Memoire Online - Chomsky, Brzezinski and the allegation of terrorism in the american strategy for the global primacy

CADI AYYAD UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF LETTERS
AND HUMAN SCIENCES

PART II: THE THEORY ABUSE &THE SELF-AWARDING OF THE GLOBAL MONOPOLY OF WAR ON TERROR 25

INTRODUCTION:

«HEGEMONY is AS OLD AS MANKIND. But America's current global supremacy is distinctive in the rapidity of its emergence, in its global scope, and in the manner of its exercise. In the course of a single century, America has transformed itself-and has also been transformed by international dynamics-from a country relatively isolated in the Western Hemisphere into a power of unprecedented worldwide reach and qrasp»^(').

Nonetheless, like the other Powers and Empires, that have dominated the world, America's Hegemony could not be eternal. To delay its situation USA, must be aware of its strength and weakness, and try to set strategies that will allow it to remain the global Hyper power, as long as possible.

USA has had recourse to a classical Manichean approach, focusing on the struggle between the good and the evil. The good represented by it and its allies, and the evil by any other power that could be susceptible to menace its global primacy. That is the main reason to explain the eternal tracking down America's and friends' enemies.

Inventing enemies has always been a states' imperative. Since the dawn of time, governors have always recourse to such a technique to strengthen, concentrate and secure their power. The presence of an enemy has always served as an efficient tool, legitimating the abuses of power of the one who possesses it. This enemy is a «must» in politics; he can either be a foreign threat coming from outside, or internal. And when he is absent, he is simply invented.

(1) Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategical Imperatives, Basic Books, New York 1997, p 4.

Throughout the last century, many of those «enemies» have marched. Nowadays, «International Terrorism» leads the list of states' enemy. That rank has been strengthened by, the 9/11 events.

Since that date, fighting terrorism -whether the Islamic one or others- has become many countries imperative around the world (USA & EU). The banner of the «War against Terrorism» allows the American superpower to wage military interventions, wherever, whenever, however and in unilateral way.

The following research will be divided in two. We will briefly try to tackle the Brzezinski's theory for America's global primacy and its major statements; namely, the Eurasian imperative control. So we are going to see what does Eurasia mean why it is so important (I), and what do the other powers do while USA is looking for its own global primacy(II), ...

In the second part of the research, we will try to see the consequences of this global primacy strategy, by appealing one of the major figures of the American Establishment dissidence «Avram Noam Chomsky». We will try to analyze the official definition of terrorism, and the consequences of this biased definition and the self-awarding of the global monopoly of war on terror. (IV). Then we will try to apply this analysis and the one of the major Brzezinski global primacy theory lacks at the light of war against Narco-terrorism.

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski is one of the main masters in International affairs. He is one of the major and heavy figures of the American foreign policy and one of the most brilliant geo-strategist in the world. He was former «National Security Advisor» within Jimmy Carter's Administration. In the seventies he made the prediction that the USSR was going to collapse in nineties. He is at the moment, Obama's advisor on foreign affairs.

The «Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives» is a major masterpiece, on the American Foreign Policy. Appeared for the first time in 1997, the Book still has an important topicality. In it, the author explains that USA constitutes an unmatched super power, above all after the fall of the Socialist Bloc leaded by the USSR. And draws what the American Foreign Policy must be, to remain USA in Its actual Position. For him the American Empire has made a choice: «To Dominate the World».

Zbigniew Brzezinski's style compared, to other authors, is unique. Far from wooden language and double speech, he is direct, usually blunt, brutal sometimes and barely politically incorrect. With «The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives» American Foreign Policy has never been so clearly, and precisely explained.

In the following pages, we will try to present a brief approach of Zbigniew Brzezinski theory. We are going to begin with one of his basic concepts, namely; «Eurasia» (I). Then we will tackle the author's view on other global powers, such as Europe (II).

I-The Control of Eurasia: A Geo-strategically Imperative.

«It is imperative that
no Eurasian challenger emerges,
capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America.
The formulation of a comprehensive and intergrated Eurasian geostrategy
is therefore
the purpose of this book.»⁽²⁾

(2 )The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, éd. New York, 1997, p. 14

1- What is Eurasia?

Eurasia constitutes a central concept in the Geostrategical jargon. It's the globe largest continent is geopolitically axial. So if we reverse the global map ^(3), we will see that Eurasia appears as a central continent, while others seem to look like peripheral Islands. Controlling Eurasia means controlling two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive region; namely Western Europe and East Asia. About 75% of the global population lives there. Most of the physical wealth finds itself there too, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil ^(4).

In his analysis, Brzezinski argues that all the Empires have emerged in that geographical zone (Rome, China, Mongolia, Turkey...) USA is the first non-Eurasian Empire that the Mankind knows. It is the most powerful country in the globe. But its position is not eternal. He is aware that US must adopt some vital measures that are going to allow the continuity in its position. So, as vital as

Eurasia has been vital for the other empires, so it will be for USA. Then USA must control EURASIA. The control of Eurasia is its geostategical Imperative.

Brzezinski's theory major statement is the Chessboard on which the global primacy is played. It is inspired by the imminent works of the British geographer «Harold MacKinder». For Mackinder, Eurasia represents a Heartland. That can be seen through the reversed map upon. Eurasia appears as a central land and the rest of the continents as Islands. So, Mackinder major statement is the following.

Near, the Economic and technological supremacy that is unquestionable, we find the cultural one. At that point Zibig gives a blunt and realistic statement, that it would be impossible to give a clearer one. For him «Whatever one may think about its aesthetic values, America's mass culture exercises a magnetic

appeal, especially on the world's youth. Its attraction may be derived from the hedonistic quality of the lifestyle it projects, but its global appeal is undeniable. American television programs and films account for about three- fourths of the global market. American popular music is equally dominant, while American fads, eating habits, and even clothing are increasingly imitated worldwide. The language of internet is English, and overwhelming proposition of the global computer chatter also originates from American, influencing the content of global conversation. Lastly, America has become the Mecca for those seeking advanced education, with approximately half a million foreign students flocking the United States, with many of the ablest never return home. Graduates from American Universities are to be found in almost every Cabinet on every Continent». ⁽⁷⁾

Despite of the American supremacy on many facets, Zibig focuses on the Military one, and tries to illustrate it within the following map (8):

As we can see, the American Military Arsenal and Military organization is unmatched. No other country enjoys its invidious strength situation.

Its armed forces are present all around the world and their supremacy is unquestionable, either on Land, Air or Sea. By controlling oceans, having some private hunting grounds such as Latin America, and Some Protectorates (Western Europe, Japan, Great Britain and the Common Wealth...), USA and in a symmetrical warfare (Wars between States and their Regular Armies) has assured triumph and victory. In 2003, the International coalition, leaded by the US Army annihilated Saddam Hussein's troops, by a lightning and conclusive victory on that some Western Media- classified to be one of the most powerful ones in the world. Concerning, irregular and asymmetrical wars, better known as guerilla warfare, the US Army, and as it is normally the case with regular armies, have troubles imposing their supremacy. Iraq, Afghanistan, and above all the Vietnam illustrate the difficulties that a regular army may face in that kind of wars.

Brzezinski detractors strongly criticize his brutality and his focus on the military facet. But from another perspective, the excessive importance given to it can be justified. It can be explained throughout the old Latin adage» Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum», in other words, if you want peace, prepare the War. And it might have its roots in «Nicollo Machiavelli» masterpiece «The Prince» (1513) where he explains whether a Prince must be loved or feared. «From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both: but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved». Then, in such a logic, USA as Princes must be feared by other states rather than loved, and this fear finds its

fundaments in the American massive and unmatched military power. So, USA is loved and appreciated, but in a contrary case, they will not hesitate to recourse to their destruction forces towards dissident and recalcitrant States.

Returning to the main question within this part, «HOW». That means how the US could be able to set their hegemonic aims.

In 1945, the main reason of the American participation within WW II was to fight Nazism and Fascism. From 1945 to 1991 the enemy was Communism. After this date finding a new enemy will be an imperative. The participation in the WW II was legitimated throughout the Pearl Harbor Attacks, and the Cold War throughout the blockage of Berlin and the war of Korea.

In the 90's Islamism is going to replace Nazism, Fascism and Communism, and put to design the new axis of Evil. This point of view has been strengthened by jumble of stupidities as the clash of civilizations, or the roots of Muslim rage and so forth. Some Western authors will develop some theories that will create false debates. According to such biased results, we are going to give more importance to «the violent feature» of a culture to justify and legitimate guiding armed actions against it, as being the only solution.

In fact, we are living in a world dominated by the economical interests and the economical interests only. We must overtake the simplest and Manichean approaches that divide the world in two «Axis»: The Good and the Evil. Humans will use any pretext to justify the theft of what does not belong to them. We are living in a jungle where the struggle goes on who will have more. All concerns economical struggles that are given the shape of religious, ethnic, ideological conflicts. It only turns on money and money only. Being, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Black, White, Yellow or Red does not really matter. Racial, or Religious approaches have as purpose to create only false debates.

When it goes on defending own interests, moral values and principles are thrown to a secondary position.

Zbigniew Brzezinski did not express exactly in what way the American Administration must apply his theory. But we can easily argue -above all after the 9/11 events- that it recourse to a classical Manichean approach, where the USA, being the world peace and order Guardian and leader of Democracies and the Enlightened world is going to fight in the name of International Security, Democracy and Freedom the 21^st Century axis of Evil, represented by «International Terrorism».

Then, by observing the Iraqi an Afghan case, and in the name of what those wars have been waged, we can without any difficulty affirm that «Kicking off a global war on terror» is one of the most efficient tool, allowing to dress Brzezinski's Global domination Theory.

1- THE European Protectorates.

After seeing the grand lines of the Zbigniew Brzezinski Theory, we will move to what we have called the European Powerlessness.

Setting a strategy for global primacy, passes through, the isolation of Russia, the control of any emergent country in Eurasia, controlling its progress, by using cooperation programs, either military, or economically and so forth. For Zibig, Japan is a protectorate as well as Western Europe, Russia has been weakened enough and it does not represent a threat anymore, and China can only be a regional power. Within this part the focus will put on Western Europe.

So, asked about the question concerning the place occupied by other powers in the global Chessboard; namely, Western Europeans (Great Britain, Germany and France). Brzezinski simply, in a direct and blunt style, and avoiding any kind of wooden language, states that Western Europe and Japan constitute an American Protectorate, that will blindly obey to their American Master.

Describing the situation of Europe, Brzezinski declares, that her situation has changed from being the subject of global supremacy, to become an object among others. This situation has been created because of the Europe self-destruction process within two world wars. According to USA, it was completely the opposite. The European self-destruction, and the American participation in the two global conflicts, was among the major reasons of the American outmatched power.

The United States benefited enormously from the WWII, which has ruined its principal contenders (Europe, USSR, China, and Japan). It was thus in a position to exert its economic hegemony, since more than a half of global industrial production was concentrated in the United States, especially the technologies that would shape the development of the second half of the century. In addition the USA was the only nuclear power at that time ^(9).

For Noam Chomsky, the Cold War ideology and the international communist conspiracy function in an important way as essentially a propaganda device to mobilize support at a particular historical moment for this long-time imperial enterprise. In fact, he believes that this is probably the main function of the Cold War: it serves as a useful device for the managers of American society and their counterparts in the Soviet Union to control their own populations and their own respective imperial systems» ^(10).

One of the European politicians who guessed the American imperialist aims was Charles de Gaulle. He was aware that USA objective was to take the control of Europe, applying the strategy of «Divide to Conquer», by invoking the red menace from Moscow, in which he personally never believed. Quite the opposite, for him building a strong Europe goes through the alliance of three pillars called «Paris, Berlin and Moscow». A Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals could be the only brake to the American global ambitions. Unfortunately for him, he found himself alone and isolated.

The Marshal Plan guaranteed USA to achieve its aims, and was a double blade weapon for Western Europe and Japan. In fact, it has highly contributed to the

rebuilding of Western Europe, admittedly, but it has also contributed to the eternal and unconditional support of Western Europe towards USA, in other words the Marshal Plan has been an efficient tool used by the USA to obtain the eternal bowing of Western Europe.

The Marshal plan is going to have a military version NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). The declared objective of this military alliance was to stop the Soviet specter coming from the East. But it fact, another objective that might be more important, is by USA leading the NATO, Europe is going to be perpetually subordinated on the military field. The absence of a military sovereign Europe is the major warranty in the hands of the USA.

American strategists were aware of the importance of Western Europe and Japan due to its geographical position and level of development, and about the fact that contender to global primacy will be USSR. That is what explains the importance given to them, rather than other geographical areas.

The purpose of the USA was the contribution to the construction of a strong European Union. But, this strength is limited. The development of Europe must be controlled by the USA, in a way that the Europe stays eternally linked to its godfather.

With the fall of the wall of Berlin and the end if the West-East antagonism, the USA will increase the effort to annex the rest of Europe to its global control plan. To achieve that aim, USA is going to depend on its geostrategical pivots; namely: France and Germany.

2- The European Pivots:

For the pursuit of its Global Primacy theory, USA needs to have strong players. For Brzezinski these key players are France and Germany. To set its global primacy, USA will need a united and strong Europe. Nonetheless, this union and strength must be developed in a way to have a strong Europe, but whose strength could not be enough in way to be in competition with the American superpower.

Despite the powerlessness and the eternal allegiance to the United States, in order to realize its purposes, USA needs a strong Europe. Brzezinski considers that France and Germany are two important pivots for setting his strategy.

Geopolitical pivots are defined as the states whose importance derives not from their power and motivation but rather from their sensitive location and from the consequences of their potentially venerable condition for the behavior of geostrategic players. Most often, they are determinated by their geographical position that gives them a special role in defining access to important areas or in denying resources to a significant player. In some case it might act as a defensive shield for a vital state or even a region. Sometimes, the very existence of a geopolitical pivot can be said to have very significant political and cultural consequences for a more active neighboring geostrategic player ^(11).

Great Britain according to this definition does not seem a geostrategical pivot, rather an American State situated in Europe. In Charles de Gaulle mind, Great Britain was the American Trojan horse in Western Europe. It's

economical system, its European skepticism and categorical refusal of a politically integrated Europe, in addition to its preference of the coordination of foreign policy, security and defense outside Europe, are the major indicator of the strong links between Great Britain and USA.

The focus is made on France and Germany, because of their geographical position and because they represent the European Union cornerstone. Trough Brzezinski thought we can observe that the European Union is an American initiative, set up to construct a strong Europe that will stay linked to the Unites States. France and Germany, play also an important role giving access to geographical areas of great importance. Germany must warranty the American access to his major influence zone; namely, East Europe. Actually, Germany is the most important economical partner of the countries that were USSR satellites. The

economical partnership includes obviously a political influence and creates strong links between Germany and those countries. In the case of France, it must take care of America's Interest in North Africa. So, France and Germany, being American Protectorates, any tutelage exerted by them in their influence zones, can be only increase USA influence there. In page 29 of the grand Chessboard, we find a map that tackles clearly this situation.

Brzezinski is aware, that the aim of countries like France was to build a strong Europe that could be capable to affront USA. That was the main statement of Gaullism. For him, despite its dissident position, France is totally powerless in front of USA. Alone it could neither be a serious challenger to America, nor build the strong and sovereign Europe it wishes. Its economy is weak in comparison with the American, and on the military filed, French Armed Forces can only allow it to operate from time to time some coups in African states. That's why the French dissidences can be tolerated. In other words, it will not be exaggerated to say that France can be let barking. ⁽¹²⁾

Starting from the statement that, the bigger the European Union will be, the better for USA primacy is. We can consider that «Union for the Mediterranean Sea», can be considerate more that a proposal of the Atlantist French President Nicolas Sarkozy, a prolongation of Brzezinski's statements. The whole Mediterranean Sea will be under American influence, in a time when USA and Europe are being challenged by China in the African Continent.

That dramatic situation of Europe explains from one side, the unconditional support to the American foreign policy, like in USA global world on terror. And from the other side the European division and powerlessness according to questions in which its opinion may differ from the one of its Guardian.

Notwithstanding, despite the excessive and blunt realism used by the author in the «Grand chessboard», he insists on the fact that USA is the major Democracy in the world, and that it must behave as it as well.

If «Pearl Harbor» attack had as a result the USA commitment in the WWII, the blockade of Berlin and the War of Korea, the commitment in the cold war (see supra). September 11, 2001 served as pretext to consolidate power, destroy civil liberties and human rights, and wage permanent wars against invented enemies for global dominance over world markets, resources, and cheap labor - at the expense of democratic freedoms and social justice ^(13). So, after 9/11 the American administration is going to use the allegation of terrorist menace to carry through its global primacy strategy.

After seeing what does the American Primacy strategy looks like, within the second part of this research, we will try to analyze the official definition of terrorism, its sources, its lacks and its impact. Then we will move to a concrete example to show how does the American Administration use War on Terror as a pretext to set its policies?

1- A Biased Official definition.

The term of «terrorism» is loaded with strong ideological and political connotation. As the famous adage says «One's Terrorist is the other's Freedom fighter».

In his book, ((What Uncle Sam really wants, 1992, Noam Chomsky shows one of the major features of the political speech. In fact, Chomsky observes that the terms used within political speech have a double meaning. On one hand we have the one found in the dictionary, and on the other hand we find the doctrinal meaning whose aim is to serve determinate policies.

Concerning the definitions given by dictionaries, we can give two from the same dictionary, but at different periods. In an edition of 1959, OXFORD Dictionary defines «Terrorism» as «The systematic intimidation as a method of governing or securing political or other aims». In a recent edition of 2008, the definition and may be in a determinate purpose, is similar to the official one. In fact the Oxford advanced learners dictionary 7^th edition defines Terrorism as the use of violent action in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to act. The US department of defense and a major part of official American speech give the following definition to terrorism⁽¹⁴⁾: «Terrorism is the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political,

(14) Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 12April 2001 (Amended Through 23 January 2002, P 444.

The main lack of this definition is its focus on legality. Considering that terrorism can only emanate from unlawful or illegal groups is totally wrong. According to Chomsky, for whom the political speeches are concocted in a way that prevents people to think, the notion of Terrorism is easily used by the Countries that couldn't recognize the Terrorist aspect of their own activities. So, by wagging an international war against terrorism, they will be fighting something they are the first to exert.

The decade of the 8O's was known as the one of international terrorism, but as Chomsky states, not for TSAHAL massacres in Lebanon during the Israeli invasion, the car bomb outside a mosque in Beirut, or the bombing of PLO in Tunis, systematic American interventions in Nicaragua, Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, and so forth, but due to hijacking operations of Palestinian Commandos (*).

After the 9/11 the number of terrorist organizations will increase in an important way (See Appendix). The major part of these groups coincides in being strong opponents to the American Hegemony in their respective region.

(*)Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival : Americas's Quest for the global Dominance, p 104.

The adjective lewisian, refers here to Bernard Lewis. Lewis is a British Historian, he is recognized as one of the most important specialists of the Arab World. He is also known for his political struggle and his unconditional support to Israeli's government policies. During the G.W. mandate he was one of the councilors of the neo-conservatives. In 2002, Paul Wolfowitz, declared that Bernard Lewis helped them to understand better the complex and important History of the Middle East, and to use it as a guide to build a better world for the future generations.

A year later, Bernard Lewis, guided the USA to Iraq. He explained that Iraq invasion was synonym of a new aura of enlightenment in the region, and that the American troops will go over well.

For Bernard Lewis, the History of the Middle East, according to the West, can be summarized on eternal spirals of struggle between West and Orient. It began with the Islamic conquests, the crusades, the Ottoman invasions of Europe and so forth. With the victory of the West and the weakening of Islam, people frustration in the Middle East will increase and transform in radical hatred toward West. In a lewisian logic, all the resistance toward West, is not the result of the West imperialist policies, but it comes from the categorical refusal and reject of the enlightened western values, such as Democracy, Freedom and Human Rights. To give examples, we can say that the struggles for independence were not against the French and British colonialism, but against the noble values they tried to inculcate. The Palestinian resistance is a reaction to the Hebrew Democracy rather than, oppression, territories theft, and rampage. In Iraq and Afghanistan, USA's coalition and NATO, are affronting dark forces which refuse democratic and human rights culture. Muslim, are

congenitally, violent and bad-tempered. Because of their blind refusal to the western noble values, rooted hatred to the west, they unfortunately cannot understand the same language the civilized world understands. That's why the only way by which they understand is force.

So, starting from such biased statements, we can easily understand, why G.W. Bush administration, had the policies it has have toward the Middle East.

Notwithstanding, one of the major mistakes of Bernard Lewis thesis, is his focus on Arabs and Muslims as violent actors. In fact, for him the anti-Americanism can only emerge within a Muslim Society. This is totally far from reality. It's just a simple and non censed axiom. The anti-Americanism and reject of Western exists everywhere. In Latin America, it is not weaker than in the Arab world and vice versa. Anti-Americanism has nothing to do with race or religion. Such feeling born in determinate circumstances and in objective situations, it does not come from the blind refusal of another culture or civilization. It comes from imperialist ambitions. It is a reaction, against the oppression imposed by the stronger on the weaker. Zbigniew Brzezinski is perfectly aware of that situation and he is totally opposed to such biased thought and approaches. That's why he was, as well as Chomsky one of the most fervent opponent to G.W. policy. For him the Arab world must be a major allied of USA. The main hindrance to this alliance is the non-resolution of the Palestinian Issue. For Realism rather Justice, Brzezinski criticizes the non efficient implication of USA in a conflict that it can easily solve. In addition he condemned the role played by Israel in the Middle East. For Brzezinski, the Arab World is a more important allied than the Hebrew State. In one of his recent interviews, he affirmed that if ever Israel dared to attack Iranian nuclear installations as it has been done with Iraq in 1983. The American forces in Iraq, must not hesitate to shoot down the Israeli

fighters, otherwise USA with wrong strategies in Iraq, troubles in Afghanistan, will be introduced in a mess from which it will not know how to go out. USA does not really need in such a moment to open a new front in Iran ^(15).

2- Leading Global Terror.

Being the guardian of the international community and the guarantor of its security, USA will award itself the legitimate monopoly of war on terror. War on terror or counterterrorism in accordance with Chomsky is the way by which States conceal their own terrorism, since the third Reich. In fact, more than focusing on who is a terrorist and who is not, or which are the criteria by which we can consider a group as terrorist or not, the focus must be put on acts. By doing so, we observe that terrorism does not only come from clandestine organizations, but from States also. So the closest definition to reality seems to be the one found in dictionary of 1959 that defines terrorism as the systematic intimidation as a «method of governing or securing political or other aims» no matter who the subject is. Nonetheless, States have invented a bunch of elastic terms that could be interoperated in the way they need. Among the most used ones, we can name «Surgical Strike», «Collateral Damage», «Clean War», «Preventive War» and «Humanitarian Intervention».

A surgical strike is a military attack which results in, was intended to result in, or is claimed to have resulted in only damage to the intended legitimate military target, and no or minimal collateral damage to surrounding structures, vehicles, buildings, etc ^(16). Collateral damage is the term by which, USA and its allies call their «Unintentional» or «Incidental» injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time ^(17).

(16)Shultz, Jr., Richard H.; Shultz, Richard H.; Pfaltzgraff, Robert L.; Shultz, Jr., Richard H.; Pfaltzgraff; Shultz, Richard H. (1992). The Future of Air Power: In the Aftermath of the Gulf War. DIANE Publishing. ISBN 1585660469.

(17)Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 12April 2001 (Amended Through 23 January 2002, P77.

The notion of «Clean War» is strongly related with the two preceding ones. It's kind of war which wants to show a new face of war, a war on which only military objectives are targeted. This obviously unrealistic, wars could not be clean, it impossible to have clean wars targeting military objectives only, above in modern conflicts that are asymmetrical and where the civilians occupy the first ranks of casualties.

Preventive War was used in Iraq in 2003, while Humanitarian intervention has been used in the first Gulf war toward the Iraqi aggression to Kuwait and in the Yugoslavian intestine War. For some scholars, that has been used as a pretext to annihilate Iraq for being a power and for its antagonism against West, and Yugoslavia for being the only socialist country in Europe after the fall of the East bloc, and an obstacle for America's Eurasian control.

Inventing such notions takes part from the USA propaganda machine, discrediting enemies, and presents ones-self as being the good and its enemies the evil.

Washington's unilateral declaration of counter-terror according to its criteria will represent a major obstacle to the legitimate right of people to self-determination. This Right can either be exerted toward a colonial or racist power, or a despotic regime.

After the declaration of war towards terror, many governments facing armed dissidence are going to become strong allies for Washington in achieving its aim. Concerning the spoiled and capricious child of International Relations; namely Israel, it will use the pretext of terrorism to eliminate the Palestinian resistance. Sri Lanka, Turkey, Russia and so forth, facing armed liberation movements in Tamil Eelam, Kurdistan, and Caucasia did the same. In Colombia,

the government with the aid of Washington will try to eliminate armed dissidence evoking the pretext of narco-terrorism i.e. that means fighting terrorist groups that get financing from drug traffic. Claiming such allegation the Colombian government could conduct under USA benediction one of the dirtiest «low-intensity conflicts» in the world. In Colombia, «Chainsaw massacre» is unfortunately not only a movie's title and it is also the only country in the world in which a whole political party has been physically eliminated; namely, «Patriotic Union with more than 5000 assassinated members.

The notion of «terrorist» the actual international context has become a real dilemma. Terrorism is now synonym of the annihilation of the whole jurisdictional warranty that a freedom fighter may enjoy and a danger for his life and moral and physical integrity. In Fact, freedom fighters and according to international instruments; namely; the Geneva conventions of 1949 and their additional protocols of 1977, enjoy their status of fighters as well as regular soldiers do. The most important provisions of these conventions according to irregular fighters, i.e. who do not belong to a regular Army, is that they must not be punished for carrying weapons, and so they could not be judged neither for that nor by an ordinary criminal court. In case of capture, they must imperatively enjoy the status of war prisoner that represent the major warranty for their lives and physical and moral integrity. According to article 17 of the third Geneva convention related to the status of «War Prisoner», a captured war prisoner can only be asked to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on him to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be

threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

If Regular soldier obtain that status automatically for the simple fact of being regular soldier, irregular ones in order to obtain such advantageous status are restricted to respect several conditions found in article 4 of the same conventions; namely:

Notwithstanding, such status is subordinated to the will of governments. In fact, even if a group of irregular soldier respects those conditions, only government have the right to apply or not. In a spirit of vengeance, hard feelings and animosity, governments do whatever they can to destroy and chastize individuals that have contested their authorities by weapons and they rather usually treat irregular fighters as criminals of common law to judge them in ordinary courts. This choice shows the superiority of governments upon irregular groups and his will to punish severally the individuals who dare carry weapon against his authority. With 9/11 events, this practice is going to be generalized and becoming legitimate more and more, annihilating then all the warranties that a prisoner could have, even the most fundamental ones. One of the most perverse illustrations of an actual war prisoner mess is «Guantanamo». If in other states potential war prisoners are treated as common law prisoner. The ones in Guantanamo do not even have a legal status. US officials, argued that because prisoners in Guantanamo, were caught

doing terrorism, they could not enjoy such status. They are considered as illegal fighters, so they have what they deserve, because they are terrorists. Such statement does not have a legal value and fundament at all, and it is not really honorable for a great Democracy.

Waging his global war against international terror, USA and its allies have become them-self the main source of global terror.

1- Latin America: An American Private Hunting Ground.

One of the major lacks of the «Grand Chessboard» is the negligence of a so vital sphere, as the Latin American one. This negligence might be through the placed occupied by the Monroe Doctrine in the American foreign Policy, and the fact to consider the subcontinent as the American Private Hunting Ground. In other words, the Latin-American subcontinent belongs totally to USA influence sphere, and it's hegemony on the region could not be threatened. According to that, a brief definition of what the Monroe Doctrine must be given.

The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 constitutes one of the major turning points of American foreign policy. Generations of American Presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan have involved it in putting forward foreign policies designed to keep «foreign» influences out of the Western Hemisphere».

The Hegemonic domination tries to finds its legitimacy in the doctrine's major principles that can summed up in the following quotation «America to Americans», and the doctrine of the Manifest Destiny, that wants that the USA must be the guardian of his neighbors, and that it will protect them from any menace or threat. In the second half of 20^th century, the threat was Called Communism. After the end of the World War II, the will of stopping «Red Expansion» will improve what has been called the «Truman Doctrine». In the Americas, that barrier is going take the form of an Organization, namely; «The Organization of American States» in 1948.

(18)Monroe Doctrine, Glenn Hastedt, Encyclopedia of SAmerican Foreign Policy, Facts on files,Inc; New York, 2004, Pages 318.

The success of the Cuban Revolution leaded by «Fidel Castro» and «Ernesto Guevara», increased the US phobia, and gave the awareness of the necessity for the US government to take radical measures. At that point President J.F. Kennedy will take many crucial decisions that will mark the future of Latin America.

Among them we can name the one concerning the military field and the one concerning the social one. Despite the differences, these measures are going to be complementary to each other. On the military field and as Noam Chomsky states J.F.K. adopted what has been called «La Doctrina de Seguridad Nacional» or «The National security doctrine» ^(19). This military doctrine consisted in changing the concept on the enemy within the Latin American Armed Forces. In fact, the notion of «Enemy» is going to be changed from the external to internal. In other words, the enemy was not more the foreign one, but the enemy comes from inside. The enemy will be then, the farmer's class, the proletariat, the unionists, indigenous, Human rights defenders, and all the political opposition, above all the leftist one. This doctrine contributed deeply in the setting and the strengthening, of military and bloody dictatorships all around the continent.

The social Kennedy's Administration's program consists of setting up «The Alliance for Progress».

(19)Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival : Americas's Quest for the global Dominance, p 104. »

hemisphere where all men can hope for a suitable standard of living and all can live out their lives in dignity and in freedom. To achieve this goal political freedom must accompany material progress...Let us once again transform the American Continent into a vast crucible of revolutionary ideas and efforts, a tribute to the power of the creative energies of free men and women, an example to all the world that liberty and progress walk hand in hand. Let us once again awaken our American revolution until it guides the struggles of people everywhere-not with an imperialism of force or fear but the rule of courage and freedom and hope for the future of man.''²⁰⁾

AS well as President Kennedy hope and desire were, one must usually doubt of the political speech. The alliance for the progress entered in kind of containment policy. It was a tool of the US Administration to control the development of Latin America countries, and above all efficient tools to kick out communism from its traditional influence sphere. The revolution Kennedy talked about was a fake one. It was a pseudo revolution proposed by USA to break and brake the progress of the Cuban revolution in Latin America.

To come back to our basic theory, Brzezinski did not give enough place to the subcontinent within his global primacy theory. The main reason was surely the Axiom that, Latin America was and still be considered as an American Private Hunting Ground, which belong to them and to them only. Nonetheless, the growing number of many dissident governments is going to guide him to adopt different strategies within the subcontinent.

2- Sticking to the American Habits.

Considering Latin America as their Private Hunting Ground, and being sure of their supremacy in the zone, USA will accord more importance to zone where their supremacy is not as strong: namely, Eurasia in general and the middle east in particular.

This negligence is going to have as a main consequence, the «proliferation» of leftist governments all around the subcontinent, Chavez in Venezuela, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Lula da Brazil, the Kirchners in Argentina, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay...That situation is going to aware the American establishment about the loose of hegemony in the zone within the first G.W. Bush mandate.

Faithful to their methods, Interventionism, aggression, violence and animosity will be the remedy used by US to stop, the dissidence within Latin America.

The American foreign policy is going to depend on one of his most strong and faithful allies in the zone: namely, Colombia. The Colombian bowing to the American Empire is so marked and claimed that in one of his speeches, Hugo Chavez defined the Colombian President as the «Pup of the Empire». Fact that is not really false. The Colombian political class has always been linked to the US establishment, but it has never been as it is during, Alvaro Uribe Velez administration.

Tacking advantages of the Colombian dramatic situation (Armed Conflict and Drugs Traffic), the American establishment is going to increase its military Aids to the Colombian authoritarian and bloody regime. Those Aids begun with the president Bill Clinton under the name of «Plan Colombia» and will get increase radically by G.W. Administration under the Name of «Plan Patriota» (Patriot

Plan). The First plan has as an objective to fight drugs traffic in Colombia. With the second, and an international context influenced by the war on terror, all the dissident movements either armed or not, will be considered as terrorist groups. So, the «Plan Patriota» took the form of American military Aid to fight the terrorist groups, which in the eyes of Washington are the only responsible of Drug Trade.

One of the main antagonist and radical measure, was taken in august 2009 by the US and Colombian Government. The measure consists of increasing military cooperation between Colombia and USA, by opening 8 American military bases in the country ^(21).

The official aim of these bases is to fight narco-terrorism. But Colombia's neighbor saw that initiative with different eyes, and as a menace of their own national sovereignty. For them, that measure has been taken to allow US

armed forces to have a military control of the zone. The military cooperation agreement plans the opening of 8 permanent military bases for at least 10 years, where more than 800 American military personal and more than 600 contractors be placed. Contractor is the politically correct term to define the mercenaries of the Private Military Companies. Near these agreements, Washington signed with Bogota, «BIA's» (Bilateral Immunity Agreements), that gives the American military personal and contractors Carte Blanche, and jurisdictional warranties to not to be judged in a case of committing extreme Human Rights Violations. USA has recourse to contractors to avoid any control by its Congress concerning the presence of American troops abroad. This is really a few democratic behavior, from the world's greatest Democracy.

When we consult the «White book on National Security of USA 2009» in pages 21 and 22 related to the Us Army policy in Latin America, we can read that setting up American military bases in Colombia will allow the US armed Forces to lead and manage military operations within the whole continent, against governments that might be dissident toward its policies or interests. ⁽²³⁾ Then, according to such statement, the Colombian neighbors, notably Venezuela have many reasons to think that they are in a potential position to be the following Iraq and Yugoslavia.

This statement is strengthened when we consult the report of the «Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy» 2009. The report states that nowadays an average of 208 million people uses drugs around the World. The consumption is leaded by Marihuana (16O millions people), then it's followed by cocaine and heroin ^(24). The report shows that the demand is growing year

after year, and so the production does. Despite all the efforts that have been done, the production could not be controlled and stabilized. The commission criticized strongly the choice of certain countries that have tried to deal military with drugs trade. Analyzing the achievement of «Plan Colombia», the commission observed that after its application, far from reducing the production, it has grew up about 70%, and that the axis of drug trade has changed from Colombia to Mexico. Actually, that dramatic situation has surrounded Mexico in a wave of violence that made from it one of the most dangerous countries in the world. The commission says that drugs, being a product in a market, obey to the law market of offer and demand. So, it's impossible to reduce the production, while the demand from the developed countries, notably USA and Europe is growing more and more. That hypocrite attitude of Western represents the major obstacle to a real solution of such problem. If we take another example of a major drug producer, Afghanistan, we will see that the production of «opium» exploded after NATO's commitment. Such a case, shows really the ambiguity of the American interventionism within drug production region, which seems to have more a purpose of control that a purpose of eradication.

To sum up, we can say that USA has really no interest to fight drugs traffic, rather than maintain its political, economical and military control on its private hunting ground.

All those policies show that its policy toward the Latin American sub-continent does not change, had never changed and might never change, as long as its interest will related with.

Conclusion:

In a world in which «Economical Interests» have priority on anything else, false debates have to be avoided. USA has its own interests that it is going to maintain at any price. Being good or not does not matter at all.

Some American geo-strategists have set what must be the American strategy for the Global primacy, to allow USA to remain in its hyper power position, as long as possible. This strategy consists of taking control of Eurasia and affronting any emergent country susceptible to challenge America.

If during the Cold war, the allegation used was communism. In the same technique which consist in having a permanent enemy. The 9/11 events will be the best pretext to wage war on the name of terror, whenever, wherever and however.

In his biased war on «International Terrorism», Washington has dramatically stained its image and the values it represents, becoming the major terrorist state in the World.

In his book «After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order», Emmanuel Todd will explain the following statement: The USA was a source of peace and global stability. Through Iraqi and Afghan mess, it has become a factor of a global disorder. Todd tackles the question of the American superpower differently. He has divergent opinions from the ones of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Noam Chomsky. He criticizes the experienced militarism of Brzezinski and the «Anti-Americanism» of Chomsky. For him, USA and Soviet Union were two decadent super powers. The premature fall and collapse of the USSR gave to the world the illusion of a conclusive victory and triumph of the Capitalist bloc. That illusion will have as an objective to delay the decadence of

the American Power. According to Todd, the 9/11 gave the USA a unique chance to place herself on the axis of the good. An opportunity they have missed, with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. These two scenes (Iraq and Afghanistan) to which we can add Latin-America proves USA decadence and the loose of its Global Hegemony. Waging wars whenever, wherever under the most futile pretext, is a synonym of America's powerlessness. The awareness of the increasing decadence has put USA in a state of paranoia that guides it to react violently and aggressively on anything that could be perceived as a potential menace and threat of its global superpower.

The perspective of new military commitments under the same allegation, notably in Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Venezuela and many other African countries, is now more than ever opened.

Current List of «Designated Foreign Terrorist» organizations by US Department of Defense (as of October 5,2001) :

10.Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) 11.Al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad ) 12.Kahane Chai (Kach)

13.Kurdistan Worker's party(PKK) 14.Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE) 15.Mujaheden -e Khalq Organization (MEK) 16.National Liberation Army (ELN) 17.Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)

24.Revolutionary Nuclei formerly ELA) 25.Revolutionary Organization 17^th November

27.Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso ,SL) 28.United Self-Defense Forces of Columbia (AUC)