Interesting article argues that the real purpose of the attack on Serbia is as a first step in a NATO plan to control Caspian Sea oil at Russia's expense. This whole "humanitarian" thing is just propaganda cover.
|
|
|
|
TUESDAY
MAY 11
1999
Did Mort Zuckerman
let the cat out of the bag?
By Samuel L. Blumenfeld
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
In a column several weeks ago, we expressed the opinion
that the real target of NATO is not puny Yugoslavia, but that
huge continental expanse known as Russia. We pointed out
that NATO had formed a string of political-military
partnerships with nations bordering Russia -- from
Lithuania and the Ukraine in Europe to Georgia and
Azerbaijan in the Caucasus. We quoted NATO's own
publication as our source of information. Subsequent to that
column, NATO had its 50th anniversary hoopla in
Washington in which it proclaimed its new mandate as
Globocop. There wasn't much of an objection from
Congress, which has yet to ratify this new NATO treaty that
commits America's military forces to support NATO in its
new aggressive geopolitical Strategic Concept.
As we all know, NATO is not a global charity.
Humanitarianism is merely a convenient propaganda front
created to gain popular support for its present war against
Yugoslavia and its future humanitarian wars. There is little
doubt that NATO knew what the consequences of its
bombing would be: retaliation against the Kosovars and
their mass expulsion from Kosovo. NATO also knew that
neither Milosevic, nor any other Serbian leader, could accept
its blunt ultimatum, thus precipitating a war. The war was
needed to serve notice on future enemies that NATO had
the military means to impose its will unconditionally, and
that it was better to surrender than fight.
But let's get real. Behind all of the hypocritical rhetoric about
human rights is a much more powerful motivation. What is
really at stake is not ethnic harmony, but enormous
economic wealth in the form of oil and other minerals.
NATO is the military front for the Council on Foreign
Relations, which is supported by such corporate giants as
Chase Manhattan, Exxon, United Technologies, Lucent,
Xerox, AT&T, J.P. Morgan, Chevron, Texaco, Shell,
Newsweek, Time Warner, Mobil, Pennzoil, and a hundred
more companies. These corporate entities apparently
approve of the CFR as an instrument of foreign policy. Its
directors and members are the individuals who have made
the decision to go to war. All of the major players in the
Clinton administration are from the CFR. These are the
policy makers who voted for war against Yugoslavia. The
CFR and NATO share the same world vision and operate in
concert.
Mortimer Zuckerman, owner of U.S. News and World
Report, is a member of the CFR. He frequently writes
editorials in his magazine. The May 10 editorial is entitled
"The big game gets bigger. Russia will gain wealth and
influence if it controls Caspian Sea oil." After taking note of
Russia's present weakness in Europe, he writes, "But in
southern Eurasia, off the political radar of the West, Russia
is making much of its limited resources in a region of
weaker states where it still retains influence and remains
welcome. We had better wake up to the dangers or one day
the certainties on which we base our prosperity will be
certainties no more."
Apparently, the oil and gas reserves in that area of the world
are valued up to $4 trillion, and that's why NATO is
venturing so far off its North Atlantic base to form
partnerships with those Eurasian nations that sit on that
wealth. NATO and its CFR corporate sponsors want to be
able to use American military assets to assure their ability to
control that area should there be "ethnic disharmony" or
"human rights violations." Who would be the enemy in
that area?
Zuckerman writes, "The competition for dominance in the
Caspian will be the 21st century version of the 19th century
covert duel between the Russian and British empires for
control of central Asia." Zuckerman asks, "What are we
doing about it?" His solution: "The first and most critical
strategic step is clearly for the United States to ensure that
multiple pipelines will be built out of the Caspian region,
including at least one main export pipeline that would go
through Turkey, a crucial ally."
Aha, now we know why NATO is not concerned over how
Turkey is treating its Kurdish dissidents. Forget about
humanitarianism and ethnic cleansing. We need Turkey for
NATO's Eurasian strategy.
Finally, Zuckerman writes, "There is anxiety that American
opposition to Russia might play into the hands of the even
more undemocratic and anti-Western nationalist politicians
waiting for a crisis in Moscow. These are reasonable
arguments -- but make no mistake about it, the risks pale by
comparison with the risks we run if Russia wins the biggest
game while we sit on the sidelines."
There you have it in a nutshell. We must risk nuclear
World War III in order to gain political and military control
of natural resources on Russia's borders. I wonder how we
would feel if a group of foreign powers, armed with bombers
and nuclear missiles, began surrounding the United States
with its intention of gaining control over the natural
resources in our backyard. I think we might begin to behave
like the Russians who have good reason not to trust NATO.
All they have to do is read Mortimer Zuckerman's editorial
to know exactly what NATO is thinking and planning.
Meanwhile, the mad bomber keeps bombing Belgrade,
accidentally hitting the Chinese embassy, killing three
people, wounding 20. American pilots are being used by
NATO to kill innocent people and permanently damage
America's moral standing in the world. And Congress can't
do a thing but provide Clinton with more money to
continue the bombing. Never has the Congress been more
divided and confused in its deliberations.
What has actually happened is that America has become a
colony of NATO, which can now use American men and
women and our military assets to carry out its Strategic
Concept without the consent of the American people,
forcibly paid for by the American taxpayer. Is there a better
definition of a colony?
Meanwhile, we'd better start asking on what do we base our
prosperity? On the resources of other nations, or on
economic freedom and the resourcefulness of the American
people? Mort Zuckerman has got it wrong. We don't need to
control everybody else's resources in order to be prosperous.
Nor should it be the policy of our government to prevent
Russia from gaining wealth from the resources in its own
backyard. A prosperous Russia would not be a threat to our
own prosperity.
Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of eight books on
education, including "Homeschooling: A Parents Guide to
Teaching Children." His books are available on
Amazon.com.
|
