Article 3042 of misc.activism.progressive:
From: email@example.com (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Pentagon's plans for NWO
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 20:21:57 GMT
/** Christic.news: 100.0 **/
** Topic: DOD'S U.S. SUPERPOWER PLAN **
** Written 5:42 am Mar 15, 1992 by Christic in cdp:christic.news **
From: Christic Institute
Subject: DOD'S U.S. SUPERPOWER PLAN
/* Written 6:04 pm Mar 14, 1992 by newsdesk in cdp:ips.englibrary */
/* ---------- "UNITED STATES: DISAVOWALS OF PENTAG" ---------- */
Copyright Inter Press Service 1992, all rights reserved. Permission to re-
print within 7 days of original date only with permission from 'newsdesk'.
Title: UNITED STATES: DISAVOWALS OF PENTAGON DOCUMENT UNCONVINCING
An Inter Press Service Feature
by Jim Lobe
Washington, Mar 11 (IPS) -- Despite disavowals by senior officials
of a secret Pentagon document outlining a long-term U.S. strategy
to preserve its global ''preeminence,'' many analysts here believe
its basic thrust represents the majority view within the
administration of President George Bush.
Bush insisted Wednesday that he was unaware of the document,
excerpts of which were published in the New York Times Sunday.
Bush also insisted that Washington remained committed to ''working
closely with multilateral organisations.''
''We are the leaders (of the world) and we must continue to
lead,'' the President said. Washington's global role, he said,
should not be treated as a ''Clear-cut choice of either-or''
between collective security and unilateral action, which appeared
to be very much the approach of the document.
Basic thrust of the document was that U.S. policy for the
foreseeable future should be designed to prevent the emergence of
any new global superpower and to maintain Washington's ability to
act unilaterally against what it sees as threats to its interests
and those of its allies around the world.
''While the U.S. cannot become the world's 'policeman,' by
assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain
the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively those
wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our
allies, or friends, or which could seriously unsettle
international relations,'' read the document.
Such wrongs justifying unilateral action include ''access to
vital raw materials,'' especially gulf oil, ''proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to
U.S. citizens from terrorism or local conflict, and threats to
U.S. society from narcotics trafficking.''
The document -- whose drafting was supervised by Paul
Wolfowitz, the number-three man in the Pentagon -- called for
coopting ''potential competitors'' from the West and notes with
satisfaction that recent events have promoted ''the integration of
Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security.''
Washington should ''prevent the emergence of European-only
security arrangements that would undermine (the U.S.-led) Nato,''
discourage Japan from extending its military power, and
''discourage Indian hegemonic aspirations'' in South Asia and the
Indian Ocean. (more/IPS)
United States: Disavowals (2)
Publication of the report set off a flurry of reactions among
foreign-policy specialists and foreign diplomats and reporters
here who wanted to know first whether this was official -- albeit
secret -- U.S. policy.
Clearly embarassed, the State Department stressed that it was a
''low-level document'' in which it had no input. and the visiting
Indian Foreign Secretary was assured by deputy secretary of state
Lawrence Eagleburger the paper had no standing.
At the same time, senior officials told lawmakers and
journalists privately that the paper was ''dead on arrival,''
''dumb,'' ''hopelessly naive,'' and nothing more than the
Pentagon's latest attempt to ward off more cuts to its projected
five-year 1.3 trillion dollar budget.
But Pentagon spokesperson Pete Williams, while insisting it was
only a ''draft'' that had not been cleared at senior levels,
admitted that he was ''puzzled'' by the off-the-record comments.
''A great deal of what was reported Sunday (in the Times) is
consistent with what the Secretary (of Defense Dick Cheney) and
the chairman (of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell) have
been testifying on before Congress,'' said Williams.
He also stressed that Washington ''Is not looking for a
unilateral role in the world,'' adding that ''We want to stay
involved with our alliances (and) remain part of a community of
nations.'' But that, too, is not inconsistent with the document,
which insisted nonetheless that Washington should retains its
ability to act independently in its own interests.
Independent analysts also saw something more than a trial
balloon floated by a bureaucracy imperilled by budget cuts. ''This
is an overt attempt to preserve very stark U.S. superiority, and
that is going to raise fears of American hegemony all over the
world,'' said John Steinbruner, foreign-policy director at the
influential Brookings Institution.
Democratic senator Joseph Biden also assailed the document as a
recipe for ''a Pax Americana,'' while another senior senator,
Robert Byrd said it as ''myopic, shallow, and disappointing.''
Long-time National-Security expert Richard Barnet of the
Institute of Policy Studies here said the document depicted a
''Dangerous dream world in which the U.S. will literally be world
policeman, and everyone would be happy about that.''
His description, however, recalled the words of Bush himself in
his 'State of the Union address' six weeks ago, when he noted that
the ''World ...now recognises one sole and pre-eminent power: the
United States of America. and they regard this with no dread. for
the world trusts us with power. ...they trust us to do what's
** End of text from cdp:Christic.news **