Mass migration pre-planned as a soft power weapon in 2000 U.S. intelligence report

A December 2000 U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC) report, written by the council’s Strategic Futures Group, outlines the use of coerced migrants as a U.S. soft power option. The present migrant crisis in Europe is a direct result of the implementation of mass migration as a U.S. soft weapon arising from American support for the Islamist destabilization of Syria, Libya, Iraq, and other countries of the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia.

The 2000 report, titled “Growing Global Migration and its Implications for the U.S.,” predicts the present migrant calamity sweeping Europe. The report foresaw that in “the next 15 years, globalization, demographic imbalances, and interstate and civil conflicts will fuel increasing international migration, much of it illegal. Such increase will have positive and negative consequences for sending and receiving countries alike. Key regional trends are presented for the Americas, Russia and other Eurasian states, Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia.”

There is little positive in the largely Muslim migrant invasion sweeping through Europe, except for the chance for large German corporations to replace the retiring “baby boomer” population with younger foreign and sub-minimum wage workers from the European periphery.

The NIC also saw promise in an influx of sub-minimum wage workers into Europe in a more recent 2012 report. The report, titled “Could Western Europe Cope with New Waves of Muslim Immigration?”, states, “With low projected economic growth, Western Europe would have many challenges with current levels of immigrant flows and immigrant residents. Assuming that Western European fertility remains at sub-replacement levels, countries can expect to experience a rapid shift in ethnic composition, particularly around urban areas.”

The U.S. intelligence planners determined where Europe would find new workers, lacking the full labor rights of European citizens, by looking at Europe’s far past and the Roman Empire and seriously considering “efforts to introduce gradations in immigrant citizenship status (as in Roman imperial efforts to give legal status to peoples from the periphery).” What the U.S. intelligence future planners failed to disclose is that the Roman Empire’s workers from the “periphery” were known as slaves.

Replacing Europe’s aging native workers with migrants was also on the drawing board of the U.S. NIC: “Aging populations and mismatches between education and labor demand will make labor migration more important to economic performance. In these aging societies, private sectors will likely sustain and increase demand for migrant labor—for both low-skill and high-skill or professional workers, even if politically and culturally sensitive. Despite episodic efforts to rein in migration, governments will generally be both unable to withstand private sector influences favoring migration and unable to systematically track and regulate individuals migrants.”

There is little doubt that what is prompting German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s invitation for the mass migration into Germany is the desire for fresh bodies to replenish Germany’s labor force. As the U.S. intelligence policy wonks stated—private sectors will likely sustain and increase demand for migrant labor—we now see the corporate-influenced German Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, united in a coalition government—largely resisting efforts to curb the runaway migration into Germany.

U.S. intelligence policy makers also saw a niche for NGOs, such as those financed by George Soros, in creating the right atmospherics for a migrant invasion. The 2012 intelligence council report states: “We should expect increased social mobilization, legal maneuvering and NGO activities over rights and obligations of immigrants.” There was also a call for the elite business community, currently represented by such pro-migration special interests as Soros’s Open Society Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the Ford Foundation, to support mass migration. The NIC report rhetorically posed the question in 2012: “Will private sectors that need labor mount campaigns to support immigration and even immigrant rights?”

The NIC also saw a need for pressure to be exerted on national and sub-national governments to fall in line with the migrant influx. The NIC called for “increased recognition by national and sub-national governments of reputational advantages of having immigrant rights and ‘the right to have rights.’” The current schism between the German federal government and various state governments like Bavaria over migrant policy points to the fact that it is from sub-national governments that opposition to the migrant invasion is most vocal and vehement.

Mass migration as a soft weapon has been used in recent history. The Tutsi migrant diaspora in Uganda was used to overthrow the francophile Rwandan government and replace it with an anglophile dictatorship headed by U.S. client dictator Paul Kagame. In Burma, Muslim Rohingya migrants have been used to create dissension throughout Southeast Asia. And Muslim Uighur migrants have created a terrorist threat against Chinese interests from Bangkok to Syria. As destabilizing as mass migration has been for central Africa, Southeast Asia, and South Asia, it has enabled the forces of globalization to advance their goals.

Previously published in the Wayne Madsen Report.

Copyright © 2015 WayneMadenReport.com

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and nationally-distributed columnist. He is the editor and publisher of the Wayne Madsen Report (subscription required).