By John Catalinotto
:: Article nr. 66587 sent on 03-jun-2010 01:49 ECT
By John Catalinotto
:: Article nr. 66587 sent on 03-jun-2010 01:49 ECT
[This is proof that the attack in international waters was a premeditated act of war against Turkey, most likely sick Zionist retaliation for siding with Iran. No nation will be allowed to interfere with plans for "GreaterIsrael." SEE: Were Israeli Commandoes Hunting Turks?]
Flotilla Massacre is a Reply to the warm Turkish-Iranian Relations
The leaders of the Israeli gang of War Criminals, the so-called “Israeli government” is currently engaged in inciting and planning to launch a nuclear war against Iran, was not able to do anything in response to the Turkish- Iranian-Brazilian agreement of May 17 2010 to transfer 1.200 Kg of low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for nuclear fuel. In retaliation, they perpetrated the massacre on the Freedom Flotilla of humanitarian aid-carrying ships aiming to break the Israel genocide of siege on Gaza imposed since 2006. The Turkish-Iranian-Brazilian agreement stood as an obstacle against the Israeli ambitions to force the world to enter into a spiral of bloody nuclear war. It is wrong to believe that the Turkish government was not expecting the massacre against the Freedom Flotilla which carried 10,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Gaza.
The military maritime piracy and massacre operation carried out by Shayetet 13, a naval commando unit, in which at least 20 peace activists were murdered and over 50 were wounded, was a decision of the inner circles of power in Israel and approved by the Israeli Cabinet headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and other war criminals. This Israeli massacre was a message addressed to Turkey and its new Iranian and Syrian allies. Anyone who knows to read between the lines and the history of Israel’s military leaders can understand that Israel has never distinguished between civilians and militants of the groups which are considered as enemies according to the non-logical standards of the Zionists.
Israel committed a massacre against the Turkish ship “Marmara”, which carried humanitarian aid to the Palestinians besieged in the Gaza concentration camp. This massacre was well prepared by the Israeli cabinet, and some pro-Israel governments were informed with full details about the planned crime. Israel commissioned a special unit in the Marine Corps, deployed boats and helicopters patrolling the coast of Ashdod and Gaza and announced the waters off the coast of Gaza a closed military zone. They also announced via their propaganda organs their intent to transfer the ships and the solidarity activists to the port of Ashdod before deporting them to their countries as illegal immigrants, and to arrest those who refused to identify themselves and sign a pledge not to return. They also prepared tents as detention units to jail the activists and investigate them; the team of the interrogators which Israel choose to interrogate the peace activist was manned by people with experience as torturers and who had previously “worked” the Palestinian prisoners of the Israeli gulag.
The Israeli ships monitored the Freedom Flotilla from a distance of about 124 km away of the coast of Israel. According to the international movement, the passengers rushed to wear the safe jackets and raised the alert status as soon as the war ships were visible. The peace activists on board of the convoy stated that three Israeli ships spoke to the Turkish ship captain over radio and warned him of the consequences of approaching the coast of Gaza which was declared a closed military area. They demanded to bring the humanitarian aid to the port of Ashdod, stressing that the Israeli navy would prevent the penetration of this “closed military area” at any price, meaning that they would not shrink from murdering anybody.
The ships were carrying 10,000 tons of medical supplies and building materials, timber, and 100 pre-built houses, for ten of thousands of people who lost their homes due to the Israeli war crimes on Gaza early in the year of 2009. They also carried 500 electric vehicles for the use of disabled people, especially for the more than 600 who were left permanently disabled with amputated legs in the recent Israeli war crimes.
The Israeli Arab Knesset MP Hanan Al-Zoubi had spoken through a loudspeaker in Hebrew with the Israeli military telling them to not attack ships carrying civilian peace activists and humanitarian aid. She added that during her appeal the Israeli soldiers fired live bullets at ships, which led to the wounding of civilians, among them the Arab-Israeli citizen Sheikh Raed Salah, who was shot and is now in a critical conditions. She added: “the Israeli gunboats approached the “Caravan of freedom” and asked the captain of the ship to identify himself and the identity of the boat. The ships were in international waters about 100 miles from Gaza. At this moment the Israeli helicopters attacked the ships from the sky.
Turkish sources and media revealed a document which shows that a death list had been prepared in advance by the Israelis, showing names and pictures of people on board of the ships to be murdered, who, according to Israel, were “involved in the International humanitarian aid for Gaza”. According to the Turkish sources, hundreds of Israeli soldiers stormed the blue Turkish ship “Marmara” flotilla and they had copies of the death list. The list included the names of civilians on the fleet “who should be killed”. The document was apparently recovered after one of the Israeli soldiers lost it during the piracy act.
Regarding the complicity of other foreign states in this crime, it has emerged that the German parliamentarians who were on-board, Annette Groth, Inge Höger and Norman Paech, had repeatedly asked the German Foreign Ministry for support and protection, but were rebuffed and instead they were warned to get off the flotilla because of unspecified “dangers”. The strange attitude of Cyprus, which neither allowed the ships to enter port, nor allowed a delegation of Parliamentarians to board the ships, can in retrospect only be explained with the prior knowledge and complicity in the crime if the Cypriot regime.
In the end, Israel has carried out a horrific bloody massacre, and the victims were all civilians.The questions remain: Did Israel achieve its goals with the massacre on the Freedom Flotilla ship? Did Turkey and the other countries on Israel’s secret hate list (who are listed in secret as “hostile enemies”) receive the Israeli message? What was the Israeli message? The answer to the first question is clear now, and the coming days will reveal the answer to the second question and whether Israel really considers Turkey an enemy in secret. Whatever the answers to these questions, Israel should admit that the political equation has changed in the region and Israel and its allies can no longer change the politics.
In the best interest of everybody, Israel should understand that everything they do is against them and that it would be better to desist from further criminal actions. Also in the best interest of everybody, all other nations must understand that Israel no longer has any legitimacy whatsoever as a state, and that its continued existence as a state is undesirable in the extreme to everybody outside of the tiny corrupt elites which are its support base overseas.
Video footage of one of the discovered lists:
|Tajikistan asks Russia to expedite the shipment of missiles “Alazan-6″|
|CA-NEWS (TJ) – Tajikistan is asking Russia to expedite the shipment antihail missiles Alazan-6 “from the Federal State Unitary Enterprise im.Chapaeva in Cheboksary.
According to CA-News in state institutions for Hydrometeorology Tajik Prime Minister Akil Akilov Republic sent a letter to the Russian government, in which the Tajik side requests to expedite shipment of missiles Alazan-6.
“Currently, the country urgently needed Anti-hail missiles, to a certain extent mitigate the threat of new flooding of human settlements and farmland from hail and torrential rains” – said the source.
According to him, this year in Tajikistan, turned out to be extremely difficult due to weather conditions. There are continued heavy rains, accompanied with hail, triggering mudflows and floods as a result of which, according to latest figures, killed around 50 people, three dozen people still missing, more than 300 people were injured, thousands of families homeless. Caused enormous damage to the economy, which according to official figures, more than 600 million U.S. dollars.
Funerals take place in Istanbul for Gaza ship activists
Emotions are running high in Turkey at funerals for nine activists, all Turkish or of Turkish orgin, killed in Israel’s raid on the Gaza aid flotilla.
The bodies were flown from Israel to Istanbul, along with more than 450 activists, to a heroes’ welcome.
Israel has said there is no need for an international inquiry into the incident, insisting its own will meet the “highest international standards”.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC) voted earlier to set up an investigation.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said his troops had no choice but to stop the ships and argued that the flotilla had been aiming not to deliver humanitarian aid to Gazans, but to break Israel’s blockade.
It was Israel’s duty to prevent rockets and other weapons being smuggled into Gaza to Hamas by Iran and others, he said.
Turkey, one of Israel’s few allies in the Muslim world, recalled its ambassador after the incident on Monday.
‘Barbarism and oppression’
Its President, Abdullah Gul, said relations between the two countries would “never be the same”.
“This incident has left an irreparable and deep scar” on relations, he told reporters in Ankara.
In a fiery speech at Istanbul airport, Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc accused Israel of “piracy” and “barbarism and oppression”.
Crowds of people, some wearing Palestinian-style scarves, gathered in the city to meet the coffins, swathed in Turkish flags, at the Ottoman-era Fatih mosque.
The funerals were taking place in a strongly Islamist part of the city and emotions were running high, reported the BBC’s Bethany Bell.
One of the bodies was due to be buried in Istanbul while the other eight would be taken to their home towns, AFP news agency reported.
Turkish post-mortem examinations found all nine of the dead had been shot, some at close range.
The funerals are taking place at a historic Istanbul mosque
The dead include a 19-year-old Turkish citizen with an American passport – hit by four bullets in the head and one in the chest – and a national taekwando athlete, Turkish media say.
The bodies arrived, along with the 450 activists, in three aircraft chartered by the Turkish government at Istanbul airport in the early hours of Thursday, after several hours of delays.
Mr Arinc said his government saluted the Turkish Islamic charity, the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), which played a leading role in organising the convoy – a charity Israel has accused of supporting terrorism.
IHH leader Bulent Yildrim, said upon his arrival back in Istanbul that he believed the death toll could be higher than nine, as his organisation has a longer list of missing people.
British activist Sarah Colbourne told the BBC: “I couldn’t even count the amount of ships that were in the water. It was literally bristling with ships, helicopters and gunfire. It was horrific, absolutely horrific.”
Consular staff were on hand in Istanbul to help the activists from other countries. They include 34 people who hold British passports.
The MV Rachel Corrie is expected in the blockade area within days
Doctors in Ankara, where some of the severely injured were taken, say they have been treating people for bullet wounds. Three people are in intensive care.
Seven other activists are in a serious condition and will remain in Israeli hospitals until they can be moved, Israeli officials say.
Another plane carrying 31 Greek activists, three French nationals and one American flew into Athens early on Thursday.
More than 100 relatives and supporters cheered and shouted pro-Palestinian slogans at the airport.
Rejecting the proposed HRC investigation, Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said demands for an external inquiry showed a double standard towards the Jewish state.
When American or British troops were accused of killing civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan, he said, it was the US or Britain that carried out the investigation, not an international body.
The US, Israel’s most important ally, has already made it clear it will accept an Israeli-led inquiry, the BBC’s Andrew North reports from Jerusalem.
Talk in Gaza is now turning to the next ship on its way across the Mediterranean to try to break the blockade, the BBC’s Jon Donnison reports from the territory.
The Rachel Corrie – carrying about 11 people, including Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire – had been due to be part of the original flotilla but was delayed because of technical problems.
The ship could be in the region by Saturday, our correspondent reports. Israel has said it will not be allowed to dock in Gaza.
Meanwhile, some of the 10,000 tonnes of aid seized from the flotilla by Israel has been returned to the Israeli port of Ashdod after being left stranded at a Gaza-Israel crossing.
The Hamas government in control of Gaza refused to accept the aid until the Israeli-Arab activists still in detention were released.
Not long ago, I was talking with a very smart friend who knows a lot about Russian history. As usual, the conversation turned to politics. It turned out that my friend has some pretty liberal opinions, but some of the ideas he expressed told me that he watches television anyway.
“No matter what anybody says, the Soviet Union started falling apart after the war in Afghanistan,” he said.
“Maybe,” I said, “but what does that have to do with our young men who served there? Do you really believe in all that talk about international duty?”
“Just a minute,” he said, raising his hand to stop me from interrupting. “What does international duty have to do with it? The Americans wanted to put military bases, missiles and aircraft in Afghanistan, and there is such a thing as estimated flight time and all that…”
“So? Did they do it?”
“What do you mean?”
“What I mean is, after Gorbachev pulled the troops out the place didn’t stay empty for long. If memory serves, there are 70,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan now, and soon there’ll be 100,000 —just as many as we had. Right? Right. But why did they go there, out of some sense of international duty? Maybe Obama wants to establish democracy and open a line of fast food restaurants. All I want to know is, what have they put in Afghanistan? What kind of missiles and long-range bombers, and when will the United States begin bombing us?”
My friend looked thoughtful, and then he decided to let me talk.
“Okay, what are the Americans doing in Afghanistan then?
“No, try to answer the question, and just ask yourself —what does that country have to offer besides its geographic location? Oil, gas, uranium, rivers of milk and honey? What’s there?”
There came a short pause while my friend thought about what kind of raw materials Afghanistan has. Finally, somewhat uncertainly, he answered:
To tell the truth, I have no idea why the Soviet Union sent troops to Afghanistan. I never sat in the Politburo and talked about life with Yuri Andropov. I don’t know if Brezhnev’s Politburo wanted to earn a little money from the heroin trade, or if, on the contrary, they wanted to eliminate a source of infection near Soviet borders. In my scatterbrained socialist youth, drug addicts in the Primorsky Krai (where I grew up) only flipped over drugs that were grown and made locally. There was no heroin in Primorye. Now there is; it’s imported and sold at a very reasonable price.
I doubt that the Soviet troops in Afghanistan were a preliminary step in Russia’s expansion towards India. That’s what the British Empire feared more than anything in the 19th century. Russia’s aspirations towards Central Asia gave London nightmares about Russian battalions taking Delhi and Bombay by storm. Then more recently, the world’s leading military powers started abandoning the practice of classical colonialism. It often cost more to maintain expeditionary forces than to simply bribe a few native ruling tribes.
Why did the United States jump through hoops in the 1980s to drive the Soviet Union from that impoverished country using a savage and illiterate people? Could the Soviet Union have carried out extensive mining during its ten years that covered the costs of maintaining 100,000 soldiers armed with heavy weapons and turned a hefty profit? Could the United States, which now has its forces in Afghanistan, have started producing oil and building powerful electric power stations? Why is Obama willing now to negotiate even with the sinister anti-Semite Ahmadinejad and all the devils of Central Asia, both individually and collectively, to acquire unimpeded access to the country?
I’ll concede that Afghanistan has extensive reserves of certain kinds of resources. Consider, for example, the copper ore deposits in the Aynak Valley. I should mention that it is currently the largest undeveloped copper deposit in the world. It was first discovered by Soviet geologists in 1974, and during the 1980s the USSR carried out preparatory work there. But it folded when Soviet forces left. So it can be argued that the USSR actually had economic interests in Afghanistan, and those interests were tied to its mineral resources.
After the Soviet troops were withdrawn, Aynak was forgotten as though it had never existed; then in 1998 we learned from representatives of the Taliban that the Siemens Corporation had become interested in it. However, the company’s interest came to nothing, and Aynak was again forgotten until the Taliban lost control in 2001. The story of how they lost control of the country is a different subject, but I’ll try to describe it briefly.
As you, dear reader, are probably aware, in 2001 two skyscrapers were blown up in New York City. Who blew them up is unknown. US President George Bush claimed that former CIA agent Osama Bin Laden did it. Some investigators agree in principle that Mr. Osama committed that heinous act, but they are unsure whether he is in fact a former agent of the CIA. In short, several members of the media argue that the terrorist act of September 11, 2001 was the result of collusion among some people associated with the ruling faction in the United States.
On October 7, 2001, the Armed Forces of the Empire of Good began a military operation against Mr. Osama under the code name Operation Enduring Freedom in which B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers, naval forces, and the Marines took part. Since CIA agent Osama bin Laden (he started working with the CIA while he was a mujahedeen) was living in Afghanistan, the operation against him was naturally conducted in that country. The Taliban government was overthrown and the country was occupied. They failed to find Mr. Osama, of course; and now he is either still living in Afghanistan, or he’s in Pakistan, or he has died from typhus. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if in 20 years we find out that after Obama became President he shaved off his beard and moved to Oklahoma.
Back to the Aynak copper deposit. I should mention that after the occupation regime in Afghanistan was established, local authorities turned their attention to the country’s mineral resources. In 2003, experts of the British Geological Service and the US Geological Survey conducted a geophysical survey of the Aynak deposit with Pentagon support and confirmed the conclusions of Soviet geologists about the rich copper ore deposits there. And what happened?
In August 2006, Afghanistan’s Ministry of Mines invited international investors to bid on development of the Aynak field. The bidders included the Australian consortium Bahar, the Indian Corporation Hindalco Industries, Canada’s Hunter Dickinson, the Kazakh company Kazakhmys (which is registered in Great Britain), two Chinese companies- —Zijin Mining and China Metallurgical Group Corporation (MCC) — and America’s Phelps Dodge, as well as two Russian organizations: Tyazhpromexport and Soyuzmetallresurs.
MCC won the competition.
It’s funny that now we frequently hear US concerns about China gaining power. That gives rise to a reasonable question. Why didn’t at least the Australian corporation win the competition? Probably because the US government couldn’t care less about some ridiculous copper ore deposit. Why not? Could it be that such undertakings don’t pay enough to make the US establishment want to get involved?
The classical reason for war in our time is oil. Is there any in Afghanistan? Yes. Less than is needed to justify a small victorious war, but there is some. However, long-range global strategic plans may be involved.
John Foster, a columnist for Canada’s The Chronicle Herald, wrote a piece on August 26, 2009 called “Why is Afghanistan So Important?” One glance at a map and a little knowledge of the realities of the region tell us all we need to know: the military intervention by Western countries in fact has deep roots. Afghanistan neighbors on Middle Eastern countries that have large reserves of oil and natural gas. Although there is little oil in Afghanistan itself, two of the countries bordering it have the world’s second and third largest reserves of natural gas —Iran and Turkmenistan.
It simply turns out that Uncle Sam has a strategic plan to link the oil and gas deposits of South and Central Asia by a pipeline so that “energy can flow to the south.” Perhaps that is why Washington first threatened Iran, and then after Obama took office he began to put out feelers in Tehran with the idea of gaining unimpeded access to Afghanistan. It is also possible that implementation of this strategic plan is the reason for the Manas Airbase in Kyrgyzstan; it has provided exactly that access (it has now been redesignated a Transit Shipment Center).
As we know, it doesn’t cost much to make plans. As for the current reality, that’s the way things are. The Taliban’s main source of funding was trade in raw opium and the heroin derived from it. In 1999, 4565 tonnes of raw opium were produced in Afghanistan; the total world production that year was 5778 tonnes. Thus, Afghanistan is the largest producer of heroin and has a virtual monopoly over production of the raw material for its manufacture. Not to mention that this country is currently the largest producer of hashish after Morocco.
The military operations in 2001 caused a drop in raw opium production, but since then it has continually increased. According to the International Committee for Drug Control, raw opium production in Afghanistan during 2002 amounted to 2700 tonnes; in 2003 it was 3400 tonnes; in 2004 —4200 tonnes; in 2007 —8200 tonnes; and in 2008 —7700 tonnes. It’s difficult to say how much is actually produced, as opposed to what the ICDC statistics say.
We know that the amount of opium poppy under cultivation in Afghanistan during 2007 had increased by more than 2.5 times compared with 2002 and is estimated at 19.3 thousand km². In Afghanistan raw opium costs about $100 per kilogram. Thus, the 7700-tonne harvest is worth $770 million on its primary market, and that is just a drop in the bucket. After it has been processed and resold, its value increases many hundreds of times, breaking all imaginable records for return on investment. The profitability of this “business” is comparable only to that of printing money (it costs eleven cents to print a $100 bill). For example, a gram of heroin costs $100 on the Ukrainian black market (2009).
Those are the facts.
To be continued.
Konstantin Penzev is a writer, a historian and a columnist for New Eastern Outlook.
Source: New Eastern Outlook
The researcher Daniel Estulin delivered a speech to the politicians in Brussels, revealing the intention of the financial elite to collapse the global economy and make the world a corporation, of which only they benefit. Spanish translation of the speech and video of the press conference at the headquarters of the European Parliament and the subsequent questions.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We are now in a position to change history. Finally I believe that humanity has a future. A population at a demoralized and without purpose is emerging from a long sleep. In this general awakening, people are starting to ask appropriate questions. No longer, “what I gain from this?” But “what is right?”. It is an international phenomenon of response and reaction to an outstanding perception that the world is destined for disaster at least we, people, do something about it.
I have written a book about the Bilderberg group. The book, in some ways, has become the catalyst for a movement around the world. Now, you do not have much time, so I would like to explain what is Bilderberg and why it must be stopped.
In the international financial world, there are those who lead and those events that react to events. While the latter are better known, more numerous and more powerful in appearance, the real power lies in the former. In the center of the global financial system is the financial oligarchy represented by the Bilderberg group.
Bilderberg organization is dynamic, meaning that changes over time, absorb and create new parts while disposing of the parties in decline. Its members come and go, but the system itself has not changed. It is a system that is self-replicating, a virtual web intertwined with financial, political, economic and industrial.
However, Bilderberg is a secret society. It is an all-seeing evil eye. There is no conspiracy but many people with their childhood fantasies see it that way. No group of people, and I do not care how powerful they are, they sit around a table in the dark, holding hands, having a crystal ball, planning the future of the world.
It is a gathering of people who represent a certain ideology.
It is not a global government or NWO, as many people mistakenly believe. However, ideology is that of a global company LTD. In 1968, during a Bilderberg meeting in Canada, George Ball, Undersecretary of Economic Affairs of JFK and Johnson said: “Where do you find a legitimate basis for the power of corporate management to take decisions that may profoundly affect the economic life of nations whose governments have only a limited liability. “
The idea behind each of the Bilderberg meetings is to create what they called the aristocracy of purpose on how best to manage the planet between the elites of Europe and North America. In other words, the creation of a huge network of cartels, more powerful than any nation on Earth, destined to control the vital needs of the rest of humanity, obviously from his vantage point, for our own good and benefit. We, the lower classes (“The Great Unwashed“as they relate to us.)
However, the reason why people do not believe in the Bilderberg and other organizations working together and exercising such control on the world stage is that theirs is a Cartesian fantasy, in which isolated the intentions of some individuals, and not dynamic social processes shape the course of history as the movement of the evolution of ideas and some items over several generations and even centuries.
Bilderberg group is the medium of financial institutions that represent the most powerful and predatory financial interests. And right now, this combination is the worst enemy of humanity.
We can not congratulate you today, Bilderberg has become the subject of the corporate media.Not because the corporate media have suddenly remembered their responsibility to us, but because we have forced this awkward position to be aware that the presidents and prime ministers and kings and queens are tiny puppets of powerful forces operating behind the scenes .
Something has happened in the midst of general economic collapse. People are largely subject to something that does not always understand. But that leads them to act a certain way, in their own interest. That’s what they are doing in Greece. That’s what they are doing in the U.S.. It’s called the anthropic principle. It’s like a tidal wave came and took our fears. The people, realizing that their existence is threatened, have lost their fear, and others perceive Bilderberg.
Maybe that’s why in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in Montreal, Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the founders of the Trilateral Commission, adivirtió that “global political awakening” in combination with internal struggles within the elite, threatened to divert the movement towards global governance.
You can see that people at this table come from different political and ideological past. What unites us, however, is that we are all patriots. And those who oppose us, those who work for secret societies, who have sold their nation for a piece of meat, are traitors. Not only traitors to their people and their nations, but of humanity as a whole.
Now, the subject of this press conference is Bilderberg: Towards a Global Company LT.
It’s been about six and a half centuries, Europe’s economy had collapsed in what is known as the “New Dark Ages” of Europe, the largest European economic and demographic decline since the fall of the Roman Empire. Then in the middle of the 14th century, much of the power of the oligarchy abruptly disintegrated. This decay chain erupted as the sudden collapse of the financial bubble of speculation worst debt in history (so far), when houses Brady and Peruzzi bank collapsed. The disintegration and collapse of the Lombard debt bubble triggered a collapse in power within families oligarchs.
What should you do with Bilderberg?
The modern history replaced the medieval history at the time in which the institutions singularly distinguish the modern history of medieval history were put in place. That happened in 1439 in the Council of Florence. What were these new institutions?
1) The conception of the modern nation-state republics under the rule of natural law
2) The central role of promoting scientific and technological progress as the mandate given to the republic.
These two ideals represent a crucial point: its existence as an institution in every part of Europe, changed everything in Europe because these institutional changes the pace of development increased per-capita and per square kilometer of mankind over nature. So no nation will not progress reached and not developed by the fear of being left hopelessly behind.
The first event occurred under the France of Louis XI, which doubled the per-capita income of France and defeated all the enemies of their nation. Louis XI’s success generated a chain reaction of efforts to establish a nation-state model with the England of Henry VII.
Another key idea that came from the Council of Florence, who later was implemented in the United States, is the universal principle of general welfare, in which the entire modern society is based.
Now, welfare does not mean anything good for sitting on a couch eating pizza, drooling, watching TV, waiting to get the unemployment check.
It is a question of immortality. What is the intention of the existence of man and the government? Is to provide for the welfare of future generations of man. To ensure our survival as a species. The very beginning of the General Welfare, as expressed in the compendium in the preamble of the Federal Constitution is the fundamental law.
So how does this relate to today? These people want an empire. That is what is globalization.And too many people believe that to have an empire, you need money. They have heard the phrase: the Elite Money. But money is not a determinant of wealth and the economy. The money does not lap over the world. Money has no intrinsic value.
The human mind affects the development of the planet. This is how humanity is measured.Verdadeo This is the meaning of immortality. What separates us from animals is our ability to discover universal physical very beginning. It allows us to innovate, which subsequently improves people’s lives by increasing the power of man over nature.
You see, they are destroying the world economy on purpose. Nor is it the first time. This was done in the 14th century in the New Dark Ages: finished with 30% of the population.
Empire: stupid people down. They want to destroy the creative powers of reason.
Growth 0, 0 progress. Club of Rome (Limits to Growth, 1973)
1980 Draft Council on Foreign Relations, promote controlled disintegration of the global economy.
Bilderberg 1995: Demand destruction. How? By destroying the world economy on purpose.
The Great Depression, “Transfer of Wealth. The Great Depression was not an event that wiped out U.S. capitalists. It was an event that made even richer by transferring wealth from people at the hands of those who were already rich. This is how the Bank of America made billions through foreclosures from 1929 to 1937. Do not think for one second that the richest of the rich will be hurt by the collapse is coming. The only ones hurt will be us.
Look at Greece. What they’re trying to do is collapse the sisema, instead of allowing Greece reorganized its monetary system, are imposing that Greece is used, the Greek debt is financed by Europe. But that debt is worthless. It’s garbage money monopoly. So ask him to Europe, which in turn is going through its own financial meltdown, which absorbs an unpayable debt, which the Greeks, indeed, may never pay, that will surely destroy signifcant Europe. And this is being done on purpose, because nobody, not even Barroso, who, with all respect to him, is absolutely intellectually impaired or Trichet is so stupid.
Let’s get rid of the bureaucracy in Brussels. Despidámoslos everyone. All are beggars. They are useless. These people have never done anything useful in their lives. Let’s get rid of Barroso. He flunked history in school. Let’s get rid of Van Rumpey hypocrite, not because it is useless but because it is mailgno and very dangerous. It is not the first time a malignant little guy wins his way through the darkness toward the depths of power.
Look, it’s a leadership issue and a question of immortality. All leaders of society, especially in times of crisis, are leaders because they are measured against this standard approach. People like Barroso, Van Rumpey, the European Union President Jean Claude Juncket, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, can hardly be considered leaders. In fact humans can hardly be considered under the perspective of human representation for the greater good of humanity.
Now, what I’m hablabndo is not a scientific issue but a moral problem. A question of immortality.“We as a nation state, as people on the planet believe in the future of mankind? And what kind of future we will have 100 or 200 years. Or what will become of us in 10,000 years? Do we have the right to dream? If we can have a sense of purpose for being here, then the bad guys can win.
For example, we were told that the euro must be saved. That the failure of the euro will bring the downfall of the European Union. That is a lie. Instead of a weak and dysfunctional European monetary union be returned to independent nation-state republics. The Europe of our ancestors.
“Cultural diversity is not only the hallmark of progress but an insurance policy against human extinction.” Once born, the concept of state nation never dies, just wait for the brave and sane human beings in their defense, and refine the concept. So we have to be a fraternity of nations, sovereign nations, united by the common purpose of humanity. Until we can bring humanity to an Age of Reason, the story will actually be formed not by the will of the bulk of humanity but for the few that, good or bad intentions, leading the destiny of man as a herd of cows is driven back and forth through the fields and occasionally also to the slaughter.
* Translated from English by Surf Pyjamas
The results of longstanding research on a secret society were presented at the European Parliament on Tuesday by Daniel Estulin, author of the bestseller “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group.”
Secretive and elite – the Bilderberg group, which unites some of the world’s most powerful people, has been meeting behind closed doors for decades.
Its activities have become shrouded in a mist of conspiracy theories, with some claiming its members are trying to create a new world order.
Investigative journalist Daniel Estulin has just revealed to the European Parliament all he claims to have discovered about the ‘Bilderbergers’.
“Over almost 20 years of research I’ve found out that what today is called the Bilderberg group already existed over eight hundred years ago,” Estulin told RT. “Back then they were called the Venetian black nobility. Bilderberg is the creation of the Sinarchy movement who are very potentially founders and financiers of Hitler. As Sinarchy international they, in turn, were founded by the Free Mason esoteric secret society back in the 1770s, as a kind of a counter attack on the principals upon which the United States of America was built.”
“A lot of people speak of Bilderberg as a domain of conspiracy theories, and of course it’s not, it’s a historical fact,” Estulin stated. “A lot of people believe that Bilderberg is a one-world government or creating the new world order, especially people point out a speech made by George W. Bush made back in the 1990s about the creation of one world government. It’s actually not about that at all. It’s a meeting of people who represent a particular ideology. That ideology is of money.”
“So the idea is not to create one world government rather the creation of one world company limited to where financial concerns are far more powerful than any government on Earth,” the journalist added.
ORIENTAL REVIEW comment: Despite an excusable skepticism by the presenter, the RT should be praised for taking this interview. It was no more than a mere introduction to the darkness of REAL POLITICS people should know. But sometimes the first step equals to a halfway…
South Korean National Election Commission officials sort out ballots cast in local elections as they begin the counting process, in Seoul. AP photo.
South Korea’s ruling party won the key Seoul mayoral poll but suffered upsets in several other local elections held amid tensions over North Korea’s alleged torpedoing of a navy ship, officials said Thursday.
Before Wednesday’s vote, opinion polls and analysts said outrage over the ship’s sinking, which killed 46 South Korean sailors in March, would give a boost to the conservative ruling Grand National Party, which favors a tough North Korea policy. Pre-election public surveys had suggested Lee’s party would win nine of the 16 key races.
But with 99 percent of votes counted early Thursday, President Lee Myung-bak’s party won only six of the 16 key mayoral and gubernatorial posts. Its chief rival, the liberal Democratic Party, obtained seven. The remaining three posts were shared by a small opposition party and two independent candidates.
An analysis piece in Thursday’s mass-circulation Chosun Ilbo newspaper said the sinking of the Cheonan had whipped up anti-North Korea sentiment, but many conservative voters didn’t bother to vote. The Dong-a Ilbo, another major newspaper, said the resulting crisis appeared to have calmed down in the days before the election.
In the Seoul race, the ruling party incumbent and a potential presidential aspirant, Oh Se-hoon, narrowly defeated the Democratic Party’s Han Myung-sook, the nation’s first female prime minister under the government of former President Roh Moo-hyun. The race had been too close to call and Oh was declared the winner more than 10 hours after ballot counting started. “I’ll accept today’s victory with a humble position that I had almost lost,” Oh said, according to Yonhap news agency.
Ruling party chief Chung Mong-joon and his top deputies offered to resign Thursday to take the responsibility for defeats in many of the local elections, according to his office. Voter Hwang Jong-hwan, 28, a barber, said domestic issues influenced his vote more than the ship incident. “Just like what the Americans always say,” he said, “it’s the economy, stupid.”
Armenia’s leading media associations have demanded the immediate release of a young reporter arrested while covering an opposition protest in Yerevan, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Armenian service reported.
Police allege that Ani Gevorgian, a 23-year-old correspondent for the pro-opposition daily “Haykakan Zhamanak,” assaulted a police officer during a confrontation between security forces and opposition activists trying to enter Yerevan’s Liberty Square on May 30.
Gevorgian was detained May 31 during another confrontation between police and opposition supporters in the same area. One of Gevorgian’s lawyers, Lusine Sahakian, told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service that she is accused of hitting an officer in the face.
“Ani Gevorgian did not hit anyone,” said Sahakian. “We think she was deprived of her freedom because of her journalistic activities.”
Company Noble Energy reported that according to the seismological studies in the area litsenztsii "Ratio Yam, located in the license structure of the" Leviathan "includes natural gas, with a probability exceeding 50%.
The dimensions of the structure of "Leviathan" is larger than the adjoining structures "Tamar" twice.Yesterday it became known that the gas reserves in the deposit "Tamar" are 237.9 billion cubic meters, rather than 206.7 billion cubic meters. That should be enough gas to Israel for 35 years of work stations.
Primary evaluation of structure "Leviathan" suggest that there is in it 453 100 000 000 cubic meters of gas.
In light of the results of seismological research consortium Ratio Yam, which includes Noble Energy, sent to the area of the structure of "Leviathan" rig for exploratory drilling.
Eight of the nine people who were killed in Israel’s attack on ships of a Gaza aid convoy were Turkish citizens and the other was Turk with American nationality, the semi-official Anatolia news agency reported Thursday.
Bodies of the nine people killed in the attack were brought to Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport early Thursday and the funeral ceremony is being held at Fatih Mosque in Istanbul, local private NTV reported.
Nineteen wounded activists and 466 others were brought from Israel to Turkey by six planes late Wednesday night and early Thursday morning,Xinhua reported.
Three of the six planes landed in Turkey’s capital city of Ankara and the other three landed in Istanbul.
One plane from Turkish Health Ministry carrying two seriously wounded activists arrived at a military base in Ankara late Wednesday night and two others, carrying 17 activists, landed in Ankara early Thursday.
The seriously wounded include a Turkish citizen, Imdat Avli, and an Irish citizen, said Turkish Health Minister Recep Akdag late Wednesday.
All the injured were sent to Ataturk Hospital in Ankara for medical treatment, local private NTV reported.
On Monday, an Israeli raid on the convoy of ships with more than 600 people on board killed nine people and injured nearly 30 others.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was also at the airport to welcome the wounded Turkish citizens.
Davutoglu was quoted as saying by Anatolia that Turkey condemned Israel’s raid on the aid flotilla, adding Turkey would continue to protect rights of its citizens.
Oil and gas supplies from Azerbaijan and the Caspian region and new supply routes to Europe, bypassing Russia, are being discussed in Baku today.
The Caspian Oil & Gas 2010 Conference opened in the Azerbaijani capital this morning. The conference runs almost concurrently with the Oil & Gas Exhibition, which began yesterday.
Azerbaijan’s minister of industry and energy, Natik Aliyev, addressed the conference.
‘Today the capacity of BTC [the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline] is 1.2m barrels and in 2011 it will grow to 1.6m barrels per day,’ the minister said.
He forecast oil production of 52.5m tonnes and gas production of 28.5bn cubic metres this year in Azerbaijan.
‘Oil exports are forecast at 44.368m tonnes this year and gas export at around 8bn cu.m, including 6.3bn to Turkey, 1bn to Russia and 0.3bn to Georgia,’ the minister said.
Work is under way to create a Caspian pipeline system, he stated.
‘Kazakhstan has promised to transport over 500,000 bpd via this system. The initial volume of Kazakh oil in the system is expected to be 25m tonnes per year with a further increase to 48m tonnes per year’, he said.
The minister said that Azerbaijan was considering other options for gas exports to Europe. ‘We are interested in supplies of gas to Bulgaria, Greece and Romania, including by the Southern Corridor. The Nabucco project is very important for Azerbaijan.’
Rovnag Abdullayev, head of Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR, told the conference that Baku supported the Southern Corridor to supply energy resources to Europe.
‘In terms of diversifying supplies, we support a policy of stability and want to see no discrimination in implementing projects. I hope that these principles will be understood and supported by our partners from other countries,’ Rovnag Abdullayev said.
‘In the near future, annual oil production in Azerbaijan will reach 60m tonnes and gas production 35-40bn cubic metres. Azerbaijan’s role as an energy supplier to world markets will, therefore, grow,’ he said.
The conference heard that the European Commission is interested in a variety of energy supply routes to Europe.
Heinz Hilbrecht, director for security of supply and energy markets at the European Сommission’s Directorate General for Energy, said the European Commission supported transit routes via Turkey and the Black Sea region.
‘In Azerbaijan we are working on gas supplies within the framework of the second stage of the Shah Deniz field development and the European Commission has already expressed interest in supplies of Shah Deniz gas via the Southern Corridor. This proves the growing role of Azerbaijan for the whole of Europe and its increasing potential to diversify energy sources,’ Hilbrecht said.
He said that the Nabucco, Turkey-Greece-Italy and Trans-Adriatic gas pipeline projects were mutually complementary systems. The commission is working to influence the project member-states.
‘European consumers are interested in purchasing gas and Europe will pay the highest price for gas. Europe hopes for partnership relations with Azerbaijan as well as with other countries of the region,’ he said.
Angus Miller, an adviser on Caspian energy issues at Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, told the conference that no country could rely only on its own energy resources.
He said that as transit states Turkey and Georgia were helping to diversify energy supplies to Europe.
‘Azerbaijan is an inseparable component in ensuring Europe’s energy security. Britain supports the Southern Corridor and gas from the Caspian region will play a great role in supplying energy resources to the European market. We welcome EU policy on meeting the growing demand for energy resources, while at the same time Caspian gas will be a mechanism of market price formation which will promote growth in competition on the market,’ Miller said.
‘Georgia is taking important steps to develop infrastructure to supply oil and gas to the world market,’ Georgian Deputy Energy Minister Mariam Valishvili told the conference..
She said the strategic agreements with Turkey and Azerbaijan had helped Georgia play an important role in supplying Caspian energy resources to Europe.
‘Georgia continues to welcome EU policy on diversifying energy supplies and supporting new routes to ensure Europe’s energy security. The EU’s energy policy helps to integrate our region in the wider European family,’ she said.
‘Turkey is ready to play a leading, constructive role in the supply of Caspian and Central Asian energy sources to Europe,’ Turkey’s deputy minister of energy and natural resources, Yusuf Yazar, told the conference today.
He stressed the importance of the East-West energy corridor in ensuring energy security and said the existing Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum projects were important elements in this corridor.
Talking about the Nabucco gas pipeline project, he described it as ‘one of the priorities, as well as a prominent and most important element in the provision of energy supplies to Europe’.
‘Azerbaijan is a potential supplier to the project. The energy security situation has improved recently and Nabucco may further promote this,’ he said.
Yazar said Turkey welcomed the participation of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan in the existing Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline and believed this would promote the development of the project.
‘We want to see real progress in this project in future,’ he said.
He also noted the possible participation of Iraq in energy exports via Turkey and noted the great progress made on Azerbaijan’s Shah Deniz offshore gas field. He said prices for the export of gas from Shah Deniz via Turkey would be coordinated in the near future.
The US secretary of state’s special envoy for Eurasian energy, Richard Morningstar, also referred to the expected Azerbaijani-Turkish agreement on gas prices and transit tariffs today.
Addressing a round table on ‘US energy policy in the South Caucasus and Caspian region’ at the Azerbaijani president’s Strategic Studies Centre, Morningstar said: ‘We hope Turkey and Azerbaijan will sign an agreement on gas transit next week. Azerbaijan is a key country in the Caspian basin and we encourage the transit of Kazakh energy sources via Azerbaijan to the world market. There will not be a Southern Corridor without the Azerbaijani gas from the second stage of Shah Deniz,’ Morningstar told the conference.
‘We support projects to supply Caspian energy resources to Europe since they play an important role in Europe’s energy security. We also want to stress the strategic importance of the Nabucco project,’ the envoy said.
He said it would be desirable for Turkmenistan to take part in the Southern Corridor projects. ‘Iraq may also be a supplier to these projects, but as for Iran, the US position on this remains unchanged. I do not think that Iran can take part in the Southern Corridor.’
Richard Morningstar was received by Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov after the round table. They discussed the current stage of energy cooperation between Azerbaijan and the USA and prospects for its development, including an exchange of views on Caspian energy projects.
They also discussed matters of mutual concern, the Foreign Ministry reported.
Photograph by: Herald Archive, Reuters, For The Calgary Herald
Think of a heroin user. If you conjured up a homeless person in a back alley or even someone shooting up at a safe injection site in Vancouver, prepare to have your perspective widened. A study published recently in The Lancet gives us a glimpse into the obscure world of diamorphine hydrochloride (medical heroin).
Dr. John Strang at King’s College London, found that giving this drug to hard core addicts kept them away from street drugs more effectively than oral or injectable methadone. A similar trial in Vancouver and Montreal saw 88 per cent of the addicts given heroin participating after 12 months, compared with 54 per cent of those on methadone.
While the subjects in these studies were of both genders, research shows that about two-thirds of heroin addicts are male, and that opiate drugs affect the male and female brains differently, though we’re not sure exactly how.
It’s an open secret that in some countries, notably the United Kingdom, medical heroin is routinely prescribed for a variety of conditions, including heart attack, cancer pain and even — according to a 2004 Research Note in the Journal of Drug Issues — for women in labour and newborn infants.
“It’s the worst-kept secret in medicine,” says Tom Nesi, former pharmaceutical executive and author of Poison Pills: The Untold Story of the Vioxx Drug Scandal. Nesi is currently researching a book on the murky world of legal opiate drugs around the world.
“Completely unknown to their shareholders, many of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies are involved in opium production, often through partnerships and foreign subsidiaries,” he says in an interview at his Princeton, N.J., office. “I dare you to find out who’s producing opium using Google — the information often is just not there.”
Sometimes the news is so big that companies do want to tell the world. U.K.-based Macfarlan Smith Limited, which bills itself as “a world leader in narcotic and controlled active pharmaceutical ingredients (API),” recently announced a new joint venture in China.
On an analyst conference call, a spokesperson for the Chinese side of the venture was asked if the API would all be turned into finished drugs by the new company. He replied the product “will be a very good source for our own business, but on the other hand . . . our mission is to provide the API to all other companies that need the API product.”
“It’s an astute move,” says Nesi, as he pulls out stacks of research showing a worldwide shortage of opium-based pain relief drugs. “Most of the most effective pain killing drugs are derived from a specific type of opium poppy called palaver somniferum. If you did not have the opium plant, you could not perform surgery or treat wounded patients.”
He turns to his computer and pulls up a link on the Macfarlan Smith home page ( macsmith.com/index.php? page=uk-poppies). There, in black and white, is the scoop on poppy farming in the U.K.
“We are currently growing poppies in Dorset, Hampshire, Oxfordshire and Lincolnshire,” the web page proclaims. Then they make this proposition: “If you farm within these counties, have a minimum 25 hectares available of free draining soil, a pH above 6.5 and an on floor drying system, please contact us for more information.” Now you know what you need to grow palaver somniferum in jolly olde England.
Macfarlan Smith is not alone in literally farming out its poppy growing to countries around the world.
Nesi notes, “Johnson & Johnson, makers of baby Aspirin and talcum powder, owns an Australian company called Tasmanian Alkaloids that grows and processes opium plants into concentrated poppy straw.”
He reports that “1,200 farmers are employed, producing more than 100 tonnes of narcotic raw materials, much of which is shipped back to the United States.”
And, sure enough, their web page ( tasalk.com.au) shows smiling photos of the Aussie farm couples who brought in the Top Morphine Crop and Top Thebaine Crop.
At this point, you might be scratching your head and wondering why NATO soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, in part to eradicate poppy fields. On a visit to that country, courtesy of the Canadian Forces, I learned that poppy farmers are often sharecroppers, provided with seed and fertilizer by suppliers who then return and demand their profitable crop. Asked if these suppliers are drug lords, petty criminals, tribal leaders or Taliban, one soldier said “all of the above, sometimes in the same person.”
If this sounds a bit like what’s happening in the lush fields of Dorset or the rolling hills of Tasmania, can Afghanistan’s fertile fields be tamed?
Nesi thinks they can, and points to the example of India, currently the major supplier of concentrated poppy straw to the U.S.
“If even one farmer sells his crop on the black market, the whole village is blacklisted.”
Perhaps peer pressure and profit can succeed where airborne surveillance and hacking poppies with sickles has clearly failed.
The massacre by terrorists in Lahore last week followed by a raid on a hospital in the same city has reiterated what is obvious to many but still denied by powerful decision-makers in Pakistan — that the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ distinction between militant groups is not tenable. The Pakistan Interior Minister named the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the Jaish-e-Mohammed as the organisations suspected to have carried out the attacks during Friday prayers on two mosques of the Ahmadiyya community, killing more than 80 worshippers. Extremists see the Ahmadis as non-believers and therefore fair game. Both groups are linked to the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, which claimed responsibility for the attacks. They are also believed to be behind the hospital attack. It is no secret that jihadist groups have flourished in the Punjab heartland undeterred by a 2002 ban, all the while building links with the Taliban. Pakistan’s softly-softly approach towards groups with so-called strategic value against India gave the JeM, much like the Lashkar-e-Taiba, special privileges. Islamabad has always said it does not know the whereabouts of JeM chief Maulana Masood Azhar. It has maintained that since the ban, the group itself has ceased to exist. Yet a Faisal Shehazad, arriving all the way from the United States, had no problem getting in touch with it. Pakistan Army operations against the Taliban in the north-western regions may have helped reduce the number of incidents in that area, and a new operation is on the anvil in North Waziristan, under pressure from the United States. But given the Taliban’s links with the Punjab-based jihadist groups, it is no surprise that the monster rears its head elsewhere.
A military strike by the U.S. on Pakistan, reported to be under contemplation should a terrorist attack on American soil succeed, is no solution. Any such action would be extremely foolhardy, and New Delhi should oppose it. But clearly, Pakistan itself must take urgent steps. This means nothing less than what India has been demanding for years: uprooting the infrastructure of terrorism built with state patronage for the jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Some arrests were made after the mosque attacks. This is hardly enough. As the track record shows, many arrested terror suspects in Pakistan are let off by the courts because of the prosecution’s failure to come up with evidence. It is unfortunate that at a time like this, instead of facing up to the reality, influential sections in Pakistan’s political parties, the Army, and media remain in expedient denial. If Pakistan means to win this battle, it must clear its vision and recognise the enemy within.
MANILA, Philippines—While concerned with the March 26 sinking of South Korea’s patrol vessel Cheonan, China is not supportive of the planned joint naval exercises between South Korea and the United States in reaction to the incident.
When asked about the planned exercise during a press briefing, China’s Ambassador to the Philippines Liu Jian Chao said: “We have to exercise outmost restraint, refrain from doing things that could make the situation more complicated than it already is.”
The ambassador warned against using violence in trying to resolve the conflict in the Korean peninsula.
He said China would try to resolve through diplomacy the tension arising from the March 26 sinking of South Korea’s 1,200-ton patrol vessel Cheonan that killed 46.
He said China would like to engage North Korea in a dialogue by going back to the Six-Party talks formed after Pyongyang walked out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003.
“We are always there to convince North Korea to go back to the six party talks. It has proven that it is the best way to move forward. It is very, very important that parties should have flexibility and goodwill,” Liu pointed out.
The six-party talks included North Korea, Japan, United States, China, Russia, and South Korea.
Pyongyang, however, left the talks in April 2009 after the United Nations condemned its failed satellite launch conducted in the same month.
Earlier, in a meeting with South Korean and Japanese officials, China’s Premier Wen Jia Bao stopped short of sanctioning Pyongyang.
China is a known ally of North Korea.
Earlier, the Philippines strongly condemned the abovementioned acts of provocation that threaten regional security and peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula and has called for adherence to international norms and codes of conduct, as well as to the letter and spirit of UN Security Council Resolutions 1874 and 1718.
The UNSC resolutions impose economic and commercial sanctions on North Korea and allow UN member states to search North Korean cargo in light of the underground and claimed nuclear tests conducted by North Korea.
Margaret Behseer | United Nations02 June 2010
Demonstrators hold a sign against the blockade of the Gaza Strip near Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s residence in Jerusalem, 31 May 2010
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says he considering all the options for an investigation into an Israeli raid aboard a ship carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip that ended in the deaths of nine pro-Palestinian activists.
The U.N. chief stepped off a plane from Africa Wednesday and immediately went into separate meetings with ambassadors from Israel, Turkey, the Arab States and the permanent five Security Council member countries.
Afterwards, he told reporters he is ready to take “the necessary action” to start a full investigation into the events on the Turkish flagged ship the Mavi Marmara. But he said he would proceed in a deliberate manner, discussing it with all the concerned parties, before making a decision on how to go forward.
“It [the investigation] should be one which can gain credibility and support from the parties concerned,” said Ban Ki-moon. “This is a very sensitive and even difficult, therefore, I am still in the process of these consultations. I will try to make it as impartial, as credible, as transparent as possible.”
Mr. Ban added that there are “various options” for the investigation, but would not go into details.
He urged the Israeli authorities to quickly provide a full and detailed accounting of the events surrounding the incident, including information on those detained, wounded and killed.
He also noted the decision by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council to send an international fact finding mission to the region to look into possible violations of international law.
Secretary-General Ban said the violence aboard the Turkish ship could have been avoided if Israel had heeded earlier calls to lift its three-year long blockade which has prevented essential goods from reaching Gaza’s 1.5 million residents.
“This tragedy only highlights the serious underlying problem,” he said. “The long-running closure imposed on the Gaza Strip is counter-productive, unsustainable and wrong. It punishes innocent civilians. It must be lifted by the Israeli authorities immediately.”
Turkey and Arab states are calling for an independent, international probe into the raid by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara, which was in international waters when it was intercepted. Israel says its soldiers were acting in self-defense because passengers attacked them when the commandos repelled onto the ship from helicopters.
On Tuesday, the U.N. Security Council called for a “prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation” into the incident. Several council members said that meant an independent investigation with international elements, while the United States said Israel is capable of investigating itself.
|By Ali Abunimah
Since Israel’s invasion and massacre of over 1,400 people in Gaza 18 months ago, dubbed Operation Cast Lead, global civil society movements have stepped up their campaigns for justice and solidarity with Palestinians.
Governments, by contrast, carried on with business as usual, maintaining a complicit silence.
Israel’s lethal attack on the Freedom Flotilla to Gaza may change that, spurring governments to follow the lead of their people and take unprecedented action to check Israel’s growing lawlessness.
One of the bitterest images from Operation Cast Lead was that of smiling European Union heads of government visiting Jerusalem and patting Ehud Olmert, the then Israeli prime minister, on the back as white phosphorus still seared the flesh of Palestinian children a few miles away.
Western countries sometimes expressed mild dismay at Israel’s “excessive” use of force, but still justified the Gaza massacre as “self-defence” – even though Israel could easily have stopped rocket fire from Gaza, if that was its goal, by returning to the negotiated June 2008 ceasefire it egregiously violated the following November.
When the UN-commissioned Goldstone Report documented the extensive evidence of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the willful killings of unarmed civilians, few governments paid more than lip service to seeing justice done.
Even worse, after Cast Lead, EU countries and the US sent their navies to help Israel enforce a blockade on Gaza which amounts to collective punishment of the entire population and thus violates the Fourth Geneva Convention governing Israel’s ongoing occupation.
Not one country sent a hospital ship to help treat or evacuate the thousands of wounded, many with horrific injuries that overwhelmed Gaza’s hospitals.
Carrot and stick
The blockade has never been – as Israel and its apologists claim – to stop the smuggling of weapons into Gaza.
Its goal has always been political: to cause the civilian population as much suffering as possible – while still politically excusable – in order for the Palestinians in Gaza to reject and rise up against the Hamas leadership elected in January 2006.
The withholding of food, medicine, schoolbooks, building supplies, among thousands of other items, as well as the right to enter and leave Gaza for any purpose became a weapon to terrorise the civilian population.
At the same time, Western aid was showered on the occupied West Bank – whose ordinary people are still only barely better off than in Gaza – in a “carrot and stick” policy calculated to shift support away from Hamas and toward the Western-backed, unelected Palestinian Authority leadership affiliated with the rival Fatah faction, who have repeatedly demonstrated their unconditional willingness to collaborate with Israel no matter what it does to their people.
“The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,” senior Israeli government advisor Dov Weisglass notoriously explained in 2006. By this standard the blockade – supported by several Arab governments and the Quartet (the US, EU, UN secretary-general, and Russia) has been a great success, as numerous studies document alarming increases in child malnutrition as the vast majority of Gaza’s population became dependent on UN food handouts. Hundreds have died for lack of access to proper medical care.
Filling the ‘moral void’
While inaction and complicity characterised the official response, global civil society stepped in to fill the moral and legal void.
In the year and a half since Cast Lead, the global, Palestinian-led campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions on Israel (BDS) has been racking up impressive victories.
From the decisions by Norway’s pension funds and several European banks to divest from certain Israeli companies, to university divestment initiatives, the refusals by international artists to perform in Israel, or the flashmobs that have brought the consumer boycott to supermarkets around the world, Israel sees BDS as a growing “existential threat”.
At this point, the effect may be more psychological than economic but it is exactly the feeling of increasing isolation and pariah status that helped push South Africa’s apartheid rulers to recognise that their regime was untenable and to seek peaceful change with the very people they had so long demonised, dehumanised and oppressed.
Indeed, the BDS movement is only likely to gather pace: world-best-selling Swedish author Henning Mankell who was among the passengers on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara kidnapped and taken to Israel, said on being freed: “I think we should use the experience of South Africa, where we know that the sanctions had a great impact.”
The Freedom Flotilla represented the very best, and most courageous of this civil society spirit and determination not to abandon fellow human beings to the cruelty, indifference and self-interest of governments.
The immediate response to Israel’s attack on the Flotilla may indicate that governments too are starting to come out of their slumber and shed the paralysing fear of criticising Israel that has assured its impunity for so long.
Indeed, the global reaction demonstrates the growing gap between the US and Israel on one side and the rest of the world on the other.
While Israeli officials scrambled to offer justifications from the ludicrous (elite commandos armed with paint ball guns) to the benign (the attack was an “inspection”), the US has once again stood behind its ally unconditionally.
As the Obama administration forced a watered-down presidential statement in the UN Security Council, Israeli apologists in the mainstream US media repeatedly attempted to excuse Israel’s actions as lawful and legitimate.
Senior administration officials, including Joe Biden, the vice president, openly began to echo their Israeli counterparts that Israel’s attack was not only legitimate but justified by its security needs.
Despite the predictable and shameless US reaction, international condemnation has been unusually robust.
Erdogan vowed that “Turkey will never turn its back on Gaza,” and that it would continue its campaign to lift the blockade and hold Israel accountable even if it had to do so alone.
There are hopeful signs it may not have to.
European and other countries summoned Israeli ambassadors and several recalled their envoys from Tel Aviv.
Franco Frattini, the Italian foreign minister and one of Israel’s staunchest apologists in Europe, said his country “absolutely deplored the slaying of civilians” and demanded that Israel “must give an explanation to the international community” of killings he deemed “absolutely unacceptable, whatever the flotilla’s aims”.
Small countries showed the greatest courage and clarity. Nicaragua suspended diplomatic ties completely, citing Israel’s “illegal attack”. Brian Cowen, Ireland’s prime minister, told parliament in Dublin that his government had “formally requested” of Israel that the vessel Rachel Corrie still heading toward Gaza, be allowed to proceed, and warned of the “most serious consequences” should Israel use violence against it.
Crossed a threshold
It is a cumulative process – each successive outrage has diminished the reserve of goodwill and forbearance Israel enjoyed.
Even if most governments are not quite ready to go from words to effective actions, growing public outrage will eventually push them to impose official sanctions.
Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, may have hastened that day with his fulsome pride in, and praise for, the slaughter at sea even after the outpouring of international condemnation.
Despite its intensive efforts to hide and spin what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara in the early hours of May 31, the world saw Israel use exactly the sort of indiscriminate brutality documented in the Goldstone Report.
This time, however, it was not just “expendable” Palestinians or Lebanese who were Israel’s victims – but people from 32 countries and every continent. It was the day the whole world became Gaza. And like the people of Gaza, the world is unlikely to take it lying down.
Ali Abunimah is author of One Country, A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse and co-founder of The Electronic Intifada (http://www.electronicintifada.net).
by F. William Engdahl*
In this final part, F. William Engdhal explains why the stakes for Washington in the Kyrgyzstan events are of vital geopolitical importance. Central Asia is key for Washington’s strategy of global dominance, hinging on the militarization of the entire region. To this end, time-tested tactics of Low Intensity Warfare are generating the pretext for NATO’s permanent expansion under the guise of the ‘war on terror’, with opium gainfully fueling the operations. In Central Asia, as Engdhal suggests, the survival of the U.S. empire hangs in the balance.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 a prime strategic objective of the Pentagon and of US intelligence has been to deeply penetrate the former Soviet states of Central Asia. The Pentagon pressed for increasing US military presence in the region and succeeded in seducing four of the five central Asian states, including Kyrgyzstan, into NATO’s Partnership for Peace in 1994.
The US tactics for gaining strategic presence in Central Asia have included use of US-trained radical Islamic militants, including Osama bin Laden and CIA-trained Afghani Mujahideen, even well before the fall of the USSR. They were deployed to fuel the destabilization of the Soviet Union itself. The CIA instigated the 1980s Mujahideen guerilla insurgency in Afghanistan, code-named Operation Cyclone , to drain over-stretched Soviet resources . It was the largest and most costly operation in CIA history to that point. Pakistani veteran journalist Ahmed Rashid described the intimate relation of the Mujahideen and the CIA during the period Osama bin Laden was trained by them:
“With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.” 
The Mujahideen-CIA model that proved so successful in Afghanistan against the Soviet Red Army was expanded to include US-trained jihadist Mujahideen networks that were infiltrated into Russia’s Chechnya province during the 1990s. Given the region’s fiercely independent Sunni Muslim population and vital Soviet-era oil pipeline, the Second Chechen War  created yet more destabilizing unrest for the faltering Russian state during the Yeltsin era .
Long-term Pentagon Plan for Central Asia
In 2003, Ariel Cohen — Russia expert and Pentagon consultant from the defense industry-financed Heritage Foundation  — testified to the US Senate: “Since the fall of 2001, the US projected elements of air power and special forces into Central Asia…” .
Cohen confirmed that Pentagon activity in the former Soviet states of Central Asia — including Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan — had actually begun well before the War on Terror was declared in September 2001: “General Anthony Zinni, then-CINC [Commander-in-Chief] of the Central Command, which is geographically in charge of Central Asia, started these contacts in the mid- and late 1990s…Off the record, Pentagon officials have said that while the US has not requested permanent basing rights in the region, its presence will be open-ended,” he told the Senate .
Cohen, a specialist on Central Asia as well as on Russia, went on to reveal the true Washington game in Central Asia: “US policy makers and officials have suggested different avenues of rationalization for the current and future presence. They named protecting energy resources and pipelines; deterring the resurrection of Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia; preventing Russian and/or Chinese hegemony; facilitating democratization and market reforms; and using Central Asia as a re-supply depot for possible action in Afghanistan, as preferred rationale for US presence. Moreover, Central Asia was mentioned as a launching pad in the future operations against Iraq and Iran” .
In short, the Pentagon agenda for Central Asia is a long-term strategy of step-wise occupation and militarization of the entire region. Conveniently for the Pentagon, the instability and anti-Americanism created by US occupation and bombings of innocent civilians across Pakistan and Afghanistan also serves to supply a perfect pretext to expand the US militarization of all Central Asia. It’s being done under the deceptive rubric of the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) ‘Peace Keeping’ mission.
The turmoil and instability US or related military actions create are then used to justify the military “peace keeping.” That’s the dirty little secret of what today are termed PKOs or Peace Keeping Operations, whether by NATO directly as in Afghanistan or in Kosovo, or by the UN in oil-rich Haiti since 2004, or oil-rich Darfur in Sudan since 2007, or the mineral-rich Democratic Republic of the Congo since 1999.
Cohen’s testimony was given almost seven years ago, in October 2003, as the Bush Administration was barely six months into its invasion and, evidently, permanent occupation of Iraq. One might ask the Japanese or Germans how difficult it is to get rid of an American military basing once it is established. The US strategy for Central Asia has little to do, it seems, with any recent Taliban regrouping or resurgence. It was planned long ago. It has to do with what the Pentagon calls Full Spectrum Dominance—total control of all land, sea and air.
In April 2009, General David Petraeus, head of the US Central Command — which incorporates not only Afghanistan and Pakistan but Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and other former states of the Soviet Central Asia — told another US Senate hearing: “Though Central Asia has received relatively less attention than other sub-regions in the AOR (Central Command’s Area of Responsibility-w.e.), the US maintains a strong interest in establishing long-term, cooperative relationships with the Central Asian countries and other major regional powers to create a positive security environment .
Petraeus then went on to identify the real focus of Pentagon and US interest in the region: “Central Asia constitutes a pivotal location on the Eurasian continent between Russia, China, and South Asia; it thus serves as a major transit route for regional and international commerce and for supplies supporting Coalition efforts in Afghanistan” . [Emphasis added by the author.]
Petraeus’ remarks were, if anything, an understatement of the actual strategic interest of Washington and the Pentagon in this region. Central Asia today is at the heart of the Pentagon’s global strategy — as it was for the British Empire a century before. As Central Asia goes, so goes the empire—the American Century — or what George H.W. Bush proclaimed triumphantly in 1990 on the collapse of the Soviet Union as, ‘The New World Order.’
Revealingly, Petraeus adopted the term used by Britain’s Sir Halford Mackinder, the father of Geopolitics, when he described Central Asia as a ‘pivot’ for US interests on the Eurasian Continent. The US military command clearly is also well-schooled in the levers of geopolitical power in Eurasia as were the British a century earlier .
Washington’s interest in Kyrgyzstan is comprehensible only when we consider it in the context of this Great Game – the Pentagon’s Eurasian geopolitical strategy to militarize the Pivot Area, or Heartland, as Mackinder later named it.
Spreading a cancer across Central Asia
The current phase of this undeclared Pentagon irregular war clearly involves a carefully orchestrated strategy of deliberately spreading the war and fomenting various insurgencies across all of Central Asia — from Afghanistan as the core, over the border to Pakistan and Iran, into Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and ultimately into Russia and China via the unstable Xinjiang province bordering Kyrgyzstan.
The tactics used to spread the US-backed militarization include igniting local tribal insurgencies by deliberately perpetrating civilian and other atrocities, terrorizing local populations and encouraging desperate acts of resistance—in brief, a policy of deliberately committing war crimes as official policy.
It’s not that the Pentagon is averse to exposing its manpower to direct fire, nor that pilotless drone bombings are more precise or humane. The strategy is one of deliberately spreading insurgencies and inciting armed responses to atrocities, illegal and inhumane American and NATO actions. That provides the pretext to expand the NATO presence even further, under the rubric of the ‘war on terror.’ By such tactics, they create a war that can never be “won,” and thereby create a pretext for permanent US and NATO presence.
By this time it is becoming clear to most intelligent observers that the US-declared ‘War on Terror’ is a farce. It’s a farce however with a diabolical aim, a means to provide justification for Washington to militarize new conflict regions, step-by-step, as the Pentagon spreads its reach across the globe under its doctrine of Full Spectrum Dominance.
Radical jihadist Islam, through the propaganda offensive launched after September 11, 2001, has also successfully replaced the bogeyman of Soviet Communism in the eyes of most unwitting Americans. Through this elaborate and cynical ideological deception, they are persuaded to send their sons and daughters to die for the noble cause of ‘winning the war on terror.’
Since the Obama Administration took office in January 2009, the US war has been spread across the border, inch-by-inch, village-by-village, corpse by corpse, into Pakistani territory with little more than feeble public protest from Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.
Zardari was the husband of the assassinated Benazir Bhutto. According to a US Senate investigation Zardari personally took up to $1.5 billion of state funds as Development Minister when his wife was Prime Minister in the 1990’s, earning the nickname “Mr Ten Percent” a reference to his demanded payoff for facilitating development contracts. He reportedly smuggled the funds out of his country illegally into private hidden accounts at Citibank in Switzerland and Dubai. At the time US authorities conveniently blocked investigation.
Today Zardari appears to be resigned to the US military presence in his country. Perhaps that’s because Washington could easily blackmail him by revealing the details of his Citibank business from the past .
Zalmay Khalilzad, the Afghani-American neo-conservative who had been one of the architects of the Afghan war in the Bush Administration, is said to have hand-picked his old friend, Hamid Karzai, to be the US-annointed puppet President in Afghanistan. Khalilzad also played a key role in the covert US backing of Zardari as Pakistani President in 2008 once Musharaff apparently became less reliable for some in Washington .
Conveniently enough for the Pentagon agenda, as President, Zardari has managed to foot drag on measures internally to establish a national counter terrorism agency . Almost ten years into the US-initiated ‘War on Terror’ in which Pakistan has played a central role, the country still lacks an effective counter-terror strategy. Zardari recently called on Dennis Blair, Barack Obama’s Director of US National Intelligence, to “help” .
The gradual spreading of the US-led war into Pakistani territory via CIA drone strikes on innocent civilians and others, under the rubric of fighting Taliban terrorists, has already resulted in the US designating an AfPak Theater of the war, a subtle linguistic means of creating acceptance of the fact that the active war has now successfully spread to Pakistan.
The next phase of spreading the war across Eurasia will involve Kyrgyzstan and the neighboring Uzbekistan and Tajikistan around the Ferghana Valley as the pivot for spreading conflict and with it, US and NATO military control ultimately to all Central Asia, the reason the US military presence there is of such strategic importance.
Spreading War via NDN
The US creation of agreements with the governments of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan for the northern supply route to Afghanistan is essential to this strategy. The new route is named the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), an innocuous-sounding cover for much more.
To enable the spread of Pentagon and NATO military presence — via the euphemistically-named International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) — across highly strategic parts of the Central Asian landmass, the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) is key. And the US presence in Kyrgyzstan is a key to the NDN.
The NDN involves a series of logistical arrangements connecting Baltic and Caspian ports with Afghanistan via Russia, Central Asia, and the Caucasus.
In addition to this vast NDN network, Iran and China are also being considered by Washington as possible transit states in an effort to open those critical countries to Pentagon logistics and likely more.
The NDN provides Washington with a dream too good to be true—a mechanism, costing just a few millions of dollars of transit fees, through which to penetrate deep into the entire Eurasian land space. The flow of war material and troops via the burgeoning NDN will be huge. As US presence in Afghanistan under the Obama ‘surge’ increases, the anticipated demand for non-military supplies in 2010-2011 is estimated to be 200-300% more than in 2008 .
Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, toured the key countries in Central Asia in February this year to firm up the US ties to the Central Asian NDN countries, including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan .
During his tour of Kyrgyzstan, Holbrooke had reportedly intended to have a secret meeting at Manas Airbase with members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), an organization officially declared a “foreign terrorist organization” by Holbrooke’s State Department back in 2002 .
The Holbrooke meeting at Manas reportedly was meant to discuss operations to launch guerilla sabotage of the Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan-Kyrgyzstan-China (TUKC) gas pipeline that recently began operations . If true, that would indicate the true geopolitical aim of the US base at Manas and around Kyrgyzstan — to sabotage Chinese and Eurasian vital energy pipeline flows under the cover of ‘terrorist’ attacks. These are classic ‘false flag’ operations, where true instigators hide behind false instigators .
Paul Quinn-Judge, Central Asia director of the non-profit International Crisis Group, told Time recently that stepped-up US military-related shipping through Kyrgyzstan and the Central Asia region will lead to attacks on convoys by insurgent groups including the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and the Islamic Jihad Union. “The problem with the Northern Distribution Network is obvious. It turns Central Asia into a part of the theater of war,” he emphasized  .
Significantly, in March 2009, US President Barack Obama had announced provision of $5.5 million to the Bakiyev regime for constructing a “counter-terrorism“ training center in southern Kyrgyzstan, giving the Pentagon its second major military foothold in the country and a major staging area from which to spread the war.
The Pentagon and CIA’s use of Islamic militants as elements of its covert foreign policy is a fact. The same military that ‘trains’ the terrorists also trains the ‘anti-terrorists.’ This seems a bizarre contradiction in policy only when we fail to grasp the essence of US and British-developed methods of warfare employed actively since the early 1950s.
Low Intensity Warfare and PKO
The method was originally termed Low Intensity Warfare by the British Army officer, Frank Kitson, who developed and refined the method for control of subject areas in Malaysia, in Kenya during the Mau Mau freedom struggles of the 1950s, and later for the British Army in Northern Ireland.
‘Low Intensity Warfare’ as Kitson termed it , involves use of deception, of infiltration by double agents, provocateurs, and use of defectors into legitimate popular movements such as those struggling for colonial independence after 1945.
The method is sometimes referred to as ‘Gang/Counter-Gang.’ The essence is that the orchestrating intelligence agency or military occupying force, whether the British Army in Kenya or the CIA in Afghanistan, actually controls the actions of both sides in an internal conflict, creating small civil wars or gang wars with the aim of dividing the overall legitimate movement and creating the pretext for bringing in outside military forces for what the US now has deceptively named “Peace-Keeping Operations” or PKO .
In his advanced course on American Military Intervention Since Vietnam, Grant Hammond of the US Air War College refers openly to Low Intensity Conflict, aka Peace Keeping Operations as, “war by another name” .
Indeed, according to a variety of reports from Iraq after the 2003 US invasion of Afghanistan, US and British Special Forces have reportedly covertly armed the so-called insurgents against the US-backed regimes in Iraq or Afghanistan. This includes arming the Taliban at the same time it has been pouring millions into arming local ‘anti-Taliban’ fighters . If true, it would fit the textbook low-intensity warfare methods of Kitson to a T.
These Special Forces who are arming ‘insurgents’ include, most critically, private mercenaries or military contractors such asBlackwater (recently renamed Xe after its public exposure for brazenly murdering civilians in Iraq).
Training the police…
Central to the strategy of spreading the Low Intensity Warfare across Central Asia from Afghanistan, is the recent US program to ‘train’ Afghan police, allegedly to enforce order. According to a recent Afghan poll, less than 20 percent of the population in the eastern and southern provinces trusted the US-trained police. One taxi driver remarked, “Forget about the Taliban; it is the police we worry about” .
Jeremy Kuzmarov, an American historian who has written extensively on the US military, has closely analyzed the deliberate pattern of US training of domestic police over the course of more than a century. He sees such training, seemingly innocuous and routine, as an essential means by which the United States creates a loyal internal security apparatus of client regimes, fortifying their power and repressing the political opposition. He notes,
“As the US expands the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Obama administration has placed a premium on police training programs. The stated aim is to provide security to the population so as to enable local forces to gradually take over from the military in completing the pacification process. A similar strategy has been pursued by the United States in Iraq. In both, American-backed forces have been implicated in sectarian violence, death squad activity and torture. At the same time, the weaponry and equipment that the U.S. provided has frequently found its way into the hands of insurgents, many of whom have infiltrated the state security apparatus, contributing to the long-drawn out nature of both conflicts.” 
The last point is the most essential—repression is a central weapon of US Low Intensity or irregular warfare, in addition to being an instrument for exercising state power. In Afghanistan repression serves to spread the war and domestic resistance to what the population legitimately sees as an intolerable US occupation force. That spreading resistance in turn serves to justify such expanded war operations as Obama’s ‘surge.’ It becomes a self-feeding process of spreading conflict, a US aim in Central Asia since the end of the Soviet Union.
Despised and feared, the Afghan national police have been operated by ethnic warlords paid by the CIA, says Kuzmarov. They routinely do shakedowns at random checkpoints, shooting and killing unarmed demonstrators, stealing local farmers’ land, terrorizing the civilian population while making house-to-house raids in US and Afghan military-assisted sweep operations. “These kinds of abuses fit with a larger historical pattern, and are a product of the ethnic antagonisms and social polarizations bred by the United States intervention, and the mobilization of police for military and political ends.” he stresses . The CIA’s Operation Phoenix in Vietnam comes at once to mind.
A dubious Community Defense Initiative
The US Commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has also earmarked $1.3 billion over the past few months to fund local ‘anti-Taliban’ militias in fourteen areas across Afghanistan. The top-secret program is so secret that McChrystal refuses to disclose details to his NATO allies, even though McChrystal is head of NATO operations in Afghanistan. And who is to say that armed attacks against NATO forces by one or another of these US-funded ‘anti-Taliban’ gangs is ‘Taliban’ or ‘anti-Taliban?’ The Pentagon press office and its various embedded journalists will, no doubt, be the ones to say .
Reportedly the program, euphemistically dubbed the innocent-sounding Community Defense Initiative, is controlled by a newly created Special Forces Group that reports directly to McChrystal as head of US forces in Afghanistan. Revealing is that, despite the fact that McChrystal is also commander of the NATO mission in Afghanistan — officially, the International Security Assistance Force — other NATO members are kept entirely out of this particular operation of his US arming of local militias in the Community Defense Initiative .
Perhaps one reason the US Command is so secretive towards its supposed NATO allies about the operation is the fact that there is strong opposition within other NATO member states to the idea of arming local militias.
McChrystal reportedly has outsourced the creation of his local militia operations entirely through Arif Noorzai, a highly controversial politician from Helmland province, coincidentally the largest opium producing region in the world. Arif Noorzai is widely distrusted, to put it mildly. This funding and arming of local Afghan groups seems to be an integral part of the Petraeus ‘surge’ strategy.
On May 19, the Pentagon press services reported that ‘insurgents’ had launched a bold assault on the massive US military fortress at Baghram Air Field in Afghanistan, using rockets, grenades and small arms fire. Seven US servicemen were reported wounded and numerous insurgents killed. The previous day a group of suicide bombers had attacked a US military convoy in Kabul killing eighteen including five US servicemen. The US military also reported that the Taliban claimed credit  .
Those are the reported surface facts. What is not at all clear is whether the ‘insurgents’ were in fact some of the thousands of freshly-armed locals recruited by Arif Noorzai in the loosely-supervised Community Defense Initiative, or Afghanis genuinely resisting US military assaults and atrocities. Also not at all clear is whether the Taliban claim of masterminding the attacks was just political opportunism on their part, a ploy to make them appear stronger than they are in the eyes of other Afghanis.
The Pentagon is well known to use private contractors in Afghanistan and elsewhere to do what under law the US Armed Forces are prohibited from doing—the privatization of warfare, if you will. Recent exposures in the New York Timeshave detailed secret and illegal Pentagon use of private military contractors under Lockheed Corporation — with names such as ‘Strategic Influence Alternatives’ (sic) or ‘American International Security Corporation’ —to carry out secret operations in eastern Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan. One such network employing American, Afghan and Pakistani mercenaries is reportedly supervised by former high-ranking CIA veteran Duane “Dewey” Clarridge, a CIA ‘counter-terror’ expert who played a key role in the CIA’s 1980s drug-running Nicaraguan Contras operations 
Arming local Afghan militias, deploying private military mercenary companies not bound by Geneva Conventions on warfare or any Afghani laws, comprised of Afghan and Pakistani mercenaries directed by veteran US intelligence officials—this is all a recipe with a colossal potential to spread wars and conflict like a wild brushfire. The record of the US military commands in Iraq, as well as now in Afghanistan, suggests this is in fact their intent—Low Intensity Operations as a method of expanding the war, all under the deceptive umbrella of the NATO ‘Peace Keeping Operation.’
NDN is the Key
The states now involved in the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) include: NATO member and former Soviet Union state Latvia; US-dominated oil producer Azerbaijan; US puppet state Georgia; Kazakhstan; Russia; Tajikistan; and Uzbekistan. In its finest Orwellian Pentagon linguistics, the US war bases have been deceptively renamed ‘transit centers.’ They are still US military bases despite the nominal change.
Russia’s role in the NDN is complex. Moscow facilitated the establishment of the rail line that constitutes a major transportation route within the NDN from Latvia down to the Uzbek-Afghan border. The Putin government also worked with the Obama administration, agreeing to over-flights of lethal materials. Russian companies that have been struggling during the global economic crisis to stay afloat suddenly benefit from Pentagon logistics contracts that give them tens of millions of sorely-needed dollars. At the same time, however, Moscow tried to convince the Bakiev government in Kyrgyzstan to deny the US military further access to the Manas air base  In this, Moscow was unsuccessful.
Additionally the NDN gives Washington an increasing lever over the under-developed and economically troubled economies of Central Asia. Transit agreements made with local carriers provide new economic ties to Washington and weaken ties to Russia in many cases or build an interest lobby within Russia to continue NATO cooperation. It does not take much imagination to see the potential of the NDN to create a counter pole to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in the region’s economy. Russian companies alone garner over $1 billion a year in badly needed revenue for hauling Pentagon supplies across Russia via the NDN .
If the US succeeds in this mission of militarizing Central Asia outwards from Afghanistan, it will have achieved a ‘checkmate’ — in effect, blocking any combination of nations on earth from opposing the Pentagon agenda of Full Spectrum Dominance. The ability of the nations of South America — from Venezuela to Bolivia to Cuba or Brazil — to follow an economic and political course independent of the dictates of Washington will be dashed. The ability of China to build a regional Asian economic zone of stability independent of the collapsing dollar will be gone. Russia will be broken into feuding pieces as tribal and ethnic and religious wars spread across the states of the former Soviet Union in the manner of a new Thirty Years’ War. Hence the stakes for Washington in the seemingly remote events in Kyrgyzstan are of staggering geopolitical importance.
NDN and Kyrgyzstan’s Batken ‘Anti-Terror’ center
In this context, the Obama Administration’s new anti-terror training center at Batken in Kyrgyzstan which will train the “Scorpion” Special Forces units for “drug-interdiction and anti-terrorist operations,” takes on strategic importance for future US Grand Strategy in the heart of Central Asia, and for a future control lever over all Eurasia from Russia and Kazakhstan to China itself.
Batken is the axis or pivot point for American operations in central Eurasia.
On March 17, 2010, the Kyrgyz Defense Ministry of the now-deposed Bakiyev government issued a statement that construction of the anti-terrorist training center in the Batken Oblast was, “the bilateral Kyrgyz-American relations project against international terrorism and religious extremism, transnational organized crime, prevention of drug smuggling, not oriented against third countries and does not conflict with national obligations under CSTO and other international organizations” .
Unnamed sources in the Defense Ministry of Kyrgyzstan have said that the US-trained Kyrgyz ‘anti-terror’ soldiers will be involved in the possible ‘local conflicts’ — and specifically in conflicts with Uzbekistan — a very convenient pretext to spread the US-orchestrated conflict to the strategic Ferghana Valley.
The Kyrgyz Defense Ministry added that construction of the US training camp in the Batken Oblast was but “one of many joint projects of Kyrgyzstan and USA” in the military area, while “cooperation on military-technical matters has been implemented under the Pentagon’s FMF (Foreign Military Financing) program since 1996″ .
Some military analysts in China and in Russia, with whom the author has spoken privately, believe that involving US-trained local soldiers in local conflicts serves the intent of the US Central Command — to justify and spread NATO and US presence across the strategic corridors of Central Asia, positioning the US militarily to control future energy and political developments from Russia to China and across Eurasia.
Eurasia is the vast region identified by US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski as containing the only group of nations that could pose a challenge to America’s global hegemony.
Brzezinski, the protege of David Rockefeller and a student of British geopolitician Mackinder, wrote in 1997:
“America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe’s central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and to America’s historical legacy…With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design…That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy.” 
Brzezinski added, in his most revealing book,
“The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role” .
In this context the following actions assume a larger significance:
In January 2009 the Commander of the US Central Command, General David Petraeus, announced that transit agreements had been signed with Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
In March the Uzbek government allowed US soldiers to be transferred to Afghanistan via the German base at Termez in German Luftwaffe planes.
In May 2009 a US supply hub at the Uzbek airport of Navoi was created, using a South Korean transport firm as proxy.
In June 2009, it was announced that the lease agreement for the US base at Manas in Kyrgyzstan would be extended after earlier announcements that the Americans would have to leave in August.
And finally in July 2009 it became public knowledge that the US Air Force was running a small refueling and resupply operation at an unspecified location in Turkmenistan .
Pentagon planners began work on their Northern Distribution Network as early as 2006, when news of any Taliban insurgency was barely audible and the US military campaign was at a very low level. Significantly, as the US military presence in Afghanistan has since increased, the armed insurgency has also inevitably increased. As noted, that is more than coincidence. Gradually, stage by stage, US officials began making deals for rights of passage, crucially with Russia and other nations around Afghanistan.
Largely unnoticed, these bilateral accords finally took shape as a whole by mid-2008 in what the US military dubbed the Northern Distribution Network. A brief look at a satellite map provided by Google and by the NOAA in Washington makes the significance of the NDN clearer.
The NDN begins at one of two “western hubs” in Latvia or Georgia. From these secure starting points, the military cargo is transported by a combination of trains, trucks and ferries across Russian territory and the adjacent former-Soviet countries of Kazakhstan, Krygyzstan and Tajikistan or via Uzbekistan into Afghanistan. The publicly stated reason for the NDN routes is to insure safe supply routes to Afghanistan independent of Pakistan .
Ironically, the most important NDN route begins in NATO member Latvia’s Baltic all-weather port of Riga where US-chartered container ships offload their cargo onto Russian trains that go south through Russia around the Caspian Sea through Kazakhstan and across Uzbekistan into north Afghanistan. The Russian train-lines were built to supply Russia’s own war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and today Moscow’s cooperation is making them available for use by the US and NATO in their own Afghan campaign .
Another NDN route goes from Georgia, bypassing Russia from the Black Sea port of Ponti, to Baku in Azerbaijan where military goods are loaded onto ferries crossing the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan to be trucked to Uzbekistan and on to Afghanistan, presently accounting for one third of the total shipping via NDN. And a third NDN route bypasses Uzbekistan entirely and goes from Kazakhstan via Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to Afghanistan .
From this geographically central point it becomes clear that Kyrgyzstan is shaping up to become the next theater of war in the Pentagon’s Central Asia strategy, or as General Petraeus called it, the pivot of the Pentagon strategy. As Central Asia expert, Peter Chamberlian describes it:
“The recent sudden realignment of Taliban and Pakistani interests (represented in the string of Taliban “arrests”) is intended to provide the US and NATO with an excuse to open this new front in their terror war, by shifting the emphasis to protecting the new Northern Distribution Network (NDN) that parallels anticipated pipeline routes to the irresistible underground wealth that waits to be pumped from underneath the fertile Caspian basin soil. This attempted realignment on interior Asia was only made possible because American and Pakistani leaders decided to take advantage of Pakistan’s continued friendly relations with the Taliban, instead of working at cross-purposes with each other.” 
Opium in the Central Asian War
The ‘glue’ that clearly holds the entire US Low Intensity Warfare strategy across Central Asia together is opium.
As was the case with the British and the US merchant companies, backed by their governments in the notorious Opium Wars in China beginning the 1840s, opium plays an essential role in the US strategy for control over Central Asia today.
Washington investigative writer Wayne Madsen (of the Wayne Madsen Report) describes the role of opium in the 2001 US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan: “WMR has learned from a Delta Force veteran that when units of the elite military force were sent into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, their first order from the CIA was to protect Afghan poppy fields. WMR’s FBI sources confirmed that Afghanistan has replaced Khun Sa’s poppy production operations in Burma’s ‘Golden Triangle’ as the main source of opium and heroin for the CIA’s narcotics trade.” 
In this decades-long CIA and Pentagon effort to train and infiltrate operatives masquerading as Islamic terrorists into Central Asia – particularly in the region from Uzbejistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan surrounding the uranium-rich Ferghana Valley — a major player is the CIA-funded Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). The IMU, which has also been active across the border into Kyrgyzstan and throughout the Ferghana Valley, now funds itself with the lucrative opium traffic.
According to Interpol, the IMU is deeply involved in the Afghan heroin trade into and within Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and all across Central Asia. In US Congressional testimony, Ralf Mutschke, a senior Interpol anti-narcotics specialist declared, “Despite the political and ideological agenda of the IMU, this movement is not exclusively terrorist in nature, rather more of a hybrid organization in which criminal interests often take priority over ‘political’ goals. IMU leaders have a vested interest in ongoing unrest and instability in their area in order to secure the routes they use for the transportation of drugs. ”
Central Asia analyst Peter Chamberlain points to evidence that the IMU is a drug gang, created in all likelihood by the CIA:
“There is every reason to believe that the IMU itself is a CIA creation. According to the definitive history on this topic, given by author Steve Coll in Ghost Wars, ‘CIA Director William Casey, in a move exceeding his authority, decided to extend destabilizing propaganda measures inside the borders of the Soviet Union. To this end, the CIA promoted the Muslim religion in Uzbekistan, by CIA commissioning a translation of the Qu’ran into Uzbek by an Uzbek exile living in Germany, and then commissioning Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence to deliver 5,000 copies…From the very beginning, before the Soviets even invaded, the Afghan revolution was manufactured by a coalition of foreign powers led by the CIA. Even the political form of Wahabi “Islam” which was taught to combatants in local madrassas, using American-created “Islamic” textbooks from the University of Nebraska, was really a deviation from true Islam that incorporated behavioral modification techniques.” 
“If the CIA did, in fact, supply the corrupted Islamic jihadi textbooks to the madrassas where IMU foot soldiers were indoctrinated in Uzbekistan, then it follows that whatever arose from them is also a product of the CIA…American military and drug-interdiction missions in hot pursuit of IMU terrorists and drug-dealers provide cover for Special Forces operatives, who scout-out local leadership for further development, or termination…The Partnership for Peace programs open the door for an influx of thousands of American and NATO trainers, giving them bases for operations for ‘direct-action’ missions, while it transfers tons of surplus military equipment to oil rich customers and sets the stage for joint military war games. .
US Ambassador and Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke announced in June 2009 that the US Afghan opium eradication campaign would be abandoned in favor of what the Pentagon calls a campaign of “interdiction.” In a press comment Holbrooke told AP that Washington was phasing out opium eradication in Afghanistan .
It has also been reported in the New York Times that the brother of US-installed Afghan President Karzai, Ahmed Wali, is a CIA asset on their payroll the past eight years, and that Wali is the drug warlord of Helmland Province. Among the things the CIA reportedly pays Ahmed Wali Karzai for is recruiting “an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the CIA’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home”. 
That makes the Afghan drug trade under the CIA alarmingly similar to their role in the Southeast Asian opium trade during the Vietnam War. The conclusion is overwhelming that neither case was an ‘oversight’ in pursuit of other, more military, goals, but rather an integral, central part of Washington’s strategy.
Ahmed Wali has reportedly used his drug proceeds to fund state terror operations, including the intimidation of opponents in the rigged election of 2009. Karzai’s 2007 appointment as anti-corruption chief, Izzatullah Wasifi, meanwhile, spent four years in a Nevada prison for trying to sell heroin to an undercover police officer . Clearly the logic was something like, ‘it takes a heroin dealer to catch one.’
Karzai’s Helmland is no small part of the opium fields of Afghanistan. It represents the greatest concentration of opium production on the planet, producing some 40% of the world’s illicit opium, according to expert US researcher and author John W. McCoy, who has tracked the role of the US intelligence in Asian drug trafficking since the Vietnam War in the late 1960s. In Helmland some 103,000 hectares of opium were cultivated in 2008 – two thirds of all opium in Afghanistan.
McCoy points out that during the CIA-backed Mujahideen guerilla warfare against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the CIA used drug money —earned by the lucrative opium crops that were planted and harvested by the Mujahideen — to finance the covert war, a war made popular by Hollywood’s Tom Hanks as ‘Charlie Wilson’s War.’ McCoy stresses that during the 1980’s, “the CIA’s covert war served as the catalyst that transformed the Afghan-Pakistan borderlands into the world’s largest heroin producing region.”
To defeat the Taliban in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, McCoy adds,
“The CIA successfully mobilized former warlords long active in the heroin trade to seize towns and cities across eastern Afghanistan. In other words, the Agency and its local allies created ideal conditions for reversing the Taliban’s opium ban and reviving the drug traffic. Only weeks after the collapse of the Taliban, officials were reporting an outburst of poppy planting in the heroin-heartlands of Helmand and Nangarhar.” 
It’s a matter of established fact that at the time the US military drove the Afghan Taliban government into exile in late 2001, opium production under Taliban rule had been dramatically reduced. It is also a matter of established fact, and of UN Office on Drugs and Crime record, that in the period since the US-led NATO forces have occupied Afghanistan, the opium harvest has not only recovered, it has rebounded to its highest level in history , along with a staggering parallel rise in Afghanistan’s opium production.
The Taliban in 2000 had completely banned the crop. Since the US took control of the country militarily, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the Afghan opium harvest went from just 185 tons grown on less than eight thousand hectares of land in 2001 to 8,200 tons over 193,000 hectares in 2007. That translates into a forty-four-fold rise in opium harvest during eight years of US military occupation of Afghanistan .
In 2008 US and UN authorities made much of the headline that acreages of opium poppy plantings were down some 19% from 2007, downplaying the fact that harvest yields at the same time improved by some 15% to keep Afghanistan the world’s largest source of opium for heroin, with no other place even close .
For the past five years, the Afghan opium harvest has accounted for as much as 50% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) and supplies the base for over 93% of the world’s heroin supply . It is incorrect to say that under the US military occupation since 2001 Afghanistan’s economy has not grown. GDP had risen by an impressive 66%, all due to the booming, US-protected opium industry controlled by Washington’s hand-picked Karzai regime .
The head of Russia’s Federal Narcotics Service estimated the value of Afghanistan’s current opium crop at $65 billion. Only $500 million of that vast sum goes to Afghanistan’s farmers, $300 million to the Taliban guerrillas, and the $64 billion balance “to the drug mafia” .
In a March 2010 meeting of the NATO-Russia Council, the head of Russia’s Federal Drug Control Agency (FSKN) Victor Ivanov said, “Afghan opiates led to the death of 1 million people by overdose in the last 10 years, and that is United Nations data. Is that not a threat to world peace and security?” 
NATO has formally refused an appeal made by Russia for eradication of opium fields in Afghanistan. The reason? NATO (the US Command) claims eradication would destroy the “sole source of income in the region.” The criminal absurdity of the Afghan mission of NATO is summed up in that simple statement.
At a recent meeting of the NATO-Russia Council, Ivanov called on NATO forces in their stated mission of “normalizing the situation in Afghanistan” to include “the elimination of drug production” .
NATO spokesman James Appathurai voiced “understanding” for Russian concerns , given the country’s estimated 200,000 heroin and morphine addicts and the tens of thousands dying each year as a result of their addiction. Significantly, since the US occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 a major destination of Afghanistan’s revitalized opium industry has been Russia where the drugs are creating major social and economic problems.
The NATO official then said that the Afghan drug problem had to be handled “carefully” in an effort to avoid “alienating” local residents. In a masterpiece of NATO doublespeak, Appathurai stated, “We share the view that it has to be tackled. But there is a slight difference of views. We cannot be in a situation where we remove the only source of income for people who live in the second poorest country in the world without being able to provide them an alternative. That is simply not possible” .
US Military as Opium Exporter?
Opium would be the ideal glue for the US wars in Central Asia. It finances ‘insurgencies’ such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Up to 10% of the population of Afghanistan — including the brother of the President and perhaps even the President — live off the proceeds of the opium trade.
Moreover, creating opium and heroin addiction among the tribes and groups of the Central Asian region, as the British learned well during their 1840s Opium Wars in China, is an ideal way to subvert a country, creating both passivity as well as lawlessness and chaos that, in turn, can be used to justify an expanded NATO ‘peace keeping’ presence.
Using Kyrgyzstan migrations to flood China’s Xinjiang and other provinces with opium would be one obvious strategy for Pentagon strategists to quietly ‘encourage.’ Already, Russian society is being devastated by a plague of cheap Afghan heroin, creating large populations of addicts, as well as crime and lawlessness.
Meanwhile, Ambassador Holbrooke and various Pentagon Central Command spokesmen claim that Afghan tribesmen or Uzbeks or Tajiks are carting the opium on the backs of mules across treacherous land passes to Russia and other destinations. However, the reality seems to be quite different. It appears that the opium is being transported by means of the most modern military transport available.
The most explosive aspect of the story of US so-called ‘benign neglect’ of the growth of the Afghan opium harvest are the reports that the opium and refined heroin are transported by US military transport — from sites such as the Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan — concealed and protected under national security secrecy.
Such use of US military transport, if true, would provide the perfect cover as US military aircraft are ‘off limits’ and no one is allowed near them or to search their contents. It would represent a large-scale repeat of the CIA’s Air America flights of heroin during the Vietnam War in the 1960’s .
The charge is made by a knowledgeable intelligence source from the region— General Hamid Gul, the retired former head of Pakistan’s intelligence services (ISI) and Director-General of its military intelligence during the Afghan Mujahideen wars of the late 1980s.
“Abdul Wali Karzai is the biggest drug baron of Afghanistan,” Gul stated bluntly in an August 2009 interview. He says that the drug lords are also involved in arms trafficking, which is “a flourishing trade” in Afghanistan. “But what is most disturbing from my point of view is that the military aircraft, American military aircraft are also being used. You said very rightly that the drug routes are northward through the Central Asia republics and through some of the Russian territory, and then into Europe and beyond. But some of it is going directly. That is by the military aircraft” .
Gul headed the Pakistan’s ISI from 1987 through 1989 during the peak of the Mujahideen insurgency and worked closely then with the CIA. He has since been forbidden entry into both the USA and the UK, because, he says, he is too outspoken about the true US and British agenda for the region, which he believes also includes the systematic destruction of Pakistan as a nation .
Gul’s charge that US military aircraft are being used to secretly transport Afghan opium and heroin through the Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan, as well as via the various routes of the Northern Distribution Network, has also been anecdotally corroborated by Afghani Tadjik sources, and by US military personnel speaking off-record, as well as by Russian reports .
This special role of the US base at Manas, in conjunction with the latest US moves to establish a “drug interdiction and anti-terror” training base at Batken in southwest Kyrgyzstan, bordering the volatile Ferghana Valley of Uzbekistan, would fit nicely with the announcement by US Special Afghan Envoy Holbrooke that the new US policy on Afghan opium will be one of selective ‘interdiction,’ and not of eradication. Conveniently, the new Pentagon policy also leaves 93% of world opium untouched by US ‘eradicators’ and available for refining into heroin for sale on the markets of China, Uzbekistan, Russia and beyond, a form of new Opium War.
US mainstream media report that the Taliban is in control of the opium trade. However, According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Anti-Government Elements (or AGEs), which include but are not limited to the Taliban, account for just 2% of what the UN estimated was a $3.4 billion annual drug revenue. That figure is backed up even by the US CIA and the DIA who estimate that the Taliban receives a meager $70 million a year from the drugs trade. The real volumes of heroin and raw opium in Afghanistan are controlled by warlords linked to the Karzai machine.
The latest US strategy for dealing with the Afghan drug ‘problem’ is also carefully crafted. It puts drug traffickers with known ties to ‘insurgents’ on a list to be eliminated—i.e. killed. It excludes the vast majority of Afghan drug lords who garner some 98% of total opium and heroin revenues and who work with the drug-sotted Karzai family and Karzai’s corrupt regime.
In effect, as one analyst put it, the United States military ”would be assisting to eliminate the competition for drug lords allied with occupying forces or the Afghan government and helping them to further corner the market” .
Craig Murray, UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan until 2004, claims that convoys under General Rashid Dostum — who was reappointed in 2009 as Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the Afghan National Army by President Hamid Karzai — would truck the drugs over the border.
According to Ambassador Murray, Dostum is a key figure running the Afghan heroin trade from his home near Mazar e Sharif. He was brought back from exile by Karzai, with US approval, for the recent elections where he duly delivered “100%” of the votes in key districts for Karzai. The Pentagon now proposes to supply weapons on a massive scale to Dostum’s private (drug) militia, ostensibly to “fight the Taliban.” That, despite the fact that Dostum remains nominal Army Chief of Staff, and despite the fact that Washington knows about his role in the Afghan heroin trade .
And President Karzai’s own brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, long on the CIA Payroll according to the New York Times , has been accused of being a major drug lord, making for a nice circle around the US-backed Karzai government .
Murray further emphasizes that Afghanistan “now exports not opium, but heroin. Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker. The tankers and bulk opium lorries on the way to the factories share the roads, improved by American aid, with NATO troops….The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government. When we attacked Afghanistan, America bombed from the air while the CIA paid, armed and equipped the dispirited warlord drug barons”. .
A careful look at the map of Central Asia makes clear why Afghanistan is central to US Pentagon efforts to destabilize and militarize all of Central Asia and to threaten simultaneously China, Russia, Iran and the other neighboring countries — notably, all members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
Drugs proliferation and anti-drug interdictions, terror and anti-terror operations, deliberate local police brutality and control of Eurasia’s existing and future energy pipelines — all are ingredients of the US-run NATO operations radiating out of Afghanistan.
Kyrgyzstan plays a ‘pivot’ role now in the expansion of that war across all of Central Asia. Moscow knows this; Beijing knows this. The stakes for Washington’s Great Game in Kyrgyzstan and across Central Asia are nothing less than the ultimate survival of the American Full Spectrum Dominance goal of total global military hegemony.
Like the US war in Vietnam during the 1960s and 1970s, it is becoming increasingly clear that the US ‘war on terror’ in Afghanistan is deliberately designed by Washington to be another ‘no-win war.’
The ‘failure’ of the Afghan war is being engineered to justify a spillover into Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Ferghana valley and from there across Central Asia. Before the popular protests in March this year drove the Bakiyev gang into exile, Washington was well on its way to broadening the war by means of the agreements with Bakiyev to build up ‘anti-terror’ training bases in the country. From there, control of the Eurasian land space from Xinjiang into Kazakhstan and Russia would be just a matter of time, given the spread of the opium drug routes.
This time, unlike the early 1970s, the stakes for American hegemony are vastly higher. The role of Kyrgyzstan’s interim provisional government, the role of Moscow and of Beijing as well as Iran and Uzbekistan will be decisive in one of the world’s most intensive centers of conflict.
|F. William Engdahl
Author of Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation.. He also authored A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (Pluto Press). His latest book is Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order (Third Millennium Press).
This author’s articles
To send a message
 Heritage Foundation, Washington D.C., 2006 Annual Report lists defense giants McDonnell Douglas and Boeing as well as oil companies Chevron and ExxonMobil as funders. See Source Watch: Heritage Foundation
 Ariel Cohen, Radical Islam and US Interests in Central Asia, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Middle East and Central Asia, Committee on International Relations, US House of Representatives, October 29, 2003.
 General David H. Petraeus, US Army, Commander US Central Command, Statement to Senate Armed Services Committee on the Afghanistan-Pakistan Strategic Posture Review and the Posture of US Central Command, April 1, 2009.
 Halford J. Mackinder, The Geographical Pivot of History, London, Royal Geographic Society, 1904. Mackinder’s Pivot Area was what later essentially became the Soviet Union, including Central Asia, plus Afghanistan.
 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Minority Staff Report for Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Hearing on Private Banking and Money Laundering: A Case Study of Opportunities and Vulnerabilities; (2) Asif Ali Zardari Case History, Washington D.C., November 9, 1999.
 Helene Cooper, Mark Mazzetti, “U.N. Envoy’s Ties to Pakistani Are Questioned”, The New York Times, August 25, 2008.
 Thomas M. Sanderson and Andrew C. Kutchins, The Northern Distribution Network and Afghanistan: Geopolitical Challenges and Opportunities, Washington, CSIS, A Report of the CSIS Transnational Threats Project and the Russia and Eurasia Program, January 2010.
 Richard Boucher, Re-designation of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, Washington D.C., September 25, 2002, United States Department of State.
 Wayne Madsen, quoted in Peter Chamberlain, America’s ‘Islamists’ Go Where Oilmen Fear to Tread, News Central Asia, March 24, 2010.
 Mark Thompson, Moving Troops to Afghanistan Harder Than Getting Them, Time, New York, October 14, 2009.
 Frank E. Kitson, Low Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency and Peacekeeping, London, 1971, Faber and Faber.
 C.M. Olsson and E.P. Guittet, Counter Insurgency, Low Intensity Conflict and Peace Operations: A Genealogy of the Transformations of Warfare, March 5, 2005 paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association.
 Jon Boone, US pours millions into anti-Taliban militias in Afghanistan, November 22, 2009, The Guardian, London.
 Jeremy Kuzmarov, American Police Training and Political Violence: From the Philippines Conquest to the Killing Fields of Afghanistan and Iraq, The Asia-Pacific Journal, 11-1-10, March 15, 2010.
 Mark Mazzetti, US Is Still Using Private Spy Ring, Despite Doubts,The New York Times, May 15, 2010.
 Central Asia News, Kyrgyz Defense Ministry: The training center in Batken is not oriented against third countries, Ferghana.ru, March 18, 2010
 Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives, New York, Basic Books, 1998, pp. 194-198.
 Cornelius Graubner, Implications of the Northern Distribution Network in Central Asia, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Johns Hopkins University, September 1, 2009.
 Bill Marmon, New Supply ‘Front’ for Afghan War Runs Across Russia, Georgia and the ‘Stans, March 21, 2010.
 Peter Chamberlain, America’s ‘Islamists’ Go Where Oilmen Fear to Tread, News Central Asia, March 24, 2010.
 Ralf Mutschke, Threat Posed by the Convergence of Organized Crime, Drug Trafficking, and Terrorism, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, US House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., December 13, 2000.
 Peter Chamberlain, op. cit.
 Richard Holbrooke, quoted in US to shift approach to Afghanistan drug trade The focus will move from opium eradication to fighting trafficking and promoting alternate crops, US envoy Richard Holbrooke says, Associated Press, June 28, 2009
 Jeremy Kuzmarov, op. cit.
 Alfred W. McCoy, op. cit.
 Craig Murray, Britain is protecting the biggest heroin crop of all time, London, Daily Mail, July 21, 2007.
 RIA Novosti, Russian official mocks NATO concern for Afghan poppy growers, Moscow, March 25, 2010.
 Jeremy R. Hammond, Ex-ISI Chief Says Purpose of New Afghan Intelligence Agency RAMA Is ‘to destabilize Pakistan’, Foreign Policy Journal, August 12, 2009.
 Various off-record conversations with the author over the course of April and May 2010.
 Craig Murray, US Supported Afghan Government Warlords Control World Heroin Trade, August 13, 2009.
 Craig Murray, Britain is protecting the biggest heroin crop of all time, London, Daily Mail, July 21, 2007.
by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed*
The myth that Islamic fundamentalist militants are the enemies of Israel and Western governments no longer needs debunking. In his latest work, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed provides a concise summary of the deep politics of the ’War on Terror’ spanning several decades and continents. Articulated around an intricate network of chilling complicity between Western intelligence agencies and Islamist extremism, the shadowy ’War on Terror’ is designed to disrupt and destabilize regions of geostrategic value for penetration and control by Western powers.
Once upon a time, the CIA trained, financed and supported Osama bin Laden and his mujahidin networks in Afghanistan to repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. After the end of the Cold War, bin Laden turned against the West and we no longer had any use for him. His persistent terrorist attacks against us for more than a decade, culminating in 9/11, provoked our own response, in the form of the ‘War on Terror’. This is the official narrative. And it’s false. Not only did Western intelligence services continue to foster Islamist extremist and terrorist groups connected to al-Qaeda after the Cold War; they continued to do so even after 9/11.
The CIA’s jihad
The story begins in the summer of 1979, six months before the Soviet invasion, when the CIA had already begun financing elements of an emerging Islamist mujahidin force inside Afghanistan. The idea, according to former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former CIA Director Robert Gates, was to increase the probability of a Soviet invasion, and entrap ‘the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire’. 
Osama bin Laden arrived in the country later that year, sent by then-Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, where he set up the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) which helped finance, recruit and train mujahidin fighters.  Bin Laden, the MAK, and the Afghan mujahidin in total received about half a billion dollars a year from the CIA, and roughly the same from the Saudis, funnelled through Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). 
By around 1988, as Jane’s Defence Weekly reports, ‘with US knowledge, Bin Laden created al-Qaeda (The Base): a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells spread across at least 26 countries’.  US and Western intelligence agencies facilitated this process, seeing rightwing Islamist movements as a counterweight to Communist, leftwing and nationalist political trends. They supported the Saudis and other Gulf states, as well as Pakistan, Turkey and Azerbaijan among others, in proliferating Islamist extremist institutions in far-flung countries such as Algeria, Yemen, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Funding for these activities was intertwined with the establishment of organized criminal financial centres in Malaysia, Madagascar, South Africa, Nigeria, Latin America, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Turkestan, and elsewhere. 
Islamism and the CIA’s destabilization doctrine
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in particular in 1991 when the Saudis accepted the stationing of 300,000 US troops in the country due to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Osama bin Laden reportedly turned against his former masters in Riyadh and Washington. Since then, bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network became our enemy, targeting Western citizens and interests throughout the 1990s, culminating in the most devastating strike of all in the form of the 9/11 atrocities in the US.
Unfortunately, this is where the official story begins to break down. Because after 1991, Islamists affiliated to bin Laden and al-Qaeda continued to receive selective support from Western intelligence services. The policy was alluded to by Graham Fuller, former Deputy Director of the CIA’s National Council on Intelligence, when he stated: ‘The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvellously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia.’ 
Afghanistan, Big Oil and the Taliban
Throughout the 1990s, the selective US intelligence sponsorship of Islamist extremist networks was linked not simply to destabilizing potential Russian and Chinese influence, but further to securing US-led Western control over strategic energy reserves. When bin Laden moved from Sudan to Afghanistan in June 1996, the State Department warned that the move ‘could prove more dangerous to US interests’, granting him ‘the capability to support individuals and groups who have the motive and wherewithal to attack US interests almost worldwide’.  He had been offered protection by Pakistan in May on condition that he align his mujahidin forces with the Taliban. The new al-Qaeda-Taliban alliance was reportedly blessed by the Saudis. 
Yet as the respected Pakistani correspondent Ahmed Rashid reported, US intelligence supported the Taliban as a vehicle of regional influence at least between 1994 and 1998. This policy continued up to the year 2000, despite growing cautions. Thus, when the Taliban conquered Kabul in 1996, a State Department spokesperson explained that the US found ‘nothing objectionable’ in the event. One year later, a US diplomat commented: ‘The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis… There will be Aramco (consortium of oil companies controlling Saudi oil), pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that.’ 
Continued US sponsorship of the al-Qaeda-Taliban nexus in Afghanistan was confirmed as late as 2000 in Congressional hearings. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on South Asia, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher – former White House Special Assistant to President Reagan and now Senior Member of the House International Relations Committee – declared that ‘this administration has a covert policy that has empowered the Taliban and enabled this brutal movement to hold on to power’. The assumption is that ‘the Taliban would bring stability to Afghanistan and permit the building of oil pipelines from Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan’.  US companies involved in the project included UNOCAL and ENRON. As early as May 1996, UNOCAL had officially announced plans to build a pipeline to transport natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through western Afghanistan.
US officials held several meetings with the Taliban from 2000 to summer 2001, in an effort to get the Taliban to agree to a joint federal government with their local enemies, the Northern Alliance, promising financial aid and international legitimacy if the deal was struck. By then, US policymakers had belatedly concluded that the Taliban would never bring the stability needed for the pipeline project. According to Pakistani Foreign Minister Niaz Naik, who was present at the meetings, US officials threatened the Taliban with military action if they failed to comply with the federalization plan. Even the date of threatened military action, October 2001, was proposed. Needless to say, the Taliban rejected the plan.  So months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a war on Afghanistan was already on the table. Jean-Charles Brisard, a former French intelligence officer, thus speculates that 9/11 may have been a pre-emptive attack by al-Qaeda to head off the declared US military invasion of Afghanistan. 
There is still keen interest in the pipeline. ‘Since the US-led offensive that ousted the Taliban from power,’ reported Forbesin 2005, ‘the project has been revived and drawn strong US support’ as it would allow the Central Asian republics to export energy to Western markets ‘without relying on Russian routes’. Then-US Ambassador to Turkmenistan Ann Jacobsen noted that: ‘We are seriously looking at the project, and it is quite possible that American companies will join it.’  The problem remains that the southern section of the proposed pipeline runs through territory still de facto controlled by Taliban forces.
Mega Oil and mujahidin from the Balkans to the Caucasus
Unfortunately, we now know that US flirtations with the al-Qaeda-Taliban nexus in Afghanistan throughout the 1990s were only one moment in a much wider covert US geostrategy to secure control over strategic energy resources across the Eurasian continent, by co-opting Islamist networks affiliated with bin Laden.
In 1991, the first Bush Administration wanted an oil pipeline from Azerbaijan, across the Caucasus, to Turkey. That year, three US Air Force officers, Richard Secord (a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs), Heinie Aderholt and Ed Dearborn, landed in Baku, and set up a front company, ‘MEGA Oil’. They were veterans of previous CIA covert operations in Laos and later with Lt. Col. Oliver North’s Contra scandal. In Azerbaijan, they setup an airline to secretly fly hundreds of al-Qaeda mujahidin from Afghanistan into Azerbaijan. By 1993, MEGA Oil had recruited and armed 2,000 mujahidin, converting Baku into a base for regional jihadi operations. 
The covert operation contributed to the military coup that toppled elected president Abulfaz Elchibey that year, and installed US puppet Heidar Aliyev. A secret Turkish intelligence report leaked to the Sunday Times confirmed that ‘two petrol giants, BP and Amoco, British and American respectively, which together form the AIOC (Azerbaijan International Oil Consortium), are behind the coup d’état. 
From 1992 to 1995, the Pentagon flew thousands of al-Qaeda mujahidin from Central Asia into Europe, to fight alongside Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs. The mujahidin were ‘accompanied by US Special Forces equipped with high-tech communications equipment,’ according to intelligence sources. Bin Laden’s mercenaries were used as shock troops by the Pentagon ‘to coordinate and support Bosnian Muslim offensives’.  The pattern continued in Kosovo, where ethnic violence broke out between Albanians and Serbs. In 1998, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization financed by bin Laden and the heroin trade. Bin Laden had sent a senior lieutenant, Muhammed al-Zawahiri (brother of al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri), to lead an élite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict. He had direct radio contact with NATO leadership. Indeed, British SAS and American Delta Force instructors were training KLA fighters as early as 1996. The CIA supplied military assistance up to and during the 1999 bombing campaign, including military training manuals and field advice, under the cover of OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) ceasefire monitors. 
After the Kosovo War, when the KLA switched operations to Macedonia under the banner of the National Liberation Army (NLA), its links with al-Qaeda were as strong as ever according to US, Macedonian, Albanian and Yugoslav intelligence sources. Yet by 2001, Canadian military correspondent Scott Taylor reported after a visit to Tetovo that ‘there is no denying the massive amount of material and expertise supplied by NATO to the guerrillas’. 
So why the Balkans? Gen. Sir Mike Jackson, then-commander of NATO troops in the region, summed it up in 1999: ‘We will certainly stay here for a long time in order to guarantee the safety of the energy corridors which cross Macedonia.’ The General was talking about the Trans-Balkan pipeline passing through Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania, planned to be a primary route to the West for Central Asian oil and gas. 
Around the same time, US intelligence stepped up sponsorship of al-Qaeda mujahidin in Chechnya. Chechnya is traditionally a predominantly Sufi society, yet the increasing encroachment of US-sponsored mujahidin operatives linked to Osama bin Laden transformed the character of the Chechen resistance movement, empowering al-Qaeda’s hardline Islamist ideology. US intelligence ties had been established in the early 1990s in Baku under Dick Secord’s operation, where mujahidin activities had quickly extended into Dagestan and Chechnya, turning Baku into a shipping point for Afghan heroin to the Chechen mafia. 
From the mid-1990s, bin Laden funded Chechen guerrilla leaders Shamil Basayev and Omar ibn al-Khattab to the tune of several millions of dollars per month, sidelining the moderate Chechen majority.  US intelligence remained deeply involved until the end of the decade. According to Yossef Bodanksy, then-Director of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Washington was actively involved in ‘yet another anti-Russian jihad, ‘seeking to support and empower the most virulent anti-Western Islamist forces’. US Government officials participated in ‘a formal meeting in Azerbaijan’ in December 1999 ‘in which specific programmes for the training and equipping of mujahidin from the Caucasus, Central/South Asia and the Arab world were discussed and agreed upon’, culminating in ‘Washington’s tacit encouragement of both Muslim allies (mainly Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) and US “private security companies”… to assist the Chechens and their Islamist allies to surge in the spring of 2000 and sustain the ensuing jihad for a long time.’ The US saw the sponsorship of ‘Islamist jihad in the Caucasus’ as a way to ‘deprive Russia of a viable pipeline route through spiralling violence and terrorism’. 
Algeria – state terrorism in disguise
Parallel covert operations were deployed in the same period in Algeria, where the army cancelled national democratic elections in 1992 that would have brought the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) to power in a landslide victory. Tens of thousands of FIS voters were rounded up into detention camps in the Sahara, while the FIS and other Islamist political parties were banned. Not long after the coup, hundreds of civilians were being mysteriously massacred by an unknown terrorist group, identified by the Algerian junta as a radical offshoot of the FIS calling itself the Armed Islamic Group (GIA). The GIA was formed largely of Algerian veterans of bin Laden’s mujahidin forces in Afghanistan who had returned in the late 1980s.  To date, the total death toll from the massacres by the GIA is an estimated 150,000 civilians. 
Yet in the late 1990s, evidence began to emerge from dissident Algerian Government and intelligence sources that the GIA atrocities were in fact perpetrated by the state. ‘Yussuf-Joseph’, a career secret agent in Algeria’s sécurité militaire for 14 years, defected to Britain in 1997 and told theGuardian that civilian massacres in Algeria, blamed on the GIA, were ‘the work of secret police and army death squads… not Islamic extremists’. GIA terrorism was ‘orchestrated’ by ‘Mohammed Mediane, head of the Algerian secret service’, and ‘General Smain Lamari’, head of ‘the counter intelligence agency’. According to Joseph: ‘The GIA is a pure product of Smain’s secret service. I used to read all the secret telexes. I know that the GIA has been infiltrated and manipulated by the Government. The GIA has been completely turned by the Government… In 1992 Smain created a special group, L’Escadron de la Mort (the Squadron of Death)… The death squads organize the massacres… The FIS aren’t doing the massacres.’
Joseph also confirmed that Algerian intelligence agents organized ‘at least’ two of the bombs in Paris in summer 1995. ‘The operation was run by Colonel Souames Mahmoud, alias Habib, head of the secret service at the Algerian embassy in Paris.’ Joseph’s testimony has been corroborated by numerous defectors from the Algerian secret services. 
Western intelligence agencies are implicated. Secret British Foreign Office documents revealed in a terrorist trial in 2000 showed that ‘British intelligence believed the Algerian Government was involved in atrocities, contradicting the view the Government was claiming in public’. The documents referred to the ‘manipulation of the GIA being used as a cover to carry out their own operations’, and that ‘there was no evidence to link 1995 Paris bombings to Algerian militants’. 
Algeria has the fifth largest reserves of natural gas in the world, and is the second largest gas exporter, with 130 trillion proven natural gas reserves. It ranks fourteenth for oil reserves, with official estimates at 9.2 billion barrels. Approximately 90 per cent of Algeria’s crude oil exports go to Western Europe, including Britain, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain. Algeria’s major trading partners are Italy, France, the United States, Germany, and Spain.
Currently, the militant Algerian splinter group, the al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb – formerly known as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) – plays a predominant role in regional terrorist violence. Yet in a series of extensive analyses for the Review of African Political Economy, social anthropologist Dr Jeremy Keenan – Director of Sahara Studies at the University of East Anglia – documents ‘an increasing amount of evidence to suggest that the alleged spread of terrorist activities across much of the Sahelian Sahara, has indeed been an elaborate deception on the part of US and Algerian military intelligence services’. He discusses evidence that an al-Qaeda hostage-taking of European tourists in early 2003 ‘was initiated and orchestrated by elements within the Algerian military establishment’, an operation ‘condoned by the US’, and that al-Qaeda leader Ammar Saifi (also known as Abderazzak El Para, or ‘the Maghreb’s bin Laden’) ‘was “turned” by the Algerian security forces in January 2003’. 
Energy hegemony is a key priority. Reported al-Qaeda activity in North Africa has focused on oil-rich nations, particularly the Niger Delta, Nigeria, and Chad. Thus, in July 2003, Keenan reports, under US auspices Algeria, Chad, Niger and Nigeria ‘signed a co-operation agreement on counter-terrorism that effectively joined the two oil-rich sides of the Sahara together in a complex of security arrangements whose architecture is American’. This has now evolved into the $500 million Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Initiative, in which Algeria plays a pivotal role in US plans for future regional military deployment. The region-wide security arrangement coincides with the inauguration of a $6 billion World Bank project, the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline. 
Islamist extremism and the Israeli connection
Curiously, Israel has played a key role in some of these policies, starting with the involvement of Congressman Charlie Wilson, who used his position in the House Select Committee on Intelligence, gained with the support of then Senator Dick Cheney, to ramp up billions of dollars’ worth of support for both Israel and the Afghan mujahidin.  Gust Avracotos, the CIA’s Station Chief in Islamabad, commented that Wilson brought ‘the Israelis into the CIA’s Muslim jihad’, opening opportunities for Mossad penetration of the ISI and al-Qaeda and securing Israeli arms contracts and intelligence ties with Pakistan. 
Closer to home, Israel played a very similar game in its ambiguous relationship to Hamas. US Government and intelligence sources confirm that Israel provided direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas in the late 1970s as a counterbalance to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).  According to the Israeli military affairs experts Ze’ev Schiff and Ehud Ya’ari, at the time of the first Intifadah, Fatah ‘suspected the Israelis of a plot first to let Hamas gather strength and then to unleash it against the PLO, turning the uprising into a civil war… many Israeli staff officers believed that the rise of fundamentalism in Gaza could be exploited to weaken the power of the PLO’. 
Israeli support for Hamas reportedly continued even after the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993, during the period of some of the worst suicide bombings.  Even the late Palestinian Authority (PA) President Yassir Arafat said in 2001 that Hamas ‘continued to benefit from permits and authorizations, while we have been limited, even [for permits] to build a tomato factory… Some collaborationists of Israel are involved in these [terrorist] attacks’. ]
Indeed, there are indications that the Israeli assassination of Hamas leader Abu Hanoud in November 2001 was a ploy to provoke more terror bombings. Three months earlier, the Israeli Insider reported Ariel Sharon’s plan for an all-out attack on the PA to permanently destroy its infrastructure, noting that the plan would only ‘be launched immediately following the next high-casualty suicide bombing’ – which was later provoked by Israel’s extrajudicial killing of Hanoud. As Israeli military security analyst Alex Fishman noted: ‘Whoever gave a green light to this act of liquidation knew full well that he was thereby shattering in one blow the gentleman’s agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Under that agreement, Hamas was to avoid in the near future suicide bombings inside the Green Line (pre-1967 border), having come to the understanding that it would be better not to play into Israel’s hands by mass attacks on its population centres. This understanding was, however, shattered by the assassination the day before yesterday – and whoever decided upon the liquidation of Abu knew in advance that that would be the price. The subject had been extensively discussed both by the military and the political echelon, before it was decided to carry out the liquidation.’ 
Elements of the Israeli far-right, including senior cabinet officials, recognized that the plan to destroy the PA would facilitate the rise of Hamas. In an Israeli Cabinet meeting in December 2001, for instance, one minister declared: ‘Between Hamas and Arafat, I prefer Hamas.’ He added that Arafat is a ‘terrorist in a diplomat’s suit, while Hamas can be hit unmercifully… there won’t be any international protests’. 
Ties with terror
Islamist terrorism cannot be understood without acknowledging the extent to which its networks are being used by Western military intelligence services, both to control strategic energy resources and to counter their geopolitical rivals. Even now, nearly a decade after 9/11, covert sponsorship of al-Qaeda networks continues. In recent dispatches for the New Yorker, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh cites US Government and intelligence officials’ confirmation that the CIA and the Pentagon have funnelled millions of dollars via Saudi Arabia to al-Qaeda affiliated Sunni extremist groups, across the Middle East and Central Asia. The policy, which Hersh says began in 2003, has spilled over into regions like Iraq and Lebanon, fuelling Sunni-Shi’a sectarian conflict.  The programme is part of a drive to counter Iranian Shi’a influence in the region. In early 2008, a US Presidential Finding to Congress corroborated Hersh’s reporting, affirming CIA funding worth $400 million to diverse anti-Shi’a extremist and terrorist groups. This was not contested by any Democratic members of the House.  Now, President Obama has retained Bush’s Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, as his own. Yet Gates was the architect of the covert strategy against Iran. To date, Obama has given no indication that this strategy will change. The history outlined here throws into doubt our entire understanding of the ‘war on terror’. How can we fight a war against an enemy that our own governments are covertly financing for short-sighted geopolitical interests?
If the ‘war on terror’ is to end, it won’t be won by fighting the next futile oil war. It will be won at home by holding the secretive structures of government to account and prosecuting officials for aiding and abetting terrorism – whether knowingly or by criminal negligence. Ultimately only this will rein in the ‘security’ agencies that foster the ‘enemy’ we are supposed to be fighting.
|Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
One of the world’s foremost authorities in terrorism and conflict analysisis. He is Executive Director of theInstitute for Policy Research & Development (IPRD) in London, and an Associate Tutor in the School of Social Sciences and Cultural Studies at the University of Sussex, Brighton. He is the bestselling author of The War on Freedom: How & Why America was Attacked: September 11, 2001, 2002, one of the first books to critique the official narrative of 9/11 which won him the Naples Prize, Italy’s most prestigious literary award, in 2003.
 Le Nouvel Observateur (15-21 January 1998) p. 76; Robert Gates, From the Shadows – The Ultimate Insider’s Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997) pp. 143-149
 Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud – The Secret Relationship between the World’s Two Most Powerful Dynasties(London: Scribner, 2004) p. 100.
 Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Yale: Yale University Press, 2000) p. 91
 Rahul Bedi, ‘Why? An attempt to explain the unexplainable,’Jane’s Defence Weekly (14 September 2001)
 Cited in ibid.
 Judicial Watch Press Release, ‘Clinton State Department Documents Outlined bin Laden Threat to the United States in Summer 1996’ (17 August 2005)
 Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000) pp. 166, 179; op.cit.
 Dana Rohrabacher, ‘US Policy Toward Afghanistan,’ Statement before Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on South Asia (Washington DC: US Senate, 14 April 1999). Also see Rohrabacher, Statement before Hearing of the House International Relations Committee on ‘Global Terrorism And South Asia,’ (Washington DC: US House of Representatives, 12 July 2000).
 Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, Forbidden Truth: US-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden(New York: Nation, 2002); George Arney, ‘US ‘planned attack on Taleban’,’ BBC News (18 September 2001); op.cit.
 ‘US Companies Eye Trans-Afghan Pipeline’, Forbes (19 January 2005)
 Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 911 – Wealth Empire and the Future of America (Berkley: University of California Press, 2007) pp. 163-165.
 ‘BP Linked to the Overthrow of Azerbaijan Government,’ Drillbits and Trailings (17 April 2000, vol. 5, no. 6)
 Cees Wiebes (2003) Intelligence and the War in Bosnia 1992-1995: The role of the intelligence and security services (New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, Rutgers State University, 2003); ‘US Commits Forces, Weapons to Bosnia,’ Defense and Foreign Affairs: Strategic Policy (31 October 1994)
 Sources in Nafeez Ahmed, The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism (New York: Interlink, 2005)
 Scott, op. cit., pp. 163-165.
 Yossef Bodanksy, ‘The Great Game for Oil’, Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy(June/July 2000)
 Colin Robinson, ‘Armed Islamic Group a.k.a. Groupement Islamique Armé’ (Washington DC: Center for Defense Information, 5 February 2003)
 The Guardian (8 April 2004)
 Ahmed, 2005, pp. 65-77; Ahmed, 2001
 Richard Norton-Taylor, ‘Terrorist case collapses after three years’, The Guardian (21 March 2000)
 Jeremy Keenan, ‘Terror in the Sahara: the Implications of US Imperialism for North & West Africa,’ Review of African Political Economy (September 2004, 31 (101): 475–486); ‘Political Destablisation and ‘Blowback’ in the Sahel’, Review of African Political Economy (December 2004, 31(102): 691–703).
 Keenan (2005) ‘Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline: World Bank and ExxonMobil in Last Chance Saloon,’ Review of African Political Economy (2005, Vol. 32, No. 104/5) pp. 395-405; Keenan, (2006) ‘The making of terrorists: Anthropology and the alternative truth of America’s ‘War on Terror’ in the Sahara’, Focaal – European Journal of Anthropology (2006, No. 48) pp. 144-51.
 Ibid. p. 391.
 Ze’ev Schiff and Ehud Ya’ari, The Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising – Israel’s Third Front (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990)
 George Szamuely, ‘Israel’s Hamas’, New York Press (April 2002, Vol. 15, No. 17)
 L’Espresso (19 December 2001) [Rome
 Yediot Ahranot (25 November 2001)
 Ha’aretz (4 December 2001)
 Alexander Cockburn, ‘Exclusive: Secret Bush ‘Finding’ Widens Covert War on Iran’, Counterpunch (2 May 2008)
The Baloch Hal News
QUETTA: Law enforcement agencies have recovered a huge quantity of arms and ammunition from Sambaza area of Zhob, a border township of Balochistan with Afghanistan and Waziristan during a raid on Wednesday.
Official sources said acting on a tip-off, personnel of law enforcing agencies conducted a raid at a house in Sambaza area of Zhob. During the raid forces had recovered arms and ammunition, including 12 Kalashnikovs, 50 hand grenades, six pistols and 1500 live rounds of SMG.
Law enforcing agencies have arrested an accused from the area and shifted him to unspecified place for interrogations.
Sources said arms and ammunition were intended to be smuggled into country for subversive activities and an important disclosure is expected during the investigations.