Bruce notes: This piece
warns of the danger to a Imperial government.
All Imperial players will do ANYTHING to control the world. We must
take every precaution to safe guard the World. This includes a written
ConstituStion, Divided Powers so each Nation knows that it retains
it's own power to run it's own Nation. Powers retained by the World
Government to protect itself from intrusions.
I believe there should be no "World President
or Prime Minister." The
decisions could be made by a committee such as the Nine (9) people
of the TRUE DEMOCRACY FOR "WORLD GOVERNMENT" or another
Constitution group would authorize a leadership committee comprising
perhaps a member of each Nation of the World. There are two responsibilities
here. One is the law and compliance of the Constitution. This
I think must be done by elected people.
The second responsibility is the administrative
function, assigning tasks and maintaining records that these tasks
are completed as the World people choose. This is the bureaucracy
function. I believe it should be managed by a Management Group.
This group would make sue records and accountability of the working
groups (agency's) is of good quality. I believe this committee
too should be elected, if for no other reason than they could
be recalled individually. The people of the various agency's would
of course be employee's.
Please give your ideas on this, and this article.
Thanks, Bruce
snipped
III. Contested Terrain and Regimes in Transition
Armed resistance, elected regimes, social movements.
At the top of the imperial system are those
imperial states whose power is projected on a world scale, whose
ruling classes dominate investment and financial markets and who
penetrate the economies of the rest of the world. At the apex
of the imperial system stand the US, the European Union (itself
highly stratified) and Japan. Led by the US they have established
networks of 'follower imperial states' (largely regional hegemons)
and client or vassal states which
frequently act as surrogate military forces. Imperial states act
in concert to break down barriers to penetration and takeovers,
while at the same time, competing to gain advantages for their
own state and multinational interests. Just below the central
imperial states are newly emerging imperial powers (NEIP), namely
China, India, Canada, Russia and Australia. The NEIP states are
subject to imperial penetration, as well as expanding into neighboring
and overseas underdeveloped states and countries rich in extractive
resources. The NEIP are linked to the central imperial states
(CIS) through joint ventures in their home states, while they
increasingly compete for control over extractive resources in
the underdeveloped countries. They frequently 'follow' in the
footsteps of the imperial powers, and in some cases take advantage
of conflicts to better their own position. For example China and
India's overseas expansion focuses on investments in extractive
mineral and energy sectors to fuel domestic industrialization,
similar to the earlier (1880-1950's) imperial practices of the
US and Europe. Similarly China invests in African countries, which
are in conflict with the US and EU, just as the US developed ties
with anti-colonial regimes (Algeria, Kenya and Francophone Africa)
in conflict with their former European colonial rulers in the
1950' and 1960's.
Further down the hierarchy of the imperial system
are the 'semi-autonomous client regimes' (SACR). These include
Brazil, South Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, Argentina, Saudi Arabia,
Chile and lately Bolivia. These states have a substantial national
economic base of support, through public or private ownership
of key economic sectors. They are governed by regimes, which pursue
diversified markets, though highly dependent on exports to the
emerging imperial states. On the other hand these states are highly
dependent on imperial state
military protection (Taiwan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia) and
provide regional military bases for imperial operations. Many
are resource-dependent exporters (Saudi Arabia, Chile, Nigeria
and Bolivia) who share revenues and profits with the multi-nationals
of the imperial states. They include rapidly industrialized countries
(Taiwan and South Korea), as well as relatively agro-mineral export
states (Brazil, Argentina and Chile). The wealthy oil states have
close ties with the financial ruling classes of the imperial counties
and invest heavily in real estate, financial instruments and Treasury
notes which finance the deficits in
the US and England. On key issues such as imperial wars in the
Middle East, the invasion of Haiti, destabilizing regimes in Africa,
support for global neo-liberal policies and imperial takeovers
of strategic sectors, they collaborate with rulers from the CIS
and the NEIP. Nevertheless, because of powerful elite interests
and in some cases of powerful national social movements, they
come into limited conflicts with the imperial powers. For example,
Brazil, Chile and Argentina disagree with the US efforts to undermine
the nationalist Venezuelan
government. They have lucrative trade, energy and investment relations
with Venezuela. In addition they do not wish to legitimize military
coups, which might threaten their own rule and legitimacy in the
eyes of an electorate partial to President Chavez. While structurally
deeply integrated into the imperial system, the SACR regimes retain
a degree of autonomy in formulating foreign and
domestic policy, which may even conflict or compete with imperial
interests.
Despite their 'relative autonomy', the regimes
also provide military and political mercenaries to serve the imperialist
countries. This is best illustrated in the case of Haiti. Subsequent
to the US invasion and overthrow of the elected Aristide Government
in 2004, the US succeeded in securing an occupation force from
its outright client and 'semi-autonomous' client regimes. President
Lula of Brazil sent a major contingent. A Brazilian General headed
the entire mercenary military force. Chile's Gabriel Valdez headed
the United Nations occupation administration as the senior official
overseeing the bloody repression of Haitian resistance movements.
Other 'semi-autonomous' clients, such as Uruguay and Bolivia,
added military contingents along with soldiers from client regimes
such as Panama, Paraguay, Colombia and Peru. President Evo Morales
justified Bolivia's continued military collaboration with the
US in Haiti under his presidency by citing its 'peacekeeping role',
knowing full well that between December 2006 and February 2007
scores of Haitian poor were slaughtered during a full-scale UN
invasion of Haiti's poorest and most densely populated slums.
The key theoretical point is that given Washington
current state of being tied down in two wars in the Middle East
and West Asia, it depends on its clients to police and repress
anti-imperialist movements elsewhere. Somalia, as in Haiti, was
invaded by mercenaries by Ethiopia, trained, financed, armed and
directed by US military advisers. Subsequently, during the occupation,
Washington succeeded in securing its African clients (via the
so-called Organization of
African Unity according to the White House's stooge, Ugandan Army
spokesman Captain Paddy Ankunda) to send a mercenary occupation
army to prop up its unpopular client Somali warlord ruler. Despite
opposition from its Parliament, Uganda is sending 1500 mercenaries
along with contingents from Nigeria, Burundi, Ghana and Malawi.
At the bottom of the imperial hierarchy are the client collaborator
regimes (CCR). These include Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf States, Central
American and Caribbean Island states, the Axis of Sub-Saharan
States (ASS) (namely Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Ghana),
Colombia, Peru, Paraguay, Mexico, Eastern European states (in
and out of the European Union), former states of the USSR (Georgia,
Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Latvia, etc), Philippines, Indonesia, North
Africa and Pakistan. These countries are governed by authoritarian
political elites dependent on the imperial or NEIP states for
arms, financing and political support. They provide vast opportunities
for
exploitation and export of raw materials. Unlike the SACR, exports
from client regimes have little value added, as industrial processing
of raw materials takes place in the imperial countries, particularly
in the NEIP. Predator, rentier, comprador and kleptocratic elites
who lack any entrepreneurial vocation rule the CCR. They frequently
provide mercenary soldiers to service imperial countries intervening,
conquering, occupying and imposing client regimes in imperial
targeted countries. The client regimes thus are subordinate collaborators
of
the imperial powers in the plunder of wealth, the exploitation
of billions of workers and the displacement of peasants and destruction
of the environment.
The structure of the imperial system is based
on the power of ruling classes to exercise and project state and
market power, retain control of exploitative class relations at
home and abroad and to organize mercenary armies from among its
client states. Led and directed by imperial officials, mercenary
armies collaborate in destroying autonomous popular, nationalist
movements and independent states.
Client regimes form a crucial link in sustaining
the imperial powers. They complement imperial occupation forces,
facilitating the extraction of raw materials. Without the 'mercenaries
of color' the imperial powers would have to extend and over-stretch
their own military forces, provoking high levels of internal opposition,
and heightening overseas resistance to overt wars of re-colonization.
Moreover client mercenaries are less costly in terms of financing
and reduce the loss of imperial soldiers. There are numerous euphemistic
terms used to describe these client mercenary forces: United Nations,
Organization of American States and Organization of African Unity
'peacekeepers', the 'Coalition of the Willing' among others. In
many cases a few white imperial senior officers command the lower
officers and soldiers of color of the client mercenary armies.
http://tinyurl.com/yr2zqq