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

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

(11) Zbigniew Brzezinski, Op cit, P18.

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.

(12) Zbigniew Brzezinski, Op cit, P18.

PART II:

THEORY ABUSE & THE SELF-AWARDING OF

GLOBAL MONOPOLY OF WAR ON TERROR.

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?

(13) http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14024

I- A Unilateral Definition of «Terrorism».