Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 7. maj 2005
/ Time Line May 7, 2005
Version 3.0
6. Maj 2005, 8. Maj 2005
05/07/2005
From "Rogue States" to "Unstable Nations": America's New
National Security Doctrine
By Michel Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca 7 April 2005
In mid-March, the Pentagon released a major document, entitled The
National Defense Strategy of the United States of America. This
document constitutes a departure from the doctrine of pre-emptive
warfare, which has characterized most national security statements
since 9/11. Whereas the preemptive war doctrine envisages military
action as a means of "self defense" against countries categorized
as "hostile" to the US, the new Pentagon doctrine envisages the
possibility of military intervention against countries which do not
visibly constitute a threat to the security of the American
homeland.
The document outlines "four major threats to the United
States":
- "Traditional challenges" are posed by well known and recognized
military powers using "well-understood' forms of war."
- "Irregular threats" come from forces using so-called
"unconventional' methods to counter stronger power."
- "The catastrophic challenge" pertains to the "use of weapons of
mass destruction by an enemy."
- "Disruptive challenges" pertains to "potential adversaries
utilizing new technologies to counter U.S. advantages."
Global Military Hegemony: Overshadowing Potential Rivals
This military blueprint outlines the contours of a project of
global military hegemony. It is predicated on a massive increase in
defense spending. The underlying objective consists in
overshadowing, in terms of defense outlays, any other nation on
earth including America's European allies. This "overshadowing
process" through massive defense spending, was recently highlighted
at the annual Corporate Conference of the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR):
The United States military this year [2005] will be larger than the
next 25 countries put together.... So, you know, essentially if
spending patterns hold, which is to say European defense spending
is declining, American is rising, in about five years, the United
States will be spending more money than the rest of the world put
together on defense." ( Council on Foreign Relations, Annual
Corporate conference, 10 March 2005 ).
Mammoth Defense Budget
The defense budget, estimated at 401.7 billion dollars (FY 2005)
does not include the "emergency supplemental defense budget"
earmarked for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Neither is the DoD participation's in the "war on terrorism"
included in the defense budget. (See table below). (See also
http://64.177.207.201/static/budget/annual/fy05/ ) Nor does it
include another 40 billion dollars allocated to America's
intelligence apparatus, headed by John Negroponte. Approximately 80
percent of the intelligence budget, including America's system of
spy satellite's, directly supports US military initiatives.
US Defense Spending (FY2005)
“Top Line” Funding – Unlike past years, this
year's DoD request does not list the funding request for the
nuclear weapons functions of the Department of Energy (Function
053), nor does it include the total for National Defense (Function
050). The FY’04 total for National Defense is $401.3 billion,
which includes roughly $17.3 billion for DoE. The estimated total
National Defense “Top Line” request (Function 050) for
FY'05 is $420.7 billion in Budget Authority, including $19.0
billion for DoE – a 7.9 percent increase over
FY’04.
Funding for Contingency Operations (Supplemental Appropriations)
– The request contains no funding for ongoing military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, or for the Defense
Department’s participation on the global war on terrorism.
Pentagon officials state that the Defense Department “cannot
yet determine the scope of these operations nor their incremental
costs” and therefore has not budgeted for them. They also
indicate that they will not request a supplemental funding
appropriation in calendar year 2004. Clearly, however, such a
request will be necessary to fund these operations in FY’05.
The FY’04 supplemental appropriation for combat operations is
$64.7 billion.
Missile Defense – The ballistic missile defense program
receives more funding than any other weapon system in the annual
Pentagon budget. The FY’05 request contains roughly $9.1
billion for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), up from the current
$7.6 billion. This does not include totals for programs funded
outside the MDA, such as the Army’s Patriot PAC-3. Nor does
it include funding for the SBIRS-High satellite program. In all,
the Pentagon is requesting a total of $10.7 billion for ballistic
missile defense.
Shipbuilding – The budget provides $11.1 billion to support
procurement of nine ships in FY’05, up from seven in
FY’04. These include one “Virginia” class nuclear
attack submarine ($2.6 billion), three “Arleigh Burke”
class destroyers ($3.6 billion), and one DD(X) new surface
combatant ($1.5 billion). Aircraft – The request includes
funding for 24 F/A-22 fighters for the Air Force ($4.7 billion), 42
of the Navy’s F/A-18E/F fighter ($3.1 billion), and $4.6
billion for continued development of the Joint Strike Fighter. It
also includes $1.8 billion for continued development and
procurement of 11 of the Marine Corps/Navy V-22
“Osprey” tilt-rotor.
Personnel – The request contains a 3.5 percent military base
pay raise. It also completes the elimination of average
out-of-pocked housing expenses for military personnel living in
private housing.
Federal Budget Deficit – The Pentagon request is arriving on
Capitol Hill at a time when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimates that the federal budget deficit will reach $477 billion
this year. CBO projects a $362 billion deficit for FY’05.
Source: http://64.177.207.201/static/budget/annual/fy05/
Moreover, in addition to its own defense outlays, Washington
indirectly, through the provision of US military aid, keeps an eye
on the defense budgets of a large number of pro-US regimes,
throughout the World. Israel receives close to $2.2 billion of US
military aid.
The consolidated military aid to "friends and allies", (e.g.
Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Philippines, Indonesia, etc), under
various bilateral and multilateral agreements, not to mention the
partnership for peace initiative, is substantial. Credits to
foreign governments to buy US weapons and equipment is nearly five
billion dollars.
(
http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=792
)
America is currently spending more than 500 billion dollars a year
on defense and military intelligence, an amount which is somewhat
less than the GDP of the Russian Federation, estimated at $613
billion (2004). In other words, the Cold war era super-power has
been impoverished beyond bounds, dwarfed in terms of its defense
capabilities. It is identified in US national security documents as
a first strike preemptive attack by for US using nuclear warheads.
Even if it were to allocate a sizeable portion of its GDP to
defense spending, it would not be able to rival the US.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
(SPIRI), global military expenditure is in excess of $950 billion
of which approximately 50 percent is directly linked to the US
military budget:
The USA today accounts for 40 to 50 per cent of global defense
spending. In every sphere of warfare the US now has clear
preponderance over other powers. No other power has the capacity to
move large forces around the globe and support its troops with
precision firepower and unsurpassed amount of information and
intelligence. Military resources as a result of the $ 400 billion
military budget are formidable. The defense research establishment
of the US receives more money than the entire defense budget of its
largest European ally. No other power has B2 bombers, the satellite
constellations, the aircraft carriers or the long range unmanned
aircraft like that of the US Navy and Air Force. (The Statesman,
India, 5 April 2005)
(see also the report of foreign Aid Watch:
http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=792
)
In comparison, China identified in the Pentagon document as a
"growing power", currently spends 29,5 billion dollars on
defense.
"Unstable Nations" are the Target for Military
Intervention
The Pentagon document was made public on the 18 of March. The Wall
Street Journal provided a summary, a week prior to the release of
the declassified Pentagon document (See Classified Pentagon
Document New Undeclared Arms Race: America's Agenda for Global
Military Domination by Michel Chossudovsky,
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO503A.html )
Barely a week following the release of the declassified version of
the Pentagon document , the National Intelligence Council of the
State Department confirmed that "U.S. intelligence experts are
preparing a list of 25 countries deemed unstable and, thus,
candidates for [military] intervention". There was however no
formal confirmation that this NIC initiative was related to the new
Pentagon doctrine, released on mid-March.
Distinct from declared enemies or "rogue states", the exercise
consists in identifying countries of "greatest instability and
risk". In other words, America's security is said to be threatened
less by "conquering states than by the failed and failing
ones".
... conflict prevention and postwar reconstruction of failed and
failing states had become a "mainstream foreign policy challenge"
because of the dangers of terrorist groups and the availability of
weapons of mass destruction.
[the goals of the newly formed Office of Reconstruction and
Stabilisation under the NIC, headed by Carl Pascual are] to prevent
conflict, but also to prepare to react quickly when the US military
had to intervene. Post-conflict work would focus on creating laws
and institutions of a "market democracy", he said.
Planning would include forming a "reserve corps" of specialist
civilian teams and devising reconstruction contracts in advance
with private companies and NGOs. (Financial Times, 30 March
2005)
The Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization
Mandate:
"will lead and coordinate U.S. Government planning, and
institutionalize U.S. capacity, to help stabilize and reconstruct
societies in transition from conflict or civil strife so they can
reach a sustainable path toward peace, democracy and a market
economy."
Source: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/36560.htm
Whether these countries constitute a threat to National Security is
not the issue. Military priorities will also be established in
accordance with this list. Hostility to the US (e.g. by rogue
enemies and/or "growing powers") is not the sole criterion for
military intervention.
While the "watch-list" of 25 "unstable nations" remains a closely
guarded secret, a number of countries have already been identified
(in Us policy statements) prior to launching the initiative. These
include inter alia Venezuela under President Hugo Chavez, Nepal
(currently marked by a peasant-led insurrection), Haiti under
military occupation, Algeria, Peru, Bolivia, Sudan, Nigeria, Sierra
Leone, Liberia, Ivory Coast. (based on a selective review of recent
US foreign policy statements reported by the Western media). The
pretext for intervening militarily in these countries is based on
America's mandate to "help them stabilize" and put them on "a
sustainable path". Any national project which goes against the
neoliberal agenda and Washington's conception of a free market
democracy will be a candidate for military intervention.
Asymmetric Warfare
The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America.
document also introduces the concept of "asymmetric warfare". It
categorizes "diplomatic and legal challenges" by groups or
countries as threats to the security of America, namely as de facto
aggressive acts. “Our strength as a nation state will
continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the
weak focusing on international forums, judicial processes and
terrorism,...
Asked about the statement, Douglas Feith, the No. 3 official at the
Pentagon, said during a news conference, “There are various
actors around the world that are looking to either attack or
constrain the United States, and they are going to find creative
ways of doing that, that are not the obvious conventional military
attacks... We need to think broadly about diplomatic lines of
attack, legal lines of attack, technological lines of attack, all
kinds of asymmetric warfare that various actors can use to try to
constrain, shape our behavior.”
Asked to clarify what a “legal line of attack” meant,
he acknowledged it could include the International Criminal Court,
a body vehemently opposed by the Bush administration, that began
operations in The Hague in 2003... He said it was meant to note
“the arguments that some people make to try to, in effect,
criminalize foreign policy and bring prosecutions where there is no
proper basis for jurisdiction under international law as a way of
trying to pressure American officials.”
... Other vulnerabilities include inconsistent or less-capable
allies and resentment of U.S. influence in world affairs, the
document says. In a town-hall meeting at the Pentagon earlier
Friday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld complained about one
of those allies, calling Spain’s abrupt withdrawal of 1,300
troops from Iraq last year “not impressive.”
Overall, the document confirms Rumsfeld’s policies in the
broadest terms: It is impossible to know when and where the next
threat to U.S. security will come what Pentagon planners call
“strategic uncertainty” so the U.S. military
needs to be able and flexible enough to deploy anywhere in the
world in short order. The document also accents needs for allies to
provide bases for U.S. forces and to search their own countries for
extremists who intend to attack the United States.
Still, the document leaves open the possibility the United States
would act preemptively and alone. “We will act with others
when we can,” it says. The document will be used to help
shape the Quadrennial Defense Review, a far-reaching project now
under way that will try to outline what military capabilities the
United States needs to meet the goals of this strategy. Rumsfeld
will present the review to Congress early next year. Feith
acknowledged that the United Kingdom and other allies will now be
allowed to take part in secret meetings as the review is
developed." (Associated Press, 18 March 2005)
The concept of asymmetric warfare suggests that challenges in the
judicial and/or diplomatic arenas by State and non-State actors,
including NGOs could be countered by military and intelligence
actions.
Global Military Deployment
In the controversial March 18 document, the Pentagon also confirmed
its intent:
"to shift to a more centralized 'global force management' model so
it could quickly expand available troops anywhere in the
world".
Responding to US economic and geostrategic interests, the stated
objective consists in organizing military deployment on a global
level, rather than in terms of the existing structure of regional
deployment:
“Under this concept, Combatant Commanders no longer
‘own’ forces in their theaters,” the strategy
said. “Forces are allocated to them as needed sourced
from anywhere in the world. This allows for greater flexibility to
meet rapidly changing operational circumstances.” (UPI, 18
March 2005)
This shift in emphasis, focusing on a global command structure will
result in shifts in the functions of the regional military command
structures.
This global perspective on military deployment was initially
formulated in the "2001 Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review".
In 2002, the Pentagon had already called for a more "flexible"
Unified Command structure, which "accommodates evolving U.S.
national security needs".
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/unified-com.htm
).
in a presentation to the House Armed Services Committee ( June 23,
2004), The architect of "global force management" Douglas J. Feith,
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy outlined five key
elements:
-- Strengthen Allied Roles. We want to expand allied roles and
build new partnerships. We have worked to ensure that our allies
and friends recognize that, in transforming the US posture, we're
safeguarding the US commitment to help defend our common interests.
Changes in the U.S. global posture also aim to help our allies and
friends modernize their own forces, doctrines and strategies.
-- Flexibility to Contend with Uncertainty. Second, we have to
create greater flexibility to contend with uncertainty....Our goal
is to have forces deployed forward in such a way that they can
quickly reach crisis spots as necessary in the future.
-- Focus Within and Across Regions. ... we're dealing with
challenges that are global in nature so global strategies and
actions are necessary to complement our regional planning. We need
to improve our ability to project power from one region to another
and to manage forces on a global basis.
-- Develop Rapidly Deployable Capabilities. Because our
forward-deployed forces are unlikely to fight where they're
actually based, we have to make those forces rapidly deployable.
For this concept to work, U.S. forces need to be able to move
smoothly into, through, and out of host nations, which puts a
premium on establishing flexible legal and support arrangements
with our allies and partners.
-- Focus on Capabilities, Not Numbers. Finally, our key purpose is
to push relevant capabilities forward.... In gauging the degree of
commitment the US has to a given region, the key concept is not
numbers of forces or platforms we have stationed there, but the
magnitude to the military capabilities we can bring to bear there
rapidly.
05/07/2005
US imprisons Iraqi journalists without charges
By Bill Van Auken
- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/iraq-m07.shtml
At least nine Iraqi journalists who worked for major Western news
organizations have disappeared into the network of concentration
camps in which the US military is holding an estimated 17,000
citizens of the occupied country, the French news agency AFP
reported May 5.
An even larger number of Iraqi reporters and other Arab journalists
who do not have connections to the international media have also
been thrown into prison.
The ruthless and often lethal suppression of the press has been a
persistent feature of the war that Bush administration hails as a
crusade for democracy and freedom in Iraq.
US repressionboth detentions and shootingscombined with
the ever-present threat of being kidnapped or killed by elements of
the Iraqi resistance or criminal gangs has had the effect of
reducing independent reporting to a minimum. More than 65
journalists and media workers have been killed in Iraq since the
war began a little over two years ago. As far as the Pentagon is
concerned, this is an altogether welcome development that severely
limits exposure of the scale of the crimes carried out by US
imperialism against the Iraqi people...
05/07/2005
Top
Send
kommentar, email
eller søg i Fredsakademiet.dk
|