Axis of Evil

The ‘New Economy’ unveiled by the global financial elite at COP21 has two main components: 1. ‘clean energy’, and 2. ‘sustainable capitalism’. These, in turn, comprise two of the elements of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for the 21st Century–a partnership project between Wall Street, the UN and international NGOs, i.e. Avaaz, Ceres, Purpose and 350.

The primary promoters of the ‘New Economy’, ‘clean energy’ and ‘sustainable capitalism’–that form the core of the UN SDGs–are Bill Gates, Jeremy Heimans (Avaaz & Purpose) and Bill McKibben (350). Economic development under the SDGs relies on financial investment from the World Bank, and compliance enforcement from the International Monetary Fund (IMF)–in partnership with Wall Street and regional investment banks.

The results of this ‘sustainable capitalism’ can already be seen in the form of mega-dams, mega-plantations, and mega-mining projects in South America, Africa and Asia. This industrial development–while profitable to the investors–has unfortunately resulted in major deforestation, toxic pollution of fresh water, and ethnic cleansing of Indigenous peoples who formerly called these territories home.

Adjacent to the mega-dams, mega-plantations, and mega-mines of the ‘New Economy’ are makeshift camps for the industrial laborers, as well as rural shanty towns for displaced farmers and fishermen. The Indigenous peoples–those that aren’t murdered by corporate security personnel working in tandem with the police and military–are frequently relocated to urban slums far away, where many die a slow death of poverty and substance abuse.

The mega-dams provide electricity for industry, including the processing of minerals from the mega-mines, as well as the GMO soy and palm oil produced on the mega-plantations. The ‘clean energy’ minerals include gold, copper, and lithium, which are used in consumer electronics, solar panels, wind mills, and batteries for electric vehicles. They also include coal, oil, and uranium that is used to fuel the electrical grids in countries such as France, Japan and the UK.

In countries like Australia, Canada and the US, the development of gold, coal, oil and uranium mining on the lands of Indigenous peoples caused significant displacement, pollution, genocide and disease throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries, and is now the reason for uprisings, terrorism and wars in places like Mali, the Philippines, West Papua, the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi. In order to destroy Indigenous opposition to this displacement and dispossession by multinational corporations, the UN Security Council — led by the US — has supported NATO invasions in places such as Libya, as well as an increased presence by AFRICOM–the US military forces in Africa.

The ‘clean energy’ plan of the UN, Wall Street and NGOs–that championed the financial elite at COP21–relies on two primary projects: 1. a global nuclear power renaissance, and 2. privatization of Indigenous and public resources worldwide. If the UN SDGs already comprising ‘sustainable capitalism’ are the ‘New Economy’, how does that differ from the old one?



The Nihilists

nihilists-v.0.3Illustration remixed from an original image by andres.thor under Creative Commons License – Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0

When it comes to the annals of shady people in the U.S. federal bureaucracy, few figures in American history figure so prominently, if obscurely, as Richard Armitage. As U.S. Deputy Secretary of State under George W. Bush (2001-2005), Armitage was deeply involved in events surrounding 9/11 and the Plame affair. As Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (1983-1989), he was connected to the Iran-Contra affair.

In part of his taped March 24, 2004 testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Armitage noted that getting arms to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan was not so difficult: “It was making sure that we wouldn’t be, one, embarrassed by what they were. And no matter the charismatic nature of Ahmed Shah Massoud – and he was quite charismatic – that doesn’t make up for raping, drug dealing, et cetera, which many of the Northern Alliance had been involved with. So it’s not easy.”

As Deputy Secretary of State, Armitage was responsible for outing undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame in retaliation for her husband Ambassador Wilson’s refusal to go along with the fraudulent Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) campaign promoted at the UN by Secretary Powell.

One of the myths deposed by the 2010 Wikileaks U.S. State Department embassy cable cache is the notion of diplomacy as a benign exercise, above the fray of dirty dealing that takes place at the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency. With the revelation of spying on UN officials — authorized by Secretary of State Clinton — the continuity of malpractice under the previous White House by Secretary Powell, with help from his long-time associate at the Department of Defense, Richard Armitage, proceeded seamlessly under the Obama administration.

As documented by Jerry Sanders in his book Peddlers of Crisis, Cold War hawks in Washington made their bones by producing and disseminating misperceptions about the Russian threat, that in turn justified the inordinate military buildup by the US and NATO. In essence, says Sanders, the national security military industrial complex, while perhaps warranted at some level, was nevertheless a colossal fraud concocted by Washington insiders at Langley and the Pentagon.

Deliberately falsified information and wildly exaggerated threats were, in fact, not only used to enable looting of the U.S. Treasury to meet these false threats, but also to promote some notorious characters into the halls of power. People like Henry Kissinger, Dick Cheney, and Richard Armitage.

Today, through agencies like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID, lessons in psychological warfare learned by Cold War hawks and private sector friends like George Soros are still being applied in the interest of US hegemony, albeit in more creative ways. As noted in this 2011 article about NED-funded political opposition groups in Russia, the exaggerations, while containing an element of truth, are leveraged to perpetuate popular myths that can be capitalized on by US interests.

Further Reading

9/11 As Sequel to Iran-Contra: Armitage, Carlucci and Friends

Amnesty’s Shilling for US Wars

Wag the Dog: Campaigns of Purpose

Welcome to the Brave New World — Brought to You by Avaaz

Domination Globalisation Intervention

Presenting an alternative to state domination, Rudolph C. Ryser of the Center for World Indigenous Studies proposes instead honoring Fourth World nations. Kurds, Nagas, Papuans, Mayans and Tuaregs — once liberated from state control — could resume governing themselves without state and UN interference. Self-governance in the Fourth World, however, would require states relinquishing some of their legal, economic and military power–something they will not do without significant pressure.

While accommodating Fourth World political engagement with UN member states is preferable to violent engagement, the architecture of the UN is oriented toward state domination of indigenous nations through economic sanction and military force. Indeed, as the World Bank, NATO, and UN member states exercise this domination, Fourth World nations like Basque, Tibet, Palestine, Biafra, West Papua and Kurdistan have been forced to defend themselves.

Only a handful of Fourth World nations are member states of the UN–Samoa, Estonia and Armenia to name a few. The rest of the them, like Scotland and Catalonia, remain frustrated in their desire for self-governance. As they slowly establish their political equality with UN member states, there is a chance to reduce armed violence between states and nations.

An impediment to peace under the UN system of international law, however, is the development of NATO as an arm of state aggression against Fourth World nations under the guise of humanitarian interventions, in countries like the former Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria. Thus destabilized, these states become arenas of international violence involving tribes, institutions, markets and networks–some of whom employ economic and military terrorism.

Acting in tandem with UN-sanctioned aggresion are journalists at the Associated Press, BBC and CNN, as well as state-sponsored NGOs like USAID and National Endowment for Democracy.  With aggression characterized as “humanitarian” by these embedded journalists, who often spy on behalf of NATO, critics like Centre for the Study of Interventionism provide a sobering contrast to the reflexive enthusiasm expressed by mindless consumers of military spectacle.

As Michel Chossudovsky documented in The Globalisation of Poverty, monetary attacks by UN agencies that lead to civil war illustrate that globalization is not just an economic model, but a plan of war. That war, which is by definition global, is quite simply the exercise of power by the financial sector in undermining the powers of the state (or nation) to the benefit of the free market.

The fact consumers of social media are so easily manipulated into supporting NATO aggression by fabricated myths of humanitarian intent, is testimony to the power of psywar. As reported at Wrong Kind of Green, even Amnesty International USA has been co-opted by NATO interventionists. As noted in The Politics of Naming, the pornography of violence by Western human rights organizations — that require a simple moral world of evil perpetrators and innocent victims — justifies military interventions by dismissing diplomacy and undermining power-sharing, thus escalating conflict and bloodshed.

Time to Abolish NATO

Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire discusses why it is time to abolish NATO and dismantle the military-industrial complex that is eroding freedom worldwide. As war crimes by the U.S./UK/NATO axis expand into civil conflicts that could be handled diplomatically, says Maguire, militarism becomes an impediment to human rights and democracy.

Militarizing our societies, she notes, makes violence acceptable; while this is the norm promoted by governments, corporations and media, it is a norm that must be strategically opposed by those who seek a world of peace. This ideological challenge, created by powerful elites that profit from war, is most pronounced in the fraudulent “humanitarian wars” which epitomize the aberration of militarism that must be abolished.