The US/UN/NATO Race for Global Full Spectrum Dominance. (3/4)
By Christopher Black, James Henry Fetzer, Alex Mezyaev, Christof Lehmann. (Part 1/4) (Part 2/4) (Part 4/4)
Common Denominators in US/NATO Subversion Strategies and the Institutionalization of Irregular Warfare and Subversion.
There are certain common denominators that are part of every attempted subversion:
- The establishment or presence of a foreign influence within the targeted nations.
- The use of domestic elements, such as a minority political party, the use of dissenting political organizations, organizations that represent ethnic or cultural diversity, the use of militant opposition movements, ethnic and religious minorities, exile governments, terrorist organizations, and/or any other factors that can be used to either create or aggravate internal contests or struggles.
• The attempt to either overthrow a government or to destabilize the country sufficiently to justify an intervention under a pretext like countering terrorism or by use of perversions of international law like the responsibility to protect.
• The co-opting of geo-politically significant locations, access to resources and markets, and the denying of access to resources and markets for antagonistic nations or those who are siding with antagonistic nations.
Institutionalized Subversion. As discussed above, NATO has since its 25th Summit in Chicago in 2012, made ”interventions”, which implies cooperation with illegitimate militant organizations, an integrated part of its official doctrine. xliii(ibid.)
The fact that NATO has made subversion the primary instrument for expansionism is further emphasized by the content of a Training Circular that is being used with the US Special Forces at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina.
The Training Circular, TC 18-01, which is so sensitive that it is provided with a destruction notice that instructs owners of the document to destruct it by any possible means to prevent unauthorized dissemination, states among other:
- ” Training Circular (TC) 18-01, Special Forces Unconventional Warfare, defines the current United States (U.S.) Army Special Forces (SF) concept of planning and conducting Unconventional Warfare (UW) operations. For the foreseeable future U.S. Forces will predominantly engage in irregular warfare (IW) operations.
- The intent of U.S. 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.
- Combat support includes all of the activities of indirect and direct support in addition to combat operations.
The TC 18-01 has been published on nsnbc in its entirety and downloadble PDF format. xliv
It is normal that a nation entertains special operations units for defense purposes. What makes the TC 18-01 and implicitly US/NATO military doctrine uniquely criminal, is that the TC 18-01 clearly states that the US will predominantly be fighting ”irregular wars” in the foreseeable future, and that it in the form of the TC 18-01 provides a step by step manual for manufacturing political opposition into dissent, dissent into resistance and terrorism, terrorism into insurgency, with the explicit goal to overthrow the legitimate government of a targeted, sovereign nation; with the explicitly expressed purpose to accomplish U.S. Strategic Objectives.
It can hardly be emphasized enough that the combination of the US/NATO´s illegal warfare, combined with interventions based a presumed responsibility to protect a targeted population from the crisis which it itself manufactures, combined with an absolute and overt disregard for international law and the institutionalization of quasi judicial instruments, constitutes a direct road towards global tyranny. Global Tyranny is merely a less euphemistic synonym for U.S. Global Full Spectrum Dominance.
This quest for global tyranny is inherently opposed to any peaceful co-existence between sovereign nations. It is, although it is making use of ethnic diversity, opposed to ethnic tolerance. It is, although it is making use of human rights and slogans about democracy, inherently opposed to human rights, justice, and self-determination.
It has, since 2010 begun to intensify the targeting of Nepal, Burma, Pakistan, Thailand, Lao, Vietnam, the DPRK, and even its presumed ally, the Philippines with the purpose to create a crisis about the South China Sea.
Intensified Implementation of US/NATO Global Full Spectrum Dominance in Asia.
Nepal – The Exemplary Destruction of a Nation State, Sponsored by Soros. Nepal´s geo-political position, its richness in ethnic, religious, cultural and political diversity, and the fact that the targeting of Nepal is about to mature, makes Nepal a perfect model on which US/NATO subversion strategies can be explained. A closer look at Nepal lets us understand the modus operandi for US/NATO subversion so we are able to better recognize the red flags in other Asian nations.
Until 2006 Nepal was governed more or less exclusively by the King and the Nepali royal family. It was until then one of the worlds oldest functioning monarchies. The royal family of Nepal had very good ties to both British and Danish royalty. In spite of its landlocked geo-political position in Asia, it was strongly oriented towards Europe. The position of Nepal as a European aligned Asian monarchy had its basis in post-colonial times. A subsequent cold war made Nepal a front-line state between the capitalist and the socialist blocks.
Subsequent to the end of the cold war, and in tact with the transition towards a more open, joint venture based Chinese economy, the position of the royal Family and Nepal as post-colonial, cold-war front-line state became rapidly obsolete. European support for the monarchy dwindled and a long suppressed, legitimate popular demand for political, legal and social change became ever more outspoken.
From 1996 to 2006 the then illegal Maoist Party of Nepal fought a bitter rebellion against the monarchy. The rebellion succeeded due to the overwhelming support from the population in rural districts. In 2006 the rebellion resulted in political and legal reforms. After the first post-rebellion elections the Maoists held almost 40 % of the Constituent Assembly.
While the UK, other Western powers and India had responded to the rebellion with gravest concerns and somewhat ambivalent support for the old regime, the prospect of a Nepalese National Assembly in which the Maoist Party held almost 40 % of the seats and where other Communist parties were represented too provoked a much less ambivalent response.
Ethnicity. The New Parliament embarked on the mission of re-organizing Nepal. The Maoist party envisioned a new model that was based on the distribution of power to local communities. A State Restructuring Commission was formed which should suggest how the old, centralized Nepal could delegate more political influence to the people, to regions and to communities.
Nepal is, although poor with respect to economy, extremely rich in culture and ethnicity, and until recently it also was rich in tolerance and respect for diversity. This ethnic diversity, however, was also a pure treasure trove for anyone, like the United Kingdom, the E.U., the USA, and Soros, who would not accept a Nepal that had become so self-confident that it began implementing a foreign policy that did no longer accept dictates from the traditional and modo-colonial powers.
The population of Nepal is composed of over 100 ethnic minorities and over 300 casts. It is a situation that is potentially catastrophic for a nation that is being targeted by foreign influences who have centuries of experience in colonizing the world with the aid of the ”divide and conquer” strategy. What complicated the matter for Nepal and what makes it so easy to be taken advantage of is, that it is impossible to create regions along ethnic lines without creating new minorities in each of the federations regions. It is a situation much like that in Serbia and Bosnia Herzegovina.
Federalism. The Maoist Party originally intended to create a secular state with regions along community lines, with regional popular committees and administrations. Without focus on ethnicity, religion or casts. The question why the restructuring of Nepal went awry can be answered with two words; ”Foreign Interests”. We will even see that some of the names that were instrumental in carving up Yugoslavia and in creating ethnic violence in Bosnia have reappeared in Nepal.
Foreign Interests, Soros and the United Nations Framework Team.
The Hungarian born multi-billionaire and self-proclaimed philanthropist George Soros is the main sponsor of the United Nations Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action, short FT. The FT has since 2006 become very active in Nepal. We will hear more about Soros when discussing the South China Sea and the International Crisis Group which he also sponsors, but for now let us focus on Nepal.
In Nepal, the United Nations is active with twenty-eight UN agencies and departments who are working directly under the superintendence of the Soros sponsored Framework Team in Nepal.xlv Among other are represented the IMF, FAO, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNDP, UNODPC, UN-WFP, WHO, and the World Bank.
The UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action is led by the US-national Gay Rosenblum-Kumar. In Nepal it is represented by Ian Martin. Martin is known for having implemented ”Structural changes in other ”targeted nations”, including Bosnia Herzegovina and Cyrenaica, Libya. In both cases the helpful interventions of the FT and Ian Martin were correlated with considerable ethnic violence.
Besides its involvement in Bosnia and Nepal, the Framework team has over the last decade supported similar initiatives toward ”structural reforms and change” in Ecuador, Fiji, Lesotho, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Kenya where the US is currently aggressively trying to establish a stronger military footprint, Mauritania, the Maldives, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, where President Laurent Gbagbo was ousted with the help of the UN and France in 2010, in preparation for the war on Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe implemented much needed post-colonial land reforms and who is one of the last remaining anti-imperialist African leaders. What each and every of these nations have in common is that they are being targeted for a move towards a foreign imposed federalism that throws the doors wide open for the UN/US/NATO alliances´ divide and conquer policy.
The Soros funded NGO NEFIN is advocating indigenous Nepali peoples rights, among other with respect to ”indigenous land ownership”. xlvi NEFIN is naturally advocating that every and each of the ethnic minorities in Nepal ”must” be granted equal access to the ownership of land.
As discussed above, Nepal is a nation with over 100 ethnic groups and over 300 casts. Implementing square inch justice in ethnically based land-ownership rights is utterly impossible, regardless whether Nepal implements a six or an eleven regions model. Even if it would subdivide each of eleven regions into numerous sub-regions there would still remain a basis for conflicts.
What Nepal experiences is a cynical attempt to divide the nation along ethnic lines and to create a deadlocked situation that will be exploded into an unstoppable cycle of violence whenever it is most opportune for those who have targeted the country. The victims are national unity, diversity, tolerance and respect, and the people of Nepal who are being railroaded into massacring one another.
Some ethnic based violence has already occurred in Nepal and it is systematically being aggravated under the pretense of humanitarian principles. Unless the Soros / UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action under Gay Rosenblum-Kumanr and Ian Martin are opposed; unless the seeding of ethnic division by NEFIN, are opposed; it will merely be a question about what time would be the most convenient for the USA, UK, and NATO to aggravate a matured crisis to the extend that another ”humanitarian intervention” under the guise of an assumed ”responsibility to protect” will be ignited.
The following Asian countries are according to reliable sources also being targeted for ”balkanization” on the basis of ethnic and religious diversity by the Soros funded UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action:Burma/Myanmar, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, Sri Lanka.
Other Asian nations that are either being directly or indirectly targeted by Western power brokers, or which are being positioned into conflict with targeted nations include among other, Afghanistan, Georgia, Ossetia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Vietnam, Lao, the Philippines.
The ongoing violent clashes between Buddhist and Muslim groups in Burma, the clashes between so called red shirts and yellow shirts in Thailand, the positioning of the Philippines for becoming a front line state in the containment of Chinese access to resources, transportation of resources and Chinese access to Asian markets. The list of subversive activities is virtually inexhaustible.
This development should raise warning flags about the volatility, vulnerability and potential dangers the region will face, unless the US/NATO ambition for global, full spectrum dominance is challenged by the development of coherent and consistent national and regional strategies.
The article was originally published in full under a different title, and can be read here: