Chossudovsky: The Anglo-American Military Axis


Richard Moore


For those who want to understand geopolitics, you
probably won't find a more savvy analyst than Michel
Chossudovsky.  So many others talk about military
affairs OR they talk about economics OR they talk about
politics, but not together.  Michel puts them in
perspective as aspects of the overall power game.

This particular article could not be more timely, and
it looks at the BIG PICTURE, which of course includes a
perspective on Russia & China.  Michel knows what he's
talking about, talks about what is important, and is on
our side.  Useful stuff.


Delivered-To: •••@••.•••
From: "Tim Murphy" <•••@••.•••>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:40:34 -0000

    "The Anglo-American Military Axis"
    - Michel Chossudovsky
    10 March 2003

The Rift in the UN Security Council The "disagreements"
within the US Security Council pertaining to Iraq are
casually presented by the media as a mere diplomatic

In fact we are dealing with something far more complex.
The Bush Administration's war plans have nothing to do
with "Saddam's weapons of mass destruction" or his
alleged links to Osama bin Laden.

The proposed invasion of Iraq is intended to exclude
rival European, Russian and Chinese interests from the
Middle-East and Central Asian oil fields.  While in the
Balkans, the US "shared the spoils" with Germany and
France, in the context of military operations under
NATO and UN auspices, the invasion of Iraq is intended
to establish US hegemony, while weakening Franco-German
and Russian influence in the region.

The clash between Great Powers ("Old Europe" versus 
and the Anglo-American military axis) broadly pertains

1 Defense and the military-industrial complex,

2. Control over Oil and Gas Reserves,

3. Money and currency systems: clash between the Euro
and the Dollar.

1. Defense and the military-Industrial complex

Beneath  the gilded surface of international diplomacy,
fundamental changes in the structure of military
alliance have occurred. Since 1999, France and Germany
have established military cooperation agreements with

NATO is divided. While Britain and the US have joined
hands through the so-called "Atlantic Bridge" in
defense production, coupled with close cooperation in
military and intelligence operations, significant
divisions have developed between the US and several of
its "European partners". The Anglo-American axis in
weapons production is clashing with its powerful
Franco-German rival, the European Aerospace and Defence
Corporation (EADS). The Western defense industry is
split down the middle with British Aerospace systems
now firmly aligned with the big five US weapons
producers against the competing Franco-German
conglomerate EADS.

2. Control over Oil and Gas Reserves

The broader Middle East-Central Asian region
encompasses more than 70% of the World's reserves of
oil and natural gas. According to U.S. Central Command:
"The purpose of U.S. engagement... is to protect U.S.
vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure
U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil." In other words, this
is a war of conquest, which also targets rival oil
conglomerates including those of Russia and France
which have sizeable oil interests in Iraq and Iran.

In turn, the Anglo-American oil giants (BP-Amoco,
Chevron-Texaco, Exxon-Mobil, Shell) -- supported by the
Anglo-American military axis -- are clashing with
Europe's oil giant Total-Fina-Elf and Italy's ENI,
which have sizeable interests in Iraq, Iran, and
Central Asia. Washington has in recent years attempted
to break France's deal with Teheran on the grounds that
it openly contravened the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act.
What this suggests is that Europe's largest oil
conglomerate dominated by French, Belgian and Italian
oil interests -- in association with their Iranian and
Russian partners -- are potentially on a collision
course with the dominant Anglo-American oil consortia,
which in turn are backed by the Anglo-American military

"Iraq currently possesses 11% of the world's oil and
ranks only second to Saudi Arabia in the size of its
reserves (112 billion barrels). Exploitation costs are
less than half those of deep sea drilling. Direct
access to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean ensures
strategically secure oil supply routes. The
Anglo-american oil giants (BP, Chevron-Texaco, Shell,
Exxon) are all absent from Iran and Iraq, which have
signed oil contracts and production sharing agreements
with French, Russian and Chinese oil companies. Because
of the UN sanctions on Iraq, the agreements signed by
Baghdad are not ("officially") operational." (Eric
Waddell, The Battle for Oil, Global Outlook, Issue. No.
3, Winter 2003).

According to the Washington Post (15 September 2002):
"A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
could open a bonanza for American oil companies long
banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad
and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling
world petroleum markets… A proposed $40 billion
Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly
includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore
for oil in Iraq's western desert. The French company
Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the
huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may
contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil."

The war is not only being carried out with a view to
taking over Iraq's oil reserves, it is intended to
cancel the contracts of rival Russian and European oil
companies as well as exclude France, Russia and China
from the region.

3. Money and currency systems: clash between the Euro
and the Dollar.

What is at stake is the rivalry between two competing
global currencies: the Euro and the U.S. dollar, The
process of European monetary integration has encroached
upon the hegemony of the US dollar.

The process of dollarisation, which is ultimately an
instrument of economic conquest is undermined by the

Wall Street is clashing with competing Franco-German
financial interests. The war in Iraq pertains not only
to control over reserves of petroleum, the control over
money creation and credit is an integral part of the
process of economic conquest. .


The Anglo-American Military Axis

The 1999 war in Yugoslavia contributed to reinforcing
strategic, military and intelligence ties between
Washington and London. After the war in Yugoslavia,
U.S. Defence Secretary William Cohen and his British
counterpart, Geoff Hoon, signed a "Declaration of
Principles for Defence Equipment and Industrial
Cooperation" so as to "improve cooperation in procuring
arms and protecting technology secrets" while at the
same time "easing the way for more joint military
ventures and possible defence industry mergers." 25

Washington's objective was to encourage the formation
of a "trans-Atlantic bridge across which DoD [U.S.
Department of Defence] can take its globalisation
policy to Europe. …Our aim is to improve
interoperability and war fighting effectiveness via
closer industrial linkages between U.S. and allied
companies." 26

In the words of President Clinton's Defence Secretary
William Cohen:

[The agreement] will facilitate interaction between our
[British and American] respective industries so that we
can have a harmonized approach to sharing technology,
working cooperatively in partnership arrangements and,
potentially, mergers as well.27

The agreement was signed in 1999 shortly after the
creation of British Aerospace Systems (BAES) resulting
from the merger of British Aerospace (BAe) with GEC
Marconi. British Aerospace Systems was already firmly
allied to America's largest defence contractors
Lockheed Martin and Boeing. 28

The hidden agenda behind the Anglo-American
"trans-Atlantic bridge" is to eventually displace the
Franco-German military conglomerates and ensure the
dominance of the U.S. military industrial complex (in
alliance with Britain's major defence contractors).

Moreover, this integration in the area of defence
production has also been matched by increased
cooperation between the CIA and Britain's MI5 in the
sphere of intelligence and covert operations, not to
mention the joint operations of British and U.S.
Special Forces.

The United States and Germany

The British military-industrial complex has become
increasingly integrated into that of the U.S. In turn,
significant rifts had emerged between Washington and
Berlin. Franco-German integration in aerospace and
defence production is ultimately directed against U.S.
dominance in the weapons market. The latter hinges upon
the partnership between America's Big Five and
Britain's defence industry under the trans-Atlantic
bridge agreement.

Since the early `90s, the Bonn government had
encouraged the consolidation of Germany's military
industrial complex dominated by Daimler, Siemens,
Krupp. Several important mergers in Germany's defence
industry took place in response to the mega-mergers
between America's aerospace and weapons producers.29

Already in 1996, Paris and Bonn had set up a joint
armaments agency with the mandate "to manage common
programs [and] award contracts on behalf of both
governments." 30 Both countries had stated that they
"did not want Britain to join the agency."

In turn, France and Germany now control Airbus
industries which is competing against America's
Lockheed-Martin. (Britain's BAES owns the remaining 20
per cent). The Germans are also collaborating in the
Ariane Space satellite-launching program in which
Deutsche Aerospace (DASA) is a major shareholder.

In late 1999, in response to the `alliance' of British
Aerospace with Lockheed Martin, France's
Aerospace-Matra merged with Daimler's DASA forming the
largest European defence conglomerate. And the
following year, the European Aeronautic Defence and
Space Co. (EADS) was formed integrating DASA, Matra and
Spain's Construcciones Aeronauticas, SA. EADS and its
Anglo-American rivals are competing for the procurement
of weapons to NATO's new Eastern European members.
(Europe's third largest defence contractor is Thomson,
which in recent years has several projects with U.S.
weapons producer Raytheon.)

While EADS still cooperates with Britain's BAES in
missile production, and has business ties with the U.S.
"Big Five", including Northrop Grumman, the Western
defence and aerospace industry tends to be split into
two distinct groups: EADS dominated by France and
Germany on the one hand, the Anglo-US "Big Six", which
includes the U.S. Big Five contractors (Lockheed
Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and Northrop
Grumman), plus Britain's powerful BAES.

Integrated into U.S. Department of Defence procurement
under the Atlantic bridge arrangement, BAES was in
2001, the Pentagon's fifth largest defence contractor.
Under the Anglo-American "transatlantic bridge", BAES
operates freely in the U.S. market through its
subsidiary BAE Systems North America.31

Franco-German Integration in Nuclear Weapons

The Franco-German alliance in military production under
EADS opens the door for the integration of Germany
(which does not officially possess nuclear weapons)
into France's nuclear weapons program. In this regard,
EADS already produces a wide range of ballistic
missiles, including the M51 nuclear-tipped ballistic
submarine-launched ICBMs for the French Navy.32

Euro versus Dollar: Rivalry Between Competing Financial

The European common currency system has a direct
bearing on strategic and political divisions. London's
decision not to adopt the common European currency is
consistent with the integration of British financial
and banking interests with those of Wall Street, not to
mention the Anglo-American alliance in the oil industry
(as in BP-Amoco) and weapons production ("Big Five"
plus BAES). In other words, this shaky relationship
between the British pound and the US dollar is an
integral part of the new Anglo-American axis.

What is at stake is the rivalry between two competing
global currencies: the Euro and the U.S. dollar, with
Britain's pound being torn between the European and the
U.S.-dominated currency systems. In other words, two
rival financial and monetary systems are competing
worldwide for the control over money creation and
credit. The geopolitical and strategic implications are
far-reaching because they are also marked by splits in
the Western defence industry and the oil business.

In both Europe and America, monetary policy, although
formally under State jurisdiction, is largely
controlled by the private banking sector. The European
Central Bank based in Frankfurt -- although officially
under the jurisdiction of the European Union -- is, in
practice, overseen by a handful of private European
banks including Germany's largest banks and business

The U.S. Federal Reserve Board is formally under State
supervision -- marked by a close relationship to the
U.S. Treasury. Distinct from the European Central Bank,
the 12 Federal Reserve banks (of which the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York is the most important) are
controlled by their shareholders, which are private
banking institutions. In other words, "the Fed" as it
is known in the U.S., which is responsible for monetary
policy and hence money creation for the nation, is
actually controlled by private interests on Wall

Currency Systems and `Economic Conquest'

In Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union the Balkans
extending into Central Asia, the dollar and the Euro
are competing with one another. Ultimately, control
over national currency systems is the basis upon which
countries are colonized. While the U.S. dollar prevails
throughout the Western Hemisphere, the Euro and the
U.S. dollar are clashing in the former Soviet Union,
Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

In the Balkans and the Baltic States, central banks
largely operate as colonial style "currency boards"
invariably using the Euro as a proxy currency. What
this means is: German and European financial interests
are in control of money creation and credit. That is,
the pegging of the national currency to the Euro --
rather than to the U.S. dollar -- means that both the
currency and the monetary system will be in the hands
of German-EU banking interests.

More generally, the Euro dominates in Germany's
hinterland: Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and the
Balkans, whereas the U.S. dollar tends to prevail in
the Caucasus and Central Asia. In GUUAM countries
(which have military cooperation agreements with
Washington) the dollar tends (with the exception of the
Ukraine) to overshadow the Euro.

The `Dollarisation' of national currencies is an
integral part of America's Silk Road Strategy (SRS).
The latter consists in first destabilizing and then
replacing national currencies with the American
greenback over an area extending from the Mediterranean
to China's Western border. The underlying objective is
to extend the dominion of the Federal Reserve System --
namely, Wall Street -- over a vast territory.

What we are dealing with is an `imperial' scramble for
control over national currencies. Control over money
creation and credit is an integral part of the process
of economic conquest, which is in turn supported by the
militarisation of Eurasian corridor.

While American and German-EU banking interests are
clashing over the control of national economies and
currency systems, they seem to have also agreed on
"sharing the spoils" -- i.e. establishing their
respective "spheres of influence." Reminiscent of the
policies of `partition' in the late 19th Century, the
U.S. and Germany have agreed upon the division of the
Balkans: Germany has gained control over national
currencies in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo where the Euro
is legal tender. In return, the U.S. has established a
permanent military presence in the region (i.e. the
Bondsteel military base in Kosovo).

Cross-cutting Military Alliances

The rift between Anglo-American and Franco-German
weapons producers -- including the rifts within the
Western military alliance -- seem to have favoured
increased military cooperation between Russia on the
one hand, and France and Germany on the other.

In recent years, both France and Germany had entered
into bilateral discussions with Russia in the areas of
defence production, aerospace research and military
cooperation. In late 1998, Paris and Moscow agreed to
undertake joint infantry exercises and bilateral
military consultations. In turn, Moscow has been
seeking German and French partners to participate in
the development of its military industrial complex.

In early 2000, Germany's Defence Minister Rudolph
Sharping visited Moscow for bilateral consultations
with his Russian counterpart. A bilateral agreement was
signed pertaining to 33 military cooperation projects
including the training of Russian military specialists
in Germany. 33 This agreement was reached outside the
framework of NATO, and without prior consultation with

Russia also signed a "long term military cooperation
agreement" with India in late 1998 which was followed a
few months later by a defence agreement between India
and France. The agreement between Delhi and Paris
included the transfer of French military technology, as
well as investment of French multinationals in India's
defence industry. The latter includes facilities for
the production of ballistic missiles and nuclear
warheads in which the French companies have an

This Franco-Indian agreement has a direct bearing on
Indo-Pakistani relations. It also impinges upon U.S.
strategic interests in Central and South Asia. While
Washington has been pumping military aid into Pakistan,
India is being supported by France and Russia.

Visibly, France and the U.S. are on opposite sides of
the India-Pakistan conflict.

With Pakistan and India at the brink of war, in the
wake of September 11, the U.S. Air Force had virtually
taken control of Pakistan's air space, as well as
several of its military facilities. Meanwhile, barely a
few weeks into the 2001 bombing of Afghanistan, France
and India conducted joint military exercises in the
Arabian Sea. Also in the immediate wake of September
11, India took delivery of large quantities of Russian
weapons under the Indo-Russian military cooperation

Moscow's New National Security Doctrine

U.S. post-Cold War era foreign policy has designated
Central Asia and the Caucasus as a "strategic area."
Yet this policy no longer consists of containing the
"spread of communism", but rather in preventing Russia
and China from becoming competing capitalist powers .
In this regard, the U.S. has increased its military
presence along the entire 40th parallel, extending from
Bosnia and Kosovo to the former Soviet republics of
Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, all
of which have entered into bilateral military
agreements with Washington.

The 1999 war in Yugoslavia and the subsequent outbreak
of war in Chechnya in September 1999 was a crucial
turning point in Russian-American relations. It also
marked a rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing, and
the signing of several military cooperation agreements
between Russia and China.

U.S. covert support to the two main Chechen rebel
groups (through Pakistan's ISI) was known to the
Russian government and military. (For further details,
see Chapter II.) However, it had previously never been
made public or raised at the diplomatic level. In
November 1999, the Russian Defence Minister, Igor
Sergueyev, formally accused Washington of supporting
the Chechen rebels. Following a meeting held behind
closed doors with Russia's military high command,
Sergueyev declared that:

The national interests of the United States require
that the military conflict in the Caucasus [Chechnya]
be a fire, provoked as a result of outside forces",
while adding that "the West's policy constitutes a
challenge launched to Russia with the ultimate aim of
weakening her international position and of excluding
her from geo-strategic areas.34

In the wake of the 1999 Chechen war, a new "National
Security Doctrine" was formulated and signed into law
by Acting President Vladimir Putin, in early 2000.
Barely acknowledged by the international media, a
critical shift in East-West relations had occurred. The
document reasserted the building of a strong Russian
State, the concurrent growth of the Military, as well
as the reintroduction of State controls over foreign

The document carefully spelled out what it described as
" fundamental threats" to Russia's national security
and sovereignty. More specifically, it referred to "the
strengthening of military-political blocs and
alliances" [namely GUUAM], as well as to "NATO's
eastward expansion" while underscoring "the possible
emergence of foreign military bases and major military
presences in the immediate proximity of Russian
borders." 35

The document confirms that "international terrorism is
waging an open campaign to destabilize Russia." While
not referring explicitly to CIA covert activities in
support of armed terrorist groups, such as the Chechen
rebels, it nonetheless calls for appropriate "actions
to avert and intercept intelligence and subversive
activities by foreign states against the Russian
Federation." 36

Undeclared War Between Russia and America

The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy has been to
encourage -- under the disguise of "peace-keeping" and
so-called "conflict resolution" -- the formation of
small pro-U.S. States which lie strategically at the
hub of the Caspian Sea basin, which contains vast oil
and gas reserves:

The U.S. must play an increasingly active role in
conflict resolution in the region. The boundaries of
the Soviet republics were intentionally drawn to
prevent secession by the various national communities
of the former USSR and not with an eye towards possible
independence. … Neither Europe, nor our allies in East
Asia, can defend our [U.S.] mutual interests in these
regions. If we [the U.S.], fail to take the lead in
heading off the kinds of conflicts and crises that are
already looming there, that will eventually exacerbate
our relations with Europe and possibly Northeast Asia.
And it will encourage the worst kind of political
developments in Russia. This linkage, or
interconnectedness, gives the Transcaucasus and Central
Asia a strategic importance to the United States and
its allies that we overlook at huge risk. To put it
another way, the fruits accruing from ending the Cold
War are far from fully harvested. To ignore the
Transcaucasus and Central Asia could mean that a large
part of that harvest will never be gathered.37

Russia's Military Industrial Complex

Alongside the articulation of Moscow's National
Security doctrine, the Russian State was planning to
regain economic and financial control over key areas of
Russia's military industrial complex. For instance, the
formation of "a single corporation of designers and
manufacturers of all anti-aircraft complexes" was
envisaged in cooperation with Russia's defence

This proposed `re-centralization' of Russia's defence
industry in response to national security
considerations, was also motivated by the merger of
major Western competitors in the areas of military
procurement. The development of new production and
scientific capabilities was also contemplated, based on
enhancing Russia's military potential as well as its
ability to compete with its Western rivals in the
global weapons market.

The National Security Doctrine also "eases the criteria
by which Russia could use nuclear weapons … which would
be permissible if the country's existence were
threatened." 39

Russia reserves the right to use all forces and means
at its disposal, including nuclear weapons, in case an
armed aggression creates a threat to the very existence
of the Russian Federation as an independent sovereign
state. 40

In response to Washington's "Star Wars" initiative,
Moscow had developed "Russia's Missile and Nuclear
Shield". The Russian government announced in 1998, the
development of a new generation of intercontinental
ballistic missiles, known as Topol-M (SS-27). These new
single-warhead missiles (based in the Saratov region)
are currently in "full combat readiness", against a
"pre-emptive first strike" from the U.S., which, (in
the wake of September 11), constitutes the Pentagon's
main assumption in an eventual nuclear war. "The Topol
M is lightweight and mobile, designed to be fired from
a vehicle. Its mobility means it is better protected
than a silo-based missile from a pre-emptive first

Following the adoption of the National Security
Document (NSD), in 2000, the Kremlin confirmed that it
would not exclude "a first-strike use" of nuclear
warheads "if attacked even by purely conventional
means." 42

Political `Turnaround' under President Vladimir Putin

Since the very outset of his term in office, President
Vladimir Putin -- following in the footsteps of his
predecessor Boris Yeltsin in the Kremlin -- has
contributed to reversing the National Security
Doctrine. Its implementation at a policy level has also
been stalled.

At the moment, the foreign policy directions of the
Putin Administration are confused and unclear. There
are significant divisions within both the political
establishment and the Military. On the diplomatic
front, the new President has sought [to establish] a
`rapprochement' with Washington and the Western
Military Alliance in the so-called "war on terrorism."
Yet, it would be premature to conclude that Putin's
diplomatic openings imply a permanent reversal of
Russia's 2000 National Security Doctrine.

In the wake of September 11, a significant turnaround
in Russian foreign policy, largely orchestrated by
President Putin, has nonetheless occurred. The Putin
Administration, acting against the Russian Duma, has
accepted the process of "NATO Enlargement" into the
Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) implying
the establishment of NATO military bases on Russia's
Western border. Meanwhile, Moscow's military
cooperation agreement signed with Beijing after the
1999 war in Yugoslavia is virtually on hold:

China is obviously watching with deep concern Russia
surrendering these positions. China is also concerned
by the presence of the U.S. Air Force close to its
borders in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrghyz
Republic. … Everything that Mr. Putin has earned
through the spectacular improvement of Russia's
relations with China, India, Vietnam, Cuba and some
other countries, collapsed nearly overnight. What has
surfaced is a primitive Gorbachev concept of `common
human values' -- i.e. the subordination of Russia's
interests to those of the West.43

Ironically, the Russian President was supporting
America's "war on terrorism", which is ultimately
directed against Moscow. Washington's hidden agenda is
to dismantle Russia's strategic and economic interests
in the Eurasian corridor, close down or take over its
military facilities, while transforming the former
Soviet republics (and eventually the Russian
Federation) into American protectorates:

It becomes clear that the intention to join NATO
expressed by Mr. Putin in an offhand manner last year
[2000], reflected a long matured idea of a far deeper
(i.e. in relation to the positions previously taken by
Gorbachev or Yeltsin) integration of the Russian
Federation into the so-called "international
community." In fact, the intention is to squeeze Russia
into the Western economic, political and military
system. Even as a junior partner. Even at the price of
sacrificing an independent foreign policy.44


The above text is an excerpt from the later part of
Chapter 5 of War and Globalisation . The numbering of
the notes indicated below is the same as in the
original chapter 5 from which the excerpt was taken.


25. Reuters, 5 February 2000

26. For further details see Vago Muradian, "Pentagon
Sees Bridge to Europe", Defence Daily, Vol. 204, No.
40, Dec. 01, 1999

27. Ibid.

28. Vago Muradian, "Pentagon Sees Bridge to Europe",
Defence Daily, Vol. 204, No. 40, Dec. (See also Michel
Collon's analysis in Poker Menteur, Editions EPO,
Brussels, 1998, p. 156

29. See also Michel Collon's analysis in Poker Menteur,
Editions EPO, Brussels, 1998, p. 156

30. American Monsters, European Minnows: Defence
Companies. The Economist, 13 January 1996

31. British Aerospace Systems' home page at:

32. BAES, EADS Hopeful That Bush Will Broaden
Transatlantic Cooperation, Defence Daily International,
29, 2001

33. Interfax, 1 March 2000

34. See The New York Times, 15 November 1999; see also
the article of Steve Levine, The New York Times, 20
November 1999

35. To consult the document see Federation of American
Scientists (FAS),

36. Ibid.

37. Joseph Jofi, Pipeline Diplomacy: The Clinton
Administration's Fight for Baku- Ceyhan, Woodrow Wilson
Case Study, No. 1. Princeton University, 1999

38. Mikhail Kozyrev, the White House Calls for the Fire
Vedomosti, Nov. 1, 1999, p.1

39. See Andrew Jack, Russia Turns Back Clock, Financial
Times, London , 15 January 2000, p.1

40. Quoted in Nicolai Sokov, Russia's New National
Security Concept: The Nuclear Angle, Centre for Non
Proliferation Studies, Monterrey,, January

41. BBC, Russia Deploys New Nuclear Missiles, London,
27 December 1998.

42. Stephen J. Blank, Nuclear Strategy and Nuclear
Proliferation in Russian Commission to Assess the
Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, Appendix
III: Unclassified Working Papers, Federation of
American Scientists (FAS),
Washington DC, undated.

43. V. Tetekin, Putin's Ten Blows, Centre for Research
on Globalisation (CRG), 27
December 2001.

44. Ibid.


Michel Chossudovsky's book War and Globalisation,
the Truth behind September 11,
can be ordered online , or call 1-888-713-8500.
For mail/fax orders see URL for this article:

Copyright Michel Chossudovsky  2003.  For fair use only/ pour usage
équitable seulement .