|Home||Blog||Freedom Potentials||The Cross Roads||Veritas Books|
|Newtimes Survey||Podcast Archive||Video Archive||PDF Archive|
|Actionist Corner||YouTube Video Channel||BitChute Video Channel||Brighteon Video Channel||Social Credit Archive|
On Target Britain
Food for Thought: U.S. military domination of the Persian
Gulf has spread beyond the Straits of Hormuz to the Horn of Africa,
the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.. The media, which have continued
to glorify U.S. military violence and demonize Saddam Hussein and
certain other regional leaders, make scarce comment while the U.N.
Charter and the U.S. Constitution are violated by the powerful.
U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf
What Worsthorne [The Sunday Telegraph] does not understand is that the "mock moderation" and other examples of cheating were a most essential component of the entire exercise. There was no way in which the cheating could have been dispensed with because there are long-term purposes being promoted which cannot be explained and justified and must, therefore, be closely concealed. . . . So much for the fig leaf of legality provided by U.N. sponsorship of the use of force in the Gulf. The late Ivor Benson, the Spotlight, 1st April, 1991.
IRAQ IN THE GLOBAL SCENARIOPublished in Two Parts - Part 1
EDITORIAL NOTE Abbreviations The following
abbreviations are used when relevant, and refer to membership of three
important, but little publicised organisations. All three are massively
influential in shaping the course of world affairs.
IRAQ - "THREAT", OR OBSTRUCTION TO GLOBAL POWER?
An Introduction To Fact, Fiction And Fancy
The second objective has been achieved by the Globalisation of Power. Superficially, this a natural human tendency to consolidate business. In practice, at the heart of the drive to expand - "Growth" - lies the Power of Money, and those who control it. Under the present system of money "creation" on a debt-usury basis, we are all, from the individual to the largest multinational, driven to work and produce ever harder, and to spend forward into debt in order to service the collective indebtedness that chases its own tail. The precarious balance of Western standards of living based on this economic process - rampant materialist consumerism - can only be sustained by exploiting others.
President George W. Bush has made no secret of this imperative in the interests of the United States alone. We were warned as early as 1968 of the second objective, that of Power on a Global scale, at a meeting of the Bilderberg Group at Mont Tremblant, in Canada. At this meeting two papers were tabled in which it was postulated that multinational corporations were becoming more powerful than individual national governments. This now finds its expression in the so-called "International Community" that purports to reflect the conscience of a democratic society in the developed world. In practice this means the United States and the rest. Such genuine democracy as ever existed, truly vested in the people, not least ordinary people in the United States, has become an illusion.
Electoral power of the people - abandoned rather than delegated - is vested in party-political systems; in the United Kingdom that are controlled by the Party Whips. Individual politicians are all-too-often complaisant mutants of this system. Governments, and the Ruling Elites they serve, serve in turn this New World Order. International laws and conventions are made up as they go along. Control of virtually every essential from our food supplies to natural resources, such as oil, is effectively beyond our reach. The world is now controlled largely by the Global Power Brokers through the World Trade Organisation (W.T.O.), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.). The United Nations Organisation is empowered only when it suits the objectives of the International Community - namely the United States.
In the aftermath of the devastating attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in the United States, on the 11th September, 2001, President George W. Bush declared his war on "Terrorism" and the "Axis of Evil". In other words Iran, Iraq North Korea as Nations not prepared to submit to the hegemony of the United States-led "International Community". The Soviet Union and the surrogate Communist system had already collapsed politically and economically in the face of this Power.
From the 1960s there were genuine and serious public concerns about the Apartheid Regime in a resource-rich and economically self-sufficient South Africa. But it also suited the Global Power Brokers to allow the mainly Black-upon-Black genocide of the Armed Struggle by the Communist controlled African National Congress (A.N.C.), which began in 1984, to run its course until the multicultural elections of April, 1994. This was the stage at which the country was ripe for re-integration in the Global Economy; thus for inward investment, privatisation, the free market - and debt slavery!
The illegal United States-driven "United Nations-NATO"
campaign against Serbia, as part of Yugoslavia, was ostensibly in defence
of Albanian population of Kosovo against the Serbian armed forces. The
reality was that the invading forces went on to bomb innocent Serbian
civilians and destroy the Serbian infrastructure against all earlier
assurances. If one studies the map one can understand why. Serbia represented
a missing piece in the middle of the jigsaw of an expanding Federal
European Union; a Nation resolutely outside the Global Economy. Serbia
is now being drawn into this Global Economy of the free market, reconstruction
loans, "development" and privatisation; in other words, debt slavery.
What Do We Know, Who Is Telling It, And Why?
Israel-Palestine remains pivotal to the situation
in the Middle East as a whole and a useful barometer in the balance
of news coverage. Many paid commentators are careful to play the card
of moral equivalence in the current short term scenario. Thus to attempt
to balance the long-standing record of Israeli oppression and genocide,
employing state-of-the-art military equipment funded by the United States
taxpayer, with the a desperate Palestinian population with nothing to
lose and a beleaguered Palestine Liberation Organisation (P.L.O.), rendered
impotent by the systematic destruction of its administrative infrastructure.
In the same way, an attempt, promptly attributed to the P.L.O., to "smuggle
in" a small consignment of weaponry raised an immediate furore.
We do not have inside sources or official links with the Foreign Office or the Security and Intelligence Services. These obviously function in the perceived "National Interests", that is the official line of governments and those in Power behind governments. Very few commentators - journalists and "talking heads" - will have access to these privileged links except to serve these "National Interests". Most skitter around on the periphery; some with reliable, confidential sources of their own. Wire services such as Reuters or Associated Press (A.P.), will be used, especially by the provincial press. Within the limitations of our own resources we monitor a range of newspapers and other material across the political spectrum. Taken over a long period - "yesterday's news" - interesting patterns emerge. The Media publish largely and consistently from a single viewpoint, but it is also necessary to cater for perceived a range of social and political perspectives of the readership in a competitive market. What matters is the balance of coverage and the omissions. As part of this analysis it is also important to ascertain the provenance of the Media; who owns and controls it.
We also saw during the Middle East Wars of 1967 and 1973 how ruthless high-level pressure was brought to bear on the Media and in Parliament whenever a view sympathetic to the Palestinians was published; something that continues today, but with less conviction(6). The ownership and control of the vital advertising agencies, upon which newspapers and magazines are heavily dependent, also plays a key role. It can be no accident that the Government of Prime Minister Blair has appointed Goldman Sachs director Gavyn Davies to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. Davies' wife, Sue Nye, is an adviser to Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. Davies brings us immediately into contact with British Petroleum, B.P.-Amoco (adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski (C.F.R., Bild., T.C.)), through former Government Minister and B.P. Chairman, Lord Simon. This leads in turn to Peter Sutherland (Bild, T.C..), current Chairman of Goldman Sachs and B.P.-Amoco, and an architect of the World Trade Organisation (W.T.O.). Along with Exxon-Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell, B.P.-Amoco is in the top 15 of the 500 worlds largest companies (the Financial Times, 11th May, 2001). Now we may see the patterns forming; not least around oil and, of course, Iraq.
We have yet to see Gavyn Davies' influence evolve. But with the exception of Channel 4 Television, neither radio or television services have apparently been prepared consistently to expose the history of oppression and genocide of the Palestinian people, which suggests where perceptions in the case of Iraq are coming from. Indeed, Israeli sympathies are subliminally massaged by a constant diet of Holocaust oriented material, and allusions to the Holocaust in unrelated transmissions, such as radio plays. "Outraged" complaints are promptly made whenever this bias is perceived to have been infringed.
Of the press, only Independent newspapers, with journalists like Robert Fisk, who are hands-on experts on the Middle East, are the Palestinian and Iraqi cases covered in depth. In The Guardian and its Sunday variant, The Observer, rather less so; The Guardian a newspaper attacked in the past which seems careful to guard its back as a result. The excellent Weekly Guardian draws on Le Monde and The Washington Post. Of recent times The Mirror has followed The Independent's lead, and featured hard-hitting material by John Pilger. The Sun, owned by Rupert Murdoch, takes a more or less diametrically opposite stance.
Commercial rivalry aside, Murdoch's vast News Corporation is heavily indebted to the banks. Murdoch is now also an American citizen who has to co-habit with a media and entertainment business into which are woven powerful American-Jewish influences. Comprehensive coverage comes with the Financial Times. This is conveyed with the impartiality of a stern faced headmaster, but one whose eye is on the reputation of his "school"; in this case the City of London and big business! The Times and Telegraph newspapers take a consistently pro-Israeli line, with only the occasional counter-balancing feature. Coverage of Iraq is tactical and reflects the line of the Global Power Brokers. Times newspapers are owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Controlled by Lord Black, the Telegraph's parent corporation, Hollinger International Plc., is a microcosm of the Ruling Elite. This we shall examine in more detail later in these pages. Indeed, as we collated our material, we annotated reports on Iraq from the Telegraph "T.T.U." - "Telegraph Talk Up"! The Daily Mail offers first class domestic coverage as the only truly "Conservative" newspaper of the bunch. However, the Mail tends to be strongly pro-Zionist, although it includes sound features by experts like Correlli Barnett.
Remarkable in this line-up is the Communist Morning
Star. Only in this newspaper do we find regular coverage of the
effects of decade-long United States-United Kingdom-driven United Nations
Sanctions on the ordinary people of Iraq and the Iraqi infrastructure.
Similarly, the Morning Star is the only source of regular reports
of the illegal and unilateral air attacks by the United States and the
United Kingdom, the damage caused, and the deaths, and injuries inflicted
on innocent people.
Misinformation and Disinformation Before the Gulf War of 1991, American Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, worked hard to improve United States trade relations with Iraq. However, she is also known to have "tipped the wink" to Saddam Hussein that the United States had no particular position about a possible the Iraqi incursion into Kuwait. Thus Saddam Hussein was lured into a military campaign against the United States acting in the name of the "United Nations" that President George Bush insisted in launching although the scope for peaceful negotiations was far from exhausted. This ought to have been a matter for serious and open public debate, but control of the Media has been evident in the virtual absence of any mention, let alone debate. After Glaspie had denied this episode before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, she was found to have lied.(7)(8)
A further fabrication was deliberately promoted
by President George Bush, although it was known to be completely untrue
and even when Amnesty International had withdrawn support for the story.
This was the myth that Iraqi troops had removed some 300 Kuwaiti babies
from hospital incubators and left them to die so that the equipment
could be backloaded to Iraq. The girl who had testified to this fable
transpired later to have been the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador
to the United States!(9)("Revealed: myth of Kuwaiti
babies left to die by Iraq", The Independent on Sunday, 12th
We shall proceed to examine the tactics of "talking up" the "threat" posed by Iraq and the ad hominem attack on Saddam Hussein in more detail. However, it is important at this stage to realise the existence of this form of psychological warfare. We have to assume, of course, that there is a valid and just cause for this attrition in the first place.
Diversion - "Diversiya" was a formal component
of Soviet Military Doctrine in the interdependent Armed and ideological
Struggles. Diversion included the use of Agitation, Propaganda and Provocation
(April Glaspie perhaps?). This involved control of the means of communication.
In the aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Centre on the 11th
September, 2001, definitive evidence against Osama bin Laden and al
Qa'eda was not forthcoming. Certain of those allegedly responsible for
the aircraft hijacking were later discovered to be alive and well in
the Middle East.
THE UNITED STATES - BOTTOM LINE OF GLOBAL POWER
Decline, Fall And Growth
Some 40 years before Correlli Barnett, Ludwell Denny had written prophetically from the American viewpoint in his America Conquers Britain of the growth of American Power and the nature of that Power. This had more of the coming British subservience to this Power than any exclusive future "special relationship", just as the powerful United States Council on Foreign Relations had evolved from original concept of the Royal Institute of Foreign Relations(11): We were Britain's colony once. She will be our colony before she is done; not in name, but in fact. Machines gave Britain power over the world. Now better American machines are giving America power over the world and Britain. We are not content with the richest country on earth. Geniuses of mechanical efficiency, we can not organise an equitable distribution of our national wealth. Instead we exploit nations less rich. There may have been some excuse for Britain on her poor island to go imperialist. There is none for us with a near-continent upon which to thrive. But we are not without cunning. We shall not make Britain's mistake. Too wise to try to govern the world, we shall merely own it. Nothing can stop us. Nothing until our financial empire rots at its heart, as empires have a way of doing. If Britain if foolish enough to fight us, she will go down more quickly, that is all.
Of course American world supremacy is rather horrible to think about - quite unthinkable, as they say of an Anglo-American war. But American supremacy can hardly be worse than British and others gone before. Our weapons are money and machines. But the other nations of the world want money and machines. Our materialism, though not our power, is matched by theirs. That is why our conquest is so easy, so inevitable. Denny described the intrigues in the Middle East in the first decades of the Twentieth Century to control oil resources and pipeline routes. These involved Great Britain, already with substantial interests in the region, and the European Powers in competition with each other, and the United States. Turkey, Persia (later Iran), the emergent Iraq already under the British Mandate, and oil deposits in the Kurdish areas and Mosul. Thus the stage was being set for the present struggle for Power.
Design For Decline
We also saw the Cold War and NATO as essential "safety valves" for this United States expansion, and a foothold in the European economy. In 1947 the British Design for Freedom Committee published a pamphlet titled Design for Europe(14). The Committee of 24 public figures, including 10 M.P.s, under the chairmanship of Peter (later, Lord), Thornycroft, could hardly be dismissed as conspirators or traitors. Yet it was written that the British people would have to be led "slowly and unconsciously" away from the old Imperial Preference and trade barriers towards the new Global Economy. Moreover, the text included all the preliminary indications for some form of a "united" Europe. The arguments did not seem to be those of an economic or politically "integrated" federal "State" as the concept rapidly became under covert tactics of Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath. Unlike Heath's deceits(15), Design for Europe was on sale for the price of one shilling, and appeared to be a study of the inevitable long-term destiny of an island nation shorn of its Empire.
The signs had already been there as early as 1942, when Lewis Ord reported United States post-war intentions to the British Ministry of Aircraft Production in a paper titled American Developments. These intentions to penetrate the global markets, also came to us in a later document kindly passed to us by the veteran commentator, Hilaire du Berrier. This was a letter dated 9th March, 1960, from the President of the International Union, United automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Walter P. Reuther, to The Honorable Christian A. Herter, the Secretary of States. In this letter it made clear United States intentions to use the international labour organisations to "muscle in" on South Africa.
Truths Of Contemporary Power
In early 1975 some twelve articles appeared
in American newspapers and magazines on "How we can solve our economic
problems." The basic idea was that we would occupy the Arab oil fields
from Kuwait to Dubai (not Iraq), expel the indigenous populations, "not
more than 2 million", bring in Texan and Oklahoma oil men who would
produce the oil. The inevitable cries of "imperialism" from the third
world would be immediately stilled by our selling them oil for $2.50
a barrel. The reaction of the Soviet Union and the Arabs themselves
was conveniently ignored. It was clear that the articles came from a
single "deep background" briefing. I assumed it was given by some idiot
in the Pentagon or the C.I.A. (Central Intelligence Agency), and said
on American television that "anyone who proposes solving our domestic
economic problems in this manner is a madman, a criminal or an agent
of the Soviet Union." The oil fields would have been destroyed by the
Arabs and, under the best of circumstances, they could not have been
restored to production for two years during which the economies of Europe,
Japan and the United States would have collapsed.
DOUBLE STANDARDS AND THE MYTH OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 with only 8 abstentions;
Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the Communist countries.
ZIONISM - THE "CASTING VOTE" OF ORGANISED JEWRY
Power of the American-Israel Public Affairs
The London paper quoted Richard Cohen's column in Washington Post: "What's at stake here is the President's nose. It's been out of joint ever since Secretary of State James Baker was three times greeted in Israel by the cacophonous establishment of more West Bank settlements. Every settlement is a personal challenge . . . an expression of contempt for a President who's not that favourably disposed to Israel anyway"
Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding (C.A.A.B.U.) Director, Sir Cyril Townsend, We share with the Arab community concern over the important diplomatic role given to Lord Levy in the Middle East; he has been given a room within the Foreign Office. It seems to be the Prime Minister, not the new Foreign Secretary, the Rt. Hon Jack Straw M.P., who is running British policy on the Arab-Israel dispute and Iraq. C.A.A.B.U. has thought for many years that British policy on the Middle East is too close to that of the United States, and not close enough to that of the European Union, particularly France. Unlike the United States, Britain used to have responsibility for Egypt, Sudan, Iraq and Palestine - as well as other parts of the area - and we have different past experiences, and today different interests. The United States is primarily concerned with safeguarding Israel and oil supplies. The Pentagon, rather than the State Department, is frequently given the leading role, especially in the Gulf. . . . History will surely agree that it was a great blunder to maintain sanctions [against Iraq] for so long.
Of course, the diplomats knew of the problems but were unable to persuade ministers year by year to make the necessary changes. It was not good enough for ministers just to put the blame on the evil regime in Baghdad. C.A.A.B.U. was always surprised and disappointed that so few Members of the House of Commons were prepared to challenge the government's weak arguments.
Tim Llewellyn after Sep 11th, on reporting and
a B.B.C. Television Panorama programme:
Chris Doyle on coverage of the Intifada. C.A.A.B.U's media work has had to move to a different level over the last 12 months. This is in part because New labour and the Prime Minister seem more concerned about the editorials of the Daily Mail or The Times than the views of the elected representatives of this country. This is also reflected in the highly energetic and exhaustive media lobbying in which the pro-Israeli lobby engages which, at its worst, has descended into crude bullying of editors and correspondents. Prior to the Al Aqsa intifada, this lobby had been largely dormant at least as a force for justifying Israeli actions in the Occupied territories. The peace process and the [delusion of] warm relations established between Blair and Barak had made active lobbying irrelevant. Hence the Britain-Israel Public Affairs Committee (B.I.P.A.C. [carbon copy of the United States body]) had folded. Yet, within weeks of the intifada, new organisations were being established to press Israel's case. It was the media that was being targeted. The Israeli government and the Israeli Defence Forces had even taken on image consultants. Unprecedented pressure was placed on the broadcasting media in particular, but also any newspaper or journalist who questioned Israel's right to put down Palestinian demonstrations in whatever fashion they chose.
Abbreviations:Draft of a speech by Philip Agee. Z Pullout, November, 1990.
This history [of Iraqi claims against Kuwait], Saddam Hussein's justification for annexing Kuwait, is in the books for anyone to see. But weeks went by as I waited and wondered why the International Herald Tribune, which publishes major articles from the Washington Post, New York Times and wire services, failed to carry the background. Finally, a month after the invasion, the Herald Tribune carried a Washington Post article on the historical context written by Glenn Frankel. I've yet to find this history in Time or Newsweek. Time, in fact, went so far as to say that Iraq's claims to Kuwait were "without any historical basis". Hardly surprising, since giving exposure to the Iraqi side might weaken the campaign to Hitlerize Saddam Hussein.
Also absent from current accounts is the C.I.A.'s role in the early 1970s to foment and support armed Kurdish rebellion in Iraq. The Agency, in league with the Shah of Iran, provided $16,000,000 in arms and other supplies to the Kurds, leading to Iraqi capitulation to the Shah in 1975 over control of the Shat al Arab. This is the estuary of the Tigris and Euphrates, that separates the two countries and is Iraq's only access to Basra, its upriver port. Five years later, in 1980, Iraq invaded Iran to redress the C.I.A.-assisted humiliation of 1975, and regain control of the estuary, beginning the eight year war that cost a million lives.
U.S. Security And Iraqi Power (emphasis added)
It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraq-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds. Thus in our view, the Congress had acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action. . . . Human Rights. This issue relates to the Kurds. The Iraqi government undertook to relocate broad sectors of its Kurdish community after the war. The intent was to clear a security belt along the border with Iran. Initially, reports circulated that the Kurds were being forcibly driven from their mountain homes and relocated in the desert lands of the south. Subsequently it developed that this was not the case. In fact, they were being directed to new towns which the Iraqi government had built throughout the Kurdish area. The forced relocation galvanised various human rights groups into conducting investigations - all of which could be the prelude for a move in the Congress to revive sanctions.
THE STRATEGY FOR A MIDDLE EASTERN IMPERIUM THE
FARCE OF POLITICAL DEBATE
The idea that we could attack and that there
would be a Northern Alliance situation [as occurred in Afghanistan]
- the Northern Alliance might be Shia - is a crackpot one. Those of
us who visited the great mosque of the Shi'ites at Kerbala and have
been elsewhere in Iraq know that it is not that kind of society. I deeply
regret that no British Minister and, as far as I know, few in the current
diplomatic service have been to Iraq. I say this to the Foreign Office:
for pity's sake, listen to some of the former British ambassadors, including
Sir Stephen Edgerton and Sir John Moberly, who urge great caution. If
people do not have direct experience of Baghdad, they should at least
speak to those who served there with distinction for many years.
Mr Alan Duncan (Conservative; Rutland and Melton) Saddam Hussein's Iraq refuses to acknowledge international norms [whatever those are!] or its own international agreements [sic! and Israel?]].. It is run be a regime that oppresses its own people and appears intent on developing weapons of mass destruction - we should be naive in seeing them as being merely defensive in purpose. Iraq under Saddam Hussein represents a clear danger to international [sic] security and regional stability and represents a clear affront to human rights [sic!, vis., Israel] - a point about which I would have thought Labour Members would feel especially strongly. Containment has been our first aim in tackling Saddam Hussein. It is the policy that we have followed so far - with some success - but we must face the reality that containment alone is no enough to defeat the evil of the Iraqi regime and its [assumed] weapons programme. Saddam Hussein is abusing the patience of the world [whatever the "world" implies] and is [assumption now fact] developing far more destructive potential than he has yet possessed [proof]. . . There are those who question Saddam's capacity to produce the chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons that we feel are a growing threat. I say to them, where are the thousands of tonnes of precursor chemicals, suitable for chemical weapons use [source, or proof of figures?], that are unaccounted for? [on whose evidence]. Saddam Hussein has not yet complied with U.N. Security Council resolution 687 regarding inspection [used by the USA for spying], so what is he hiding? If we or the Americans were to use the Kurds as pawns [we have done!], they would be massacred. It would be wrong and reckless to sacrifice them [we have!] on the altar of our ambitions to topple Saddam Hussein.
Mr Ben Bradshaw. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr Simpson) made the point that this has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. We do not quite agree; Iraq is a sponsor of terrorism. But we make no secret of the fact that our main concern about that country is its determination [proof?] to build weapons os mass destruction capability and the threat that it poses, not just tom its neighbours, but to the rest of the world [the rest of the world being?]. . . . My hon. Friend questioned whether there would be any legal base in the hypothetical circumstances that there is military action. The legal view, with which I have much sympathy, is that Iraq is in flagrant breach, not just of United nations resolutions [as for Israel?], but of the cease-fire agreement that it entered into at the end of the Gulf war, which makes that cease-fire no longer valid. [and illegal over-flying?].
Hollinger International Inc. Black(Bild.,
T.C.) & Amiel(Bild.)
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|