing to imagine or have a half-formed feeling that those in power in the US (and those close to the seat of power) have an imperialist agenda, it's another thing to witness it in black and white in government statements, papers and on sites like the one above.

Just read this extract from the same PNAC site. And if you can't stomach all of it, then at least look at the last paragraph. The arrogant, misguided idiocy of it all !



January 30, 2002


MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS


FROM: GARY SCHMITT & TOM DONNELLY


SUBJECT: The Bush Doctrine


At last, more than a decade after the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States has an understanding of its role in the world and a strategy for achieving its purposes. In his State of the Union speech last night, President George W. Bush has done what neither his father nor Bill Clinton could manage.


This “Bush Doctrine” has three essential elements:


Active American global leadership. The president noted that our “enemies view the entire world as a battlefield” and vowed to “pursue them wherever they are.” He also made it clear that he was willing to act preemptively and quickly -- “time is not on our side,” he admitted -- especially when threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are involved.
Regime change. Although President Bush pulled no punches when listing terrorist organizations as enemies, including Palestinian groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, he also made clear his determination to include rogue regimes as targets in the war on terrorism. “We can’t stop short,” he said. And in “naming names” -- North Korea, Iran and Iraq -- he clearly defined a meaning of victory.
Promoting liberal democratic principles. “No nation is exempt” from the “non-negotiable demands” of liberty, law and justice. Because the United States has a “greater objective” -- a greater purpose -- in the world, Bush sees in the war not just danger but an opportunity to spread American political principles, especially into the Muslim world.

The Bush Doctrine is also notable for what it is not. It is not Clintonian multilateralism; the president did not appeal to the United Nations, profess faith in arms control, or raise hopes for any “peace process.” Nor is it the balance-of-power realism favored by his father. It is, rather, a reassertion that lasting peace and security is to be won and preserved by asserting both U.S. military strength and American political principles.

 

[Anonymous]

They would force us all to live in a world where our only purpose is to oil the wheels of the corporate machine, where human life comes after profit margins. They would render all our lives worthless, but give us a choice of consumer goods and call it 'freedom'. There is to be no choice of government, no alternative to militant capitalism.
It's exactly what Polybius was talking about.

 

[Anonymous]

The site also provides an insight into what will probably happen when the war is won. For those wondering if Iraq will be rebuilt and then evacuated by US forces, a 1998 letter from Paul Wolfowitz in 1998 requests the following objective:

We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf

An interesting side note on the oil issue is that Wolfowitz initially suggested that the US invade only the southern part of Iraq protected by the no-fly zone rather than going the whole hog, then steadily erode Saddam's influence from there. To power this alternative government, it was proposed that

For that provisional government to control the largest oil field in Iraq and make available to it, under some kind of appropriate international supervision, enormous financial resources for political, humanitarian and eventually military purposes;

This suggests that the US will use Iraqi oil to directly fund rebuilding the country, rather than producing some kind of Marshall plan. I suspect this will drive down the oil price as the markets are flooded with Iraqi oil, and scare the pants off OPEC, Russia and other oil producers.

There are also advocates of a harder line on North Korea:

As James Doran, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee professional staff, has written in the current Weekly Standard (“Axis of Evil, Asian Division” ), the only lasting solution to ending this state of affairs is to remove Kim Jong II’s Stalinist regime from power. “Assuming and undergirding the legitimacy of a regime so plainly illegitimate as Kim Jong II’s is not only contrary to American values but also doomed to fail, just as detente and arms control with the Soviet Union failed in the 1970s.” In place of the current policy of engagement with Pyongyang, Doran recommends that the United States and its allies adopt a series of specific policies designed to undermine the regime.

 

[dot23]

Sort of thing that strikes fear into the heart of any middle-class left winger across the globe :eek!!!!:

It's hardly a new agenda tho' - Bilderberg has been pursuing a united global government, headed, naturally, by the US for some years. This is why the US is so recalcitrant to obey the UN whilst simultaneously name checking it with regards to previous resolutions. In the NEC outlook, the UN is an outmoded form of global government, one which fails to recognise the USs pre-eminence in all things, and which acts merely as a constraint to neo-imperialism. If Bush and co had their way they'd never attend anothe UN meeting until they die (soon, soon *cackle*!) using a new 'alliance' of powerful states instead.

The main problem I have with these ideas is that there is no possibility for checks and balances in this race for global supremacy. As we've seen with the wrist slapping of Enron and others, big business is corrupt, and business is gibber in America, ergo, well, you work it out.

Su ultimately, a cartel of business magnates and war mongers will end up ruling the world, using us all for their personal profits, turning a blind eye to a bit of murder here and torture there, just so long as the balance sheet keeps going up.

Plus ca change

As we argued then, whatever the respectable motives behind the creation of the International Criminal Court, we should not let those blind us to the fact that the preservation of a decent world order depends chiefly on the exercise of American leadership. For both geo-political and constitutional reasons, we should not be in the business of delegating that leadership or compounding the difficulties of its exercise by creating unaccountable, supra-national bodies.

my emphasis

So how does 'American leadership' on the global scale act accountably then - are Americans and their institutions somehow naturally more reliable, good and fair. 'Truth, justice and the American way'? Ha ha ha :hmph: Well although the creation of the ICC may well be 'flawed' the only reason the US wants out of it is because there are quite a few nations who's quite like to see ex-heads of state, the CIA and the Pentagon tried for international war crimes. How embarassing that would be for the New American Century/ World Order! To see their supermen, apparently in the Nietschien sense, forced to stand trial for torture, use of banned weapons, kidnapping, drug peddling and murder of sovereign heads of state. I can just imagine the Dow Jones plummeting now

The point is, most of the world, though amused by american movies, addicted to american tobacco, and hankering after percieved american freedoms, does not want to be ruled by america and never will. American imperialist thinkers of this nature fundamentaly fail to understand the lot of the world's people (not that I truly pretend to, but I at least have a passport). People are generally proud of their heritage, their traditions and their culture, they love their languages, if only that foreigners make mistakes for them to laugh at, and they, whilst wanting to emulate americas success, want to be a global success on their own terms. Hong kong doesn't want to produce american films, Japan doesn't want to make McSushi, Africa doesn't want 'American leadership' or it's politics (they have enough corruption of their own, thank you very much).

If the American business moghuls and death junkies in the pentagon understood that, perhaps they wouldn't try so hard to Americanise the globe - it ain't ever gonna happen without a fatal fight.

 

[Anonymous]

'Total spectrum domination' was the phrase I remember being bandied about. What they want to do with loads of old 8-bit computers is anyone's guess.
But seriously folks, I don't think its too surprising or sinister that right-wing think tanks end up supplying staff to right-wing governments. There are lots of left-wing think tanks out there, its just nobody listens to them.