Who's Online

We have 338 guests online

Popular

3417 readings
PNAC: PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Sunday, 11 June 2006 12:11
PNAC: PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY

PEJ News - F.H. Knelman, Ph.D. - In 1997 a group of extreme right-wing ideologues, fringe members of the Republican Party, founded an organization, The Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The group was led by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, but also included James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, John Bolton, Lewis Libby, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush - powerful men in a power exile while Bill Clinton was president. But when George Bush was elected president in 2000, the PNAC became an important and integral part of his administration.

www.PEJ.org

A PROGRAM FOR GLOBAL DOMINANCE

PNAC: Project for a New American Century

F.H. Knelman, Ph.D
.

PEJ News
June 11, 2006


The history of the PNAC began in 1992 when the then-Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, had a strategy report drafted by his Under-Secretary for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz. This strategy authorized the following:


(1) preemptive strikes where thought to be necessary;


(2) to ?establish and protect a new order that accounts significantly for the interests of the advanced nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership?, while at the same time maintaining a military capable of ?deterring potential competitors from even aspiring a larger regional role?. In fact, in this report, Wolfowitz outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure ?access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil?, (Bernard Weiner, The Progressive Internet, March 26, 2003). Later a draft text was presented to President George Bush the elder which, in essence, was titled ?Keeping the U.S. First: Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower?, (Barton Gilman, The Washington Post, cited in Bernard Weiner?s article above). By 1996 the PNAC, sensing victory in the upcoming presidential elections, issued a White Paper, ?Rebuilding America?s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century?. In effect, the PNAC report was urging the U.S. to serve as the world?s constable and it demanded ?American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations?, (Bernard Weiner, op.cit.).


In 1997 a group of extreme right-wing ideologues, fringe members of the Republican Party, founded an organization, The Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The group was led by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, but also included James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, John Bolton, Lewis Libby, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush - powerful men in a power exile while Bill Clinton was president. But when George Bush was elected president in 2000, the PNAC became an important and integral part of his administration. They quickly imprinted a global imperialist policy on the Bush government. Then a catalyzing event took place, the events of 9/11, with much the same impact as Pearl Harbor, except in the case of the PNAC they would not need to be attacked to go to war. Feeding on the fear of the American public and making terror their greatest enemy, they first passed the Patriot Act. And, very early in their plans, Iraq was targeted.


Their published goals were, ?Forging American Hegemony and Corporate Privatization Throughout the World?.


Increase an already enormous military budget at the expense of domestic programs;

Toppling of regimes resistant to our corporate interests;

Forging democracy at the end of the barrel of a gun in regimes that have no history of the democratic process.

Replacing the U.N.?s role of preserving and extending international order.


The PNAC also focused on the security of oil in the Middle East, identifying Iraq as an earlier target for invasion.


By 2001, under George Bush?s presidency, a lead policy was access to oil as a ?security imperative?. The invasion of Iraq was on ?go?. Rumsfeld said to his aides, ?Go Massive, sweep it all up, things related or not?. Then the lies of justification followed for public consumption. The wedding of Bush and the PNAC was celebrated by the invasion of Iraq.


In the very early days, when the U.S. was attempting to get UN approval for their intended invasion of Iraq, Bush expressed his real view of that global institution, i.e., ?The UN is irrelevant?. Then later he appointed John Bolton, a consistent and even violent critic of the UN, as the U.S. representative of that organization, to the Security Council. The U.S. could not have found a more inappropriate representative. The plan was to never negotiate, always act out of a position of unique and unassailable power. Sacrifice the truth and the rights and wrong of an issue, just plunge ahead knowing no one dares to challenge you.


Then UN Deputy Secretary, General Mark Malloch Brown, addressing a New York Conference on Global Leadership on June 6, 2006 slammed the U.S. ?practice of seeking to use the UN almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool, while failing to stand up against its domestic critics?. He added that ?much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its louder detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News?, (Gerard Aziakou, Yahoo News, June 7, 2006). John Bolton reacted predictably. He said ?you have made a very grave mistake?...?We are in the process of an enormous effort to achieve substantial reform of the United Nations - to have the Deputy Secretary-General criticize the United States in such a manner can only do great harm to the United Nations ... even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations?.....?even worse was the condescending and patronizing tone about the American people?. Then he said, ?The only way to mitigate the damage to the United Nations is for the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to personally and publicly repudiate the speech at the earliest possible opportunity. Otherwise I fear the consequences, not for the reform effort but for the organization?, (my underlining). Nevertheless, an Annan spokesperson said ?Annan stands by the statement made by his deputy and he agrees with the thrust of it, so there is no question of any action being taken against the Deputy Secretary?. An Annan spokesperson said further, ?Malloch Brown?s speech should not be interpreted as an anti-U.S. speech? and, in fact, called for ?greater U.S. involvement in the United Nations and makes clear the UN cannot work without U.S. engagement and leadership?.


The Deputy Secretary of the UN had also deplored ?the enormously divisive issue of Iraq and the big stock of financial withholding have come to define an unhappy marriage between the UN and Washington. The United States has now threatened to withhold funding if the reforms they demand are not instituted?. Malloch Brown actually went further in his criticism in accusing Washington of imposing its own agenda on the UN. Malloch added one further point of criticism. He spoke of an equally understandable conviction that those five veto-wielding permanent members who happened to be victors in a war fought sixty years ago cannot be seen as representations of today?s world. We can be certain that, given Bolton?s temperament, he intends to humiliate and harm the UN in every possible way. The UN and the U.S. are now on a collision course which appears irreversible. Our own assessment is that we are not dealing merely with neo-Cons but probably with neo-Fascists.

Last Updated on Sunday, 11 June 2006 12:11
 

Latest News