Global Policy Forum

This article from Foreign Policy In Focus argues that security and military considerations increasingly dictate US economic policies. The Bush administration in 2002 released its “National Security Strategy for the United States” which declares free trade a national security interest. The author concludes that activists promoting economic and environmental justice must develop a “common agenda” in order to challenge the new world order dominated by US policies that link economics with military interventions.

This Consortium News piece analyzes previous US administrations’ attempts to “cover up” the crimes of Chile’s former ruler Augusto Pinochet, who died in December 2006 without ever standing trial. In particular, the author focuses on one-time CIA director and former US President George H.W. Bush’s constant support for Pinochet, despite the brutal tactics the former dictator used to silence his critics. The article highlights the problem of high-ranking officials protecting their “reputations” at the expense of truth and justice.

This Other News article argues that a new “Washington Consensus” has emerged among US lawmakers following the overwhelming rejection of the US-led war in Iraq by voters during the November 2006 US elections. The new consensus blames Iraqis and not US forces for the massive death and destruction in Iraq and will ultimately help lawmakers justify keeping US troops in the country. The author concludes that, although the Democratic party will control the US Congress starting in January 2007, little chance exists that the US troops will be withdrawn from Iraq in the near future as its “imperial agenda” in the Middle East is not yet completed.

This report published by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation details the likely increases in military spending under the Democratic-controlled US Congress in 2007. The author states that there has been bi-partisan support for increases in the Pentagon’s budget since the September 11, 2001 attacks. And during the 2006 US midterm election, Democrats signaled that they would continue to back such increases and intend to raise the Pentagon’s 2007 budget by US$75 billion. The report concludes that spending billions of dollars on unnecessary military outlays only increases the US budget deficit and takes the focus away from the “true security threats” the US faces.

This article in Foreign Affairs argues that the era of US dominance in the Middle East has ended and to “master” the new era “Washington will have to rely more on diplomacy than on military might.” Following the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 the US enjoyed unprecedented access to countries in the Middle East. But after its invasion of Iraq in 2003 Washington’s influence began to diminish as many people in the region rejected US hegemony. The author concludes that the new era, marked by the growing influence of external actors such as China and regional actors such as Iran, will further limit US power in the region.

In November 2006 the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-Peoples Army (FARC-EP) issued a letter to “leftist” US academics and actors asking them to persuade the US government to support a prisoner exchange program between the guerillas and the Colombian government. In response to the letter, the author of this Information Clearing House article discusses how Washington, after the September 11, 2001 attacks, pressured Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to suspend negotiations and brand FARC-EP a terrorist organization. The author concludes that measures such as prisoner exchange are essential to begin the peace process in Colombia; however such actions remain impossible as long as the US continues to support counterinsurgency efforts conducted by the Colombian government.

The US Army’s School of the Americas (SOA), renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in 2001, trains Latin American soldiers. The SOA has come under constant domestic and foreign criticism for promoting tactics such as coercive interrogation and torture techniques. This article in The Nation argues that many of the leftist governments in Latin America have stopped sending soldiers to the SOA because of their opposition to US interventions, leading to a decline in the SOA influence. Furthermore, massive demonstrations in November 2006 against SOA in both the US and Latin America could potentially push the Democratic US Congress to cut funding to the school, ultimately resulting in a decline of US military influence throughout the region.

Military interventions do not “achieve empowering ends” for people living under oppressive regimes, argues this TomPaine article. Following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States claimed to have “liberated” the people and increased women’s rights, which were largely repressed under the previous authoritarian regimes. However, women have not seen these newfound “freedoms” materialize and remain deprived of economic opportunities and education. The author concludes that a US military intervention in Iran would reverse the gains women have made in recent years, such as winning seats in Parliament, and instead provide Tehran with a reason to suppress reform as a way to unite the country against the “enemy.”

This Boston Globe article discusses an October 2006 Congressional Research Service report, which ranked the US as the top supplier of arms to the developing world. The report states that the US has supplied high-tech arms to 18 of the 25 countries in the world with ongoing conflicts and to a large number of nations known to violate human rights. The article concludes that US arms sales to conflict-ridden areas only perpetuate violence and hinder US security interests in the long term. However, the US government appears willing to forgo these risks for the economic benefits accompanying these transactions.

Following the announcement that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would resign, President George W. Bush nominated the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency Robert Gates to the position. US politicians as well as high-ranking officials in the US armed forces have strongly criticized Rumsfeld for his policies in Iraq. However, this AlterNet article argues that Gates shares many of Rumsfeld’s characteristics and the same “hawkish” ideology. Therefore, concludes the author, if the US Senate confirms Gates’ appointment, US military activities overseas will remain more or less unchanged.

This Asia Times article argues that US interference in Kyrgyzstan’s affairs will encounter stiff opposition internally and externally from Russia. The current Kyrgyz regime, in place since the US-backed Tulip revolution in early 2005, has courted both Russia and China while shunning the US. This hostility has resulted in the US providing greater assistance to opposition groups in Kyrgyzstan which, have staged repeated demonstrations attempting to bring the regime down. This article concludes that US-supported attempts at regime change will ultimately fail because they lack the support of the Kyrgyz people and the other major power in the region, Russia, does not want to lose its ally so it will continue to provide support to Kyrgyzstan.

Ahead of the November presidential elections in Nicaragua, current and former US government officials attempt to ensure that Nicaraguans do not make the “wrong choice” at the polls. Conservative US politicians strongly oppose the leftist Sandinista party and its leader and former Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and have threatened to cut off financial support to the country if the people elect him president. The author concludes that outside “intervention” in domestic politics is profoundly undemocratic and the US should let the Nicaraguans decide their own fate. (CommonDreams)

Foreign diplomats and US politicians strongly criticize the Bush administration’s “no talk” strategy when dealing with the countries it deems part of the “axis of evil,” including, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. Thus far US refusal to engage with these countries has proven unsuccessful, as demonstrated by North Korea’s October 2006 nuclear test. This New York Times article concludes that foreign disapproval will continue until the US develops a more interactive policy for dealing with such countries.

This CommonDreams article argues that the US-led war in Iraq shares many similarities with US involvement in Vietnam during the 1960s and 1970s. The author draws parallels between the failure of US officials to recognize that the populations of these countries would resist foreign occupation, as well as the inability of the administrations in power to admit defeat. However, the article concludes that the situation in Iraq will prove worse for the US than Vietnam, because immoral US actions end up “increasing enemies and driving away allies,” which ultimately decrease the influence and prestige of the superpower.

The Bush administration has issued a directive that “defends US interests” in outer space. This policy gives the government the right to deny its “adversaries” access to space if such access threatens US national security interests or in some way hinders US operations in space. In October 2005, the US blocked a UN attempt to ban the “weaponization” of space, demonstrating that the US may attempt to deploy weapons in space according to this Independent article.

The nuclear situation in North Korea and Iran will likely lead to renewed calls by the Bush administration to continue development of the US missile defense shield, argues this Information Clearing House article. The expansion of the shield, designed to intercept missiles, not only violates the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, but also diminishes the credibility of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. The article concludes that Washington should spend its time and resources on creating a more effective and comprehensive international treaty than on developing a shield, which ultimately will do little to protect individuals.

North Korea’s announcement that it tested a nuclear device has led prominent US neo-conservatives to call on the Bush administration to end US engagement with rogue regimes and “get tough,” in effect, implement regime change. In addition, they call for Japan to build up a nuclear arsenal and for the overall cessation of humanitarian aid to the North Koreans. This Inter Press Service article argues that the “realists” in the State Department, who generally prefer diplomacy over intervention, will not silence the neo-conservative lobby which has a strong influence on the policies of the Bush administration, particularly through Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

This Global Research report details the deployment of US naval ships to the Persian Gulf, arguing that Washington is preparing for attacks on Iran. Additionally, the author points out that the naval buildup in the Eastern Mediterranean under the auspices of NATO and the US support of Israel against Lebanon signal US attempts to expand the war in Iraq to encompass a large swath of the Middle East. The article concludes that the US aims to take down “hostile” regimes with these strategies and install pro-Western governments to ensure an uninterrupted flow of Middle Eastern oil.

This article from Le Monde diplomatique discusses why the Bush administration’s policy in the Middle East was doomed from its inception. The author argues that in the increasingly globalized world the nature of warfare has changed to include transnational actors. The Bush administration failing to realize the differences between national resistance fighters, such as those in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, and the global terrorist network, al-Qaeda, has attempted to combat them using the same methods. As a result of this ignorance the article concludes that the US has no viable option for creating peace in the Middle East and US policies have only increased the strength and number of US “enemies.”

This Foreign Policy in Focus article dissects US President George Bush’s speech to the 61st session of the UN General Assembly. The article argues that nearly all of Bush’s comments about democratic transitions throughout the Middle East contradict US actions in the region, which, include supporting dictatorial governments in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and preventing early UN involvement in the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict.

This article in the Observer details how US-based private military companies (PMCs) planned covert military operations inside Somalia in support of President Abdullahi Yusuf's transitional federal government and against the Supreme Islamic Courts Council which currently controls the capital Mogadishu. The article states that correspondence between the PMCs suggests the involvement of the US Central Intelligence Agency. Such foreign involvement in Somalia would violate the UN arms embargo, the author affirms.

Israeli military strategists met with US military officials including US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney in early summer 2006 “to get a green light in the bombing operation” in Lebanon. Such meetings, which took place in Washington, suggest that the US had a vested interest in the premeditated July 2006 attack. A US government consultant said that Lebanon “would be a demo for Iran.” This New Yorker article cites the delayed US call for cease-fire as further evidence of Washington’s stake in the conflict.

South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun has called for a shift in the control of his country’s troops from a US general to a South Korean one. Since the Korean War, during war-time, the South Korean military would become an appendage of the US military. Though critics within the country worry that this move will destroy the alliance between Washington and Seoul, Hyun sees the move as necessary for the sovereignty and security of the state. (International Herald Tribune)

This Sojourners article discusses the “Project for the New American Century” under US President George W. Bush. The conservative think-tank, which aims to promote American global leadership, called for “an aggressive foreign policy with a then-unprecedented military buildup” to retain US hegemony. Before 2000, Democratic politicians largely rejected the project “as the work of hardliners.” However, the author argues that its steadfast implementation since President Bush’s election, most notably the implementation of a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, begs the question of whether US citizens were manipulated into following a foreign policy they did not vote for. (Sojourners)

Arab reform activists see US policies in the Middle East as more of an obstruction than an aid to their attempt at reforming governments and human rights in the area. Progressives recognize that “American policy either strangles nascent reform movements or props up repressive governments that remain Washington’s best allies in the region.” US efforts at “liberating” the region have only led to violence. Constant media coverage portrays the US as antagonists causing Middle Easterners to back any anti-US movement, repressive or otherwise. (New York Times)

The US military and CIA provide direct military aid to many US-friendly movements in foreign conflicts. This United States started this trend after failed intervention missions like proxy wars during the Cold War and the Vietnam War. This Asia Times article discusses such historical cases and the US military’s intervention in Somalia.

This Foreign Policy in Focus article cites a growing trend towards unilateral military action as opposed to multilateral diplomacy in solving conflicts. The US and Israel have justified “preventative war” under the “War on Terrorism.” Meanwhile, Japan threatens to preemptively attack North Korea, jeopardizing its “peace constitution.” This dangerous policy threatens to undermine the institutions of international law and global agreements such as the Geneva Conventions.

Ethiopia, Eritrea and Yemen have sent supplies and troops to war-torn Somalia as an outlet for the countries’ own regional tensions. Washington has cautioned other governments from intervening in the conflict and creating a proxy war. Even so, the US has sponsored the transitional government and backed non-religious militias in Somalia, creating its own proxy war. (Associated Press)

This Texas Observer article details the US overthrow of fourteen foreign governments in the past 100 years. The US endorsed proxy wars in ten of these campaigns. Four of the coups, namely in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam and Chile, Washington carefully planned, financed and executed unilaterally.

This TomDispatch article discusses the expansion of “Pax Americana,” or “The American Empire,” as a fundamental tenet of the Bush administration. Adherents of “Pax Americana” believe that force solves global issues, placing emphasis on a technologically advanced military. The unconditional reliance on military coercion has led to an interminable war involving multiple governments and proxy wars. The author warns that diplomatic options may quickly slip away.

US officials and media often refer to China as a growing military competitor. This Foreign Policy in Focus article likens international diplomacy to a chess game, where the US builds ties with other Asian countries to counter the Chinese influence. The author shows how India, Japan, and South Korea have gained US favor and describes Pakistan as “a pawn that has outlived its usefulness.” This article suggests that President Pervez Musharraf may have reason to fear a US-backed regime change in Pakistan.

Hundreds of US troops entered Paraguay in 2005 for counterterrorism exercises. Since then, the US military has repressed Paraguayan social movements in the name of “security.” Many fear that the influx of US forces signals a plan to topple neighboring Bolivia’s leftist government and seize the country’s abundant natural resources. (The Nation)

Italy has issued warrants for the arrest of three US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives allegedly involved in Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr’s 2003 kidnapping. Italian prosecutors accuse the CIA and two Italian Intelligence agents of transporting the Muslim cleric from Milan to Egypt where he claims he was tortured. The case adds to mounting international criticism of the US’s “extraordinary rendition” practices. (New York Times)

US interference in Nicaraguan affairs has ranged from meddlesome and internally destabilizing proxy wars, to US-funded media outlets and US-sponsored political candidates. Mainstream US media has replaced communism with Latin American “radical populism” as an impending threat and source of fear, unjustly lending support for such interference. This Council on Hemispheric Affairs article follows US political and economic manipulation as it impedes Nicaragua’s self-determination.

The United States plans to spend US$500 million in the next 5 years on overt “counter terrorism” measures in Northern Africa. The US-backed Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Initiative (TSCTI) marks the country’s unwelcome foray into 9 Saharan Nations. The TSCTI’s main target is the nearly inoperative Salafist Group for Call and Combat. This Asia Times article describes the stagnant group’s decline and the likelihood that US actions will generate terrorism in the region.

The US quest for influence in Asia rages forward with wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps Iran. With that region dominated, the next move may become a “Scramble for Africa.” Africa’s resource-rich region will see an increase in US military presence, warns the Center for Civil Society.

Ukrainian citizens protested the presence of foreign military troops in the country, by blockading transportation of US Marines. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko invited the Marines for joint military exercises in pursuit of Ukrainian membership in NATO. But the Ukrainian parliament has not approved the military exercises, making the presence of foreign troops illegal. (Los Angeles Times)

The US Department of Defense 2006 annual report lists China as a likely military threat to the US Navy in the South Pacific region. This Stratfor article points out that while a Chinese attack is unlikely, a mere perceived threat can alter world events. A perceived provocation might lead to US weapons proliferation and US military actions against China.

The US government secretly funds “counterterrorist” Somali warlords who are fighting Islamic groups over the control of the Somali capital. Most of Somalia is in anarchy since 1991 and there is no effective policing system. Some Somalis are calling for the US support in stabilizing the country, but as previous US involvement with warlords show, this strategy is bound to fail and backfire on the United States. (Washington Post)

Noam Chomsky believes that proponents of “just war theory,”  such as Michael Walzer, are ignoring historical facts. Wars have rarely been “just.” Normally countries waged wars because of their national interests. The US, which proclaimed the interventions in Kosovo and Afghanistan as “just wars” uses this concept as a pretext for “preventive war.” (Khaleej Times)

New York University Professor Greg Gandin argues that past US interventions in Latin America shaped the Bush administration’s model of intervention in the Middle East. US interventions in Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1970s and 80s taught US officials how to manipulate US media and push through destructive neoliberal policies on countries, Gandin says. (Mother Jones)

Author Chalmers Johnson analyzes US efforts to impose its political and economic system on other countries. While the US has justified many military interventions in the name of promoting democracy, Johnson argues that none of the over 200 interventions since World War II produced a democratic government. Focusing on East Asia, Johnson further argues that the region reached economic prosperity by completely ignoring US preaching of free trade and liberalization, while pursuing protectionism and government regulation of the economy. (TomDispatch)

Chalmers Johnson argues in this TomDispatch article that nearly every single time the US tried to impose “democracy” on other countries it failed. The US openly supported military dictators in South Korea and a one-party rule in Japan. The recent imposition of “democracy” on Iraq seems bound to fail. Johnson shows that democracy is not exclusively about elections. It is about the importance of public opinion, separation of power and the existence of a mechanism to oust unsatisfactory leaders.

This Foreign Policy In Focus article argues that the massive defense budget increase proposed by the Bush administration for 2007 is not directed at fighting terrorism, as officially claimed. In reality, China is the reason for such expensive new weapons systems as new nuclear attack submarines and new generations of fighter jets. The Pentagon believes that China has the “greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States” in the future.

The US continues to finance its Airborne Laser Program. The Pentagon plans to use a Boeing 747 equipped with a high-energy beam weapon as one component of the projected National Missile Defense (NMD) system. However, such a system is very complicated to construct. If ever put in place, the US will use the NMD more against future rivals, such as China, than against terrorists or rogue states. (Space.com)

For four decades, “mutual assured destruction” (MAD) defined the relations among the major nuclear powers. But with the US arsenal growing rapidly while Russia's arsenal decays and the Chinese one stays small, the era of MAD is ending. This raises the danger that the US could strike anywhere without fearing a retaliatory attack. (Foreign Affairs)

This Washington Post article argues that the Bush administration develops plans to modernize nuclear bombs and warheads and the necessary production facilities. The US seeks to “produce warheads on a time scale in which geopolitical threats could emerge.”

This allAfrica article claims that East Africa could be the target of US strikes against “suspected al Qaeda elements” in the coming years. Special forces play a major part in that endeavor, but the US will increasingly use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to carry out “unilateral quick strikes.”

The US armed forces are stretched thin because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Washington currently does not plan to introduce a draft, as that would cause massive opposition from the US population. Defending US imperial ambitions, a retired military officer claims in this International Herald Tribune article “all superpowers from ancient times turned to mercenaries to defend their interests.”

This New York Times op-ed argues that keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf has constituted a cornerstone of US foreign policy for more than half a century. The US regards any attempt to gain control of this region as an assault on its vital interests, which Washington will repel by any means necessary, including military force. The securing of oil constituted one of the reasons to invade Iraq.

Following a discussion with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, President George Bush agreed to support and lobby for an increase of peacekeeping forces in Darfur. Analysts see two main reasons behind Washington’s sudden shift in attitude towards Darfur: Sudan’s oil and geopolitical position. Indeed, Darfur’s location represents an entrance into the Arab world for the US to “prevent Arab countries from turning into a terrorist haven or a hotbed of terrorist activities.” (People’s Daily)

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plan to join their “political forces” to counterbalance the “robust” power of the US. Both leaders criticize Washington for accepting Pakistan’s nuclear status while opposing Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. Accusing the Bush administration of “hypocrisy,” they argue that the world superpower’s actions contradict its claims of spreading “democracy.” (Christian Science Monitor)

US Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt stated that Washington plans to “reposture” its troops over a large area covering the Middle East, parts of Africa and Asia. Kimmitt asserts that the US will retain “enough forces” to protect its “national interests.” He also warns that Washington’s “preoccupations” in Iraq and Afghanistan do not prevent it from conducting other operations in the region, such as a military strike against Iran. (Guardian)

The Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) emphasizes an expansion of US military capabilities and strategies over a 20-year period. The review calls for an increase in the Special Operations Forces, as well as civil affairs and psychological operations units capable of performing worldwide. This “ambitious” new defense strategy also envisions large-scale and long-term clandestine operations in “politically sensitive” and “denied areas.” (Washington Post)

This CommonDreams article argues that Washington’s foreign policy and its tout for “freedom and democracy for all” have turned the country into the “biggest bully” in the world. A “biased” worldview has led the US to demonize the enemy and overthrow democratically elected leaders while siding with dictators. The article criticizes this “arrogant” foreign policy, warning that pride comes before a fall.

This essay written for a Historians Against the War conference outlines US imperial ambitions starting with the arrival of the colonialists on the North American continent in the 1600s. The author then presents numerous examples of US interventions throughout the world demonstrating that the country has been a colonial power ever since its inception in 1776. The piece concludes with an analysis of US actions in the 21st century using the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as a basis for discussion.