Thursday, December 22, 2011

Climate change killing trees across the Sahel

Climate change killing trees across the Sahel, says study

One in six trees in the Sahel has died since the 1950s as temperatures rise, threatening livelihoods

Parched ground in Oud Guedara, west Africa. Long-term drought is killing trees in the Sahel, according to a new study. Photograph: Irina Fuhrmann/AFP/Oxfam
Trees throughout Africa's Sahel region — vital to peoples' livelihoods — are dying as a result of long-term drought linked to climate change, according to a study.
It found that one in six trees in the region has died since the 1950s, whilst a fifth of species has disappeared locally, because of rising temperatures and lower rainfall linked to climate change.
At some sites, average temperatures rose by 0.8 degrees Celsius and rainfall decreased by 48 per cent. Trees have shifted southward towards wetter areas.
This shift in the vegetation zones could have a severe impact on the lives of the Sahel's population warned Patrick Gonzalez, a climate change scientist from the University of California, Berkeley, in the United States, and lead author of the study, published online in the Journal of Arid Environments last week.
"People in the Sahel depend on trees for maintaining soil fertility and for firewood, hut poles, food and other essentials of life … so the loss of trees directly harms people's livelihoods," he told SciDev.Net.
The researchers combined aerial photographs captured between 1954 and 1989, field data from 2000–2002 relating to tree size and numbers and high-resolution satellite images from 2002 to show how tree distribution has changed across the region. Statistical analysis that compared this information with factors such as temperature, rainfall, human population and soil fertility showed that climate outweighed all other factors in driving this change, said Gonzalez.
Farmers in the region are already being forced to alter their techniques in response to changing climate. Many already practise natural regeneration — where they select, prune, and raise small trees to maturity in their fields ­— as an adaptation to climate change.
Farouk El-Baz, research professor and director of the Centre for Remote Sensing at Boston University, United States, said that, although the observations sounded credible, he found it difficult to believe that rising temperatures alone could be responsible for the lack of rain.
"The rain that reaches the Sahel does not originate there but it is part of the monsoon system. Thus a local rise in the temperature [would have] no effect on rain clouds," he said.
El-Baz, well known for his studies on arid landscapes — particularly deserts — said cyclical variation in rainfall as shown by previous drought periods must be considered, explaining that dry spells in the Sahel fluctuated drastically almost every seven years.
The study was partially funded by NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and the US Geological Survey.

UN chief: 'with 7 billion people we've run out of new forests and rivers'

UN chief: 'with 7 billion people we've run out of new forests and rivers'

Achim Steiner says population growth makes sustainability essential, as he prepares for green economy talks at Rio+20

COP17 in Durban : UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner  and Chris Huhne
UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner (left) and UK energy secretary Chris Huhne at the Durban Climate Change conference, South Africa. Photograph: IISD
Looking towards Rio+20, what are your expectations?
At the moment, Rio is an open invitation for the world to look at a summit of this kind as either an opportunity or simply another conference. From my perspective, given the economic turmoil we are witnessing in the world at the moment, we should view Rio as a world summit on the economy, or a world economic summit - but with a very important difference compared to a G8 or G20 summit, or an IMF/World Bank annual meeting.

In Rio, equity and sustainability will be central parameters of thinking about the future of our economies. That allows us to address some of the crises before this [current economic] crisis. Some of the problems we are facing did not begin with the banking, financial or debt crises; they were beginning to be visible and driving our economies and societies beforehand.
We have to make the link between the broader sustainable development agenda, which to some may seem a little bit abstract, and the very real crises of the moment but also not to simply get stuck in the symptoms. That's why I think both themes that have been chosen for Rio are potentially extremely relevant: the green economy because it really does seem to be a more focussed accelerated transition in our economic systems; and also the institutional framework for sustainable development ― that's the second theme ― which is essentially multilateral code language for how on earth are we going to actually work together in the architecture we have built up since the Second World War?
Can the idea of a green economy take root worldwide?
Let's acknowledge first of all that we live in economic times, and that economics in the broader sense of the word is one of the key means by which we make decisions in our society, whether you call it GDP growth, or you call it inflation or money supply or return on investment.
How do you capture the value of nature and its services in an economic context? Our systems of national accounting are so narrow and crude that they would actually value a forest fire possibly higher ― because of all the emergency services' expenditures and the reconstruction of houses ― than the actual loss of that forest ecosystem because of that fire, because we have no way of capturing the value of natural wealth to our economies.
You might well say we have done rather well without that in the last 200 years or 1,000 years where we could always turn to the next forest, the next valley, the next river. But the world today with 7 billion people has run out of places to turn to and therefore it needs to start managing, the priority being on sustainability.
So will that mean a debate in Rio on a new definition of GDP: green GDP?
Definitely. As usual, I don't think they will reach a single definition right there. But I think they will set a new system in motion in two, three, five years time. A lot of work needs to be done, but it's less than many think, because GDP is actually a remarkably crude indicator.
What will be the role of the private sector in pushing for this new green economy?
While still competing very much on good ideas, technologies and patents the private sector is actually very conscious that in the context of climate change there are so many risks now inherent in terms of the impact of climate change but also the uncertainty. Is it going to be a low–carbon economy? Do we invest in coal–fired power station or rather adapt to wind?
On the natural resources front, supply chains are becoming more and more vulnerable. Risk is becoming more pronounced for many businesses. Food–price markets are fluctuating violently because of extreme weather events.
People recognise the risks of environmental degradation: climate change, loss of ecosystems, scarcity of water and land to produce food. These are all factors that are putting the economy on a more unstable path, and that is why businesses with a degree of longer–term vision and strategy are increasingly looking to governments to address those risks. And they can be addressed only through the kind of scalable responses, such as moving from fossil fuels to renewables, that no individual business actors can actually bring about.
A well–functioning market is actually a regulated market, funnily enough, and not a Milton Friedman notion of 30 years ago of the less government the better. That is definitely emerging.
Some say managing a global green economy will require a different type of organisation from UNEP.
The debate about international environment governance is one example that we focus on in particular, because increasingly our [UNEP] governing council member states have said the system for environmental governance is simply not adequate, fragmented, very costly, and in need of reform.
Notions such as coherence, efficiency and more effective governance have led to people putting the motion on the table: do we need a United Nations environment organisation ― a specialised agency to more effectively develop policy in a coherent sense ― because at the moment, climate change, biodiversity and other issues are all separate conferences of the parties.
I would not see UNEP graduating into a cross–breed between the World Bank and the UNDP because you have the World Bank as our development finance institution together with the regional development banks. You have UNDP, UNIDO, WHO, and much of the objective of strengthening of environmental sustainability is to ensure it is promoted in the health sector and the agriculture sector in development decisions.
In order to strengthen environmental sustainability in international and national policy you also need a very effective advocate. Virtually every country has a ministry for the environment or an environmental agency which often began as a little department tucked within the ministry of agriculture or energy. Gradually, over time, environmental issues have become more important, and I think the international system is at that point where it needs to make a decision: do we want to have a more effective international environmental governance or do we want to leave it, at a moment where we are not happy?
My question is how do we strengthen the role of ministers responsible for the environment in the international policy process. The way our system is set up today is that if you have a specialised agency you have your own governance platform. That means when you meet and decide something, it has locus standi [legal standing]. So they make policy in the WTO, they make policy in the WHO. But when they discuss policy proposals in UNEP, they then have to send it to the [UN] General Assembly. And that's partly where the discussion is meant to go.
Do you think this will be achieved at Rio+20?
Most difficult negotiations began with a no–no and ended up with a Yes, OK I'll go along with it. I'm not second guessing what the outcome on 23 June [in Rio] will be but the fact of the matter is that over 122 countries in their submissions on 1 November called for a specialised [UN Environment] agency. So in Rio it needs to be discussed.
Maybe it will not be adopted. But even the United States has made it very clear they want to see a strengthening of environmental governance and a strengthening of UNEP. They are very concerned not to get into treaty threshold negotiations and they are not alone. But, then, a large number of countries actually want to go in that direction, so this is nothing new. It's on the table and that's a good thing because simply to shut your eyes and say we don't want to talk about it is what we've done for the last 10–15 years. In Rio it's on the table. Let's talk about it, let's see what the world can come up with.
Rio is not about negotiating a treaty in the broadest sense but a cooperative agreement between governments with some big–ticket items being discussed, perhaps the most interesting being beyond GDP and a new measure of wealth and the externalities of pollution and environmental damage so that you can go 'Right, lets bring that into the economic calculation of wealth of a nation and therefore a world'.
What are your hopes for Rio+20?
Basically that environmental policy will increasingly be viewed not as a constraint on development but really the enabling factor for future development and that when we talk about environmental standards, pollution standards, and efficiencies, that they will be appreciated for what they really are – a driver for greater economic efficiency, productivity, while creating fewer risks for society.

Global Temperature Record Reaches One-Third Century

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Planet X Linx<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Planet X You Tube LINX:

1. Surviving 2012 and Planet X - Part 1 of 5: The Threat:
Surviving 2012 and Planet X - Part 1 of 5: The Threat
2. Planet X- Coast to Coast AM Interview, Feb 17, 2011:
Planet X- Coast to Coast AM Interview, Feb 17, 2011
3. The Book of Enoch:
The Book of Enoch
4. Planet X- The Killshot with Major Ed Dames:
Planet X- The Killshot with Major Ed Dames
5. Planet X / Nibiru 2012 Flyby Scenarios:
Planet X / Nibiru 2012 Flyby Scenarios
6. NASA, Niburu and the 2012 Shift:
NASA, Niburu and the 2012 Shift
7. Planet X Special Report No. 1: Where is Planet X:
Planet X Special Report No. 1: Where is Planet X
8. Planet X: Sign of the Times:
Planet X: Sign of the Times
9. 2012: The Online Movie:
2012: The Online Movie
10. Planet X: Blue Star Destroyer:
Planet X: Blue Star Destroyer
11. Planet X Nibiru Nasa 2012 Doomsday Info Leaked:
Planet X Nibiru Nasa 2012 Doomsday Info Leaked
12. Nibiru Documentary - Planet X Video:
Nibiru Documentary - Planet X Video
13. Planet X- Coast to Coast AM, November 12th, 2010:
Planet X- Coast to Coast AM, November 12th, 2010
14. Planet-X what the Government is not telling you:
Planet-X what the Government is not telling you
16. Marshall Masters talks Planet-X:
Marshall Masters talks Planet-X
17. Approaching Brown Dwarf & Coming Earth Changes :
Approaching Brown Dwarf & Coming Earth Changes
18. Coast to Coast AM, May 20, 2011: Stardust & Planet X - James McCanney:
Coast to Coast AM, May 20, 2011: Stardust & Planet X - James McCanney
19. Doomsday & Brown Dwarf Star, Coast to Coast AM, February 11, 2011 :
Doomsday & Brown Dwarf Star, Coast to Coast AM, February 11, 2011
20. Surviving Planet X - Marshall Masters:
Surviving Planet X - Marshall Masters
21. Coast To Coast AM - LUCUS: Doomsday & Brown Dwarf Star
Coast To Coast AM - LUCUS: Doomsday & Brown Dwarf Star

Planet X You Tube Linx Website:

The Globalization of War: The "Military Roadmap" to World War III

The Globalization of War
The "Military Roadmap" to World War III
Michel Chossudovsky and Finian Cunningham (Editors)

December 2011

[scroll down for Reader's Table of Contents]
The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest.
The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.
The concept of the “Long War” has characterized US military doctrine since the end of World War II. The broader objective of global military dominance in support of an imperial project was first formulated under the Truman administration in the late 1940s at the outset of the Cold War.
In September 1990, some five weeks after Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Kuwait, US President and Commander in Chief George Herbert Walker Bush delivered a historical address to a joint session of the US Congress and the Senate in which he proclaimed a New World Order emerging from the rubble of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union.
Bush Senior had envisaged a world of "peaceful international co-operation", one which was no longer locked into the confrontation between competing super powers, under the shadow of the doctrine of  "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) which had characterized the Cold War era.

George H Walker Bush addressed a Joint Session
of the US Congress and the Senate, September 1990

Bush declared emphatically at the outset of what became known as "the post-Cold War era" that:

“a new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times… a new world order can emerge: A new era freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.”
Of course, speeches by American presidents are often occasions for cynical platitudes and contradictions that should not be taken at face value. After all, President Bush was holding forth on international law and justice only months after his country had invaded Panama in December 1989 causing the deaths of several thousand citizens – committing crimes comparable to what Saddam Hussein would be accused of and supposedly held to account for. Also in 1991, the US and its NATO allies went on to unleash, under a “humanitarian” mantle, a protracted war against Yugoslavia, leading to the destruction, fragmentation and impoverishment of an entire country.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to use Bush Senior’s slanted vision of a “New World Order” as a reference point for how dramatically the world has changed in the intervening 20 years of the so-called post-Cold War era, and in particular how unilaterally degenerate the contemporary international conduct of the US has become under the Clinton, G. W. Bush Junior and Obama administrations.
Bush Senior's "promise" of world peace has opened up, in the wake of the Cold War, an age of continuous warfare accompanied by a process of economic dislocation, social devastation and environmental degradation.
In a bitter irony, this concept of peaceful international co-operation and partnership was used as a pretext to unleash The Gulf War, which consisted in  "defending the sovereignty" of Kuwait and “upholding international law” following the Iraqi 1990 invasion.
Global Warfare

We are dealing with a global military agenda, namely “Global Warfare”. Far from a world of peaceful cooperation, we are living in a dystopian world of permanent wars – wars that are being waged in flagrant contravention of international law and against public opinion and interest.
Far from a “new era more secure in the quest for peace” we may see a world more akin to George Orwell’s 1984, dominated by perpetual conflict, insecurity, authoritarian surveillance, doublethink and public mind control.

A problem for many citizens is that “doublethink and mind control” have become so deeply embedded and disseminated by the mass media, including the so-called quality free press, such as The New York Times and The Guardian.
The Post 9/11 Era: America's Doctrine of Pre-emptive Warfare
Allegedly sponsored by Al Qaeda, the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon played a central role in molding public opinion.  One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to "fabricate an enemy". The "outside enemy" personified by Osama bin Laden is "threatening America".
Pre-emptive war directed against "Islamic terrorists" is required to defend the Homeland. Realities are turned upside down: America is under attack.
In the wake of 9/11, the creation of this "outside enemy" served to obfuscate the real economic and strategic objectives behind the American-led wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Waged on the grounds of self-defense, the pre-emptive war is upheld as a "just war" with a humanitarian mandate.

"The Outside Enemy" Osama bin Laden, portrayed by the mainstream
From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of the "Islamic brigades". Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and "kill the evidence" on how this "outside enemy" was fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number One".
The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself created. Meanwhile, a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program "to go after" these terrorist organizations has been put in place.
Instead of “war” or “state terrorism”, we are told of “humanitarian intervention” directed against "terrorists".

Instead of “offence”, we are told of “defense” or “protection”.

Instead of “mass murder” we are told of “collateral damage”.
A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled: “We must fight against evil in all its forms as a means to preserving the Western way of life.”
Breaking the "Big Lie" which presents war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.
Spawning Militarism: "War is Normal"

In truth, as this new Interactive Reader from Global Research will demonstrate, we are living in an era hallmarked by “The Globalization of War” conducted by the very states that proclaim to be defenders of democratic rights and international law.
The chief protagonist of this globalized war is the United States of America. The US, along with its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Britain, France, Canada and Germany among others, as well as an array of proxies – such as the Persian Gulf Arab states – is now emboldened to strike militarily in any region of the world.
It should be noted that on a tour of the Asia-Pacific region in November 2011, US President Barack Obama’s rhetoric was laden with bellicose statements towards China, citing the latter as a military threat to the hemisphere that the United States was ready to confront. Obama’s aggressive rhetoric towards Beijing should have been widely seen as unprecedented and unacceptable. But from a reading of the Western mainstream media, the warmongering by the US president was somehow made into normal, reasonable discourse.
This spawning militarism is rationalized with a variety of seemingly palatable pretexts: securing the world against "Islamic terrorism", as in Afghanistan; securing the world against "weapons of mass destruction", as in Saddam’s Iraq and currently Iran; defending human rights, as in Libya; humanitarian intervention, as in Somalia; and protecting small nations, as in confronting China on behalf of Southeast Asian states, or constructing a Ballistic Missile Defense system along the Eastern European borders of Russia. And again, the Western mainstream media plays a huge role in rationalizing the irrational, normalizing the abnormal, justifying the unjustifiable – akin to the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984.
We may accept these pretexts at face value and attempt to “normalize” a world of seemingly chaotic conflicts, as the Western mainstream media would have us. Or we can choose to see the world as it really is, that is, one where such wars and war-making are correctly understood as abominations of international law and human relations.
It is our objective in this Interactive Reader to help citizens free themselves from the indoctrinated doublethink of “wars as normal”. In a global survey, we will show that the US and its allies are fulfilling an agenda of “full spectrum dominance” in which no nation deemed to be obstructing that agenda for domination by the US and its allies is tolerated, and is in fact made a target for war.
The dynamic for globalized war has deep historical roots in the imperialism of capitalist governments. Rivalry for the raw materials of capitalist economies and geopolitical control were at the root of World Wars I and II - See the essays by Jacques Pauwels on the role of corporate America in supporting both Britain  and Nazi Germany. The same impetus lay behind countless invasions and proxy wars in Latin America, Asia and Africa by the US since World War II under the guise of “defending the free world from the Evil Soviet empire”.
But with the collapse of the Soviet Union as a countervailing power, the US and its allies have become uninhibited over the past two decades to “go it alone” to assert imperial dominance. This dynamic has only been reinforced by the economic exhaustion of the capitalist powers since the onset of the financial crisis of 2008. Indeed, the rise of militarism can be seen as a compensatory corollary of their economic demise – a demise that is structural and deeply protracted beyond anything that may be deemed as the usual “end of business cycle”. We are perhaps witnessing an historic collapse in the capitalist system far greater in scope than the Great Depression. And with that, disturbingly, the rise of militarism takes on a much greater significance.
Crucial to the global control of resources are the raw materials of energy: oil and gas. Whether it is wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, or confrontation with Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, the fundamental point of contention is control over this lifeblood of the capitalist economy. All other espoused pretexts are mere window dressing, regardless of what the mainstream media would have us believe.
World War III Scenario
The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran – which has the world’s third largest known reserves of oil behind Saudi Arabia and Iraq – has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon since 2005.
If such a war were to be launched, the entire Middle East/Central Asia region would be drawn into a conflagration. Humanity would be precipitated into a World War III scenario.
Incredibly, the very real danger of World War III is not front-page news. The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans. The onslaught of World War III, were it to be carried out, would be casually described as a “no-fly zone”, an operation under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) with minimal “collateral damage” or as “surgical” punitive bombings against specific military targets, all of which purport to support “global security” as well as “democracy” and human rights in the targeted country.

NATO's "Humanitarian Intervention"
Mandate defined in an ICISS report on R2P 

Public opinion is largely unaware of the grave implications of these war plans, which contemplate the use of nuclear weapons, ironically in retaliation to Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program. Moreover, 21st Century military technology combines an array of sophisticated weapons systems whose destructive power would overshadow the nuclear holocausts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lest we forget, the United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians.
Militarization at the global level is instrumented through the US military’s Unified Command structure: the entire planet is divided up into geographic Combatant Commands under the control of the Pentagon. According to former NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consists of a sequence of war theaters: “[The] five-year campaign plan [includes]... a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.” Like a cancer, the US war unleashed in 2003 on Iraq is mutating into a global disease.
While  The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets hailed 15 December 2011 as marking the “official” end of the nearly nine-year US war in Iraq, in reality that devastated country will remain an American war theater for the foreseeable future. Pentagon military advisers and contractors will continue to reside there and the people of Iraq will for generations be left with a legacy of US-imposed conflict and barbarity. The Pentagon’s “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq may have subsided, but its repercussions and criminal precedents are still very much extant, not only in Iraq but in the wider region and, increasingly, globally.
The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was the backbone of the NeoCon's agenda, was predicated on “waging a war without borders”. The PNAC's declared objectives were to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars” in different regions of the world as well as perform the so-called military “constabulary” duties “associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions”. Global constabulary implies a worldwide process of military policing and interventionism, including covert operations and “regime change”.
This diabolical military project formulated by the NeoCons was adopted and implemented from the very outset of the Obama administration. With a new team of military and foreign policy advisers, Obama has been far more effective in fostering military escalation than his White House predecessor, George Bush Junior, who has recently been condemned by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal for “Crimes against the Peace”.
This continuum of military agenda testifies to the fact that the two governing parties in the US, Democrat and Republican, are but two sides of a centrally planned military-industrial complex that is impregnable to the opinions, desires and interests of the American electorate.
Military Escalation and Preview of this Book 
Contrary to the myth of “the good war”, we show in this Interactive Reader that the US entry into World War II was a deliberate strategy for self-serving imperialist gains. While the men and women who fought that war may have had moral convictions, the planners in Washington were operating on calculations of geopolitical control that had little to do with morals or legal principles – see the essays by Jacques Pauwels. The dropping of atomic bombs on Japan by the US in August 1945, obliterating hundreds of thousands of civilians, was an act of heinous barbarity that reflected the callousness of America's imperial design. The nuclear holocaust also set the nefarious parameters of the subsequent Cold War that gripped the world for nearly five decades following World War II. Essays by Brian Willson, Alfred McCoy and Michel Chossudovsky illustrate how the Pentagon’s genocidal wars in Asia were a continuation of America’s imperialist design – albeit under the cover of the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

Hiroshima mushroom cloud. By executive order of President
Harry S. Truman, the U.S. dropped the nuclear bomb "Little Boy"
on Hiroshima, Monday, August 6, 1945

Nagasaki, August 9, 1945

Survivors: August 1945. In the wake of Hiroshima
The fall of the Soviet Union may have brought an end to the Cold War, but soon the US would find new pretexts for waging war on the world and asserting hegemony on behalf of its capitalist allies. These new pretexts included “upholding international law” as in the First Gulf War against Iraq that Bush Senior embarked on in 1990, presaging the Second Gulf War that Bush Junior would reprise in 2003. And the US planners innovated the “humanitarian” pretext for the invasion of Somalia in 1991 and NATO’s war on Yugoslavia – see the essay by Sean Gervasi among others. In many ways, the “humanitarian war” in Yugoslavia served as the prototype for NATO’s 2011 military attack on Libya and what appears to be an imminent onslaught against Syria – see essays by Rick Rozoff and Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya.
To the Pentagon’s silo of propaganda justifying “wars without borders” we have the additional pretexts of  the “global war on terrorism”  and “pre-emptive strikes against weapons of mass destruction”. Fittingly, as Washington’s wars multiply, so too it seems have the phony pretexts for these wars, as the essays on Iraq and Afghanistan by Felicity Arbuthnot and Jack Smith reveal.
Permanent Belligerence: The Globalization of War

In Part VII, which also serves as the title of this Online Interactive E-Reader, The Globalization of War, we show how American-led imperialism has evolved from bloody bouts of episodic militarism over several decades to the present day state of permanent belligerence, with wars or war-making stretching from North and East Africa into the Middle East and Central Asia and beyond to Eurasia (Russia), the Far East (China) and Arctic (Russia again) – See the essays by James Petras, Rick Rozoff,  Peter Dale Scott, F. William Engdahl, Finian Cunningham, the interview with Fidel Castro, Michel Chossudovsky and Jules Dufour.  
Of most immediate concern are the ongoing American-led war plans within the broader Middle East/Central Asian region involving coordinated actions against Iran, Syria and Pakistan – see essays by Michel Chossudovsky, Tom Burghardt, Rick Rozoff and Mahdi Nazemroaya. 
Were these war plans to be carried out, this would lead to an extended regional war theater. The three existing and distinct war theaters (Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine) would merge into a broad regional war extending from the Lebanese-Syrian East Mediterranean coastline to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Western China. Israel, Lebanon and Turkey would be engulfed in a conflict that would herald World War III.   
Building an Effective Antiwar Movement
Meanwhile, the antiwar movement is in crisis: civil society organizations are misinformed, manipulated or co-opted. A large segment of “progressive” opinion is supportive of NATO’s R2P “humanitarian” mandate to the extent that these war plans are being carried out with the “rubber stamp” of civil society.
There is an urgent need to rebuild the antiwar movement on entirely new premises.
The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough. What is required is the development of a broad and well-organized grassroots antiwar network, across the land, nationally and internationally, which challenges the structures of power and authority. People must mobilize not only against the military agenda – the authority of the state and its officials must also be challenged.

Challenging and defeating the US/NATO global war agenda is profoundly predicated on the mass of people in Western countries asserting democratic governance and the genuine “rule of the people”. It will involve the mass of people breaking out of the two-party charade that hitherto passes for “democracy” – not only in the US but also in other Western states ­– to form new political organizations that truly represent the needs and interests of the majority of people. War-making, as with servile abeyance to corporate and financial elites, is endemic to the dominant political parties. It must be realized that voting for these same parties has become futile as a means to effect democratic change.
One practical way forward is for citizens to empower themselves legally. It should be understood that whatever its justification, war is a “Crime against the Peace” under Nuremberg. George Walker Bush and former British Prime Minister Anthony L. Blair have been condemned by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal for waging a criminal war of aggression against Iraq. They are war criminals and citizens' initiatives that are growing across the world for the arraignment of Bush and Blair are one practical step towards mobilizing a popular challenge to the war system.

War crimes, however, are not limited to the former US president and British prime minister. There are "New War Criminals on the Block". They include the current president of the United States, Barack Obama, among others. The acting heads of state and heads of government who support US-NATO-Israel wars of aggression are also war criminals under international law. This proposition, which consists in unseating the war criminals in high office, is central to the waging of an effective antiwar movement.
It is also our intention to show citizens that the root cause of war lies in the prevailing, but failing, global capitalist economic system – the very system that is not only destroying lives in foreign countries but which is destroying the material and moral foundations of Western society.
We hope that this Interactive Reader, The Globalisation of War, will empower citizens to mount an all-encompassing social movement against this diabolical military agenda and for the establishment of real democracy.
Michel Chossudovsky and Finian Cunningham, December 2011
In the face of blatant media disinformation, a "Re-Learning Process" must be launched.

It is our hope that the Interactive Reader Series will become a useful tool for high school, college and university students.


Why World War II ended with Mushroom Clouds
65 years ago, August 6 and 9, 1945: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
- by Jacques R. Pauwels - 2010-08-06
The unspoken objective of the atomic bomb was US Hegemony in Asia and the Pacific
Korea and the "Axis of Evil"
- by Brian S. Willson - 2006-10-12
"Over a period of three years or so we killed off - what - twenty percent of the population [of North Korea]" (General Curtis Lemay)

From Vietnam to Afghanistan: America and the Dictators
- by Prof. Alfred W. McCoy - 2010-04-18
Who won the Vietnam War?
- by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - 2005-04-26
Vietnam never received war reparations payments from the U.S. for the massive loss of life and destruction, yet an agreement reached in Paris in 1993 required Hanoi to recognize the debts of the defunct Saigon regime. This agreement is in many regards tantamount to obliging Vietnam to compensate Washington for the costs of war.
Why Is NATO In Yugoslavia?
- by Sean Gervasi - 2010-09-12
The late Sean Gervasi had tremendous foresight. He understood NATO enlargement several years before it actually unfolded into a formidable military force.
NATO's Reign of Terror in Kosovo
- by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - 2008-02-25
State Terrorism in Kosovo is an integral part of NATO's design

NATO's Kosovo War, 11 Years Later
- by James Bissett - 2010-03-24
Al Qaeda and the "War on Terrorism"
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2008-01-20
Ironically, Al Qaeda --the "outside enemy of America"-- is a creation of the CIA.
The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine
"Revealing the Lies" on 9/11 Perpetuates the "Big Lie"
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2007-07-12
America's Endless Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
- by Jack A. Smith - 2011-10-25
The illusion of military success...
US Afghan Strategy: Senseless and Merciless
- by Rick Rozoff - 2011-07-22
U.S. And NATO Escalate World’s Deadliest War On Both Sides Of Afghan-Pakistani Border
- by Rick Rozoff - 2011-03-01
Drone missile attacks conducted by the CIA killed in the neighborhood of 1,000 people in Pakistan last year
The War on Iraq : Five US Presidents, Five British Prime Ministers, Thirty Years of Duplicity, and Counting....
- by Felicity Arbuthnot - 2010-08-06
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. He had walked into possibly the biggest trap in modern history
US-NATO Military Agenda: The Destabilization of Pakistan
- by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - 2009-04-17
America's War in the Horn of Africa: “Drone Alley” – a Harbinger of Western Power across the African Continent
US Military Confirms Washington’s Secret New War in Somalia Despite Official Denials
- by Finian Cunningham - 2011-10-29
US Military Confirms Washington’s Secret New War in Somalia Despite Official Denials
Israel and Libya: Preparing Africa for the “Clash of Civilizations”
Introduction by Cynthia McKinney
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2011-10-11
"An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway."
World War III: The Launching of a Preemptive Nuclear War against Iran
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-12-04
World War III is not front-page news. The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans.
THE CLOCK IS TICKING: "Shadow War" Heating Up. War With Iran: A Provocation Away?
- by Tom Burghardt - 2011-12-05
Amid conflicting reports that a huge explosion at Iran's uranium conversion facility in Isfahan occurred last week, speculation was rife that Israel and the US were stepping-up covert attacks against defense and nuclear installations
Using Fake Intelligence to Justify War on Iran
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-11-09
Iran: "Regime Change" or All Out War?
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2011-06-
America's Next War Theater: Syria and Lebanon?
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2011-06-10
Obama Raises the Military Stakes: Confrontation on the Borders with China and Russia
- by Prof. James Petras - 2011-12-10
Obama has embraced a policy of encirclement and provocations against China, the world’s second largest economy and the US’s most important creditor, and Russia, the European Union’s principle oil and gas provider and the world’s second most powerful nuclear weapons power.
Conversations with Fidel Castro: The Dangers of a Nuclear War
- by Fidel Castro Ruz, Michel Chossudovsky - 2010-11-13
If a war breaks out in Iran, it will inevitably become a nuclear war and a global war.
The Real Grand Chessboard and the Profiteers of War
- by Prof. Peter Dale Scott - 2009-08-11
The provision of private entrepreneurial violence and intelligence
Why Moscow does not Trust Washington on Missile Defense. Towards a Pre-emptive Nuclear War?
- by F. William Engdahl - 2011-12-02
Most in the civilized world are blissfully unaware that we are marching ineluctably towards an increasingly likely pre-emptive nuclear war...
"War Without Borders": Washington Intensifies Push Into Central Asia
- by Rick Rozoff - 2011-01-30
The U.S. and NATO have over 150,000 troops planted directly south of three Central Asian nations.
Asia-Pacific: US Ramps Up Global War Agenda
- by Finian Cunningham - 2011-11-17
China’s “military advances” are prompting US concerns...Washington is the one beating the war drums.
North American Integration and the Militarization of the Arctic
- by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - 2007-08-20
The Battle for the Arctic is part of a global military agenda of conquest and territorial control, a New Cold War between Russia and America.
Review Article: The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases
The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel
- by Prof. Jules Dufour - 2007-07-01
The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

About the Editors

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the  website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America's "War on Terrorism"(2005). His most recent book is entitled Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011). He has taught as Visiting Professor at universities in Western Europe, South East Asia and Latin America, acted as an adviser to governments of developing countries and as a consultant for the several international organizations. Prof. Chossudovsky is a signatory of the Kuala Lumpur declaration to criminalize war and recipient of the Human Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin, Germany. He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.
Finian Cunningham is currently Global Research's Middle East and East Africa Correspondent. He has written extensively on international affairs. Previously, he was based in Bahrain and witnessed the upheavals in the Persian Gulf kingdom during 2011 as well as the subsequent Saudi-led brutal crackdown against pro-democracy protests. He is now based in East Africa.