From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Fri Oct 16 2009 - 09:41:44 EDT
An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III
Part 1
by Andrew Gavin Marshall
http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/15686.jpg.
<http://www.globalresearch.ca> Global Research, October 16, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15686
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
<http://work.colum.edu/%7Eamiller/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
<http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=370> &aid=370
[3] Michel Chossudovsky, Dismantling Former Yugoslavia, Recolonizing
Bosnia-Herzegovina. Global Research: February 19, 2002:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va
<http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=370> &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
<http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=431> &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
<http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8055> &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
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8304> &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
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----
