The World Anti-Communist League, international crime

The World Anti-Communist League, international crime

by Thierry Meyssan *

Founded in Taiwan by Chiang Kai-shek, the Rev. Moon and Nazi war criminals and Nippon, the World Anti-Communist League (WACL) was first used by Nixon to extend the methods of counterinsurgency Southeast Asia and Latin America.Seven heads of state then participated in their meetings. Later, came alive again in the Reagan era, becoming an instrument of U.S. military-industrial complex and the CIA during the Cold War. He then ordered political killings and the formation of the counterinsurgency in all conflict areas, including in Afghanistan where he was represented by Osama Bin Laden.

After the Second World War, the U.S. Secret Service agents used Nazi Ustasha fascist and anti to create a network, you stay-behind [1]. If agents recruited in the future states of the Atlantic Alliance should remain secret, those States that had fallen under Soviet control were, however, to act publicly. Was created, therefore, in 1946, a sort of international entity to coordinate the actions of the players from the East transferred to the West: the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, ABN).

Ukrainian fascists, Hungarians, Romanians, Croats, Bulgarians, Slovaks, Lithuanians, etc. met under the direction of Yaroslav Stetsko. Ex-collaborationist leader in Ukraine, Stetsko is held responsible for the slaughter of 700 people, mostly Jews, committed in Lvov on July 2, 1941.

Eight years later, at the end of the Korean War, the United States replaced France in Indochina [2]. President Eisenhower established a regional defense system directed against the USSR and China. On September 8, 1954, following the model of NATO, SEATO was created which brings together Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, the United Kingdom and United States. On December 2 the device is completed with a bilateral defense treaty between the U.S. and Taiwan [3].

In parallel, the CIA, under the direction of Allen Dulles, the intelligence structure of these states and provides an organization of anti-party links in the region. It is well, around the same Chiang Kai-shek, an Anti-Communist League of Peoples of Asia (Asian People’s Anti-Communist League, APACL).

In addition to the Taiwanese president Chiang Kai-shek, the APACL counts among its members Paek Chun-hee, the future president of South Korea; Ryiochi Sasakawa, a war criminal, a millionaire and benefactor of the Japanese Liberal Party, and the Reverend Sun Myung Moon [4], prophet of the Unification Church. Also appear in the ranks of the General Prapham APACL Kulapichtir (Thailand), President Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines), Prince Sopasaino (Laos) [5], Colonel Dang Cong Do-representative of President Nguyen Van Thieu, Vietnam) , etc.

L’APACL is under the control of Ray S. Cline, then chief of the CIA station in Taiwan [6], and publishes the Asian Bulletin, which is drafting by Michael Lasater, future head of the Department of Asia at the Heritage Foundation [7].

The creation of the WACL

Since 1958, the president of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN) participates in Taipei at the annual conference of the Anti-Communist League of Peoples of Asia (APACL). Stetsko Cline and oversee the establishment of the Political Warfare Cadres Academy in Taiwan, the institution responsible for training the cadres of the regime of Chiang Kai-shek for anti-repression.

The academy is the Asian equivalent of the Psychological Warfare Center in Fort Bragg (USA) and the School of Americas in Panama [8]. Gradually, the CIA is a network of political groups and trainers in global counterinsurgency. In 1967, ABN and APACL merge and adopt the World Anti-Communist League appeal (World Anti-Communist League, WACL) and extend its activities to the entire Free World. New members include Los Tecos, also called Legion of Christ the King, Mexican fascist formation created during World War II. The League called the first stage of growth during the years 73-75, when Richard Nixon and his security adviser Henry Kissinger in the White House.

Its funding is generously insured by the Unification Church. However, this reality is no longer publicly reconoda since 1975. The Reverend Sun Myung Moon then said to have broken their ties with the League, but continues to exert its leadership through its Japanese representative Osami Kuboki.

The role of WACL in implementing plans Phoenix (1968-1971) and Condor (1976-1977), including the murder of thousands of suspected sympathizers with communism in Southeast Asia and Latin America, is still not enough documented.

Operation Phoenix in Vietnam was probably applied by the Joint Task Force Warfare Unconventionnal Maj. Gen. John K. Singlaub later president of the WACL. However, Singlaub has always denied involvement in that operation.

On the other hand, General Hugo Banzer, who imposed his dictatorship in Bolivia from 1971 to 1978, chaired the Latin American section of the WACL.Banzer organized a plan to physically eliminate his opponents communists in 1975. Banzer Plan was presented as a model for a Latin American meeting of the WACL, in Asuncion, in 1977, in the presence of Paraguayan dictator, Gen. Alfredo Stroessner. A motion directed to proceed in the same way, for disposal in Latin America for priests and religious followers of liberation theology was presented by the Paraguayan delegation and adopted by the World Conference WACL in 1978 [9 ].

Neither knows for sure the role of WACL in the strategy of tension that struck Europe during that period. The Frenchman François Duprat, founder of New Order, the Italian Giorgio Almirante, founder of MSI, the Spanish Jesus Palacio, founder of CEDADE, the Belgian Paul Vankerhoven, president of Circle of Nations, and others like them, are active in the WACL. And the League which gets smuggled from Italy to Stefano delle Chiaie [10], wanted in Italy for terrorism, and sends it to Bolivia, then under the regime of Hugo Banzer, where he immediately appoints second head Klaus Barbie of the death squads.

The documentation is minimal also in relation to the role of WACL in the Lebanon war. It is known, at best, who recruited mercenaries integrated the ranks of the Christian militias of former president Camille Chamoun in 1975, weeks before the outbreak of the conflict.

On arrival at the White House in 1977, Jimmy Carter wants to end the sordid practices of their predecessors. Admiral Stansfield Turner appointed head of the CIA and is dedicated to eliminating authoritarian regimes in Latin America.It is a difficult time for the WACL, who no longer receive funding from its members. This is then converted into a den of anti-Carter, is preparing for better days and spontaneously established relationships with the leading organization of anti-Carter United States, the National Coalition for Peace Force (National Coalition for Peace Through Strength).

That face of rejection comes from the American Security Council, which President Eisenhower designated with the term “military-industrial complex” [11]. Its co-chairs are Daniel O’Graham general [12], who participated with George H. Bush on the reassessment of the Soviet threat in the Commission Pipes-called Team B [13] -, and General John K. Singlaub [14].

Numerous officials of the League are linked to the campaign committees for the election of Ronald Reagan. For many, the Republican governor of California is not a stranger. Indeed, at the end of World War II, Reagan participated as spokesman for the Crusade for Freedom (Crusade for Freedom) in raising funds for the establishment in America of immigrants from Eastern Europe fleeing communism. It was in fact transferred to the Nazis and Ustasha fascist members of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN). As Vice President George H. Bush, it is also a friend. As patron of the CIA, was the head of Operation Condor.

The golden age of WACL

Since the arrival of Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush to the White House, the WACL regains its former vigor and continues its development. Previous contacts bear fruit. The U.S. military-industrial complex is responsible for financing the creation of a U.S. branch of the WACL under the name of World Peace Council (Council for World Freedom, USCWF). Gen. John K. The Singlaub having as vice president of General Daniel O’Graham. But, the thing does not stop there. The military-industrial complex takes over the WACL to make it a central tool of the global anti-repression. Singlaub thus becomes president of the WACL.

The League acts on all fronts

To combat the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, the American Security Council [15] funded a thematic section of the WACL: the Committee for a Free Afghanistan (Committee for a Free Afghanistan) based in the Heritage Foundation. The operation begins on the occasion of an official visit by Margaret Thatcher and Lord Nicholas Bethell, department head of MI6, the United States and headed by General J. Milnor Roberts.

The Committee is directly involved in logistical support to “freedom fighters”, awarded by decision of CIA Director William Casey [16] and run by Osama Bin Laden [17]. The link between the WACL and the Saudi businessman Sheikh Ahmed Salah ensure Jamjoon collaborator of public works emporium Saudi Bin Laden Group, and a former Prime Minister of South Yemen [18].

In the Philippines, President Ferdinand Marcos who represents the WACL. But when it was overthrown in 1986, John K. Singlaub and Ray Cline arrive in the country to choose new partners there. Then create a guerrilla and paramilitary unit deposited in the general preference Fidel Ramos [19], a friend of Frank Carlucci [20], George H. Bush and Bin Laden.

To combat the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, the WACL install a rear base in the ownership of John Hull in Costa Rica with Argentine instructors. The League also uses the facilities offered in Honduras the Chief of Staff, Gen. Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, who recruited mercenaries using as cover to Refugee Relief International humanitarian.

In Guatemala, the WACL with Mario Sandoval Alarcon, the leader of the Movement of National Liberation. Sandoval, who was vice president from 1974 to 1978, is the true master of the country since the general-president Romeo Lucas Garcia is just a puppet. Sandoval created death squads that killed more than 13 000 people in five years.

In Salvador, the WACL is based on Roberto d’Aubuisson, formed in Taiwanese academia and beneficiary of the aid of Guatemalans. D’Aubuisson becomes at once ANSESAL chief, the local equivalent of the CIA, and leader of a right-wing paramilitary organization, the Republican Party Nacionalista (ARENA). It also creates death squads and killed the Archbishop Oscar Romero.

But the success of the WACL also cause their downfall. In 1983, Undersecretary of Defense Fred C. Iklé [21] at the Pentagon created a secret committee of eight experts, the Council for the Defense of Freedom, chaired by Gen. John K. Singlaub [22]. It is known that the Committee establishes the secret intervention in Afghanistan as a model to extend counseling to Nicaragua, Angola, El Salvador, Cambodia and Vietnam, but not enough documentary evidence of the details of their action.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan left to the League in general and in particular John Singlaub set Irangate private financing under the direct authority of Col. Oliver North in the National Security Council. The scandal broke in 1987, destroys everything and destroys the WACL.

Harry Aderholt and Generals John Singlaub, members of the Secret Committee for Defense of Freedom> <anticommunism is alive and well organized

Thierry Meyssan

French political analyst. Founder and president of the Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace conference. Last work published in Spanish: The Big Lie.Manipulation and misinformation in the media (Monte Avila Editores, 2008).

[1] See: “Stay-hebind: U.S. networks destabilization and interference” by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire, July 20, 2001.

[2] The French army lost the battle of Dien Bien Phu on 7 May 1954.

[3] On the other hand, the January 29, 1955, Congress carte blanche to President Eisenhower authorized to enter into war to defend Taiwan if the island is attacked by the Communists.

[4] See: “Reverend Moon, le retour” text in French, Voltaire, March 26, 2001.

[5] Sopasaino Prince, vice president of the National Assembly of Laos, was intercepted by French authorities at Paris’ Orly airport on 23 April 1971. He carried in his luggage 60 kg of pure heroin.

[6] S. Ray Cline had been the most listened analyst views the outbreak of the Korean War. He was head of the CIA station in Taipei from 1958 to 1962. Its coverage was as director of the U.S. Naval Auxiliary Communications Center.Then became deputy director of the CIA through a turnover caused by the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Published a memoir, Secrets, Spies and Scholars, Edotirial Acropolis Books, 1976.

[7] Michael Laseter was primarily responsible for the Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT) by Elizabeth Claire. In the mid 70’s, the sect was in the midst of a scandal when it was discovered a military arsenal at its headquarters in California. One of its leaders was appointed executive director of the WACL representation in Afghanistan in the 80’s.

[8] The School of Americas (SOA) was moved then to Fort Benning, U.S.. Our electronic library offers a comprehensive guide school students in French, from 1947 to 1996.

[9] This operation appears to have been conducted in coordination with Monsignor Alfonso Lopez-Trujillo, then secretary general of the Latin American Episcopal Conference (CELAM).

[10] See: “1980: slaughter in Bologna, 85 dead”, Voltaire, March 14, 2004.

[11] The National Coalition for Peace Force grew to 257 members of Congress.

[12] Lt. Gen. Daniel O’Graham was deputy director of the CIA in charge of relations with other intelligence agencies (1973-74) and later director of the DIA (1974-76). Executive Director of the American Security Council, was one of the main proponents of the proposed “Star Wars.” Frontier High founded which he chaired until his death in 1995.

[13] In 1975, the far right accuses the CIA of having been penetrated by communist infiltrators and minimize the red menace. President Ford then appointed George H. Bush as director of the Agency and authorizing implementation of a counter-check. Richard Pipes sets “Team B” which publishes an alarmist than justify the resumption of the arms race. Today we know that the Commission deliberately falsified data Pipes for open markets and industrial military complex. On this topic, see: “Washington’s manipulators” by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire, January 11, 2005, and “Daniel Pipes, the expert haine” text in French, Voltaire, May 5, 2004.

[14] John K. Singlaub was an officer in the OSS during World War II.Kuomintang guerrillas set of Chang Kai-shek against the Japanese. During the Korean War, he was head of the CIA station, and later, during the Vietnam War, he led the Green Berets. He was then counterinsurgency instructor at Fort Benning. Moving into retirement, he became director of training of the American Security Council. It was under that post he assumed the chairmanship of the Coalition and, later, president of the League.

[15] The National Endowment for Democracy assumes the financing of the Committee since 1984. This shall then part of the funds received humanitarian supplies for their political objectives in Afghanistan, mostly to Doctors Without Borders, Bernard Kouchner, and International Medical Assistance.

[16] United States deliberately destabilized Afghanistan, but did not expect the scale of military response from Moscow. Washington then moved his allies to engage in war, not with the aim to “liberate” the Afghan people but explicitly to prevent the USSR could have a step towards the Arabian Sea.

[17] In 1983, the WACL shirts printed with the image of Osama Bin Laden and the inscription “Support the Afghan Freedom Fighter. He Fights For You! “(Support to Afghan freedom fighter. He fights for you!).

[18] Osama Bin Laden is not presented then as a Muslim believer, but as an anti businessman chosen by Prince Turki, head of Saudi intelligence services, to participate with the United States in the war against the Soviets. Bin Laden first deal to direct the construction of infrastructure needed by “freedom fighters” after administering the procurement of foreign mudjahidines join them. Osama Bin Laden only belatedly transform Muslim believer to establish its authority over them.

[19] General Fidel Ramos is elected president in 1992. At the end of his term in 1998, joined the Carlyle Group. See: “Le Carlyle Group, une affaire d’initio” (The Carlyle Group, a case of insiders) text in French, Voltaire, February 9, 2004.

[20] See: “L’honorable Frank Carlucci” (The Honorable Frank Carlucci) French text, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire, 11 février 2004.

[21] Fred C. Iklé was the second of Caspar Weinberger at the Pentagon. This historic fighter of the Cold War is now a member of the Center for Security Policy (CSP) of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and manager of the Smith Richardson Foundation.

[22] The committee includes generles Harry Aderholt and Edward Lansdale, Colonel John Waghelstein, Seale Doss, Edward Luttwak, the largest F. Andy Messing Jr. and Sam Sarkessian.

Gun fails to save Rome policeman from beating by Berlusconi rioters

Italy gun policeman in riot

Ambushed: the officer is jumped by hooded protesters, some armed with clubs

A policeman with his gun drawn was overpowered in a violent demonstration against the government of prime minister Silvio Berlusconi.

The officer from the Guardia di Finanza, a paramilitary police force under the authority of the finance ministry, was dragged to the ground and beaten with clubs.

Mr Berlusconi’s narrow victory in a parliamentary confidence vote brought pandemonium to the streets of Rome. Thousands of protesters fought riot police in the Corso, the capital’s main street, in front of tourists.

About 40 demonstrators and 50 police were injured as cars were set on fire and paint and smoke bombs thrown at government buildings, with the protests spreading to TurinNaplesSicilySardiniaand Milan.

U.S. Senator. UU. asked to stop aid to Nicaragua for invasion

Sen. Richard G. Place called yesterday to eliminate the U.S. economic aid given to Nicaragua through the Millennium Challenge Initiative, as a sanction for the invasion of the island Calero in Costa Rica.

In a letter to the executive director of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (Millennium Challenge Corporation), Daniel W. Yohannes, Nicaragua requested exclusion Place project, in view of his attitude toward Costa Rica goes against the “criteria of eligibility for assistance” from the program.

Lugar, who represents the state of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate at a time when that party is prepared to participate more heavily in the next Congress, which assumes in January.

Punishment and reaction. The Millennium Challenge Corporation is a U.S. aid agency. UU. created by Congress in 2004 to fight global poverty.

In his note, Place recalls that in 2005 U.S.. UU. had signed a cooperation plan with Nicaragua for $ 175 million, but the intrusion of the government of Daniel Ortega in the elections of mayors, the program cut the assistance to $ 113.5 million.

Of that money already awarded $ 105 million, according to Place, and now this calls for halt on further aid to the Nicaraguan occupation of the island Calero.

In addition, the Indiana senator emphasized in its petition to the Corporation which should adopt a political declaration in view of the attitude of the government in Managua.

The reaction of the political sector in Costa Rica was one of surprise and applause.

Foreign Minister Rene Castro welcomed the letter because, in his opinion, is a reaction to public complaints and the management team Costa Rican diplomat to members of the United States Congress.

“We have been informing members of both parties in Congress and visited a number of representatives to report the case of Costa Rica,” said Castro.

“This action in defense of Costa Rica is a sign of interest in the case, from environmentalists to lawmakers and experts on these issues,” said the Chancellor.

According to Francisco Chacon, deputy for the National Liberation Party (PLN) and president of the International Affairs Committee of Congress, “Senator Lugar’s description is very accurate and very reliable version of events. Nicaragua will feel pressure from other governments in similar ways. “

Meanwhile, Claudio Monge, a member of the Citizen Action Party (PAC) who denounced abuses in Nicaragua, Calero island located in the northeast corner of the country “, said the letter” is a strong voice and is a call to position the issue, and rule more openly. “

Complaint for invasion. E l Senator Lugar, in his letter to Yohannes (head of the Millennium Challenge), realizes the Nicaraguan Army’s invasion Costa Rican wetlands, deforestation of primary forests and the illegal stay of the soldiers of that country in the territory of Costa Rica.

In addition, reports on the efforts of Costa Rica to the Organization of American States (OAS) and the application before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, and the Convention of Wetlands of International Importance Ramsar.

Now, Costa Rica awaits the hearing in The Hague from 11 to 13 January with the expectation that the ICJ required to remove its troops from Nicaragua Calero Island.

Empire unmasked

[The author of the following has captured the duplicity of US diplomacy, which has been highlighted by the leaks–public diplomacy–vs–military reality.  That seems to be the diplomats’ only function these days, to lie to the public about US military intentions and actions.  That is what you have when you have an aggressive militarist state disguising itself as a “champion of human rights.”  By the time the US military policies are carried-0ut in the world there will be very little of this dinosaur known as “human rights” left over.]

 

“Secret diplomacy is a necessary tool for a propertied minority, which is compelled to deceive the majority in order to subject it to its interests. Imperialism, with its dark plans of conquest and its robber alliances and deals, developed the system of secret diplomacy to the highest level.”

– Leon Trotsky, Foreign Affairs Commissariat, USSR, 1917.

Empire unmasked

VIJAY PRASHAD

The WikiLeaks cables expose the duplicity in American diplomacy and send shudders across world capitals.

LENNART PREISS/AP

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at a news conference in London on October 23. He was arrested on December 7 after a Swedish court issued a warrant against him on a molestation charge.

“Secret diplomacy is a necessary tool for a propertied minority, which is compelled to deceive the majority in order to subject it to its interests. Imperialism, with its dark plans of conquest and its robber alliances and deals, developed the system of secret diplomacy to the highest level.”

– Leon Trotsky, Foreign Affairs Commissariat, USSR, 1917.

ON November 28, four newspapers and WikiLeaks’ website released the first tranche of almost 250,000 United States State Department and embassy cables. Orchestrated with a great deal of care, the website provided only the 291 cables that were being written about separately by El País, Der Spiegel, The Guardian and The New York Times. Each day a set of cables saw the light of day and the papers reported on them in tandem.

A few days after the trickle, The Guardian provided a downloadable index of all the cables, with information of their provenance and their dates, but with nothing about their content. It whets the appetite. What we have to look forward to are cables from 274 embassies and the State Department at Foggy Bottom, Washington, DC.

These cables cover the years 1966 to 2010, although the bulk of them belong to the period after 2006. The cables carry such varied material as Ambassadors’ assessments of the political situation in the countries they are deputed to, the State Department’s questions to Ambassadors, and Ambassadors’ or political officers’ reports on meetings they attended. Some Ambassadors and political officers are remarkably perceptive; others are, predictably, duds.

MANDEL NGAN/AFP

U.S. President Barack Obama. The disclosure of documents “has resulted in damage to our national security”, said the administration.

Thus far, just over a thousand cables are in the public domain. WikiLeaks’ public face, Julian Assange, is under arrest in the United Kingdom, and capitals across the world are either in nervous anticipation or in shocked disbelief. There is no question that this deluge by WikiLeaks is the most significant blow to the world of secret diplomacy since the Soviet Union opened the Tsarist correspondence with the grandees of Europe in 1917.

In early 2009, U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobey wrote to Hillary Clinton to prepare her for her visit with Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit. The cable is a model of diplomatic acumen, providing a character sketch of Gheit (“smart, urbane with a tendency to lecture”) and offering a series of options that Gheit might push Clinton on (such as an invitation to the Gaza Donors’ Conference in Cairo). Scobey, a career foreign services officer, knows her business. No wonder that the Indian Ministry of External Affairs asks its trainee diplomats to study the cables “and get a hang of the brevity with which thoughts and facts have been expressed”.

Early in the cable, however, Scobey reveals the problem with her profession. She correctly points out to Hillary Clinton that Gheit “may not raise human rights (specifically Ayman Nour), political reform, or democratisation; but you should”. Ayman Nour is the leader of the El Ghad liberal party who had been in Cairo’s prisons since 2005 (he was released shortly after Clinton’s meeting with Gheit).

The problem here is that while Scobey tried to push the agenda of human rights in one room, in other, more shadowy rooms, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and military intelligence officials of the U.S. carried a more powerful brief. Since 1995, the U.S. government has provided the Egyptian secret service (the Mukhabarat) with various prisoners through the extraordinary rendition programme. These prisoners, often suspected of being Al Qaeda members, are alleged to have been tortured in those very jails that Ambassador Scobey criticised.

Idealism vs new diplomacy

What the cables demonstrate, therefore, is the blind idealism of the State Department, which has been sidelined by the new diplomacy in the shadows conducted by the U.S. government’s arms of war.

In cable after cable, we read of the visits of U.S. military officials and their conversations with heads of state in various countries. The Ambassadors act as fixers or go-betweens for these military luminaries. For instance, Ambassador Stephen Seche, another career diplomat, filed a cable from Sana’a, Yemen, in January 2010 on General David Petraeus’ meeting with Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP

THE WIKILEAKS HOME page as viewed in Washington on December 3. The White House ordered government agencies to block employees from accessing WikiLeaks from official computers, saying the leaked diplomatic cables remain classified documents.

Seche sat by as stenographer as Petraeus and Saleh colluded against Yemeni sovereignty and the U.S. public – the U.S. has an active military presence in Yemen, and is at war there, something that is not known in the U.S. and has not been admitted to the Yemeni Parliament.

“We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,” Saleh told Petraeus. His Deputy, Rashad al-Alimi, said he had just lied to Parliament, telling it that the bombs are American, but fired by Yemenis.

Petraeus pointed out that Saleh must tell the Yemeni customs to stop “holding up embassy cargo at the airport, including shipments destined for the [Yemeni government] itself, such as equipment of [Yemen’s counter terrorism unit]”. In other words, the diplomatic pouch no longer carries only letters; it now carries military hardware.

In 2007, Deputy Chief of Mission in Berlin John Koenig wrote to the State Department after a briefing at the German Chancellery. The Bush administration was afraid that the German government would pursue a case against the 13 CIA agents who were responsible for the extraordinary rendition of a German national, Khalid el-Masri. The CIA kidnapped, tortured and then released El-Masri when they discovered that they had the wrong man. The Germans found out the names of the agents and traced their orders to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

As legal scholar Lisa Hajjar put it to me, “the cables indicate that the U.S. exerted political pressure on the German legal and political system to shut down the criminal case, a serious and unlawful intervention in the domestic law enforcement process of a sovereign state.” Once more the embassy is doing the legwork of the CIA and the NSA, both of whom have begun to run foreign policy but use the State Department to clean up behind them.

Even here, diplomacy is reduced to naked power. The Deputy Chief of Mission “pointed out that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S.” This is, of course, a threat. Much the same dance took place in Madrid.

Spying on U.N. staff

No surprise then that the State Department, in July 2009, asks its embassy staff to collect credit card information, frequent-flyer numbers and biometric data of members of the United Nations Security Council and of the U.N. Secretary-General. What is revealing is that we do not know who has asked the State Department to collect this information and what will be done with it.

It is unlikely that the State Department has use for such information; more likely that this goes off into the entrails of the Defence Intelligence Agency, the CIA and the NSA. These shadowy entities are the only ones with the wherewithal to use this kind of data. They have smothered the capacity of the more urbane State Department to conduct its kind of handshake diplomacy.

The embassy now appears as the emissary of the military and the CIA. This is precisely what Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke meant when he called for the diplomatic arm to be a “support for the military”.

Cloak and Download

The WikiLeaks cable dump brought embarrassment to capitals across the world. In Beijing there were shudders when the U.S. cables quote officials calling the North Koreans “spoilt children” and when the cables pointed fingers at Chinese officials for the cyber-attack on Google.

A tremor crossed Buckingham Palace when the well-written cable from Ambassador Tatiana Gfoeller showed up Prince Andrew’s nasty side. Ex-government officials in London blushed when the cables suggested that they had released the Libyan prisoner Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi because of pressure from Tripoli, where Gaddafi must be unhappy that the world knows that he cannot climb more than 35 steps at a time.

Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi must enjoy the notations about his notorious party-life, as much as Germany’s Angela Merkel must despise the characterisation that she “avoids risk and is seldom creative”.

Subservience

The cables from the Gulf had the royals, in a position of utter subservience, telling the Ambassadors what they think the U.S. wants to hear: during the Bush administration begging them to attack Iran, and then during the Obama administration calling for tougher sanctions.

The Gulf royals are a mirror of Washington’s whims. American and Israeli newspapers saw the selective calls for a military attack on Iran as confirmation of the views of their own governments.

If Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan called for Iran’s nuclear programme to be stopped “by all means available”, on another day his government was “clearly nervous about any U.S. actions that could upset their much larger and militarily superior neighbour”. By 2009, the Crown Prince worried that a military strike “would have little impact on Iran’s capabilities”, even as he fulminated, “Ahmedinejad is Hitler” (the last quote was highlighted in The New York Times).

Evidence of U.S. operations in Yemen was not as devastating as evidence of its Special Force operations in South Waziristan. Ambassador Anne Patterson’s agony is evident. In February 2009, she wrote to Washington that the relationship with Pakistan is “transactional in nature,” as well as “based on mutual mistrust”. “Pakistan hedges its bets on cooperation because it fears the U.S. will again desert Islamabad after we get Osama bin Laden,” she wrote perceptively. “Washington sees this hesitancy as duplicity that requires we take unilateral action to protect U.S. interests. After 9/11, then President [Pervez] Musharraf made a strategic shift to abandon the Taliban and support the U.S. in the war on terror, but neither side believes the other has lived up to expectations flowing from that decision. The relationship is one of co-dependency we grudgingly admit – Pakistan knows the U.S. cannot afford to walk away; the U.S. knows Pakistan cannot survive without our support.” It is hardly the kind of thing that the State Department would like to have in the public domain, even as it demonstrates that Washington does not operate without the benefit of reality.

Everybody denounced the leaks and rejected the claims made by U.S. Ambassadors. Washington, DC, reacted in an obvious way. It went after the messenger. A charge that Julian Assange did not use a condom when he had consensual sexual relations in Sweden (which has some of the best rape laws in the world) was resurrected miraculously by the prosecution office in Gothenburg; the Swedish Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, had declined to prosecute the case in August of this year.

The American right wing went off the deep end, with several prominent people calling for the assassination of Assange. Even Democrats lost their commitment to free speech – Senator Diane Feinstein called for Assange to be jailed for 2.5 million years (a 10-year sentence for each offence, and with 250,000 documents the sentence is biblical). Senator Joe Lieberman put pressure on Amazon to remove WikiLeaks from their web server. It complied, and so did MasterCard, Visa, Tableau, PayPal and EveryDNS. The Hindu’s editorial on December 5 called this a procedure of “Digital McCarthyism”.

Why is there this massive outrage at these cables when there was virtual silence at the release of the Iraq and Afghan war logs? These cables show the elite at their venal worst, conniving with each other, making light of each other’s failings. Imagine what must be in the Russian diplomatic dispatches or those of the Saudi intelligence services. The war logs, on the other hand, showed the misadventures of teenaged working-class soldiers, suborned to a war that they did not understand. Their violence was dismissed as the work of a few “bad apples”, men and women who had not been sufficiently civilised. In these cables, on the other hand, the civilised talk about their “dark plans of conquest”. It is an abomination.

Before his arrest Assange took on the liberal concept of free speech. In a chat on The Guardian website, he noted, “The West has fiscalised its basic power relationships through a web of contracts, loans, shareholdings, bank holdings, and so on. In such an environment, it is easy for speech to be ‘ free’ because a change in political will rarely leads to any change in these basic instruments. Western speech, as something that rarely has any effect on power, is like birds and badgers.”

Assange’s dry, elliptical wit emerged once more in his last published dispatch ( The Australian, “Don’t Shoot the Messenger for Revealing Uncomfortable Truths,” December 8). Here he compared his endeavour to the campaign of Rupert Murdoch’s father Keith. Keith Murdoch fought to bring to light the sacrifices of Australian troops at Gallipoli because of muddled British commanders. “In the race between secrecy and truth,” the elder Murdoch wrote, “it seems inevitable that truth will always win.” Assange then went on to say, “Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.”

The point about “corporate corruption” is withering. WikiLeaks has already announced that it is set to release documents from a major U.S. bank. In haste, Bank of America pre-emptively said it may be the bank. It wants to take the sting out of the surprise.

When the talk of assassination heated up, Assange and his team released an insurance file to their allies. This heavily encrypted file contains damaging material on British Petroleum, Guantanamo Bay and other matters. It sits on computers, awaiting the 256-digit key. The WikiLeaks team has appropriately called this the Doomsday File.

Adm. Mullen Sidesteps Questions on Future US Intervention, On Balochistan, Or On Indian Subversion

Direct military action in Pakistan not my decision to take: Mullen

Wednesday December 15, 2010 (1149 PST)

ISLAMABAD: Describing North Waziristan as the “epicentre” of terrorism, US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has once again emphasised the inevitability of military action in the restive tribal agency, adding, “General Kayani (too) has spoken of it in terms of not if, but when”. Shying of making a categorical denial ruling out direct military action inside Pakistan, he also said that it was not a decision for him to make.

He was talking here to a group of Pakistani newspaper editors and American journalists accompanying him on his latest visit to Pakistan. The admiral stated that the ultimate meaningful resolution of the Afghan conflict would come through negotiations but opined that in his judgment that stage had still not come. “I have always said that we cannot kill them all but for peace to prevail, first ground conditions must be changed”. He further stated, “I believe that negotiations typically occur when we would pursue them from a position of strength.” When asked to gauge US’s “position of strength” on a scale of one to ten, the admiral simply smiled and said, “I’d leave that alone”.

Talking about the North Waziristan issue, he cited it as the main concern for his repeated visits to Pakistan arguing that, “there needs to be a focus” on this priority. He said that he was engaging Pakistan’s military and political leadership to create pressure on both sides of the border against these groups and to “recognise the need”.

During the course of the discussion, Admiral Mullen repeatedly referred to al-Qaeda and Taliban, including Haqqani group, “living peacefully in Pakistan”, and lamented that their actions against America and its allied Nato troops “needed to be ceased”. He said that terrorist groups like LeT, TTP, etc, were coming closer and their local perspective was changing to a regional outlook and said that, “the goal here is to dismantle, al-Qaeda and such groups living peacefully in Pakistan”. At this point, when asked whether the Pakistan-being-the-terrorist-haven mantra was actually a deliberate ploy to create a justification for an ultimate direct military action inside Pakistan, the top US commander said that the sensitivity of Pakistan’s sovereignty was not lost on anyone.

When pressed to categorically state whether there was absolutely no possibility ever of any direct army action by the US or Nato troops inside Pakistan, he, however, stopped short of stating the same and said, “I don’t get to decide who does what but I’m very cognizant of the sensitivity of the sovereignty of the country and the same is recognised by the military and political leadership in United States”. He also said that it was no myth but a fact that al-Qaeda leadership was based inside Pakistan.

Responding to various questions, he clearly indicated that contrary to the general perception, the United States had no intentions of just packing up and leaving, come spring 2011. He informed that the draw-down of US troops from Afghanistan would begin in the coming spring but said that it was too early to tell from where and how these troops would be culled. “It’s upto General Petraeus to decide and right now it’s a bit too early for that” and went on to add that, “the drawdown does not mean that we won’t continue having a considerable presence in Afghanistan”.

Defending the troops’ surge in Afghanistan, he claimed that it had proved instrumental in causing a curtailing and reversal of the Taliban momentum but in the same breath also agreed that, “this reversal is fragile and not irreversible and still needs to be taken to that point”. He said that the surge had helped positively transform the law and order situation in Helmand amongst other places and allowed for non-military services to be undertaken and added that the number of US civilians involved in non-military services had increased three fold.

Replying to another question, he stressed the presence of a strongly growing relationship between the two countries but ceded that Pakistan-US relationship continued to be mired in deep mistrust and would take a long time to rebuild. “Between 1990 to 2002, we had no relationship and it will take a long time to rebuild the present immense trust deficit. It will take a lot longer than even a decade or so,” he said, adding that the US was now looking at building a, “long term stable strategic relationship and not one based purely on military links”.

When asked whether attempts to isolate al-Qaeda from Taliban could yield results in the present ground realities he said, “This is epicentre of terrorism. Groups are coming closer here, (we) would love to split them but I don’t see it happening here soon.”

He trashed all reports about combat US soldiers being embedded with Pakistani troops involved in anti-terrorism operations in Fata and said that wherever there were US troops involved with the Pakistan Army, they were purely in the capacity of trainers and instructors and had been specifically invited by the Pakistan Army itself.

Commenting upon the fallout of WikiLeaks, he said that he did not apprehend any damage to relations between the US and Pakistani military establishments but did add that in his opinion, Assange (WikiLeaks founder) and his team had put at risk “lives they did not even know about”.

The admiral tactfully sidestepped questions regarding India’s exaggerated role in Afghanistan and only said “this (Afghanistan conflict) is a regional challenge and everyone is aware of everyone’s concerns”. He was equally non-committal when asked about Pakistan’s serious concerns over Balochistan and its possible impact on the Afghan situation and only stated that the US was very much aware of the “Balochistan sensitivity issue and it will have to be addressed in totality” while dealing with the enemy dedicated to destroying America and others in the region.

Admiral Mullen also paid rich tributes to late ambassador Richard Holbrooke and dubbed his death as an immense loss both to the United States but also to the peace process in Afghanistan.

End.

Musharraf Says Army ‘May Intervene Over Pakistan’s Decline’

[Pakistan is sorely in need of a national leader–maybe Musharraf is it.]

Army ‘May Intervene Over Pakistan’s Decline’

Alex Crawford, special correspondentPakistan’s former president Pervez Musharraf has warned the army may have to intervene again in politics, if the country continues to decline. 

He added Pakistan may be forced to take matters into their own hands – which could include working with the Taliban – if it continues to feel alienated by the rest of the world.

Mr Musharraf was speaking exclusively to Sky News from his new home in the United Arab Emirates, where he is in self-imposed exile.

“There is no bar against me going back to Pakistan. But the conditions have to be right,” he said.

The former general is building his own political party with the intention of returning to Pakistan to take on the current government in a bid for power.

Pakistan has to be protected. If you don’t help, if no-one helps… then Pakistan has to take its own measures.

Former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf

It would be an astonishing turnaround for a man who resigned more than two years ago before almost certainly being impeached.

Mr Musharraf spoke extensively in a wide-ranging interview which covered his return to politics, his regret at the circumstances surrounding his resignation and the future.

He was most concerned over the threat he sees coming from the developing relationship between America, India and Afghanistan.

“They are creating an anti-Pakistan Afghanistan and America has to realise that,” he said.

Pervez MusharrafMr Musharraf talking to Sky

“What should Pakistan do? What should ISI (the Pakistan intelligence agency) do? What does the Army chief do? They’ll make a strategy of protecting themselves.”

I asked whether that would mean working with the Taliban.

He replied: “No comment, no comment.

“We must understand, the protection of Pakistan is everything as far as I’m concerned.

“If someone is disturbing that I will go to any extent to protect Pakistan, because that’s what I’m meant for. So you can see the answer yourself.”

He issued this warning to the West: “Pakistan has to be protected. If you don’t help, if no-one helps and instead is helping the other side, the side which is trying to disturb and destabilise us, well, then Pakistan has to take its own measures.”

Anti-Musharraf protesters in BirminghamMusharraf’s time as President earned him many opponents.

Pakistan, he said, is in a terrible state – with its economy in crisis, high unemployment, mass discontent – and this as well as having terrorists on its soil.

Mr Musharraf said his return and his attempt to become an elected politician would this time “give me the legitimacy which maybe last time I didn’t have because, in the eyes of the world, I was a dictator.”

The man who first took power in a bloodless coup also said the army may still have to play a role in determining the future leadership.

“You have to remember, in Pakistan the armed forces play a very big and important role,” he said.

“It is strong and well-administered and wherever there is turmoil, the people run to the army.

“I have always been of the opinion the army should have a role in the constitution, so it can voice its opinion and influence what happens in the country.

“The whole world thinks that is politicising the army. It isn’t.”

But he went onto say the army chief always had the quandary of upholding national security, ensuring the survival of the state as well as balancing that against upholding democracy.

“Is democracy more important than the state?” he asked.

“This is the question that arises. And the army is in between. The Army is the saviour. The Army can save the state. It cannot save democracy.”

Is Judgment of Khodorkovsky Indictment of Putin’s Neo-Soviet System?

“Putin once told him that it was Khodorkovsky’s funding of the parliamentary opposition without Kremlin approval that had sealed his fate.”

Day of judgment for Vladimir Putin’s billionaire rival

A heavy sentence on Wednesday for the tycoon held on fraud charges since 2003 will show Russia retains its Soviet mentality.

Russia faces one of the biggest judgments on the Putin-Medvedev leadership tomorrow with the culmination of the latest legal case against Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the oil billionaire and one-time political contender who has been in jail on fraud charges since 2003.

The case against Khodorkovsky, once Russia’s richest man, has been seized upon as a barometer of Russia’s political climate. Another lengthy jail term for the man once seen as a threat to Vladimir Putin’s pre-eminence is likely to indicate a further retrenchment of the forces of Soviet-style justice hostage to the whims of its leaders; a lesser verdict — or an unlikely acquittal — will be seen as a victory for forces of reform.

The case is the second against Khodorkovsky and his former business partner Platon Lebedev, who were dramatically arrested in 2003 and convicted of fraud and tax evasion two years later. Khodorkovsky’s oil empire, built up through the corrupt privatisation auctions in the 1990s, was crudely appropriated and appended to the apparatus of the state. But from his jail cell in Siberia, and latterly Moscow, the former tycoon has grown into an unlikely figurehead for the fractured and emasculated opposition in Russia.

The latest case against the pair was brought in 2007, when prosecutors presented fresh charges against the two men, this time for allegedly embezzling over 200 million tonnes of oil and laundering the proceeds. Throughout the trial Khodorkovsky would point to the absurdity of the two cases: evading taxes on laundered money does not make much sense.

The trial has lasted nearly two years. The prosecutor spent several months reading the 3,500-page indictment in a low mumble. More than 100 witnesses were called. In a surprise move, former economy minister German Gref and energy minister Viktor Khristenko agreed to testify.

Throughout the trial Khodorkovsky has often appeared frustrated, as he leads his own defence despite a team of lawyers. His closing remarks early last month were greeted in some circles as a manifesto for challenging the Putin era.

“A state that destroys its best companies, which are ready to become global champions, a country that holds its own citizens in contempt, trusting only the bureaucracy and the special services, is a sick state,” Khodorkovsky told the court.

“Much more than two people’s fates lie in your hands,” he said. “Right here and right now, the fate of every citizen of our country is being decided.” That was a thought echoed today in an open letter to President Medvedev, signed by nearly 50 European figures, including former foreign secretary David Miliband, former French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, and film director Terry Gilliam.

“As strong supporters of the drive to modernise Russia we cannot stand idly by when rule of law and human values are being so openly abused and compromised,” they wrote about the trial of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. “The consensus of respected objective observers is that their ongoing persecution is unjust and not truly motivated by law. This has shaken confidence in the Russian legal system and in your strong will to uphold the Russian constitution.”

Medvedev, a former lawyer, took over the Kremlin from Putin nearly three years ago, and has focused his presidential rhetoric on pledging to modernise and democratise the country. In practice, he has done little to suggest that he operates independently of Russia’s paramount leader.

Friends and associates consider the perpetual assault on Khodorkovsky as a deliberate attack on a man who had grown too powerful and too independent for Putin. Mikhail Kasyanov, who served as prime minister under Putin and has since joined the opposition, says Putin once told him that it was Khodorkovsky’s funding of the parliamentary opposition without Kremlin approval that had sealed his fate. He spent two years in a jail in Chita in the Siberian far east, some of it in solitary confinement, before being transferred to Moscow in 2007.

Khodorkovsky’s supporters argue that the second trial, which could see him jailed until 2017, was designed to keep him in prison throughout the election period. His current sentence runs out in October 2011.

Vadim Klyuvgant, Khodorkovsky’s lead lawyer, declined to speculate on what sort of verdict he expected, but said the judge had come under unprecedented pressure and that both trials taken together amounted to “one big vendetta”.

The verdict could be read out over several days. At the end of Khodorkovsky’s first trial in 2005, the judge took 10 days to issue his decision, gracing the court with an endless litany of procedural remarks. “Khodorkovsky is ready for everything,” Klyuvgant said. “He’s ready to fight as long as needed.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2010