FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Serving America’s War Machine

For many years, I regarded “think tanks” as a godsend.  As a news reporter chasing deadlines, I’d regularly call their “experts” for quotes.  Usually, they could give me a few succinct lines that appeared to lend a story some intellectual heft.

Then I started asking: who do these “experts” really represent?  Can outfits financed by major corporations be independent?

Security and Defence Agenda (SDA) presents itself as a “neutral platform” for discussing military matters.  Analysts with the Brussels-based think tank appear happy nonetheless to sound a bellicose note that chimes with the interest of those weapons manufacturers funding their activities.

Shada Islam, SDA’s “strategic advisor”, appeared on the TV channel Euronews recently, where she

argued that “several surgical strikes” should be undertaken against Syria (the interview was conducted before the US-Russia deal on removing Syria’s chemical weapons).

Referring to Bashar Assad, the Syrian president, Islam said:  “We have an international treaty which bans the use of chemical weapons.  If this man has really used them, we have a moral treaty obligation to act. If the West, if the international community, does not act, turns a blind eye to the use of poison gas, what message are we sending to other despots and dictators?”

Islam failed to spell out that some members of SDA would benefit directly from the attack that she advocated.  Lockheed Martin, for example, produces cruise missiles that would almost certainly be used if America decided to bomb Damascus.  When an attack looked imminent, the value of Lockheed’s shares began to climb steadily.9780745333335_p0_v1_s260x420

Last week I contacted Islam asking her to explain why she did not alert viewers to her Lockheed connections.  I also asked her Euronews interviewer, Rudolf Herbert, if he was aware that Islam is to all intents and purposes a lobbyist for the arms industry.  Neither replied.

SDA’s abhorrence of non-conventional weapons may be of a selective nature.  A report that it has published on “cyber-security” relied considerably on the “wisdom” dispensed by Yitzhak Ben-Israel, a former head of research with the Israeli military.  The report did not mention that Ben-Israel has indicated that he provided advice on how that military could use a hideous weapon called DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive).

DIME was originally tested by a US Air Force Base in Florida, where the possibility of adding tungsten or other metal particles to an explosive chemical mixture was studied.  Desmond Travers, an Irish colonel, has stated that there was much anecdotal evidence that Israel used DIME during its three-week assault on Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009.

He has expressed particular concern about DIME containing powdered metal, which cannot be removed from any human body that it enters. Travers was part of the UN team headed by Richard Goldstone, a retired South African judge, which investigated the conduct of that offensive.

Why is SDA so perturbed by Syria possessing ghastly weapons, but not Israel?  This may have something to do with how Lockheed Martin is the biggest beneficiary of US military aid to Israel.  The $3 billion that America gives to Israel each year is conditional on it buying weapons from Lockheed and a few other US firms.

The SDA hasn’t only been thinking about Syria lately.  In June, it hosted a “debate” where Claude-France Arnould, chief executive of the European Defence Agency (an official EU body tasked with boosting the Union’s military “capabilities”) was the keynote speaker.  The weapons-makers in attendance used the occasion to argue that the EU’s new scientific research programme, Horizon 2020, subsidise innovation of a military nature.

Although the Union is already financing a number of drone projects, its officials insist that these are purely civilian.  The assurances they have given are less than credible, given that the arms industry is taking part in many of these schemes.  But it is significant that the industry wants the EU to go further than it already has and actually bankroll the development of weapons.

The drive towards militarisation lacks any democratic mandate.  The deep public opposition to a Western attack on Syria illustrated that taxpayers can think of better things to do with their money than supporting American, French or British imperialism.

Shada Islam and her colleagues are hardly concerned with public opinion, however.  Their “neutral platform” caters for a tiny elite whose primary objective is to drum up new business for the merchants of death.

David Cronin is the author of the new book Corporate Europe: How Big Business Sets Policies on Food, Climate and War published by Pluto Press.

A version of this article  was first published by EUobserver.

 

More articles by:

A version of this article  was first published by EUobserver.

September 24, 2018
Jonathan Cook
Hiding in Plain Sight: Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us
Gary Leupp
All the Good News (Ignored by the Trump-Obsessed Media)
Robert Fisk
I Don’t See How a Palestinian State Can Ever Happen
Barry Brown
Pot as Political Speech
Lara Merling
Puerto Rico’s Colonial Legacy and Its Continuing Economic Troubles
Patrick Cockburn
Iraq’s Prime Ministers Come and Go, But the Stalemate Remains
William Blum
The New Iraq WMD: Russian Interference in US Elections
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Snoopers’ Charter Has Been Dealt a Serious Blow
Joseph Matten
Why Did Global Economic Performance Deteriorate in the 1970s?
Zhivko Illeieff
The Millennial Label: Distinguishing Facts from Fiction
Thomas Hon Wing Polin – Gerry Brown
Xinjiang : The New Great Game
Binoy Kampmark
Casting Kavanaugh: The Trump Supreme Court Drama
Max Wilbert
Blue Angels: the Naked Face of Empire
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail