IS THE THIRD WORLD WAR ALREADY UNDERWAY?

The escalating frequency of global military conflicts, the flouting of international laws by various actors, the swift dissemination of information from battlefronts enabling ordinary individuals to virtually participate in conflicts on the other side of the world — all contribute to heightening public apprehension about an imminent Third World War and a growing sense of its inevitability. However, in reality, such a war is already underway, whether in a covert or overt form.

A retrospective analysis of world history reveals a pattern where shifts in socio-economic structures, driven by antagonistic contradictions between outdated industrial relations and emerging production forces, culminate in major wars. These wars typically follow a sequence of scattered local conflicts and events, mirroring historical precedents. For instance, Napoleon’s 19th-century war, akin to a world war in its scale, was preceded by a series of “revolutionary wars.”

Similarly, the precursor to the First World War was a series of local conflicts, including the Balkan wars in Europe in 1912 and 1913. Stalin, in the lead-up to the Second World War, interpreted Britain’s rupture of relations with the USSR in 1927 as the first signal. Despite the Great Depression delaying the conflict, Western industrial and financial elites are documented to have fostered Hitler’s Nazism to curb communism and dismantle the USSR.

The onset of the Second World War saw the destruction of the Versailles-Washington system, and the signing of the Rome Pact equated defeated Germany with victorious nations. Violating the Treaty of Versailles, Germany re-established its navy in 1935 and remilitarized the Rhineland, its industrial hub, in 1936.

Fascism, initially nurtured by its creators, turned against them, leading the United States and Great Britain to unite with the Soviet Union to defeat Hitler. Despite this, plans for the nuclear bombing of Soviet cities were underway as the Red Army raised flags on the Reichstag.

The post-World War II Potsdam system of international relations began to deteriorate in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union and completely crumbled following the bombing of Yugoslavia. Calls for a new system governed by international law were repeatedly made by world leaders, including Putin’s 2007 speech in Munich, but no concerted efforts were made to establish one.

The emergence of a unipolar world and the epoch of U.S. global dominance have dawned, supposedly casting the beacon of “freedom” across the entire planet. However, this flame has also sparked conflicts in ten countries during the initial two decades of the twenty-first century.

The Causes of War

The events unfolding since the turn of the century, encompassing 9/11, the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, the Iraq War, the Libyan bombing, the conflict in Georgia, the Arab Spring, Brexit, the coup d’etat, and the resurgence of Nazism in Ukraine, the global phenomenon of international jihad, the war in Yemen, and the ongoing pandemic, collectively appear to be ominous precursors of an impending Third World War.

As we reflect on the developments of 2023, compelling evidence suggests the emergence of new power centers amidst continuous global transformations, indicative of the waning influence of the unipolar world. The genesis of these power shifts not only incites but will likely perpetuate conflicts. The root cause of these tumultuous processes can be traced to the United States’ unwillingness and incapacity to acknowledge the erosion of its once unchallenged global hegemony.

Leading nations like Russia, China, Iran, and India, as well as regional influencers such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, alongside the governments of Africa and Central Asia — collectively referred to as the “majority of the world” in contemporary terms — are no longer content with merely aligning with U.S. global interests outlined in Washington’s doctrinal documents. Instead, they aspire to assert their independent voices in addressing international issues and demand acknowledgment of their national sovereignty. This inherent contradiction sets the stage for potential wars or a second, and hopefully decisive, wave of decolonization.

The ongoing conflicts are fueled by the competition for global resources and spheres of influence among these emerging power centers. Unfortunately, these conflicts have become the regrettable yet seemingly unavoidable means of addressing longstanding issues that persist despite the advancements of modern technology and AI. Even in this era, the resolution of matters unfortunately still relies on the application of military force.

Exemplifying this point is the conflict in Transcaucasia, as evidenced by the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. Ongoing tensions also include the conflict between NATO and Russia in Ukraine, as well as the sustained hostilities between the Israeli army and Palestinian resistance forces in the Gaza Strip.

An illustrative case of persistent disregard for U.N. resolutions can be observed in Azerbaijan, where Armenian-Karabakh forces have maintained occupation of seven regions for over three decades. The non-implementation of the U.N. resolution, demanding the immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of occupying forces, coupled with challenges in repatriating Azerbaijani refugees and a continuous deferral of addressing the core issue — the status of Nagorno-Karabakh — has forced Baku, supported strongly by Turkey, to seek a forceful resolution to the Karabakh matter.

The West’s consistent dismissal of Russia’s concerns about increasing threats to its national security from NATO, along with Ukraine losing its neutral status after the 2014 coup orchestrated by the United States, prompted Moscow to initiate a special military operation, ultimately evolving into a conflict in the heart of Europe.

Similarly, in the case of the Gaza Strip, Israel’s neglect of Palestinians’ aspirations for their own sovereign state, the lack of substantial improvements in the enclave’s conditions post the Abraham Accords, provocations at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the forced displacement of Palestinian families from East Jerusalem, and Netanyahu’s U.N. General Assembly speech in September — where he presented a map of the Middle East excluding Palestine — compelled HAMAS to elevate the issue of establishing an independent Palestinian state to the realm of practical politics.

The War of Meanings

All the contradictions of the world — political, national, financial, religious — are concentrated and most clearly manifested now in the Gaza Strip. This is evident in the extensive involvement of all countries, global media, and numerous demonstrations worldwide in support of Palestine.

The contradictions inherent in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict can be deemed among the most profound. It represents a war of meanings, where extremities and fanaticism are pushed to their limits. The dichotomies of “white” or “black,” “for” or “against,” victory or death leave no room for a third option. Some are unable to forget anything since the Nakba of 1948, while others recall only October 7, 2023. The dilemma of the existence of the Al Aqsa Mosque or the construction of a Third Temple becomes an altar for the sacrifice of human lives, both Arab and Jewish.

The sin of anti-Semitism is severely condemned when directed against Jews, yet it is often overlooked that Arabs are also Semites. Transnational capital staunchly defends Israel’s right to “self-defense,” sending Israeli soldiers, mobilized from around the world, to their deaths in HAMAS tunnels, all while meticulously calculating future profits from the development of the vast Leviathan gas field discovered off the coast of Gaza. Corporate media, which mourned extensively for five hundred children killed in two years of fighting in Ukraine, casually mentions over ten thousand Palestinian children who died under Israeli carpet bombing, not to mention those injured, trapped under rubble, or suffering from malnutrition.

Pro-Israeli journalists seem to ignore that in seven weeks, the IDF destroyed twice as many buildings in northern Gaza as were destroyed in three years of military operations in Aleppo, Syria. They are already gearing up to produce triumphant reports on the construction of a beautiful new kibbutzim on the shores of historic Palestine, where, alongside Jewish settlers from around the world, the ghosts of deceased Palestinians will supposedly live forever.

Historically, Israeli authorities supported the establishment of HAMAS, initially presented as a charitable organization focused on religious education and social assistance. Tel Aviv perceived the Palestine Liberation Organization, led by Yasser Arafat and encompassing both Muslims and Christians with the goal of national independence, as a greater threat to Israel. Consequently, HAMAS was created and empowered in the Gaza Strip by the CIA and Israel to splinter the national movement for the liberation of Palestine.

Essentially, Netanyahu and the far-right Zionists he represents consistently needed an enemy to justify the demolition of Palestinian villages and the construction of new Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

Similarly, in Syria, international jihad became an instrument of regime change policy in the fight against President Assad. The Ukrainian army was reformatted into a NATO proxy army in the war with Russia. In all three cases — with HAMAS, ISIS, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine — technologies of radicalization of national and religious consciousness were employed. Perhaps the ideology of Zionism can also be included in this series, as Israel and its policy towards neighboring Arab countries are viewed as instruments of the West’s colonial policy in the Middle East. Therefore, Israel is not at war with HAMAS; it is a war of the ideology of Zionism with the civilizations of Islam and Orthodoxy.

Signs of the Third World War

The New York Times has reported that President Biden is preparing to resume selling advanced offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia, despite facing opposition from Congress. This decision comes amid Riyadh’s attempts to negotiate a permanent reconciliation agreement with the Houthis. The Biden administration’s move appears to indicate a reluctance for successful peace talks between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, as it may contribute positively to the growing rapprochement between Riyadh and Tehran. This geopolitical shift, facilitated by China’s mediation, challenges the long-standing enmity between the two, contrary to Washington’s preferences, given Iran’s perceived status as a primary adversary in the region.

Israel also seems disinclined towards the unification of its regional rivals. Against the backdrop of the ongoing Gaza genocide, there is a notable shift in the position of the leader of the Persian Gulf monarchies, who was on the verge of signing the Abraham Agreement just before October 7. A joint statement by China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, following a trilateral meeting, emphasizes an immediate cessation of military operations in the Gaza Strip, sustained aid to the civilian population, and opposition to the forced displacement of Palestinians. The statement underscores the insistence that the future of Palestine must reflect the will of the Palestinian people.

These developments suggest that a world war is already underway in various arenas, encompassing not only informational battles but also real-world conflicts on land and sea. This global struggle unfolds between the hypothetical Global North (West) and Global South (East).

In the current scenario, the Houthis, erstwhile adversaries of Saudi Arabia, are now targeting merchant ships in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. This has led major logistics companies to cease supplying cargo through the Red Sea, a critical route for about 14 percent of global sea shipments, nearly 30 percent of container shipments, and approximately 5 percent of global oil transportation. International shipping is hampered, even in the presence of NATO naval groups operating in the region.

The actions of Yemeni rebels appear strategic rather than spontaneous, raising questions about the motivations behind their recent activities. Meanwhile, as Western ships circumvent the Cape of Good Hope, Russian and Chinese vessels navigate the Red Sea unhindered, adhering to the condition of avoiding Israel — a consistent implementation of the “One Belt and One Road” initiative.

While global attention focuses on Israel, the diversion aids the Kremlin’s confidence in pursuing its goals, despite significant economic losses in Israel. The Israeli economy is already reported to have suffered preliminary damages of $55 billion if military operations in the Gaza Strip persist into 2024.

Amid these developments, The Wall Street Journal reports that the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) allegedly provides weapons, including missiles and drones, to the Houthis. However, the rebels deny this, emphasizing the role of their own intelligence services.

The United States announces Operation Transparency Guardian, involving ten countries to ensure freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. However, some European nations decline to transfer their warships under American command, reflecting a broader geopolitical landscape.

In summary, the ongoing conflict, particularly with the Yemeni rebels blocking key maritime routes, forces of the Operation Transparency Guardian regularly bombing them, and with simultaneous movement of Israeli army units to the border with Lebanon aiming to clash with Hezbollah, poses a risk of escalating the local IDF conflict with Palestinian resistance forces into a broader, strategic global war.

The End of the Unipolar World and the Threat of Nuclear War

The military conflicts observed since the commencement of the twenty-first century carry the potential to escalate from localized disputes to a global scale, potentially leading to the eruption of the third world war. A mounting concern revolves around the increasing number of nations expressing intentions to acquire nuclear weapons. Beyond the purview of military experts, ordinary individuals consuming news about countries withdrawing from arms control treaties may unknowingly harbor a sense of fear and anxiety. The perception that the world is becoming unhinged due to an unrestrained proliferation of weapons is amplified by a myriad of opinions and forecasts, not always of professional origin, circulating on the internet and social networks. Official news sources do little to assuage these concerns.

For instance, on the same day that the Russian State Duma passed a law annulling the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, information surfaced on the internet about the U.S. Department of Energy reporting underground tests conducted at the Nevada test site, previously employed for nuclear weapons testing. Preceding this, the U.S. military declared its intent to develop a new nuclear bomb, surpassing the power of the one dropped on Hiroshima in August 1945 by more than 20 times.

Indeed, the United States conducted examinations of the global monitoring system, equipped with seismic sensors capable of swiftly detecting indications not only of earthquakes and natural disasters but also of human-made disasters and emergency incidents. These tests aim to simulate a nuclear explosion, allowing for the anticipation and prevention of its potential consequences. It appears that the inaccurate information about the supposed nuclear test at the Nevada test site may have originated from such simulations. Had an actual test occurred, the global response would likely have been different, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) playing a significant role.

In a similar vein, during the onset of the Ukrainian war last year, certain individuals in Russia, led by a controversial State Duma deputy, issued threats to the world involving an inflatable Sarmat rocket. More recently, Israeli Heritage Minister Eliyahu openly acknowledged Tel Aviv’s possession of nuclear weapons, even suggesting the possibility of deploying a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip. When confronted with such news, an ordinary individual may perceive the looming inevitability of a nuclear catastrophe.

Recently, the Turkish president has urged for the control of Israel’s nuclear weapons “before it is too late,” thereby intensifying the discourse on the public acknowledgment of Israel’s possession of nuclear arms. Erdogan’s statement coincided with the U.N. conference on establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, held in New York. Regrettably, Israel remains indifferent to discussions regarding the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction.

Nonetheless, there is a crucial ongoing dialogue aimed at fostering trust among the countries in the region. Initiated in 2018 under the auspices of the United Nations after years of unsuccessful attempts, this dialogue seeks to advance a ban on the use of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Achieving this objective is undoubtedly challenging without the active participation of Israel and the United States, both of which have repeatedly blocked the adoption of relevant resolutions in the U.N. Security Council. However, the difficulty of the task does not diminish its significance.

Nuclear War Must Not Happen

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), a cornerstone agreement in the domain of international security and strategic stability, has effectively upheld peace for several decades since its inception in 1968. Currently, 190 countries are parties to the NPT, with noteworthy exceptions including Israel, India, Pakistan, and South Sudan. North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003, citing it as a protest against the violation of its sovereignty. Both Russia and the United States, inheriting their nuclear powers from the USSR, have ratified the NPT.

However, recent developments have posed challenges to the commitment to non-proliferation. Russia, for example, withdrew its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), while the United States has not ratified it at all. Moscow’s decision was a response to the U.S. withdrawal from various bilateral treaties and the termination of the “nuclear deal” with Iran. Consequently, this has increased the temptation for other countries to pursue nuclear weapons. The core principle of the NPT, aimed at curbing the nuclear arms race, appears difficult to enforce. Nevertheless, this does not imply that the international community lacks mechanisms to mitigate such risks.

Building upon the foundation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), over 93 countries signed and 69, constituting more than one-third of the world’s states, ratified the Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) agreement — the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in 2017. Under this treaty, signatory nations commit to “never and under no circumstances” develop, test, produce, or stockpile nuclear weapons. Additionally, they pledge not to use or threaten to use such weapons and are prohibited from hosting nuclear weapons of other states on their territories.

It’s worth mentioning that the members of the “nuclear club” — the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel — chose not to engage in the creation of this document. In fact, the United States, Great Britain, and France collectively announced their intention never to become signatories to the treaty. Similarly, Russia abstained from signing, stating that it conflicts with the national interests of the country.

Unfortunately, the sole dismantling of nuclear weapons will not suffice to tackle the challenges of global strategic security. Despite their formidable capabilities, it might appear paradoxical, but the possession of nuclear weapons by two major powers, the United States and the USSR, acted as a deterrent, playing a crucial role in preventing World War III in the 20th century.

The current international relations system is evidently driven not by trust and a sense of responsibility but rather by the demonstration of military strength and the fear of mutual destruction. Nonetheless, this reality should not discourage the exploration of mechanisms and concepts that can play a role in halting the nuclear arms race in the future. As nuclear powers, currently involved in reshaping spheres of influence, inevitably engage in negotiations, the discussions must center around defining the future structure of the world, the role of weapons of mass destruction, measures to deter their use, and, on a broader scale, the establishment of a global architecture of indivisible security.

Changes in Public Opinion

The global populace’s reaction, manifested through widespread protests numbering in the tens of thousands, stands as the sole factor capable of influencing the situation in Gaza. The collective sentiments, whether positive or negative, contribute to a general tension since we all inhabit the same interconnected energy space of the Earth, ultimately influencing events and the course of history.

Shifts in attitudes towards Israeli policy are also observable in the United States. Even before October 7, major corporate media outlets, traditionally seen as not entirely impartial, began adjusting their tone in discussions surrounding the Palestinian issue. Presently, Palestinian perspectives find space on the front pages of publications like “The New York Times” and “The Washington Post,” and Palestinian voices are featured on television channels.

Globally, organizations with names akin to “Not On My Name” are emerging, predominantly comprising young Jews who are incensed by Israel’s policies. It appears that following the conflict in Gaza, their ranks will likely swell. Over the past three to four years, prominent international human rights organizations like Amnesty International and The Human Rights Watch, alongside key Israeli human rights entities such as B’Tselem and others, have increasingly addressed the Palestinian issue. They have concluded that Israel is in violation of the international Covenant and anti-apartheid laws. These organizations have acknowledged that Palestinian refugees or exiles, residing globally and denied their internationally guaranteed right to return to their homes, are also victims of the crime of apartheid.

This acknowledgment has had a profound impact on public opinion within the media, among members of Congress, and among the clergy. The rise of the Jewish Voice for Peace movement is also noteworthy. It is currently the fastest-growing movement, boasting around 20,000 subscribers and approximately 300,000 regular supporters online, an unprecedented development that carries significant importance.

The Israeli Defence Forces’ ethnic cleansing of the civilian population in Gaza has mobilized legal associations globally, forming an army of over 300 lawyers and human rights defenders. They are preparing to accuse the Netanyahu government of war crimes, a move mirrored by certain states.

Amidst this, Palestinian Christians are urging their Muslim compatriots to unite and avoid turning the struggle for a national state into a religious war, recognizing the potential harm to their common cause. Within Israel, there are factions both in favor of and against the continuation of the war. Those advocating for a just and peaceful resolution for both peoples, calling for an end to the endless and senseless violence that is undermining the future of both Israelis and Palestinians, exist on both sides. The destiny of living side by side with mutual recognition of their human and national rights seems to have been overshadowed by a prevailing sentiment reminiscent of Cain, the biblical figure who was the first to shed his brother’s blood thousands of years ago.

Numerous countries worldwide endorse adherence to the UN resolution calling for the creation of two states and the return of Palestine to its 1967 borders. However, practical questions arise. Would Jordan and Egypt be amenable to altering their current borders in this scenario? Additionally, how would the more than 700,000 foreign settlers, residing in illegally constructed Israeli “kibbutzim” for decades, be addressed? Some Palestinians and Israelis suggest an alternative approach: establishing a single state, named the Holy Land, with Jerusalem as its capital — a proposition that resonates with the shared heritage of three world religions.

Am I for the Tank or for the Child?

Various entities, including Sunni Turkey, Shiite Iran, the Catholic Vatican, and Orthodox Russia, have condemned Israel’s actions. Elon Musk, during an interview with Lex Friedman, expressed the view that killing one child in Gaza could potentially create several individuals who may join HAMAS and seek retaliation against Israelis. This perspective applies to victims on both sides, as each casualty can fuel a desire for revenge. Investigations in Israeli media outlets, such as Yedioth Ahronoth and Haaretz, have uncovered instances implicating Israeli security forces in harming Israeli settlers and festival attendees.

Unfortunately, the cycle of hatred may persist, with Arabs and Jews passing it down through generations. This dynamic is not limited to specific nationalities, religions, genders, or social affiliations but can be cultivated intentionally and consistently.

The global resonance of the Palestinian issue extends beyond considerations of land, nationality, or religion. It has become a universal moral benchmark, emblematic of justice. The image of a child confronting an Israeli tank symbolizes Palestinian resistance and serves as a litmus test for human ethics. The prevailing sentiment often leans towards empathy for the child.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan rightly pointed out that remaining silent in the face of Israel’s actions in Gaza could be interpreted as giving the green light to lawlessness elsewhere in the world. Impunity, he argues, breeds corruption.

Gaza is Not a Humanitarian Crisis, it is a Crisis of Humanity.

“Gaza is not a humanitarian crisis; it is a crisis of humanity,” stated China’s representative to the U.N., a sentiment that holds true. Nevertheless, statements from right-wing politicians in the current Israeli government often imply that thousands of Palestinian children bear blame for their deaths during years of protests against the Israeli occupation and indiscriminate bombing.

Killing, however, is not an easy act. The technique of dehumanizing the enemy has been employed historically, such as by the German Nazis against the Jews, the Zionists against the Palestinians, jihadists against “kafeers” (infidels), Ukrainian nationalists against Russian separatists, and reciprocally, by almost all Ukrainians against Russians and vice versa.

Dehumanizing another human being and cultivating a sense of superiority facilitates the killing process by eliciting the necessary emotions: hatred, thirst for revenge, and bitterness. However, murder fundamentally contradicts the ethics of humanism embedded in the national and spiritual traditions of any society. This contradiction is why the suffering of the Palestinians, representing global injustice, triggers deep and widespread protests worldwide.

Nevertheless, it is crucial not to let the passion that united millions in compassion for the people of Palestine and their desire for freedom become merely a vast but futile expenditure of human energy. The lack of results in the struggle for justice can breed feelings of helplessness and deep indifference among people, leading to the overall degradation of society.

Therefore, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive overhaul of political elites, social systems, and norms of human existence in all societies, acknowledging that ideal states do not exist.

Following any war, the rules are typically dictated by the victors. It is anticipated that the U.N., as the primary regulator of international life after World War II, will persist after the current World War III but will inevitably undergo reform. The new system of international relations should ideally incorporate the lessons learned from the 20th and 21st centuries and reassess the mechanisms for implementing international law, which currently face challenges.

The current inaction of the U.N. needs to be reevaluated, and the international organization should, in the future, play a definitive role in safeguarding the world against the outbreak of wars.

Furthermore, there is an urgent call to restore and strengthen moral norms across all spheres of human activity, including international relations. Institutionalizing ethical values in politics is particularly important. The historical trajectory of human development will be shaped by the outcomes of the global transition to a new world. The choice lies between continuing on the path of hatred, profit, and war or opting for forgiveness, healing, and cooperation in the pursuit of peace.

PS: Since October 7, Kazakhstan has evacuated 166 of its citizens and their family members from Israel and 126 from the Gaza Strip. Israel denied permission for 17 people to leave, citing alleged links to HAMAS. The Kazakhstan Foreign Ministry did not dispute this. Additionally, two Kazakhstani citizens were killed by Israeli bombardment in the city of Khan Yunis in mid-November: Julia Abu-Mealak and her daughter Elena. They do not resemble terrorists.

Also, on January 26, the International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body of the United Nations, concluded that there was substantial evidence suggesting Israel’s potential involvement in genocide. As a result, the court issued “preliminary measures” mandating Israel to halt mass deaths. Simultaneously, Israel accused UNRWA, the primary UN agency responsible for Gaza’s humanitarian aid, of complicity in the October 7 attack.

This accusation prompted the United States, Great Britain, and seven other European nations to suspend funding for UNRWA, jeopardizing the aid organization’s ability to prevent further civilian casualties, including famine and disease.

According to the U.N., from October 2023, over two years, at least 10,000 civilians, including over 560 children, perished in Ukraine, encompassing Russians in Donbass, with 18,500 individuals sustaining injuries. In parallel, Israel’s bombardment of the Gaza Strip over nearly four months claimed the lives of more than 28,000 people, with 70% being women and children. These egregious acts against humanity demand immediate cessation, and Israel must be held accountable.

---

Sir Vincent Lyn assisted in the writing and editing of this article.

---

CovertAction Magazine is made possible by subscriptions, orders and donations from readers like you.

Blow the Whistle on U.S. Imperialism

Click the whistle and donate

When you donate to CovertAction Magazine, you are supporting investigative journalism. Your contributions go directly to supporting the development, production, editing, and dissemination of the Magazine.

CovertAction Magazine does not receive corporate or government sponsorship. Yet, we hold a steadfast commitment to providing compensation for writers, editorial and technical support. Your support helps facilitate this compensation as well as increase the caliber of this work.

Please make a donation by clicking on the donate logo above and enter the amount and your credit or debit card information.

CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and your gift is tax-deductible for federal income purposes. CAI’s tax-exempt ID number is 87-2461683.

We sincerely thank you for your support.

---

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s). CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI), including its Board of Directors (BD), Editorial Board (EB), Advisory Board (AB), staff, volunteers and its projects (including CovertAction Magazine) are not responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. This article also does not necessarily represent the views the BD, the EB, the AB, staff, volunteers, or any members of its projects.

Differing viewpoints: CAM publishes articles with differing viewpoints in an effort to nurture vibrant debate and thoughtful critical analysis. Feel free to comment on the articles in the comment section and/or send your letters to the Editors, which we will publish in the Letters column.

Copyrighted Material: This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a not-for-profit charitable organization incorporated in the State of New York, we are making such material available in an effort to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School.

Republishing: CovertAction Magazine (CAM) grants permission to cross-post CAM articles on not-for-profit community internet sites as long as the source is acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original CovertAction Magazine article. Also, kindly let us know at info@CovertActionMagazine.com. For publication of CAM articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: info@CovertActionMagazine.com.

By using this site, you agree to these terms above.

---

About the Author