The New Roman Empire

Or consider again the speech of Sen. Albert J. Beveridge to the U.S. Senate, Jan. 9, 1900: “The Philippines are ours forever, ‘territory belonging to the United States’, as the Constitution calls them. And just beyond the Philippines are China’s illimitable markets. We will not retreat from them either… Our largest trade henceforth must be with Asia. The Pacific is our ocean …the archipelago is a base for the commerce of the East. It is a base for military and naval operations against the only powers with whom conflict is possible; a fortress thrown up in the Pacific defending our Western coast, commanding the waters of the Orient, and giving us a point from which we can instantly strike and seize the possessions of any foe…”….(Cf. Peter Hayes, Lyuba Zarsky and Walden Bello: American Lake, Australia, Penguin, 1986) But if they did not command China, India, the Orient, the whole Pacific for purposes of offense, defense and trade, the Philippines are so valuable in themselves that we should hold them… a revelation of vegetable and mineral riches…”[12] (Underscoring added.) That was 1900.

George Kennan (1948): [Let] maintain this position of disparity

Now consider the basic goal stated in Policy Planning Study (PPS23), top secret document written by George Kennan (of the State Department Planning Staff) in 1948: We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. … In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity … To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. … We should cease to talk about vague and … unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.” [13] (Underscoring added.)

Of course, in practice the U.S. government talks about those ‘idealistic slogans’ in order to rationalize their actions and pacify the public.

Maintain 100,000 troops in Asia (1995 East Asian Strategic Report)

Consider also the 1995 East Asian Strategic Report of the U.S. Defense Department showing the furtherance of the US economic interest in Mindanao and Southeast Asian region and furtherance of the US geo-political interest in the Asia-Pacific region today: [This report] reaffirms our commitment to maintain a stable forward presence in the region, at th-e existing level of about 100,000 troops, for the foreseeable future … for maintaining forward deployment of U.S. Forces and access and basing rights for U.S. and allied forces. If the American presence is Asia were removed, our ability to affect the course of event would be constrained, our market and our interests would be jeopardized.[14]

Creation and Maintenance of Full Spectrum Dominance

The “Joint Vision 2020”

To maintain and expand U.S. power, a policy of “Full Spectrum Dominance” is envisioned. Conceptualized in 1997 as Joint Vision 2010, the “Joint Vision 2020” was issued May 30, 2000 by the US Department of Defense. Full Spectrum Dominance is defined as “the defeat of any adversary or control of any situation across the full range of military operation…. The overall goal of the transformation described in this document is the creation of a force that is dominant across the full spectrum of military operations – persuasive in peace, decisive in war, preeminent in any form of conflict.” This includes Star Wars style “dominating space dimension of military operation to protect US interests and investments.…to control the space medium to ensure US dominance on future battlefields” [15] Can you remember the use of satellites in the Operation Desert Storm?

Bush “Strike First” Policy

Again to insure such dominance, the Bush Administration instituted a “strike first policy” (National Security Strategy published in September 2002. Again listen to this: “our military must … dissuade future military competition; deter threats against U.S. interests, allies, and friends; and decisively defeat any adversary if deterrence fails. … the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. forces. … Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States. … America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. … We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed. … We cannot let our enemies strike first…. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively. … Policies that further strengthen market incentives and market institutions are relevant for all economies—industrialized countries, emerging markets, and the developing world. … Improving stability in emerging markets is also key … Our long-term objective should be a world in which all countries have investment-grade credit ratings that allow them access to international capital markets and to invest in their future. … Free markets and free trade are key priorities of our national security strategy.”[16] [Underscoring added])

Share This Post