Malaysia: Victim of America’s “Irregular Warfare” Ops?

Nile Bowie reports:

The issue of civil society groups receiving foreign funding has been a major point of discussion in Malaysia during recent times, causing controversy and drawing criticism from activists to members of Parliament alike.

Some activists tend to view Putrajaya’s investigation into rights advocacy groups like SUARAM (a noted recipient of foreign funding) as a desperate attempt to stifle dissent and attack civil society. Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has repeatedly warned of a foreign-funded destabilization campaign aimed at regime change in Malaysia – a claim that has been generally dismissed by Bersih goers and the like.

With the nation’s 13th General Election looming, some see talk of “foreign plots” as tired rhetoric, while others fail to grasp the deeper machinations of foreign influence and do little more than finger pointing at political opponents. In this instance, the pages of a leaked US military document provide valuable insight into the nature of “foreign plots” potentially aimed against Malaysia.

 “TC 18-01 SPECIAL FORCES UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE” is listed on the US Army’s official website and can only be accessed by authorized officials within the American government (a leaked copy has been made available and can be viewed by clicking here). [1] The document is significant because it provides a step-by-step definition of Washington’s “irregular warfare” and unconventional warfare tactics. The manual illustrates the sheer impunity with which the United States conducts its foreign policy, aimed at illegally interfering into the political affairs of foreign nations with an aim to destabilize and reorder them to further American economic interests; Dr. Christof Lehmann describes the manual as:

 “…a step by step guide of how to create, manipulate, co-opt and make use of a countries population, persons of special interest inside the country as well as expatriates, organizations inside as well as outside the country, towards a subversion. Beginning with manipulating dissent into demonstrations, the polarization of a population, riots and armed insurgencies that require action by security forces, and psychological warfare by means of media, step by step, in logical sequence, towards a full scale war, based on humanitarian principles and the pretext of bringing democracy and freedom.” [2]

The targets of the above mentioned irregular warfare operations are those states that have been unwilling to align themselves with American diplomatic and economic interests or semi-compliant states that are strategically located and abundant in natural resources.

The manual describes meticulously orchestrated covert operations that are conducted in phases; beginning with psychologically influencing the target population through foreign-funded dissident news media organizations. Subsequently, targeted nations are infiltrated to provide training and equipment to dissident groups, until a political transition is imposed, by force if necessary.

The manual is classified “Restricted” with a “Destruction Notice“, and for obvious reasons – its pages lay bare the illegal and brutal nature of US foreign policy by means of supporting insurgent groups that would otherwise be called “terrorist organizations” (emphasis added):

 “DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies and their contractors only to protect technical or operational information from automatic dissemination under the International Exchange Program or by other means. This determination was made on 1 August 2010. Other requests for this document must be referred to Commander, United States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, ATTN: AOJK-DTD-SF, 2175 Reilly Road, Stop A, Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000.

DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

FOREIGN DISCLOSURE RESTRICTION (FD 6): This publication has been reviewed by the product developers in coordination with the United States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School foreign disclosure authority. This product is releasable to students from foreign countries on a case-by-case basis only.

 The Commander, United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), defines [Unconventional Warfare] UW as activities conducted to enable a resistance movement or insurgency to coerce, disrupt, or overthrow a government or occupying power by operating through or with an underground, auxiliary, and guerrilla force in a denied area. The intent of U.S. [Unconventional Warfare] UW efforts is to exploit a hostile power’s political, military, economic, and psychological vulnerabilities by developing and sustaining resistance forces to accomplish U.S. strategic objectives. For the foreseeable future, U.S. forces will predominantly engage in irregular warfare (IW) operations.”

The ongoing conflict in Syria and the unrest that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi in Libya in 2011 are examples of the model proposed by this document being successfully utilized. In both countries, American organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy and others both financially and rhetorically supported political opposition and activist groups. When protests in those countries gained momentum, reports of violence surfaced, often in the form of sniper fire, targeting both security personnel and civilians. In Libya, rebel groups were armed by Western nations despite confirmed reports of jihadist and extremist groups being the central component of the armed resistance. As a result, these armed militants did indeed topple the Libyan government, and have since been involved in racially motivated mass killings and the recent murder of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and four other American personnel in Benghazi. [3] The same tactics have been used in Syria, where jihadist groups have received weapons from US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and have reportedly used terrorist tactics such as bomb making and extrajudicial assassinations. [4] [5] The “Phases of Unconventional Warfare” are described in the manual and exactly match the US protocol undertaken in both Libya and Syria:

PHASE I: Preparation

Resistance and external sponsors conduct psychological preparation to unify population against established government or occupying power and prepare population to accept U.S. support.

 PHASE II: Initial Contact

USG [United States Government] agencies coordinate with allied government-in-exile or resistance leadership for desired U.S. support.

 PHASE III: Infiltration

SF [Special Forces] team infiltrates operational area, establishes communications with its base, and contacts resistance organization.

PHASE IV: Organization

SF [Special Forces] team organizes, trains, and equips resistance cadre. Emphasis is on developing infrastructure.

PHASE V: Buildup

SF [Special Forces] team assist cadre with expansion into an effective resistance organization. Limited combat operations may be conducted, but emphasis remains on development.

PHASE VI: Employment

UW [Unconventional Warfare] forces conduct combat operations until linkup with conventional forces or end hostilities.

PHASE VII: Transition

UW [Unconventional Warfare] forces revert to national control, shifting to regular forces or demobilizing.

Malaysia is not Syria or Libya; the social and political systems of these countries and their resistance movements are highly dissimilar and only so much can be taken from comparisons of this nature. Even so, it is essentially confirmed that the agitation Malaysia has experienced is not intended to promote a genuine democratic framework; its purpose is the gradual installation of a national government that is friendly to American interests by coaxing social unrest and shaping popular sentiment.

Just as described in Phase 1, “external sponsors conduct psychological preparation to unify population against established government,” it can be gathered that this first step has already been attempted. Bersih coalition leader Ambiga Sreenevasan has long admitted that her organization receives financial assistance from “external sponsors,” namely, the US-based National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI).

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) also annually provides $100,000 (RM 317,260) to political news website Malaysiakini, widely considered to be the nation’s most pro-opposition news outlet. Premesh Chandran, Malaysiakini CEO, is a grantee of the  Open Society Foundations and launched the news organization with a $100,000 grant from the Soros-funded Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA). NED also provides $90,000 (RM 285,516) to SUARAM. [6] Knowingly, or unknowingly, these organizations have received financial support from the US Embassy due to the controversial political discourse they espouse. Of course, the expression of dissent should never be denied, and although the Najib Razak administration has begun to move away from Mahathir’s administrative model by relaxing controls on expression, many still feel more can be done.

If the United States is pursuing the kind of policy described in the Unconventional Warfare manual, one can understand how foreign-funded rights advocacy groups may be perceived as threatening to Malaysian authorities, regardless of the politics and values they preach. Ostensibly, Malaysian authorities are concerned about the violence and insurrectionary behavior that have accompanied foreign-funded political movements in other countries once momentum built around them. Malaysia would not likely fall victim to an insurgency campaign anywhere near the scale seen in Syria. However, it would be unwise to dismiss the possibility of seeing the kind of violence that took shape in Thailand during the political unrest of 2010 if foreign elements continue to pursue “irregular warfare.” The possibility of political instability coming to fruition during the general election period may factor into explaining why the current government has not yet declared them.

The International Republican Institute (IRI) is chaired by US Senator John McCain, an ardent supporter of American and Israeli militarism, and annually receives $802,122 (RM 2,544,670) from the NED for its Malaysian projects. McCain’s IRI played a crucial role in casting doubt on the validity of Russia’s 2011 presidential elections by funding several US-backed NGOs, particularly GOLOS, an independent electoral commission seeking to “expose voting irregularities.” The conduct of the organization has generated widespread criticism from Russian lawmakers and observer groups. Georgy Fyodorov, chief executive of Russian Observer Association Civil Control stated:

“They have a clear destabilizing tactic; they are carefully conditioning the public to hear some ‘breaking’ news of election fraud. The media will have a field day taping the ensuing clashes between pro-Kremlin and nationalist youth being dispersed by special police. This kind of footage would dilute any remaining trust in Russian elections.” [7]

To dilute any remaining trust – that is the principle objective when one attempts to “conduct psychological preparation to unify population against established government.” Elections are seen as an opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of a political candidate or party, primarily by accusing the electoral system of being unfree or somehow outside of international norms. In the Malaysian context, ruling authorities have acknowledged that more could be done to reduce voting irregularities and have begun to work toward such ends. To accuse Malaysia’s electoral system of being illegitimate is a cinematic exaggeration, a myth pushed by foul Western endowments and foundations. Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization, it is irrefutably valuable and channeling it comes with individual responsibilities. When foreign governments attempt to harness other people’s dissent for their own objectives, it is the greatest attack on dissent itself.

Notes

 [1] TC 18-01 SPECIAL FORCES UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE, US Army, 2010

 [2] The Blueprint for the War Libya? NSNBC, February 21, 2012

 [3] AU: Libya rebels killing black workers, CBS News, August 29, 2011

 [4] Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria, The New York Times, October 14, 2012

[5] Outgunned Syria rebels make shift to bombs, Reuters, April 30, 2012

 [6] Pro-Israel groups rooting for the Opposition, The Mole, September 27, 2012

[7] Russian Press – Behind the Headlines, November 18, Ria Novosti, November 18, 2012

Nile Bowie is a Kuala Lumpur-based American writer and photographer for the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal, Canada. He explores issues of terrorism, economics and geopolitics.

Via: "Global Research"

USAID Spying In Latin America

By Nil Nikandrov
Courtesy Of "Global Research"

The ejection of USAID from Russia was a long-awaited and welcome development. Moscow has repeatedly warned its US partners via an array of channels of communication that the tendency of USAID to interfere with Russia’s domestic affairs was unacceptable and, particularly, that the radicalism of its pet NGOs in the Caucasus would not be tolerated. When, on October 1, the decision made by the Russian leadership takes effect, the Moscow-based USAID staff which has been stubbornly ignoring the signals will have to pack and relocate to other countries facing allegations of authoritarian rule…In Latin America, USAID has long earned a reputation of an organization whose offices are, in fact, intelligence centers scheming to undermine legitimate governments in a number of the continent’s countries. The truth that USAID hosts CIA and US Defense Intelligence Agency operatives is not deeply hidden, as those seem to have played a role in every Latin American coup, providing financial, technical, and ideological support to respective oppositions. USAID also typically seeks engagement with the local armed forces and law-enforcement agencies, recruiting within them agents ready to lend a hand to the opposition when the opportunity arises.

To varying extents, all of the Latin American populist leaders felt the USAID pressure. No doubt, Venezuela’s H. Chavez is the number one target on the USAID enemies list. Support for the regime’s opponents in the country shrank considerably since the massive 2002-2004 protests as the nation saw the government refocus on socioeconomic issues, health care, housing construction, and youth policies. The opposition had to start relying more on campaigns in the media, around 80% of which are run by the anti-Chavez camp. Panic-provoking rumors about imminent food supply disruptions, overstated reports about the crime level in Venezuela (where, actually, there is less crime than in most countries friendly to the US), and allegations of government incompetence in response to technological disasters which became suspiciously frequent as the elections drew closer are bestowed on the audiences as a part of the subversive scenario involving a network ofVenezuelan NGOs. In some cases, the membership of the latter can be limited to 3-4 people, but, coupled to strong media support, the opposition can prove to be an ominous force. Pro-Chavez commentators are worried that USAID agents will contest the outcome of the vote and, synchronously, paramilitary groups will plunge Venezuelan cities into chaos to give the US a pretext for a military intervention.

USAID is known to have contributed to the recent failed coup in Ecuador, during which president R. Correa narrowly escaped an assassination attempt. Elite police forces heavily sponsored by the US and the media which made use of the liberal free speech legislation to smear Correa were the key actors in the outbreak. Subsequently, it took Correa serious efforts to get a revised media code approved in the parliament contrary to the USAID-lobbied resistance.

Several bids to displace the government of Evo Morales clearly employed the USAID operative potential in Bolivia. According to journalist and author Eva Golinger, USAID poured at least $85m into destabilizing the regime in the country. Initially, the US hoped to achieve the desired result by entraining the separatists from the predominantly white Santa Cruz district. When the plan collapsed, USAID switched to courting the Indian communities with which the ecology-oriented NGOs started to get in touch a few years before. Disorienting accounts were fed to the Indians that the construction of an expressway across their region would leave the communities landless, and the Indian protest marches to the capital that followed ate away at the public standing of Morales. It transpired shortly that many of the marches including those staged by the TIPNIS group, had been coordinated by the US embassy. The job was done by embassy official Eliseo Abelo, a USAID curator for the Bolivian indigenous population. His phone conversations with the march leaders were intercepted by the Bolivian counter-espionage agency and made public, so that he had to escape from the country while the US diplomatic envoy to Bolivia complained about the phone tapping.

In June 2012, foreign ministers of the ALBA bloc countries passed a resolution on USAID. It read: «Citing foreign aid planning and coordination as a pretext, USAID openly meddles in sovereign countries’ domestic affairs, sponsoring NGOs and protest activities intended to destabilize legitimate governments which are unfavorable from Washington’s perspective. Documents released from the US Department of State archives carry evidence that financial support had been provided to parties and groups oppositional to the governments of ALBA countries, a practice tantamount to undisguised and audacious interference on the US behalf. In most ALBA countries, USAID operates via its extensive NGO networks, which it runs outside of the due legal framework, and also illicitly funds media and political groups. We are convinced that our countries have no need for external financial support to maintain the democracy established by Latin American and Caribbean nations, or for externally guided organizations which try to weaken or sideline our government institutions». The ministers called the ALBA leaderships to immediately deport USAID representatives who threaten the sovereignty and political stability of the countries where they work. The resolution was signed by Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

Paul J. Bonicelli was confirmed by the US Senate as the USAID Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean last May. Former USAID chief Mark Feuerstein gained such notoriety in Latin America as the brain behind the ousters of the legitimate leaders of Honduras and Paraguaythat the continent’s politicians simply had to learn to avoid him. The USAID credibility is increasingly drying up, and it is unlikely that Bonicelli, a PhD and a conservative, will be able to reverse the tendency. His record includes heading various USAID divisions and «promoting democracy» in concert with the US National Security Council.

Bonicelli’s views are reflected in his papers in the Foreign Policy journal. To Bonicelli, Chavez is not a democrat but a leader eager to get rid of all of his opponents. The new USAID boss holds that, apart from the drug threat, Chavez – having inspired populist followers in Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua – poses the biggest challenge to the US interests in Latin America. Bonicelli therefore urges the US to prop up the Venezuelan opposition in every way possible, providing material support and training, so that it can maximally take part in elections and civilian activities.

Another paper by Bonicelli portrays Russia’s present-day evolution as grim regress and a slide towards «neo-Tsarism». Based on the perception, Bonicelli argues that the West should hold Russia and its leaders accountable in whatever concerns freedom and democracy – even if freedom in the country is important to just a handful of people – and cites the case of Poland where the US used to stand by Lech Wałęsa.

Chances are slim that a reform of USAID would restore the agency’s credibility in Latin America. Sticking to a trimmed list of priorities, USAID axed a few minor programs and shut down its offices in Chile, Argentine, Uruguay, Costa Rica, and Panama, with Brazil next in line. USAID believes that the above countries are already in reasonable shape and no longer need assistance, so that the agency can throw its might against its main foes – the populists and Cuba, and do its best to have the politicians unfriendly to Washington removed across the Western Hemisphere. The stated USAID budget for Latin America is $750m, but estimates show that the secret part of the funding, which is leveraged by the CIA, may total twice the amount.

Blowback In Egypt

US “Democracy”-Promoting Efforts On Trial

By Justin Raimondo,
June 06, 2012
Courtesy Of "Anti-War"

The trial of 43 employees of Western-backed “pro-democracy” groups in Egypt has been postponed until July, when government prosecution witnesses are scheduled to testify. The case attracted international attention when the authorities accused US- and European-backed groups of trying to overthrow the government. As Egyptian police raided the offices of several NGOs, and detained Sam La Hood – son of US labor secretary Ray La Hood – Egypt’s minister for international cooperation Fayza Abulnaga issued a dossier on their activities, which amounted, she said, to promoting “American and Israeli interests” and “preventing the emergence of Egypt as a democratic state.” The state-controlled Al-Ahram newspaper headlined the story: “American Funding Aims to Spread Anarchy in Egypt.”

While the move was popular in Egypt, where suspicions of US – and Israeli – covert activity runs high, in the US the Washington glitterati were in outrage mode: Hillary Clinton threatened to cut off the $1.5 billion in aid scheduled to be delivered to Cairo, and the pundits went wild with scorn: Thomas Friedman denounced the trial as a “witch hunt,” while Sen. John “Boots-on-the-ground” McCain gave vent to his “growing alarm and outrage.” The “civil society” crowd went bananas, naturally, since this is a bread-and-butter issue for them, being entirely dependent on Western governments and the generosity of George Soros. If taking government money is cause for suspicion and legal problems in countries like Egypt, their whole racket is over.

What their racket consists of is carrying out the foreign policy agendas of the US and its European allies under the guise of “promoting democracy.” It is, in short, a program of organized subversion, similar to that carried out by the old Soviet Union in the days of the Comintern. Back then, the Soviets were upfront about their commitment to “proletarian internationalism,” actively promoting “revolutionary” movements funded and directed from Moscow. Our own internationalism, albeit far from proletarian, is similar in its intent and hypocritical cant. An entire wing of the national security bureaucracy is centered around the mythology of America as the great promoter of “democracy” and “transparency,” with both political parties operating their own separate arms of an international apparatus which is nothing less – or more – than an instrument of US foreign policy.

Even the Egyptian employees of these “democracy promotion” projects were well aware of what sugar daddy Uncle Sam is up to: it turns out that they resigned en masse a few months before the raids. AP reports:

“They complained that the US group, described as nonpartisan, had excluded the country’s most popular Islamist political organization from its programs, collected sensitive religious information about Egyptians when conducting polls to send to Washington, and ordered employees to erase all computer files and turn over all records for shipment abroad months before the raids.

“’Our resignation is a result of many different practices we have been witnessing that seem suspicious and unprofessional,’ the Egyptian employees wrote in their 17 October resignation letter.”

Among these practices was failing to report where the money was going, a legal requirement in Egypt (and the US, I might add). Dawlat Soulam, a former employee of the International Republican Institute (IRI), told AP:

“Are we doing something we want to hide from the Egyptians? Are you playing a political agenda and you don’t want to show that you want to take sides?”

A pledge to post the information publicly went unfulfilled, in spite of “weekly meetings” at which the subject was discussed. The employees’ main complaint was that, contrary to their public pronouncements, US officials were taking sides in Egypt’s election, directly funding secular liberal parties and excluding the others, including the Islamists. I’m sure this was just an oversight, however, since we’re funding the most radical Islamists in Syria at this very moment. In any case, apparently the IRI’s Democratic counterpart, the National Democratic Institute, was making up for this shameless neglect by providing “training” to Muslim Brotherhood activists.

The idea that the US government is some sort of above-the-fray “democracy”-promoter, who therefore is obligated to ladle out millions in aid to all parties – including those that advocate, say, the imposition of Sharia law – is born of an empty-headed illusion shared by more than one native activist who looks to the US as a model for their own country. These people take seriously the propaganda points of US policymakers who insist their “democracy promotion” efforts are all about process rather than the pursuit of US foreign policy objectives – just as yesteryear’s idealistic Comintern agents sincerely believed in the Kremlin’s devotion to “proletarian internationalism.” When they discover otherwise, a whole generation of “the god that failed” ex-ideologues is born.

In reality, and in all cases, nation-states pursue their own interests, which are, first and foremost, the political interests of those who rule. This is true in democracies as well as dictatorships, and it is the basic premise of a realistic view of world politics, the starting point for all serious analyses of political actors, from the local to the international scene.

In the case of the Soviet Union, the Comintern was tasked with propagandizing for Russian national interests abroad, and it used the indigenous Communist parties and fellow-travelers to promote a geopolitical strategy that was primarily defensive. Saddled with enormous economic problems at home, and an increasingly restive subject population, Kremlin leaders avoided the Trotskyite strategy of pursuing “world revolution” in favor of building “socialism in one country” – i.e. working furiously to manage the inefficiencies of a socialist system and avoid complete collapse. Their efforts, as we know, ended in failure, as the economic and political disaster that had been awaiting them since 1917 finally worked out its inexorable logic and the Berlin Wall was toppled.

In the case of the United States, we have a rising hegemon instead of a fragile and ultimately untenable would-be imperialism, one with no military equivalent on the world stage – and clearly on the offensive. When the cold war ended, a dizzying triumphalism displaced any realistic sense of what America’s role in the world ought to be: instead of turning to solve its own mounting internal problems, the US government boosted its efforts to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations. The “democracy promotion” racket got a big shot in the arm with the infusion of billions in taxpayer dollars.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is an official US government agency that melds the “private” and the public: i.e. private interests get public money. Both political parties share in the loot, as do labor and big business, with the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce getting in on the gravy train. In addition, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) plays a key role in dispensing funds to favored groups abroad, acting in tandem with too many other obscure federal agencies to even list. Naturally, the well-connected “civil society” crowd is first in line for their fair share of government cheese: their task is to “train” aspiring young leaders who, once they attain power, can be relied on to do the bidding of their former patrons.

NED was originally conceived as a comfortably obscure niche for the neoconservatives in the Reagan administration, a place where they could indulge their cold war fantasies without exercising too much real influence and without attracting much notice. As is the case with all government programs, however, this one soon metastasized into an ever-growing bureaucratic empire, one which owed its political survival to serving the interests of all the major Washington players: both parties, big labor, and big business. With that kind of coalition behind it, NED’s budget and international reach grew by leaps and bounds.

In the post cold war world, NED, USAID, and those “non-governmental organizations” most willing to turn themselves into instruments of the State have spawned an international industry that is the civilian wing of Washington’s regime-change machine. This world-spanning apparatus is an essential element in our government’s foreign policy game plan: it exists to create an aura of legitimacy around our whatever military campaign is in progress. The goal is to continually push back the frontiers of the Empire, and the current focus is on the volatile Middle East.

Egypt is just one theater in a wider war. The long arm of Washington is evident in Syria, too, where our “democracy promotion” efforts have served as a cover for financing armed rebels, including groups openly claiming allegiance to Al Qaeda. Unlike in Egypt, where the US effort to destabilize the country is necessarily covert, the campaign for regime change in Syria is military in nature – and that’s where the Islamists, including Al Qaeda, come in handy. If Egyptians look at Syria and see the future, who can blame them for fearing and resenting Washington’s interference in their elections?

The National Endowment for Democracy is endowing America’s fat cats – big labor, big business, the party bosses – with billions in free money at a time when ordinary people are being thrown off food stamps and a government-created financial bubble is laying waste to the economy. It ought to be abolished forthwith.

The agency’s critics argue that it undermines rather than advances the democratic ideals we’re supposed to be promoting in the countries where it operates, but this misses the real point. The purpose of NED and other such efforts is not so much to legitimize these canned “revolutions” in the eyes of the natives, but to impress upon Americans and other Westerners the nobility of our favored political actors – and the unmitigated evil of anyone who fails to toe Washington’s line. When Americans read news reports quoting some NGO official’s opinion as received wisdom, they are duly impressed, especially when the group has the words “democracy” and/or “human rights” in its name.

The trial of the NGO officials in Cairo has been postponed, perhaps in order to give the Obama administration a final opportunity to make a deal with the Egyptians. Meanwhile, Washington is whining that the trial is “politically motivated” – because nothing they do is ever motivated by political gain.

If a public trial ever takes place – which I doubt – it promises to be fascinating: testimony from the group of disillusioned ex-employees will give us valuable insights into the inner workings of America’s worldwide regime change project. While defenders of the NGO workers claim the trial is all part of a “crackdown” by the Egyptian military authorities, and the remnants of the Mubarak regime, I have my suspicions that it was the ex-employees who went to the authorities and reported “suspicious” (and illegal) activities on the part of their bosses.

Now that’s what I call “blowback” with a vengeance!

Empire's Double-Edged Sword: Global Military + NGOs

Colonial Southeast Asia circa 1850s. Thailand/Siam
was never colonized but made many concessions


Tearing Down Sovereign Nations and Replacing Them With Global System Administrators.

By Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Courtesy Of "The Activist Post"

Part 1: Imperialism is Alive and Well

The British Empire didn't just have a fleet that projected its hegemonic will across the planet; it possessed financial networks to consolidate global economic power, and system administrators to ensure the endless efficient flow of resources from distant lands back to London and into the pockets of England's monied elite. It was a well-oiled machine, refined by centuries of experience.


While every schoolchild learns about the British Empire, it seems a common modern-day political malady for adults to believe that reality is organized as their history books were in school -- in neat, well-defined chapters. This leads to the common misconception that the age of imperialism is somehow a closed chapter in human history. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. Imperialism did not go extinct. It simply evolved.


There are several pertinent examples illustrating how imperialism is still alive and well, and only cleverly disguised with updated nomenclatures. What we know today as "free trade" actually derives its origins from economic concessions the British frequently extorted from nations under its "gunboat diplomacy" strategy -- that is, anchoring gunboats off the coast of a foreign capital, and threatening bombardment and military conquest if certain demands were not met.

In the mid-1800s, Thailand (then the Kingdom of Siam) was surrounded on all sides by colonized nations, and, in turn, was made to concede to the British 1855 Bowring Treaty. See how many of these "gunboat policy" imposed concessions sound like today's "economic liberalization:"


1. Siam granted extraterritoriality to British subjects.
2. British could trade freely in all seaports and reside permanently in Bangkok.
3. British could buy and rent property in Bangkok.
4. British subjects could travel freely in the interior with passes provided by the consul.
5. Import and export duties were capped at 3%, except the duty-free opium and bullion.
6. British merchants were to be allowed to buy and sell directly with individual Siamese.


A more contemporary example would be the outright military conquest of Iraq and Paul Bremer's (CFR) economic reformation of the broken state. The Economist enumerates the neo-colonial "economic liberalization" of Iraq in a piece entitled, "Let's all go to the yard sale: If it all works out, Iraq will be a capitalist's dream:"


1. 100% ownership of Iraqi assets.
2. Full repatriation of profits.
3. Equal legal standing with local firms.
4. Foreign banks allowed to operate or buy into local banks.
5. Income and corporate taxes capped at 15%.
6. Universal tariffs slashed to 5%.


Nomenclatures aside, nothing has changed since 1855 as far as imperialist "wish-lists" go. The Economist argued, as would any 18-19th century imperialist, that Iraq needed foreign expertise to catch up, justifying the evisceration of their national sovereignty and the foreign stewardship (theft) of their resources. Unlike Siam, Iraq refused to concede to the "gunboats" of modern-day Wall Street & London.  Subsequently, as the British often did during the "glory days" of the empire, they made good on their threats.



Image: The Anglo-Zulu War. Causus belli -- diamonds & imperial expansion. 


And just as the British did when they found diamonds beneath Zululand during the late-1800s, spurring them to invent a causus belli to justify the destruction of the Zulu Kingdom, the schemers of modern-day global imperialism likewise invented a dubious pretext to invade Iraq before commencing its plundering.



Image: Anglo-Zulu War. Mission accomplished. The city of Ulandi burns and the British go about dividing Zululand into 14 chiefdoms led by compliant, obedient proxies. The British took great care to cultivate rivalries between the 14 chiefdoms to ensure they would never again unite and challenge British hegemonic ambitions throughout the region. 

At the conclusion of the Anglo-Zulu War, the British despoiled Zululand, divided it into 14 separate cheifdoms, each led by a proxy obedient to the British Empire. The British ensured that these 14 cheifdoms harbored animosities toward one another by fostering petty infighting between them to ensure that British interests would never again be challenged by a unified Zulu threat. Today we see what seems to be the "accidental" consequences of military interventions leading to vicious, protracted fighting, and, in some cases, civil wars in Iraq, now in Libya (which also had a direct proxy installed as PM), Pakistan where plans exist to literally carve up the nation Zululand-style, and Syria. These are not accidental but intentional. Divide and conquer is a classic military stratagem that has not escaped the interests and attention of Wall Street & London.

Video: Dwight D. Eisenhower exit speech on January 17, 1961, warning us of the military industrial complex.



Video: Iraq For Sale. Remember that military industrial complex President Dwight Eisenhower warned America about? The ultimate bottom line with the Iraq War was that it should never have been fought in the first place. 

If people can study history and see today's events as simply the relabeled repeating of what empire has been doing for centuries, the public as a whole will be less likely to go along with what is in reality an exploitative, murderous crime spree of global proportions -- merely sold to us as justified intervention. One need only look at how Iraq has been despoiled and the profits that have been garnered by Fortune 500 corporations, while soldiers and Iraqis alike pay the price with their minds, bodies, blood, futile destinies, and lives. 


Part II: British Imperial Administration (proto-NGOs) 


A book of invaluable use in understanding British imperial administration is Colonial Georgia: A Study in British Imperial Policy in the Eighteenth Century. Published by the University of Georgia Press and written by Trevor Reese, it successfully endeavored to illustrate "practically every facet of British colonial policy" using Georgia as a case study.


The colony of Georgia, in what is now the southern United States, was founded by what is essentially a proto-NGO -- and in this case an organization dedicated to "prison reform." What it really did, was assess suitable prisoners in London who could be sent to Georgia to fulfill the needs of the Crown. Beginning as the "Associates of Dr. Bray" and later becoming the "Trustees for the Establishment of the Colony of Georgia in America," or simply the Georgia Trustees, it encapsulates perfectly the use of noble-intentioned networkers to exploit human tragedy for the benefit of the elite.



Image: One face of the Georgia Trustee's seal. It featured the Latin motto, "Non Sibi Sed Aliis" which means, "Not for self, but for others." Truly a proto-NGO, a "system administrator." The significance of the mulberry leaf, the silkworm, and the cocoon? The silk that Britain's new colony of Georgia was going to export to London to enrich the empire. "For others" indeed. 


While many may argue that prisoners in London were better off being shipped to Georgia, the underlying point is the dictation of one's destiny for the benefit of another, regardless of whether or not such exploitation were to result in a thriving new life in Georgia, or death defending British expansion in the New World. The same cost/benefit analysis could also be made for slavery, but done so in spite of its essential immorality.

Protestantism for England was also a precursor to modern day NGOs. Religious denominations were divided directly along political lines in 18th-century Europe, and when shiploads of Protestants were sent to Georgia, so followed the political networks they represented. Again, noble-intentions were, and to this day are in the forefront of many devoted to these political functionaries, and much good has been done in their names. Ultimately, however, the purpose of each empire's church was to establish a bottom-up network of people who believed they were fulfilling noble, higher intentions, when in reality they were simply serving the elite of their respective empires. Unfortunately, despite the noble intentions and great works of many of these people, when the time came for the Crown to use these networks for less than noble causes, organizational indoctrination was used to marshal men to it. And just like modern NGOs today, Protestant organizations interfaced with and supported directly the primary regional administrators -- in Georgia's case, the Georgia Trustees.


In Reese's book, he even notes on page 21, "in sanctioning the Georgia project the British Government was not motivated by any such charitable intentions as inspired the Trustees. The Ministry was not much interested in the plight of insolvent and unemployed debtors, but it was concerned about the defense of the empire." Similarly today, NGOs have truly dedicated people "inspired" as the "Trustees" were, but ultimately they are carrying water for their sponsors, who almost always end up being George Soros, the OCED, the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy, and other purveyors of global corporate-fascist imperialism. The British Empire's interests in Georgia were economic, while the ruse used to fill and administer the colony was altruistic.


Another key characteristic to imperialism is keeping subjects dependent. Reese offers on page 27, "the danger of these [private or charter provinces] lay in the scope they provided for the construction of independent authorities, and this was contradictory to the whole principle of colonization." This, within the context of mercantilism -- essentially the exportation of raw materials from the colonies, which would be refined in Europe, and then imported back into the colonies as manufactured goods -- meant servile dependency, both politically and economically; despite the fact that even then, many features of "democracy" could be found throughout the colonies. Today's concept of "free-trade" agreements ensure that resources, manufacturing, refinement, and consumption are equally interdependent on a global scale; despite the fact that technology now exists to make any state or province, let alone nation, fully independent economically.



Image: Despite the good intentions, the religious causes, and loyalty to the crown, the ultimate destination of all these good intentions wrought was the "Board of Trade" which managed the unending flow of wealth out of Britain's colonies and into London. 


Like NGOs of today, the administrative networks that made up the British Empire were in many cases entirely dependent on grants from London, as local contributions were almost never adequate. Reese notes on page 39, "constant need of money made the Trustees permanently dependent on Parliament, without whose support their colony could not be maintained." The British Empire maintained a careful balancing act to ensure that its networks received enough resources to fulfill their purpose, but never enough to become independent. Financial policy conformed to imperial standards; and while local policy was set by local administrators, it interlocked with the Board of Trade back in London -- just as local NGOs now interlock with international organizations in accordance to rule and norms defined by international institutions.


Reese quotes Vincent Harlow in his epilogue, who said of Georgia's eventual independence from Great Britain: "men's minds indeed conceive new thoughts and plan new projects, but out of ancient thinking and under potent influence of long-established characteristics."

Part III: Re-imagining Imperialism for the 21st Century 


We already have seen some examples of how imperialism is very much alive and well. We also saw how imperialism was implemented by the British, but how exactly is it being implemented today? And why are people willingly going along with it?





Video: Thomas Barnett describes the building of an army of "system administrators" (aka civil society) to expand into "peace spaces" while US global military conquers "battle spaces." Soros' Revenue Watch along with the National Endowment for Democracy have created just such an army of NGOs. And just as soldiers witlessly promote imperialism believing they are fighting for "freedom," these NGOs expand Wall Street and London's global hegemony, believing they are promoting "human rights." 


The term "system administrators" was used by US military strategist Thomas Barnett before a cackling audience at a 2008 TED Talk titled, "The Pentagon's New Map for War & Peace." At about 18 minutes into his talk he begins explaining a concept of reforming the military into two separate forces, the "US enabled Leviathan force" and the "system administrators."


One takes down the existing networks of targeted nations through air campaigns, special operations, or invasions, and consists of military assets including armor, fighters and bombers. The other consists of system administrators who then build upon the ashes left by the "Leviathan force" or the chaos sown by a foreign-backed destabilization. The system administrators consist of everything from NGOs, international organizations, and contractors, to civil affairs officers (psychological warfare), and when necessary, soldiers and Marines.


Barnett warns that if anyone attempts to interfere with the construction of the West's "system administrator" networks, the "Marines are going to come over and kill you." This perhaps resembles what British garrisons did to tamp down dissatisfaction amongst their colonies.



Image: The Boston Massacre. Resistors to the "system administrators" beware; try to stop them and "the Marines are going to come over and kill you." 


The talk was given in 2008, and already we see solid steps being taken to expand and utilize just such a force. Barnett said of the special operations "trigger pullers" that he wanted the rules to be "as loose as possible." Just recently, the Corbett Report and Media Monarchy reported the expanded role proposed for "elite" military forces. Admiral William McRaven of Special Operations Command was said to be seeking "more autonomy to position his forces and their war-fighting equipment where intelligence and global events indicate they are most needed."



Video: Special Operations Command is looking for more "autonomy" in deploying where "intelligence and global events indicate they are most needed." This "loosening of rules" was part of building the double edged sword of neo-imperial conquest, the global army & system administrators. 


Additionally, between 2008 and 2011 before the outbreak of the Arab Spring, the US State Department and its network of global facilitators embarked on a campaign to raise a literal army of NGOs and opposition groups to begin overthrowing governments and building the very global administration network Barnett presented at TED. It was just recently reported in, "Soros Big-Business Accountability Project Funded by Big-Business" that a similar army of NGOs is being mobilized to erect system administrators focused on managing the resources of targeted nations. Called Revenue Watch, and focused primarily on Africa and Southeast Asia it represents the "system administration" approach complimenting aggressive moves made by AFRICOM in Africa, and the declaration of America's "Pacific Century" in Asia.


It is quite clear that Barnett's proposal doesn't necessarily need the "US-enabled Leviathan force" to tear down targeted networks as seen in the US-funded Arab Spring. Fomenting unrest, up to and including armed insurrection, falls short of overt military intervention and utilizes assets Barnett described in the Leviathan force such as "trigger pulling" special operations, as well as civil affairs units, NGOs, and contractors from the system administration side.

In Libya, for example, NGOs and civil affairs advisers began the unrest in February of 2011 while weapons were covertly moved in to arm fighters to overthrow the Qaddafi government. International organizations like the ICC were used to poison public opinion against the Libyan government using information supplied to them from NGOs, while NATO began preparing for a full-scale air campaign. Once the bombing began, it was only a matter of incrementally increasing the torrent of special operations forces, arms, and other facilitators to fill in the void left by NATO's relentless air campaign. Thus the forces of Leviathan and the system administrators worked in tandem: one clearing a path through the old; the other building new networks to facilitate the installment of long-time US resident and Petroleum Institute chairman, Abdurrahim el-Keib, as PM.


In nations where military options like this are not an option and would be difficult if not impossible to ever justify, like Thailand for example, the full weight of Wall Street and London's support is thrown behind system administrators and suitable opposition movements that will make appropriate proxies if the targeted sovereign networks can be torn down.


In Thailand's case, that proxy is Thaksin Shinawatra, a former Carlyle Group adviser, and recipient of extensive US backing, including lobbying services from fellow Carlyle member James Baker and his firm Baker Botts, Bush's personal envoy to Iraq Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers, and PNAC signatory Kenneth Adelman of Edelman. During Thaksin's term in office from 2001 until a coup ousted him in 2006, upon the eve of which he was literally reporting to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, he had committed Thai troops to the US invasion of Iraq and allowed the CIA to use Thailand for its abhorrent rendition program.


He now currently leads the forces of a "color revolution;" the stand-ins for Barnett's occupation force, since such a Western force is untenable. This included his documented use of armed militants in 2010 during an attempted insurrection. They are billed the "red shirts" or United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) and have met with Soros' Open Society-funded Human Rights Watch, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the U.S.–ASEAN Business Council in an April 2011 Washington D.C. visit.


Image: It is clear that the NGOs and opposition movements which many believe are spontaneous, indigenous, and independent are in fact part of a larger network created for the sole purpose of imposing and maintaining global system administration. This is not a web of elaborate, vague associations. In each case there is a direct path of funding leading back to Western foundations and the think-tanks that devise policy for them; all funded and chaired by the Fortune 500 of Wall Street and London. (click image to enlarge) 


There are also circles of academia being produced to support efforts to undermine and overthrow Thailand's sovereign indigenous networks, most notably "Nitirat" or the "Enlightened Jurists" whose audiences consist almost entirely of Thaksin's red shirts, and even included Thaksin's US-registered lobbyist, Robert Amsterdam sitting in the front row.


Finally there are the NGOs like propaganda outfit Prachatai, which receives hundreds of thousands of dollars per year from the US State Department via the National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros' Open Society, and USAID. NED also funds the Campaign Committee for Human Rights, the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), and the Environmental Litigation and Advocacy for the Wants. In addition to sharing the same foreign sponsors, each cross-posts the other's work; each signs petitions on the other's behalf; and each perpetuate identical agendas. While their mission statements claim to promote "freedom," "democracy," and "human rights," one cannot help but wonder how they reconcile the backgrounds of their sponsors and a web of interlocking "international" organizations, with the causes they allegedly promote and the work they actually carry out.



Image: Clearly there are "strings attached" to NGO Prachatai's funding from the National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House who regularly contributes posts, support, and award nominations to the Thai "independent journalists." It is also clear how these same interests are involved in the support of Thaksin Shinawatra, the imperial proxy of choice for Thailand. (click image to enlarge) 


The National Endowment for Democracy and its subsidiary Freedom House features boards of directors much resembling a revolving door, with current and former members of Congress, the US State Department, corporate lobbying firms, and corporate board members of some of the largest corporations on earth including Exxon, Boeing, Ford, and Goldman Sachs constantly shifting in and out of government, big-business, and NGO positions. They are, just as the British were, "not motivated by any such charitable intentions," such as those that inspire the well-intentioned people drawn into the cause of NGOs like Prachatai they fund.


Their hope is to eventually diminish the power and influence of Thailand's own indigenous networks by gradually building up the capacity of Wall Street & London's system administrators. Just like in the example of Georgia, ignorance and good intentions are used to swell the ranks of these networks; and, just like in Georgia, they are kept purposefully dependent on the constant and substantial support provided by Wall Street & London, as local contributions are almost never enough. And while many of these people may believe they are committed to a "higher cause," they are simply soldiers of another kind within an imperial system perfected over centuries of trial and error.

The activists on the ground may be of genuinely good-intentions, but surely there are some who realize the conflict between their stated mission and the insincere intentions of those funding them from abroad. Just like the army, this system of NGOs perpetuates itself on the ignorance of the general population -- of those drawn in by their good intentions to contribute to what they believe is a noble cause, and those throughout society who see these networks spreading across the planet with no idea of what their true purpose is.


Trevor Reese leaves us with one more relevant observation concerning the state of imperialism in the 18th century that still very much applies today:

In the Eighteenth century, colonial affairs were subsidiary issues in English political life; Sir John Seeley's dictum that the British people founded an empire in a fit of absence of mind is true in the sense that imperial expansion seldom commanded public attention. Although there were always a few critics in the country who expressed anti-imperialist sentiments and feared that the empire would ultimately escape from the control of the mother-country, they represented only a small minority. Generally, when people thought about the colonies, which was not often, they regard them with mild approval, and believe in the advantage of an empire even though they knew little about it.

In the same way, many people remain in the dark today about what Wall Street & London do overseas. While military interventions grab headlines and create a brief but confusing diversion for most, they are but mildly aware of the concept of NGOs, let alone how they work in tandem with the creeping war machine making its way from Tunisia to Thailand and everywhere in between.


While today's media is able to project images onto our perception of what an NGO is, with pictures of smiling Africans clutching bags of USAID rice, thriving wildlife, and sprouting, dew-covered seedlings, in reality it is a centralized operation built to tear down the old world, and replace it with a new one. It is a world that does not answer to its inhabitants for anything but the most superficial of levels; instead it answers to the people that rule over it -- the monied elite, ever present, with the most vicious among them feeding their competitors ruthlessly into their maw and gladly expanding into the place left at the table. 


Part IV: Empire's Weakness is Independence


Empires require subjects. Without subjects there is no empire. There is no fleet, there are no Marines, there are no imperial administrators. There are no laborers to gather and send resources back to be refined, no one to refine them in the factories and send them back, and surely no one to buy these manufactured goods when they arrive.


Empire prefers its subjects to be ignorant, easily manipulated, and indoctrinated in a manner that motivates them to reliably carry out their necessary function within the empire. Empire requires subjects who believe in the empire, and, most importantly, empire need subjects who are hopelessly dependent. It is no coincidence, then, that "independence" from England was declared in the  pursuit of freedom.



Image: By boycotting the British system, the Founding Fathers were already free and independent men by the time they signed the Declaration of Independence. The coming war would be to defend that freedom.


Before the great battles of the American Revolution took place, and the victory that followed, the Founding Fathers took it upon themselves to declare their independence not only by writ, but also by action. Our Founding Fathers ceased the import of British goods, they created their own monetary system, they assembled their own militias, and, most importantly, they formed their own government based upon their own values, not King George's self-interest.


This truly measurable independence turned out to be the key to their success; for independence is freedom, and freedom from tyranny is victory. The battle they fought was not one to free themselves; instead, it was fought to defend the freedom they had already achieved from the British system.


In "Naming Names: Your Real Government" a list of the most common, recurring corporate-financier interests, and the think-tanks they direct to create, promote, publish, and execute their policies was provided. The article concluded by stating:

These organizations represent the collective interests of the largest corporations on earth. They not only retain armies of policy wonks and researchers to articulate their agenda and form a consensus internally, but also use their massive accumulation of unwarranted influence in media, industry, [across a global network of NGOs,] and finance to manufacture a self-serving consensus internationally.

To believe that this corporate-financier oligarchy would subject their agenda and fate to the whims of the voting masses is naive at best. They have painstakingly ensured that no matter who gets into office -- in whichever country -- the guns, the oil, the wealth, and the power keep flowing perpetually into their own hands.

Video: Voting is not an option. Noam Chomsky in 1993 regarding NED: "It's about what you would expect from a bipartisan democracy campaign -- it's an attempt to impose what is called democracy, meaning rule by the rich and the powerful, without interference by the mob but within the framework of formal electoral procedures." 


This is confirmed in a talk given by Noam Chomsky in 1993, where he stated about the National Endowment for Democracy's work, "it's an attempt to impose what is called democracy, meaning rule by the rich and the powerful, without interference by the mob but within the framework of formal electoral procedures." Quite clearly it is, along with Open Society, and the vast network of system administrators being built up across the planet working in witless tandem with NATO, building in the swath of destruction it leaves behind the homogeneous workings of a global corporate-financier-run empire.

If the world is indeed run by corporate-financier interests, and voting is not only futile but gives the population a false sense of security, what can we do instead to declare our independence from modern empire?


On a daily basis, across the planet, billions of people witlessly pay into this empire, buying their products, paying them their attention on diversions like TV, radio, and the movie theater.  And participating in systems, organizations, and causes that, like the "Georgia Trustees," may have started out working for prison reform, but ended up handing the empire another thriving colony to exploit. It is clear, then, that vast campaigning, elections, rallies, and protests are not necessary or even viable options in dismantling this system -- rather our daily decisions to boycott their corporations, pull the plug on our TVs, switch off the radio, leave the theaters empty -- refuse to recognize the legitimacy of corporate-backed institutions and organizations on both national and international levels.





Video: The Fab Lab. Turning consumers into producers with manufacturing technology, open source collaboration, and innovation. It also opens the doors for communities to work together and solve their own problems, rather than waiting for them to be solved by disingenuous elected representatives.

Instead, find local solutions, pursue self-sufficiency, self-reliance, and leverage technology to do for ourselves tomorrow what we depend on corporations to do for us today. We can start today, by simply "voting" local with our wallets, "voting" to read, watch, and listen to truly independent media instead of Hollywood -- or, better yet, by creating content ourselves.

The same could be said with the news. Stop humoring the professional liars on BBC who get caught in serial scams involving paid-for documentaries, biased reporting, and flat-out lying to their audience. There is a thriving alternative media that already proves the merits of doing more, doing better, and doing it all ourselves.

As was concluded in "The Real Revolution:"

They need us; we don’t need them. That’s the big secret. We get our freedom back as soon as we take back our responsibilities for food, water, security, the monetary system, power, and manufacturing; that is independence. Independence is freedom, freedom is independence. We’ll never be free as long as we depend on the Fortune 500 for our survival.

Fixing these problems unfolding overseas starts with fixing the problems in our own backyards. Boycott the globalists, cut off their support, undermine their system, and they lose their ability to commit these atrocities. That will be a real revolution, and it can start today. Not through burning cities and masked rebels waving flags, but through communities no longer dependent and fueling a corrupt system we all know must come to an end.

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.