You can, however, search by city and company names come up there.

The spiral thingy under EXPLORE CONNECTIONS is interesting, but it doesn’t show you which companies are associated with the government and military organizations in question. Blah.

Via: Washington Post:

“Top Secret America” is a project nearly two years in the making that describes the huge national security buildup in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

When it comes to national security, all too often no expense is spared and few questions are asked – with the result an enterprise so massive that nobody in government has a full understanding of it. It is, as Dana Priest and William M. Arkin have found, ubiquitous, often inefficient and mostly invisible to the people it is meant to protect and who fund it.

The articles in this series and an online database at topsecretamerica.com depict the scope and complexity of the government’s national security program through interactive maps and other graphics. Every data point on the Web site is substantiated by at least two public records.

Because of the nature of this project, we allowed government officials to see the Web site several months ago and asked them to tell us of any specific concerns. They offered none at that time. As the project evolved, we shared the Web site’s revised capabilities. Again, we asked for specific concerns. One government body objected to certain data points on the site and explained why; we removed those items. Another agency objected that the entire Web site could pose a national security risk but declined to offer specific comments.

We made other public safety judgments about how much information to show on the Web site. For instance, we used the addresses of company headquarters buildings, information which, in most cases, is available on companies’ own Web sites, but we limited the degree to which readers can use the zoom function on maps to pinpoint those or other locations.

Our maps show the headquarters buildings of the largest government agencies involved in top-secret work. A user can also see the cities and towns where the government conducts top-secret work in the United States, but not the specific locations, companies or agencies involved.

Within a responsible framework, our objective is to provide as much information as possible, so readers gain a real, granular understanding of the scale and breadth of the top-secret world we are describing.

Related Posts:

• Gordon Duff: Unconstitutional, Time to End the Scanner Scam
• Tales from Stasiland: The letter that makes you disappear
• Google to enlist NSA for ‘cybersecurity’
• Judge Declares Law Governing Warrantless Cellphone Tracking Unconstitutional
• Cyber Command Prepares the Ground for High-Tech War Crimes

Related Posts:

• VIDEO – Greenspan Admits To Rampant FRAUD & Illegal Activity In U.S. Banking System While On Jekyll Island Stage With Bernanke
• “Police Youth Corps” Confronted at Parade!
• Barney Frank: “We Are Trying On Every Front To Increase The Role Of Government”
• VIDEO: Rep. Alan Grayson: Does the Federal Reserve Manipulate the Stock Market? Where’s the Gold?
• VIDEO: Gore admits climate change is part of “global governance” agenda

By Shamus Cooke

The once-solid North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) is starting to show its age.  The 1994 trade agreement that laid the foundation for the economic/political integration of North America is encountering serious internal ruptures, threatening future “progress.”

The problems are numerous: fights over trade, immigration, and military cooperation are all issues that Obama recently discussed in Mexico with his NAFTA partners, Mexico and Canada.  The annual meeting that usually delivers plans for additional integration was instead used to remedy these heated issues, none of which were fully solved.

Both Mexico and Canada are angry with the U.S. for the “buy American” provision in Obama’s stimulus bill, which they label correctly as “protectionist.”  The bill is explicit that many of the raw materials used in construction projects must be bought from U.S. corporations only, in violation of NAFTA.  Mexico soon retaliated with taxes (tariffs) on dozens of U.S. goods entering Mexico, a spat that was hoped to have been solved with Obama’s visit.

Other conflicts involve immigration — between all three countries — and the transportation of goods.

Although NAFTA was written with U.S. corporations first in mind, many of them have been out-competed by companies in Canada or Mexico.  It was these U.S. corporations that pressured Obama into promising to “re-negotiate” NAFTA.

A danger for U.S. workers, however, is to think that any re-negotiation of NAFTA is intended to help them.    Some “fair trade” and anti-free-trade groups — many with connections to labor unions — used Obama’s promise to re-negotiate NAFTA as proof that he should be supported.  Since being elected, EVERY significant policy implemented under Obama has been anti-worker — bank bailouts, wars, killing EFCA, etc.  The issue of  “trade” will not be a progressive exception.

This is because being “against free-trade” is not automatically progressive.  The many U.S. corporations that hope to re-negotiate NAFTA to shut-out foreign competitors should not be admired for their actions.  They are for the opposite of free-trade, protectionism, and instead of looking for low wages and poor working conditions abroad, seek to further implement them in the U.S.

Some of these companies have codified their intentions in the TRADE Act, a U.S. congressional bill yet to be passed.  Although the TRADE Act has a number of progressive statements concerning worker and environmental standards, it immediately contradicts itself by advocating specific pro-corporate polices, including: assessing how NAFTA has affected the “competitiveness” of U.S. corporations; “protecting intellectual property rights,” protecting the “right to hold clear title to property” (for mega-corporations abroad); and wording that protects the “investments” of trans-national corporations and rich investors.  This is the real reason that many Democrats feel compelled to pass the bill.

Many Canadian and Mexican corporations are similarly miffed by NAFTA, threatening the plans of some corporations — the best market competitors — to further unify North America.  These ideas find expression in the North American Union, a think tank plan to essentially turn the NAFTA countries into one nation, or at least to erase specific economic/political boundaries similar to what has happened in the European Union.

Tension between feuding corporations, however, will keep the North American Union purely theoretical.  Similar corporate conflicts are threatening further unification of the European Union, while also driving the World Trade Organization into an indefinite coma.

The New World Order that many are predicting will emerge through agreements with various governments and international mega-corporations to exploit the world’s labor force and resources — using a common currency, military, etc. — is unlikely to materialize.

Internationally, conflicts between nations are on the rise; the world political situation has not been this tenuous for decades, with the threat of further regional wars being obvious (for example, in Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Georgia, and the U.S. meddling in Latin America, etc.).

The world recession is further exacerbating these tensions, driving governments to off-load the economic crisis affecting their native corporations onto other governments through currency manipulation, state subsidies (bailouts, stimulus plans), tariffs (protectionism), etc.

The New World Order theory is not new — long-ago referred to as “Ultra-Imperialism,” a theory that took World War I to disprove.  The corporations directing government policy in various nations cannot agree to live peacefully together; the bigger ones use their markets and military advantages to drive up profits at the expense of the smaller corporations residing in weaker countries. Capitalism is organically competitive and vicious, not cooperative.

Another guarantee against New World Order integration is the phenomena of nationalism.   The deeper the recession becomes, the more nationalistic/patriotic our government officials act.  They will blame foreign countries and immigrants for the country’s problems, but never the corporations inside their countries.   Nationalistic sentiments were in part what led to disagreements at the recent NAFTA summit.

One point of agreement, however, was the militarization of Mexico.  The billion plus dollars that the U.S. has given Mexico under “Plan Mexico” to beef up “border security” and wage a “drug war,” has thus far “led to more than 12,000 drug-related deaths, hundreds of allegations of human-rights violations against the military…” (Washington Post, August 9, 2009).

This “drug war” was conveniently begun when social movements in Mexico were at their peak, and many movement leaders have “accidentally” fallen victim to the military state.

These human rights abuses include kidnapping, torture, murder, “disappearances,” etc.  Obama’s reaction to these tragedies is to dismiss them, along with U.S. law.  The law states that Plan Mexico aid must be restricted if human rights abuses continue.

To skirt the law Obama merely used a false interpretation as to what was happening in Mexico — the Associated Press explains:  “Obama told Calderon that human rights is a major priority for him, but also assured him that the State Department is working to prepare a report that recognizes all Mexico’s efforts to prevent abuses…” (August 9, 2009).

This tweaking of the facts would apply equally to the above-mentioned TRADE Act, which says that the U.S. will sign free trade agreements with countries that have respectable human and labor rights records. If the current administration is to judge what constitutes a “violation” of rights, such an agreement will of course mean nothing.

The U.S. government cannot be relied on to be a neutral enforcer of anything, especially in trade-related issues.   For workers, taking sides on trade issues is itself a dangerous game to play, since one can be unwillingly drawn into an international market turf war between global corporations.  Neither side deserves our support.

The whole debate over free-trade versus protectionism is an argument between these corporate forces: the best competitors want free-trade and the other mega-corporations want protection from free-trade.  Until these corporations are brought under the control of the people — something that cannot be done under the two party system — the issue of trade will remain a battle for market dominance.

Free-trade, however, does contain a progressive element.  All the countries in the world would benefit from a free exchange of goods, services, raw materials, ideas, etc.  But under a capitalistic free-trade, the concept of cooperation gets soiled by the profit motive, which means a ruthless competitive battle over the international market.  To win one must reduce prices to a minimum, especially by lowering labor costs, by any means necessary.

Protectionism is anti-cooperation.  The international goods and raw materials that were once freely traded become inaccessible, except by force.  Protectionism helps speed the march to war, a fact recognized by the post World War II Bretton Woods agreement that helped create the World Trade Organization (then called G.A.T.T).  Under capitalism, free-trade is a necessity, whereas protectionism signifies a descent into trade wars and military wars.

In consequence, workers need a completely independent position.  The notion that we can entrust our government to promote sane trade policies is unwarranted. Indeed, certain labor leaders love the issue of trade because it means they can sit back and do nothing, aside from encourage their members to vote Democrat.  Before workers can encourage U.S. policy to be pushed abroad, it must first undergo drastic, progressive change domestically.

Such a change has already happened in Latin America, where a progressive vision around trade has emerged in miniature form.  A bloc of countries in Latin America have formed a trade agreement (ALBA), based on the principles of social welfare, bartering, and mutual economic aide — concepts that lie outside of the limits of capitalism. Because these Latin American countries are still semi or majority capitalistic, they cannot arrange agreements that are wholly cooperative, but their example shows what is possible on a small scale.

Achieving a similar policy in the U.S. will first require the abandonment of the corporate-dominated two party capitalist system, and its replacement by an organization that is able to pursue the interests of workers.   Such a party can only come into existence through a struggle that involves organized labor, community organizations, students, and all those interested in fighting for social justice.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org).  He can be reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com

Related Posts:

• The Zionist Nexus Linking 9-11 and the Financial Crisis
• Mexican drug cartels buying weapons from around the world: Far easier than running the border with a load
• American Disconnect with the World
• The Lying Game: Drum-beating for War against Iran
• Obama Snubs Africa, Then African Americans

Related Posts:

• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• Anatomy Of The Plot To Kill The Nation
• The Zionist Nexus Linking 9-11 and the Financial Crisis
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.

The $410 billion omnibus funding bill headed toward President Obama’s desk for signing contains a carefully worded measure that would shut down the Bush administration demonstration project allowing 100 Mexican trucking companies to run their long-haul rigs throughout the U.S. in direct competition with American truckers.

The issue became rancorous over the past two years as Bush administration Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters fought off repeated efforts by Congress to confine Mexican trucks to a narrow 20-mile-wide commercial area north of the southern border.

In what appears to be a major victory for Teamster boss James Hoffa, the Obama administration worked closely with Senate Democrats, including Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota to toughen up language of an amendment Dorgan successfully had inserted in the DOT fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill.

Keeping Mexican trucks south of the border appears to be a reward to organized labor for its support of Obama’s presidential campaign last year.

The move comes as a blow to free trade advocates in the Republican Party that have pushed hard for new ways to open the Mexican border for increased opportunities between the two countries.

“The driving public is put at risk when trucks from Mexico that don’t meet U.S. standards are allowed to roam our highways,” Hoffa said in a statement. “The Mexican government has not held up their end of the bargain to meet U.S. standards.”

Hoffa said Mexican trucks are “unsafe and Mexican drivers are not required to meet the same criteria that American drivers must meet to earn a commercial drivers license.” Hoffa said.

“It’s long past time to close the border to these unguided missiles,” he said.

WND reported that after the truck project begun, an examination of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration database revealed hundreds of safety violations by Mexican long-haul rigs rolling on U.S. roads under the project.

Opponents of the project have contended that Mexican trucks and truck drivers do not reliably meet U.S. standards.

As WND reported, in a contentious Senate hearing last March, Dorgan in tight questioning got Peters to admit that Mexican drivers were being designated at the border as “proficient in English” even though they could explain U.S. traffic signs only in Spanish.

In the tense hearing, Dorgan accused Peters of being “arrogant” and recklessly disregarding a congressional vote to stop the Mexican project by taking funds away.

As WND reported, opposition in the House was led by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who in September 2007 accused the Bush administration of having a “stealth plan” to allow Mexican long-haul rigs on U.S. roads.

“This administration [of President George W. Bush] is hell-bent on opening our borders,” DeFazio said, “but has failed to require that Mexican drivers and trucks meet the same safety and security standards as U.S. drivers and trucks.”

Previously, Peters had argued the wording of the Dorgan amendment did not prohibit the Transportation Department from stopping a Mexican truck project already underway, even if the measure prohibited DOT from starting any new project.

Despite strong congressional opposition, the Department of Transportation under President Bush had announced it planned in its final months to extend the truck project for another two years – an attempt to force the incoming Obama administration to comply.

The restrictions passed in the Omnibus Funding Bill will limit Mexican trucks to a 20-mile commercial zone north of the Mexican border, except in Arizona, where the limit is 75 miles.

Related Posts:

• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• The Zionist Nexus Linking 9-11 and the Financial Crisis
• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• An Open Letter to President Obama; Why Is Corporate America Destroying Our Economy?
• Anatomy Of The Plot To Kill The Nation

Related Posts:

• New Poll Finds Americans Favor U.S. Isolationism, Acting Alone
• US Troops Wearing UN Colors
• Insider reveals secrets of North America plot
• Obama ‘clones’ Bush in killing sovereignty You thought plan was dead, but Democrat brings it back
• Expanding the Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas

Introduction

The United States’ National Intelligence Council has released a report, entitled “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World“. This declassified document is the fourth report of  the Global Trends 2025: The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project,

The report outlines the paths that current geopolitical and economic trends may reach by the year 2025, in order to guide strategic thinking over the next few decades. The National Intelligence Council describes itself as the US Intelligence Community’s “center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking,” with the tasks of supporting the Director of National Intelligence, reaching out to non-governmental experts in academia and the private sector and it leads in the effort of providing National Intelligence Estimates.

The report was written with the active participation of not only the US intelligence community, but also numerous think tanks, consulting firms, academic institutions and hundreds of other experts. Among the participating organizations were the Atlantic Council of the United States, the Wilson Center, RAND Corporation, the Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Institute, Texas A&M University, the Council on Foreign Relations and Chatham House in London, which is the British equivalent of the CFR.[1]

Among the many things envisioned in this report to either be completed or under way by 2025 are the formation of a global multipolar international system, the possibility of a return of mercantilism by great powers in which they go to war over dwindling resources, the growth of China as a great world power, the position of India as a strong pole in the new multipolar system, a decline of capitalism in the form of more state-capitalism, exponential population growth in the developing world, continuing instability in Africa, a decline in food availability, partly due to climate change, continued terrorism, the possibility of nuclear war, the emergence of regionalism in the form of strong regional blocks in North America, Europe, and Asia, and the decline of US power and with that, the superiority of the dollar.

The Economics of Change

The discussion of global economics begins with analyzing the potential repercussions of the current global financial crisis. It states that the crisis “is accelerating the global economic rebalancing. Developing countries have been hurt; several, such as Pakistan with its large current account deficit, are at considerable risk. Even those with cash reserves—such as South Korea and Russia—have been severely buffeted; steep rises in unemployment and inflation could trigger widespread political instability and throw emerging powers off course.” However, it states, “if China, Russia, and Mideast oil exporters can avoid internal crises,” they may be able to buy foreign assets, provide financial assistance to struggling countries and “seed new regional initiatives.” It says that the biggest change for the West will be “the increase in state power. Western governments now own large swaths of their financial sectors and must manage them, potentially politicizing markets.” It continues in saying that there is a prospect for a new “Bretton Woods,” to “regulate the global economy,” however, “Failure to construct a new all-embracing architecture could lead countries to seek security through competitive monetary policies and new investment barriers, increasing the potential for market segmentation.”[2]

The report states that as a result of the major financial disruptions under-way and those still to come, there is a need to rebalance the global economy. However, “this rebalancing will require long-term efforts to establish a new international system.”[3] It states that major problem to overcome will be a possible backlash against foreign trade and investment by corporations, particularly in “emerging economies,” with the potential of fueling “protectionist forces” in the US; an increasing competition for resources between emerging economies such as Russia, China, India and even Gulf states; a decline in democratization, as the China-model for development becomes attractive to other emerging economies, authoritarian regimes and even “weak democracies frustrated by years of economic underperformance”; the role of Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) in providing more financial assistance to developing countries than the World Bank and IMF, which could lead to “diplomatic realignments and new relationships” between China, Russia, India and Gulf states with the developing world; the loss of the dollar as the “global reserve currency,” as “foreign policy actions might bring exposure to currency shock and higher interest rates for Americans,” and a “move away from the dollar” which would be precipitated by “uncertainties and instabilities in the international financial system.”[4]

The dollar’s decline as a “global reserve currency” will be relegated to “something of a first among equals in a basket of currencies by 2025. This could occur suddenly in the wake of a crisis, or gradually with global rebalancing.”[5]

It states that for the first time in history, the financial landscape will be “genuinely global and multipolar,” and that, “redirection toward regional financial centers could soon spill over into other areas of power.”[6] It states that there is potential for a divide within the West between the US and EU, so long as they continue divergent economic policies, where Europe is more state-centric and with the US as more market-based. However, “the enhanced role of the state in Western economies may also lessen the contrast between the two models.”[7] This enhanced role of the state in economic matters is largely due to the current financial crisis.

Latin America

In outlining Latin America’s path for the next two decades, the report states that many countries will have become middle income powers, however, “those that have embraced populist policies, will lag behind—and some, such as Haiti, will have become even poorer and still less governable.” It says Brazil will become the major power of the region, but that, “efforts to promote South American integration will be realized only in part. Venezuela and Cuba will have some form of vestigial influence in the region in 2025, but their economic problems will limit their appeal.” However, it said that many parts of Latin America will remain among “the world’s most violent areas,” and that, “US influence in the region will diminish somewhat, in part because of Latin America’s broadening economic and commercial relations with Asia, Europe, and other blocs.”[8]

Europe

In discussing the issue of Muslim immigration into the European Union, the report states that, “Countries with growing numbers of Muslims will experience a rapid shift in ethnic composition, particularly around urban areas, potentially complicating efforts to facilitate assimilation and integration.” Further, “the increasing concentration could lead to more tense and unstable situations, such as occurred with the 2005 Paris suburban riots.” This mass immigration and reactions of Europeans, among other factors, “are likely to confine many Muslims to low-status, low-wage jobs, deepening ethnic cleavages. Despite a sizeable stratum of integrated Muslims, a growing number—driven by a sense of alienation, grievance, and injustice—are increasingly likely to value separation in areas with Muslim-specific cultural and religious practices.”[9]

The report also states that by 2025, Europe “will have made slow progress toward achieving the vision of current leaders and elites: a cohesive, integrated, and influential global actor able to employ independently a full spectrum of political, economic, and military tools in support of European and Western interests and universal ideals. The European Union would need to resolve a perceived democracy gap dividing Brussels from European voters and move past protracted debate about its institutional structures.” In other words, the move toward a European superstate will revolve around convincing the public that it is not a threat to democracy or sovereignty.

It further states that Europe should and likely will take in “new members in the Balkans, and perhaps Ukraine and Turkey. However, continued failure to convince skeptical publics of the benefits of deeper economic, political, and social integration and to grasp the nettle of a shrinking and aging population by enacting painful reforms could leave the EU a hobbled giant.”[10]

Russia: Boom or Bust?

The report’s focus on Russia stresses two possible scenarios. One in which Russia triumphs as an international player in the new international system, with the “potential to be richer, more powerful, and more self-assured in 2025 if it invests in human capital, expands and diversifies its economy, and integrates with global markets. [Emphasis added]” However, Russia could also take another path, where “multiple constraints could limit Russia’s ability to achieve its full economic potential,” such as a shortfall in energy investment, an underdeveloped banking sector, and crime and corruption. It also points out that a “sustained plunge in global energy prices before Russia has the chance to develop a more diversified economy probably would constrain economic growth.”[11] Could this be a veiled threat to Russia to either join into and merge with the international system, which is directed by Western elites, or face a possible economic backlash, perhaps in the form of manipulating oil prices? This strategy has not by any means been unheard of, as a look at the 1973 oil crisis and the lead up to the first Gulf War in 1991 have proven.

In contemplating Russia’s likely future, the report states that with a more “proactive and influential foreign policy” Russia could become an “important partner for Western, Asian, and Middle East capitals; and a leading force in opposition to US global dominance.” However, it states that, “shared perceptions regarding threats from terrorism and Islamic radicalism could align Russian and Western security policies more tightly.” In other words, perhaps increased incidents of terrorist activity in or near Russian territory can force it to align more closely with the West, if only at first in security integration. It also elaborates on the other potentiality for Russia, saying that it is “impossible to exclude alternative futures such as a nationalistic, authoritarian petro-state or even a full dictatorship.”[12]

Iran

The report states that there are alternatives with Iran. In one instance, “political and economic reform in addition to a stable investment climate could fundamentally redraw both the way the world perceives the country and also the way in which Iranians view themselves.” This could move Iran away from “decades of being mired in the Arab conflicts of the Middle East.”[13] Or the other option is Iran starts a nuclear arms race, continues to become the object of Western alienation, and may even become unstable and mired in conflict.

A Post-Petroleum World?

The report states that by 2025 there will likely be a “technological breakthrough that will provide an alternative to oil and gas, but implementation will lag because of the necessary infrastructure costs and need for longer replacement time.” In this instance, it states that “Saudi Arabia will absorb the biggest shock,” and “In Iran, the drop in oil and gas prices will undermine any populist economic policies,” and that, “Incentives to open up to the West in a bid for greater foreign investment, establishing or strengthening ties with Western partners – including the US – will increase.” The report also states that, “Outside the Middle East, Russia will potentially be the biggest loser, particularly if its economy remains heavily tied to energy exports, and could be reduced to middle power status. Venezuela, Bolivia, and other petro-populist regimes could unravel completely, if that has not occurred beforehand because of already growing discontent and decreasing production.”[14] Again, this raises the issue of the manipulation or control of oil prices for political purposes, as the states all likely to be affected negatively by a plunge in oil prices also happen to be the states most at odds with the West, and specifically, the United States.

Africa: More of the Same

The report starts off by saying that “Sub-Saharan Africa will remain the most vulnerable region on Earth in terms of economic challenges, population stresses, civil conflict, and political instability. The weakness of states and troubled relations between states and societies probably will slow major improvements in the region’s prospects over the next 20 years unless there is sustained international engagement and, at times, intervention. Southern Africa will continue to be the most stable and promising sub-region politically and economically.” This seems to suggest that there will be many more cases of “humanitarian intervention,” likely under the auspices of a Western dominated international organization, such as the UN.

Further, the region will “continue to be a major supplier of oil, gas, and metals to world markets and increasingly will attract the attention of Asian states seeking access to commodities, including China and India.” However, “Poor economic policies—rooted in patrimonial interests and incomplete economic reform—will likely exacerbate ethnic and religious divides as well as crime and corruption in many countries.”

It also states that there will likely be a democratic “backslide” in the most populous African countries, and that, “the region will be vulnerable to civil conflict and complex forms of interstate conflict—with militaries fragmented along ethnic or other divides, limited control of border areas, and insurgents and criminal groups preying on unarmed civilians in neighboring countries. Central Africa contains the most troubling of these cases, including Congo-Kinshasa, Congo-Brazzaville, Central African Republic, and Chad.”[15]

Resurgent Mercantilism and the “Arc of Instability”

The report states that there is a likely possibility of the resurgence on the world stage of mercantilist foreign policies of great powers, as access to resources becomes more limited. Perceptions of energy scarcity “could lead to interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources to be essential to maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime.” In particular, “Central Asia has become an area of intense international competition for access to energy.”[16]

The report also states that, “The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) will remain a geopolitically significant region in 2025, based on the importance of oil to the world economy and the threat of instability.” It gives a positive and negative scenario. In the positive, where economic growth becomes “rooted and sustained,” regional leaders will ensure stability both economic and political. However, “in a more negative scenario, leaders will fail to prepare their growing populations to participate productively in the global economy, authoritarian regimes will hold tightly to power and become more repressive, and regional conflicts will remain unresolved as population growth strains resources.”

The report elaborates that, “youth bulges, deeply rooted conflicts, and limited economic prospects are likely to keep Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others in the high-risk category. Spillover from turmoil in these states and potentially others increases the chance that moves elsewhere in the region toward greater prosperity and political stability will be rocky. The success of efforts to manage and resolve regional conflicts and to develop security architectures that help stabilize the region will be a major determinant of the ability of states to grow their economies and pursue political reform.” In other words, expect continued destabilization of the region.

It states of Iran, that its “fractious regime, nationalist identity, and ambivalence toward the United States will make any transition from regional dissenter toward stakeholder perilous and uneven. Although Iran’s aims for regional leadership—including its nuclear ambitions—are unlikely to abate, its regional orientation will have difficulty discounting external and internal pressures for reform.”[17]

In relation to Afghanistan, the report states that, “Western-driven infrastructure, economic assistance, and construction are likely to provide new stakes for local rivalries rather than the basis for a cohesive Western-style economic and social unity.” Further, as “Globalization has made opium Afghanistan’s major cash crop; the country will have difficulty developing alternatives, particularly as long as economic links for trade with Central Asia, Pakistan, and India are not further developed.” It states that sectarian conflicts will continue and increase.

The report describes Pakistan as a “wildcard,” especially in relation to conflict in Afghanistan. It states that its Northwest Frontier Province and tribal areas “will continue to be poorly governed and the source or supporter of cross-border instability.” It states that, “If Pakistan is unable to hold together until 2025, a broader coalescence of Pashtun tribes is likely to emerge and act together to erase the Durand Line,” and fractionalize Pakistan into ethnic divides. Essentially, expect Pakistan to be broken up into ethnically divided countries and territories.

It also stipulates that Iraq will continue to be plagued by sectarian and ethnic conflicts, which will spillover into other countries of the region, as “Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia will have increasing difficulty staying aloof. An Iraq unable to maintain internal stability could continue to roil the region. If conflict there breaks into civil war, Iraq could continue to provide a strong demonstration of the adverse consequences of sectarianism to other countries in the region.”[18] Put another way, Iraq will collapse into civil war, break up and become an example to the rest of the region regarding what happens to countries that pursue divergent policies from those of the West.

Nuclear War

The report states that there is a likely increase in the risk of a nuclear war, or in the very least, the use of a nuclear weapon by 2025. “Ongoing low-intensity clashes between India and Pakistan continue to raise the specter that such events could escalate to a broader conflict between those nuclear powers.” Further, “The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran spawning a nuclear arms race in the greater Middle East will bring new security challenges to an already conflict-prone region, particularly in conjunction with the proliferation of long-range missile systems.” The report also brings up the prospect of nuclear terrorism as an increased risk.[19]

Terrorism

The report states that terrorism will by no means disappear from the international stage by 2025. It interestingly postulates that there is a possibility of Al-Qaeda’s influence as a terrorist group greatly diminishing, or all together disappearing, being replaced with new terrorist threats.[20]

It discusses the actions that will likely be pursued by countries in reaction to terrorist threats, saying that many governments will be “expanding domestic security forces, surveillance capabilities, and the employment of special operations-type forces.” Counterterrorism measures will increasingly “involve urban operations as a result of greater urbanization,” and governments “may increasingly erect barricades and fences around their territories to inhibit access. Gated communities will continue to spring up within many societies as elites seek to insulate themselves from domestic threats.”[21] Essentially, expect a continued move towards and internationalization of domestic police state measures to control populations.

Global Pandemic

The report states that there is a distinct possibility of a global pandemic emerging by 2025. In this case, “internal and cross-border tension and conflict will become more likely as nations struggle—with degraded capabilities—to control the movement of populations seeking to avoid infection or maintain access to resources.” It states that such a likely candidate for a pandemic would be the H5N1 avian flu.

It states that in the event of a global pandemic, likely originating in a country such as China, “tens to hundreds of millions of Americans within the US Homeland would become ill and deaths would mount into the tens of millions,” and “Outside the US, critical infrastructure degradation and economic loss on a global scale would result as approximately a third of the worldwide population became ill and hundreds of millions died.”[22]

A New International System Is Formed

In discussing the structure and nature of a new international system, the report states that, “By 2025, nation-states will no longer be the only – and often not the most important – actors on the world stage and the ‘international system’ will have morphed to accommodate the new reality. But the transformation will be incomplete and uneven.”

The report states that under a situation in which there are many poles of power in the world, yet little coordination and cooperation between them all, it would be “unlikely to see an overarching, comprehensive, unitary approach to global governance. Current trends suggest that global governance in 2025 will be a patchwork of overlapping, often ad hoc and fragmented efforts, with shifting coalitions of member nations, international organizations, social movements, NGOs, philanthropic foundations, and companies.” In other words, by 2025, there won’t be an established global government, but rather an acceleration of the processes and mechanisms that have been and currently are underway in efforts to create a world government.

The report also interestingly points out that, “Most of the pressing transnational problems – including climate change, regulation of globalized financial markets, migration, failing states, crime networks, etc. – are unlikely to be effectively resolved by the actions of individual nation-states. The need for effective global governance will increase faster than existing mechanisms can respond [Emphasis added].”[23] In other words, due to the growing threat of international problems, which are essentially the result of Western political-economic-intelligence activities and policies, the solution is a move toward international governance, which will be overseen and run by those same Western interests.

In discussing the rise of the emerging powers, particularly China and India, the report observes that their economic progress has been “achieved with an economic model that is at odds with the West’s traditional laissez faire recipe for economic development.” So the question is, “whether the new players – and their alternative approaches – can be melded with the traditional Western ones to form a cohesive international system able to tackle the increasing number of transnational issues.” It continues, saying that “the national interests of the emerging powers are diverse enough, and their dependence on globalization compelling enough, that there appears little chance of an alternative bloc forming among them to directly confront the more established Western order. The existing international organizations – such as the UN, WTO, IMF, and World Bank – may prove sufficiently responsive and adaptive to accommodate the views of emerging powers, but whether the emerging powers will be given – or will want – additional power and responsibilities is a separate question.”[24] So, as the new powers emerge, as a result of Western elite-directed globalization, they will likely merge with the Western controlled world order as opposed to becoming an alternative or opposition force to it.

Regionalism

The report discusses the topic of regionalism in different areas of the world: “Greater Asian integration, if it occurs, could fill the vacuum left by a weakening multilaterally based international order but could also further undermine that order. In the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, a remarkable series of pan-Asian ventures—the most significant being ASEAN + 3—began to take root. Although few would argue that an Asian counterpart to the EU is a likely outcome even by 2025, if 1997 is taken as a starting point, Asia arguably has evolved more rapidly over the last decade than the European integration did in its first decade(s).” It further states that, “movement over the next 15 years toward an Asian basket of currencies—if not an Asian currency unit as a third reserve—is more than a theoretical possibility.”

The report elaborates on the concept of regionalism, stating that, “Asian regionalism would have global implications, possibly sparking or reinforcing a trend toward three trade and financial clusters that could become quasi-blocs (North America, Europe, and East Asia).” Such blocs “would have implications for the ability to achieve future global World Trade Organization agreements and regional clusters could compete in the setting of trans-regional product standards for IT, biotech, nanotech, intellectual property rights, and other “new economy” products.”[25] So these three main regional blocs will make up the initial structure of international governance by 2025, progressing toward the ultimate goal of a global government.

The Decline of Democracy

The report states that with democratization around the world, “advances are likely to slow and globalization will subject many recently democratized countries to increasing social and economic pressures that could undermine liberal institutions.” Part of this reasoning is that “the better economic performance of many authoritarian governments could sow doubts among some about democracy as the best form of government. The surveys we consulted indicated that many East Asians put greater emphasis on good management, including increasing standards of livings, than democracy.” Of great significance, the report also states that, “even in many well-established democracies, surveys show growing frustration with the current workings of democratic government and questioning among elites over the ability of democratic governments to take the bold actions necessary to deal rapidly and effectively with the growing number of transnational challenges.”[26]

This is a very important point, as among many “well-established democracies” are the United States, which is already experiencing a massive shift away from democracy. China, which has been able to emerge rapidly as a result of Western-controlled globalization, and which remains authoritarian, can essentially be viewed as a model for the international system being shaped, as democracies take a turn toward authoritarianism and other rising powers choose to pursue development in the same manner. Essentially, the new international system will mark a move away from democracy and towards international authoritarianism.

Conclusion

It is important, when reviewing the above information provided by the report, to understand the perspective of the authors. The US intelligence community worked closely with businesses, prominent academic institutions and powerful think tanks, all of which play extremely significant roles in shaping our current world order. Thus, the perspectives outlined in the report come with an inherent bias, and so it is important to “read in between the lines.” The report does NOT state what the objectives of the US intelligence community, academic institutions, businesses or think tanks will be in this future 2025 scenario, but you can be assured that they will not play backseat roles and merely observe situations. These are among the most powerful players in the international arena, and this vision of 2025 is the world they are shaping.

So when the report suggests the likely fractionalization of Pakistan, they do not say that it is a US objective to do so, but rather that it is a likely possibility that such a scenario will occur. Thus, it is important to comprehend this information with an understanding that those who wrote the report, have been, are currently, and will in all likelihood, continue to be among the most powerful actors shaping the world order and the new international system. They have been behind the great “transnational issues” and are now proposing their “international solutions.”

Notes

[1] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: Acknowledgements

[2] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: 10

Related Posts:

• Bailout for the People
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• The Shadow Money Lenders: The Real Significance of The Fed’s Zero-Interest-Rate Policy
• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world

1. That when or if the President of the United States, the Congress of
the United States or any other federal agent or agency declares the
Constitution of the United States to be suspended or abolished, if the
President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial
law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more
of the states without the consent of that state or if any federal
order attempts to make it unlawful for individual Americans to own
firearms or to confiscate firearms, the State of Arizona, when joined
by thirty-four of the other fifty states, declares as follows:

that the states resume all state powers delegated by the Constitution
of the United States and assume total sovereignty; that the states
re-ratify and re-establish the present Constitution of the United
States as the charter for the formation of a new federal government,
to be followed by the election of a new Congress and President and the
reorganization of a new judiciary, similarly following the precedent
and procedures of the founding fathers; that individual members of the
military return to their respective states and report to the Governor
until a new President is elected; that each state assume a negotiated,
prorated share of the national debt; that all land within the borders
of a state belongs to the state until sold or ceded to the central
government by the state’s Legislature and Governor; and that once
thirty-five states have agreed to form a new government, each of the
remaining fifteen be permitted to join the new confederation on
application.

Related Posts:

• The Zionist Nexus Linking 9-11 and the Financial Crisis
• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• Bailout for the People
• The Posse Comitatus Act and Homeland Security
• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world

The Department of Homeland Security has been given the money it needs to begin turning international spy satellites within the country’s borders, despite lingering fears about the program’s lack of focus and the potential for it to infringe upon Americans’ civil liberties.

After more than a year of delay, Congress quietly authorized DHS to begin sharing data gathered by military satellites with civilian and law enforcement agencies. A $634 billion spending bill signed into law earlier this week provides funds for DHS to establish the satellite surveillance program, known as the National Applications Office, without addressing the myriad concerns about NAO privacy and civil liberties protections that had been delaying its implementation.

Supporters of the program claim, according to the Wall Street Journal, that its scope will be limited to “emergency response and scientific needs,” but civil liberties advocates and some members of Congress fear the door has been open for the highly classified satellite surveillance program to shift into high gear.

“I’m kinda shocked it got through,” Tim Sparapani, an American Civil Liberties Union lobbyist, told Raw Story, saying the spending bill language authorizing the NAO is not “strong enough to forbid what we would want to see forbidden.”

Essentially, the bill only requires the Homeland Security Secretary to assure lawmakers that NAO programs comply with exisiting laws. Congress also has required the DHS Inspector General to provide quarterly classified reports on how much information has been collected by the domestic satellite surveillance, although the bill required those reports be made to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, not the Homeland Security Committees that are traditionally in charge of DHS oversight.

House Homeland Security Committee members recommended the program be put on hold a year ago, when they requested documents outlining its legal framework and privacy protections. Those reports still have not been handed over, and committee members are not happy at the apparent subversion they suffered by Appropriations Committee members.

“It would appear they have not been satisfied in their demands,” Sparapani said of the Homeland Security Committee members who have objected to the satellite surveillance.

Rep. Jane Harman, who has compared the Bush administration’s efforts to expand the use of spy satellites to its warrantless wiretapping program, has been one of the key members attempting to block implementation of the program until all these questions are answered.

“Having learned my lesson,” she told the Journal, “I don’t want to go there again unless and until the legal framework for the entire program is entirely spelled out.”

Lawmakers also have seen a 60-page report from the Government Accountability Office, on the condition they not release the report publicly. Sources described its contents for the Journal‘s Siobhan Gorman, who reports that GAO found that DHS “lacks assurance that NAO operations will comply with applicable laws and privacy and civil liberties standards.”

The report cites gaps in privacy safeguards. The department, it found, lacks controls to prevent improper use of domestic-intelligence data by other agencies and provided insufficient assurance that requests for classified information will be fully reviewed to ensure it can be legally provided.

A DHS official told Gorman the department worked hard to include privacy protection and a spokeswoman justified the satellite surveillance’s legality because GAO did not specifically say it violates any current laws.

That justification misses the point, Sparapani says, because GAO simply answers questions posed by Congress, and since its latest report has not been made public, no one outside of the government knows what those questions are.

Besides, he says, it’s not GAO’s job to determine whether programs are legal or not.

“That’s like asking the FDA to talk about Internet communications,” he says.

Raw Story has left a message with DHS seeking further comment.

There are further concerns about whether the surveillance program would violate Posse Comitatus, which prohibits the military from participating in domestic law enforcement activities. It’s “ridiculous” to think that’s not what would be happening under this program, Sparapani says.

The ACLU is examining all its options in trying to prevent implementation of this program, which has dramatic potential to violate citizens rights, he says, but filing a lawsuit against DHS may be untenable because of the classified nature of the activities and the difficulty in being able to demonstrate any particular defendant was directly harmed.

Mostly, the ACLU will continue to push Congress and encouraging efforts of lawmakers like Harman and Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson to stop the program.

“The Homeland Security Committee has the right instinct,” Sparapani says. “It smells a rotten fish, and the only thing you can do with a rotten fish is throw it out in the trash.”

Related Posts:

• Secret Bush Administration Plan to Suspend US Constitution
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders
• Bailout for the People
• America En Route To Military Rule

1. USA Patriot Act – A 342 page document presented to Congress one day before voting on it that allows the government access to your bank and email accounts, as well as your medical and phone records with no court order. They can also search your home anytime without a warrant.
2. USA Patriot Act II – This one allows secret government arrests, the legal authority to seize your American citizenship, and the extraction of your DNA if you are deemed a potential terrorist.
3. Military Commissions Act of 2006 – Ends habeas corpus, the right to an attorney, and the right to court review of one’s detention and arrest. Without this most basic right, all other rights are gone too since anyone can be detained indefinitely. Now anyone may be arrested and incarcerated and nobody would know.
4. NSPD 51 – A directive signed by George W. Bush on May 9, 2007, that allows the President to declare martial law, effectively transforming the U.S. into a dictatorship with no checks and balances from the Legislative or Judicial Branches. Parts of this directive are considered classified and members of Congress have been denied the right to review it.
5. Protect America Act of 2007 – Allows unprecedented domestic wiretapping and surveillance activities with a reduction in FISA court oversight. Probable cause is not needed.
6. John Warner Defense Authorization Act – Signed by George W. Bush on October 17, 2007, this act allows the President to declare a public emergency and station troops anywhere in America without the consent of the governor or local authorities to “suppress public disorder.
7. Homegrown Terrorism and Radicalization Act – Passed overwhelmingly by Congress on October 23, 2007, is now awaiting a Senate vote. This act will beget a new crackdown on dissent and the Constitutional rights of American citizens. The definitions of “terrorism” and “extremism” are so vague that they could be used to generalize against any group that is working against the policies of the Administration. In this bill, “violent radicalization” criminalizes thought and ideology while “homegrown terrorism” is defined as “the planed use of force to coerce the government.” The term, “force” could encompass political activities such as protests, marches, or any other form of non-violent resistance.

So when you add in:

1. Halliburton Confirms Camps Constructed
2. Halliburton’s Immigrant Detention Centers
3. Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps
4. Halliburton Confirms Concentration Camps Already Constructed
5. KBR awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M
6. This from Halliburton’s own website

It starts to get a little scary.”

Related Posts:

• The Zionist Nexus Linking 9-11 and the Financial Crisis
• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders
• Career Army officer sues Rumsfeld, Cheney, saying no evacuation order given on 9/11