A Global Coup

by Guillaume Faye

  Unlike Japan, China possesses the necessary natural resources to support its own economic development and strategic autonomy. […] By following the rules of the market, Chinese businesses will gradually increase their capacity to exploit the continental Chinese workforce, whose members are beyond count, cheap and hardworking.

  China is thus destined to become the ‘world’s factory’ and the principal global exporter, which, according to Hawkins, will enable it to supplant and control US economy, with America no longer being ‘the world’s most powerful nation’.

  Domestic Disorder

  Should George Bush be defeated in the 2004 elections, will the NAI and the current neoconservative dominion vanish? Such is the main issue not only for the current American administration, but also for the entire American political and mediatic spectrum, in addition to the world’s chancelleries. There are, first of all, some members of the Democratic establishment who believe that if Bush is indeed re-elected,

  … he will unleash an entirely uncontrollable policy that shall undoubtedly jeopardise the very stability of the American regime. One of these sources has implicitly confirmed Bill Vann’s analysis by stating that European governments had an absolute obligation to “follow” the American policy and “contain” it without resorting to provocation, in an attempt to avoid any and all severe extensions. By doing so, however, what they suggest is but a desperate and double-edged tactic reflecting the current impasse; for being prudent in one’s treatment of the Bush government is synonymous with reinforcing its chances of being re-elected. (De Defensa, 15/09/2003.)

  In the event that Bush is not re-elected and a Democrat seizes control of the White House, it is not at all certain that we will indeed witness a shift in America’s currently authoritarian, aggressive and warmongering policy, as pointed out by several well-informed commentators. Why? Simply because new American leaders will find themselves unable to accomplish such a shift, as the crease resulting from the NAI cannot be ‘ironed’.

  The first reason is that ‘America is drifting away from us, falling ever more prisoner to its colossal plans to counter the terrorist threat’ (De Defensa), as well as to its catastrophically belligerent manner of dealing with the latter. Matthew Riemer, who works as an analyst at the PINR institute, wonders whether, ‘upon its arrival, a new Democrat administration would continue to implement the Bush doctrine out of necessity’. The answer is yes. In other words, America’s neo-imperialist logic cannot be brought to an end, nor could the related logic of restraining the domestic public opinion and constructing an ‘authoritarian state’.

  So why is it that this evolution cannot be terminated in the event of a Republican defeat at the White House? Why is it impossible for America to relinquish the current neoconservative policy? Simply because, according to a number of American observers, both the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex have already seized power, whereas the presidential function, which is subject to ‘democratic’ election, abides by the presence of masters who stand above it and possess genuine sovereignty. We must forget about Tocqueville.

  ***

  Real American power was once founded upon a cultural basis (that of mental influence) rather than a military one in the classical sense. It now seems, however, that the NAI has initiated a decline in America’s global appeal. The number of foreign visitors, including tourists and students, has been plummeting since 2001, disheartened by the administrative hassles. Anti-American hostility is surfacing on a global scale, and we are witnessing an incredible mixture of neo-isolationism and interventionism implemented by the current American administration.

  Above all else, however, what is crumbling is America’s cultural prestige and its sway over global mass culture, which once represented the true pillars of US power and influence and peaked during the 1980s. All that was trendy was American back then, but this is no longer the case. In July 2003, British cultural magazine Prospect published a study conducted by Mark Cousins, in which he anticipates the onset of an opposite tendency: the very style of Hollywoodian cinema, American music and television is experiencing a decline in popularity among the global public. They are hated and considered ‘corny’, in an accusatory attitude that denies any right of appeal. It seems that American productions are no longer seen as creative, but repetitive. In Mark Cousins’ view, ‘America is fatigued’ and its ridiculous new imperialism is but a desperate attempt to compensate for the world’s ‘disenchantment’ with the USA, one that only manages to tragically reinforce the latter. Could it be that the neoconservatives have actually succeeded in putting the American myth to death?

  If this is indeed the case (and the decline and depletion of the global American cultural model has been initiated), it would be a very grave development from America’s perspective, since the USA has turned this sector into one of its main assets of influence. Paradoxically, although US foreign policy was previously supported in its undertakings by the impact of American productions and America’s cultural appeal (in addition to that of the American way of life), the negative effect of US neo-imperialism and America’s unilateral foreign policy upon the world’s public opinions may well lead to the rejection of this ‘way of life’ and result in a diminishment of US cultural productions, which, in return, is certain to considerably weaken the American foreign policy itself.

  ***

  According to an analysis published in De Defensa & Eurostratégies (19/09/2003), America’s new imperialism and foreign policy have led it to perceive the world differently from the way it actually is, by causing it to regard the latter in a virtual manner, thus falling from the heights of realism into the depths of sheer delusion. First of all, this irresponsible espousal of virtual perception conjures up the image of ‘a tremendous power on the point of increasing the state’s indebtment, this bizarre phenomenon of “wealthy poverty”’. Furthermore, it acts as a factor towards the dreadful creation of global disorder and destabilisation:

  America’s capacity for disorder is of an unrivalled magnitude. […] We have not seen anything yet. The apotheosis shall come from the banks of the Potomac river, for it is there, at the very heart and core of it all, that ultimate disorder shall be born, a disorder that shall finalise our system’s destabilisation. It goes without saying that we require neither a Bin Laden nor a Saddam for this to happen. G. W., Rummy and friends are perfectly up to the task themselves.

  The global disorder that the NAI may well trigger and which could lead to a worldwide flare-up will not spare America either, as it may find itself shaken by a historically unequalled domestic crisis, one that has the potential to put an end to more than 200 years of constitutional stability. It is widely known that troubling rifts are emerging in the American states located along the Mexican border. Year by year, these states are being increasingly invaded by ‘Latino’ immigrants and have seen the emergence of a secessionist movement with the ambition of establishing an independent state known as Republica del Nord, in an amputation procedure that would reduce the size of the American territory by a rate of 15 %.

  There are also speculations regarding the possible rebellion of certain states against the American central authority. For instance, there are ’ten north-eastern states’ that ‘have decided to embrace a common environmental policy that abides by the norms of the Kyoto Protocol and contradicts Washington’s own policy’, thereby contesting the American anti-ecological refusal to submit to its anti-pollutive international obligations. ‘This is one of those signs that demand our attention’.

  ***

  One also encounters some highly bizarre institutions at the core of the current American government. According to an investigation conducted by The Times on the 10th of September 2003 and which confirmed the information revealed by British secret services, it is the OSP (Office of Special Planning), a ‘discreet’ para-governmental organism lacking any official status of its own, that was responsible for implementing the plan against Saddam Hussein’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’.
This agency, controlled by Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and Donald Rumsfeld, lies at the heart of America’s neoconservative and neo-imperialist apparatus.

  Wolfowitz and Feith, respectively the Pentagon’s second and third in command, were responsible for the creation of the OSP, whose director is Abraham Schulsky. In addition, the OSP comprises numerous other neoconservatives who have no competence whatsoever in matters of intelligence or military affairs [which accounts for what is stated above, namely that the American policy, entrusted to incompetent individuals and influenced by amateurs, has become utterly erratic]. It comes as no surprise that Schulsky is the protégé of Richard Perle, the “Prince of Darkness” who resigned from his position of president of the Defense Policy Board just before the war started. The OSP has recruited Elliot Abrams, a man who supported the Guatemalan genocide back in the 1980s and acts as the National Security Council’s director for the Middle-East. These neoconservatives are closely connected to the Zionist lobby, even if their reports were in complete contradiction to the Mossad’s, whose services did not believe for an instant that Iraq could ever be a threat to either the US or Israel.

  The OSP fully supports Ariel Sharon’s uncompromising policy against the Palestinians. It is not surprising that, due to their vengeful state of mind, Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz now want to target Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia using the same flood of falsified “secret service reports” that was resorted to prior to initiating the war against Iraq, accusing these Arab countries not only of financing, protecting and organising terrorism, but also of sending terrorists into occupied Iraq. All the fake “secret service reports” sent to the White House are provided and concocted by the OSP’s personnel and networks.

  European intelligence agencies have interpreted the termination of the “road map” created by the White House in a desire to reconcile the Israelis with the Palestinians as a deliberate move orchestrated by a number of Israeli militaries — in particular Ariel Sharon and his Defence minister Shaul Mofaz — with both the OSP’s and Wolfowitz’s complicity and in harmony with the latter’s recommendations.

  ***

  We are witnessing the revolt of senior officials against the ruling American administration, which is now being accused of having lost its mind. Thomas E. White, who resigned from his Secretary of Army post at the Pentagon, co-authored a book entitled Reconstructing Eden, published in early September 2003. The book, which has caused quite an uproar, openly states what an ever-growing number of political and military officials have been thinking and whispering; and the fact that one of the Pentagon’s own pundits acknowledges such things is truly food for thought.

  He explains that the Iraqi campaign was devised in a state of utter unpreparedness; that America’s current failure to occupy and reconstruct the country was not only easily foreseeable, but had even been predicted by high-ranking officials; and that the pursuit of such an American policy in the Middle-East (as the USA finds itself trapped in a dead-end without being able to retreat) is certain to lead to various disasters. He mentions the ‘accelerating disintegration of Washington’s Americanistic system under the auspices of G. W. Bush and the policy inspired by the neoconservatives’. The ‘plans’ elaborated by the Pentagon’s ‘experts’ in connection to post-war Iraq are utterly imbecilic. This brutal hostility, displayed by a man who, four months before the release of his merciless criticism, was one of the Pentagon’s leaders, testifies to the magnitude of the crisis afflicting the American government.

  White had, in fact, been callously compelled to hand in his notice when, at a time when he still held his function, he began to voice such ultra-critical opinions. In his work, he castigates the utopianism of wanting to establish a pro-American country in the space of a few months and accuses his peers of being incompetent and disregarding (as well as despising) the facts on the ground, in addition to lacking any specific plan towards Iraq’s reconstruction. The ‘Bush doctrine’ ‘s sole effect is the spreading of chaos, in a manner mimicking the outbreak of a contagion.

  This event proves that the confrontation taking place at the heart of the Pentagon between the latter’s chief, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and numerous civil and military executives (including general Shinseki, the former Chief of Staff who stated that post-war Iraq was both ‘unmanageable and disastrous’, believing that it would take half a million men to stand the slightest chance of controlling the country) is growing ever more intense. Since White himself was at the very core of the neoconservative team and not its Democratic challenger, his revolt should be viewed as a first indication of systemic disintegration. Another example of dissident behaviour is that of US Air Force Lieutenant-Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who left the team heading by Feith, one of the Pentagon’s most uncompromising neoconservatives, before pouring out her discontentment in adverse pamphleteering articles, in which she highlighted her former associates’ cynicism, irresponsibility and villainy.

  ***

  On the Pravda.ru website, US army captain Roniel Aledo has expressed the conviction that Russia will not allow the US to establish a global strategic superiority and that it has already begun to ‘re-fortify’ its high-end military apparatuses (in ‘Toward a Multipolar World again’). This belief is supported by the fact that the Russian military manoeuvres which took place in the Indian ocean in spring 2003 simulated strikes against American targets, particularly naval and spatial ones. In a display of exaggerated optimism, Aledo has also expressed the belief that France, Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg will succeed in founding a ‘mini-NATO’, one that is entirely independent from the US. In his view, the ‘unipolarity’ advocated by Washington is but a dream.

  ***

  On the 19th of May 2003, The International Herald Tribune claimed that, in order to continue demonstrating its power without incurring any risks, the USA will still need to attack (pardon me, I meant ‘liberate’, of course) further small nations. It published an inquiry that attempted to prove that Cuba could turn out to be the next target, so that Fidel Castro may be overthrown and a pro-American regime established. The advantage of such a development lies in limiting the exodus of illegal Cuban immigrants towards Florida (Author’s Note: Mr. Mitterand’s widow will definitely not be happy about this). If one is to believe the assertions published by the above-mentioned newspaper, the most passionate partisan supporting the Cuban invasion is none other than G. W. Bush’s brother Jeb, the acting governor of the state of Florida.

  ***

  On the WorldNetDaily website (19/05/2003), Patrick Buchanan remarked that the most prominent nations belonging to the ‘Axis of Evil’ (Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea) had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden or the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and that it was Saudi Arabia that actually financed terrorism and had ‘truly vanquished America, since the latter is in need of its oil supplies and will not utter a single word against it’. He considers the NAI to have failed and to represent ‘a prelude to enormous future humiliations for the “Empire”’. He adds that it is necessary for the US to ‘go home’, in harmony with a neo-isolationist logic.

  On the 8th of September 2003, Howard Dean, a Democratic candidate, made the following declaration:

  Our President has created a far more dangerous situation in Iraq than ever before. He has turned this country into the main terrorist front.

  On the same day, we were treated to the following proclamation, made by Bob Graham, a Democratic senator in Florida: ‘Our President attaches more importance to the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan than to the resolution of America’s own problems’. This remark is an interesting one, as it demonstrates the fact that the Iraqi campaign and the current neoconservative policy are not necessarily perceived as signs of ‘egotistical imperialism’, nor are they always resisted in the name of pacifistic principles; instead, they are sometimes seen as the inappropriate manifestations of a costly sort of international altruism.

  ***

  In the Independent (27/07/2003), Patrick
Cockburn deemed America’s invasion policy and its ‘democratic’ remodelling of Iraq to be ‘utter nonsense’. In his eyes, the USA has acted without having planned ahead, an attitude that borders on dangerous folly. America’s global policy has become a worldwide ‘crisis factor’, exacerbating our world’s issues instead of resolving them. He also believes that Washington has been reinforcing both Al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism. Cockburn has, in fact, co-authored a book entitled Saddam Hussein: An American Obsession, which was published in Great Britain.

  ***

  According to the WorldNetDaily website (20/05/2003), the Muslims have decided to ‘take care of’ the USA. There is already a Virginia-based Islamic lobby and party in the US (the Muslim American Society) that intends to present its own candidates in all future elections, a fact which encourages Muslim immigration. The same is true of Minnesota and Michigan, both of which encompass highly important Islamic centres. There are already 8 million Muslims in the USA, which totals 153 elected representatives nationwide. This contradicts the ‘Islamophobia’ accusations targeting the Bush administration, an administration that has never opposed the Muslims.