Title: Re: A SECRET blueprint for US global
The Sunday Herald article reproduced on
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735, to which Richard Ragland referred
in his April 26, 2003 post " A SECRET blueprint for US global
domination" as being "quite interesting," is the one to
which I drew attention in my April 1, 2003 post with exactly the same
I expected at that time that a serious discussion would
follow, since the document prepared for Bush et al by the American
think-tank Project For The New American Century (PNAC) can be
and it goes to the very heart of what WSN should be concerned
with: blueprints for new world systems - which in this case is one
for absolute US global domination.
Instead, the only posted reactions consisted of information about
the above website, and the following comment from a University of
Missouri-Columbia Ph.D. student named Balkan Devlin, who wrote:
"I dont wanna sound cynical but is that [PNAC] really SECRET
??? I dont think so..you can even checkout Wolfowitz's memo for DoD in
1992 (I think) where he talks about similiar stuff. I am not American
but even I am aware of those reports and PNAC since 2000."
I believe that the language of this comment speaks for itself.
Nevertheless, I checked with knowledgeable academic colleagues and
other people, and found out that what is so extremely well-known to
Mr. Devlin is not known to a lot of other otherwise well-informed
people. Maybe Mr. Devlin is in the privileged position of having
access to special intelligence sources, but that doesn't seem to be
the case with people in general.
I was even more astounded when Mark Douglas Whitaker
<email@example.com> posted on April 22, 2003 an article on the
related subject "The Project for an Israeli Century," and
the only response was an ad hominem attack (again from
"Devlen, Balkan (UMC-Student)"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>) on the writer of that article - instead of a
reasoned analysis, with refutations or confirmations of the points
raised in the article itself.
I therefore asked myself: Are there no serious political
scientists and/or other types of social scientists who subscribe to
WSN, and who can devote to these most crucial issues the attention
It seems to me that those who contribute regularly to WSN cannot
see the forest for the trees: they discuss specific incidents and
devote a lot of attention to particulars, but when presented with a
blueprint for global domination, they seem incapable of
presenting any analyses with viable suggestions, projections,
or even reasoned conjectures.
Hence let me recapitulate here, from my last post, that
Supports a "blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American principles and
interests." This "American grand strategy" must be
advanced for "as far into the future as possible," the
report says. It also calls for the US to "fight and decisively
win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" as a "core
Refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and
efficient means of exercising American global leadership."
Describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political
leadership rather than that of the United Nations."
Reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the
"even should Saddam pass from the scene" bases in Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic
opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as
"Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq
Spotlights China for "regime change" saying "it is time
to increase the presence of American forces in Southeast Asia".
This, it says, may lead to "American and allied power providing
the spur to the process of democratization in China"
Calls for the creation of "US Space Forces", to dominate
space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies"
using the Internet against the US.
Hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing
weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological
weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says:
"New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological --
will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new
dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes
... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific
genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to
a politically useful tool."
Pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and
says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide
a) With regard to #1,
George Kennan - who was head of U.S. State Department Planning during
the Truman administration, and authored the doctrine of
"containing" the Soviet Union that determined U.S. policy
throughout the Cold War, stated in 1948:
"We [Americans] have about 60 per cent of the world's
wealth but only 6.3 per cent of its population. Our real task in
the coming period (will be) to maintain this position of
disparity. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the
luxury of altruism and world benefaction ... The day is not far off
when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The
less we are hampered then by idealistic slogans the better."
PNAC carries into the 21st century George Kennan's 1948 policy suggestions.
b) With regard to #2, in today's (April 28, 2003) online issue of
Xinhua News Agency (www.xionhuanet.com) there is an article entitled
"Blair warns France of its vision for Europe," in which one
can read the following:
"LONDON, April 28 (Xinhuanet) -- British Prime Minister Tony
Blair on Monday
challenged France over the future of the transatlantic
relationship, warning that French President Jacques Chirac's vision of
Europe as a rival to the United States is dangerously
do not want Europe setting itself up in opposition to America. I think
it will be dangerous and destabilizing," Blair said in an
interview with the British business daily, Financial Times.
"France wanted a multipolar world with different centers
of power, but "I believe that they will very quickly develop into
rival centers of power," Blair told the paper."
Of course, what Mr. Blair wants is exactly what Mr. Bush wants -
and all of that is spelled out by PNAC, which severely condemns
"rival centers of power." According to PNAC, there should be
one and only one center of power on this entire planet, and that one
should, of course, be located in U.S.A.!
PNAC presents WSN political scientists with the unique
opportunity of carrying out a comparative analysis of how a blueprint
for achieving world domination is being carried out right now in
practice. But they seem to be totally ignoring this unique
I am a quantum physicist, with no inside knowledge or deeper
insights into how the recommendations of PNAC are being implemented
behind the scenes. But shouldn't the WSN social scientists be
presenting regular analyses of such topics? And should they not
publish their conclusions wherever and whenever they
can, so as to alert the world public to the danger facing us
Today Iraq, and tomorrow Syria, then Iran, after that perhaps
North Korea, then Libya, and after that ... ??? When will be the turn
of China, Venezuela, Brazil, Cuba, etc.? And what will become of
France, Germany, Russia, etc.? How long until the entire world will
have the pleasure of experiencing the US style of "freedom and
democracy," the way the native peoples of North America have
experienced it? (Cf. American Holocaust by D. E.
Or maybe I'm wrong, and there are no social scientists who
subscribe to WSN and feel competent to deal with deeper issues.
University of Toronto