The agenda shared by the US and the European Union is clear enough – destroy any government that stands up for national sovereignty. But as Serbia, Lebanon and Venezuela show, they are not having it all their own way...
Imperial ambitions: US and EU rebuffed as they seek to control around the globe
WORKERS, JUNE 2008 ISSUE
The United States and the European Union are hell bent on interfering in the internal affairs of other countries in order to secure puppet governments that will do their bidding and open up to their capitalists. There are currently three obvious cases that illustrate this.
First there is Serbia. Not satisfied with effectively annexing the Serbian province of Kosovo, now under NATO/EU occupation and with the euro as its currency, the EU supported by the US wants to gobble up Serbia. Prime Minister Kostunica pulled his party out of the Serbian government because of President Tadic's grovelling to Brussels over the issue of Kosovo and potential EU membership.
This led to a general election that the EU hoped would result in their man Tadic winning and bringing Serbia minus Kosovo into the EU. Brussels openly interfered in the election, just as it did in the Ukrainian election during the so called Orange Revolution, funding NGOs to support the EU line and, this time, signing a pre-membership pact with Tadic. In addition, it promised all the goodies that would flow from fast tracked EU membership if only the Serbian workers would vote their sovereignty away.
National sovereignty vs the EU
When Tadic's party won the higher percentage of the vote, but not enough to form a government, the EU applauded, declaring that Serbia would shortly be in the EU. What they didn't bank on was the possibility that all the opposition parties, who were committed to defending national sovereignty and viewed Kosovo as rightly Serbian, would unite and form a majority. This they have done, and have pitted national sovereignty against the imperialism of the EU and US.
Second there is Lebanon. The US has history in Lebanon and has always been defeated in its attempts to control that nation. It is having another go now.
Lebanon has a constitution reflecting the various religious groupings – and that accordingly has always kept the nation divided. Since the civil war and the Israeli occupation, most of the religious groups and political parties are armed.
Bush's man, Prime Minister Siniora, showed his US credentials as he stood by and watched as the US backed Israel in attacking Lebanon in 2006. Then under the pretext of fighting an Islamic Palestinian group in a refugee camp in Lebanon, Bush channelled $400 million worth of arms to the Lebanese army. The real reason for the military aid was to enable the Lebanese army to destroy the armed opposition of Hizbollah, Amal and the Lebanese Communist Party in the country.
Meanwhile, the position of President remains vacant. Under the constitution this post must be filled by a Maronite Christian by consensus. But because Bush has told Siniora not to agree to anyone who is not pro US or who has the slightest sympathy with neighbouring Syria, the post remains vacant and the opposition has withdrawn from the cabinet creating a power vacuum.
Siniora was instructed to take on Hizbollah with the promise of more US military support and direct US intervention from its fleet in the Mediterranean. When Siniora started this confrontation, he was met with all the armed opposition groups taking over key areas of the main cities whilst the US sent its warships to the Lebanese coast.
Meanwhile US Presidential candidate McCain called for the bombing of Syria while Bush promised to rush military support to Siniora cheered on by the EU.
Fortunately, the Arab League intervened and called all Lebanese parties to mediation in Qatar. Siniora backed off and the US attempt to take over Lebanon was thwarted for now.
Eyeing Venezuelan oil
Third there is Venezuela. Not content with initiating a coup against democratically elected President Hugo Chavez, the US tried to wrest control of the oil rich state of Zulia by financing opposition groups seeking secession from Venezuela.
But the US is now attempting to put Venezuela on its list of countries "sponsoring terrorism". The US and its proxy in Venezuela's neighbour Colombia, are claiming that laptops and hard drives "captured" when Colombian troops entered Ecuador to kill senior Farc Commanders, prove that Venezuela was planning to provide missiles to Farc in Colombia. They claim that Interpol have supported their claim.
In fact, Interpol was asked to examine the laptops and verify if they had been tampered with after being captured by the Colombians. This it verified but no more. Press releases from Colombia and the US ignore this and proclaim Venezuela's guilt. The EU will surely follow.
The US is also planning to build a huge military base in Colombia close to its border with Venezuela. Fortunately, Venezuela is one of the main suppliers of oil to the US and so is in a strong position to counter this interference.
So this is the New World Order, bequeathed to us by Tony Blair and his doctrine of interventionism, now taken up by Brown who drooled over his host in the White House during his recent visit. Those who thought there may be some change under Brown can now see that there is no difference. Those who thought that the EU was a counterbalance to the US have also been proved wrong. They are two sides of the same coin.
Exposed: the Pentagon's lie machine In 2002 the US government made more than 75 retired military officers the main focus of their public relations push to construct a case for war against Iraq.
The officers appeared on television and radio news shows as military analysts, and penned newspaper op/ed columns. The Pentagon held weekly meetings with them until this April, when David Barstow exposed the programme in the New York Times.
The programme was, unsurprisingly, illegal under US law. The White House's Office of Legal Council determined in 1988 that a statutory prohibition on using appropriated funds for "publicity or propaganda" precluded undisclosed agency funding of advocacy by third-party groups. "Covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties" would break rules against using appropriated funds for "propaganda".
The Pentagon's military analyst programme did exactly that.
Recruited by Rumsfeld
It was covert. The 75 officers, who were recruited by Donald Rumsfeld and given talking points to deliver on Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and MSNBC, were given extraordinary access to White House and Pentagon officials. However, "The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon."
It was an attempt to mould American public opinion. According to the Pentagon's own internal documents, the military men were considered "message force multipliers" or "surrogates" who would deliver administration "themes and messages" to millions of Americans "in the form of their own opinions".
It was done 'through the undisclosed use of third parties.' In their television appearances, the military analysts did not disclose their ties to the White House, let alone that they were its surrogates. They were used as puppets for the Pentagon. In the words of Robert Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and Fox News military analyst, "It was them saying, 'We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you.'"