AllTheWeb :: find it all

Add to Technorati Favorites A Time, Times, and a Half a Time: February 2008

February 12, 2008

Enemy of the Civilization

Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy Part V

(Previous: Part I Killing with a Clear Conscience
Part II Dictator at the Door
Part III Big Brother on Stage: What Kind of Actor is the EU
Part IV The Purposes and Principles of the Shadow Government)

Shared Security is the doctrine that a person living in one part of the world has responsibility for the security and well being of a person living in other parts of the world. For example, a person living in Mexico shares responsibility for the well being of a person living in Pakistan and so forth. Shared Security incorporates the doctrines of EU and UN-architected human security and Canadian-architected Responsibility to Protect. These doctrines are designed to eradicate and prevent extreme poverty, hunger, abuses against women and children, genocide, terrorism, insecurities caused by economic collapse and/or state failure, etc. The Shared Security doctrine is the security model for the new global government. In a globalized world where national borders shall become obsolete, nations are expected to fundamentally shift their security strategies. Strategies which once were concerned primarily with forces of external aggression are now being called upon to focus on threats from within.

The issues Shared Security addresses are legitimate and should concern all of us—so why should we oppose it? As one becomes familiar with the global governance leadership one learns to read further to, as Paul Harvey says, “get the rest of the story”. Having read calls for sustainable development following drastic population reduction has left me skeptical that good will is the guiding principle. Underlying Shared Security is a fully-developed interlocking security model called CIMIC, i.e., Civilian-Military Cooperation. To understand CIMIC, let’s further examine the components which make up Shared Security.

Starting with the Canadian-architected “Responsibility to Protect”, this doctrine has become the cornerstone of the United Nations’ reform and security architecture. The
Report of the International Conference "The EU, the US and the Reform of the United Nations: Challenges and Perspectives reveals that “the most significant conceptual shift occurred through the linking of the notions of sovereignty with that of responsibility. Responsibility is not only a virtue to be promoted to achieve international security; it is also a condition necessary to exercise full sovereignty. For the High Level Panel States are means, not ends per se. The “responsibility to protect” populations from atrocities and gross human rights violations shared between states and international institutions, becomes the new organizing concept for the new international security system. A number of participants shared the view that when states are unable or unwilling to perform these functions, the international community must intervene, even with the use of force when necessary.”

Responsibility to Protect is understandable where nations are called upon to respond to state aggression and genocide, but language exists which is vulnerable to broad interpretation and abuse. In my
previous blog post I presented some of the global governance documents which target political dissent and monotheistic religious doctrines as “extremist” ideologies which lend themselves to violent radicalization. Interpretations of religious texts which do not conform to the Alliance of Civilizations’ guidelines are said to cause social exclusion and violate others’ human rights. (It escapes their attention that syncretism of the world’s faiths and the requirement that everyone discard their religion for a new revelation—one which their messianic figure Maitreya is expected to introduce—is itself exclusivist and violently radicalizing.)

While the Responisibilty to Protect establishes the framework for vacating a nation’s sovereignty, it is the Human Security doctrine that, in the interest of human rights, implements the global interlocking civilian-military cooperation (CIMIC) model. The idea behind CIMIC is that it places the civilian population under military policing authority. Canada’s experience with CIMIC provides some insight to what we might expect.

The picture on the left is scanned from the Canadian military journal Dispatches, Vol. 5, No. 3, Lessons Learned in Civilian-Military Cooperation. Here, the peace keeper is shown empathizing with a civilian woman. In the soldier’s right hand he holds a bayonet to the civilian’s head. His right foot is raised to a kicking position. In his left hand he smokes a cigarette. My many thanks go to Constance Cumbey for providing me with the pages of this journal.

The Human Security doctrine, originated by European Union High Representative Javier Solana, is the “preventive engagement” framework which is to be implemented globally. The 10-nation military wing of the European Union—the Western European Union—provides Solana with emergency powers to convene the European Council and preside over the military and civilian crisis management (CIMIC) machinery. Solana’s Human Security doctrine outlines the makings of a police state. Some of its characteristics are:

  • “The European Union pioneered the technique of integration at the level of society, based on the interdependence and adherence to common standards, as a way of promoting peace. The same approach should be adopted in external relations…And if necessary, it must be guaranteed by the use of military capabilities.”
  • “The debate about sovereignty and the conditions under which human rights concerns should take precedence over sovereignty has been a central preoccupation…The primacy of human rights also implies that those who violate human rights are treated as individual criminals rather than collective enemies…assigning individual criminal responsibility might be more effective. In the case of terrorism it is equally important to realise that the perpetrators are individuals and the means of curbing terrorism should be tailored to that insight.”
  • “An integrated civil-military force is most suitable for carrying out human missions. Military troops will be an important component of these operational capacities, but they will have to restructure and reequip along new lines and they will need to be integrated with civilian capabilities, such as police, tax and customs officers, judges, administrators, providers of aid and human rights specialists.”
  • “Effective civil-military integration is only possible in situations where the military act in a law-enforcement role and the civil agencies are part of a combined politically led operation.”
  • “The central goal of a human security strategy has to be the establishment of legitimate political authority capable of upholding human security.”
  • “The human security response force should be multinational with national military building blocks not below battalion level.”

Notice that Solana understands that CIMIC must be legitimized throughout the populations if he is to be successful. As I read through the global counter-terrorism materials I noticed that religion is being used as the legitimizing vehicle. This reminds me of the Peter Lemesurier’s blueprint for bringing forth Maitreya. In the Armageddon Script one of Lemesurier’s themes is the use of religion against itself:

  • "Rather than attempt to create a new vision, therefore, the task which presses most urgently upon us at the present time would seem to be to investigate those ancient prophecies which seem to swamp our world of modern vision, to research their origins and implications, to observe their extraordinary effects throughout history and above all to watch the successive efforts of those concerned to control and cope with the forces thus unleashed...we may finally find ourselves in a position not merely to anticipate the likely flow of future events …but actually to exercise a conscious control over those events by co-operating with, rather than opposing, the prophecies...Only then, perhaps, having, as it were, exorcised the former visions, shall we be in a position to create new visions of our own, and thus go on to create a 'new heaven and a new earth' of our own devising." p. 30

  • "For the wisdoms of all ages and cultures will be called upon to surrender their most precious secrets...The massed forces of the Old Age, however, will be unable to check their headlong onrush. In large measure they will go on to destroy each other in a massive, mutual venting of long pent-up aggression…" p. 237

It is not surprising to see that two United Nation’s organizations—the Alliance of Civilizations and Religions for Peace—have combined efforts to promote the concept of Shared Security.

video

At its 8th World Assembly, Religions for Peace adopted the Kyoto Declaration on Confronting Violence and Advancing Shared Security. Instrumental in carrying forward this security doctrine is Alliance of Civilizations’ High Level Group member and Honorary President of Religions for Peace Ismail Serageldin. Serageldin further advanced the doctrine by facilitating the Helsinki Process Round Table Meeting on “Multi-stakeholder Approach to Shared Security: the Role of Religions”. Since we’ve been directed to look at the Helsinki Process, let’s further examine the Organization for Security and Co-operation of Europe’ conference on The Role of Religion and Belief in the Fight Against Terrorism.

As it has been so frequently pointed out, those of us who believe our religion to be true stand accused of adopting terroristic ideologies and of hijacking religion. The OSCE’s counter-terrorism report becomes even more interesting as one considers the doctrine of Shared Security. First, notice the syncretization of religion along with traces of the “we are all one” transcendent and divine human family doctrine.

  • “It is as if social reality itself is forcing us to get rid of our exclusive attitudes and develop a universal orientation to our religion, which will be more accommodating of “others”. Indeed, one gets the feeling that each and every society is slowly, often painfully, beginning to realize what “humanity as a single family” means. Perhaps this is the path that nations must take for a universal community founded upon our common humanity to emerge…When such a universal community of different religions and peoples bound by their common humanity becomes a reality, we will understand what the illustrious mystic, Jallaluddin Rumi, meant when he wrote, “The lamps are different but the light is the same.”

Next we see that those who believe an exclusive truth claim are considered narrow and should be eliminated forever:

  • “Religion as a social force can be harnessed to build bridges or manipulated to erect walls. How religion functions in society depends upon a number of factors, among them, the political, economic, and cultural environment in which the particular religion operates. Justice, love, and compassion – values that are highly cherished in any religion – Since these values are universal, religion, which serves as a conduit for them, should also be preached and practised in a genuinely universal manner. This is what one expects the practitioners of religions to do in the coming century to counter the challenge of globalization. They should discard the narrow, exclusive concept of religion, which often confines virtue and goodness to one’s own kind. Justice and compassion in this exclusive approach seldom transcend one’s own religious boundaries. We should eliminate forever such religious exclusivists.”

Next, “exclusivists” are targeted for re-education. This reminds me of the Orwellian horrors of the Ministry of Love.

  • “As far as I am concerned, one of the fundamental aspects of the fight against religious extremism and terrorism on religious grounds is the development of proper religious education.”

  • “If we are talking about beliefs, then we should be interested in whether those beliefs are healthy or unhealthy, helpful for society for harmful. If a harmful belief takes the form of a religion, then it should meet serious opposition from society, and the state should further this. We shouldn’t assess the fight with unhealthy forms of belief that are propagated under the guise of religion as an infringement on freedom of religion.”

To assist in the control of religious thought, religion itself is calling for integration and strengthened state control. The Alliance of Civilizations has written that rather than ban religion, religion will become accountable to a central governing authority.

  • “I am sure that, in the fight with terrorism, the front shouldn’t be lined with tanks, guns, and fighter planes but with true religious figures and authoritative religious leaders who should declare a “holy jihad” in the name of preserving the integrity of the democratic society of which they are citizens. In this battle, the concept of “religion separated from the state” should be set aside; society should make a common, concerted effort to defeat the horrible disease of terrorism. The parameters of this joint activity should be extremely clear and comprehensible. Religions, religious leaders, and religious organizations need to assist the strengthening of state power at the expense of their activities in the sphere of spirituality, insofar as strong authorities have wide-ranging possibilities to provide for freedom of belief and freedom of religion.”

Finally, those who refuse to comply are declared an “enemy of the civilization”.

  • “Enemies of the civilization are misusing the name of "religion"”