KONY 2012: A Closer Look

             A recent global phenomenon called “KONY 2012” has been circling the internet this past week and I think it deserves much more research and context. The international campaign is an attempt to raise awareness of a man named Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), who has been fighting in Sub-Saharan Africa for over two decades. If you are reading this blog you probably know the details of the KONY 2012 video so I won’t get into them. I believe, as many others are suggesting, that this conflict needs to be presented in a much broader context. I am fully aware that this blog will not contain all the aspects necessary to understand the situation but I believe it will help to open new avenues of research in which we can better understand the situation.

              

  A Ugandan journalist named Rosebell Kagumire said this of the campaign to make Kony “famous”:

“We need sound intelligent campaigns that are geared toward real policy shifts rather than an   adverse sensationalized story that is out to make just one person cry and at the end of the day we forget about it. I think it’s all about trying to make a difference but how you tell the story of African’s is much more important than what the story is. If you are showing me as voiceless and hopeless, if you don’t believe I have the power to change what is going on [then] you have no space telling my story.”

The film seems to suggest that the power to change the situation lies in America and that it does not lie in the hands of the people of Uganda and the local and state governments. It is a continuance of an image of Africans as being totally unable to help themselves. It continues a narrative of Africa as being a place of conflict and the people are “so hopeless” that America “can help.” Kagumire goes on to say that “the war is much more complex than just one man.” It is largely about “resources and the marginalization of people in Northern Uganda.”

              

                   With all that being said, I think it is imperative to say that I believe there is a lot of good that can come from this heightened awareness. The KONY campaign will bring to light real-life situations that we have been so disconnected from, situations that we do not clearly understand. Even writing this, I am aware of the limitations of my knowledge of the situation. But what I believe is the best outcome of KONY 2012 is that it will inspire people to learn, to try to understand what is happening in the world. Joseph Kony has committed so many crimes and he should be brought to justice for his crimes but he is not the only one. And maybe the KONY campaign can be the catalyst into a new era where government officials, militant leaders, and corrupt politicians are held to account for the things they do. So I want to state right now that I truly support the movement and this blog is not a denouncement of its message, it is just a deeper investigation of the problem then presented in the video.

                There has been a lot of investigation into the non-profit organization that made this film, Invisible Children. The organization got its name when it created the video “Invisible Children” in 2006. One fellow blogger said that “it felt uncomfortable that they commercialized poverty to sell wristbands and t-shirts. It seemed strange to send culturally ignorant people with cameras out to invade the lives of struggling people in the name of ‘helping’ them.” I can somewhat understand this bloggers point but I think that the organization has good intentions. Maybe they don’t have the requisite knowledge to understand how to approach the problem but I do believe it is being done in good faith.

                But the same old story of a bad dude against the “good-guys” of the West, who have to try to save the people is not the best approach. It is imperative that we understand that this story cannot be told in such simple terms. One example that I think needs to be presented is that Invisible Children’s Director of Communications has said that the organization is working with the Ugandan Army and Sudan’s People’s Liberation Army. These military entities are responsible for the same crimes that Kony is being accused of and the participation with the army is evidence that Invisible Children don’t really understand the situation too well.

                The other big accusation made against Invisible Children has to deal with their finances. The Better Business Bureau is considering indicting the organization because it won’t allow for an audit of its finances which to some screams foul-play. A report was released that showed the Invisible Children only spends 31% of its funds on direct aid, while the rest of the money goes to supporting the other military's , on merchandise, advertisement and production. Charity Watchdogs, an organization that rates non-profit work, gave Invisible Children a 2-star rating. Invisible Children released a document containing its expenses but the validity of the report is in question.

                The situation that was presented in the video does not seem to be an accurate depiction of the LRA presence and atrocious acts in Uganda today. There have been multiple reports that suggest the LRA is not operating in Uganda, but they are in the DRC, the Central African Republic, and south Sudan. The situation presented in the video is that of 5 or 6 years ago and Joseph Kony is in hiding somewhere in the DRC. Ugandan journalists say that the “situation has tremendously improved.” Michael Wilkerson, an Oxford PhD candidate who has been living in Uganda said that “Joseph Kony is not in Uganda and hasn’t been for 6 years” and that the “LRA now numbers at most in the hundreds.” Wilkerson goes on to explain the situation:

“Following a successful campaign by the Ugandan military and failed peace talks in 2006, the LRA was pushed out of Uganda and has been operating in extremely remote areas of the DRC, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic – where Kony himself is believed to be now. The Uganda military has been pursuing the LRA since then but had little success… Additionally, the LRA does not have 30,000 mindless child soldiers. This grim figure, cited by Invisible Children in the film refers to the total number of kids abducted by the LRA over nearly 30 years.”

                So what are the people of Uganda saying in response to the video? There are definitely some people who are encouraged by it but there seems to be a common theme, that we don’t understand the situation well enough.

“The major problem with the video is that it simplifies the story… There have been local initiatives to end this war… The video plays on the idea that the reason this war has been going on is because the people of the Western world are ignorant. The video is another story of a hero trying to rescue African children but it does not help end the problem.”

-          Rosebell Kagumire, Ugandan journalist

“What the video says is totally wrong, and it can cause more problems than help us. There has not been a single soul from the LRA here since 2006. Now we have peace, people are back in their homes, they are planting their fields, they are starting their businesses. That is what people should help us with.”

-          Dr. Beatrice Mpora, director of Kairos, a community health organization in Gulu

“To call this campaign a misrepresentation is an understatement. While it draws attention to the fact that Kony, indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court in 2005, is still on the loose, its portrayal of his alleged crimes in Northern Uganda are from a bygone era… Today most of these children are semi-adults. Many are still on the streets unemployed. Gulu has the highest number of child prostitutes in Uganda.”

-          Angelo Izama, Ugandan journalist

“Suggesting that the answer is more military action is just wrong. Have they thought of the consequences? Making Kony “famous” could make him stronger. Arguing for more US troops could make him scared, and make him abduct more children, or go on the offensive.”

-          Javie Ssozi, Ugandan blogger

“In their campaigns, such organizations have manipulated facts for strategic purposes, exaggerating the scale of LRA abductions, murders and emphasizing the LRA’s use of innocent children as soldiers, portraying Kony – a brutal man, to be sure – as uniquely awful, a Kurtz-like embodiment of evil. They rarely refer to the Ugandan atrocities of those of Sudan’s People’s Liberation Army, such as attacks against civilians or looting of civilian homes and businesses, or the complicated regional politics fueling the conflict.”

-          The Council on Foreign Affairs official statement

               There are many other things that need to be taken into account when assessing any situation than just the acts of one man. And to proclaim that the “morally superior” US is going to come in and fix the situation is just ludicrous. The reality is that the governments of the DRC, Uganda, Sudan, and the Central African Republic will have to bring the war to an end. Kagumire goes on to say that Ugandans need “ much more efforts to reconcile communities, solving this war is about preserving the region, making sure communities do not go back to rebellion, making sure you stop a rebellion before it starts.”

                It is critical to examine the history of US “humanitarian” intervention. I can’t get into it now but I fail when I try to find a situation that the US has actually helped by intervening militarily.  The involvement of American military forces needs to be opposed if you are trying to stop a war and make sure another rebellion does not happen. US tactics have been to foment revolt not to stop it.  President Barack Obama said that “although the US forces are combat-equipped, they will only be providing information, advice, and assistance,” which sounds a lot like training and supplying. Michael Wilkerson says that “one of the biggest issues with a simplistic “Stop Kony” message is that discussions of Navy Seals and drone strikes are inevitable when patience runs out with Ugandan-led efforts. But what about the dozens or hundreds of abducted and brain-washed kids? Should we bomb [the kids too]? Will they actually stop fighting after Kony is gone? What if they shoot back?” These are very important things to ask when considering intervention.

                This sort of “White Savior” ideology  – as it is being called by some Ugandans – can only make the problems worse. Whether you militarily indoctrinate the Ugandan army or you drop bombs on “strategic targets” to stir Kony out, there are grave consequences. And the effects are felt by the innocent population. You either create a more brutal, more technologically advanced, repressive military state or you bomb an unknown number of civilians. Both approaches have been failures in the past and would be in this situation. And I believe that neither is what the people of Uganda want.

Another very important aspect of this is that of the atrocities (which I have mentioned) by the Ugandan military. In Late 2009, a protest in the capital Kampala was violently repressed by the Ugandan military. 27 people were killed and 894 were arrested in 2 days. Tanks and military personnel roam the streets, well-armed with Western weapons, violently repressing dissent. Most of the weapons to the Ugandan military come from the US as well as from the UK and the Netherlands. Providing weapons to a brutal military only works to destabilize a region and ensure that the conflict continues. We should definitely think twice before advocating US military assistance to the Ugandan military because it has been so repressive. The same year, the Ugandan military cracked down on the press. 20 journalists were arrested and tortured by military police and 4 radio stations were shut down. (here's a video)

               

                The US Africa Command (AFRICOM) has two bases in Uganda which claim to be promoting “regional stability.” If history is any indicator then we should note that US military bases have been in place for one very specific reason – to protect US economic interests.   In Uganda there are significant oil and natural gas resources. Emira Woods, Co-Director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies said, that “oil has become an addiction” for US leaders.  “Uganda has oil which changes the calculus always with US foreign policy when it’s a country proven to be rich in oil,” she said. Mark Kersten from Justice in Conflict says Uganda’s recently-discovered oil reserves, which "may produce between 2.5 billion to 6 billion barrels of oil... has been directly linked to the country's security." It is critical to not forget how the world works, and how the capitalistic and neo-liberal principles of Washington have been forced on the rest of the world. Let’s take a look at the case of the Ugandan government against an international oil corporation that is going on right now.

                At the International Court of Arbitration in London, the court is getting ready to rule in favor of Heritage Oil. Heritage Oil and Gas (based in London) “is contesting the government ‘s claim to stakes on $1.45 billion, being the proceeds of the transfer of its interests in Ugandan oil fields to Tullow, another London-based oil corporation.  Uganda is owed $900 million in capital-gains from the transaction made between Heritage and Tullow, but they refuse to pay.  If the court rules in favor of the oil companies, it could “set a precedent that could apply to any Production Sharing Agreement without a specific provision for tax on transfer of interests entered into with other oil prospectors.” The article goes on to say that “in retrospect, Tullow’s actions – paying Heritage the lump sum and offering to compensate Uganda – are now being interpreted as connivance in a wider scheme to deny Uganda money it was losing because of negligence on the part of the negotiators.” The Australian firm Hardman Resources, did the same thing to Uganda when it sold it to Tullow in the early 2000s. The companies are arguing that they are not held to the laws of Uganda. This is an example of how Western corporations are exploiting the resources of Uganda. I think it is imperative to make a note of this to understand the situation. The country is owed a large amount of money that could be used for education, health care, rehabilitation of children etc. And if we are truly for the cause of helping the people of Uganda then we must fight the exploitation of its resources and people. And the rights of all the exploited people of the world.

               

                The final piece that I would like to get into is the role that the large economic institutions are playing in this conflict. If the US decides to take action it will be another example of “humanitarian” propaganda putting a veil over the true causes of conflict. As I cited earlier, the conflict in Uganda is partly about resources. With access to resources comes wealth, and with wealth comes “development”, as defined by the West. In order for the US to truly be committed to helping the conflict in Uganda, it must be committed to reversing the policies of international institutions like the World Bank.

                In February of 2010, the Government of Uganda finalized a new five-year (FY 2011-2015) National Development Plan with the US-backed World Bank. Essentially, this entails huge loans being given to the government in order to foster “development.” This plan replaces the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (they always have such nice names), started in 1997, then renewed in 2000 and 2004. These efforts were mostly ineffective. Poverty in Uganda today stands at 37.7%, which is down, but does not take inflation into account. The UN requirement for poverty has stayed constant, but the value of currencies is dropping.  Anyways, the Bank has provided Uganda with just over $7 billion dollars. $6.4 billion in loans and $600 million in grants. The loans have to be paid back but what do these loans look like?

                Since 1996, the World Bank has granted Uganda 16 different loans to fund oil and natural gas infrastructure. That is, the Bank has loaned the Uganda government huge amounts of money to build infrastructure so that foreign corporations can come in and extract oil and natural gas for the companies benefit. The people left with the bill are the people of Uganda. Making an average of $544 dollars a year, Ugandans are essentially paying the World Bank to ensure that US and other foreign companies have access to Ugandan oil. Don’t we think that this money should stay in Uganda, and if we are truly committed to “development”, shouldn't we encourage that the wealth stay in Uganda? In contrast, the Bank has given 2 loans for education and 2 loans for health care. The Bank has also given Uganda 8 separate loans for improving transportation (including roads and railways), intended to help oil companies transport the resources they have extracted.

                In July 2011, an IDA guarantee for the Private Power Generation Project (another fancy name for exploitation) committed a total of $2 billion in additional loans.  In total, the Bank has loaned Uganda $6.4 billion, Ugandans have paid back over $3.5 billion, but because of interest they still owe $5.4 billion. All of these loans were given to develop then open up the country to foreign investment. The Bank says its “analytical and advisory activities underpin investment operations and sector strategies, and inform the government’s reform path.” More like dictate it’s path. The Bank encourages “fiscal decentralization” and “foreign investments.”

                The above mentioned five-year plan lays out its goals on the World Bank website. It states that its goals include “improved conditions for private sector growth”, “increase productivity and commercialization of agriculture,” “increased efficiency of natural resource management”, and “improved access to and quality of roads”. The International Finance Corporation of the World Bank states that in 2011 it is “focusing on financial market and infrastructure development, supporting the privatization program.” It goes on to say the “initiative that supports enhanced access to finance, business development services and improving the investment climate.” Operations in the next few years will “include heightened focus on agribusiness, finance sector development, infrastructure (including railways) and electricity companies.” The World Bank has set the country up for exploitation by foreign companies. This is what the people of the world need to be fighting to end.

                Umeme Ltd has “leased the electricity distribution grid in Uganda” and was “awarded a 20-year electricity distribution concession to manage and operate” Ugandan energy distribution. This was awarded in 2005. Come to find out that Umeme Ltd is owned by Actis, a multinational corporation with partners from the US, UK, India, South Africa, Brazil and Singapore.

                Finance minister Oduman Okello says that “in Uganda, the minds of politicians go to sleep with borrowing… The politicians have ceased to think. Policies are going wrong and not well thought-out. The person to suffer is the voter and our future generations will continue to bear the burden of repaying these loans.” He continues that “the debt increase is a result of borrowing to finance infrastructure projects required to enhance productivity in the country.” That is, Uganda pays for the infrastructure so that foreign corporations don’t have to foot the bill in order to be able to exploit the country’s resources. The debts have caused financial hardship, joblessness, and a decline in personal earnings. Food prices, energy and fuel prices and other utilities have all gone up despite all the money paid by the people to ensure that it goes down.

                I believe it is critical to educate yourself about the situation, and for that matter, the situations going on in the world today. War crimes and financial strangulation happen every single day. It shouldn’t have to take a video to raise awareness. We live in the internet era, all the information is at our disposal but it is all about what we do with that access. In the words of a random who posted a video in response to KONY 2012 on YouTube, “remember these situations are happening [everywhere] … hunger, homelessness, sex-slaves, violence, bullying, corruption, crime, drugs, torture, lack of education, poverty and hate crimes and these also need to be addressed.” Since the dialogue is open, let’s not just focus on a single man, let’s focus on a global movement. Let’s not stop in Uganda, let’s make a move for true democracy, where the people decide what is important, not the politicians and bankers. 

Here is Joseph Kony now, interviewed by a journalist. 

Thanks for reading. I really appreciate comments if you have any input. Remember to become a member. Out.

Bombing Laos: The Secret CIA War

                In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy gave a speech about Indochina and the threat of communism in the region. Pronouncing the countries name incorrectly, JFK said that “all we want in Laos is peace, not war.” Over the next 15 years, Laos became the most intensely bombed area in the entire world. Another civilization destroyed at the hands of America. Laos set the stage for how the US would conduct wars in the future. The tactics we saw during “Shock and Awe” in Iraq  and during the US-supported overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya, and also what we are seeing in Yemen and Pakistan all started with Laos. The practice that did not start there but continued and still continues today is that the US government lied about its intentions and its reasons. So let’s take a quick look at what happened in Laos from 1960-1975. And as I point out in all my blogs; don’t think for a second that these things are not happening today, because they are. The US has already started its operation in Syria and Iran is probably next.

                In 1958, Laos was able to hold a relatively free-election. There was of course massive efforts to subvert it by the US and Russia. Both tried their best to install puppet governments as the US has certainly always done when they felt it necessary. The election was won by a coalition dominated by the Pathet Lao, Communist-led anti-French guerrillas. The Pathet Lao said that women should have the same education as men. They intended to change the old associations into new ones. A majority of the new teachers and doctors that were being trained were women. They also intended to change the lives of the poor. The Pathet Lao decided that those with land would have to share it with those who don’t have it. Agrarian reform took place. The wealthy in Laos became afraid of the message being sent by Pathet Lao. The US became afraid that the message of Pathet Lao would spread throughout this important strategic and economic region.  The Pathet Lao was overthrown almost immediately with the help of the US, and “pro-western neutralists” took over. The US decided they needed to take action to ensure that the “neutralist” government stayed in line with American interests. Kennedy stationed 5000 troops on the border in Thailand and then gave the CIA the go ahead to begin its operation in Long Tieng.

                The US began to set up a military presence in the Long Tieng region of Laos. Long Tieng was a CIA-administered secret air base that at the time became the busiest airport in the world. Over 400 flights per day were flying out of Long Tieng.  One of the most beautiful places on earth, the Plain of Jars, in the Long Tieng region, was home to 50,000 people. The CIA would begin to make an army.

                The US paid 100 percent of the expenses for this operation to fight off the communist threat in Laos. The US was so afraid that their message would spread (whether it was a good message was never considered because it isn’t our message).  The CIA propped up a man named Vang Pao to lead its fight against the Pathet Lao. Vang Pao was an ex-general in Laotian army. The US provided training for Vang Pao’s army, as well as training some to fly planes. Vang Pao and his men, trained and supplied by the US, set out to remove the people from the Plain of Jars. The result of this was all out war, destabilizing Laos. The end goal was to line up Laos with US interests in order to help the US fight for capitalism in the entire region. Internationally, the UN and the US continued to declare Laos as “neutral”.

                James Lilley and Vint Lawerence started their careers with the CIA in Laos. These men helped to train the Vang Pao army that was still growing. There are extensive interviews with both men in you are interested, just YouTube it. By 1961, a US organized and supported army of highland tribesmen were fighting under the leadership of the CIA. Through the 1960s, Pathet-Lao controlled areas were subjected to the fiercest bombing in history, in an effort to, according to a Senate subcommittee, “destroy the physical and social infrastructure.” These bombings happened while the US public was completely unaware.

                By 1964, the USA, working out of Long Tieng, had pumped $564 million into Laos. The CIA operatives oversaw the writing of the Laotian constitution. The government of course was very corrupt but the people of Laos did not take very well to “democracy” and “capitalism”. They had aspirations of equality and sustainability. Then in 1965, the troops were sent into Vietnam putting a veil over the war in Laos. This gave the US government and US corporations the ability to work as they pleased in Laos.

                The US military and humanitarian aid in Laos and Vietnam was conducted by Air America, a commercial corporate airline. In Laos, Air America dropped aid, flew refugees to camps and also brought in the extensive military supplies to Long Tieng. The CIA carved hundreds of landing strips out of the mountains of Long Tieng. It was later revealed that the CIA owned Air America.

                On the ground, the CIA had created a 30,000 man army. The guerillas were fighting and terrorizing the population with air support from the Long Tieng CIA base. American and Laotian troops came to Long Tieng with their families. Outsiders were not allowed into the newly formed city. The coalition of CIA agents, a commercial airline, and hill people were devastating the country. Another key component of this war was the drug trade.

                While the CIA army blocked the communist Pathet Lao from gaining ground in Laos, drug production became very vital to US efforts in Laos. By 1970, US troops began using substantial quantities of heroin. There were more heroin addicts in Vietnam in 1970 than in all of the US. Vang Pao and his army took control of the heroin supplies, as well as rice. Vang Pao and the CIA would offer villages rice in exchange for all the village men, ages 14 and up. With no men to harvest rice, opium emerged as the only viable source of income. Opium would be loaded into CIA planes and helicopters and it was brought back to Long Tieng before it was sent off to America and Europe. The press remained silent.

                Many years later a former US government official in Laos, Jerome Doolittle wrote in the NY Times that “when I first arrived in Laos, I was instructed to answer all press questions about our massive and merciless bombing campaign in that tiny country with: At the request of the Royal Laotian Government, the United States is conducting unarmed reconnaissance flights accompanied by armed escorts who have the right to return if fired upon.” He essentially repeated the words of President Nixon. Nixon had said that our only involvement in Laos was “unarmed reconnaissance flights.” But every informed Congressmen and reporter knew that these were lies but they didn’t the massive atrocities that were happening at the hands of American tax payer money.

A 26 year old nurse from Xieng Khouang said that “in 1964 and 1965 I could feel the trembling of the earth and the shock from the sounds of arms exploding around my village. I began to hear the noises of airplanes, circling about in the heavens… We needed holes to save our lives… We who were young took our sweat and our strength, which should have been spent raising food… squandered it digging holes to protect ourselves.” The US was dropping bombs every 8 second in Laos. If a plane was unable to locate targets in Vietnam it would simply fly over and drop the bombs on Laos because the pilots were instructed not to land until the bombs were dropped. Major reporters and Congressmen  knew about the refugee camps and the bombings in Laos, but it wasn’t until 1971 that the secret base was exposed, even though not on front pages.

Fred Branfman talks about the camps with “thousands of refugees were living like animals on the floor.” Before Branfman had arrived the “bombings had been going on for 5 years.” In 1971, 800,000 tons of bombs were dropped by the United States on Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.  In 1971, Long Tieng was attacked by the Pathet Lao troops. After 11 years of war, most of the men of the original Vang Pao army were dead. So the CIA increased the bombings and the largest bombings had yet to come. B-52 strikes were 1 km wide and 3 km wide. With no troops, it turned exclusively to bombing.  It was the largest air war in human history, more bombs then were dropped on Germany and Japan combined.

With illegal policies, the US destroyed a civilization. There is no way for death tolls to be known but they are in the hundred thousand’s. All of this bombing and killing and the US lost in the end. 3 weeks after we left Vietnam, Pathet Lao won the battle in Laos and the CIA left. The war ravaged the country and destroyed the country’s infrastructure. The American government spent hundreds of millions to bomb innocents and spent no money to pay reparations or to clean up the mess we left. Today in Laos, hundreds of people die each year because of what the Laotian call “bombies”.  Weapons, from the bombing campaign which are on the ground today explode, killing children and more innocents. The resistance forces were abandoned by the US government after the war. There are entire villages in Laos built out of war scrap. Refugee camps have become villages.

Henry Kissinger, ex-secretary of state testified before the Church Committee about the bombing of Laos, orchestrated in secret by the CIA, he said “I do not believe in retrospect that it was a good national policy to have the CIA conduct a war in Laos.” And we did all of this to fight ideas of equality and nationalism. Ideas that we could learn from today but the US leadership continues to give us bogus reasons and fears for fighting these wars. The security arguments made by our leadership are too ludicrous to even consider. The fear is and was that even if a “marginal and impoverished country can begin to utilize its own limited human and material resources and can undertake programs of development geared to the needs of the domestic population then others may ask: why not us?” And that is the fear of our leadership, that people will claim what is theirs and call for a stop to constant exploitation. Exploitation that needs to stop.

Thanks for reading. Remember to become a member. Here is some more info.

Bomb Harvest

Bombies: The Secret War

The Weaponization of Outer Space

               The debate that has been going on since the 1950s about putting weapons into space is the most critical issue today. Are we as a society doomed to make the same mistakes we have made in the past or will our aspirations of peace and solidarity persevere? I think it is critical to examine the history of this debate. So I will do that briefly. The weaponization of space is largely unknown to the public but we must understand that it is very real, and it has grave implications.

                In the 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex in his famous speech, but he also warned us of the aspirations of putting weapons into space.  Even then, in 1963 as he left office, there were serious attempts and discussion about weaponizing space. Eisenhower believed (for reasons that will be presented throughout this blog) that space without weapons was in the US’s best interest. He believed “first and foremost, space was about spying.” His administration believed that space could prove useful for spying on the Russians but felt strongly that weapons should not be put into space. Almost immediately, the Air Force began to look for ways to extend its program of spying to advance its own prerogatives of weaponization.

                In late 1968, Major General Oris B. Johnson, commander of the 9^th Aerospace Defense Division wrote an article called Space: Today’s Front Line of Defense. In the article, Johnson argues that the development of weapons in outer space is inevitable and that “both physically and conceptually, the extension of military systems” into outer space is “natural and evolutionary.” Johnson goes on to argue that “the demonstrated space accomplishments of the USSR together with their avowed intention on ruling the world, leaves no room for complacency.” He states that “the necessity for effective space weapons is both obvious and urgent.” Within the article he explains that there are four functions of space weaponry: detection, identification, interception, and destruction.

                In the 1980s, the argument pressed on. The era of Cold War “evil empire” rhetoric and mass media nuclear fear continued to rage on.  In a report to Congress entitled “The Effects of Nuclear War”, Major Steven E. Cady wrote an article, Beam Weapons in Space: A Reality We Must Confront. Much like Johnson before him, Cady believed and saw that the weaponization of space was inevitable and the US needed to make its presence on the scene. To instigate the fearful, Cady writes that “in terms of weapons capabilities [the Soviets] are ahead and are likely to continue in the lead for the next several years.”  Cady advocated for “satellites firing laser or particle beams across thousands of miles to destroy enemy satellites, or ground-based enemy missiles immediately after their launch, or selected enemy targets on earth.” Major Cady believed that “America has no choice but to begin an urgent” space weapons program “surpassing anything since the Manhattan Project.”

                But of course there were dissenters. John F. Kennedy gave a speech and warned that whether or not the space program becomes “a terrifying theater of war” depends on the choices made by humans. Dr. Robert Bowman, a PhD, former Air Force officer, and President of a respected space and security issues think tank, believed that these weapons systems would only instigate the Russians. He also believed that if space weapons were “either infeasible, unaffordable, or detrimental to our security, then we should attempt to negotiate a comprehensive and verifiable ban on all space weapons.” So why the pursuit, when we know from history that it will not help our security and we definitely cannot afford it.

                The United States’ passion for control and domination over the world, as the “superior race”, could lead to a new arena for war.  After WW2, the US prevailed as the sole super power in the world and determined that it was our opportunity to shape the world in an image that is beneficial to our interest. This political ideology does not have boundaries, it extends to space as well. In 2006, China, for reasons I will address later, successfully took down one of their own satellites with a missile. The US leadership and intelligence agencies worry about these capabilities because satellites control so much of our lives. From everyday tasks to military controls, satellites are a part of a lot of aspects of our lives.

                The US owns 49.9 percent of the satellites orbiting the earth, compared to Russia, who has the second most at 9 percent. During “Shock and Awe”, 71 percent of the missiles and bombs dropped in Iraq were controlled by satellites. If US satellites were to be attacked, the country would be extremely crippled. And especially, without satellites the US could not function militarily and our network of global dominance would be compromised. The US, as “World Police”, has some very vital economic interests that must be protected. The direction of these programs is in the hands of people that have a very strong desire to see those economic interests protected.

                The Air Force Academy teaches its students that in order to control the battlefield it is a huge advantage to be the first to control the “high ground”.  We have seen examples of this from the Civil War, when air balloons were used to locate the enemy. We also saw this tactic in WW1, when the first reconnaissance planes were used to locate enemy targets.  Today, the US government funds the building of anti-satellite weapons or anti-ballistic missiles. The XSS-11, a satellite launched by the US government in January of 2003 has the ability to disrupt any other satellite in the earth’s orbit. We also saw this strategy used in WW2.

Wernher Von Braun with President Kennedy

                The V2 Rocket was the first weapon in space. It was created in and by Nazi Germany and was fired at London in 1944. It was designed by Nazi scientist Wernher Von Braun. Von Braun and a team of engineers were brought secretly into the US, by the government to help the US develop ballistic missiles. The controversy was known as “Project Paper Clip.” Von Braun later became the director of NASA and he advocated that in order to control the world, one must use space-based weapons. Each scientist of Project Paper Clip was awarded US citizenship and helped the US to launch its first satellite into space.

                In the 1960s, there was uncertainty about who, if anyone, owned space and whether it was going to be used for peaceful means or as a battlefield. I laid out the arguments for and against above so now we will examine what happened. The Pentagon was intent that the US had the right to put weapons in space and would not allow for a treaty to be signed prohibiting it. In 1967, the US finally conceded and signed a treaty that prohibits putting nuclear weapons into space but any other weapons were not prohibited. 

                In 1977, Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown called on Congress to fund strategic nuclear capabilities because with them “our forces become meaningful instruments of military and political power,” which must be available everywhere in the third world because, “largely for economic reasons,” there is “increased turbulence from within as well as intervention from the Soviet Union.”  So with the “Red Scare” the weaponization of space really began. In the early 1980s, the weaponization really began but it was done covertly. That was kind of Reagan’s “thing”, to do stuff in secret.  During the same time, almost a million people in New York were in the streets protesting nuclear proliferation. Lieutenant General Daniel O. Graham, a leading architect of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) said that “people don’t have a clue, they are protesting the proliferation of nuclear weapons while we are putting weapons into space.” What became known as “Reagan’s Star Wars” intended for all major US weapons systems to be moved to space. After the silence was broken, Reagan told the US that weaponizing space was intended to prevent the world from nuclear war, “with systems able to take down nuclear weapons in the air.” But of course this was not entirely the case.

                After the Cold War was over, the US military maintained its position on space weapons. All they did was change the name of the program to make it sound like it was being done for national defense. Clinton called the it “National missile defense” and Bush 2 called them “missile defense systems.” Both of them urged their production. George W. Bush announced to the world that the US was going to pull out of the UN Anti-Ballistic Treaty and the Pentagon, led by Rumsfeld, made space weapons a top priority. In 2003, the US government set aside $8.3 billion for the development of the “missile defense systems” in space. This is despite the fact that the “threat” has pretty much been eliminated since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Iran and North Korea, the two major threats, according to the US, don’t even have long-range missiles. But this does not and has not mattered.

                President Bill Clinton probably made the most progress in weaponizing space. Clinton’s Space Command called for “dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment.” The Clinton Administration argued that the US must develop “space-based strike weapons enabling the application of precision force, from, to, and through space.” The government and Space Command believed that these weapons would be necessary because “globalization of the world economy” will lead to “a widening economic divide” and “deepening economic stagnation, political instability, and cultural alienation,” provoking unrest and violence among the “have-nots.” According to Clinton, the space weapons program fell within the Clinton doctrine that the US can resort to “unilateral use of military power” in order to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.”

                What was long proposed as a “defense system” is starting to look like another fraud pulled by the US government. The main purpose of these space missile programs is the ability to target other satellites. And our space-based missile defense systems have that capability today. They can destroy any satellite in orbit. The US government is not only trying to control space, but to dominate it and not allow other countries access to it. Strong American control of space will ensure its dominance over the world. Space has become the new frontier used to protect and advance US commercial interests.

                Making weapons has become the new industry in America since we don’t really make cars anymore or steel.  We now make weapons. While most industries are hurting because of the depression we are in, the weapons industry is booming. This is largely because it is largely subsidized by tax-payer dollars. Huge weapons corporations like Sparta, SI International, AeroSpace Corporation, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman are receiving hundreds of billions from the US government to make weapons. Out of every tax dollar in the US today, 50 cents is going to the Department of Defense, which is handing out these contracts to build weapons.  The Pentagon has said that moving the arms race to space will be the most lucrative endeavor in history. Young people are also being indoctrinated in military technology, careers that are also largely subsidized by the tax-payer.

                Bush planners extended Clinton’s doctrine of control of space for military purposes to “ownership” of space, which also means instant engagement anywhere in the world. Top military commanders informed Congress in 2005 that the Pentagon was developing new space weapons that would allow the US to launch an attack “very quickly, with very short time lines on the planning and delivery, any place on the face of the earth.” These new programs allow the US “to crush someone anywhere in the world on thirty minutes’ notice with no need for a nearby air base.” Technology we saw employed by current President Barack Obama.

                Since the end of the Cold War, the proweaponizers have needed a new threat to justify to weaponization of space. Lieutenant Colonel Michael E. Baum, a B-52 pilot and systems analyst who also has a PhD, wrote Defiling the Altar: The Weaponization of Space. This work of fiction was presented to Congress in April of 1994. The article laid out a scenario where the Chinese launched a series of attacks from space, crippling the US. These fictional attacks were labeled as the new Pearl Harbor. After destroying US infrastructure and attacking US-UN peacekeeping troops, the Chinese gained control of the world. In essence, the article suggested to Congress that the way to overcome US vulnerabilities that the Chinese would be able to exploit was to institute a three-part weapons program and space-to-ground kinetic energy weapons, active and passive on-orbit protection. The presentation argued that people that advocated peaceful means for space had “their heads in the sand.”

                China has become the new threat created by propaganda. During the GOP primaries this year we have heard multiple candidates talk about the threat posed by China which is completely fabricated. US Congressional reports have cited ordinary websites that suggest an attack on the US, as evidence that China intends to attack the US. And China’s anti-satellite test in 2006 fell right into place. China was merely showing the US that it did not have the authority to dominate space and if the US continued its action in space, other countries would follow. Chinese officials said that “they don’t want the earth to be surrounded by weapons,” and warned the world of the US’s aspirations for space dominance.

                In addition, China has led efforts in the United Nations to preserve space for peaceful purposes, in conflict with the US.  The US space weapons programs allow the US to hit any target on the planet within minutes. A satellite system called “Rods from Gods” is a system of satellites that would release metal rods onto precise points on the earth. The destruction caused by these rods would be equal to that of a nuclear explosion. The rest of the world, and especially China knows US intentions. The UN has made an attempt to revise the original treaty of 1967 to prohibit more than just nuclear weapons but has been blocked by the US. One example was in 1994, the revision was vetoed by the US with a final vote of 170 to 1. Every single year since 1982 there has been an attempt to expand the original treaty, and every single year, the US veto’s it.

                Plus the US simply cannot afford the space program. There are major economic problems in the US now. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to dominate space, where a treaty just prohibiting weapons would have the same affect and would cost nearly nothing. But a threat is clearly not the motive.

                Current President Barack Obama said during his campaign in 2008 that he would not weaponize space and that he would seek to ban weapons intended to interfere with satellites and the such. Then why did the US veto the revision of the treaty again, and why in his first year in office did he approve over $2 billion for the space-weapons program. The State Department told US diplomats in Beijing that the Obama administration shared President Bush’s fears over China’s plans. “US objections to China’s direct-ascent anti-satellite testing are still valid and reflect the policy of the United States,” said Hillary Clinton. Much more rhetoric and no action from this administration.

                There are other consequences to trying to establish space superiority. First, is that even though you say you aren’t the aggressor, you are. The US is the instigator in this case. Also what the US does not consider is the debris that accumulates every time we launch something into space. Right now there is a lot of debris from weapons, satellites etc orbiting the earth, traveling at 14,000 mph. Certain orbits are already not possible because of this man-made debris. There is no way to clean it up. If we continue launching and blowing up satellites, putting weapons into space, it will threaten the peaceful satellites that are so critical to our society. Over $700 billion has been spent for peaceful means alone in space, such as weather systems and GPS, but all of this is in jeopardy if we keep putting more debris in space.

                But the biggest threat is that of a space Cold War. The European Union, Canada, China, and Russia warned that “just as the unleashing of nuclear weapons had unforeseen consequences, so, too, will the weaponization of space.” In response to Bush’s development of weapons programs in space, Russia responded by sharply increasing its own capacities. China is likely to expand its offensive capacities if the US does not stop.

                In 2004, the United States accounted for 95 percent of total global military space expenditures, but others are sure to get in on the action. India and Israel are both discussing anti-satellite weapons. Pakistan is sure to follow India. The chances of human survival are greatly decreased by these new threats. When we are told our whole lives that America is an exceptional country, that we know what is best, it is easy to believe it. But if we review the history of the US, we will find that behind the “defensive” rhetoric, the US has bad intentions. For largely economic reasons, the US intends to dominate, to rule, to conquer and to be the aggressor. The implications of that with the new technology the US is developing could be grave. 

Documentaries, Discussions

- Pax Americana and The Weaponization of Space

- Masters of Space

- The Militarization of Science and Space

Thanks for reading. Remember to become a member. See you next time.