International Relations in Focus

War Criminals in High Office

2008-10-28T19:29:00.000-07:00

Part 4: The New World Order
Chapter 15

Under the Bush administration, torture has become an official US Government policy. The orders to torture POWs in Iraq and Guantanamo emanated from the highest governmental levels. Prison guards, interrogators in the US military and the CIA were responding to precise guidelines.

The President directly authorized the use of torture including "sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc."(1)

This authorization was confirmed in a secret FBI email dated May 22, 2004. The latter indicated that president Bush had "personally signed off on certain interrogation techniques in an executive order."(2)

Another FBI email dated December 2003, described how military interrogators at Guantanamo had impersonated FBI agents,"to avoid possible blame in subsequent inquiries", and that this interrogation method had the approval of (former) Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz:

[The email] describes an incident in which Defense Department interrogators at Guantánamo Bay impersonated FBI agents while using "torture techniques" against a detainee. The e-mail concludes: "If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [sic] [by] the 'FBI' interrogators. The FBI will [be] [sic] left holding the bag before the public."(3)

The document also stated that no "intelligence of a threat neu-tralization nature" was garnered by the "FBI" interrogation, and that the FBI's Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) believes that the Defense Department's actions have destroyed any chance of prosecuting the detainee. The author of the e-mail writes that he or she is documenting the incident "in order to protect the FBI".(4)

A third incriminating FBI email dated June 25, 2003 entitled "Urgent Report":

showed that the Sacramento field office warned the FBI director that it had received testimony of "numerous physical abuse incidents of Iraqi civilian detainees", including "strangulation, beatings, and place-ment of lit cigarettes into the detainees' ear openings". Other documents reported incidents such as detainees being dropped onto barbed wire, having Israeli flags wrapped around them, spat on and knocked unconscious, and shackled until they defecated on themselves.(5)

The evidence also confirmed that the US military was also involved in "mock executions" and the application of burning and electric shocks to detainees.(6)

Moreover, while several dozen detainees died in US custody, the records of these deaths were tampered with and the autopsy reports in many cases were not conducted, with a view to concealing the acts of torture.(7)

Abu Ghraib

The 2004 Abu Ghraib Taguba investigation (as well as two other reports) commissioned by the US military into "inhumane interrogation techniques" had exempted Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and of course, President Bush, of any wrongdoing or involvement.(8)

Despite the evidence, the reports placed the blame on lower rank servicemen and commanders in Iraq:

Several US Army Soldiers have committed egregious acts and grave breaches of international law at Abu Ghraib/BCCF and Camp Bucca, Iraq. Furthermore, key senior leaders in both the 800th MP Brigade and the 205th MI Brigade failed to comply with established regulations, policies, and command directives in preventing detainee abuses at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) and at Camp Bucca.(9)

The conclusion of the report was that command directives to prevent the occurrence of torture were not followed.

In other words, the reports not only denied the existence of official US policy guidelines on torture (e.g.. the August 2002 and March 2003 memoranda), they stated that the directives were explicitly "not to torture POWs" and that command orders had been disregarded. Their conclusions should come as no surprise, since Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had approved the conduct of these investigations.

Following the investigation, Brigadier General Janice Karpinksi in command of the military police unit at Abu Ghraib was suspended, whereas several lower rank servicemen and women were subjected to court martial procedures.

Court martial procedures were, therefore, initiated on the orders of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when in fact it was Donald Rumsfeld and the President who had issued the Executive Order to torture the POWs.

War criminals in high office thus ordered the holding of these show trials, which essentially served to camouflage a systematic policy of torturing POWs, in violation of the Geneva convention, while also exempting these officials in high office from prosecution.

Torture is "Un-American"

President Bush "apologized" following the release of the Abu Ghraib photos in May 2004:

People in Iraq must understand that I view those practices as abhor-rent. ... They must also understand that what took place in that prison does not represent the America that I know. ... There will be investigations, people will be brought to justice.(10)

Rumsfeld also apologized in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee:

We didn't, and that was wrong, ... So to those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of the US armed forces, I offer my deepest apology.(11)

The Legalization of Torture

Torture is permitted "under certain circumstances", according to an August 2002 Justice Department "legal opinion":

if a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity,"he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network," said the memo, from the Justice Department's office of legal counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on "necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability" later.(12)

Even if an interrogation method might arguably cross the line drawn in Section and application of the stature was not held to be an unconstitutional infringement of the President's Commander in Chief authority, we believe that under current circumstances [since the "war on terrorism"] certain justification defenses might be avail-able that would potentially eliminate criminal liability.(13)

A subsequent Department of Defense Memorandum dated March 2003 drafted by military lawyers, leaked to The Wall Street Journal, follows in the footsteps of the August 2002 "legal opinion":

Compliance with international treaties and US laws prohibiting torture could be overlooked because of legal technicalities and national security needs.(14)

These "legal opinions" are casually presented as a surrogate for bona fide legislation. They suggest, in an utterly twisted logic, that the Commander in Chief can quite legitimately authorize the use torture, because the victims of torture in this case are "terrorists", who are said to routinely apply the same methods against Americans.

New "Legal Opinion": Torture is no longer Un-American

Coinciding with the release of the incriminating FBI memos in mid December 2004, the Justice Department ordered the drafting of a new "legal opinion" on so-called "permissible US military interrogation techniques" to replace that of August 2002:

[Attorney General] Gonzales "commissioned" the infamous Justice Department memo of 2002 that asserted President Bush's right to order torture, even redefining the meaning of torture not to include any pain short of organ failure, death or permanent psychological damage. This prompted other legal decisions approving such inter-rogation practices as "stress positions" and intimidation with dogs, leading then to the abyss of abuses at Abu Ghraib.(15)

The Criminalization of Justice

"Legal opinions" drafted on the behest of war criminals are being used to "legalize" torture and redefine Justice.

War criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to redefine the contours of the judicial system and the process of law enforcement.

It provides them with a mandate to decide "who are the crim-inals", when in fact they are the criminals.

In other words, what we are dealing with is the criminalization of the State and its various institutions including the criminaliza-tion of Justice.

The truth is twisted and turned upside down. State propaganda builds a consensus within the Executive, the US Congress and the Military. This consensus is then ratified by the Judicial, through a process of outright legal manipulation.

Media disinformation instills within the consciousness of Americans that somehow the use of torture, the existence of con-centration camps, extra judicial assassinations of "rogue enemies"-all of which are happening-are, "under certain circumstances," "acceptable" and perfectly "legal" because the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) says "it's legit".

The existence of an illusive outside enemy who is threatening the Homeland is the cornerstone of the propaganda campaign. The latter consists in galvanizing US citizens not only in favor of "the war on terrorism", but in support of a social order which upholds the legitimate use of torture, directed against "terrorists", as a justifiable means to preserving human rights, democracy, freedom, etc.

The Spanish Inquisition

In other words, we have reached a new threshold in US legal his-tory. Torture is no longer a covert activity, removed from the public eye.

War criminals within the State and the Military are no longer trying to camouflage their crimes. Until recently, the logic was "We're sorry for the torture, we didn't do it. We're against torture. Those responsible will be punished."

The logic in the wake of 9/11 is entirely different and is remi-niscent of the Spanish Inquisition.

Under the Inquisition, there was no need to conceal the acts of torture. In fact, quite the opposite. Torture is a public policy with a humanitarian mandate. "Democracy" and "freedom" are to be upheld by "going after the terrorists".

"The war on the terrorism" is said to be in the public interest. Moreover, anybody who questions its practices-which now includes torture, political assassination and concentration camps-is liable to be arrested under the antiterrorist legislation.

The Inquisition, which started in the 12th century and lasted for more than four hundred years was a consensus imposed by the ruling feudal social order. Its purpose was to maintain and sustain those in authority.

The Inquisition had a network of religious courts, which even-tually evolved into a system of political and social control.

The great Inquisitor was similar to the Department of Homeland Security.

The underlying principles governing the courts were straight-forward, and apart from the rhetoric, similar to today's procedures: "You find them and take 'em out":

[H]eresy cannot be destroyed unless heretics are destroyed and ... their defenders and [supporters] are destroyed, and this is effected in two ways: ...they are converted to the true catholic faith, or ... burned [alive].(16)

Those who refused to recant and give up their heresy, were burned alive. Moreover, no lawyers were allowed, because it was considered heresy to defend a heretic:

A bishop came out and shouted out the names of the condemned. Then the heretics were led out, wearing black robes decorated with red demons and flames. Officials of the government tied them to the stake.

"Do you give up your heresy against the holy church?" a priest would challenge.

Anyone who repented would be strangled to death before the fires were lit. Most, however, stood silent or defiant. The fires were lit, and the square echoed with the screams of the heretics and cheers from the crowd.(17)

The Road towards a Police State

Today's World is far more sophisticated. CIA torture manuals devel-oped under successive US Administrations are more advanced. The anti-terrorist legislation (PATRIOT Acts I and II) and law enforcement apparatus, although built on the same logic, are better equipped to deal with large population groups.

In contrast to the Spanish Inquisition, the contemporary inquisi-torial system has almost unlimited capabilities of spying on and categorizing individuals.

People are tagged and labeled, their emails, telephones and faxes are monitored. Detailed personal data is entered into giant Big Brother data banks. Once this cataloging has been completed, peo-ple are locked into watertight compartments. Their profiles are established and entered into a computerized system.

Law enforcement is systematic. The witch-hunt is not only directed against presumed "terrorists" through ethnic profiling, etc. The various human rights, affirmative action, antiwar cohorts are themselves the object of the anti-terrorist legislation and so on. Converting or recanting by antiwar heretics is not permitted.

Meanwhile, war criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting rulers "committed to their safety and well-being" and "who are going after the bad guys."

Historically, the Inquisition was carried out in Spain, France and Italy, at the neighborhood level in communities across the land. Today in America, the mission of the Citizens Corps operating at the local level is to "make communities safer, stronger, and better prepared to respond to the threats of terrorism".

The Citizens Corps in liaison with Homeland Security are establishing "Neighborhood Watch Teams" as well as a "Volunteer Police Service" in partnership with local law enforcement.(18)

When the inquisition came to a suspected area, the local bishop assembled the people to hear the inquisitor preach against heresy. He would announce a grace period of up to a month for heretics to confess their guilt, recant, and inform on others.

If two witnesses under oath accused someone of heresy, the accused person would be summoned to appear. Opinions, preju-dices, rumors, and gossip were all accepted as evidence. The accused was never told the names of the accusers, nor even the exact charges.

The inquisition would collect accusations, where neighbors can be denounced.(19)

Under an inquisitorial system, the Executive Order personally signed by the president to torture becomes a public statement endorsed by the citizenry. It is no longer a secret FBI memorandum.

No need to conceal acts of torture.

The practice of torture against terrorists gains public acceptance, it becomes part of a broad bipartisan consensus.

It is no longer Un-American to torture "the bad guys".

Under the Inquisition, people firmly believed that torture and burning was a good thing and that torture served to purify society.

We have not quite reached that point. But we are nearly there.

With regard to the Executive order to torture, several media in the US including the Washington Post, condemned Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, calling for his resignation.

They have not, however, acknowledged the fact that torture has for some time been a routine practice of the Military and Intelligence apparatus, since the days of "Operation Condor" and the US sponsored Central American Death Squadrons. The latter were overseen at the time by John Negroponte, who now heads the Directorate of National Intelligence.

What comes next?

When the Justice Department emits a legal opinion stating that the Executive order to torture is "legit", that means that a legal and political consensus is being built.

In which case, the war criminals in high office, have "the right" to commit atrocities in the name of democracy and freedom. It is no longer necessary for them to lie, to hide their actions or to "say sorry" if and when these actions are brought to public attention.

Under this logic, torture is no longer seen as "Un-American", as stated by President Bush when the Abu Ghraib photos were first released in 2004.

In other words, under an inquisitorial system, the public does not question the wisdom of the rulers. Citizens are compelled into accepting the political consensus. They must endorse the acts of torture ordered by those who rule in their name. Moreover, politi-cal assassinations are no longer conducted as covert operations. The intent to assassinate is announced, debated in the US Congress, pre-sented as a safeguard of democracy. In turn, the alleged terrorists are sent to concentration camps and this information is public.

Why is Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo, Cuba, public knowledge?

Precisely, to gradually develop, over several years, a broad pub-lic consensus that concentration camps and torture directed against "terrorists" are ultimately acceptable and in the public interest.

When we reach that point of acceptance, of broad consensus, there is no going back.

The lie becomes the truth. "Democracy and Freedom" are sustained through State terror. The police state and its ideological underpinnings become fully operational.

Unseat the Inquisitors

And that is why at this critical juncture in our history, it is crucial for people across the land, in the US, Canada, Europe and around the world, to take an articulate stance on President Bush's Executive Order to torture POWs.

But one does not reverse the tide by firing Rumsfeld and putting in a new Defense Secretary or by asking president Bush to please abide by the Geneva Convention.

How can one break the Inquisition?

Essentially by breaking the consensus which sustains the inquisi-torial social order.
To shunt the American Inquisition and disable its propaganda machine, we must "unseat the Inquisitors" and prosecute the war criminals in high office, implying criminal procedures against those who ordered torture.

If the Judicial system supports torture, that means we have to dismantle the Judicial.
It is not sufficient, however, to remove the Inquisition's high priests: George W. Bush or Tony Blair, who are mere puppets.

Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State Department, the White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Anglo-American oil giants, Wall Street, the powerful media giants and the Washington think tanks are operating discretely behind the scenes, setting the next stage in this ongoing militarization of civil-ian institutions.

"Fear and Surprise"

To break the Inquisition, we must break the propaganda, fear and intimidation campaign, which galvanizes public opinion into accepting the "war on terrorism".

-----

TEXT BOX 15.1

Break the Spanish Inquisition
by Monty Python

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Our chief weapon is surprise ... surprise and fear ... fear and surprise ....

Our two weapons are fear and surprise ...and ruthless efficiency....

Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency ... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope ....

I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

... Nobody expects the ...um ... the Spanish ... um ... Inquisition.

I know, I know! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Our chief weapons are ... ... um ... er ... Surprise ...

Okay, stop. Stop. Stop there-stop there. Stop. Phew! Ah!

Our chief weapons are surprise ...blah blah blah. Cardinal, read the charges.

You are hereby charged that you did on diverse dates com-mit heresy against the Holy Church.
Now, how do you plead? We're innocent.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! [Diabolical Laughter].(20)

-----

Osama bin Laden, Al-Zarqawi are names which are repeated ad nauseam, day after day, identified in official statements as enemies of America, commented on network TV and pasted on a daily basis across the news tabloids.

We must break the big lie.

Fear and Disinformation constitutes the cornerstone of Bush's propaganda campaign.

Without fear, there can be no inquisitorial social order.

"Code Orange Terror Alerts."

"The terrorists are preparing to attack America."

"A terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world-it may be in the United States of America-that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." (Former CENT-COM Commander Tommy Franks)

"If we go to Red [code alert] ... it basically shuts down the coun-try", (Former Secretary for Homeland Security, Tom Ridge)

"You ask,'Is it serious?' Yes, you bet your life. People don't do that unless it's a serious situation." (Vice President Dick Cheney)

Notes

1. See American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), "FBI E-Mail Refers to Presidential Order Authorizing Inhumane Interrogation Techniques", 20 December 2004.

2. Text of the original FBI Memo dated 15 December 2004, ACLU website.

3. Ibid.

4. ACLU, op cit.

5. The Boston Globe, 23 December 2004.

6. The Washington Post, 23 December 2004.

7. Ibid.

8. See also Army Report, Department of Defense, August 2004.

9. Taguba Report, http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2004/800-mp-bde.htm.

10. President Bush, 5 May 2004, interview for the US-funded al-Hurra network and the Al-Arabiya satellite channel, 5 May 2004.

11. Transcript of Donald Rumsfeld's Statement, Senate Armed Services Committee, 6 May 2004.

12. Dana Priest and R. Jeffrey Smith, "Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture Justice Dept. Gave Advice in 2002", Washington Post, 6 June 2004.

13. See complete August 1, 2002 Justice Department Memorandum: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf.

14. See complete Department of Defense text leaked to the Wall Street Journal at http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torture/30603wgrpt.html.

15. Observer-Dispatch (Utica, NY), 9 December 2004.

16. See Constitutional Rights Foundation, http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria9_1.htm.

17. Ibid.

18. See Citizens Corps website at http://www.citizencorps.gov/pdf/council.pdf.

19. Constitutional Rights Foundation, http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria9_1.htm.

20. Excerpts from the BBC TV Show, Monty Python, The Spanish Inquisition by Monty Python, http://people.csail.mit.edu/paulfitz/spanish/index.html.

Protecting Al Qaeda Fighters in the War Theater

2008-10-25T19:28:00.000-07:00

Chapter 14

In late November 2001, the Northern Alliance, supported by US bombing raids, took the hill town of Kunduz in Northern Afghanistan. Eight thousand or more men "had been trapped inside the city in the last days of the siege, roughly half of whom were Pakistanis. Afghans, Uzbeks, Chechens, and various Arab merce-naries accounted for the rest."(1)

Also among these fighters, were several senior Pakistani military and intelligence officers, who had been dispatched to the war theater by the Pakistani military.

The presence of high-ranking Pakistani military and intelli-gence advisers in the ranks of the Taliban/Al Qaeda forces was known and approved by Washington. Pakistan's military intelligence, the ISI, which was indirectly involved in the 9/11 attacks, was overseeing the operation. (For details on the links of ISI to the CIA, see chapters 2, 4 and 10.)

In a statement in the Rose Garden of the White House, President Bush confirmed America's resolve to going after the terrorists:

I said a long time ago, one of our objectives is to smoke them out and get them running and bring them to justice... I also said we'll use whatever means necessary to achieve that objective-and that's exactly what we're going to do.(2)

Most of the foreign fighters, however, were never brought to justice, nor were they detained or interrogated. In fact, quite the opposite occurred. As confirmed by Seymour Hersh, they were flown to safety on the orders of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

The Administration ordered the US Central Command to set up a special air corridor to help insure the safety of the Pakistani rescue flights from Kunduz to the northwest corner of Pakistan...

[Pakistan President] Musharraf won American support for the airlift by warning that the humiliation of losing hundreds-and perhaps thousands-of Pakistani Army men and intelligence operatives would jeopardize his political survival. "Clearly, there is a great willingness to help Musharraf," an American intelligence official told me [Seymour Hersh]. A CIA analyst said that it was his under-standing that the decision to permit the airlift was made by the White House and was indeed driven by a desire to protect the Pakistani leader. The airlift "made sense at the time," the CIA analyst said. "Many of the people they spirited away were the Taliban leader-ship"-who Pakistan hoped could play a role in a postwar Afghan government. According to this person, "Musharraf wanted to have these people to put another card on the table" in future political negotiations. "We were supposed to have access to them," he said, but "it didn't happen," and the rescued Taliban remain unavailable to American intelligence.

According to a former high-level American defense official, the air-lift was approved because of representations by the Pakistanis that "there were guys-intelligence agents and underground guys-who needed to get out.(3)

Out of some 8000 or more men, 3300 surrendered to the Northern Alliance, leaving between 4000 and 5000 men "unaccounted for". Indeed, according to Indian intelligence sources (quoted by Seymour Hersh), at least 4000 men including two Pakistani Army generals had been evacuated. The operation was casually described as a big mistake, leading to "unintended consequences". According to US officials:

What was supposed to be a limited evacuation, apparently slipped out of control, and, as an unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus.(4)

An Indian Press report confirmed that those evacuated by the US were not the moderate elements of the Taliban, but rather "hard-core Taliban" and Al Qaeda fighters.(5)

"Terrorists" or "Intelligence Assets"?

The foreign and Pakistani Al Qaeda fighters were evacuated to North Pakistan as part of a military-intelligence operation led by officials of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in consultation with their CIA counterparts.

Many of these "foreign fighters" were subsequently incorpo-rated into the two main Kashmiri terrorist rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba (Army of the Pure) and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Army of Mohammed). (See Chapter 2.) In other words, one of the main consequences of the US sponsored evacuation was to reinforce these Kashmiri terrorist organizations:

Even today [March 2002], over 70 per cent of those involved in terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir are not Kashmiri youths but ISI trained Pakistani nationals. There are also a few thousand such Jehadis in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir prepared to cross the [Line of Control] LOC. It is also a matter of time before hundreds from amongst those the Bush Administration so generously allowed to be airlifted and escape from Kunduz in Afghanistan join these ter-rorists in Jammu and Kashmir.(6)

A few months following the November 2001 "Getaway", the Indian Parliament in Delhi was attacked by Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad. (See Chapter 2.)

Saving Al Qaeda Fighters, Kidnapping Civilians

Why were several thousand Al Qaeda fighters airlifted and flown to safety? Why were they not arrested and sent to the Pentagon's con-centration camp in Guantanamo?

What is the relationship between the evacuation of "foreign fighters" on the one hand and the detention (on trumped up charges) and imprisonment of so-called "enemy combatants" at the Guantanamo concentration camp.

The plight of the Guantanamo "terrorist suspects" has come to light with the release of a number of prisoners from Camp Delta in Guantanamo, after several years of captivity.

While Defense Secretary Rumsfeld claims that the Guantanamo detainees, are "vicious killers", the evidence suggests that most of those arrested and sent to Guantanamo were in fact civilians:

The Northern Alliance has received millions of dollars from the US Government, and motivated the arrest of thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan on the pretext they were terrorists, to help the US Government justify the "war on terror". Some Guantanamo prisoners "were grabbed by Pakistani soldiers patrolling the Afghan border who collected bounties for prisoners." Other prisoners were caught by Afghan warlords and sold for bounty offered by the US for Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Many of the prisoners are described in classified intelligence reports as "farmers, taxi drivers, cobblers, and laborers". (Testimony provided by the Lawyer of Sageer, see Appendix to this chapter by Leuren Moret.)

Whereas Al Qaeda fighters and their senior Pakistani advisers were "saved" on the orders of Donald Rumsfeld, innocent civil-ians, who had no relationship whatsoever to the war theater, were routinely categorized as "enemy combatants", kidnapped, interrogated, tortured and sent to Guantanamo. Compare, in this regard, Seymour Hersh's account in the "Getaway" with the testimonies pertaining to the deportation of innocent civilians to Guantanamo. (See Appendix to this chapter.)

This leads us to the following question. Did the Bush administration need to "recruit detainees" amidst the civilian population and pass them off as "terrorists" with a view to justifying its commitment to the "war on terrorism"? In other words, are these detentions part of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign?

Did they need to boost up the numbers "to fill the gap" resulting from the several thousand Al Qaeda fighters, who had been secretly evacuated, on the orders of Donald Rumsfeld and flown to safety?

Were these "terrorists" needed in the Kashmiri Islamic militant groups in the context of an ISI-CIA covert operation?

At least 660 people from 42 countries, were sent to the Camp Delta concentration camp in Guantanamo. While US officials continue to claim that they are "enemy combatants" arrested in Afghanistan, a large number of those detained had never set foot in Afghanistan until they were taken there by US forces. They were kidnapped as part of a Pentagon Special-access program (SAP) in several foreign countries including Pakistan, Bosnia and The Gambia on the West Coast of Africa, and taken to the US military base in Bagram, Afghanistan, before being transported to Guantanamo.

Moreover, two years later, in October 2003, the Bush adminis-tration decided to expand the facilities of the Guantanamo camp. Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), the British subsidiary of Vice President Dick Cheney's company Halliburton was granted a multimillion dollar contract to expand the facilities of the Guantanamo concentration camp including the construction of prisoner cells, guard barracks and interrogation rooms. The objective was to bring "detainee capacity to 1,000".(7)

Several children were held at Guantanamo, aged between 13 and 15 years old. Indeed, according to Pentagon officials,"the boys were brought to Guantanamo Bay because they were considered a threat and they had 'high value' intelligence that US authorities wanted".(8) According to Britain's Muslim News,"out of the window has gone any regard for the norms of international law and order...with Muslims liable to be kidnapped in any part of the world to be transported to Guantanamo Bay and face summary justice".(9)

Going after Al Qaeda in Northern Pakistan

Also in October 2003, the Pentagon decided to boost its counter-terrorism operations in Northern Pakistan with the support of the Pakistani military. These operations were launched in the tribal areas of northern Pakistan, following the visit to Islamabad of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca.

The operation was aired live on network TV in the months leading up to the November 2004 US presidential elections. The targets were bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri, who were said to be hiding in these border regions of Northern Pakistan.

Both the Pentagon and the media described the strategy of "going after" bin Laden as a "hammer and anvil" approach,"with Pakistani troops moving into semiautonomous tribal areas on their side of the border, and Afghans and American forces sweeping the forbidding terrain on the other".(10)

In March 2004, Britain's Sunday Express, quoting "a US intelligence source" reported that:

Bin Laden and about 50 supporters had been boxed in among the Toba Kakar mountainous north of the Pakistani city of Quetta and were being watched by satellite... Pakistan then sent several thou-sand extra troops to the tribal area of South Waziristan, just to the North.(11)

In a bitter irony, it was to this Northern region of Pakistan that an estimated 4,000 Al Qaeda fighters had been airlifted in the first place, back in November 2001, on the explicit orders of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And these Al Qaeda units were also being sup-plied by Pakistan's ISI.(12)

In other words, the same units of Pakistan's military intelligence, the ISI-which coordinated the November 2001 evacuation of foreign fighters on behalf of the US-were also involved in the "hammer and anvil" search for Al Qaeda in northern Pakistan, with the support of Pakistani regular forces and US Special Forces.

From a military standpoint, it does not make sense. Evacuate the enemy to a safe-haven, and then two years later (in the months leading up to the 2004 presidential elections), "go after them" in the tribal hills of Northern Pakistan.

Why did they not arrest these Al Qaeda fighters in November 2001?

Was it incompetence or poor military planning? Or was a covert operation to safeguard and sustain "Enemy Number One"? Because without this "outside enemy" personified by Osama bin Laden, Musab Al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahri, there would be no justification for the "war on terrorism".

The terrorists are there, we put them there. And then "we go after them" and show the World in a vast media disinformation campaign that we are committed to weeding out the terrorists.

The timing of this operation in Northern Pakistan was crucial. "The war on terrorism" had become the cornerstone of Bush's 2004 presidential election campaign. The Bush campaign needed more than the rhetoric of the "war on terrorism". It needed a "real" war on terrorism, within the chosen theater of the tribal areas of Northern Pakistan, broadcast on network TV in the US and around the World.

Notes:
1. Seymour M. Hersh, "The Getaway", The New Yorker, 21 January 2002.

2. The White House, November 26, 2001.

3. Seymour Hersh, op cit.

4. Quoted in Hersh, op cit.

5. The Times of India, 24 January 2002.

6. Business Line, 4 March 2002.

7. Vanity Fair, January 2004.

8. The Washington Post, 23 August 2003.

9. Muslim News, 11 March 2004. http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/index/ press.php?pr=177

10. The Record, Kitchener, 13 March 2004.

11. Quoted in The South China Morning Post, 7 March 2004.

12. United Press International, 1 November 2001.

Providing a Face to the Enemy: Who is Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi?

2008-10-21T19:19:00.000-07:00

Chapter 13

The "war on terrorism" requires a humanitarian mandate. It is presented as a "Just War" to be fought on moral grounds "to redress a wrong suffered".

The Just War theory defines "good" and "evil". It concretely portrays and personifies the terrorist leaders as "evil individuals".

Several prominent American intellectuals and antiwar activists, who stand firmly opposed to the Bush administration, are nonetheless supporters of the Just War theory: "We are against war in all its forms but we support the campaign against international terrorism."

To reach its foreign policy objectives, the images of terrorism must remain vivid in the minds of the citizens, who are constantly reminded of the terrorist threat.

The propaganda campaign presents the portraits of the leaders behind the terror network. In other words, at the level of what constitutes an "advertising" campaign, "it gives a face to terror".

The "war on terrorism" rests on the creation of one or more evil bogeymen, the terror leaders, Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, et al., whose names and photos are presented ad nauseam in daily news reports.

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi: New Terrorist Mastermind

Since the war on Iraq, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi has been presented to World public opinion as the new terrorist mastermind, over-shadowing "Enemy Number One", Osama bin Laden.

The US State Department has increased the reward for his arrest from $10 million to $25 million, which puts his "market value" at par with that of Osama. Ironically, Al-Zarqawi is not on the FBI most wanted fugitives' list.(1)

Al-Zarqawi is often described in official government statements as well as in media reports as an "Osama associate", allegedly responsible for numerous terrorist attacks in several countries. In other reports, often emanating from the same sources, he is said to have no links to Al Qaeda and to operate quite independently. He is often presented as an individual who is challenging the lead-ership of bin Laden.

Osama belongs to the powerful bin Laden family, which has business ties to the Bushes and prominent members of the Texas oil establishment. Osama bin Laden was recruited by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war and fought as a Mujahideen. In other words, there is a longstanding documented history of bin Laden-CIA and bin Laden-Bush family links, which are an obvious source of embarrassment to the US Government. (See Chapter 2)

In contrast to bin Laden, Al-Zarqawi has no family history. He comes from an impoverished Palestinian family in Jordan. His par-ents are dead. He emerges out of the blue.

"Lone Wolf"

Al-Zarqawi is described by CNN as "a lone wolf" who is said to act quite independently of the Al Qaeda network. Yet surprisingly, this "lone wolf" is present in several countries, in Iraq, which is now his base, but also in Western Europe. He is also suspected of preparing a terrorist attack on American soil.

The media reports suggest that he is in several places at the same time. He is described as "the chief US enemy","a master of disguise and bogus identification papers". We are led to believe that this "lone wolf" manages to outwit the most astute US intelligence operatives.

According to the Weekly Standard-which is known to have a close relationship to the Neocons in the Bush administration:

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is hot right now. He masterminded not only [Nicholas] Berg's murder [in 2004] but also the Madrid carnage on March 11 [2004], the bombardment of Shia worshippers in Iraq the same month, and the April 24 [2004] suicide attack on the port of Basra. But he is far from a newcomer to slaughter. Well before 9/11, he had already concocted a plot to kill Israeli and American tourists in Jordan. His label is on terrorist groups and attacks on four continents.(2)

Al-Zarqawi's profile "is mounting a challenge to bin Laden's leadership of the global jihad."

In Iraq, according to press reports, he is preparing to "ignite a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites". But is that not precisely what US intelligence is aiming at ("divide and rule") as confirmed by several analysts of the US led war? Pitting one group against the other with a view to weakening the resistance movement.(3)

The CIA, with its $40 billion plus budget, pleads ignorance: they say they know nothing about him, they have a photograph, but, according to the Weekly Standard, they apparently do not know his weight or height.

The aura of mystery surrounding this individual is part of the propaganda ploy. Zarqawi is described as "so secretive even some operatives who work with him do not know his identity."(4)

Consistent Media Pattern

What is the role of this new terrorist mastermind in the Pentagon's disinformation campaign?
In previous war propaganda ploys, the CIA hired Public Relations firms to organize core disinformation campaigns. In 1990, the British PR firm Hill and Knowlton launched the 1990 Kuwaiti incubator media scam, where Kuwaiti babies were allegedly removed from incubators in a totally fabricated news story, which was then used to get Congressional approval for the 1991 Gulf War.

Almost immediately in the wake of a terrorist event or warning, US network television announces (in substance) that, they think this mysterious individual Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is possibly behind it, invariably without presenting supporting evidence, and prior to the conduct of an investigation by the relevant police and intelligence authorities.

In some cases, upon the immediate occurrence of the terrorist event, there is an initial report which mentions Al-Zarqawi as the possible mastermind. The report will often say (in substance) that they think he did it, but it is not yet confirmed and there is some doubt on the identity of those behind the attack. One or two days later, the reports will be confirmed, at which time CNN may come up with a more definitive statement, quoting official police, military and/or intelligence sources.

Often the CNN report is based on information published on an Islamic website, or a mysterious video or audio tape. The authenticity of the website and/or the tapes is not the object of discus-sion or detailed investigation.

The news reports never mention that Al-Zarqawi was recruited by the CIA to fight in the Soviet-Afghan war, as acknowledged by Secretary Colin Powell in his presentation to the UN Security Council on 5 February 2003. (See Chapter 11.) Moreover, the press usually presents the terrorist warnings emanating from the CIA as genuine, without acknowledging the fact that US intelligence has provided covert support to the Islamic militant network consistently for more than 20 years. (See Chapters 1 and 3.)

History of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi's name was first mentioned in relation to the thwarted attack on the Radisson SAS Hotel in Amman, Jordan, during the December 1999 millennium celebrations. According to press reports, he had previously gone under another name: Ahmed Fadil Al-Khalayleh, among several other aliases.

An Al-Zarqawi legend was in the making. According to The New York Times , Al-Zarqawi is said to have fled Afghanistan to Iran in late 2001, following the entry of US troops. According to news reports, he had been "collaborating with hard-liners" in the Iranian military and intelligence apparatus:

United States intelligence officials say they are increasingly concerned by the mounting evidence of Tehran's renewed interest in terrorism [and support to Al-Zarqawi], including covert surveillance by Iranian agents of possible American targets abroad. American officials said Iran appeared to view terrorism as [a] deterrent against [a] possible attack by the United States.

Since the surprise election of reformer Mohammad Khatami as president of Iran in 1997 and his wide public support, Washington has been counting on a new moderate political majority to emerge. But the hard-line faction has maintained its grip on Iran's security apparatus, frustrating American efforts to ease tensions with Tehran.

Now, Iranian actions to destabilize the new interim government in Afghanistan, its willingness to assist Al Qaeda members and its fuelling of the Palestinian uprising are prompting a reassessment in Washington, officials say.(5)

Presenting the Tehran government as having links to Al Qaeda was part of an evolving disinformation campaign, consisting in portraying Iran as a sponsor of the "Islamic terror network".

Turning Point in the Disinformation Campaign

In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Al-Zarqawi's name reemerges, this time almost on a daily basis, with reports focusing on his "sinister relationship to Saddam Hussein".

A major turning point in the propaganda campaign occurs on February 5, 2003 at the United Nations Security Council, follow-ing Colin Powell's historic address to the UN body.

Focussing on the central role of Al-Zarqawi, Secretary Colin Powell presented detailed "documentation" on the ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and linked this "sinister nexus" to Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction:

Our concern is not just about these illicit weapons; it's the way that these illicit weapons can be connected to terrorists and terrorist organizations...

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network, headed by Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan War more than a decade ago [as a Mujahideen recruited by the CIA]. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialities of this camp is poisons...

We know these affiliates are connected to Zarqawi because they remain, even today, in regular contact with his direct subordinates, including the poison cell plotters. And they are involved in moving more than money and materiel. Last year, two suspected Al Qaeda operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. They were linked to associates of the Baghdad cell, and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide.

From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. [Al-Zarqawi is presented here as being active in several countries at the same time.]...

According to detainees, Abu Atiya, who graduated from Zarqawi's terrorist camp in Afghanistan, tasked at least nine North African extremists in 2001 to travel to Europe to conduct poison and explosive attacks. Since last year, members of this network have been apprehended in France, Britain, Spain and Italy. By our last count, 116 operatives connected to this global web have been arrested. The chart you are seeing shows the network in Europe.

We know about this European network, and we know about its links to Zarqawi, because the detainee who provided the information about the targets also provided the names of members of the net-work...

We also know that Zarqawi's colleagues have been active in the Pankisi Gorge, Georgia, and in Chechnya, Russia. The plotting to which they are linked is not mere chatter. Members of Zarqawi's net-work say their goal was to kill Russians with toxins.

We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al Qaeda...

As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name, and this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new; the nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal.

With this track record, Iraqi denials of supporting terrorism take their place alongside the other Iraqi denials of weapons of mass destruction. It is all a web of lies. When we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction, and provides haven and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past, we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future.(6)

Following Powell's February 2003 UN Security Council presentation, Al-Zarqawi immediately gained in public notoriety as a terrorist mastermind involved in planning chemical and biological weapons attacks.

The Ansar Al-Islam Connection

Based on fake intelligence, Secretary Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council consisted in linking the secular Baathist regime to the "Islamic terror network", with a view to justifying the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

According to Powell, Al-Zarqawi had been working hand in glove with Ansar Al-Islam, an obscure Islamist group, based in Northern Iraq.

In the wake of 9/11, Ansar had allegedly been responsible for plotting terror attacks in a number of countries including France, Britain, and Germany. US officials had also pointed to the sinister role of Iraq's embassy in Islamabad, which was allegedly used as a liaison between Ansar Al-Islam operatives and representatives of the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein.

Ironically, Ansar was allowed to develop in a region which had been under US military control since the 1991 Gulf War, namely Kurdish held Northern Iraq. This region-which was in "the no fly zone"-was not under the control of the Saddam government. It became a de facto US protectorate in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War.

There was no evidence of Saddam Hussein's support to Ansar Al-Islam. In fact, quite the opposite. The US military authorities stationed in the region had turned a blind eye to the presence of alleged Islamic terrorists. With virtually no interference from the US military, "Al Qaida affiliates [had] been operating freely in the [regional] capital, ...coordinating the movement of people, money and supplies for Ansar al-Islam".(7)

The spiritual founder of Ansar Al-Islam, Mullah Krekar con-firmed that "like most militant Islamists, [he] hates Saddam." At the time of the US invasion of Iraq, Mullah Krekar was living in Norway, where he had refugee status. "The US has not requested his arrest. If Iraq is guilty of occasional meetings with second-level Al Qaeda operatives, then what is the Norwegian government guilty of?"(8)

Ansar Al-Islam was largely involved in terrorist attacks directed against the secular institutions of the Kurdish regional govern-ments. It was also involved in assassinations of members of the Kurdish Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).

In fact in the days following Colin Powell's February 5, 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council, a senior military leader of PUK forces General Shawkat Haj Mushir was assas-sinated allegedly by Ansar Al-Islam.(9) Surrounded in mystery, the assassination of Shawkat was barely mentioned in the US press.

In the days following Colin Powell's February 5, 2003 UN address, the Iraqi foreign ministry clarified in an official statement that:

the Iraqi government [of Saddam Hussein] helped the [PUK] Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani against the Ansar al-Islam group. He [the spokesman] accused Ansar al-Islam of carrying out acts of sabotage inside Iraq...[and] that the United States had turned down an Iraqi offer to cooperate on the issue of terrorism.(10)

While accusing Baghdad of links to the terror network, the presence and activities of Islamic fundamentalist groups in Northern Iraq was largely serving US interests.

These groups were committed to the establishment of a Muslim theocracy. They had contributed to triggering political instability while at the same time weakening the institutions of the two dom-inant secular Kurdish parties, both of which had been on occasion been involved in negotiations with the government of Saddam Hussein.

Quoting a "top secret British document", the BBC revealed on the very same day Colin Powell made his presentation to the UN Security Council (5 February 2003): "that there is nothing but enmity between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The BBC said the leak came from [British] intelligence officials upset that their work was being used to justify war."(11)

Moreover, the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a behind the scenes role in US military planning also refuted the substance of Colin Powell's statement to the UN Security Council concerning the links between the Iraqi government and the Islamic terror network. (This refutation is all the more serious, in view of the fact that these alleged links were used as a justifica-tion for the invasion of Iraq.):

The question of Iraqi links to Al Qaeda remains murky, although senior Bush administration officials insist such ties exist... [M]any experts and State Department officials note that any Al Qaeda pres-ence in Iraq probably lies in northern regions beyond Saddam's control. Many experts say there is scant evidence of ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, noting that Al Qaeda's loathing for "impious"Arab governments makes it an unlikely bedfellow for Saddam's secular regime.(12)

Mysterious Chemical-Biological Weapons Plant in Northern Iraq

The substance of Powell's UN statement with regard to Al-Zarqawi rested on the existence of an Ansar al-Islam chemical-biological weapons plant in Northern Iraq which was producing ricin, sarin and other biological weapons, to be used in terror attacks on the US and Western Europe:

When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp, and this camp is located in North-Eastern Iraq.

The network is teaching its operative how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch-imagine a pinch of salt-less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food would cause shock, followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no anti-dote. There is no cure. It is fatal.

Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq, but Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered Al Qaeda safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaeda from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain there today.

The above statement by Colin Powell, concerning the North Iraqi facility where the ricin was being produced, was refuted by several media reports, prior to the US-led invasion:

There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere-only the smell of paraffin and vegetable butter used for cooking. In the kitchen, I discovered some chopped up tomatoes but not much else. The cook had left his Kalashnikov propped neatly against the wall. Ansar al-Islam-the Islamic group that uses the compound identified as a military HQ by Powell-yesterday invited me and several other foreign journalists into their territory for the first time. "We are just a group of Muslims trying to do our duty," Mohammad Hasan, spokesman for Ansar al-Islam, explained."We don't have any drugs for our fighters. We don't even have any aspirin. How can we produce any chemicals or weapons of mass destruction?"(13)

The intelligence contained in Colin Powell's UN statement had been fabricated. At the height of the military invasion of Iraq, a few weeks later, US Special Forces, together with their "embedded" journalists, entered the alleged chemical-biological weapons facility in Northern Iraq. Their report also refutes Colin Powell's state-ments to the UN body:

What they [US Special Forces] found was a camp devastated by cruise missile strikes during the first days of the war. A specialized bio-chemical team scoured the rubble for samples. They wore protective masks as they entered a building they suspected was a weapons lab. Inside they found mortar shells, medical supplies, and grim prison cells, but no immediate proof of chemical or biological agents. For this unit, such evidence would have been a so-called smoking gun, proof that it has banned weapons. But instead, this was a disappointing day for these troops on the front line of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction here. Jim Sciutto, ABC News, with US Special Forces in Northern Iraq.(14)

The Alleged Ricin Threat in the US

On February 8, 2003, three days after Colin Powell's UN speech, the ricin threat reemerged, this time in the US. Al-Zarqawi was said to be responsible for "the suspicious white powder found in a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist which contained the [same] deadly poison ricin."(15)

In a CIA report which was supposedly "leaked" to Newsweek, a group of CIA analysts predicted authoritatively that:

"[There was] a 59 percent probability that an attack on the US homeland involving WMD would occur before 31 March 2003." ...It all seems so precise and frightening: a better than 90 percent chance that Saddam will succeed in hitting America with a weapon spewing radiation, germs or poison. But it is important to remember that the odds are determined by averaging a bunch of guesses, informed perhaps, but from experts whose careers can only be ruined by under-estimating the threat.(16)

The picture of "terrorist mastermind"Al-Zarqawi was featured prominently in Newsweek's cover story article.

In the National Review (February 18, 2003), one month before the onslaught of the invasion of Iraq, Al-Zarqawi was described as Al Qaeda's "chief biochemical engineer":

It is widely known that Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's chief biochemical engi-neer, was at the safe house in Afghanistan where traces of ricin and other poisons were originally found. What is not widely known-but was briefly alluded to in Sec. Powell's UN address-is that starting in the mid-1990s, Iraq's embassy in Islamabad routinely played host to Saddam's biochemical scientists, some of whom interacted with al Qaeda operatives, including Zarqawi and his lab technicians, under the diplomatic cover of the Taliban embassy nearby to teach them the art of mixing poisons from home grown and readily available raw materials.(17)

Radioactive Dirty Bombs

In the immediate aftermath of Powell's speech, there was a code orange alert. Reality had been turned upside down. The US was not attacking Iraq. Iraq was preparing to attack America with the support of "Islamic terrorists". Official statements also pointed to the dangers of a dirty radioactive bomb attack in the US. Again Al-Zarqawi was identified as the number one suspect.(18)

Meanwhile, Al-Zarqawi had been identified as the terror mas-termind behind the (thwarted) ricin attacks in several European countries including Britain and Spain, in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

Britain's Ricin Threat

In January 2003, there was a ricin terror alert, which supposedly had also been ordered by Al-Zarqawi. The ricin had allegedly been discovered in a London apartment. It was to be used in a terror attack in the London subway. British press reports, quoting official statements claimed that the terrorists had learnt to produce the ricin at the Ansar al-Islam camp in Northern Iraq.

Two years later, the police investigation revealed that the ricin threats in Britain had been fabricated, and Britain's system of jus-tice had been "tailored to a time of terror":

There was no ricin and no Al Qaeda recipe, only a formula apparently confected by a white American Christian survivalist and downloaded from the Internet. Even if Bourgass, a nasty and deluded loner, had managed to create his poison and smear it on car-door handles, it would not have worked. Had Bourgass the poisoner devoted himself to creating the perfect Nigella chickpea couscous, he could hardly have been a less likely mass exterminator...

In the absence of chemical poison, a war against Iraq, a fake link between Al Qaeda and Saddam and a double helping of contempt of court were brewed up on Kamel Bourgass's hob. Tony Blair, David Blunkett, Colin Powell and senior police officers all used the arrests to illustrate the existence of a new breed of Islamist super-terrorist. A criminal prosecution was exploited to fit a political agenda. A war was justified and civil liberties imperiled by the ricin stash that never was.

Lawyers for the eight cleared men are outraged at the way their clients have been portrayed by the media and politicians, and there is so little acknowledgment of a just result, from the Home Office and elsewhere, that one wonders if dodgy convictions would have left some politicians more satisfied. Meanwhile, a new terror law, more draconian than expected, is in the Labour manifesto, pushing crim-inal trials for those who "glorify or condone acts of terror".

The affair of the sham ricin casts a long shadow over the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the credulous sensationalists of the media and, most of all, over politicians...

Eight innocent men were presumed guilty. Ten others held for two years without charge reportedly had non-existent links to the ricin plot cited on their government control orders.(19)

It is worth mentioning that "authoritative" news stories on the ricin threat as well as the (nonexistent) chemical weapons plants in Northern Iraq, continued to be churned out in the wake of the invasion, despite the fact that official reports confirmed that they did not exist. In a June 2004 report in the Washington Times:

Zarqawi stands as stark evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein's autocratic regime and bin Laden's al Qaeda terror network. Zarqawi, 38, operated a terrorist camp in northern Iraq that specialized in developing poisons and chemical weapons.

The Spanish Connection

In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, fabricated threats of chemical weapons attacks had emerged in several countries at the same time. Was the disinformation campaign being coordinated by intelligence officials in several countries?

In Spain, in the months prior to the March 2003 invasion, Bush's indefectible coalition partner, Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar had initiated his own disinformation campaign, no doubt in liaison with the office of the US Secretary of State.

The timing seemed perfect: on the very same day Colin Powell was presenting the Al-Zarqawi dossier to the UN (focussing on the sinister chemical weapons facility in Northern Iraq), Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar was busy briefing the Spanish parliament on an alleged chemical terror attack in Spain, in which Al-Zarqawi was supposedly also involved.

According to Prime Minister Aznar, Al-Zarqawi had established links to a number of European Islamic "collaborators" including Merouane Ben Ahmed,"an expert in chemistry and explosives who
visited Barcelona".(20)

Prime Minister Aznar confirmed in his speech to the Chamber of Deputies (Camera de diputados) on the 5th of February 2001 that the sixteen Al Qaeda suspects, allegedly in possession of explo-sives and lethal chemicals, had been working hand in glove with "terrorist mastermind" Al-Zarqawi.

Prime Minister Aznar's statements concerning these "lethal chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists" was also based on fabricated intelligence. An official report of the Spanish Ministry of Defense confirmed that "the tests on chemicals seized from 16 suspected Al Qaeda men in Spain...have revealed that they are harmless and some were household detergent."(21)

A defense ministry lab outside Madrid tested the substances-a bag containing more than half a pound of powder and several bottles or containers with liquids or residues-for the easy-to-make bio-logical poison ricin... The Spanish defense ministry, which car-ried out the tests, and the lab itself declined to comment.(22)

3/11: The Madrid 11 March 2004 Train Bombing

In the wake of the US led invasion of Iraq, Al-Zarqawi's name was being routinely associated, without supporting evidence, with numerous terror threats and incidents in Western Europe and the US.

While the press reports regarding the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombing did not generally point to Al-Zarqawi's involvement, they nonetheless hinted that the Moroccan group which allegedly "supervised the bombings in Madrid, [was] acting [according to the CIA] as a link between Al-Zarqawi and a cell of mostly Moroccan Al Qaeda members."(23)

This type of reporting, which broadly replicates the sinister relationship described by Prime Minister Aznar in his February 5, 2003 statement to the Spanish Parliament, provides a face to the out-side enemy.

Two days after the 3/11 Madrid bombing, CNN reported, quot-ing US intelligence sources, that Al-Zarqawi, described as "a lone wolf", might be planning attacks on "soft targets" in Western Europe:

LISOVICZ: And Jonathan, specifically, Abu Musaab Al-Zarqawi is someone you have described as Al Qaeda 2.0, which is pretty scary.

SCHANZER: Yes. Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is the man we caught; we intercepted his memo last month. US intelligence officials found this memo. It indicated that he was trying to continue to carry out attacks against the United States.

CAFFERTY: Where do we stand in your opinion on this war on terrorism? We have got this terrible situation in Madrid. We've got this fellow, Zarqawi, you are talking about, the lone Wolf that is active, some think inside Iraq. We have got terrorist attacks happening there. There is discussion all over Western Europe of fear of terrorism, possibly being about to increase there. Are we winning this war or are we los-ing it? What is your read?

SCHANZER: I think we're winning it. We've certainly-I mean counterterrorism at its core is just restricting the terrorist environment. So we've cut down on the amount of finances moving around in the terrorist world. We have arrested a number of key figures. So we are doing a good job.(24)

"Are we winning or loosing" the war on terrorism. "We are doing a good job." These catch phrases are part of the disinformation campaign. While they acknowledge "weaknesses" in US countert-errorism, their function is to justify enhanced military-intelligence operations against this illusive individual, who is confronting US military might, all over the World.

The April 2004 Osama Tape

Meanwhile, another mysterious Osama tape (April 2004) had emerged in which bin Laden acknowledged his responsibility for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the 3/11 train bombing in Madrid in March 2004:

"I [Osama] am offering a truce to European countries, and its core is our commitment to cease operations against any country which does not carry out an onslaught against Muslims or interfere in their affairs as part of the big American conspiracy against the Islamic world... The truce will begin when the last soldier leaves our countries. ...Whoever wants reconciliation and the right (way), then we are the ones who initiated it, so stop spilling our blood so we can stop spilling your blood... What happened on September 11 and March 11 was your goods delivered back to you.(25)

In other words, Osama bin Laden offers "a truce" if the various European countries involved in Iraq accept to withdraw their troops. In return, Al Qaeda will declare a moratorium on terrorist attacks in Europe.

Without further investigation, the Western media described the controversial April 2004 Osama tape as an attempt by "Enemy Number One" to create a rift between America and its European allies.

The tape in all likelihood was a hoax of US intelligence. The propaganda ploy consists not only in upholding the US-led occupation of Iraq as part of the broader "war on terrorism", it also provides a pretext to European governments, pressured by citizens movements, to turn a blind eye to the US-UK sponsored war crimes in Iraq. In the words of France's President Jacques Chirac, "nothing can justify terrorism and, on that basis, nothing can allow any discussion with terrorists."

Underlying the Osama tape is the presumption that the "extremists" in Iraq are the same people responsible for the 9/11 and 3/11 terrorist attacks. It follows, according to one US press report, that the "anti-war zealots", by opposing the US led occupation, are in fact providing ammunition to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda:

Bin Laden's deranged fantasies are frighteningly similar to those many anti-war zealots harbor both here and abroad.... He also apparently tries to justify the attacks of 9/11 as retaliation for US support for Jews in Palestine, and US invasions in the Gulf War and Somalia. "Our actions are reactions to your actions," he said.

This is gibberish, but it is typical of a megalomaniacal mind. Even Hitler, after all, insisted his attack on Poland was in self-defense. Evil often comes cloaked in the counterfeit robes of virtue.

But it's also easy to see how such arguments can gain traction among impoverished Arabs who long have been repressed by their own governments and are searching for answers.

The United States should be grateful for this latest tape. It puts a lot of things in perspective. Europe and the United States are at war together, and the enemy is someone of flesh and blood who can be frightened-enough so that he feels it necessary to propose a truce.(26)

Al-Zarqawi and the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal

The Abu Ghraib torture scandal, including the release of the pho-tographs of tortured POWs, reached its climax with the broadcast of CBS's "60 Minutes" hosted by Dan Rather on the 28th of April 2004.(27)

Within days of an impending scandal involving the upper ech-elons of the Pentagon, which directly implicated Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Al-Zarqawi was reported to be planning simultaneous large scale terrorist attacks in several countries, including a major terrorist operation in Jordan.

With Al-Zarqawi featured prominently on network television, these reports served to usefully distract public attention from the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

A mysterious videotape was released, describing in minute detail how "terrorist mastermind" Al-Zarqawi was planning to wage a major attack inside Jordan. The alleged attack consisted in using "a combination of 71 lethal chemicals, including blistering agents to cause third-degree burns, nerve gas and choking agents, which would have formed a lethal toxic cloud over a square mile of the capital, Amman".(28)

According to the news reports, "the alleged terrorist plot was just days away from execution". The targets were the Jordanian intelligence headquarters, the prime minister's office and the US Embassy. According to CNN, which broadcast excerpts of the mys-terious videotape, "the Jordanian government fears the death toll could have run into the thousands, more deadly even than 9/11".(29)

[In CNN's coverage], Jordanian special forces [are] raiding an apartment house in Amman in the hunt for an al Qaeda cell. Some of the suspects are killed, others arrested, ending what Jordanian intelli-gence says was a bold plan to use chemical weapons and truck bombs in their capital... The Jordanian government fears the death toll could have run into the thousands, more deadly even than 9/11.

For the first time the alleged plotters were interviewed on video-tape, aired on Jordanian TV. CNN obtained copies of the tapes from the Jordanians. This man revealing his orders came from a man named Azme Jayoussi, the cell's alleged ringleader.

HUSSEIN SHARIF (through translator): The aim of this operation was to strike Jordan and the Hashemite royal family, a war against the crusaders and infidels. Azme told me that this would be the first chemical suicide attack that al Qaeda would execute.

VAUSE: Also appearing on the tape, Azme Jayoussi, who says his orders came from this man, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the same man the US says is behind many of the violent attacks in Iraq.

AZME JAYOUSSI,ACCUSED PLOTTER (through translator): I took advanced explosives course, poisons, high level, then I pledged allegiance to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to obey him without any questioning, to be on his side. After this Afghanistan fell. I met Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq.(30)

Al-Zarqawi 's "Attack on America"

Two days later on the 29 April 2004, immediately following the reports on the terrorist threat in Jordan, the State Department announced that Al-Zarqawi was now planning a similar chemical weapons attack on America.(31)

The " freelancer" and "lone wolf, ...acting alone in the name of Al Qaeda" had been crossing international borders unnoticed. One day, he's in Jordan, the next day in the US, and back again a few days later in Iraq.

According to the US State Department Annual Report on Terrorism, quoted by CNN:

[T]he number of terrorist attacks around the world declined last year, but the government's annual report on terrorism includes a chilling warning about the year ahead... The State Department says terrorists are planning an attack on US soil. High on their anxiety list, terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.

[According to the State Department's Coordinator for Counter-terrorism, Cofer Black] "He [Al-Zarqawi] is representative of a very real and credible threat. His operatives are planning and attempt-ing now to attack American targets, and we are after them with a vengeance.(32)

The State Department report was released on the same day as the CBS's "60 Minutes" program on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

The Nicholas Berg Execution

Barely a couple of weeks later, Al-Zarqawi is named as the mastermind behind the execution in Iraq of Nicholas Berg on May 11, 2004. Media coverage of Berg's terrible death was based on a mys-terious report (and video) on an Islamic website, which according to CNN provided evidence that Al-Zarqawi might be involved:

ENSOR: The Web site claims that the killing was done by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist whose al Qaeda affiliated group is held responsible by US intelligence for a string of bombings in Iraq and for the killing of an American diplomat in Amman. CNN Arab linguists say, however, that the voice on the tape has the wrong accent. They do not believe it is Zarqawi. US officials said the killers tried to take advantage of the prison abuse controversy to gain attention...

BROWN: So, the administration said today we'll track these people down.We will get them beyond, I guess, this belief that Zarqawi somehow was involved. Are there any clues out there that we heard about?

ENSOR: This is going to be very, very difficult. They've been look-ing for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for several years now. There's a large price on his head. He's been blowing up a lot of things in Iraq according to him and according to US intelligence. They don't know where he is, so it's-I don't think they have any clues right now, at least none that I know of-Aaron.(33)

While initially expressing doubts on the identity of the masked individual, a subsequent and more definitive report, based on "authoritative intelligence", was aired two days later by CNN on 13 May 2004:

The CIA confirms that Nicholas Berg's killer was Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi; The CIA acknowledges sticking to strict rules in tough interrogations of top al Qaeda prisoners.

BLITZER Because originally our own linguists here at CNN suspected that-they listened to this audiotape and they didn't think that it sounded like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. But now definitively, the experts at the CIA say it almost certainly is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

ENSOR: They say it almost certainly is. There's just a disagreement between the CNN linguists and the CIA linguists. The US Government now believes that the person speaking on that tape and killing Nick Berg on that tape is the actual man, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.(34)

The report on the Nicholas Berg assassination, coincided with calls by US senators for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. It occurred a few days after President Bush's "apology" for the Abu Ghraib prison "abuses". It served once again to distract public attention from the war crimes ordered by key members of the Bush Administration.

Authenticity of the Video

The video footage published on the website was called "Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi shows killing of an American".

While CIA experts released a statement saying that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi "was the man in the mask who beheaded the US citizen Nick Berg in front of a camera," several reports question the authenticity of the video.(35)

Al-Zarqawi is Jordanian. Yet the man in the video "posing as Jordanian native Zarqawi does not speak the Jordanian dialect. Zarqawi has an artificial leg, but none of these murderers did. The man presented as Zarqawi had a yellow ring, presumably a golden one, which Muslim men are banned from wearing, especially so-called fundamentalists."(36)

When the issue of his artificial leg was mentioned in relation to the video, US officials immediately revised their story, stating they were not quite sure whether he had actually lost a leg: "US intelligence officials, who used to believe that Zarqawi had lost a leg in Afghanistan, recently revised that assessment, concluding that he still has both legs."(37)

Nicholas Berg was assassinated. The identity of the killers was not firmly established. Moreover, there were a number of other aspects pertaining to the video, which suggested that it was a fake.

Another report stated that Zarqawi was dead.

The audio was not in synchrony with the video, indicating that the video footage might have been manipulated.

The Iraqi Resistance Movement

In the wake of the invasion of Iraq, the disinformation campaign consisted in presenting the Iraqi resistance movement as "terrorists".

The image of "terrorists" fighting US peacekeepers is presented on television screens across the globe.

Portrayed as an evil enemy, Al-Zarqawi was used profusely in Bush's press conferences and speeches, in an obvious public relations ploy:

You know, I hate to predict violence, but I just understand the nature of the killers. This guy, Zarqawi, an al Qaeda associate-who was in Baghdad, by the way, prior to the removal of Saddam Hussein-is still at large in Iraq. And as you might remember, part of his operational plan was to sow violence and discord amongst the various groups in Iraq by cold-blooded killing. And we need to help find Zarqawi so that the people of Iraq can have a more bright-bright future.(38)

The portrait of terror mastermind Al-Zarqawi was used to personify the Iraqi resistance.
In an almost routine and repetitive fashion, his name is linked to the numerous "terrorist attacks" in Iraq against the US led-occupation.

While the Western media highlights these various occurrences including the kidnappings of paid mercenaries, on contract to Western security firms, there is a deafening silence on the massacre of more than one hundred thousand Iraqi civilians by coalition forces, since the beginning of the US-led occupation in April 2003.(39)

The 2004-2005 operation in Fallujah, which resulted in several thousand civilian deaths, was casually described by the Bush admin-istration as "a crackdown" against extremists working under the leadership of Al-Zarqawi. According to official statements, Al Qaeda mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Fallujah, which had become a so-called "hotbed for foreign fighters". In the words of Newsweek:"Saddam may not have had direct ties to Al Qaeda, but the Jihadists are eager to fill his shoes."(40)

In other words, the Bush administration needs Al-Zarqawi and the "war on terrorism" as a justification for the killing of civilians in Iraq, which it continues to describe as "collateral damage".

Consistently, a barrage of media reports had surfaced on Al Qaeda links to the Iraqi resistance movement. The insurgents are described as Islamic extremists and fundamentalists: "hard-line Sunnis, foreign extremists, and, now, Sadr and his disenfranchised Shiite followers".41

The secular character of the resistance movement is denied. In a completely twisted logic, Al Qaeda is said to constitute a signifi-cant force behind the Iraqi insurgents.

The disinformation campaign ultimately consists in convincing the US public that the "Defense of the Homeland" and the occupation of Iraq are part of the same process and involving the
same enemy. In the words of former CIA Director James Woolsey in a CNN interview:

Iraqi intelligence, trained al Qaeda in poison gases and conventional explosives. And had senior-level contacts going back a decade. And the Islamists from the Sunni side, from the al Qaeda, work with people like Hezbollah. They're perfectly happy to work together against us. It's sort of like three Mafia families, but they insult each other, but can still cooperate.... I think it's Islamist totalitarians masquerading as part of a religion. Certainly if anybody in the intelligence community is surprised by this, the really surprising thing would be that they are really surprised. Some of them have had an idea fix for a long time, that al Qaeda would never work with the Ba'athist and the Shiite Islamist would never work with the Sunni. It's just nuts. They work together on important things. It's not that one necessarily controls the other. It's not sort of like state sponsorship, but cooperation, support here and there against us, sure, they've been doing it for years and years and years.(42)

New Propaganda Ploy

As the resistance movement in Iraq unfolds and challenges the US military occupation, Al-Zarqawi is increasingly portrayed by the media as the main obstacle to the holding of "free and fair elec-tions" in Iraq.

Barely a week prior to the January 2005 Iraqi elections spon-sored and organized by the Bush administration, with the support of the "international community," another mysterious Al-Zarqawi audiotape surfaced on the Internet.

While the news reports initially stated that "the authenticity of the tape could not be determined", they later confirmed, quoting "authoritative intelligence" that "the voice in the tape appeared to be that of Al-Zarqawi". In his own words, Al-Zarqawi had now declared "a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology".(43)

The Al-Zarqawi pre-election audiotape usefully served the disinformation campaign, by underscoring the evil and insidious links between Al-Zarqawi and former Saddam regime loyalists.

Secular Sunni Baathists and jihadists are said to have joined hands. In the Zarqawi audiotape, the Shiite majority is presented as "evil", serving to create divisions within Iraqi society:

The leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose "young lions" are attacking polling stations and killing candidates, has described Shias as "the most evil of mankind...the lurking snakes and the crafty scorpions, the spying enemy and the pene-trating venom". Understanding that elections favor the majority, he said that the US had engineered the poll to get a Shia government into power.(44)

Again, reality is turned upside down. The existence of an Iraqi resistance movement to the US-led occupation is denied. The "insurgents" are "terrorists" opposed to democracy. Al-Zarqawi is pinpointed as attempting to sabotage what both the American and European media have described in chorus as "the first democratic elections in half a century". Meanwhile, the US-UK military man-date in Iraq is upheld by the "international community" and Washington's European allies.

"Clash of Civilizations"

With Iraq under continued US military occupation, the propaganda ploy now consists in focussing on the "clash of civilizations": the great divide between the societies of the Islamic Middle East and the Judeo-Christian West. Whereas the latter is recognized as "a moral system" closely associated with modern forms of Western democracy, the former is said to be entrenched in theocratic and authoritarian forms of government, dominated directly or indirectly by the tenets of Islamic fundamentalism.

It is on the premises of this "clash of civilizations" that America has formulated its messianic mission "to spread liberty in the world". In the words of President George W. Bush, there is "no neutral ground in the fight between civilisation and terror"

"The clash of civilizations," as described by Samuel Huntington, had become an integral part of the propaganda campaign.

Islam is not only heralded as being broadly "un-democratic" and incompatible with a (Western) system of representative gov-ernment, the jihadists-including bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi are ushered in as the sole spokesmen for an Iraqi "insurgency" described in press reports and on network television, as being composed of "terrorists" and "criminal gangs":

The questions Zarqawi raises go way beyond the elections in Iraq to the whole issue of modernization of the Arab world. Is democracy un-Islamic? Is there a fundamental clash between the principles of representative government and the principles of Islam?(45)

Meanwhile, the illegality of the US occupation under international law and the Nuremberg charter goes unmentioned.

Under the disguise of "peace-keeping", the United Nations is actively collaborating with the occupying forces. The deaths of thou-sands of civilians, the torture chambers and the concentration camps, the destruction of an entire country's infrastructure-not to mention the issue of the missing "weapons of mass destruction"- have been overshadowed by the fabricated image of an American commitment to democracy and post-war reconstruction.

Notes:

1. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),"FBI Most Wanted" at http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm.

2. Weekly Standard, 24 May 2004.

3. See Michel Collon, "Washington has Found the Solution 'Let's Divide Iraq as We Did in Yugoslavia!'", Centre for Research on Globalization, 23 December 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/COL312A.html. See also Vladimir Radyuhin, "From Kosovo to Iraq", The Hindu, 18 August 2003.

4. Washington Times, 8 June 2004.

5. New York Times, 24 March 2002.

6. US Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the UN Security Council, 5 February 2003.

7 Midland Independent, 6 February 2003.

8. Glen Rangwala, "Claims in Secretary of State Colin Powell's UN Presentation concerning Iraq, 5th February 2003", http://www.traprockpeace.org/ firstresponse.html On Mullah Krekar, see Daily News, New York, 6 February 2003.

9. The Australian, 11 February 2003.

10. News Conference by Lieutenant-General Amir al-Sa'di, adviser at the Iraqi Presidency; Dr Sa'id al-Musawi, head of the Organizations' Department at the Iraqi Foreign Ministry; and Major-General Husam Muhammad Amin, head of the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate, BBC Monitoring Service, 6 February 2003.

11. Quoted in Daily News, New York, 6 February 2003.

12. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) website at http://www.cfrterrorism.org/groups/alqaeda3.html.

13. The Observer, London, 9 February 2003.

14. ABC News, 29 March 2003.

15. Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 8 February 2004.

16. Newsweek, 24 February 2003.

17. National Review, 18 February 2003.

18. ABC News, 13 February 2003.

19. Mary Riddell,"With poison in their souls: The demonisation of the ricin suspects by politicians and the media smacks of Salem", The Observer, 17 April 2005.

20. Reported in El País, Madrid, 6 February 2003.

21. Europe Intelligence Wire, 27 February 2003.

22. Irish News, 27 February 2003.

23. The Australian, 27 May 2004.

24. CNN, 13 March 2004, emphasis added, For details on the Madrid bombing see, "Madrid 'blueprint': a dodgy document" by Brendan O'Neill, Centre for Research on Globalization, 1 April 2004, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ ONE404A.html

25. Ibid., See also the report by Al Jazeera, Centre for Research on Globalization, 17 April 2004, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ALJ404A.html

26. Deseret Morning News, Salt Lake City, 15 April 2004.

27. Torture of Iraqi POWs in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib Prison, CBS Transcript: "60 Minutes", 28 April 2004.

28. Charleston Post Courier, 28 April 2004.

29. CNN, 27 April 2004, emphasis added.

30. Ibid, emphasis added.

31. CNN, 29 April 2003.

32. Ibid.

33. CNN, 11 May 2004.

34. CNN, 13 May 2004.

35. Sirajin Sattayev,"Was Nick Berg killed by US intelligence?", Centre for Research on Globalization, 23 May 2004, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ SAT405A.html.

36. Ibid.

37. US News and World Report, 24 May 2004.

38. President George W. Bush, Press Conference, 1 June 2004, emphasis added.

39. See Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi, Gilbert Burnham," Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq", Lancet, 29 October 2004.

40. Newsweek, 19 April 2004.

41. US News and World Report, 19 April 2004.

42. Quoted from CNN, Lou Dobbs, Tonight, 15 April 2004.

43. Associated Press Report, 23 January 2005.

44. Quoted in The New Statesman, 31 January 2005.

45. The Washington Post, 30 January 2004.

9/11 and the Iran-Contra Scandal

2008-10-18T19:10:00.000-07:00

Chapter 12

The Bush administration accuses people of having links to Al Qaeda. This is the national security doctrine behind the anti-terrorist legislation and Homeland Security. It is not only part of the Administration's disinformation campaign, it is also used to arrest thousands of people on trumped up charges.

Ironically, several key members of the Bush Administration who were the architects of the anti-terrorist agenda, played a key role in supporting and financing Al Qaeda.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, who casually accused Baghdad and other foreign governments of "harboring" Al Qaeda, played an indirect role, during the Reagan administration, in supporting and financing Al Qaeda.

Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, were implicated, having operated behind the scenes, in the Iran-Contra scan-dal during the Reagan Administration, which involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan Contra para-military army:

[Coronel Oliver] North set up a team including [Richard] Secord; Noel Koch [Armitage's deputy], then assistant secretary at the Pentagon responsible for special operations; George Cave, a former CIA station chief in Tehran, and Colin Powell, military assistant to US Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger.(1)

Although Colin Powell was not directly involved in the arms transfer negotiations, which had been entrusted to Coronel Oliver North, he was, according to press reports, among "at least five men within the Pentagon who knew arms were being transferred to the
CIA".(2)

Lieutenant General Powell was directly instrumental in giving the "green light" to lower-level officials in blatant violation of con-gressional procedures. According to the New York Times, Colin Powell took the decision (at the level of military procurement), to allow the delivery of weapons to Iran:

Hurriedly, one of the men closest to Secretary of Defense Weinberger, Maj. Gen. Colin Powell, bypassed the written "focal point system'' procedures and ordered the Defense Logistics Agency [responsible for procurement] to turn over the first of 2,008 TOW missiles to the CIA, which acted as cutout for delivery to Iran.(3)

Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State during George W. Bush's first term (2001-2004) played a key role in launch-ing the "war on terrorism" in the immediate wake of 9/11, leading to the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. (See Chapter 4.)

During the Reagan Administration, Armitage held the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense. He was in charge of coordinat-ing covert military operations including the Iran-Contra operation. He was in close liaison with Coronel Oliver North. His deputy and chief anti-terrorist official Noel Koch was part of the team set up by Oliver North. Following the delivery of the TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran, the proceeds of these sales were deposited in num-bered bank accounts and the money was used to finance the Nicaraguan Contra.(4)

A classified Israeli report provided to the Iran-Contra panels of the Congressional inquiry confirmed that Armitage "was in the picture on the Iranian issue."(5)

With a Pentagon position that placed him over the military's covert operations branch, Armitage was a party to the secret arms dealing from the outset. He also was associated with former national security aide Oliver L. North in a White House counterterrorism group, another area that would also have been a likely focus of congressional inquiry.(6)

Financing the Islamic Brigades

The Iran-Contra procedure was similar to that used in Afghanistan, where covert financial assistance had been channeled to the mili-tant "Islamic brigades". Barely mentioned by the press reports, part of the proceeds of the weapons sales to Iran had been channeled to finance the Mujahideen:

The Washington Post reported that profits from the Iran arms sales were deposited in one CIA-managed account into which the US and Saudi Arabia had placed $250 million apiece. That money was dis-bursed not only to the Contras in Central America but to the rebels fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan.(7)

The Irangate Cover-up

In the wake of the Iran-Contra disclosure, Reagan's National Security Adviser Rear Admiral John Pointdexter, later indicted on conspiracy charges and for lying to Congress, was replaced by Frank Carlucci. Major General Colin Powell was appointed deputy to Frank Carlucci, occupying a senior position on Reagan's National Security team:

Both [Carlucci and Powell] came to the White House after the Iran-Contra revelations and the NSC [National Security Council] house-cleaning that followed [the Irangate scandal].(8)

This "housecleaning" operation was a cover-up, as Colin Powell was fully aware of the Iran-Contra affair.

While several Irangate officials including John Pointdexter and Oliver North were accused of criminal wrongdoing, several of the main actors in the CIA and the Pentagon, namely Armitage and Casey, were never indicted, neither was Lieutenant General Colin Powell who had authorized the procurement of TOW missiles from the Defense Logistics Agency and their delivery to Iran.

Moreover, while weapons were being sold covertly to Iran, Washington was also supplying weapons through official channels to Baghdad. In other words, Washington was arming both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. And Donald Rumsfeld, as Special Envoy to the Middle East under President Reagan, was put in charge of negoti-ating US weapons sales to Baghdad.

Notes:

1. The Guardian, 10 December 1986.

2. The Record, 29 December 1986.

3. The New York Times, 16 February 1987.

4. UPI, 27 November 1987.

5. The New York Times, 26 May 1989.

6. Washington Post, 26 May 1989. See also US News and World Report, 15 December 1986.

7. US News & World Report, 15 December 1986.

8. The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, 16 June 1987.

War Propaganda: Fabricating an Outside Enemy

2008-10-15T19:08:00.000-07:00

Part 3 The Disinformation Campaign
Chapter 11

The US intelligence apparatus has created its own terrorist organ-izations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warn-ings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself created. In turn, it has developed a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program "to go after" these terrorist organizations.

Counterterrorism and war propaganda are intertwined. The propaganda apparatus feeds disinformation into the news chain. The terror warnings must appear to be "genuine". The objective is to present the terror groups as "enemies of America".

One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to fabricate an enemy. As anti-war sentiment grows and the political legitimacy of the Bush Administration falters, doubts regarding the existence of this illusive "outside enemy" must be dispelled.

Propaganda purports not only to drown the truth but to kill the evidence on how this "outside enemy", namely Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda was fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number One". The entire National Security doctrine centers on the existence of an "outside enemy", which is threatening the Homeland.

The "Office of Disinformation"

Waged from the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA, a fear and disinformation campaign was launched. The blatant distortion of the truth and the systematic manipulation of all sources of information is an integral part of war planning.

In the wake of 9/11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics:

The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign coun-tries-as an effort to influence public opinion across the world.(1)

And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded following political pressures and "troublesome" media stories that "its pur-pose was to deliberately lie to advance American interests."(2) "Rumsfeld backed off and said this is embarrassing."(3) Yet despite this apparent about-turn, the Pentagon's Orwellian disinformation campaign remained functionally intact:

"[T]he secretary of defense is not being particularly candid here. Disinformation in military propaganda is part of war.(4)

Rumsfeld in fact later confirmed in a November 2002 press interview that while the OSI no longer exists in name, the "Office's intended functions are [still] being carried out".5
A number of government agencies and intelligence units-with links to the Pentagon-are involved in various components of the propaganda campaign.

Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards "regime change" and "the restoration of democracy".

Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping". The derogation of civil liberties-in the context of the so-called "anti-terrorist legislation"-is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties. And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" statements, which circulated pro-fusely in the news chain, were upheld as the basis for understanding World events.

The twisting of public opinion at home and around the World had become an integral part of the War agenda. In the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration and its indefectible British ally had multiplied the "warnings" of future Al Qaeda terrorist attacks.

War propaganda is pursued at all stages: before, during the mil-itary operation as well as in its cruel aftermath. The enemy has to appear genuine: thousands of news stories and editorials linking Al Qaeda to the Baghdad government were planted in the news chain.

War propaganda serves to conceal the real causes and conse-quences of war.

Shortly after the OSI had been officially disbanded amidst con-troversy, the New York Times confirmed that the disinformation campaign was running strong and that the Pentagon was:

considering issuing a secret directive to American military to conduct covert operations aimed at influencing public opinion and policy-makers in friendly and neutral nations.... The proposal has ignited a fierce battle throughout the Bush administration over whether the military should carry out secret propaganda missions in friendly nations like Germany.... The fight, one Pentagon official said, is over 'the strategic communications for our nation, the message we want to send for long-term influence, and how we do it.... "We have the assets and the capabilities and the training to go into friendly and neutral nations to influence public opinion. We could do it and get away with it. That doesn't mean we should."(6)

Feeding Disinformation into the News Chain

To sustain "the War on Terrorism" agenda these fabricated reali-ties, funneled on a day to day basis into the news chain, must become indelible truths which form part of a broad political and media consensus. In this regard, the corporate media-although of this evolving totalitarian system.

In close liaison with the Pentagon and the CIA, the State Department had also set up its own "soft-sell" (civilian) propa-ganda unit, headed by Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Charlotte Beers, a powerful figure in the adver-tising industry. Working in liaison with the Pentagon, Beers was appointed to head the State Department's propaganda unit in the immediate wake of 9/11. Her mandate was "to counteract anti-Americanism abroad."7 Her office at the State Department was to:

ensure that public diplomacy (engaging, informing, and influencing key international audiences) is practiced in harmony with public affairs (outreach to Americans) and traditional diplomacy to advance US interests and security and to provide the moral basis for US lead-ership in the world.(8)

The Role of the CIA

The most powerful component of the Fear and Disinformation Campaign rests with the CIA, which secretly subsidizes authors, journalists and media critics, through a web of private founda-tions and CIA sponsored front organizations. The CIA also influ-ences the scope and direction of many Hollywood productions. Since 9/11, one third of Hollywood productions are war movies:

Hollywood stars and scriptwriters are rushing to bolster the new message of patriotism, conferring with the CIA and brainstorming with the military about possible real-life terrorist attacks.(9)

"The Sum of All Fears" directed by Phil Alden Robinson, which depicts the scenario of a nuclear war, had received the endorse-ment and support of both the Pentagon and the CIA.(10)

Disinformation is routinely "planted" by CIA operatives in the newsroom of major dailies, magazines and TV channels. Outside public relations firms are often used to create "fake stories":

A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the scoops, that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources, where the parameters of debate are set and the "official reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain.(11)

Covert disinformation initiatives under CIA auspices are also funneled through various intelligence proxies in other countries. Since 9/11, they have resulted in the day-to-day dissemination of false information concerning alleged "terrorist attacks".

A routine pattern of reporting had emerged. In virtually all of the reported cases of terrorist incidents (Britain, France, Indonesia, India, Philippines, etc.) the alleged terrorist groups are identified as having "links to Al Qaeda", without of course acknowledging the fact (amply documented by intelligence reports and official documents) that Al Qaeda is US intelligence asset.

-----

TEXT BOX 11.1

The Secret Downing Street Memo

"The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL-UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195/02

cc: Defense Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard
Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally
Morgan, Alastair Campbell

Iraq: Prime Minister's Meeting, 23 July

C [head of British Intelligence MI-6, Sir Richard Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable....

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intel-ligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

.... The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthu-siasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after mili-tary action.

Excerpts from the "Secret Downing Street Memo" to Prime Minister Tony Blair, leaked in May 2005 to the London Times.

-----

The Doctrine of "Self Defense"

The propaganda campaign is geared towards sustaining the illusion that "America is under attack". Relayed not only through the mainstream media but also through a number of alternative Internet media sites, these fabricated realities continue to portray the war in Afghanistan and Iraq as bona fide acts of self-defense, while carefully concealing the broad strategic and economic objec-tives of the war.

In turn, the propaganda campaign develops a casus belli, a jus-tification, a political legitimacy for waging war. The "official real-ity" (conveyed profusely in George W's speeches) rests on the broad "humanitarian" premise of a so-called "preemptive", namely "defen-sive war", "a war to protect freedom":

We're under attack because we love freedom.... And as long as we love freedom and love liberty and value every human life, they're going to try to hurt us.12)

The National Security Strategy (NSS) includes two essential building blocks:
- The preemptive "defensive war" doctrine,
- The "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda.

The objective is to present "preemptive military action"-mean-ing war as an act of "self-defense" against two categories of ene-mies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists":

The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration.... America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.

... Rogue States and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction.

... The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction-and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend our-selves.... To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.(13)

In early 2005, the Pentagon called for the development of a more "pro-active" notion of preemptive warfare, where military opera-tions could also be launched not only against a "declared enemy" but also against countries, which are not openly hostile to America, but which are considered strategic from the point of view of US interests. (See Chapter 19.)

How is War Propaganda carried out?

Two sets of eye-popping statements emanating from a variety of sources (including official National Security statements, media, Washington-based think tanks, etc.) are fed on a daily basis into the news chain. Some of the events (including news regarding pre-sumed terrorists) were blatantly fabricated by the intelligence agen-cies. (See Chapters 19 and 20.)

However, once the core assumptions of the disinformation cam-paign have been embedded in the news chain, both the printed press and network TV establish their own self-sustaining routine of fabricating the news.

Disinformation relies on a pattern of reporting which tends to dismiss the substance behind the news. In the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the disinformation campaign centered on two simple and catchy "buzzwords", which were used profusely to justify US military action:

- Buzzword no. 1. "Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda" (Osama) is behind most news stories regarding the "war on terrorism" including "alleged", "future", "presumed" and "actual" terrorist attacks.

- Buzzword no. 2."Weapons of Mass Destruction"(WMD) state-ments were used profusely to justify the "pre-emptive war" against the "State sponsors of terror"-i.e., countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea which allegedly possess WMD. Amply documented in the case of Iraq, a large body of news on WMD and biological attacks, were fabricated.

In the wake of the invasion of Iraq, "WMD" and "Osama bin Laden" statements continued to be used. They have become part of the day to day debate, embodied in routine conversations between cit-izens. Repeated ad nauseam, they penetrate the inner consciousness of people, molding their individual perceptions on current events. Through deception and manipulation, this shaping of the minds of entire populations sets the stage-under the façade of a functioning democracy-for the installation of a de facto Police State.

In turn, the disinformation regarding alleged "terrorist attacks" or "weapons of mass destruction" instills an atmosphere of fear, which mobilizes unswerving patriotism and support for the State, and its main political and military actors.

Repeated in virtually every national news report, this stigmatic focus on WMD and Osama/Al Qaeda essentially serves as a dogma, to blind people on the causes and consequences of America's war of conquest, while providing a simple, unquestioned and author-itative justification for "self defense".

In the months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, both in speeches by President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, as well as in the news, WMD statements were carefully blended into Osama statements. UK Defense Minister Jack Straw had warned in early 2003 "that 'rogue regimes' such as Iraq were the most likely source of WMD technology for groups like Al Qaeda."(14) Also, two months before the March 2003 invasion, a presumed Al Qaeda cell "with links to Iraq" had been discovered in Edinburgh, allegedly involved in the use of biological weapons against people in the UK.

The hidden agenda of "the links to Iraq" statement is blatantly obvious. Its objective was to discredit Iraq in the months leading up to the war: the so-called "State sponsors of terror" are said to support Osama bin Laden. Conversely, Osama is said to collaborate with Iraq in the use of "weapons of mass destruction".

Prior to the 2003 invasion as well as in its wake, several thousand news reports had woven an "Osama connection" into the WMD stories.

The WMD pretext for waging the war was finally dismissed, shortly before Bush's Second Term inauguration in January 2005, by which time the justification for having waged the war on Iraq was no longer considered an issue. The media spin behind WMD was never questioned, to the extent that the elimination of WMD is still regarded by public opinion as a central objective of US for-eign policy.

-----

TEXT BOX 11.2

The Secret Crawford-Iraq Memo from British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to Prime Minister Tony Blair

SECRET AND PERSONAL PM/02/019/PRIME MINISTER CRAWFORD/IRAQ

If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq. In addi-tion, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [Osama bin Laden] and Al Qaida. Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. What has however changed is the tolerance of the international commu-nity (especially that of the US), the world having witnessed on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate.

(Jack Straw) Foreign and Commonwealth Office, March 2002

Excerpt of Secret-Personal Memo to Prime Minister Tony Blair from British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, The "Secret and Personal" Crawford-Iraq Memo, 25 March 2002.

-----

While Iraq was the main target of the propaganda campaign, North Korea was also described, without a shred of evidence, as possibly having links to Al Qaeda:

Skeptics will argue that the inconsistencies don't prove the Iraqis have continued developing weapons of mass destruction. It also leaves Washington casting about for other damning material and charges, including the midweek claim, again unproved, that Islamic extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda took possession of a chemical weapon in Iraq last November or late October.(15)

North Korea has admitted it lied about that and is brazenly crank-ing up its nuclear program again. Iraq has almost certainly lied about it, but won't admit it. Meanwhile Al Qaeda, although dispersed, remains a shadowy, threatening force, and along with other terror-ist groups, a potential recipient of the deadly weaponry that could emerge from Iraq and North Korea.(16)

Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair listed Iraq, North Korea, the Middle East and Al Qaeda among "difficult and dangerous" problems Britain faced in the coming year.(17)

The WMD-Osama statements were used profusely by the main-stream media. In the wake of 9/11, these stylized statements had become an integral part of day to day political discourse, perme-ating the workings of international diplomacy and the functioning of the United Nations.

Secretary of State Colin Powell underscored this relationship in his presentation to the Davos World Economic Forum, barely two months before the invasion as well as in his historic February 5, 2003 speech at the UN Security Council:

Evidence that is still tightly held is accumulating within the admin-istration that it is not a matter of chance that terror groups in the Al Qaeda universe have made their weapons of choice the poisons, gases and chemical devices that are signature arms of the Iraqi
regime.(18)

Meanwhile,"anti-terrorist operations" directed against Muslims, including arbitrary mass arrests, had been stepped up:

The US and Western interests in the Western world have to be pre-pared for retaliatory attacks from sleeper cells the second we launch an attack in Iraq.(19)

The Smallpox Vaccination Program

In the context of these emergency measures, preparations for compulsory smallpox vaccination were initiated in 2003 in response to a presumed threat of a biological weapons attack on US soil. The vaccination program-which had been the object of intense media propaganda-contributed to creating an atmosphere of insecurity:

A few infected individuals with a stack of plane tickets-or bus tick-ets, for that matter-could spread smallpox infection across the country, touching off a plague of large proportions.... It is not incon-ceivable that a North Korea or an Iraq could retain smallpox in a hidden lab and pass the deadly agent on to terrorists.(20)

The hidden agenda was clear. How best to discredit the anti-war movement and maintain the legitimacy of the State? Create conditions which instill fear and hatred, present the rulers as "guardians of the peace" committed to weeding out terrorism and preserving democracy. In the words of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, echoing almost verbatim the US propaganda dispatches:

I believe it is inevitable that they [the terrorists] will try in some form or other [to wage attacks].... I think we can see evidence from the recent arrests that the terrorist network is here as it is around the rest of Europe, around the rest of the world…. The most frightening thing about these people is the possible coming together of fanati-cism and the technology capable of delivering mass destruction.(21)

Mass Arrests

The mass arrests of Muslims and Arabs on trumped up charges since September 11, 2001 is not motivated by security considerations. Their main function is to provide "credibility" to the fear and prop-aganda campaign.

Each arrest, amply publicized by the corporate media and repeated day after day, "gives a face" to this illusive enemy. It also serves to obscure the fact that Al Qaeda is a creature of the CIA. In other words, the propaganda campaign performs two important functions.
First, it must ensure that the enemy is considered a "real threat".

Second, it must distort the truth-i.e., it must conceal "the rela-tionship" between this fabricated enemy and its creators within the military-intelligence apparatus. The nature and history of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda and the Islamic brigades since the Soviet-Afghan war must be suppressed or distorted.

"Possible" or "Future" Terrorist Attacks based on "Reliable Sources"

The propaganda campaign exhibits a consistent pattern. The objec-tive is to instill credibility and legitimacy focusing on supposedly "reliable sources" of information.

The same concepts appear simultaneously in hundreds of media reports:

- These concepts refer to "reliable sources" , a "growing body of evi-dence"-e.g., government or intelligence or FBI.

- They invariably indicate that the terrorist groups involved "have ties to bin Laden" or Al Qaeda, or are "sympathetic to bin Laden",

- The reports often point to the possibility of terrorist attacks, "sooner or later" or "in the next two months" .

- The reports often raise the issue of so-called "soft targets", point-ing to the likelihood of civilian casualties.

- They indicate that future terrorist attacks could "take place in a number of allied countries" (including Britain, France, Germany in which public opinion is strongly opposed to the US-led war on terrorism).

- They confirm the need by the US and its allies to initiate "pre-emptive" actions directed against these various terrorist organi-zations and/or the foreign governments which harbor the terrorists.

- They often point to the likelihood that these "terrorist groups possess WMD" including biological and chemical weapons (as well as nuclear weapons). The links to Iraq and "rogue states" are also mentioned.

- The reports also include warnings regarding "attacks on US soil", "attacks against civilians in Western cities".

- They point to efforts undertaken by the police authorities to apprehend the alleged terrorists.

- The arrested individuals are in virtually all cases Muslims and/or Arabs.

- The reports are also used to justify the Homeland Security leg-islation as well as the "ethnic profiling" and mass arrests of pre-sumed terrorists.

"Sooner or Later"

This pattern of disinformation in the Western media applies the usual catch phrases. (In the press excerpts below, catch phrases are in italics):

Published reports, along with new information obtained from US intelligence and military sources, point to a growing body of evidence that terrorists associated with and/or sympathetic to Osama bin Laden are planning a significant attack on US soil.

Also targeted are allied countries that have joined the worldwide hunt for the radical Muslim cells hell-bent on unleashing new waves of terrorist strikes.... The US Government's activation of antiterrorist forces comes as the FBI issued a warning Nov. 14 that a "spectacu-lar" new terrorist attack may be forthcoming-sooner rather than later....

Elsewhere, the Australian government issued an unprecedented warning to its citizens that Al Qaeda terrorists there might launch attacks within the next two months.(22)

Although [former] CIA Director George Tenet said in recent con-gressional testimony that "an attempt to conduct another attack on US soil is certain," a trio of former senior CIA officials doubted the chance of any "spectacular" terror attacks on US soil.(23)

Germans have been skittish since the terrorist attacks in the United States, fearing that their country is a ripe target for terrorism. Several of the hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks plotted their moves in Hamburg.(24)

On Dec. 18 [2002], a senior government official, speaking on con-dition of anonymity, briefed journalists about the 'high probability'of a terrorist attack happening "sooner or later".... [H]e named hotels and shopping centres as potential "soft targets".... The official also specifically mentioned: a possible chemical attack in the London sub-way, the unleashing of smallpox, the poisoning of the water supply and strikes against "postcard targets" such as Big Ben and Canary Warf .

The "sooner or later" alert followed a Home Office warning at the end of November that said Islamic radicals might use dirty bombs or poison gas to inflict huge casualties on British cities. This also made big headlines but the warning was quickly retracted in fear that it would cause public panic(.25)

The message yesterday was that these terrorists, however obscure, are trying-and, sooner or later, may break through London's defenses. It is a city where tens of thousands of souls [live].... Experts have repeatedly said that the UK, with its bullish support for the US and its war on terror, is a genuine and realistic target for terror groups, including the Al Qaeda network led by 11 September mastermind Osama bin Laden.(26)

Quoting Margaret Thatcher: "Only America has the reach and means to deal with Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein or the other wicked psychopaths who will sooner or later step into their shoes."(27)

According to a recent US State Department alert: "Increased secu-rity at official US facilities has led terrorists to seek softer targets such as residential areas, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, hotels, schools, outdoor recreation events, resorts, beaches and planes." (28)

Actual Terrorist Attacks

To be effective, the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated warnings of future attacks. It requires a credible system of terror alerts, actual arrests of alleged terror sus-pects (on trumped up charges) as well as "real" terrorist occur-rences or "incidents", which provide credibility to the "war on terrorism".

Propaganda endorses the need to implement "emergency measures" as well as implement retaliatory military actions. The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon's assumptions. (See Chapter XIX.)

Notes:

1. Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002.

2. Air Force Magazine, January 2003, emphasis added.

3. Adubato, op. cit. emphasis added.

4. Ibid, emphasis added.

5. Quoted in Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Secrecy News, 27 November 2002 http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/11/112702.html, Rumsfeld's November 2002 press interview can be consulted at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html.

6. New York Times, 16 December 2002.

7. Sunday Times, London, 5 January 2003.

8. See US State Department at http://www.state.gov/r/

9. Ros Davidson, "Stars earn their Stripes", The Sunday Herald (Scotland), 11 November 2001.

10. See Samuel Blumenfeld, "Le Pentagone et la CIA enrôlent Hollywood", Le Monde, 24 July 2002.

11. Chaim Kupferberg,"The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11", Centre for Research on Globalization, June 2002, p.19, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ KUP206A.html

12. Remarks by President Bush in Trenton, New Jersey, Welcome Army National Guard Aviation Support Facility, Trenton, New Jersey, 23 September 2002.

13. National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/ nsc/nss.html

14. Agence France Presse (AFP), 7 January 2003.

15. Insight on the News, 20 January 2003.

16. Christian Science Monitor, 8 January 2003.

17. Agence France Presse (AFP), 1 January 2003.

18. The Washington Post, 25 January 2003.

19. Ibid.

20. Chicago Sun, 31 December 2002.

22. Insight on the News, 3 February 2003.

23. United Press International (UPI), 19 December 2002.

24. New York Times, 6 January 2003.

25. Toronto Star, 5 January 2003.

26. The Scotsman, 8 January 2003.

27. United Press International (UPI), 10 December 2002.

28. States News Service, State Department Advisory, similar texts published on several dates, 2002-2005.

Doctoring Official Transcripts

2008-10-12T19:07:00.000-07:00

Appendix to Chapter 10

Excerpts from the transcripts of Dr. Condoleezza Rice's press conference of May 16, 2002

Below are excerpts from the transcripts of the same Condoleezza Rice press conference from CNN, the White House (FDCH) and Federal News Service. The latter is the source quoted in Chapter X. The other two sources (CNN and the White House) were manipulated.

CNN SHOW: "Inside Politics" 16:00, May 16, 2002 Transcript # 051600CN.V15:

QUESTION: Are you aware of the reports at the time that (inaudible) was in Washington on September 11. And on September 10, $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And while he was here, was he meeting with you or anybody in the administration?

RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.

FDCH Federal Department and Agency Documents, May 16, 2002, Agency, White House:

QUESTION: Dr. Rice, are you aware of the reports at the time that (inaudible) was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $100,000 was wired to Pakistan to this group here in this area? And while he was here was he meeting with you or anybody in the administration?

DR. RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.

Federal News Service, May 16, 2002, Special White House Briefing:

QUESTION: Are you aware of the reports at the time that the ISI chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And why he was here? Was he meeting with you or anybody in the administration?
MS. RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.

Notice the difference between the three transcripts. Both the White House and CNN exclude the identity of the "ISI chief" to the extent that the transcripts are totally unintelligible.

Political Deception: The Missing Link Behind 9/11

2008-10-09T19:07:00.000-07:00

Chapter 10

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

On May 16th 2002, The New York Post dropped what appeared to be a bombshell: "Bush Knew." Hoping to score politically, the Democrats jumped on the bandwagon, pressuring the White House to come clean on two "top-secret documents" made available to President Bush prior to September 11, concerning "advance knowledge" of Al Qaeda attacks. Meanwhile, the US media had already coined a new set of buzzwords: "Yes, there were warnings" and "clues" of possible terrorist attacks, but "there was no way President Bush could have known" what was going to happen. The Democrats agreed to "keep the cat in the bag" by saying: "Osama is at war with the US"and the FBI and the CIA knew something was cooking but "failed to connect the dots". In the words of House Minority Leader, Richard Gephardt:

This is not blame-placing.... We support the President on the war against terrorism-have and will. But we've got to do better in preventing terrorist attacks.(1)

The media's spotlight on "foreknowledge" and "FBI lapses" served to distract public attention from the broader issue of political deception. Not a word was mentioned concerning the role of the CIA, which throughout the entire post-Cold War era, has aided and abetted Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda as part of its covert operations.

Of course they knew! The foreknowledge issue is a red herring. The "Islamic Militant Network" is a creation of the CIA. (See Chapter 2.) In standard CIA jargon, Al Qaeda is categorized as an "intelligence asset". Support to terrorist organizations is an integral part of US foreign policy. Al Qaeda continues to participate in CIA covert operations in different parts of the world. (See Chapter 4.)

While individual FBI agents are often unaware of the CIA's role, the relationship between the CIA and Al Qaeda is known at the top levels of the FBI. Members of the Bush administration and the US Congress are fully cognizant of these links.

The foreknowledge issue, focussing on "FBI lapses", is an obvious smokescreen. While the whistleblowers serve to underscore the weaknesses of the FBI, the role of successive US Administrations (since the presidency of Jimmy Carter), in supporting the "Islamic Militant Base", is simply not mentioned.

Fear and Disinformation Campaign

The Bush administration-through the personal initiative of Vice President Dick Cheney-chose not only to foreclose the possibility of a public inquiry, but also to trigger a fear and disinformation campaign:

I think that the prospects of a future attack on the US are almost a certainty.... It could happen tomorrow, it could happen next week, it could happen next year, but they will keep trying. And we have to be prepared.(2)

What Cheney is really telling us is that our "intelligence asset", which we created, is going to strike again. Now, if this "CIA creature" were planning new terrorist attacks, you would expect that the CIA would be first to know about it. In all likelihood, the CIA also controls the "warnings" emanating from CIA sources on "future terrorist attacks" on American soil.

Carefully Planned Intelligence Operation

The 9/11 terrorists did not act on their own volition. The suicide hijackers were instruments in a carefully planned intelligence operation. The evidence confirms that Al Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's ISI. Amply documented, the ISI owes its existence to the CIA. (See Chapter 3.)

The Missing Link

The FBI confirmed in late September 2001, in an interview with ABC News, that the 9/11 ringleader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from unnamed sources in Pakistan. The FBI had information on the money trail. They knew exactly who was financing the terrorists. Less than two weeks later, the findings of the FBI were confirmed by Agence France Presse (AFP) and the Times of India, quoting an official Indian intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington). As mentioned in Chapter IV, according to these two reports, the money used to finance the 9/11 attacks had allegedly been "wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of [ISI Chief] General Mahmoud [Ahmad]".3 According to the AFP (quoting the intelligence source):

The evidence we have supplied to the US is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism.(4)

Pakistan's Chief Spy Visits Washington

Now, it just so happens that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money man" behind 9/11, was in the US when the attacks occurred. (See Chapter IV.) He arrived on the 4th of September, one week before 9/11, on what was described as a routine visit of consultations with his US counterparts. According to Pakistani journalist Amir Mateen (in a prophetic article published on September 10):

ISI Chief Lt-Gen. Mahmoud's week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. Officially, he is on a routine visit in return for CIA Director George Tenet's earlier visit to Islamabad. Official sources confirm that he met Tenet this week. He also held long parleys with unspecified officials at the White House and the Pentagon. But the most important meeting was with Marc Grossman, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. One can safely guess that the discussions must have centred around Afghanistan... and Osama bin Laden. What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmoud's predecessor, was here, during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days.(5)

Nawaz Sharif was overthrown by General Pervez Musharaf. General Mahmoud Ahmad, who became the head of the ISI, played a key role in the military coup.

Condoleezza Rice's Press Conference

In the course of Condoleezza Rice's May 16, 2002 press conference (which took place barely a few hours after the publication of the "Bush Knew" headlines in The New York Post), an accredited Indian journalist asked a question on the role of General Mahmoud Ahmad:

Q: Dr. Rice?

Ms RICE: Yes?

Q: Are you aware of the reports at the time that the ISI chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And why was he here? Was he meeting with you or anybody in the Administration?

Ms RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.(6)

Although there is no official confirmation, in all likelihood General Mahmoud Ahmad met Dr. Rice during the course of his official visit. Moreover, she must have been fully aware of the $100,000 transfer to Mohammed Atta, which had been confirmed by the FBI.

Lost in the barrage of media reports on "foreknowledge", this crucial piece of information on the ISI's role in 9/11 implicates key members of the Bush administration including: CIA Director George Tenet, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Under-Secretary of State Marc Grossman, as well as Senator Joseph Biden (Democrat), Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee (who met General Ahmad on the 13th of September). "According to Biden, [Ahmad] pledged Pakistan's cooperation."(7) (See Text box 10.1.)

Mysterious 9/11 Breakfast Meeting on Capitol Hill

On the morning of September 11, General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" behind the 9/11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham (Democrat) and Representative Porter Goss, Chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees respectively. Also present at this meeting was Pakistan's ambassador to the US Maleeha Lodhi. The report confirms that other members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees were present.

When the news [of the attacks on the World Trade Center] came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss'staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. "We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan," Graham said.

Mahmoud Ahmed, director general of Pakistan's intelligence service, was "very empathetic, sympathetic to the people of the United States," Graham said.

Goss could not be reached Tuesday. He was whisked away with much of the House leadership to an undisclosed "secure location". Graham, meanwhile, participated in late-afternoon briefings with top officials from the CIA and FBI.(8)

-----

TEXT BOX 10.1

General Mahmoud Ahmad and the Bush Administration

Confirmed by official sources (quoted by the mainstream media) Pakistan's chief spy General Mahmoud Ahmad met the following members of the Bush administration and the US Congress, during his visit to D.C. (4 to 13 September 2001):

- Secretary of State Colin Powell (12-13 September);
- Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (13 September);
- Under-Secretary of State Marc Grossman (before 11 September);
- CIA Director George Tenet (before 11 September);
- Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee (11 September);
- Senator John Kyl, member of the Senate Intelligence Committee (11 September);
- Representative Porter Goss, Chairman of the House Intelli-gence Committee (11 September);
- Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee (13 September).

-----

While trivializing the importance of the 9/11 breakfast meeting, the Miami Herald (16 September 2001) confirms that General Ahmad also met with Secretary of State Colin Powell in the wake of the 9/11 attacks:

Graham said the Pakistani intelligence official with whom he met, a top general in the government, was forced to stay all week in Washington because of the shutdown of air traffic."He was marooned here, and I think that gave Secretary of State Powell and others in the administration a chance to really talk with him," Graham said.(9)

With the exception of the Florida press (and Salon.com, 14 September 2001), not a word was mentioned in the US media's September coverage of 9/11 concerning this mysterious breakfast meeting.

Eight months later, on the 18th of May 2002, two days after the "Bush Knew" headline hit the tabloids, the Washington Post published an article on Porter Goss, entitled: "A Cloak But No Dagger; An Ex-Spy Says He Seeks Solutions, Not Scapegoats for 9/11."

Focussing on his career as a CIA agent, the article largely served to underscore the integrity and commitment of Porter Goss to waging a "war on terrorism". Yet in an isolated paragraph, the article acknowledged the mysterious 9/11 breakfast meeting with ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, while also confirming that "Ahmad ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban":

Now the main question facing Goss, as he helps steer a joint House-Senate investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, is why nobody in the far-flung intelligence bureaucracy-13 agencies spending billions of dollars-paid attention to the enemy among us. Until it was too late.

Goss says he is looking for solutions, not scapegoats. "A lot of nonsense," he calls this week's uproar about a CIA briefing that alerted President Bush, five weeks before Sept. 11, that Osama bin Laden's associates might be planning airline hijackings.

None of this is news, but it's all part of the finger-pointing," Goss declared yesterday in a rare display of pique. "It's foolishness." [This statement comes from the man who was having breakfast with the alleged "money-man" behind 9/11 on the morning of September 11.]...

Goss has repeatedly refused to blame an "intelligence failure" for the terror attacks. As a 10-year veteran of the CIA's clandestine operations wing, Goss prefers to praise the agency's "fine work"....

On the morning of Sept. 11, Goss and Graham were having breakfast with a Pakistani general named Mahmud Ahmad-the soon-to-be-sacked head of Pakistan's intelligence service. Ahmad ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.(10)

While The Washington Post acknowledges the links between ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad and Osama bin Laden, it failed to dwell on the more important question: What were Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham and other members of the Senate and House intelligence committees doing, together with the alleged money-man behind 9/11, at breakfast on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11?

Neither does it acknowledge the fact, amply documented by media reports, that "the money-man" behind the hijackers had been entrusted by the Pakistani government to discuss the precise terms of Pakistan's "collaboration" in the "war on terrorism" in meetings held at the State department on the 12th and 13th of September 2001.

When the "foreknowledge" issue hit the street on May 16, 2002, "Chairman Porter Goss said an existing congressional inquiry has so far found 'no smoking gun' that would warrant another inquiry."(11) This statement points to an obvious "cover-up".

The Investigation and Public Hearings on 'Intelligence Failures'

In a piece of bitter irony, Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham-the men who hosted the mysterious September 11 breakfast meeting with the alleged "hijackers'high commander" (to use the FBI's expression)-had been put in charge of the investigation and public hearings on "intelligence failures".

Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney had expressed anger on a "leak" emanating from the intelligence committees regarding "the disclosure of National Security Agency intercepts of messages in Arabic on the eve of the attacks. The messages... were in two separate conversations on Sept. 10 and contained the phrases 'Tomorrow is zero hour'and 'The match is about to begin.'The messages were not translated until September 12."(12)

Red Carpet Treatment for the Alleged "Money Man" behind 9/11

The Bush administration had not only provided red carpet treatment for the alleged "money man" behind the 9/11 attacks, it had also sought his "cooperation" in the "war on terrorism". The precise terms of this "cooperation" were agreed upon between General Mahmoud Ahmad, representing the Pakistani government, and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in meetings at the State Department on September 12 and 13. In other words, the Administration decided in the immediate wake of 9/11 to seek the "cooperation" of Pakistan's ISI in "going after Osama", despite the fact (documented by the FBI) that the ISI was financing and abetting the 9/11 terrorists. Contradictory? One might say that it's like asking the Devil to go after Dracula.

The CIA Overshadows the Presidency

Dr. Rice's statement regarding the ISI chief at her May 16 2002 press conference is an obvious cover-up.

While General Ahmad was talking to US officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, he had allegedly also been in contact (through a third party) with the September 11 terrorists.

But this conclusion is, in fact, the tip of the iceberg. Everything indicates that CIA Director George Tenet and ISI Chief General Mahmoud Ahmad had established a close personal working relationship. As mentioned in Chapter 4, General Mahmoud had arrived a week prior to September 11 for consultations with George Tenet.

Bear in mind that the CIA's George Tenet also has a close personal relationship with President Bush. Prior to September 11, Tenet would meet the President nearly every morning, at 8:00 a.m. sharp, for about half an hour.(13)

A document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, or PDB, "is prepared at Langley by the CIA's analytical directorate, and a draft goes home with Tenet each night. Tenet edits it personally and delivers it orally during his early morning meeting with Bush."(14) This practice of "oral intelligence briefings" is unprecedented. Bush's predecessors at the White House received a written briefing:

With Bush, who liked oral briefings and the CIA director in attendance, a strong relationship had developed. Tenet could be direct, even irreverent and earthy.(15)

The Decision to Go To War

At meetings of the National Security Council and in the "War Cabinet" on September 11, 12 and 13, CIA Director George Tenet played a central role in gaining the Commander-in-Chief's approval to the launching of the "war on terrorism".

George W. Bush's Timeline-September 11 (from 9:45 a.m. in the wake of the WTC-Pentagon Attacks to midnight):

Circa 9:45 a.m: Bush's motorcade leaves the Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida.

9:55 a.m: President Bush boards "Air Force One" bound for Washington.(16) Following what was noted as a "false report" that Air Force One would be attacked,Vice-President Dick Cheney had urged Bush (10:32 a.m.) by telephone not to land in Washington. Following this conversation, the plane was diverted (10:41 a.m.) (on orders emanating from Washington) to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. A couple of hours later (1:30 p.m.), after a brief TV appearance, the President was transported to Offut Air Force base in Nebraska at US Strategic Command Headquarters.

3:30 p.m: A key meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) was convened, with members of the NSC communicating with the President from Washington by secure video.(17) In the course of this NSC video-conference, CIA Director George Tenet fed unconfirmed information to the President. Tenet stated that "he was virtually certain that bin Laden and his network were behind the attacks...."(18)

The President responded to these statements, quite spontaneously, off the cuff, with little or no discussion and with an apparent misunderstanding of their implications. In the course of this video-conference (which lasted for less than an hour), the NSC was given the mandate by the Commander-in-Chief to prepare for the "war on terrorism".Very much on the spur of the moment, the "green light" was given by video conference from Nebraska. In the words of President Bush: "We will find these people. They will pay. And I don't want you to have any doubt about it."(19)

4:36 p.m: (One hour and six minutes later... Air Force One departed for Washington. Back in the White House that same evening (9:00 p.m.) a second meeting of the full NSC took place together with Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had returned to Washington from Peru. The NSC meeting (which lasted for half an hour) was followed by the first meeting of the "war cabinet". The latter was made up of a smaller group of top officials and key advisers.

9:30 p.m: At the war cabinet: "Discussion turned around whether bin Laden's Al Qaeda and the Taliban were one and the same thing. Tenet said they were."(20) By the end of that historic meeting of the war cabinet (11:00 p.m.), the Bush administration had decided to embark upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Did Bush Know?

Did Bush, with his minimal understanding of foreign policy issues, know all the details regarding General Mahmoud and the "ISI connection"? Did Tenet and Cheney distort the facts, so as to get the Commander-in-Chief's "thumbs up" for a military operation which was already in the pipeline?

Notes:

1. Quoted in AFP, 18 May 2002.

2. Fox News, 18 May 2002.

3. The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001.

4. AFP, 10 October 2001.

5. Amir Mateen, "ISI Chief's Parleys continue in Washington", News Pakistan, 10 September 2001.

6. Federal News Service, 16 May 2002. Note that in the White House and CNN transcripts of Dr. Rice's press conference, the words "ISI chief" were transcribed respectively by a blank "-" and "(inaudible)". Federal News Service Inc. which is a transcription Service of official documents provided a correct transcription, with a minor error in punctuation, which we corrected. The White House transcript is at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html. All three transcripts were verified by the author and are available on Nexus. Federal News Service documents are also available for a fee at http://www.fnsg.com/ For details on the transcripts, see Appendix.

7. New York Times, 14 September 2002.

8. Stuart News Company Press Journal (Vero Beach, FL), September 12, 2001).

9. Miami Herald, 16 September 2001.

10. Washington Post, 18 May 2002.

11. White House Bulletin, 17 May 2002.

12. Miami Herald, 21 June 2002.

13. The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, 17 May 2002.

14. Washington Post, 17 May 2002.

15. Washington Post, 29 January 2002.

16. Washington Post, 27 January 2002.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

Disarming the New World Order

2008-10-06T19:06:00.000-07:00

Chapter 9

The "war on terrorism" is a lie. Amply documented, the pretext to wage this war is totally fabricated.

Realities have been turned upside down.

Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards restoring "democracy". Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping operations". The derogation of civil liberties-by imposing the "anti-terrorist legislation"-is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.

Meanwhile, expenditures on health and education are curtailed to finance the military-industrial complex and the police state.

Under the American Empire, millions of people around the world are being driven into abysmal poverty, and countries are being transformed into open territories.

US protectorates are installed with the blessing of the "international community". "Interim governments" are formed. Political puppets designated by America's oil giants are casually endorsed by the United Nations, which increasingly performs the role of a rubber-stamp for the US Administration.

When viewed historically,"September 11" is the biggest fraud in American history.

Totalitarian State

We are fast moving towards a totalitarian system in which the institutions of war, police repression and economic policy (i.e.,"strong economic medicine") interface with one another. This system relies on the manipulation of public opinion. The "fabricated realities" of the Bush administration must become indelible truths, which form part of a broad political and media consensus. In this regard, the corporate media is an instrument of this totalitarian system. It has carefully excluded, from the outset, any real understanding of the September 11 crisis.

Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of September 11. While the Bush administration implements a "war on terrorism", the evidence (including mountains of official documents) amply confirms that successive US Administrations have supported, abetted and harbored international terrorism.

This fact, in itself, must be suppressed because if it ever trickles down to the broader public, the legitimacy of the "war on terrorism" collapses "like a deck of cards". In the process, the legitimacy of the main actors behind this system is threatened, so they enact new laws to protect themselves:

We are becoming a banana republic here in the United States, with "disappeared" people, which was the phenomenon that we all saw down in Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s, with the support, by the way, of the United States Government.(1)

Disarming the New World Order

Militarization, covert intelligence operations and outright war support the extension of the "free market" economy into new frontiers. The development of America's war machine supports an unprecedented accumulation of private wealth into fewer and fewer hands, which threatens the future of humanity.

The dangers of a possible Third World War must be addressed and understood. To disarm the New World Order, the inner features of this totalitarian system must be revealed and fully understood. This understanding must not be confined to a handful of writers and critics, it must be shared by all our fellow citizens, whose lives are directly affected by the "war on terrorism".

An understanding of this system is required to develop cohesive mass movements, which will reverse the tide and prevent the onslaught of a World War.

The workings of global capitalism and of the "free market" economy are intricately tied to the corridors of power. The powers behind this system are those of the global banks and financial institutions, the military-industrial complex, the oil and energy giants, the biotech-pharmaceutical conglomerates and the powerful media and communications giants, which fabricate the news and overtly distort the course of world events.

To effectively disarm this system, it is not sufficient to call for the "democratization" of the financial system, coupled with "reforms" of global institutions (such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO and the UN). These "reforms" do not change the workings of global capitalism, nor do they in any way upset the underlying power structures. In fact, the New World Order not only allows, but actively encourages this type of cosmetic "reform", which provides the illusion that "the globalizers" are somehow committed to progressive change.

Sustaining the Illusion of Democracy

The Bush administration requires "legitimacy" in the eyes of public opinion, namely, that in launching the "war on terrorism", it is acting in the best interests of society, with the full endorsement of the American people and with the backing of the "international community".
To effectively build this "legitimacy", the Bush administration not only needs to uphold the falsehoods behind the "war on terrorism", it also needs to sustain the illusion that constitutional democracy continues to prevail.

Sustaining the "freedom and democracy rhetoric" is part of the process of building a totalitarian State. While "legitimate dissent" is encouraged, democracy requires that "civil liberties be balanced against public safety":

Our response to the threat of terrorism, in the context of systemic vulnerability, will have an impact both on the cost of providing security and on the civil liberties prized in many communities.(2)

Fabricating Dissent

To convey the illusion of democracy, "the globalizers" must "fabricate dissent". In other words, they must create, covet and finance their own political opposition. In order to appear legitimate, they must actively encourage the type of "criticism" which does not challenge "their right to rule".

This libertarian "counter-discourse"-which serves to disarm a genuine mass movement against war and globalization-constitutes part of the foundations of this evolving totalitarian system. Leaders of trade union confederations and mainstream NGOs, together with selected "academics" and critics, are invited to participate in policy formulation together with bankers, corporate executives and politicians.

The ploy is to selectively handpick civil society leaders "whom we can trust" and integrate them into a "dialogue". The idea is to cut them off from their rank and file, make them feel that they are "global citizens" acting on behalf of their fellow citizens, but make them act in a way which serves the interests of the corporate establishment:

Business, government and civil society leaders must have the creativity to forge new institutional arrangements for a more inclusive global economy.(3)

This ritual of "civil society participation" serves several important functions. In the US it requires these "progressive" leaders to accept the fundamental premise that the Bush administration is waging a campaign against international terrorism in response to the events of September 11. In the words of Edward Herman and David Peterson, "this ['leftist accommodation']...of leaning over backwards to downplay the US terrorist role, merges into a serious misreading of ongoing events".(4)

Once the fundamental premise that the US Administration is committed to curbing international terrorism is accepted, these leftist intellectuals and civil society critics are invited to express their "reservations" regarding America's conduct of the war, the impacts on civilians or their humanitarian concerns regarding the derogation of the Rule of Law.

In this ritual, the main justification for waging the war, which is a complete falsehood, is never questioned despite documented evidence that the "war on terrorism" is a fabrication. For instance, numerous NGOs have accused the Bush administration for having breached the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, yet these same organizations have failed to question the overall legitimacy of the Bush administration's "war on terrorism". While the "globalizers" are subjected to "constructive criticism", their legitimate right to rule remains unchallenged. What this "left accommodation" and "civil society mingling" does is to reinforce the clutch of the military-intelligence elites and the corporate establishment, while weakening the real protest movement.

More importantly, "left accommodation" splits up the protest movement. It divides the anti-war movement from the anti-globalization movement. It prevents the development of a broader movement against the American Empire. The large trade unions and the mainstream non-governmental organizations, by failing to denounce the falsehoods behind the "war on terrorism", have contributed unwittingly to the failure of a real opposition movement being mounted against the New World Order.

In the words of AFL-CIO president John Sweeney: "We are all angry; let our anger be directed at the real enemy. The terrorists and those who supported them must be brought to justice."(5)

Building Meaningful Mass Movements

We are at the juncture of one of the most important social struggles in world history, requiring an unprecedented degree of solidarity and commitment. America's New War, which includes the "first strike" use of nuclear weapons, threatens the future of humanity as we know it. This is by no means an overstatement.

Some people believe that this New World Order can be changed by developing "new ideas" (or "paradigms") regarding "alternative forms of economic and social organization" and that government policy will somehow adjust and encompass these new concepts. This viewpoint-which is fashionable among civil society advocates-calls for dialogue, debate and discussion with elected politicians concerning reforms and "alternatives".

More importantly, this left accommodation does not question the legitimacy of the elected politicians who have unequivocally endorsed the "war on terrorism". It often trivializes the seriousness of the post-September 11 crisis. It fails to recognize that the US is involved in a war of conquest. It does not address the relationship between the objectives of war and global capitalism. In other words, it dares not look behind the curtain to see who is really driving the hidden agenda. Nor does it address the fact that Western heads of state and heads of government, in endorsing America's war, have blatantly violated international law and are also responsible-together with the Bush administration-for crimes against humanity.

Establishing an "alternative economic and social system" through an abstract set of principles does not, in itself, address the nature of the World Order and the power structures which underlie it.

The abstract formulation of "an alternative" does not ensure that meaningful change will be forthcoming and that the workings of contemporary capitalism will be modified. These work-ings-which are the result of complex manoeuvers between the business elites and the military-intelligence establishment-cannot be undone simply by formulating a new paradigm, or by calling for a more "Just World" or by presenting demands and/or petitions to the G-7 political leaders who are, themselves, the lackeys of the New World Order.

To bring about meaningful change, the balance of power within society must be modified. The backbone of this system is militarization, which in turn endorses and enforces the capitalist market system. One cannot disarm the "invisible fist" of the "free market" without concurrently dismantling the military and intelligence apparatus which supports it. Military bases must be closed down; the war machine- including the production of advanced weapons systems-must be dismantled, implying a dramatic shift into civilian production.

Disarming the New World Order also requires a transformation of the structures of ownership, namely the disempowering of banks, financial institutions and transnational corporations, as well as a radical overhaul of the state apparatus. All these issues are complex and will require careful debate and analysis in the years ahead.

The first priority, in this regard, is to stall the privatization of collective assets, infrastructure, public utilities (including water and electricity), state institutions (such as hospitals and schools), the commons, communal lands, etc.

Yet it should be understood that this process-which in itself requires a meaningful debate on policy alternatives-cannot commence unless the falsehoods which provide "legitimacy" to war and globalization are fully revealed and understood by all.

This struggle requires breaking the legitimacy of the system and those who rule in our name. Politicians who are war criminals must be removed. The judicial system must be transformed. The banking system must be overhauled, etc. But none of this is possible as long as citizens continue to blindly uphold the neoliberal agenda.

The legitimacy of the New World Order system must be undone.

Social Movements

At the present juncture, social movements are in a state of disarray. Labour leaders and leftist politicians have been co-opted.

Against this background, the anti-globalization protest movement seems to have coalesced around the "Counter-Summit" or "People's Summit", held in parallel to various "official" venues such as the G-7, G-8 meetings, or those of the Bretton Woods institutions: namely the World Bank and IMF and also the annual World Economic Forum, usually held in Davos, Switzerland.

These international venues-while bringing together activists from around the world-tend to be dominated by a handful of intellectuals and civil society organizers which set the agenda. The same personalities travel to these various international venues which, over the years, have become heavily ritualized.

The Funding of Dissent

These international conferences and teach-ins are often financed by government grants and donations from the large private foundations (Ford Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, etc.). This "funding of dissent" plays a key role. It essentially circumscribes the boundaries of dissent. In other words, one cannot meaningfully question the legitimacy of the governments and business corporations while, at the same time, expecting them to foot the bill. The "funding of dissent" ensures that these organizations will criticize the system without going against their government and corporate sponsors. In other words, they will not take a lead in the development of a meaningful mass movement.

Many of the organizations involved have, in the process, become "lobbyists", often funded by governments or intergovernmental organizations. Demands, petitions and declarations are formulated to little avail, largely with respect to issues of debt cancellation, environmental standards and macro-economic reform, etc.

The Ritual of the Counter-Summit

The organization of international counter-summits cannot constitute the basis of this struggle. To effectively "disarm the American Empire", we must move to a higher plane by launching mass movements in our respective countries, grassroots movements-integrated nationally and internationally-which reveal the hidden face of the New World Order and bring the message of what globalization and militarization are doing to ordinary people. Ultimately, these are the grassroots forces which must be mobilized to challenge those who threaten our collective future.

Existing mass organizations such as trade unions and non-governmental organizations, whose leaders have visibly been co-opted, must be "democratized" and reappropriated by their grass-roots. In other words, these organizations must be rebuilt from within.

This process should take place in all sectors of organized labour (industrial workers, farmers, teachers, public sector employees, professionals, etc.), eventually leading to the transformation of the national and international labour confederations. In other words, within these various organizations, leadership structures must be democratized, while setting an agenda of struggle and resistance against war and globalization.

Other sectors of society, including small and medium-sized businesses and independent producers, whose existence is threatened by the global corporations, must also address these issues within their respective organizations.

Of critical importance, this democratization process must also proceed from within the security, police and military forces with a view to effectively disarming the Empire's repressive apparatus. To succeed, dissident voices within the military, intelligence and police sectors must be fully integrated into the broader struggle.

Grass Roots Organizations

Concurrently, what is also required in each of our countries is the formation of a powerful network of local level councils in neighborhoods, work places, schools, universities, etc. which integrate millions of citizens. These national networks would in turn be integrated into a broad international movement.

The first priority for these grass-roots councils would be to break the legitimacy of global capitalism by informing, educating and sensitizing fellow citizens regarding the nature of the New World Order-i.e., uncovering the falsehoods and media lies, taking a firm position against the "war on terrorism", establishing the links between globalization and militarization, debating the concrete impacts of deadly macroeconomic reforms, etc.

The councils and their respective networks, operating nationally and internationally, would eventually become increasingly politicized, constituting the basis for organized resistance and transformation. In turn, the councils could develop, under certain circumstances, into a de facto system of parallel government.

The struggle must be broad-based and democratic, encompassing all sectors of society at all levels, in all countries, uniting in a major thrust: workers, farmers, independent producers, small businesses, professionals, artists, civil servants, members of the clergy, students and intellectuals.

The anti-war, anti-globalization, environmentalist, civil rights and anti-racism coalitions must unite. "Single issue" groups must join hands in a common understanding on how the New World Order is threatening our collective future on this planet.

This global struggle directed against the American Empire is fundamental, requiring a degree of solidarity and internationalism unprecedented in world history.

The global economic system feeds on social divisiveness between and within countries. Unity of purpose and worldwide coordination among diverse groups and social movements is crucial. A major thrust is required which brings together social movements in all major regions of the world, in common pursuit of and commitment to the elimination of poverty and a lasting world peace.

Notes:

1. Christopher Bollyn,"In the Name of Security, Thousands Denied Constitutional Rights", American Free Press, 29 November 2001.

2. 2002 World Economic Forum, http://www.weforum.org/.

3. In the words of Ed Mayo, Executive Director of the New Economics Foundation at the 2002 New York World Economic Forum, at http://www.weforum.org, February 2002.

4. Edward Herman and David Peterson,"Who Terrorizes Whom", Global Outlook, No. 1, Spring 2002, p. 47.

5. Statement by John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO, 14 September 2001, http://www.aflcio.org/publ/press2001/pr0916.htm.

The American Empire

2008-10-03T19:06:00.000-07:00

Chapter 8

We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. (David Rockefeller, Statement to the United Nations
Business Council, 1994)

War Without Borders

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the world is at an important crossroads in its history. The "campaign against terrorism" constitutes a "war of conquest" with devastating consequences for the future of humanity.

America's New War is not confined to Central Asia. Using the "war on terrorism" as a pretext, the Bush administration had announced already in 2001, the extension of US military operations into new frontiers, including Iraq, Iran and North Korea. While accusing these countries of developing "weapons of mass destruction", Washington has not excluded itself from using nuclear weapons as part of the "war on terrorism".

Moreover, Israel, which now possesses an arsenal of at least 200 thermonuclear weapons with a sophisticated delivery system, "has made countless veiled nuclear threats against the Arab nations".(1)

The ongoing war waged by Israel against the Palestinian people is part and parcel of America's New War strategy. The 2003 invasion of Iraq could trigger a broader war throughout the Middle
East in which Israel would be aligned with the Anglo-American military axis.

In 2001, military planners at the Pentagon had drawn up a "blueprint for a two-pronged invasion of Iraq involving up to 100,000 US troops".(2) Gun boats were on standby in the Gulf of Oman. "Military contingency plans [were] being refined for Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Indonesia and Yemen. ...Special forces and US intelligence agencies are active overtly and covertly in all of these countries with local militias or militaries."(3) Meanwhile, Britain had been asked by the US "to help prepare military strikes against Somalia in the next phase of the global campaign against Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda".(4)

The War on Afghanistan was Illegal

In launching the war on Afghanistan in October 2001, the Bush administration-with the full support and military backing of Britain, and with the prior consent of member governments of the Western military alliance-is in blatant violation of international law:

This war is illegal because it is a flagrant violation of the express words of the Charter of the United Nations....In fact, it is not only illegal, it's criminal. It is what the Nuremberg Tribunal called "the supreme crime", the crime against peace.(5)

In turn, these same political leaders, responsible for thousands of civilian deaths in Afghanistan, have launched a process within their respective countries, which recasts-in the framework of the "anti-terrorist legislation"-the legal definition of "terrorism" and "war crimes".

In other words, the actual protagonists of state terrorism-namely, our elected politicians-can now arbitrarily decide, through their "legally constituted" secret tribunals,"who are the war criminals" and "who are the terrorists". Ironically, the "elite war criminals"-using the powers of high office-decide who can be prosecuted. Moreover, by derogating the Rule of Law and setting up kangaroo courts, their own "hands are clean"-i.e., they will not be prosecuted on charges of war crimes: they cannot be blamed since these military tribunals will ultimately decide if an accused person should be executed.

The American Empire

The onslaught of the US-led war also coincides with a worldwide depression, leading to the impoverishment of millions of people. While the civilian economy plummets, extensive financial resources are funneled towards America's war machine. The most advanced weapons systems are being developed by America's military-industrial complex with a view to achieving a position of global military and economic dominance, not only in relation to China and Russia, but also in relation to the European Union, which Washington considers as an encroachment upon America's global hegemony.

Behind America's "war on terrorism" is the militarization of vast regions of the world, leading to the consolidation of what is best described as the "American Empire". Since the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, an Anglo-American military axis has developed, based on a close coordination between Britain and the US in defense, foreign policy and intelligence. Israel is the launch pad of the Anglo-American axis in the Middle East. The objective behind this war is to "re-colonize" not only China and the countries of the former Soviet block, but also Iran, Iraq and the Indian peninsula.

War and globalization go hand in hand. The powers of the Wall Street financial establishment, the Anglo-American oil giants and the US-U.K. defense contractors are undeniably behind this process, which consists in extending the frontiers of the global market system. Ultimately, the purpose of "America's New War" is to transform sovereign nations into open territories (or "free trade areas"), both through "military means", as well as through the imposition of deadly "free market" reforms.

Defined under Washington's 1999 SRS, America's war is intent upon destroying an entire region, which, in the course of history, was the cradle of ancient civilizations linking Western Europe to the Far East. In turn, covert support to Islamic insurgencies (channeled by the CIA through Pakistan's ISI) in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, China and India has been used by Washington as an instrument of conquest-ie. by deliberately destabilizing national societies and fostering ethnic and social divisions.

More generally, war and "free market" reforms destroy civilization by forcing national societies into abysmal poverty.

America's NATO Partners

While significant divisions have emerged within the Western military alliance, America's NATO partners including Germany, France and Italy, have nonetheless endorsed the 2001 US-U.K.-led military operation into Afghanistan. Despite their differences, Europe and America appear to be united in the planned "re-colonization" and "partition" of a broad geographic area extending from Eastern Europe and the Balkans to China's Western frontier.

Within this broad region,"spheres of influence" have nonetheless been agreed upon largely between Germany and America. This "partition" must be understood in historical terms. It is, in some regards, similar to the agreement reached between the European powers at the Berlin Conference pertaining to the partition and territorial conquest of Africa in the late 19th century. Similarly, colonial policy in China's treaty ports in the years leading up to the First World War was carefully coordinated and agreed upon by the same imperialist powers.

The Military-Intelligence Apparatus

While civilian state institutions increasingly assume the role of a façade, elected politicians in most Western "democracies" (including the US, Britain and Canada) increasingly play a nominal role in decision-making. Under this evolving totalitarian system, the institutions of civilian government are being superseded by the military-intelligence-police apparatus (see Chapter XXI). In the US, the CIA has come to play the role of a de facto "parallel government" in charge of formulating and implementing US foreign policy.

Moreover, the intelligence apparatus in the US has been integrated into the workings of the financial system. Senior military and intelligence officials in the US have become full-fledged "partners" in a number of lucrative business undertakings.

As mentioned earlier, the CIA's official budget is in excess of $30 billion a year. This colossal amount does not include the multi-billion dollar revenues and proceeds of CIA covert operations. Documented by Alfred McCoy, the CIA has, since the Vietnam war, used the flow of dirty money from the drug trade to finance its covert operations conducted in the context of Washington's foreign policy initiatives.(6)

In other words, the extensive accumulation of money wealth from the proceeds of the drug trade has transformed the CIA into a powerful financial entity. The latter operates through a web of corporate shells, banks and financial institutions wielding tremendous power and influence.

These CIA-sponsored "corporations" have, over time, been meshed into the mainstay of the business and corporate establishment, not only in weapons production and the oil business, but also in banking and financial services, real estate, etc. In turn, billions of narco-dollars are channeled-with the support of the CIA-into the spheres of "legitimate" banking, where they are used to finance bona fide investments in a variety of economic activities.

In other words, CIA covert activities play a crucial undercover role in ensuring the appropriation of drug money by powerful financial and banking interests. In this regard, Afghanistan is strategic because it is the world's largest producer of heroin. The Taliban government was crushed on the orders of the Bush administration because it had (under United Nations guidance) curbed opium production by more than 90 per cent. (See Chapter 16.) The bombing of Afghanistan served to restore the multi-billion dollar drug trade, which is protected by the CIA. Immediately following the installation of the US puppet government, under President Hamid Karzai, opium production soared, regaining its historic levels. (See Chapter 16.)

War: A Money Making Operation

The military-intelligence community has also developed its own money-making operations in the areas of mercenaries services, defense procurement, intelligence, etc. Key individuals in the Bush administration, including Vice-President Dick Cheney through his company, Haliburton, have links to these various business undertakings.

Under the New World Order, the pursuit of profit hinges upon political "manipulations", the bribing of officials and the routine exercise of covert intelligence operations on behalf of powerful corporate interests. The US-sponsored paramilitary armies in different parts of the world are trained and equipped by private mercenary outfits on contract to the Pentagon.
Ultimately, the conduct of war, rather than being controlled by the state, is subordinated to the pursuit of private economic interests.

While interfacing with Wall Street, intelligence agencies, including the CIA, have also developed undercover ties with powerful criminal syndicates involved in the drug trade. These syndicates, through the process of money laundering, have also invested heavily in legitimate business undertakings.

Under the New World Order, the demarcation between "organized capital" and "organized crime" is blurred. In other words, the restructuring of global trade and finance tends to favor the concurrent "globalization" of the criminal economy, which is intricately tied into the corporate establishment. In turn, the state apparatus is criminalized. Amply documented, senior policy-makers in the Bush administration in charge of foreign policy have links to various drug cartels.(7)

Dollarization and the Big Picture

While securing corporate control over extensive oil reserves and pipeline routes along the Eurasian corridor on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants, Washington's ultimate objective is to eventually destabilize and then colonize both China and Russia. This means the takeover of their national financial systems and the control over monetary policy, leading eventually to the imposition of the US dollar as the national currency. This objective has, in part, already been achieved in parts of the former Soviet Union where the US dollar has become a de facto national currency.

While the US has established a permanent military presence on China's Western frontier, China's banking system has also been "opened up" to Western banks and financial institutions following China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in October 2001. The tendency in China is towards the demise of the state banking system, which provides credit to thousands of industrial enterprises and agricultural producers. Ironically, the system of state credit has sustained China's role as the West's largest "industrial colony", producer of cheap labour-manufactured goods for the European and American markets.

This deregulation of state credit has triggered a deadly wave of bankruptcies, which in all likelihood will devastate China's economic landscape. In turn, the restructuring of China's financial institutions could lead, within a matter of years, to the destabi-lization of its national currency, the Renminbi, through speculative assaults, opening the door to a broader process of economic and political "colonization" by Western capital.

In other words, the outright manipulation of currency markets by "institutional speculators", similar to that of the 1997 Asian crisis, also constitutes a powerful instrument, which contributes to the fracturing of national economies. In this regard, financial warfare applies complex speculative instruments encompassing the gamut of derivative trade, forward foreign exchange transactions, currency options, hedge funds, index funds, etc. Speculative instruments have been used with the ultimate purpose of capturing financial wealth and acquiring control over productive assets. In the words of Malaysia's former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad: "This deliberate devaluation of the currency of a country by currency traders purely for profit is a serious denial of the rights of independent nations."(8)

-----

TEXT BOX 8.1

Financial Warfare: An Instrument of Conquest

In Korea, Indonesia and Thailand the vaults of the central banks were pillaged by institutional speculators, while the monetary authorities sought, in vain, to prop up their ailing currencies. The speculative assaults waged against these countries constitute a "dress rehearsal" for the application of a similar process directed against China's national currency, the Renminbi.

In 1997, more than $100 billion of Asia's hard currency reserves were confiscated and transferred (in a matter of months) into private financial hands. In the wake of the currency devaluations, real earnings and employment plummeted virtually overnight, leading to mass poverty in countries which had, in the post-war period, registered significant economic and social progress.

The financial scam in the foreign exchange market had destabilised national economies, thereby creating the preconditions for the subsequent plunder of the Asian countries'productive assets by "vulture foreign investors".

The Demise of Central Banking

This worldwide crisis marks the demise of central banking, meaning the derogation of national economic sovereignty and the inability of the national state to control money creation on behalf of society. In other words, privately held money reserves in the hands of "institutional speculators" far exceed the limited capabilities of the world's central banks. The latter, acting individually or collectively, are no longer able to fight the tide of speculative activity.

Monetary policy is in the hands of private creditors who have the ability to freeze state budgets, paralyse the payments process, thwart the regular disbursement of wages to millions of workers (as in the former Soviet Union) and precipitate the collapse of production and social programs. As the crisis deepens, speculative raids on central banks are extending into China, Latin America and the Middle East with devastating economic and social consequences.(9)

Together with the liberalization of trade and the deregulation of agriculture and industry (in accordance with WTO rules), China is heading towards massive unemployment and social unrest. In turn, the US-sponsored covert operations in Tibet and the Xinjiang-Uigur Autonomous Region, in support of secessionist movements, contribute to fostering political instability, which in turn tends to support the "dollarization" process.

More generally, the deregulation of national banking institutions has created havoc worldwide. Washington's foreign policy agenda consists in eventually encroaching upon the Euro and imposing the US dollar as a "global currency" (in overt confrontation with the powerful banking interests behind the European currency system)."Militarization" of vast regions of the world (e.g., where the dollar and the Euro are competing) tends to support the "dollarization" process. In other words, "dollarization" and "free trade"-supported by US militarization-constitute two essential pillars of the American Empire.

Militarization and Dollarization of the Western Hemisphere

In the Western hemisphere, Wall Street has already extended its control by displacing or taking over existing national financial institutions. With the help of the IMF, Washington is also bullying Latin American countries into accepting the US dollar as their national currency. The greenback has already been imposed on five Latin American countries including Ecuador, Argentina, Panama, El Salvador and Guatemala.

The economic and social consequences of "dollarization" have been devastating. In these countries, Wall Street and the US Federal Reserve system directly control monetary policy. The entire structure of public expenditure is controlled by US creditors.

"Militarization" and "dollarization" are the essential building blocks of the American Empire. In this regard, "Plan Colombia", financed by US military aid, constitutes the basis for militarizing the Andean region of South America in support of "free trade" and "dollarization".

Meanwhile, the same Anglo-American oil companies (Chevron-Texaco, BP, Exxon-Mobil), which are vying for control over the oil wealth of the former Soviet Union, are also present in the Andean region of South America. Under the disguise of the "war on drugs" or the "war on terrorism", US foreign policy has led to the militarization of both of these regions. The hidden agenda is to protect both the oil pipelines and the powerful financial interests behind the multibillion dollar drug trade. In Colombia, many of the paramilitary groups "responsible for hundreds of murders and thousands of disappearances" are financed by US military assistance under Plan Colombia.(10)

In turn, Plan Colombia is implemented in close liaison with the imposition of IMF "guidelines". In Colombia, for example, the IMF's economic medicine has led to the destruction of domestic industry and agriculture. More generally, the militarization of the continent is an integral part of the "Free Trade" Agenda. The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) initiative is being negotiated alongside a "parallel" military cooperation protocol signed by 27 countries of the Americas (the Declaration of Manaus), which virtually puts the entire hemisphere under the military control of the US.

Already in Latin America, the economic and social consequences of "dollarization" have been devastating. The current economic and social crisis in Argentina is the direct result of "dollarization" imposed by Wall Street and the US Federal Reserve system, which directly control monetary policy. The entire structure of Argentinean public expenditure is controlled by US creditors.

Real wages have collapsed, social programs have been destroyed and large sectors of the population have been driven into abysmal poverty. The Argentinean pattern, engineered by Wall Street, will undoubtedly be replicated elsewhere as the "invisible fist" of the American Empire extends its reach to other regions of the world.

Notes:

1. John Steinbach, "Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Threat to Peace", DC Iraq Coalition, March 2002, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html, 3 March 2002.

2. Iain Bruce, "Pentagon Draws up Plans for Invasion of Iraq", The Herald (Scotland) January 31, 2002.

3. Florida Times-Union, Jacksonville, 17 February 2002.

4. Deirdre Griswold, "Will Somalia be next? US targets another Poor Country", Workers World , December 2001, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GRI112A.html, 13 December 2001.

5. Michael Mandel,"This War is Illegal and Immoral: It will not Prevent Terrorism", Science Peace Forum & Teach-In, December 9, 2001, Centre for Research on Globalization, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN112A.html, Dec. 2001.

6. Alfred McCoy, op. cit.

7. For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, "Globalization and the
Criminalization of Economic Activity", Covert Action Quarterly, No. 58, Fall 1996; Michel Chossudovsky, "Financial Scams and the Bush Family", Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO202C.html, 18 February 2002.

8. Quoted in Michel Chossudovsky, "Financial Warfare", Third World Network, Penang, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/trig-cn.htm. 1999.

9. Michel Chossudovsky, "Financial Warfare", op. cit.

10. See Kim Alphandary,"Colombia War: 'Highest Priority'", Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ALP204A.html, 5 April 2002.

America's War Machine

2008-09-29T19:05:00.000-07:00

Chapter 7

The 1999 war in Yugoslavia-which coincided with the formation of GUUAM and NATO enlargement into Eastern Europe-marked an important turnaround in East-West relations.

Aleksander Arbatov, Deputy Chairman of the Defense Committee of the Russian State Duma US-Russian Relations, described the war in Yugoslavia as the "worst, most acute, most dangerous juncture since the US-Soviet Berlin and Cuban missile crises".(1) According to Arbatov:

START II is dead, co-operation with NATO is frozen, co-operation on missile defense is out of the question, and Moscow's willingness to cooperate on non-proliferation issues is at an all-time low. Moreover, anti-US sentiment in Russia is real, deep and more widespread than ever, and the slogan describing NATO action-"today Serbia, tomorrow Russia," is deeply planted in Russians'minds.(2)

Despite President Boris Yeltsin's conciliatory statements at the 1999 G-8 Summit in Cologne, Russia's military establishment had openly expressed its distrust of the US: "The bombing of Yugoslavia could turn out in the very near future to be just a rehearsal for similar strikes on Russia."(3)

Mary-Wynne Ashford, co-President of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), warned that, whereas Russia was moving towards integration with Europe, they (the Russians) now:

...perceive their primary threat [to be] from the West. Officials in [Russia's] Foreign Affairs (Arms Control and Disarmament) told us [the IPPNW] that Russia has no option but to rely on nuclear weapons for its defense, because its conventional forces are inadequate.... [T]he changes in Russia's attitude toward the West, its renewed reliance on nuclear weapons with thousands on high alert and its loss of confidence in international law leave us vulnerable to catastrophe.... This crisis makes de-alerting nuclear weapons more urgent than ever. To those who say the Russian threat is all rhetoric, I reply that rhetoric is what starts wars.(4)
Post 1999 Military Buildup

Meanwhile, in Washington, a major build-up of America's military arsenal was in the making. The underlying objective was to achieve a position of global military hegemony. Defense spending in 2002 was hiked up to more than $300 billion, an amount equivalent to the entire Gross Domestic Product of the Russian Federation (approximately $325 billion). An even greater increase in US military spending was set in motion in the wake of the October 2001 bombing of Afghanistan:

More than one-third of the $68 billion allocated for new weapons in the 2003 budget is for Cold War-type weapons. Several billion dollars are allocated for cluster bomb systems that have been condemned by human rights groups around the world. There is no rationale for this level of military spending other than a clear intent for the United States to be the New World Empire, dominating the globe economically and militarily, including the militarization of space.(5)

In the largest military buildup since the Vietnam War, the Bush administration plans to increase military spending by $120 billion over a five-year period, "bringing the 2007 military budget to an astounding $451 billion".(6)

This colossal amount of money allocated to America's war machine does not include the enormous budget of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) allocated from both "official" and undisclosed sources to finance its covert operations. The official budget of the CIA is in excess of $30 billion (10 per cent of Russia's GDP). This amount excludes the multi-billion dollar earnings from narcotics accruing to CIA shell companies and front organizations.(7)

From the overall defense budget, billions of dollars have been allocated to "refurbishing America's nuclear arsenal". A new generation of "cluster missiles"-with multiple nuclear warheads- has been developed, capable of delivering (from a single missile launch) up to 10 nuclear warheads directed at 10 different cities. These missiles are now targeted at Russia. In this context, Washington has clung to its "first strike" nuclear policy, which in principle is intended to deal with "rogue states" but, in fact, is largely directed against Russia and China.

Meanwhile, the US have also developed a new generation of "tactical nuclear weapons" or "mini-nukes" to be used in conventional war theatres. Already during the Clinton administration, the Pentagon was calling for the use of the "nuclear" B61-11 bunker buster bomb, suggesting that because it was "underground", there was no toxic radioactive fallout which could affect civilians:

Military officials and leaders of America's nuclear weapon laboratories are urging the US to develop a new generation of precision low-yield nuclear weapons....which could be used in conventional conflicts with Third World nations.(8)

America's War Economy

The military buildup initiated during the Clinton administration has gained a new momentum. September 11 and Bush's "war on terrorism" are used as an excuse for expanding America's military machine and fuelling the growth of the military-industrial complex.

A new "legitimacy" has unfolded. Increased military spending is said to be required "to uphold freedom" and defeat "the axis of evil":

It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month-over $30 million a day-and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile, to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely.... My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades-because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay.(9)

Since September 11, 2001, billions of dollars have been channeled towards developing new advanced weapons systems, including the F22 Raptor fighter plane and the Joint Fighter (JF) program.

The Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") not only includes the controversial "Missile Shield", but also a wide range of "offensive" laser-guided weapons with striking capabilities anywhere in the world, not to mention instruments of weather and climatic warfare under the High Altitude Auroral Research Program (HAARP). The latter has the ability of destabilizing entire national economies through climatic manipulations, without the knowledge of the enemy, at minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a conventional war.(10)

Long-term planning pertaining to advanced weapons systems and the control of outer space is outlined in a US Space Command document released in 1998, entitled "Vision for 2020". The underlying objective consists in:

...dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment... The emerging synergy of space superiority with land, sea and air superiority will lead to Full Spectrum Dominance.(11)

Nuclear Weapons in the Wake of September 11

In the wake of September 11, the "war on terrorism" is also being used by the Bush administration to redefine the assumptions underlying the use of nuclear weapons. The concept of "nuclear deterrence" has been scrapped. "They're trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to deterrence."(12)

In early 2002, a secret Pentagon report confirmed the Bush administration's intent to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. The secret report, leaked to the Los Angeles Times, states that nuclear weapons "could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or in the event of surprising military developments".(13)

-----

TEXT BOX 7.1

America's Tactical Nuclear Weapons

In the 2002 war in Afghanistan, the US Air Force was using GBU-28 "bunker buster bombs" capable of creating large scale underground explosions. The official story was that these bombs were intended to target "cave and tunnel complexes" in mountainous areas in southern Afghanistan, which were used as hideaways by Osama bin Laden. Dubbed by the Pentagon "the Big Ones", the GBUs (guided bomb units) are 5000-lb laser guided bombs with improved BLU-113 warheads capable of penetrating several metres of reinforced concrete. The BLU-113 is the most powerful conventional "earth penetrating warhead" ever created.

While the Pentagon's "Big Ones" are classified as "conventional weapons", the official statements fail to mention that the same "bunker buster bombs" launched from a B-52, a B-2 stealth bomber, or an F-16 aircraft can also be equipped with a nuclear device. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of its "conventional" BLU-113 counterpart.

The nuclear B61-11 is categorized as a "deep earth penetrating bomb" capable of "destroying the deepest and most hardened of underground bunkers, which the conventional warheads are not capable of doing." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stated that while the 'conventional' bunker buster bombs "'are going to be able to do the job'.... He did not rule out the eventual use of nuclear weapons."(14)

The Bush administration needs a justification, as well as public support, for the use of tactical nuclear weapons as part of its "war against international terrorism". It is also anxious to test its "low yield" B61-11 bombs.

First, it is saying that these "low yield" nuclear weapons do not affect civilians, therefore justifying their being used in the same way as conventional weapons. Second, the Administration is hinting that the use of nuclear bunker busters may be justified as part of "the campaign against international terrorism", because Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network possesses nuclear capabilities and could use them against us. America's tactical nuclear weapons are said to be "safe" in comparison to those of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Administration statements suggest, in this regard, that a "low-yield" earth penetrating tactical nuclear weapon such as the B61-11 would "limit collateral damage" and therefore be relatively safe to use.(15)

These new buzzwords are being spread by the US media to develop public support for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Yet, the scientific evidence on this issue is unequivocal: the impacts on civilians of the "low yield" B61-11 would be devastating "because of the large amount of radioactive dirt thrown out in the explosion, the hypothetical 5-kiloton weapon … would produce a large area of lethal fallout".(16)

-----

With a Strangelovian genius, they cover every conceivable circumstance in which a president may wish to use nuclear weapons-planning in great detail for a war they hope never to wage. In this top-secret domain, there has always been an inconsistency between America's diplomatic objectives of reducing nuclear arsenals and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on the one hand, and the military imperative to prepare for the unthinkable on the other.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration plan reverses an almost two-decade-long trend of relegating nuclear weapons to the category of weapons of last resort. It also redefines nuclear requirements in hurried post-September 11 terms.(17)

While identifying a number of "rogue states", the not-so-hidden agenda of the Bush administration is to deploy and use nuclear weapons against Russia and China in the context of America's expansionary policy into Central Asia, the Middle East and the Far East:

The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbour, it said.

The report says Russia is no longer officially an "enemy". Yet it acknowledges that the huge Russian arsenal, which includes about 6,000 deployed warheads and perhaps 10,000 smaller "theatre" nuclear weapons, remains of concern.

Pentagon officials have said publicly that they were studying the need to develop theatre nuclear weapons, designed for use against specific targets on a battlefield, but had not committed themselves to that course.(18)

The thrust of this secret report, presented to the US Congress in early 2002, has been endorsed by the Republican Party:

[C]onservative analysts insisted that the Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret weapon's development programs.... They argued that smaller weapons have an important deterrent role because many aggressors might not believe that the US forces would use multi-kiloton weapons that would wreak devastation on surrounding territory and friendly populations.

We need to have a credible deterrence against regimes involved in international terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction," said Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. He said the contents of the report did not surprise him and represent "the right way to develop a nuclear posture for a post-Cold War world".(19)

Encircling China

In the wake of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, the Clinton administration boosted its military support to Taiwan against China, leading to a significant military buildup in the Taiwan Straits. Taiwan's Air Force had been previously equipped with some 150 F16A fighter planes from Lockheed Martin. In this regard, the Clinton administration had argued that military aid to Taiwan was required to maintain "a military balance with the People's Republic of China" as part of Washington's policy of "peace through deterrence".(20)

US-built Aegis destroyers equipped with state-of-the-art surface-to-air missiles, ship-to-ship missiles, and Tomahawk cruise missiles were delivered to Taiwan to boost its naval capabilities in the Taiwan Straits.(21) Beijing responded to this military buildup by taking delivery in 2000, of its first Russian-built guided missile destroyer, the Hangzhou, equipped with SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missiles,"capable of penetrating the state-of-the-art defenses of a US or Japanese naval battle group".(22)

Military assumptions have been radically changed since September 11. The Bush administration has scrapped the "peace through deterrence" doctrine. The post-September 11 military buildup in the Taiwan Straits is an integral part of Washington's overall military planning, which now consists in deploying "on several fronts".

Supported by the Bush administration, Taiwan has been "conducting active research aimed at developing a tactical ballistic missile capable of hitting targets in mainland China. … The alleged purpose of these missiles is to degrade the PLA's (People's Liberation Army) strike capability, including missile infrastructure and non-missile infrastructure (airfields, harbors, missile sites, etc.)."(23) In turn, US military presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan (and in several former Soviet republics), on China's western border, are being coordinated with Taiwan's naval deployment in the South China Sea.

China has been encircled: The US military is present in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits, in the Korean Peninsula and the Sea of Japan, as well as in the heartland of Central Asia and on the Western border of China's Xinjiang-Uigur autonomous region. "Temporary" US military bases have been set up in Uzbekistan (which is a member of the GUUAM agreement with NATO), in Tajikistan and in Kyrgyztan, where airfields and military airport facilities have been made available to the US Air Force.

Using Nuclear Weapons Against China

In early 2002, the Bush administration confirmed its intent to use nuclear weapons against China if there was a confrontation in the Taiwan Straits:

China, because of its nuclear forces and "developing strategic objectives", is listed as "a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential contingency". Specifically, the NPR lists a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan as one of the scenarios that could lead Washington to use nuclear weapons.(24)

The Anglo-American Axis

The 1999 war in Yugoslavia contributed to reinforcing strategic, military and intelligence ties between Washington and London. After the war in Yugoslavia, US Defense Secretary William Cohen and his British counterpart, Geoff Hoon, signed a "Declaration of Principles for Defense Equipment and Industrial Cooperation" so as to "improve cooperation in procuring arms and protecting technology secrets", while at the same time "easing the way for more joint military ventures and possible defense industry mergers".(25)

Washington's objective was to encourage the formation of a "trans-Atlantic bridge across which DoD [US Department of Defense] can take its globalization policy to Europe....Our aim is to improve interoperability and war fighting effectiveness via closer industrial linkages between US and allied companies."(26)

In the words of President Clinton's Defense Secretary William Cohen:

[The agreement] will facilitate interaction between our respective [British and American] industries so that we can have a harmonized approach to sharing technology, working cooperatively in partnership arrangements and, potentially, mergers as well.(27)

The agreement was signed in 1999 shortly after the creation of British Aerospace Systems (BAES) resulting from the merger of British Aerospace (BAe) with GEC Marconi. British Aerospace was already firmly allied to America's largest defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing.(28)

The hidden agenda behind the Anglo-American "trans-Atlantic bridge" is to eventually displace the Franco-German military conglomerates and ensure the dominance of the US military industrial complex (in alliance with Britain's major defense contractors).

Moreover, this integration in the area of defense production has been matched by increased cooperation between the CIA and Britain's MI6 in the sphere of intelligence and covert operations, not to mention the joint operations of British and US Special Forces.

The United States and Germany

The British military-industrial complex has become increasingly integrated into that of the US. In turn, significant rifts have emerged between Washington and Berlin. Franco-German integration in aerospace and defense production is ultimately directed against US dominance in the weapons market. The latter hinges upon the partnership between America's Big Five and Britain's defense industry under the trans-Atlantic bridge agreement.

Since the early '90s, the Bonn government has encouraged the consolidation of Germany's military industrial complex dominated by Daimler, Siemens and Krupp. Several important mergers in Germany's defense industry took place in response to the mega-mergers between America's aerospace and weapons producers.(29)

By 1996 Paris and Bonn had already set up a joint armaments agency with the mandate "to manage common programs [and] award contracts on behalf of both governments".(30) Both countries had stated that they "did not want Britain to join the agency".

France and Germany also now control Airbus industries, which is competing against America's Lockheed-Martin. (Britain's BAES owns the remaining 20 per cent.) The Germans are also collaborating in the Ariane Space satellite-launching program in which Deutsche Aerospace (DASA) is a major shareholder.

In late 1999, in response to the "alliance" of British Aerospace with Lockheed Martin, France's Aerospatiale-Matra merged with Daimler's DASA, forming the largest European defense conglomerate. The following year the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. (EADS) was formed, integrating DASA, Matra and Spain's Construcciones Aeronauticas, SA. EADS and its Anglo-American rivals are competing for the procurement of weapons to NATO's new Eastern European members. (Europe's third largest defense contractor is Thomson, which in recent years has several projects with US weapons producer Raytheon.)

While EADS still cooperates with Britain's BAES in missile production and has business ties with the US "Big Five", including Northrop Grumman, the Western defense and aerospace industry tends to be split into two distinct groups: EADS dominated by France and Germany on the one hand, the Anglo-US "Big Six", which includes the US Big Five contractors (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and Northrop Grumman) plus Britain's powerful BAES on the other.

Integrated into US Department of Defense procurement under the Atlantic bridge arrangement, BAES was the Pentagon's fifth largest defense contractor in 2001. Under the Anglo-American "transatlantic bridge", BAES operates freely in the US market through its subsidiary BAE Systems North America.(31)

Franco-German Integration in Nuclear Weapons

The Franco-German alliance in military production under EADS opens the door for the integration of Germany (which does not officially possess nuclear weapons) into France's nuclear weapons program. In this regard, EADS already produces a wide range of ballistic missiles, including the M51 nuclear-tipped ballistic submarine-launched ICBMs for the French Navy.(32) What this means is that Germany, through its alliance with France, is a de facto nuclear power.

Euro versus Dollar: Rivalry Between Competing Business Conglomerates

The European common currency system has a direct bearing on strategic and political divisions. London's decision not to adopt the common European currency is consistent with the integration of British financial and banking interests with those of Wall Street, as well as the Anglo-American alliance in the oil industry (as in BP-Amoco) and weapons production ("Big Five" plus BAES). In other words, this shaky relationship between the British pound and the US dollar is an integral part of the new Anglo-American axis.

What is at stake is the rivalry between two competing global currencies: the Euro and the US dollar, with Britain's pound being torn between the European and the US-dominated currency systems. Thus two rival financial and monetary systems are competing worldwide for control over money creation and credit. The geopolitical and strategic implications are far-reaching because they are also marked by splits in the Western defense industry and the oil business.

In both Europe and America, monetary policy, although formally under state jurisdiction, is largely controlled by the private banking sector. The European Central Bank based in Frankfurt- although officially under the jurisdiction of the European Union- is, in practice, overseen by a handful of private European banks, including Germany's largest banks and business conglomerates.

The US Federal Reserve Board is formally under state supervision-marked by a close relationship to the US Treasury. Unlike the European Central Bank, the 12 Federal Reserve banks (of which the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the most important) are controlled by their shareholders, which are private banking institutions. In other words, "the Fed" as it is known in the US, which is responsible for monetary policy and hence money creation for the nation, is actually controlled by private financial interests.

Currency Systems and 'Economic Conquest'

In Eastern Europe, in the former Soviet Union and in the Balkans, extending into Central Asia, the dollar and the Euro are competing with one another. Ultimately, control over national currency systems is the basis upon which countries are colonized. While the US dollar prevails throughout the Western Hemisphere, the Euro and the US dollar are clashing in the former Soviet Union, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

In the Balkans and the Baltic States, central banks largely operate as colonial style "currency boards" invariably using the Euro as a proxy currency. What this means is that German and European financial interests are in control of money creation and credit. In other words, the pegging of the national currency to the Euro- rather than to the US dollar-means that both the currency and the monetary system will be in the hands of German-EU banking interests.

More generally, the Euro dominates in Germany's hinterland: Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and the Balkans, whereas the US dollar tends to prevail in the Caucasus and Central Asia. In GUUAM countries (which have military cooperation agreements with Washington) the dollar tends (with the exception of the Ukraine) to overshadow the Euro.

The "dollarization" of national currencies is an integral part of America's SRS. The SRS consists of first destabilizing and then replacing national currencies with the American greenback over an area extending from the Mediterranean to China's Western border. The underlying objective is to extend the dominion of the Federal Reserve System-namely, Wall Street-over a vast territory.

What we are dealing with is an "imperial" scramble for control over national currencies. Control over money creation and credit is an integral part of the process of economic conquest, which in turn is supported by the militarization of the Eurasian corridor.

While American and German-EU banking interests are clashing over the control of national economies and currency systems, they seem to have agreed on "sharing the spoils"-i.e., establishing their respective "spheres of influence". Reminiscent of the policies of "partition" in the late 19th century, the US and Germany have agreed upon the division of the Balkans: Germany has gained control over national currencies in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, where the Euro is legal tender. In return, the US has established a permanent military presence in the region (i.e., the Bondsteel military base in Kosovo).

Cross-cutting Military Alliances

The rift between Anglo-American and Franco-German weapons producers-including the rifts within the Western military alliance-seem to have favored increased military cooperation between Russia on the one hand, and France and Germany on the other.

In recent years, both France and Germany have entered into bilateral discussions with Russia in the areas of defense production, aerospace research and military cooperation. In late 1998, Paris and Moscow agreed to undertake joint infantry exercises and bilateral military consultations. In turn, Moscow has been seeking German and French partners to participate in the development of its military industrial complex.

In early 2000, Germany's Defense Minister, Rudolph Sharping, visited Moscow for bilateral consultations with his Russian counterpart. A bilateral agreement was signed pertaining to 33 military cooperation projects, including the training of Russian military specialists in Germany.(33) This agreement was reached outside the framework of NATO, and without prior consultation with Washington.

Russia also signed a "long term military cooperation agreement" with India in late 1998, which was followed a few months later by a defense agreement between India and France. The agreement between Delhi and Paris included the transfer of French military technology, as well as investment by French multinationals in India's defense industry. The latter investment includes facilities for the production of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads, in which the French companies have expertise.

This Franco-Indian agreement has a direct bearing on Indo-Pakistani relations. It also impinges upon US strategic interests in Central and South Asia. While Washington has been pumping military aid into Pakistan, India is being supported by France and Russia.

Visibly, France and the US are on opposite sides of the India-Pakistan conflict.

With Pakistan and India at the brink of war, in the immediate wake of September 11, 2001, the US Air Force had virtually taken control of Pakistan's air space, as well as several of its military facilities. Meanwhile, barely a few weeks into the 2001 bombing of Afghanistan, France and India conducted joint military exercises in the Arabian Sea. Also in the immediate wake of September 11, India took delivery of large quantities of Russian weapons, under the Indo-Russian military cooperation agreement.

Moscow's New National Security Doctrine

US post-Cold War era foreign policy had designated Central Asia and the Caucasus as a "strategic area". Yet this policy no longer consisted in containing the "spread of communism", but rather in preventing Russia and China from becoming competing capitalist powers. In this regard, the US had increased its military presence along the entire 40th parallel, extending from Bosnia and Kosovo to the former Soviet republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, all of which had entered into bilateral military agreements with Washington.

The 1999 war in Yugoslavia and the subsequent outbreak of war in Chechnya in September 1999 were crucial turning points in Russian-American relations. They also marked a rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing and the signing of several military cooperation agreements between Russia and China.

US covert support to the two main Chechen rebel groups (through Pakistan's ISI) was known to the Russian government and military. (For further details, see Chapter II.) However, it had never previously been made public or raised at the diplomatic level. In November 1999, the Russian Defense Minister, Igor Sergueyev, formally accused Washington of supporting the Chechen rebels. Following a meeting held behind closed doors with Russia's military high command, Sergueyev declared that:

"The national interests of the United States require that the military conflict in the Caucasus [Chechnya] be a fire, provoked as a result of outside forces," while adding that "the West's policy constitutes a challenge launched to Russia with the ultimate aim of weakening her international position and of excluding her from geo-strategic areas".(34)

In early 2000, in the wake of the Chechen war, a new "National Security Doctrine" was formulated and signed into law by President Vladimir Putin. Barely acknowledged by the international media, a critical shift in East-West relations had occurred. The document reasserted the building of a strong Russian state, the concurrent growth of the military and the reintroduction of state controls over foreign capital.

The document carefully spelled out what it described as "fundamental threats" to Russia's national security and sovereignty. More specifically, it referred to "the strengthening of military-political blocs and alliances" (namely GUUAM), as well as to "NATO's eastward expansion" while underscoring "the possible emergence of foreign military bases and major military presences in the immediate proximity of Russian borders".(35)

The document confirmed that "international terrorism is waging an open campaign to destabilize Russia". While not referring explicitly to CIA covert activities in support of armed terrorist groups, such as the Chechen rebels, it nonetheless called for appropriate "actions to avert and intercept intelligence and subversive activities by foreign states against the Russian Federation".(36)

Undeclared War Between Russia and America

The cornerstone of US foreign policy was to encourage-under the disguise of "peace-keeping" and "conflict resolution"-the formation of small pro-US states, which lie strategically at the hub of the Caspian Sea basin, which contains vast oil and gas reserves:

The US must play an increasingly active role in conflict resolution in the region. The boundaries of the Soviet republics were intentionally drawn to prevent secession by the various national communities of the former USSR and not with an eye towards possible independence.... Neither Europe, nor our allies in East Asia, can defend our [US] mutual interests in these regions. If we [the US] fail to take the lead in heading off the kinds of conflicts and crises that are already looming there, that will eventually exacerbate our relations with Europe and possibly Northeast Asia. It will encourage the worst kind of political developments in Russia. This linkage, or intercon-nectedness, gives the Transcaucasus and Central Asia a strategic importance to the United States and its allies that we overlook at huge risk. To put it another way, the fruits accruing from ending the Cold War are far from fully harvested. To ignore the Transcaucasus and Central Asia could mean that a large part of that harvest will never be gathered.(37)

Russia's Military Industrial Complex

Alongside the articulation of Moscow's National Security doctrine, the Russian State was planning to regain economic and financial control over key areas of Russia's military industrial complex. For instance, the formation of "a single corporation of designers and manufacturers of all anti-aircraft complexes" was envisaged in cooperation with Russia's defense contractors.(38)

This proposed "re-centralization" of Russia's defense industry, in response to national security considerations, was also motivated by the merger of major Western competitors in the area of military procurement. The development of new production and scientific capabilities was also contemplated, based on enhancing Russia's military potential as well as its ability to compete with its Western rivals in the global weapons market.

The National Security Doctrine also "eases the criteria by which Russia could use nuclear weapons...which would be permissible if the country's existence were threatened".(39)

Russia reserves the right to use all forces and means at its disposal, including nuclear weapons, in case an armed aggression creates a threat to the very existence of the Russian Federation as an independent sovereign state.(40)

In response to Washington's "Star Wars" initiative, Moscow had developed "Russia's Missile and Nuclear Shield". The Russian government announced in 1998 the development of a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as Topol-M (SS-27). These new single-warhead missiles (based in the Saratov region) are currently in "full combat readiness", against a "pre-emptive first strike" from the US, which (in the wake of 9/11) constitutes the Pentagon's main assumption in an eventual nuclear war."The Topol M is lightweight and mobile, designed to be fired from a vehicle. Its mobility means it is better protected than a silo-based missile from a pre-emptive first strike."(41)

Following the adoption of the National Security Document (NSD) in 2000, the Kremlin confirmed that it would not exclude "a first-strike use" of nuclear warheads "if attacked even by purely conventional means".(42)

Political 'Turnaround'under President Vladimir Putin

The foreign policy directions of the Putin Administration remain unclear. There are significant divisions within both the political establishment and the military. On the diplomatic front, President Putin has sought a "rapprochement" with Washington and the Western Military Alliance in the "war on terrorism".

In the wake of 9/11, a significant turnaround in Russian foreign policy, largely orchestrated by President Putin, has occurred. The Putin Administration, acting against the Russian Duma, has, nonetheless, accepted the process of "NATO Enlargement" into the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) implying the establishment of NATO military bases on Russia's western border.

Meanwhile, Moscow's military cooperation agreement signed with Beijing after the 1999 war in Yugoslavia was virtually on hold:

China is obviously watching with deep concern Russia surrendering these positions. China is also concerned by the presence of the US Air Force close to its borders in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrghyz Republic....Everything that Mr. Putin has earned through the spectacular improvement of Russia's relations with China, India, Vietnam, Cuba and some other countries collapsed nearly overnight. What has surfaced is a primitive Gorbachev concept of "common human values"-i.e., the subordination of Russia's interests to those of the West.(43)

Ironically, the Russian President was supporting America's "war on terrorism", which is ultimately directed against Moscow. Washington's hidden agenda is to dismantle Russia's strategic and economic interests in the Eurasian corridor and close down or take over its military facilities, while transforming the former Soviet republics (and eventually the Russian Federation) into American protectorates:

It becomes clear that the intention to join NATO, expressed by Mr. Putin in an offhand manner last year [2000], reflected a long matured idea of a far deeper (i.e., in relation to the positions previously taken by Gorbachev or Yeltsin) integration of the Russian Federation into the "international community". In fact, the intention is to squeeze Russia into the Western economic, political and military system. Even as a junior partner. Even at the price of sacrificing an independent foreign policy.(44)

Notes

1. Quoted in Mary-Wynne Ashford,"Bombings Reignite Nuclear War Fears", The Victoria Times-Colonist. 13 May 1999, p. A15. Mary-Wynne Ashford is co-president of the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPPNW.

2. Quoted in Mary-Wynne Ashford, op. cit.

3. According to Viktor Chechevatov, a Three-star General and Commander of ground forces in Russia's Far East, quoted in The Boston Globe, 8 April 1999, emphasis added.

4. Ashford, op. cit.

5. Douglas Mattern, "The United States of Enron-Pentagon, Inc", Centre for Research on Globalization, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAT202A.html, February 2002.

6. Ibid.

7. See "Intelligence Funding and the War on Terror", CDI Terrorism Project at http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/intel-funding-pr.cfm, 2 February 2002. See also Patrick Martin, "Billions for War and Repression: Bush Budget for a Garrison State", World Socialist Website (WSWS), http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/ feb2002/mili-f06.shtml, 6 February 2002.

8. Federation of American Scientists (FAS) at http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/.

9. George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 29 January 2002.

10. For further details on HAARP, see Michel Chossudovsky,"Washington's New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change", Centre for Research on Globalization at globalresearch.ca, http://globalresearch.ca/ articles/CHO201A.html, January 2002.

11. See Bob Fitrakis, "Chemtrails Outlaw", Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FIT203A.html, 6 March 2002. See also Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http:// www.au.af.mil/au/2025/.

12. John Isaacs, President of the Council for a Livable World quoted in Paul Richter,"US Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms", Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.

13. Paul Richter, "US Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms", Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.

14. Quoted in The Houston Chronicle, 20 October 2001.

15. Cynthia Greer, The Philadelphia Inquirer, 16 October 2000.

16. Ibid.

17. William Arkin, "Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable", Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Mother Jones, "Taiwan wants bigger Slingshot", http://www.mojones.com/ arms/taiwan.html, 2000.

21. Deutsche Press Agentur, 27 February 2000.

22. Japan Economic Newswire, March 4, 2000.

23. AFP, 12 December 2001.

24. William Arkin, op. cit.

25. Reuters, 5 February 2000.

26. For further details see Vago Muradian, "Pentagon Sees Bridge to Europe", Defense Daily, Vol. 204, No. 40, 1 December 1999.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid. See also Michel Collon's analysis in Poker Menteur, Editions EPO, Brussels,
1998, p. 156.

29. Ibid., p. 156.

30."American Monsters, European Minnows: Defense Companies." The Economist, 13 January 1996.

31. British Aerospace Systems'home page at: http://www.BAESystems.com/ globalfootprint/northamerica/northamerica.htm.

32. "BAES, EADS Hopeful that Bush will broaden Transatlantic Cooperation", Defense Daily International, 29, 2001.

33. Interfax, 1 March 2000.

34. See The New York Times, 15 November 1999; see also the article of Steve Levine, The New York Times, 20 November 1999.

35. To consult the document, see Federation of American Scientists (FAS), http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/doctrine/gazeta012400.htm.

36. Ibid.

37. Joseph Jofi, Pipeline Diplomacy: The Clinton Administration's Fight for Baku-Ceyhan, Woodrow Wilson Case Study, No. 1. Princeton University, 1999.

38. Mikhail Kozyrev, "The White House Calls for the Fire", Vedomosti, Nov. 1, 1999, p.1.

39. See Andrew Jack, "Russia Turns Back Clock", Financial Times, London, 15 January 2000, p.1.

40. Quoted in Nicolai Sokov, "Russia's New National Security Concept: The Nuclear Angle", Centre for Non Proliferation Studies, Monterrey, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/sokov2.htm, January 2000.

41. BBC, "Russia Deploys New Nuclear Missiles", London, 27 December 1998.

42. Stephen J. Blank, "Nuclear Strategy and Nuclear Proliferation in Russian Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States", Appendix III: Unclassified Working Papers, Federation of American Scientists (FAS),
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/rumsfeld/toc-3.htm. Washington DC, undated.

43. V. Tetekin, "Putin's Ten Blows", Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) http://globalresearch.ca/articles/TET112A.html, 27 December 2001.

44. Ibid.

The Trans-Afghan Pipeline

2008-09-26T19:04:00.000-07:00

Chapter 6

Washington's Silk Road Strategy consists in not only excluding Russia from the westbound oil and gas pipeline routes out of the Caspian Sea basin, but also in securing Anglo-American control over strategic southbound and eastbound routes.

This strategy consists in isolating and eventually "encircling" the former Soviet republics by simultaneously taking control of both westbound and east/southbound corridors. In this regard, Washington's strategy in support of the oil giants is also to prevent the former republics from entering into pipeline ventures (or military cooperation agreements) with Iran and China.

According to the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy organization, the American diplomatic dance with the Taliban was partly an attempt to prevent the construction of a pipeline through Iran and to reduce Russian leverage over Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.(1)

Backed by the Clinton administration, Unocal, the California-based oil giant, developed a plan in 1995 to build an oil and gas pipeline route from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Arabian Sea. Unocal is also involved in the westbound Baku-Ceyan pipeline project out of Azerbaijan across Turkey and Georgia, together with BP, which has a majority stake in the consortium.

The CentGas Consortium

By transiting through Afghanistan, Unocal's CentGas pipeline project was meant to bypass the more direct southbound route across Iran. Unocal's design was to develop a dual pipeline system that would also transport Kazakhstan's huge oil reserves in the Tenghiz Northern Caspian region to the Arabian Sea.

Although the Russian oil giant Gazprom was part of the CentGas consortium, its participation was insignificant.(2) The hidden agenda was also to weaken Gazprom, which controls the Northbound gas pipeline routes out of Turkmenistan, and undermine the agreement between Russia and Turkmenistan, which handled the export of Turkmen gas through the network of Russian pipelines.

After Unocal had completed a first round of negotiations with Turkmenistan's President Niyazov, it opened talks with the Taliban.(3) In turn, the Clinton administration decided to back the installation of a Taliban government in Kabul in 1996, as opposed to the Northern Alliance, which was backed by Moscow:

Impressed by the ruthlessness and willingness of the then-emerging Taliban to cut a pipeline deal, the State Department and Pakistan's ISI agreed to funnel arms and funding to the Taliban in their war against the ethnically Tajik Northern Alliance. As recently as 1999, US taxpayers paid the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official.(4)

Meanwhile, the Russians were providing logistical support and military supplies to General Massoud's Northern Alliance out of military bases in Tajikistan. When Kabul finally fell to the Taliban with the military backing of America's ally Pakistan, in September 1996, State Department spokesman Glyn Davies said the US found "nothing objectionable" in the steps taken by the Taliban to impose Islamic law. Senator Hank Brown, a supporter of the Unocal project, said "the good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at least seems capable of developing a government in Kabul." Unocal's Vice-President, Martin Miller, called the Taliban's success a "positive development".(5)

When the Taliban took Kabul in 1996, Washington said nothing. Why? Because Taliban leaders were soon on their way to Houston, Texas, to be entertained by executives of the oil company, Unocal....A US diplomat said, "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did." He explained that Afghanistan would become an American oil colony, there would be huge profits for the West, no democracy and the legal persecution of women. "We can live with that", he said.(6)

Washington's endorsement of the Taliban regime instead of the Northern Alliance was part of the "Big Game" and the added rivalry between Russian and US conglomerates for control over oil and gas reserves, as well as pipeline routes out of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. In early 1997, Taliban officials met at Unocal's Texas office:

[Unocal's Barry] Lane says he wasn't involved in the Texas meetings and doesn't know whether then-Governor George W. Bush, an ex-oil man, ever had any involvement. Unocal's Texas spokesperson for Central Asia operations, Teresa Covington, said the consortium delivered three basic messages to the Afghan groups. "We gave them the details on the proposed pipelines. We also talked to them about the projects'benefits, such as the transit fees that would be paid," she says. "And we reinforced our position the project could not move forward until they stabilized their country and obtained political recognition from the US and the international community."

Covington says the Taliban were not surprised by that demand.... In December 1997, Unocal arranged a high-level meeting in Washington, DC, for the Taliban with Clinton's undersecretary of state for South Asia, Karl Inderforth. The Taliban delegation included Acting Minister for Mines and Industry Ahmad Jan, Acting Minister for Culture and Information, Amir Muttaqi, Acting Minister for Planning, Din Muhammad and Abdul Hakeem Mujahid, their permanent UN delegate.(7)

Two months following these negotiations, in February 1998, Unocal Vice President for International Relations, John Maresca, in a statement to the House Committee on International Relations, called for "the need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas resources". (See Chapter 5.) Implied in his statement, US foreign policy in the region was to be geared towards destabilizing the north, west and southbound pipeline routes controlled by Russia, as well as competing pipelines through Iran:

[A] chief technical obstacle [or more likely political obstacle] which we in the industry face in transporting oil is the region's existing pipeline infrastructure. Because the region's pipelines were constructed during the Moscow-centred Soviet period, they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are no connections to the south and east....

The key question then, is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to nearby Asian markets.... One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of US sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.

Unocal foresees a pipeline which would become part of a regional system that would gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. The 1,040-mile long oil pipeline would extend south through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast. This 42-inch diameter pipeline would have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. The estimated cost of the project, which is similar in scope to the trans-Alaska pipeline, is about $2.5 billion.

Without peaceful settlement of the conflicts in the region, cross-border oil and gas pipelines are not likely to be built. We urge the Administration and the Congress to give strong support to the UN-led peace process in Afghanistan. The US Government should use its influence to help find solutions to all of the region's conflicts.(8)

The Unocal-Bridas Feud

There was something else behind the Unocal pipeline project, which mainstream reports failed to mention. The Taliban had also been negotiating with an Argentinean oil group, Bridas Energy Corporation, and were "playing one company against the other".(9) Bridas belonged to the wealthy and powerful Bhulgeroni family. Carlos Bhulgeroni is a close friend of former Argentine President Carlos Menem, whose government was instrumental in implementing in 1990-under advice from the World Bank-a comprehensive deregulation of Argentina's oil and gas industry. This deregulation contributed to the enrichment of the Bhulgeroni family.

In 1992-several years prior to Unocal's involvement-Bridas Energy Corporation had obtained gas exploration rights in Eastern Turkmenistan, and the following year it was awarded the Keimir oil and gas block in Western Turkmenistan. Washington considered this an encroachment. It responded to Bridas'inroads into Central Asia by sending former Secretary of State Alexander Haig to lobby for "increased US investments" in Turkmenistan.(10) A few months later, Bridas was prevented from exporting oil from the Keimir block.

Unocal and Bridas were clashing in their attempts to gain political control. While Bridas had a head start in its negotiations with Turkmen officials, Unocal had the direct support of the US Government, which was acting both overtly (through diplomatic channels) as well as covertly to undermine Bridas Energy Corp.

In August 1995, at the height of the Afghan civil war, Bridas representatives met up with Taliban officials to discuss the pipeline project. Meanwhile, Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyasov had been invited to New York (October 1995) to sign an agreement with Unocal and its CentGas consortium partner, Delta Oil Corporation of Saudi Arabia. The agreement was signed by President Niyazov of Turkmenistan and John F. Imle, Jr., President of Unocal, and witnessed by Badr M. Al-Aiban, CEO of Delta Oil Corporation.

Bridas and the Taliban

In February 1996, Bridas Energy Corporation of Argentina and the Taliban provisional government signed a preliminary agreement. Washington responded through its embassy in Islamabad, urging Pakistan's Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto to dump Bridas and grant exclusive rights to Unocal.(11) Meanwhile, the Clinton administration had funnelled, through Pakistan's ISI, military aid to advancing Taliban forces. This support was a crucial factor in the Taliban's takeover of Kabul in September 1996. Following the installation of a hard-line Islamic government, Unocal confirmed that "it will give aid to Afghan warlords once they agree to form a council to supervise the project".(12)

Back in Texas, Bridas Energy Corporation filed a $15 billion lawsuit against Unocal, accusing it of dirty tricks and interference in:

...secretly contacting the Turkmen deputy prime minister for oil and gas [in 1996] about its own pipeline plan. According to a Bridas source, the Turkmen government then made an overnight decision to cut off the export of oil from Bridas'Keimir field on the Caspian Sea. The company also alleges that the deputy prime minister demanded that Bridas, with its cash flow strangled, renegotiate its concession."We found written evidence that Unocal was behind the curtains," the Bridas source said.(13)

BP-Amoco Enter the Pipeline Saga

Facing pending financial difficulties, 60 per cent of Bridas shares were sold in August 1997 to the American Oil Company (Amoco), leading to the formation of the Pan American Energy Corporation. The bidders in the Bridas merger were Amoco and Union Texas Petroleum of the United States, France's Total, Royal Dutch Shell, Spain's Endesa and a consortium including Spain's Repsol and US Mobil.

For Amoco, which later merged with BP in 1998, Bridas was a prize acquisition, which was facilitated by Chase Manhattan and Morgan Stanley. Former National Security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a consultant to Amoco. Arthur Andersen-the accounting firm implicated in the 2002 Enron scandal-was put in charge of "post-merger integration".(14)

BP-Amoco is the main player in the Westbound pipeline routes out of the Caspian Sea basin including the controversial Baku-Ceyan pipeline project through Georgia and Turkey. By acquiring Bridas, the BP-led consortium gained a direct stake in the east and southbound pipeline negotiations.

Unocal is both a "rival" as well as a consortium "partner" of BP. In other words, BP controls the westbound pipeline consortium in which Unocal has a significant stake. With Bridas in the hands of BP-Amoco, however, it is unlikely that a future trans-Afghan pipeline will proceed without the consent and/or participation of BP:

Recognizing the significance of the merger, a Pakistani oil company executive hinted, "If these [Central Asian] countries want a big US company involved, Amoco is far bigger than Unocal."(15)
Following the takeover of Bridas by Amoco, Bridas'successor company, Pan American Energy Corporation, continued to actively negotiate with the Taliban. But the dynamics of these negotiations had been fundamentally modified. Pan American Energy was negotiating on behalf of its Chicago-based parent company Amoco. Moreover, the Clinton administration had abandoned its dirty tricks and was now backing Amoco's subsidiary.

Meanwhile, in August 1998, Amoco and BP announced their decision to unite their global operations leading to the formation (together with Atlantic Ritchfield) of the world's largest oil company.

The Bridas-Unocal rivalry had evolved towards "a fall-out" between two major US corporations (Unocal and BP-Amoco), which were also "partners" in the westbound pipeline projects. Both Unocal and BP-Amoco have extensive links to seats of political power, not only in the White House and Congress, but also with the military and intelligence establishment in charge of covert operations in Central Asia. Both companies contributed generously to the Bush presidential campaign.

The merger between BP and Amoco (leading to the integration of British and American oil interests) had no doubt also contributed to the development of closer political ties between the British and US Governments. Responding to the merger of American and British interests in oil, banking and the military-industrial complex, Britain's new Labour government, under Prime Minister Tony Blair, has become America's unconditional ally.

The US Embassy Bombings

In the course of 1998, talks between Taliban and Unocal officials had stalled. The honeymoon was over. Then came the East African US Embassy bombings, allegedly by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, and the launching of cruise missiles against targets in Afghanistan.

The official suspension of negotiations with the Taliban was announced by Unocal in August 1998 in the immediate wake of the punitive actions against Afghanistan and Sudan, ordered by President Clinton. Whether the 1997 takeover of Bridas by Amoco and the subsequent merger of BP-Amoco (also in August 1998) had a bearing on Unocal's decision remains unclear. Nonetheless, "the Big Game" had evolved: Unocal was now competing against the world's largest oil company, BP-Amoco.

The Texas Court Case: BP-Amoco (Bridas) versus Unocal

Two months later in this evolving saga, in October 1998, a Texas court dismissed the (formerly Argentinian-owned) Bridas' US$15 billion lawsuit against Unocal "for preventing them developing gas fields in Turkmenistan".(16) It turned out that the court ruling was in fact against Bridas'parent company, BP-Amoco, which had, a year earlier, acquired a controlling stake in Bridas.

In all likelihood, there was a mutual understanding between Unocal and BP-Amoco, which are consortium partners in the Caspian Sea basin. Moreover, while Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former National Security Adviser (in a Democratic administration), was acting as a consultant for Amoco, Henry Kissinger, a former Secretary of State (in a Republican administration), was advising Unocal Corporation.

The acquisition of Bridas by BP-Amoco suggests that BP will, in all likelihood, be a major player in future pipeline negotiations, most probably in an agreement with Unocal.

Unocal Withdraws But Only Temporarily

While Unocal had formally withdrawn from the CentGas consortium in the wake of the cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and the Sudan, BP-Amoco's subsidiary, Pan American Energy, (the successor company to Bridas), continued to actively negotiate with Afghan, Russian, Turkmen and Kazakh officials regarding the trans-Afghan pipeline project.

Meanwhile, a turnaround had occurred in US foreign policy under the Clinton administration towards Bridas: No more dirty tricks against a company which is now owned by one of America's largest oil conglomerates! Visibly, in the last two years of the Clinton administration, Unocal's rival in the pipeline negotiations, BP-Amoco, had the upper hand.

Despite Unocal's temporary withdrawal, the CentGas consortium was not disbanded. Unocal's partner, Delta Oil Corporation of Saudi Arabia, in CentGas continued to negotiate with the Taliban.

George W. Bush Enters the White House

The evolving pipeline saga gained a new momentum upon George W. Bush's accession to the White House in January 2001.

At the very outset of the Bush administration, Unocal (which had withdrawn in 1998 from pipeline negotiations under the Clinton administration) reintegrated the CentGas Consortium and resumed its talks with the Taliban (in January 2001), with the firm backing, this time, of senior officials of the Bush administration, including Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage. Dick Armitage had previously been a lobbyist for Unocal in the Burma/Myanmar Forum, which is a Washington-based group funded by Unocal.(17)

These negotiations with the Taliban occurred only a few months before the September 11 attacks:
Laila Helms [daughter of Senator Jesse Helms], who was hired as the public relations agent for the Taliban government, brought Rahmatullah Hashimi, an advisor to Mullah Omar, to Washington as recently as March 2001. Helms was uniquely positioned for the job through her association with her uncle Richard Helms, former chief of the CIA and former Ambassador to Iran. One of the negotiating meetings was held just one month before September 11, on August 2, when Christina Rocca, in charge of Asian Affairs at the State Department, met Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salem Zaef, in Islamabad.

Rocca has had extensive connections with Afghanistan, including supervising the delivery of Stinger missiles to the Mujahideen in the 1980s. At the CIA, she had been in charge of contacts with Islamist fundamentalist guerrilla groups.(18)

Unocal 'Appoints'Interim Government in Kabul

In the wake of the bombing of Afghanistan, the Bush administration designated Hamid Karzai as head of the interim government in Kabul. While highlighting Karzai's patriotic struggle against the Taliban, what the media failed to mention is that Karzai had collaborated with the Taliban government. He had also been on Unocal's payroll.

In fact, since the mid-1990s, Hamid Karzai, who later became President, had acted as a consultant and lobbyist for Unocal in negotiations with the Taliban. His appointment-visibly on behalf of the US oil giants-had been casually rubber-stamped by the "international community" at the November 2001 Bonn conference, held under UN auspices.

According to the Saudi newspaper Al-Watan:

Karzai has been a Central Intelligence Agency covert operator since the 1980s. He collaborated with the CIA in funneling US aid to the Taliban as of 1994 "when the Americans had-secretly and through the Pakistanis [specifically the ISI]-supported the Taliban's assumption of power."(19)
"Coincidentally, President Bush's Special Envoy to Kabul, Zalmay Khalizad, had also worked for Unocal. He had drawn up the risk analysis for the pipeline in 1997, lobbied for the Taliban and took part in negotiations with them."(20) Khalizad had occupied the position of Special Advisor to the State Department during the Reagan administration,"lobbying successfully for accelerated US military aid to the Mujahideen".

He later became Undersecretary of Defense in the Bush Senior Cabinet.(21) When George W. was inaugurated in January 2001, Khalizad was appointed to the National Security Council. While Clinton's foreign policy had provided support to US oil interests in Central Asia, under the Republicans oil company officials were brought into the inner sphere of political decision-making.

The 'Reconstruction'of Afghanistan

Washington had set the stage. According to a World Bank representative in Kabul, "reconstruction in Afghanistan [was] going to open up a whole range of opportunities."(22)

Two days after the bombing of Afghanistan commenced, on October 9, the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, met with Pakistani officials regarding the trans-Afghan pipeline. The pipeline, according to the report, was slated to "open up new avenues of multi-dimensional regional cooperation, particularly in light of recent geopolitical developments [bombing of Afghanistan] in the region".(23)

With Afghanistan under US military occupation, the role of Hamid Karzai as the country's President is to "broker" the pipeline deal on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants with the firm backing of the Bush administration.

In the immediate wake of the October 2001 bombing raids, the media reported that "two small companies", Chase Energy and Caspian Energy Consulting (acting on behalf of major oil interests), had contacts with the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan to revive the pipeline deal. While the identity of the oil companies behind these "small firms" was not mentioned, it just so happens that the President of Caspian Sea Consulting, S. Rob Sobhani, had been a consultant to BP-Amoco in Central Asia. Sobhani also sits on the Council of Foreign Relations'"Caspian Sea Discourse", together with representatives of major oil companies, the George Soros Open Society Institute, the CIA and the Heritage Foundation (a Republican party think tank).

According to S. Rob Sobhani:

It is absolutely essential that the US make the pipeline the centerpiece of rebuilding Afghanistan.... The State Department thinks it's a great idea, too. Routing the gas through Iran would be avoided, and the Central Asian republics wouldn't have to ship through Russian pipelines.(24)

According to Joseph Noemi, CEO of Chase Energy, September 11, and the "War on Terrorism" are a blessing in disguise for Afghanistan:

If the United States'presence continues in the region, [September 11] is probably the best thing that could have happened here for the Central Asian republics … . This region, in terms of oil economics, is the frontier for this century … and Afghanistan is part and parcel of this.25

Notes:

1. Knight Ridder News, 31 October 2001.

2. Jim Crogan, "The Oil War", LA Weekly, 30 November 2001.

3. Ibid.

4. Ted Rall, "It's About Oil", San Francisco Chronicle, 2 November 2001, p. A25.

5. Ishtiaq Ahmad, "How America Courted Taliban", Pakistan Observer, 20 October 2001.

6. John Pilger, "This War is a Fraud", Daily Mirror, 29 October 2001.

7. Jim Crogan, "Pipeline Payoff to Afghanistan War", California CrimeTimes, November 2001, http://www.californiacrimetimes.com/. See also Jim Crogan, "The Oil War: Unocal's once-grand plan for Afghan pipelines", LA Weekly, 30 November-6 December 2001.

8. US Congress, Hearing on US Interests in the Central Asian Republics, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Committee on International Relations, Washington, DC, http://commdocs.house.gov/ committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0f.htm.
See Karen Talbot,"US Energy Giant Unocal Appoints Interim Government in Kabul", Global Outlook, No. 1, Spring 2002, p. 70.

10. "Timeline of Competition Between Unocal and Bridas", World Press Review, December 2001, www.worldpress.org.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Alexander Gas and Oil Connections, http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/com-pany/cnc75005.htm, 12 August 1997.

14. Larry Chin, "Unocal and the Afghanistan Pipeline", Online Journal, 6 March 2002, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca/ articles/CHI203A.html, 6 March 2002.

15. Ibid.

16. Timeline, op. cit.

17. Larry Chin, op. cit.

18. See Karen Talbot, "US Energy Giant Unocal Appoints Interim Government in Kabul", Global Outlook, No. 1, Spring 2002. p. 70.

19. Karen Talbot, op. cit. and BBC Monitoring Service, 15 December 2001.

20. Karen Talbot, op. cit.

21. Patrick Martin,"Unocal Advisor Named Representative to Afghanistan", World Socialist Web Site, 3 January 2002.

22. Statement of William Byrd, World Bank Acting Country Manager for Afghanistan, 27 November 2001.

23. Quoted in Larry Chin, "The Bush administration's Afghan Carpet", Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ CHI203B.html, 13 March 2002.

24. Daniel Fisher, "Kabuled Together", Forbes Online, 4 February 2002,
http://www.forbes.com.

25. Knight Ridder News, 30 October 2001.

War and the Hidden Agenda

2008-09-22T19:04:00.000-07:00

Conquest of Oil Reserves and Pipeline Routes

Part II War and Globalization
Chapter 5

"America's New War" consists in extending the global market system while opening up new "economic frontiers" for US corporate capital. More specifically, the US-led military invasion- in close liaison with Britain-responds to the interests of the Anglo-American oil giants, in alliance with America's "Big Five" weapons producers: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and General Dynamics.

The "Anglo-American axis" in defense and foreign policy is the driving force behind the military operations in Central Asia and Middle East. This rapprochement between London and Washington is consistent with the integration of British and American business interests in the areas of banking, oil and the defense industry. The merger of British Petroleum (BP) and the American Oil Company (AMOCO) into the world's largest oil conglomerate has a direct bearing on the pattern of Anglo-American relations and the close relationship between the US President and the British Prime Minister. In the wake of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, Britain's giant weapons producer, British Aerospace Systems (BAES), was fully integrated into the US system of defense procurement.

The Planning of War

In fact, the planning of America's New War has been in the "pipeline" for at least three years prior to the tragic events of September 11. At the outset of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, the "enlargement" of the Western military alliance was proclaimed with the acceptance by NATO of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic into its fold. This enlargement was directed against Yugoslavia and Russia.

-----

TEXT BOX 5.1

Military Action against Afghanistan

"A former Pakistani Foreign Secretary [Mr. Naik] was told by senior American officials [during a UN-sponsored international contact group meeting on Afghanistan in mid-July 2001] that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October [2001].... The wider objective, according to Mr. Naik, would be to topple the Taliban regime.... Mr. Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place. Bin Laden would [be] 'killed or captured'.

"He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation...Mr. Naik was told that if the military action went ahead, it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest. He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings, this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban."(1)

-----

In April 1999, barely a month into the bombing of Yugoslavia, the Clinton administration announced the planned extension of NATO's dominion into the heartland of the former Soviet Union. Coinciding with the ceremony of NATO's 50th anniversary, the heads of state from Georgia, the Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldava were in attendance in the plush decorum of the Andrew Mellon Auditorium in Washington. They had been invited to NATO's three day celebration to sign GUUAM (Georgia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldava). GUUAM is a regional military alliance which lies strategically at the hub of the Caspian oil and gas wealth,"with Moldava and the Ukraine offering [pipeline] export routes to the West".(2) Georgia, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan immediately announced that they would be leaving the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)' "security union", which defines the framework of military cooperation between the former Soviet republics, as well their links to Moscow.

The formation of GUUAM (under NATO's umbrella and financed by Western military aid) was intent upon further fracturing the CIS. The Cold War, although officially over, had not yet reached its climax. The members of this new pro-NATO political grouping were not only supportive of the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, they had also agreed to "low level military cooperation" with NATO, while insisting that "the group is not a military alliance directed against any third party, namely Moscow".(3) Dominated by Anglo-American oil interests, the formation of GUUAM ultimately purports to exclude Russia from the oil and gas deposits in the Caspian area, as well as isolating Moscow politically.

Militarization of the Eurasian Corridor

Just five days before the bombing of Yugoslavia (19 March 1999), the US Congress adopted the Silk Road Strategy Act, which defined America's broad economic and strategic interests in a region extending from the Mediterranean to Central Asia. The Silk Road Strategy (SRS) outlines a framework for the development of America's business empire along an extensive geographical corridor: (See map page Middle East Theatre of War.)

The ancient Silk Road, once the economic lifeline of Central Asia and the South Caucasus, traversed much of the territory now within the countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.... One hundred years ago, Central Asia was the arena for a great game played by Czarist Russia, Colonial Britain, Napoleon's France, and the Persian and the Ottoman Empires. Allegiances meant little during this struggle for empire building, where no single empire could gain the upper hand.

One hundred years later, the collapse of the Soviet Union has unleashed a new great game, where the interests of the East India Trading Company have been replaced by those of Unocal and Total [oil companies], and many other organizations and firms. Today [we are seeing] the interests of a new contestant in this new great game, the United States. The five [former Soviet republics] which make up Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan...are anxious to establish relations with the United States. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan possess large reserves of oil and natural gas, both on-shore and off-shore in the Caspian Sea, which they urgently seek to exploit. Uzbekistan [also] has oil and gas reserves.4
Under the SRS, US foreign policy consists in undermining and eventually destabilizing its competitors in the oil business including Russia, Iran and China:

Stated US policy goals regarding energy resources in this region include fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; breaking Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit [through] Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies....

Central Asia would seem to offer significant new investment opportunities for a broad range of American companies which, in turn, will serve as a valuable stimulus to the economic development of the region. Japan, Turkey, Iran, Western Europe, and China are all pursuing economic development opportunities and challenging Russian dominance in the region. It is essential that US policymakers understand the stakes involved in Central Asia as we seek to craft a policy that serves the interests of the United States and US business.(5)

While the SRS sets the stage for incorporating the former Soviet republics into America's business empire, the GUUAM military alliance defines "cooperation" in the area of defense, including the stationing of US troops in the former Soviet republics. Under GUUAM auspices, the US has established a military base in Uzbekistan, which was used as a launch pad for its October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks.

The Silk Road Strategy Act points to the establishment under Washington's protection-i.e., explicitly directed against Moscow-of "strong political, economic, and security ties among countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia" .

Also, under the guidance of the US Government, working closely with the IMF and the World Bank, these former Soviet Republics are to establish:

...open market economies and open democratic systems in the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia [which] will provide positive incentives for international private investment, increased trade, and other forms of commercial interactions.(6)

Backed by US military might, the SRS is to open up a vast geographical region to US corporations and financial institutions. The stated purpose is "to promote political and economic liberalization" including the adoption of "free market reforms" under IMF-World Bank-WTO supervision.

In a region extending from the Black Sea to the Chinese border, the objective of the SRS is to instate a US-controlled "free trade area" composed of eight former Soviet republics. This extensive corridor-which until recently was largely within Moscow's economic and geopolitical orbit-will eventually transform the entire region into a patchwork of American protectorates.

The SRS not only constitutes a continuation of US foreign policy of the Cold War era, but it also designates Israel as America's "partner" in the Silk Road corridor:
Many of the countries of the South Caucasus have secular Muslim governments that are seeking closer alliance with the United States and that have active and cordial diplomatic relations with Israel.(7)

Oil Politics

Afghanistan is, in many regards, strategic. It not only borders the "Silk Road Corridor" linking the Caucasus to China's Western border, it is also at the hub of five nuclear powers: China, Russia, India, Pakistan and Kazakhstan. While the bombing of Afghanistan was still ongoing, an interim "government"-designated by the "international community"-was installed in Kabul on the Bosnia-Kosovo model. The underlying objective, of course, is to militarize Afghanistan with a permanent presence of "peacekeeping troops".

Afghanistan is at the strategic crossroads of the Eurasian oil pipeline and transport routes. It also constitutes a potential land-bridge for the southbound oil pipeline from the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea across Pakistan, which had initially been negotiated by Unocal with the Taliban government. (For further details see Chapter 6.)

The former Soviet republics of Central Asia-Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and especially "the new Kuwait", Kazakhstan-have vast oil and gas reserves. But Russia has refused to allow the US to extract it through Russian pipelines and Iran is considered a dangerous route. That left Afghanistan. The US oil company Chevron-where Mr. Bush's National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, was a director throughout the 1990s-is deeply involved in Kazakhstan. In 1995, another US company, Unocal (formerly Union Oil Company of California), signed a contract to export $8 billion worth of natural gas through a $3 billion pipeline which would go from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan.(8)

The oil and natural gas reserves of "the Eurasian Corridor" are substantial, at least of the same size of those in the Persian Gulf.(9)

The region of the South Caucasus and Central Asia could produce oil and gas in sufficient quantities to reduce the dependence of the United States on energy from the volatile Persian Gulf region. United States foreign policy and international assistance should be narrowly targeted to support the economic and political independence as well as democracy building, free market policies, human rights and regional economic integration of the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia.(10)

"Political and military conditions" in the region (meaning Russia's presence and influence) have been viewed by both the Clinton and Bush administrations as:

...presenting obstacles to bringing this energy to the global market....Both regions are the object of outside states competing for influence there. Not only Russia, but also China, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are competitively engaged, often in non-constructive ways....If we [the US] and our allies cannot manage the second and third sets of realities, we will forego the benefits of the first set of realities. Bringing the oil and gas to market will be sporadic, if not impossible, and far more costly. At the same time, the resulting political instabilities may turn both regions into a cauldron of civil wars and political violence, inevitably drawing in the surrounding states. We already have this pattern in the Persian Gulf region, requiring US military involvement, and we could hardly stand by politically, even if we did so militarily, if conflicts entangle Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and some of the Arab states in the Trans-caucasus or Central Asia.(11)

In other words, the successful implementation of the SRS requires the concurrent "militarization" of the Eurasian corridor as a means to securing control over extensive oil and gas reserves, as well as "protecting" the pipeline routes on behalf of the Anglo-American oil companies. "[A] successful international oil regime is a combination of economic, political and military arrangements to support oil production and transportation to markets."(12)

In the words of a (former) CIA "policy analyst":

Whoever has control over certain kinds of pipelines and certain kinds of investments in the region does have a certain amount of geopolitical clout. Such clout is something of a commodity itself, even if the physical control of the oil is not. For much of the Third World, this is a newer way of thinking about resources; it's no longer the old story of Hitler's Germany trying to get to the Caucasus and use the oil for its own purposes in World War II.(13)

Under the SRS Act, Washington commits itself to "fostering stability in this region, which is vulnerable to political and economic pressures from the South, North and East," suggesting that "the threat to stability" is not only from Moscow (to the North) but also from China (to the East) and Iran and Iraq (to the South). The SRS is also intended to prevent the former Soviet republics from developing economic, political and defense ties with China, Iran, Turkey and Iraq.

Covert Operations on Behalf of the Oil Giants

Under the Bush administration, the US oil giants have gained direct access to the planning of military and intelligence operations on their behalf. This has been achieved through the powerful Texas oil lobby, resulting in the appointment of (former) oil company executives to key defense and foreign policy positions:

President George W. Bush's family has been running oil companies since 1950. Vice President Dick Cheney spent the late '90s as CEO of Haliburton, the world's largest oil services company. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice sat on the board of Chevron, which graced a tanker with her name. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans was the CEO of Tom Brown Inc.-a natural gas company with fields in Texas, Colorado and Wyoming-for more than a decade. The links don't end with personnel. The bin Laden family and other members of Saudi Arabia's oil-wealthy elite have contributed mightily to several Bush family ventures, even as the American energy industry helped put Bush in office. Of the top 10 lifetime contributors to George W.'s war chests, six either come from the oil business or have ties to it.(14)

Protecting Multiple Pipelines

In the context of GUUAM and the SRS, Washington has encouraged the formation of pro-US client states strategically located along oil pipeline routes. The latter are to be "protected" by NATO under GUUAM and various other military cooperation agreements. The hidden agenda is to eventually cut the Russians off altogether from the Caspian oil and gas fields.

The oil giants are vying for control over the oil reserves of Azerbaijan, as well as strategic pipeline routes out of the Azeri capital Baku on the Caspian coast.

A pro-US regime was installed in Azerbaijan under President Heydar Aliyevich Aliyev in 1993. In the military coup which brought him to power, Aliyev-a former KGB official and Communist party politburo member-was allied to Suret Husseinov, leader of the Jadovov clan.

In 1994 "the Contract of the Century", involving the development of the Charyg oil fields near Baku, was signed with the Western oil consortium led by BP-Amoco. The Aliyev clan was in control of SOCAR, the State Oil Company, which has entered into joint ventures with the oil conglomerates. In addition to the links of the Azeri State to narcotics, there is evidence of a profitable black-market trade in raw materials, including trade of copper, nickel and other metals.

Western financial institutions, including the World Bank, had been actively involved in opening up the Azeri oil and gas fields to Western transnationals. Generous money payoffs had been channeled to politicians and state officials. The criminalization of the Azeri State had largely facilitated the entry of foreign capital:

Azerbaijan's leaders are wined and dined on oil company expense accounts, while 600,000 Azeris still live in the most horrendous conditions....The snake oil companies act as agents of their coun-tries'foreign policies and try to obtain commercial favors from Azeri leaders, who are ready to sell Azerbaijan's resources cheaply and for personal gains.... Over $6 billion in contract "signing bonuses" were paid to the Aliyev regime in Baku-by far more than all aid and investments in Georgia and Armenia combined-yet Azeris still live in refugee camps, worse off than even Georgians and Armenians.(15)

With a view to weakening Moscow's control over Caspian oil, several alternative pipeline routes had been envisaged. The Baku-Supsa pipeline-inaugurated in 1999 during the War in Yugoslavia and protected militarily by GUUAM-totally bypasses Russian territory. The oil is transported by pipeline from Baku to the Georgian port of Supsa, where it is shipped by tanker to the Pivdenny terminal near Odessa in the Ukraine. Both Georgia and the Ukraine are part of the GUUAM military alliance.

This Pivdenny terminal has been financed-in agreement with the (neo-fascist) government of President Leonid Kuchma-by Western loans. From there, the oil can be transported by pipeline "connecting to the already existing southern branch of the Druzhba pipeline, which runs through Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic".(16)

NATO enlargement, announced shortly before the inauguration of the Baku-Supsa route, also ensures the protection of the connecting pipeline routes which transit through Hungarian and Czech territory. In other words, the entire pipeline route out of the Caspian sea basin transits through countries which are under the protection of the Western military alliance.

Chechnya at the Crossroads of Strategic Pipelines

Russia's Soviet era pipeline linked the Azeri port of Baku on the Southern tip of the Caspian Sea, via Grozny, to Tikhoretsk. This pipeline route, controlled by the Russian state, terminates at Novorossiysk, and Chechnya is located at the crossroads of this strategic pipeline route.

During the Soviet era, Novorossiysk was the terminal for both the Kazakh and Azeri pipelines. Since the end of the Cold War and the opening up of the Caspian oil fields to foreign capital, Washington has incorporated the Ukraine and Georgia into its sphere of influence. Their membership in the GUUAM military alliance is crucial to Western pipeline plans, which are intent upon bypassing the Novorossiysk terminal, as well as shunting Moscow's influence over the pipelines crossing its own territory.

In the immediate wake of the Cold War, Washington encouraged the secession of Chechnya from the Russian Federation by providing covert support to the two main rebel factions. As discussed in Chapter 2, the Islamic insurgencies in Chechnya were supported by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda and Pakistan's ISI.

In 1994, Moscow went to war in order to protect its strategic pipeline route threatened by Chechen rebels. In August 1999 the pipeline was temporarily put out of order when the Chechen rebel army invaded Dagestan, triggering the Kremlin's decision to send federal troops into Chechnya.

The evidence suggests that the CIA was behind the Chechen rebels, using Pakistan's ISI as a "go-between". Washington's "hidden agenda" consisted in weakening the control of the Russian oil companies and the Russian state over the pipeline routes through Chechnya and Dagestan. Ultimately, Washington's objective is to separate Dagestan and Chechnya from the Russian Federation, thereby bringing a large part of the territory between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea under the "protection" of the Western military alliance.

Under this scenario, Russia would be excluded from the Caspian Sea. All the existing as well as future pipeline routes and transport corridors between the Caspian and Black Seas would be in the hands of the Anglo-American oil giants. The covert operations led by Pakistan's ISI in support of the Chechen rebels once again serve the interests of the Anglo-American oil giants.

The BP-Amoco Consortium

Shouldered by BP-Amoco, a US client government had been installed in Azerbaijan. President Aliyev has established himself by distributing power to various members of his family. In Azerbaijan, a modest $8 billion investment is estimated to yield profits of more than $40 billion to Western oil companies.(17) BP-Amoco was particularly anxious to shunt competing bids from Russia's Lukoil. The Anglo-American consortium led by BP-Amoco also included Unocal, McDermott and Pennzoil, together with Turkey's TPAO. Unocal was also the main player in the pipeline project across Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea. (See Chapter 6.)

The BP-Amoco consortium owns 60 per cent of the shares in the Azerbaijani International Operating Corporation (AIOC). In 1997, in a separate venture, Vice President Al Gore was instrumental in the signing of a major oil deal with SOCAR allowing Chevron (now allied with Texaco) to acquire control over vast oil reserves in the southern Caspian Sea.(18) Chevron is also involved in the Northern Caspian region of Kazakhstan through its joint venture Tengizchevroil. In other words, prior to the 2000 Presidential elections, both George W. Bush and Al Gore, the two opposing candidates, had already made commitments to competing oil conglomerates in the Caspian Sea basin.

Europe versus Anglo-America: The Clash of Competing Oil Interests

The Anglo-American oil giants, supported by US military might, are directly competing with Europe's oil giant Total-Fina-Elf- associated with Italy's ENI, which is a big player in Kazakhstan's wealthy North East Caspian Kashagan oil fields. The stakes are high: Kashagan is reported to have deposits "so large as to even surpass the size of the North Sea oil reserves".(19)

The competing EU-based consortium, however, lacks a significant stake and leverage in the main pipeline routes out of the Caspian Sea basin and back (via the Black Sea and through the Balkans) to Western Europe. The key pipeline corridor projects are largely in the hands of their Anglo-American rivals.

The Franco-Belgian consortium Total-Fina-Elf, in partnership with Italy's ENI, also has sizeable investments in Iran. Total had established, together with Russia's Gazprom and Malaysia's Petronas, a joint venture with the National Iranian Oil company (NIOC). Predictably, Washington has, on several occasions, attempted to break France's deal with Tehran on the grounds that it openly contravened the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act.

What this suggests is that Europe's largest oil conglomerate, dominated by French and Italian oil interests in association with their Iranian and Russian partners, are potentially on a collision course with the dominant Anglo-American oil consortia, which in turn are backed by Washington.

Russia's Oil Transnationals

Russia's major oil groups, while establishing strong ties to the Franco-Italian consortium, have, nonetheless, also entered into joint ventures with the Anglo-American groups.

While Russia's oil companies are supported by the Russian state and military against Western encroachment, several of Russia's major oil giants (including Lukoil and the State-owned company Rosneft) are participating in the Anglo-American pipeline projects as junior partners.

The Anglo-American oil companies are intent upon eventually taking over the Russian oil companies and excluding Russia from the Caspian Sea basin. At the same time, the Anglo-American groups are clashing with the Franco-Italian consortium, which in turn has ties to Russian and Iranian oil interests.

The militarization of the Eurasian corridor is an integral part of Washington's foreign policy agenda. In this regard, America's quest to control the Eurasian pipeline corridors on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants is not only directed against Russia, it is also intended to weaken competing European oil interests in the Transcaucasus and Central Asia.

Notes:

1. George Arney, "US planned attack on Taliban", BBC, 18 September 2001.

2. Financial Times, London, 6 May 1999, p. 2.

3. Ibid.

4. US Congress, Hearing On US Interests In The Central Asian Republics, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Committee on International Relations, Washington, DC, http://commdocs.house.gov/commit-tees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0f.htm, Washington DC, 12 February 1998.

5. Ibid.

6. US Congress, Silk Road Strategy Act, 106th Congress, 1st Session, S. 579, "To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to target assistance to support the economic and political independence of the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia", US Senate, Washington DC, March 10, 1999.

7. Ibid.

8. Lara Marlowe, "US efforts to make peace summed up by 'oil'", Irish Times, 19 November 2001.

9. Lt.-Gen. William E. Odom, USA, Ret, "US Policy Toward Central Asia and the South Caucasus", Caspian Crossroads Magazine, Volume 3, Issue No.1, Summer 1997.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Robert V. Baryiski, "The Caspian Oil Regime: Military Dimensions", Caspian Crossroads Magazine, Volume 1, Issue No. 2, Spring 1995.

13. Graham Fuller, "Geopolitical Dynamics of the Caspian Region", Caspian Crossroads Magazine, Volume 3, Issue No.2, Fall 1997.

14. Damien Caveli, "The United States of Oil", Salon.com, 19 November 2001.

15. The Great Game. Aliyev.com, http://www.aliyev.com/aliyev/fact_07.htm, 9 January 2000.

16. Bohdan Klid, Ukraine's Plans to Transport Caspian Sea and Middle East Oil to Europe, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta, Edmonton, undated. See also Energy Information Administration at http://www.eia.doe.gov/ emeu/cabs/russpip.html.

17. See Richard Hottelet, "Tangled Web of an Oil Pipeline" The Christian Science Monitor, 1 May 1998.

18. PR News Wire, 1 August 1997.

19. Richard Giragosian, "Massive Kashagan Oil Strike Renews Geopolitical Offensive In Caspian", The Analyst, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, 7 June, 2000.

Cover-Up or Complicity?

2008-09-19T19:03:00.000-07:00

Role of Pakistan's ISI in the September 11 Attacks

Chapter 4

As discussed in Chapter III, the US Administration has consciously used international terrorism in the pursuit of its foreign policy objectives by engaging Pakistan's ISI as a "go-between". Ironically, while Pakistan's ISI has supported and abetted international terrorism (including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda), the Bush administration, in the wake of September 11, chose to seek the assistance of Pakistan's ISI in its "campaign against international terrorism".

Two days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it was reported that a delegation led by the head of Pakistan's ISI, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, was in Washington for high level talks at the State Department.(1)

Most US media conveyed the impression that Islamabad had put together a delegation at Washington's behest, and that the invitation to the meeting had been transmitted to the Pakistan government "after" the tragic events of September 11.

However this is not what happened.

Pakistan's chief spy, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad,"was in the US when the attacks occurred".(2) According to the New York Times, "he happened to be [in Washington] on a regular visit of consul-tations".(3) Not a word was mentioned regarding the nature of his "business" in the US in the week prior to the terrorist attacks. According to Newsweek, he was "on a visit to Washington at the time of the attack, and, like most other visitors, is still stuck there", unable to return home because of the freeze on international airline travel.(4)

General Ahmad had in fact arrived in the US on the 4th of September, a full week before the attacks.5 Bear in mind that the purpose of his meeting at the State Department on the 13th was only made public "after" the September 11 terrorist attacks, when the Bush administration took the decision to formally seek the "cooperation" of Pakistan in its "campaign against international terrorism".

The press reports confirm that Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad had two meetings with Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, on the 12th and 13th.(6) After September 11, he also met Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of the powerful Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

Confirmed by several press reports, however, General Ahmad also had "a regular visit of consultations" with US officials during the week prior to September 11-i.e., meetings with his US counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon.(7)

The nature of these routine "consultations" was not made public. Were they in any way related to the subsequent "post-September 11 consultations" pertaining to Pakistan's decision to "cooperate with Washington", which were held behind closed doors at the State Department on September 12 and 13? Was the planning of war being discussed between Pakistani and US officials? One can only speculate based on what happened later in Afghanistan.

"The ISI-Osama-Taliban Axis"

On the 9th of September, the leader of the Northern Alliance, Commander Ahmad Shah Masood, was assassinated. The Northern Alliance had informed the Bush administration that the ISI was allegedly implicated in the assassination. The Northern Alliance had confirmed in an official statement that:

A "Pakistani ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" [was responsible for] plotting the assassination by two Arab suicide bombers...."We believe that this is a triangle between Osama bin Laden, ISI, which is the intelligence section of the Pakistani army, and the Taliban."(8)
The complicity of the ISI in the "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" was a matter of public record, confirmed by congressional transcripts and intelligence reports. (See Chapter 3.)

The Bush Administration Cooperates with Pakistan's Military-Intelligence

The Bush administration consciously took the decision in "the post-September 11 consultations" at the State Department to directly "cooperate" with Pakistan's ISI, despite its links to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and its alleged role in the assassination of Commander Massoud, which occurred coincidentally two days before the terrorist attacks.

-----

TEXT BOX 4.1

Schedule of Pakistan's Chief Spy, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, Washington, 4 to 13 September 2001

4 September: Ahmad arrives in the US on an official visit.

4-9 September: He meets his US counterparts including CIA Head, George Tenet.

9 September: Assassination of General Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance. The Official statement by the Northern Alliance points to the involvement of the ISI-Osama-Taliban axis.

11 September: Terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.

12-13 September: Meetings between Lt. General Ahmad and Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage. Agreement on Pakistan's "collaboration" negotiated with the Bush administration.

13 September: Ahmad meets Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

-----

Meanwhile, the Western media-in the face of mounting evidence-remained silent on the insidious role of Pakistan's ISI. The assassination of Massoud was mentioned, but its political significance in relation to September 11 and the subsequent decision to go to war against Afghanistan was barely touched upon. Without discussion or debate, Pakistan was heralded as a "friend" and an ally of America.

In an utterly twisted piece of logic, the US media concluded in chorus that:
US officials had sought cooperation from Pakistan [precisely] because it is the original backer of the Taliban, the hard-line Islamic leadership of Afghanistan accused by Washington of harboring bin Laden.(9)
"Patterns of Global Terrorism"

Nobody seemed to have noticed the obtrusive and unsubtle falsehoods behind the Administration's "campaign against international terrorism", with perhaps the exception of one inquisitive journalist who questioned Colin Powell at the outset of his State department briefing on Thursday September 13th:
[Does] the US see Pakistan as an ally or, as the "Patterns of Global Terrorism" pointed out, "a place where terrorist groups get training." Or is it a mixture?(10)
Colin Powell's reply was:
We have provided to the Pakistani government a specific list of things we think would be useful for them to work on with us, and we'll be discussing that list with the President of Pakistan later this after-noon.(11)
"Patterns of Global Terrorism" referred to by the journalist is a publication of the US State Department.(12) In other words, Colin Powell's evasive response at the Press Conference is refuted by official US Government documents, which confirm unequivocally that the government of President Pervez Musharraf (including Pakistan's Military and Intelligence apparatus) has links to international terrorism:
Credible reporting indicates that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with material, fuel, funding, technical assistance, and military advisers. Pakistan has not prevented large numbers of Pakistani nationals from moving into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban. Islamabad also failed to take effective steps to curb the activities of certain madrasas, or religious schools, that serve as recruiting grounds for terrorism.(13)
Behind Close Doors at the State Department

The Bush administration sought, therefore, the "cooperation" of those (including Pakistan's ISI) who were directly supporting and abetting the terrorists. This may seem absurd, but at the same time consistent with Washington's broader strategic and economic objectives in Central Asia and the Middle East.

The meeting behind closed doors at the State Department on September 13, between Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, and Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was shrouded in secrecy. It is noteworthy that President Bush was not even involved in these crucial negotiations: "Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage handed over [to ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmad] a list of specific steps Washington wanted Pakistan to take."(14)
After a telephone conversation between [Secretary of State Colin] Powell and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Pakistan had promised to cooperate.(15)
President George W. Bush confirmed later on September 13, that the Pakistan government had agreed "to cooperate and to participate as we hunt down those people who committed this unbelievable, despicable act on America".(16)

Pakistan's Chief Spy on Mission to Afghanistan

On September 13th, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf promised Washington that he would send chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad to meet the Taliban and negotiate the extradition of Osama bin Laden. This decision was at Washington's behest, most probably agreed upon during the meeting between Dick Armitage and General Mahmoud at the State Department.

Pakistan's chief spy returned immediately to prepare for the delivery of a practically impossible ultimatum:
At American urging, Ahmad traveled...to Kandahar, Afghanistan. There he delivered the bluntest of demands. Turn over bin Laden without conditions, he told Taliban leader Mohammad Omar, or face certain war with the United States and its allies.(17)
Mahmoud's meetings on two separate occasions with the Taliban were reported as a "failure." Yet this "failure" to extradite Osama was part of Washington's design, providing a pretext for a military intervention which was already in the pipeline.

If Osama had been extradited, the main justification for waging a war "against international terrorism" would no longer hold. And the evidence suggests that this war had been planned well in advance of September 11 in response to broad strategic and economic objectives.

Meanwhile, senior Pentagon and State Department officials had been rushed to Islamabad to put the finishing touches on America's war plans. And on Sunday, October 7th, prior to the onslaught of the bombing of major cities in Afghanistan by the US Air Force, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was removed from his position as head of the ISI in what was described as a routine "reshuffling". It was later reported that he had been appointed to the powerful position of Governor of Punjab bordering India's Western frontier.

The Missing Link

In the days following Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad's removal, a report published in The Times of India, which went virtually unnoticed by the Western media, revealed the links between Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad and the presumed "ring leader" of the WTC attacks Mohammed Atta. The Times of India report constitutes "the missing link" to understanding who was behind the terrorist attacks of September 11:

While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI Director-General, Lt.-General Mahmoud Ahmad, sought retirement after being superseded on Monday [8 October], the day the US started bombing Afghanistan, the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday [October 9], that the General lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Center. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 was wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmoud. Senior government sources have confirmed that India contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. While they did not provide details, they said that Indian inputs, including Sheikh's mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link.

A direct link between the ISI and the WTC attack could have enormous repercussions. The US cannot but suspect whether or not there were other senior Pakistani Army commanders who were in the know of things. Evidence of a larger conspiracy could shake US confidence in Pakistan's ability to participate in the anti-terrorism coalition.(18)

According to FBI files, Mohammed Atta was "the lead hijacker of the first jet airliner to slam into the World Trade Center and, apparently, the lead conspirator".(19)

The Times of India article was based on an official intelligence report of the Delhi government that had been transmitted through official channels to Washington. Agence France Press (AFP) confirms that:

A highly-placed government source told AFP that the "damning link" between the General and the transfer of funds to Atta was part of evidence which India has officially sent to the US "The evidence we have supplied to the US is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism," the source said.(20)
The information in the Indian Intelligence report regarding the money transfer by Pakistan's ISI is corroborated by the FBI-led investigation in the wake of September 11. While not mentioning the role of Pakistan's ISI, the FBI nonetheless points to a Pakistan connection and to "the people connected to Osama bin Laden" who are the "money men" behind the terrorists:

As to September 11th, federal authorities have told ABC News they have now tracked more than $100,000 from banks in Pakistan, to two banks in Florida, to accounts held by suspected hijack ring leader Mohammed Atta. As well, this morning, Time Magazine is reporting that some of that money came in the days just before the attack and can be traced directly to people connected to Osama bin Laden. It's all part of what has been a successful FBI effort so far to close in on the hijackers'high commander, the money men, the planners and the mastermind.(21)

Pakistan's Military-Intelligence Agency Behind 9/11?

The revelation by the Times of India article (confirmed by the FBI Report) has several implications. The report not only points to the links between ISI Chief General Ahmad (the presumed "Money Man") and terrorist ringleader Mohammed Atta, but it also indicates that other ISI officials might have had contacts with the terrorists. Moreover, it suggests that the September 11 attacks were not an act of "individual terrorism" organized by a single Al Qaeda cell, but rather they were part of a coordinated military-intelligence operation emanating from Pakistan's ISI.

The Times of India report also sheds light on the nature of General Ahmad's "business activities" in the US during the week prior to September 11, raising the distinct possibility of ISI contacts with Mohammed Atta in the US in the week "prior" to the attacks on the WTC, precisely at the time when General Mahmoud and his delegation were on a "regular visit of consultations" with US officials. Remember, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad arrived in the US on the 4th of September.

Despite the fact that the FBI investigation had uncovered Pakistan's complicity in the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration was, nevertheless, determined to get the support of the Pakistani government in the "war on terrorism".

US Approved Appointee

In assessing the alleged links between the terrorists and the ISI, it should be pointed out that Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, as head of the ISI, was a "US-approved appointee". As head of the ISI since 1999, he was in liaison with his US counterparts in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Pentagon. One should also bear in mind that Pakistan's ISI remained, throughout the entire post-Cold War era until the present, the launch pad for CIA covert operations in the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Balkans. (See our earlier analysis on this issue.)

In other words, General Mahmoud Ahmad was serving US foreign policy interests. His dismissal on the orders of Washington was not the result of a fundamental political disagreement. Without US support channeled through the Pakistani ISI, the Taliban would not have been able to form a government in 1996. Jane Defense Weekly confirms in this regard that "half of Taliban manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI," which in turn was supported by the US.(22)

Moreover, the assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance, General Ahmad Shah Masood,-in which the ISI is alleged to have been implicated-was not at all in contradiction with US foreign policy objectives. Since the late 1980s, the US had consistently sought to sidetrack and weaken Masood, who was perceived as a nationalist reformer, by providing support to both to the Taliban and the Hezb-I-Islami group led by Gulbuddin Hektmayar against Masood. Moreover, Masood was supported by Moscow.

After his assassination, which broadly served US interests, the Northern Alliance became fragmented into different factions. Had Masood not been assassinated, he would have become the head of the post-Taliban government formed in the wake of the US bombings of Afghanistan.

Corroborated by Congressional Transcripts

Corroborated by the House of Representatives International Relations Committee, US support funnelled through the ISI to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden has been a consistent policy of the US Administration since the end of the Cold War. According to Rep. Dana Rohrbacher:

...[T]he United States has been part and parcel to supporting the Taliban all along, and still is, let me add.... You have a military government [of President Musharraf] in Pakistan now that is arming the Taliban to the teeth …. Let me note that [US] aid has always gone to Taliban areas.... We have been supporting the Taliban, because all our aid goes to the Taliban areas. And when people from the outside try to put aid into areas not controlled by the Taliban, they are thwarted by our own State Department.... At that same moment, Pakistan initiated a major resupply effort, which eventually saw the defeat, and caused the defeat of almost all of the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan.(23)

Cover-up and Complicity?

The existence of an "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" is a matter of public record. The links between the ISI and agencies of the US Government, including the CIA, are also a matter of public record. Pakistan's ISI has been used by successive US Administrations as a "go-between". Pakistan's military-intelligence apparatus constitutes the core institutional support to both Osama's Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Without this institutional support, there would be no Taliban government in Kabul. In turn, without the unbending support of the US Government, there would be no powerful military-intelligence apparatus in Pakistan.

Senior officials in the State Department were fully cognizant of General Mahmoud Ahmad's role. In the wake of September 11, the Bush administration consciously sought the "cooperation" of the ISI which had been aiding and abetting Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

The Bush administration's relations with Pakistan's ISI-includ-ing its "consultations"with General Mahmoud Ahmad in the week prior to September 11-raise the issue of "cover-up" as well as "complicity". While Ahmad was talking to US officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, the ISI allegedly was in contact with the September 11 terrorists.

According to the Indian government intelligence report (referred to in the Times of India), the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks had links to Pakistan's ISI, which in turn has links to agencies of the US Government. What this suggests is that key individuals within the US military-intelligence establishment might have known about the ISI contacts with the September 11 terrorist "ring leader" Mohammed Atta and failed to act.

Whether this amounts to complicity on the part of the Bush administration remains to be firmly established. The least one can expect at this stage is an inquiry. But the Bush administration refuses to investigate these ISI links, as well as the money trail, not to mention the precise circumstances of the September 11 attacks.

What is crystal clear, however, is that this war is not a "campaign against international terrorism". It is a war of conquest with devastating consequences for the future of humanity. And the American people have been consciously and deliberately deceived by their government.

Notes:

1. The Guardian, London, 15 September 2001.

2. Reuters, 13 September 2001.

3. The New York Times, 13 September 2001.

4. Newsweek, 14 September 2001.

5. The Daily Telegraph. London, 14 September 2001.

6. The New York Times, September 13th, 2001, confirms the meeting on the 12th of September 2001.

7. The New York Times, 13 September 2001.

8. The Northern Alliance's statement was released on 14 September 2001, quoted in Reuters, 15 September 2001.

9. Reuters, 13 September 2001, emphasis added.

10. Journalist's question to Secretary of State Colin Powell, State Department Briefing, Washington DC, 13 September 2001.

11. Ibid.

12. See http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/.

13. US State Department, "Patterns of Global Terrorism", State Department, http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000, Washington, DC, 2000.

14. Reuters, 13 September 2001.

15. Ibid.

16. Remarks in a telephone conversation with New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and New York Governor George Pataki and an exchange with reporters, Presidential Papers, 13 September 2001.

17. The Washington Post, 23 September 2001.

18. The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001.

19. The Weekly Standard, Vol. 7, No. 7, October 2001.

20. AFP, 10 October 2001.

21. Statement of Brian Ross reporting on information conveyed to him by the FBI, ABC News, This Week, September 30, 2001.

22. Quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, 3 September 1998.

23. US House of Representatives: Statement by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, Hearing of The House International Relations Committee on "Global Terrorism And South Asia", Washington, DC, July 12, 2000.

Washington Supports International Terrorism

2008-09-16T18:47:00.000-07:00

Chapter 3

While the "Islamic Jihad"-featured by the Bush administration as "a threat to America"-is blamed for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, these same Islamic organizations constitute a key instrument of US military-intelligence operations not only in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, but also in India and China.

While the Mujahideen are busy fighting on behalf of Uncle Sam, the FBI-operating as a US-based Police Force-is waging a domestic war against terrorism, operating in some respects independently of the CIA, which has-since the Soviet-Afghan war-supported international terrorism through its covert operations.

Confronted with the evidence and history of CIA covert operations since the Cold War era, the US Administration can no longer deny its links to Osama. While the CIA admits that Osama bin Laden was an "intelligence asset" during the Cold War, the relationship is said to "go way back"to a bygone era.

According to the CIA, an "intelligence asset"-as distinct from a bona fide "intelligence agent"-need not be committed to the pursuit of US interests. Rather, it is meant to act and/or behave in a way which serves US foreign policy interests.

Intelligence assets are often unaware of the precise functions and roles they are performing on behalf of the CIA on the geopolitical chessboard. In turn, for these covert operations to be "successful", the CIA will use various proxy and front organizations such as Pakistan's military intelligence apparatus.

Most post-September 11 news reports consider that these Osama-CIA links belong to the "bygone era" of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are invariably viewed as irrelevant to an understanding of the September 11 crisis. Lost in the barrage of recent history, the role of the CIA, in supporting and developing international terrorist organizations during the Cold War and its aftermath, is casually ignored or downplayed by the Western media.

The 'Blowback' Thesis

A blatant example of post-September 11 media distortion is the "blowback" thesis: "Intelligence assets" are said to "have gone against their sponsors; what we've created blows back in our face".(1) In a display of twisted logic, the US Government and the CIA are portrayed as the ill-fated victims:

The sophisticated methods taught to the Mujahideen, and the thousands of tons of arms supplied to them by the US-and Britain-are now tormenting the West in the phenomenon known as "blowback", whereby a policy strategy rebounds on its own devisers.(2)

The US media, nonetheless, concedes that "the Taliban's coming to power [in 1996] is partly the outcome of the US support of the Mujahideen-the radical Islamic group-in the 1980s in the war against the Soviet Union".(3) But it also readily dismisses its own factual statements and concludes, in chorus, that the CIA had been tricked by a deceitful Osama. It's like "a son going against his father".

The "blowback" thesis is a fabrication. The CIA has never severed its ties to the "Islamic Militant Network".

'Bosniagate': Replicating the Iran-Contragate Pattern

Remember Oliver North and the Nicaraguan Contras under the Reagan administration, when weapons financed by the drug trade were channeled to "freedom fighters" in Washington's covert war against the Sandinista government? The same pattern was used in the Balkans in the 1990s to arm and equip the Mujahideen fighting in the ranks of the Bosnian Muslim army against the Armed Forces of the Yugoslav Federation.

Pakistan's ISI was used by the CIA as a "go-between"-to channel weapons and Mujahideen mercenaries to the Bosnian Muslim Army in the civil war in Yugoslavia. According to a report by the London-based International Media Corporation:

Reliable sources report that the United States is now [1994] actively participating in the arming and training of the Muslim forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina in direct contravention of the United Nations accords. US agencies have been providing weapons made in...China (PRC), North Korea (DPRK) and Iran. The sources indicated that...Iran, with the knowledge and agreement of the US Government, supplied the Bosnian forces with a large number of multiple rocket launchers and a large quantity of ammunition. These included 107mm and 122mm rockets from the PRC, and VBR-230 multiple rocket launchers...made in Iran.... It was [also] reported that 400 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) arrived in Bosnia with a large supply of arms and ammunition. It was alleged that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had full knowledge of the operation and that the CIA believed that some of the 400 had been detached for future terrorist operations in Western Europe.

During September and October [of 1994], there has been a stream of "Afghan" Mujahideen...covertly landed in Ploce, Croatia (SouthWest of Mostar) from where they have traveled with false papers...before deploying with the Bosnian Muslim forces in the Kupres, Zenica and Banja Luka areas. These forces have recently [late 1994] experienced a significant degree of military success. They have, according to sources in Sarajevo, been aided by the UNPROFOR Bangladesh battalion, which took over from a French battalion early in September [1994].

The Mujahideen landings at Ploce are reported to have been accompanied by US Special Forces equipped with high-tech communications equipment....The sources said that the mission of the US troops was to establish a command, control, communications and intelligence network to coordinate and support Bosnian Muslim offensives-in concert with Mujahideen and Bosnian Croat forces- in Kupres, Zenica and Banja Luka. Some offensives have recently been conducted from within the UN-established safe-havens in the Zenica and Banja Luka regions....

The US Administration has not restricted its involvement to the clandestine contravention of the UN arms embargo on the region....It [also] committed three high-ranking delegations over the past two years [prior to 1994] in failed attempts to bring the Yugoslav Government into line with US policy. Yugoslavia is the only state in the region to have failed to acquiesce to US pressure.(4)

'From the Horse's Mouth'

Ironically, the US Administration's undercover military-intelligence operations in Bosnia have been fully documented by the Republican Party. A lengthy Congressional report by the Republican Party Committee (RPC) published in 1997 accuses the Clinton administration of having "helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base" leading to the recruitment, through the "Militant Islamic Network", of thousands of Mujahideen from the Muslim world:

Perhaps most threatening to the SFOR [Stabilization Force in Bosnia-Herzegovina] mission-and more importantly, to the safety of the American personnel serving in Bosnia-is the unwillingness of the Clinton administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo. That policy, personally approved by Bill Clinton in April 1994, at the urging of CIA Director-designate (and then-NSC chief) Anthony Lake and the US ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, has, according to the Los Angeles Times (citing classified intelligence community sources), "played a central role in the dramatic increase in Iranian influence in Bosnia"....

Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of Mujahideen (holy warriors) from across the Muslim world. Also engaged in the effort were several other Muslim countries (including Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Turkey) and a number of radical Muslim organizations. For example, the role of one Sudan-based "humanitarian organization", called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well documented.

The Clinton administration's "hands-on" involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by US Government officials.... [T]he Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization...has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia....TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups.(5)

Complicity of the Clinton Administration

The RPC report confirms unequivocally the complicity of the Clinton administration with several Islamic fundamentalist organizations, including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

The Republicans wanted to undermine the Clinton administration. However, at a time when the entire country had its eyes riveted on the Monica Lewinsky scandal, they chose not to trigger an untimely "Iran-Bosniagate" affair, which might have unduly diverted public attention away from the Lewinsky scandal.

The Republicans wanted to impeach Bill Clinton "for having lied to the American people" regarding his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. On the more substantive "foreign policy lies" regarding drug running and covert operations in the Balkans, Democrats and Republicans agreed in unison, no doubt pressured by the Pentagon and the CIA, not to "spill the beans".

From Bosnia to Kosovo

The "Bosnian pattern" described in the 1997 Congressional RPC report was replicated in Kosovo with the complicity of NATO and the US State Department. Mujahideen mercenaries from the Middle East and Central Asia were recruited to fight in the ranks of the KLA in 1998-99, largely supporting NATO's war effort.

Confirmed by British military sources, the task of arming and training of the KLA had been entrusted in 1998 to the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Britain's Secret Intelligence Services MI6, together with "former and serving members of 22 SAS [Britain's 22nd Special Air Services Regiment], as well as three British and American private security companies".(6)
"The US DIA approached MI6 to arrange a training program for the KLA", said a senior British military source. "MI6 then sub-contracted the operation to two British security companies, who in turn approached a number of former members of the (22 SAS) regiment. Lists were then drawn up of weapons and equipment needed by the KLA."While these covert operations were continuing, serving members of 22 SAS Regiment, mostly from the unit's D Squadron, were first deployed in Kosovo before the beginning of the bombing campaign in March [1999].(7)

While British SAS Special Forces in bases in Northern Albania were training the KLA, military instructors from Turkey and Afghanistan, financed by the "Islamic jihad", were collaborating in training the KLA in guerrilla and diversion tactics.(8)

Bin Laden had visited Albania himself. He was one of several fundamentalist groups that had sent units to fight in Kosovo.... Bin Laden is believed to have established an operation in Albania in 1994 …. Albanian sources say Sali Berisha, who was then president, had links with some groups that later proved to be extreme fundamen-talists.(9)

Congressional Testimonies on KLA-Osama Links

According to Frank Ciluffo of the Globalized Organized Crime Program, in a testimony presented to the House of Representatives Judicial Committee:

What was largely hidden from public view was the fact that the KLA raise part of their funds from the sale of narcotics. Albania and Kosovo lie at the heart of the "Balkan Route" that links the "Golden Crescent" of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe. This route is worth an estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80 per cent of heroin destined for Europe.(10)

According to Ralf Mutschke of Interpol's Criminal Intelligence division, also in a testimony to the House Judicial Committee:

The US State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Osama bin Laden. Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad organization, and also a military commander of Osama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict.(11)

Madeleine Albright Covets the KLA

These KLA links to international terrorism and organized crime documented by the US Congress, were totally ignored by the Clinton administration. In fact, in the months preceding the bombing of Yugoslavia, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was busy building a "political legitimacy" for the KLA. The paramilitary army had-from one day to the next-been elevated to the status of a bona fide "democratic" force in Kosovo. In turn, Madeleine Albright forced the pace of international diplomacy: the KLA had been spearheaded into playing a central role in the failed "peace negotiations" at Rambouillet in early 1999. Meanwhile, the KLA developed and reinforced its relationship to the Militant Islamic Network including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

The US Congress tacitly Endorses State Terrorism

While Congressional transcripts confirmed that the KLA had been working hand in glove with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, this did not prevent the Clinton and later the Bush administration from arming and equipping the KLA. The Congressional documents also confirm that members of the Senate and the House knew the relationship of the Administration to international terrorism. To quote the statement of Rep. John Kasich of the House Armed Services Committee: "We connected ourselves [in 1998-99] with the KLA, which was the staging point for bin Laden."(12)

Members of Congress were fully cognizant of the links between the US Administration and Al Qaeda. They knew exactly who Osama bin Laden was-a pawn in the hands of the Clinton and, later, the Bush administration. Therefore they also knew that the "campaign against international terrorism", launched in the wake of September 11, implied a hidden agenda. Despite this knowledge, Republicans and Democrats in unison gave their full support to the President to "wage war on Osama".

In 1999, Senator Joe Lieberman stated authoritatively that "fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values". When making this statement, he knew that the KLA was supported by Osama bin Laden. In the hours following the October 7, 2001 cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan, the same Joe Lieberman called for punitive air strikes against Iraq: "We're in a war against terrorism...we can't stop with bin Laden and the Taliban." Yet Senator Joe Lieberman, as a member of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate, had access to all the Congressional documents pertaining to KLA-Osama links. In making this statement, he was fully aware that other agencies of the US Government, as well as NATO, had been supporting Al Qaeda.

The War in Macedonia

In the wake of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, the terrorist activities of the KLA were extended into Southern Serbia and Macedonia. Meanwhile, the KLA-renamed the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC)-was elevated to United Nations status, implying the granting of "legitimate" sources of funding through the United Nations as well as through bilateral channels, including direct US military aid.

Barely two months after the official inauguration of the KPC under UN auspices in September 1999, KPC-KLA commanders- using UN resources and equipment-were already preparing assaults into Macedonia as a logical follow-up to their terrorist activities in Kosovo. According to the Skopje daily Dnevnik, the KPC had established a "sixth operation zone" in Southern Serbia and Macedonia:

Sources, who insist on anonymity, claim that the headquarters of the Kosovo Protection Brigades [i.e., linked to the UN-sponsored KPC] have [March 2000] already been formed in Tetovo, Gostivar and Skopje. They are being prepared in Debar and Struga [on the border with Albania] as well, and their members have defined codes.(13)

According to the BBC, "Western special forces were still training the guerrillas", meaning that they were assisting the KLA in opening up "a sixth operation zone" in Southern Serbia and Macedonia.(14)

The Islamic Militant Network and NATO Join Hands in Macedonia

Among the foreign mercenaries fighting in Macedonia in 2001 with the self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA) of Macedonia, were Mujahideen from the Middle East and the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Also within the KLA's proxy force in Macedonia, were senior US military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon, as well as "soldiers of fortune" from Britain, Holland and Germany. Some of these Western mercenaries had previously fought with the KLA and the Bosnian Muslim Army.

Extensively documented by the Macedonian press and statements made by the Macedonian authorities, the US Government and the "Islamic Militant Network" were working hand in glove in supporting and financing the NLA, which was involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia. The NLA is a proxy of the KLA. In turn, the KLA and the UN-sponsored KPC are identical institutions, with the same commanders and military personnel. KPC Commanders on UN salaries are fighting in the NLA together with the Mujahideen.

Ironically, while supported and financed by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, the KLA-NLA is also supported by NATO and the United Nations mission to Kosovo (UNMIK). In fact, the "Islamic Militant Network"-also using Pakistan's ISI as the CIA's "go-between"- still constitutes an integral part of Washington's covert military-intelligence operations in Macedonia and Southern Serbia.

The KLA-NLA terrorists are funded from US military aid and the United Nations peace-keeping budget, as well as by several Islamic organizations, including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Drug money is also being used to finance the terrorists, with the complicity of the US Government. The recruitment of Mujahideen to fight in the ranks of the NLA in Macedonia was implemented through various Islamic groups.

US military advisers mingle with the Mujahideen within the same paramilitary force; Western mercenaries from NATO countries fight alongside the Mujahideen recruited in the Middle East and Central Asia. And the US media calls this a "blowback" where "intelligence assets" have gone against their sponsors.

But this did not happen during the Cold War. It happened in Macedonia in 2001. And it is confirmed by numerous press reports, eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence as well as official statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister, who has accused the Western military alliance of supporting the terrorists. Moreover, the official Macedonian news agency (MIA) has pointed to the complicity between Washington's envoy Ambassador James Pardew and the NLA terrorists.(15) In other words, the "intelligence assets" are still serving the interests of their US sponsors.

Misleading the American People

A major war in Central Asia, supposedly "against international terrorism", was launched by a government which is harboring international terrorism as part of its foreign policy agenda. In other words, the main justification for waging war has been totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately and consciously misled by their government.

It is important to remember that this decision to mislead the American people was taken barely a few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Without supporting evidence, Osama had already been tagged as the "prime suspect". Two days later on Thursday the 13th of September-while the FBI investigations had barely commenced-President Bush pledged to "lead the world to victory".

-----

TEXT BOX 3.1

America's Envoy James Pardew

James Pardew started his Balkans career in 1993 as a senior intelligence officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responsible for channelling US aid to the Bosnian Muslim Army. Colonel Pardew had been put in charge of arranging the "air drops" of supplies to Bosnian forces. At the time, these "air drops" were tagged as "civilian aid". It later transpired-confirmed by the Republican Party Committee (RPC) Congressional report-that the US had violated the United Nations arms embargo. And James Pardew played an important role as part of the team of intelligence officials working closely with the Chairman of the National Security Council, Anthony Lake.

Pardew was later involved in the Dayton negotiations (in 1995) on behalf of the US Defense Department. In 1999, prior to the bombing of Yugoslavia, he was appointed "Special Representative for Military Stabilization and Kosovo Implementation" by President Clinton. One of his tasks was to channel support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which at the time was also being supported by Osama bin Laden. Pardew was in this regard instrumental in replicating the "Bosnian pattern" in Kosovo and subsequently in Macedonia.

-----

Moreover, the entire US Congress-with only one honest and courageous dissenting voice in the House of Representatives-had endorsed the Administration's decision to go to war. Members of the House and the Senate have access through the various committees to official confidential reports and intelligence documents which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that agencies of the US Government have strong ties to international terrorism. They cannot say "we did not know". In fact, most of this evidence is in the public domain.

Under the historical resolution of the US Congress adopted by both the House and the Senate on the 14th of September, 2001:

The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.(16)

Our analysis confirms that agencies of the US Government, as well as NATO, have, since the end of the Cold War, continued to "harbor such organizations".

Ironically, the text of the September 14 Congressional resolution also constitutes a "blowback" against the US sponsors of international terrorism. The resolution does not exclude the conduct of an "Osamagate" inquiry, as well as appropriate actions against agencies and/or individuals of the US Government (including members of the Clinton and Bush administrations, the CIA and the US Congress) who may have collaborated with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

Notes:

1. United Press International (UPI), 15 September 2001.

2. The Guardian, London, 15 September 2001.

3. UPI, op cit.

4. International Media Corporation Defense and Strategy Policy, US Commits Forces, Weapons to Bosnia, London, 31 October 1994.

5. Congressional Press Release, Republican Party Committee (RPC), US Congress, "Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base", Washington DC, 16 January 1997, available on the website of the Centre of Research on Globalization (CRG) at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ DCH109A.html. The original document is on the website of the US Senate Republican Party Committee (Senator Larry Craig), at http://www.senate.gov/ ~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm; see also Washington Post, 22 September 1999; emphasis added.

6. The Scotsman, Edinburgh, 29 August 1999.

7. Ibid.

8. Truth in Media, "Kosovo in Crisis", Phoenix, Arizona, http://www.truthin-media.org/, 2 April 1999.

9. The Sunday Times, London, 29 November 1998.

10. US Congress, Testimony of Frank J. Cilluffo, Deputy Director of the Global Organized Crime Program, to the House Judiciary Committee, Washington DC, 13 December 2000.

11. US Congress, Testimony of Ralf Mutschke of Interpol's Criminal Intelligence Division, to the House Judicial Committee, Washington DC, 13 December 2000.

12. US Congress, Transcripts of the House Armed Services Committee, Washington, DC, 5 October 1999, emphasis added.

13. Macedonian Information Centre Newsletter, Skopje, 21 March 2000, published by BBC Summary of World Broadcast, 24 March 2000.

14. BBC, 29 January 2001.

15. Scotland on Sunday, 15 June 2001. See also UPI, 9 July 2001. For further details see Michel Chossudovsky,"Washington Behind Terrorist Assaults in Macedonia", Centre for Research on Globalization at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ CHO108B.html, August 2001.

16. See The White House Bulletin, 14 September 2001.

Who Is Osama bin Laden?

2008-09-13T18:47:00.000-07:00

Chapter 2

Presented in stylized fashion by the Western media, "Osama bin Laden" constitutes the new bogeyman. He is both the "cause" and the "consequence" of war and social devastation. He is also held responsible for the civilian deaths in Afghanistan resulting from the US bombing campaign. In this regard, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stated that "he did not rule out the eventual use of nuclear weapons"as part of the US Government's campaign against Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.(1)

Background of the Soviet-Afghan War

Who is Osama? The prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war, "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders".(2)

In 1979, the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA was launched in Afghanistan:

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI, 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.(3)

US Government support to the Mujahideen was presented to world public opinion as a "necessary response" to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal. Recent evidence suggests, however, that the CIA's military-intelligence operation in Afghanistan had been launched prior rather than in response to the Soviet invasion. Washington's intent was to deliberately trigger a civil war, which lasted more than 20 years.

The CIA's role in support of the Mujahideen is confirmed in an 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who at the time was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter:

Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, [on] 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion, this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?(4)

"The Islamic Jihad"

Consistent with Brzezinski's account, a "Militant Islamic Network" was created by the CIA. The "Islamic Jihad" (or holy war against the Soviets) became an integral part of the CIA's intelligence ploy. It was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia, with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert US assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies-a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987...as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There, the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.(5)

The Central Intelligence Agency using Pakistan's ISI played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam. The madrasas were set up by Wahabi fundamentalists financed out of Saudi Arabia: "[I]t was the government of the United States who supported Pakistani dictator General Zia-ul Haq in creating thousands of religious schools, from which the germs of the Taliban emerged."(6)

Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow.(7)

Pakistan's ISI used as a 'Go-Between'

CIA covert support to the "Islamic Jihad" operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI-i.e., the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. For these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "Jihad", which consisted of not only destabilizing the pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan, but also destroying the Soviet Union.

In the words of the CIA's Milton Beardman, "We didn't train Arabs." Yet, according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the "Afghan Arabs" had been imparted "with very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA".(8)

The CIA's Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. According to bin Laden (as quoted by Beardman): "Neither I, nor my brothers, saw evidence of American help."(9)

Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theater had no contacts with Washington or the CIA.

With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of US military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government".(10) The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000.(11)

Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia-ul Haq:

Relations between the CIA and the ISI had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia's ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime....During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984.

The CIA was more cautious than the Pakistanis. Both Pakistan and the United States took the line of deception on Afghanistan with a public posture of negotiating a settlement, while privately agreeing that military escalation was the best course.(12)

The Golden Crescent Drug Triangle

The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin.(13) Researcher Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, "the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer, supplying 60 per cent of US demand. In Pakistan, the heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979...to 1.2 million by 1985- a much steeper rise than in any other nation".(14)

CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the US Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests....

US officials had refused to investigate charges of heroin dealing by its Afghan allies "because US narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there." In 1995, the former CIA director of the Afghan operation, Charles Cogan, admitted the CIA had indeed sacrificed the drug war to fight the Cold War. "Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade....I don't think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout....There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan."(15)

After the Cold War, the Central Asian region became not only strategic for its extensive oil reserves, but also produced, in Afghanistan alone, 75 per cent of the world's heroin, representing multi-billion dollar revenues to business syndicates, financial institutions, intelligence agencies and organized crime. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a new surge in opium production had unfolded.

The annual proceeds of the Golden Crescent drug trade (between 100 and 200 billion dollars) represented approximately one third of the worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $500 billion.16 According to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Afghanistan produced more than 70 per cent of the world's opium in 2000, and about 80 per cent of the opiate products in Europe.(17)

Powerful business syndicates in the West, and in the former Soviet Union, allied with organized crime, were competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes. According to UN estimates, the production of opium in Afghanistan in 1998-1999-coinciding with the buildup of armed insurgencies in the former Soviet republics-reached a record high of 4,600 metric tons.(18) In other words, control over "the drug routes" is strategic.

The multi-billion dollar revenues of narcotics are deposited in the Western banking system. Most of the large international banks-together with their affiliates in the offshore banking havens-launder large amounts of narco-dollars. Therefore, the international trade in narcotics constitutes a multi-billion dollar business of the same order of magnitude as the international trade in oil. From this standpoint, geopolitical control over "the drug routes" is as strategic as oil pipelines. (On the post-Taliban narcotics economy, see Chapter XVI).

In the Wake of the Soviet Withdrawal

Despite the demise of the Soviet Union, Pakistan's extensive military-intelligence apparatus (the ISI) was not dismantled. In the wake of the Cold War, the CIA continued to support the Islamic Jihad out of Pakistan. New undercover initiatives were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan's ISI essentially "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia".(19)

Meanwhile, Islamic missionaries of the Wahabi sect from Saudi Arabia had established themselves in the Muslim republics, as well as within the Russian federation, encroaching upon the institutions of the secular State. Despite its anti-American ideology, Islamic fundamentalism was largely serving Washington's strategic interests in the former Soviet Union.

Following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, the civil war in Afghanistan continued unabated. The Taliban were being supported by the Pakistani Deobandis and their political party, the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). In 1993, the JUI entered Pakistan's government coalition of Prime Minister Benazzir Bhutto. Ties between the JUI, the Army and the ISI were established. In 1996, with the downfall of the Hezb-I-Islami Hektmatyar government in Kabul, the Taliban not only instated a hardline Islamic government, they also "handed control of the training camps in Afghanistan over to JUI factions...".(20)

The JUI, with the support of the Saudi Wahabi movement, played a key role in recruiting volunteers to fight in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.

Jane Defense Weekly confirms, that "half of Taliban manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI".(21) In fact, it would appear that following the Soviet withdrawal, both sides in the Afghan civil war continued to receive covert support through Pakistan's ISI.(22)

Backed by Pakistan's military intelligence, which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban Islamic State was largely serving American geopolitical interests. No doubt this explains why Washington had closed its eyes on the reign of terror imposed by the Taliban, including the blatant derogation of women's rights, the closing down of schools for girls, the dismissal of women employees from government offices and the enforcement of "the Sharia laws of punishment".(23)

The Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and later the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In fact, at the time of the September 11 attacks, CIA-sponsored Mujahideen mercenaries were fighting within the ranks of KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into Macedonia. (See Chapter III.)

The War in Chechnya

In Chechnya, the renegade autonomous region of the Russian Federation, the main rebel leaders, Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab, were trained and indoctrinated in CIA-sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to Yossef Bodansky, director of the US Congress'Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, the war in Chechnya had been planned during a secret summit of HizbAllah International held in 1996 in Mogadishu, Somalia.(24) The summit was attended by none other than Osama bin Laden, as well as high-ranking Iranian and Pakistani intelligence officers. In this regard, the involvement of Pakistan's ISI in Chechnya "goes far beyond supplying the Chechens with weapons and expertise: The ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are actually calling the shots in this war." (25)

Russia's main pipeline route transits through Chechnya and Dagestan. Despite Washington's condemnation of Islamic terrorism, the indirect beneficiaries of the wars in Chechnya are the British and American oil conglomerates which are vying for control over oil resources and pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea basin. (See map page Middle East Theatre of War)

The two main Chechen rebel armies (led by Commanders Shamil Basayev and Emir Khattab), estimated at 35,000 strong, were supported by Pakistan's ISI, which also played a key role in organizing and training the rebel army:

[In 1994] the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence arranged for Basayev and his trusted lieutenants to undergo intensive Islamic indoctrination and training in guerrilla warfare in the Khost province of Afghanistan at Amir Muawia camp, set up in the early 1980s by the CIA and ISI and run by famous Afghani warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In July 1994, upon graduating from Amir Muawia, Basayev was transferred to Markaz-i-Dawar camp in Pakistan to undergo training in advanced guerrilla tactics. In Pakistan, Basayev met the highest ranking Pakistani military and intelligence officers: Minister of Defense General Aftab Shahban Mirani, Minister of Interior General Naserullah Babar, and the head of the ISI branch in charge of supporting Islamic causes, General Javed Ashraf (all now retired). High-level connections soon proved very useful to Basayev.(26)

Following his training and indoctrination stint, Basayev was assigned to lead the assault against Russian federal troops in the first Chechen war in 1995. His organization had also developed extensive links to criminal syndicates in Moscow as well as ties to Albanian organized crime and the KLA. In 1997-1998, according to Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB), "Chechen warlords started buying up real estate in Kosovo...through several real estate firms registered as a cover in Yugoslavia."(27)

Basayev's organization had also been involved in a number of rackets including narcotics, illegal tapping and sabotage of Russia's oil pipelines, kidnapping, prostitution, trade in counterfeit dollars and the smuggling of nuclear materials.[28] Alongside the extensive laundering of drug money, the proceeds of various illicit activities were funnelled towards the recruitment of mercenaries and the purchase of weapons.

During his training in Afghanistan, Shamil Basayev linked up with Saudi-born veteran Mujahideen Commander, Al Khattab, who had fought as a volunteer in Afghanistan. Barely a few months after Basayev's return to Grozny, Khattab was invited (in early 1995) to set up an army base in Chechnya for the training of Mujahideen fighters. According to the BBC, Khattab's posting to Chechnya had been "arranged through the Saudi-Arabian-based [International] Islamic Relief Organization, a militant religious organization, funded by mosques and rich individuals who channeled funds into Chechnya".(29)

Dismantling Secular Institutions in the former Soviet Union

The enforcement of Islamic law in the largely secular Muslim societies of the former Soviet Union has served America's strategic interests in the region. Previously, a strong secular tradition based on a rejection of Islamic law prevailed throughout the Central Asian republics and the Caucasus, including Chechnya and Dagestan (which are part of the Russian Federation).

The 1994-1996 Chechen war, instigated by the main rebel movements against Moscow, has served to undermine secular state institutions. A parallel system of local government, controlled by the Islamic militia, was implanted in many localities in Chechnya. In some of the small towns and villages, Islamic Sharia courts were established under a reign of political terror.

Financial aid from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to the rebel armies was conditional upon the installation of the Sharia courts, despite strong opposition of the civilian population. The Principal Judge and Ameer of the Sharia courts in Chechnya is Sheikh Abu Umar, who "came to Chechnya in 1995 and joined the ranks of the Mujahideen there under the leadership of Ibn-ul-Khattab.... He set about teaching Islam with the correct Aqeedah to the Chechen Mujahideen, many of whom held incorrect and distorted beliefs about Islam."(30)

Meanwhile, state institutions of the Russian Federation in Chechnya were crumbling under the brunt of the IMF-sponsored austerity measures imposed under the Presidency of Boris Yeltsin. In contrast, the Sharia courts, financed and equipped out of Saudi Arabia, were gradually displacing existing State institutions of the Russian Federation and the Chechnya autonomous region.

The Wahabi movement from Saudi Arabia was not only attempting to overrun civilian State institutions in Dagestan and Chechnya, it was also seeking to displace the traditional Sufi Muslim leaders. In fact, the resistance to the Islamic rebels in Dagestan was based on the alliance of the (secular) local governments with the Sufi sheiks:

These [Wahabi] groups consist of a very tiny but well-financed and well-armed minority. They propose with these attacks the creation of terror in the hearts of the masses....By creating anarchy and lawlessness, these groups can enforce their own harsh, intolerant brand of Islam....Such groups do not represent the common view of Islam, held by the vast majority of Muslims and Islamic scholars, for whom Islam exemplifies the paragon of civilization and perfected morality. They represent what is nothing less than a movement to anarchy under an Islamic label ....Their intention is not so much to create an Islamic state, but to create a state of confusion in which they are able to thrive.(31)

Promoting Secessionist Movements in India

In parallel with its covert operations in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, Pakistan's ISI has provided, since the 1980s, support to several secessionist Islamic insurgencies in India's Kashmir.

Although officially condemned by Washington, these covert ISI operations were undertaken with the tacit approval of the US Government. Coinciding with the 1989 Geneva Peace Agreement and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the ISI was instrumental in the creation of the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM).(32)

The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament-which contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war-were conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba (Army of the Pure) and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Army of Mohammed), both of which are covertly supported by Pakistan's ISI.(33)

The timely attack on the Indian Parliament, followed by the ethnic riots in Gujarat in early 2002, were the culmination of a process initiated in the 1980s, financed by drug money and abetted by Pakistan's military intelligence.(34)

Needless to say, these ISI-supported terrorist attacks serve the geopolitical interests of the US They not only contribute to weakening and fracturing the Indian Union, they also create conditions which favor the outbreak of a regional war between Pakistan and India.

The powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which plays a behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of US foreign policy, confirms that the Lashkar and Jaish rebel groups are supported by the ISI:

Through its Inter-Service Intelligence Agency (ISI), Pakistan has provided funding, arms, training facilities, and aid in crossing borders to Lashkar and Jaish. This assistance-an attempt to replicate in Kashmir the international Islamist brigade's "holy war" against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan-helped introduce radical Islam into the long-standing conflict over the fate of Kashmir....

Have these groups received funding from sources other than the Pakistani government?

Yes. Members of the Pakistani and Kashmiri communities in England send millions of dollars a year, and Wahabi sympathizers in the Persian Gulf also provide support.

Do Islamist terrorists in Kashmir have ties to Al Qaeda?

Yes. In 1998, the leader of Harakat, Farooq Kashmiri Khalil, signed Osama bin Laden's declaration calling for attacks on Americans, including civilians, and their allies. Bin Laden is also suspected of funding Jaish, according to US and Indian officials. And Maulana Massoud Azhar, who founded Jaish, traveled to Afghanistan several times to meet bin Laden.

Where were these Islamist militants trained?

Many were given ideological training in the same madrasas, or Muslim seminaries, that taught the Taliban and foreign fighters in Afghanistan. They received military training at camps in Afghanistan or in villages in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. Extremist groups have recently opened several new madrasas in Azad Kashmir.(35)

What the CFR fails to mention are the links between the ISI and the CIA. Confirmed by the writings of Zbigniew Brzezinski (who also happens to be a member of the CFR), the "international Islamic brigade" was a creation of the CIA.

US-Sponsored Insurgencies in China

Also of significance in understanding America's "War on Terrorism" is the existence of ISI-supported Islamic insurgencies on China's Western border with Afghanistan and Pakistan. In fact, several of the Islamic movements in the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union are integrated with the Turkestan and Uigur movements in China's Xinjiang-Uigur autonomous region.

These separatist groups-which include the East Turkestan Terrorist Force, the Islamic Reformist Party, the East Turkestan National Unity Alliance, the Uigur Liberation Organization and the Central Asian Uigur Jihad Party-have all received support and training from Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.36 The declared objective of these Chinese-based Islamic insurgencies is the "establishment of an Islamic caliphate in the region".(37)

The caliphate would integrate Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan (West Turkestan) and the Uigur autonomous region of China (East Turkestan) into a single political entity.

The "caliphate project" encroaches upon Chinese territorial sovereignty. Supported by various Wahabi "foundations" from the Gulf States, secessionism on China's Western frontier is, once again, consistent with US strategic interests in Central Asia. Meanwhile, a powerful US-based lobby is channelling support to separatist forces in Tibet.

By tacitly promoting the secession of the Xinjiang-Uigur region (using Pakistan's ISI as a "go-between"), Washington is attempting to trigger a broader process of political destabilization and fracturing of the People's Republic of China. In addition to these various covert operations, the US has established military bases in Afghanistan and in several of the former Soviet republics, directly on China's Western border.

The militarization of the South China Sea and of the Taiwan Straits is also an integral part of this strategy. (See Chapter VII.)

Washington's Hidden Agenda

US foreign policy is not geared towards curbing the tide of Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The significant development of "radical Islam", in the wake of September 11, in the Middle East and Central Asia is consistent with Washington's hidden agenda. The latter consists of sustaining rather than combatting international terrorism, with a view to destabilizing national societies and preventing the articulation of genuine social movements directed against the American Empire. Washington continues to support-through CIA covert operations-the development of Islamic fundamentalism, particularly in China and India.

Throughout the developing world, the growth of sectarian, fundamentalist and other such organizations tends to serve US interests. These various organizations and armed insurgents have been developed, particularly in countries where state institutions have collapsed under the brunt of the IMF-sponsored economic reforms.

The application of IMF economic medicine often breeds an atmosphere of ethnic and social strife, which in turn favors the development of fundamentalism and communal violence.
These fundamentalist organizations contribute by destroying and displacing secular institutions.

In the short term, fundamentalism creates social and ethnic divisions. It undermines the capacity of people to organize against the American Empire. These organizations or movements, such as the Taliban, often foment "opposition to Uncle Sam" in a way which does not constitute any real threat to America's broader geopolitical and economic interests. Meanwhile, Washington has supported their development as a means of disarming social movements, which it fears may threaten US economic and political hegemony.

Notes:

1. Quoted in The Houston Chronicle, 20 October 2001. See also Michel Chossudovsky, "Tactical Nuclear Weapons" against Afghanistan? Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html, 5 December 2001.

2. Hugh Davies, "Informers point the finger at bin Laden; Washington on alert for suicide bombers." The Daily Telegraph, London, 24 August 1998, emphasis added.

3. Ahmed Rashid, "The Taliban: Exporting Extremism", Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999.

4. "The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan, Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser", Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, published in English, Centre for Research on Globalization, emphasis added in italics, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html, 5 October 2001, italics added.

5. Steve Coll, The Washington Post, July 19, 1992.

6. Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), "RAWA Statement on the Terrorist Attacks in the US", Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RAW109A.html, 16 September 2001

7. Dilip Hiro,"Fallout from the Afghan Jihad", Inter Press Services, 21 November 1995.

8. National Public Radio, Weekend Sunday (NPR) with Eric Weiner and Ted Clark, 16 August 1998.

9. Ibid.

10. Dipankar Banerjee, "Possible Connection of ISI With Drug Industry", India Abroad, 2 December 1994.

11. Ibid.

12. Diego Cordovez and Selig Harrison, Out of Afghanistan: The Inside Story of the Soviet Withdrawal, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995. See also the review of Cordovez and Harrison in International Press Services (IPS), 22 August 1995.

13. Alfred McCoy,"Drug Fallout: the CIA's Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Tr a d e ", The Progressive, 1 August 1997.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a Changing World, Technical document No. 4, 1998, Vienna UNDCP, p. 4. See also United Nations Drug Control Program, Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999, E/INCB/1999/1 United Nations, Vienna 1999, p. 49-51, and Richard Lapper, "UN Fears Growth of Heroin Trade", Financial Times, 24 February 2000.

17. BBC,"Afghanistan's Opium Industry", 9 April 2002.

18. Report of the International Narcotics Control Board, op cit, p. 49-51; see also Richard Lapper, op. cit.

19. International Press Services, 22 August 1995.

20. Ahmed Rashid, "The Taliban: Exporting Extremism", Foreign Affairs, November-December, 1999, p. 22.

21. Quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, 3 September 1998.

22. Tim McGirk, "Kabul Learns to Live with its Bearded Conquerors", The Independent, London, 6 November 1996.

23. See K. Subrahmanyam, "Pakistan is Pursuing Asian Goals", India Abroad, 3 November 1995.

24. Levon Sevunts, "Who's Calling The Shots? Chechen conflict finds Islamic roots in Afghanistan and Pakistan", The Gazette, Montreal, 26 October 1999.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. See Vitaly Romanov and Viktor Yadukha, "Chechen Front Moves To Kosovo", Segodnia, Moscow, 23 Feb 2000.

28. See,"Mafia linked to Albania's Collapsed Pyramids", The European, 13 February 1997. See also Itar-Tass, 4-5 January 2000.

29. BBC, 29 September 1999.

30. See Global Muslim News, http://www.islam.org.au/articles/21/news.htm, December 1997.

31. Mateen Siddiqui,"Differentiating Islam from Militant 'Islamists'" San Francisco Chronicle, 21 September 1999.

32. See K. Subrahmanyam, "Pakistan is Pursuing Asian Goals", India Abroad, 3 November 1995.

33. Council on Foreign Relations,"Terrorism: Questions and Answers, Harakat ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad", http://www.terrorism-answers.com/groups/harakat2.html, Washington 2002.

34. See Murali Ranganathan,"Human Rights Report Draws Flak", News India, 16 September 1994.

35. Ibid.

36. According to official Chinese sources quoted in UPI, 20 November 2001.

37. Defense and Security, 30 May 2001.

Where was Osama bin Laden on 9/11?

2008-09-10T18:42:00.001-07:00

Appendix to Chapter 1

According to a Reuters report (quoting Richard Labevière's book Corridors of Terror), "negotiations" between Osama bin Laden and the CIA, took place two months prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks at the American Hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, while bin Laden was recovering from a kidney dialysis treatment.(1)

Enemy Number One in hospital recovering from dialysis treatment "negotiating with the CIA"?

The meeting with the CIA head of station at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE had indeed been confirmed by a report in the French daily newspaper Le Figaro, published in October 2001.(2)

As to "negotiations"between the CIA and Osama (a CIA "intelligence asset"), this statement seems to be contradictory.

Even though the CIA has refuted the claim, the report serves to highlight Osama as a bona fide "Enemy of America," rather than a creation of the CIA. In the words of former CIA agent Milt Bearden in an interview with Dan Rather on September 12, 2001, "If they didn't have an Osama bin Laden, they would invent one."

Intelligence negotiations never take place on a hospital bed. The CIA knew Osama was at the American Hospital in Dubai. Rather than negotiate, they could have arrested him. He was on the FBI most wanted list.

According to the Reuters report: "At the time, bin Laden had a multi-million dollar price on his head for his suspected role in the 1998 bombings of two US embassies in East Africa". So why did the hospital staff, who knew that Osama was at the American Hospital in Dubai, not claim the reward?

The Figaro report points to complicity between the CIA and Osama rather than "negotiation". Consistent with several other reports, it also points to the antagonism between the FBI and the CIA.

If the CIA had wanted to arrest Osama bin Laden prior to September 11, they could have done it then in Dubai. But they would not have had a pretext for waging a major military operation in the Middle East and Central Asia.

According to Le Figaro:

Dubai...was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden and the local CIA agent in July [2001]. A partner of the administration of the American Hospital in Dubai claims that "public enemy number one" stayed at this hospital between the 4th and 14th of July. While he was hospitalized, bin Laden received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. During the hospital stay, the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go [up] to bin Laden's hospital room. A few days later, the CIA man bragged to a few friends about having visited bin Laden. Authorized sources say that on July 15th, the day after bin Laden returned to Quetta [Pakistan], the CIA agent was called back to headquarters. In the pursuit of its investigations, the FBI discovered "financing agreements" that the CIA had been developing with its "Arab friends" for years. The Dubai meeting is, so it would seem, within the logic of "a certain American policy."(3)

The Figaro report is confirmed by several other news reports including the London Times.(4) During his 11-day stay in the American hospital, Osama received specialized medical treatment from Canadian urologist Dr. Terry Calloway.(5)

Osama back in Hospital on September 10, 2001, one Day before the 9/11 Attacks

According to Dan Rather, CBS, bin Laden was back in Hospital, one day before the 9/11 attacks, on September 10, this time, courtesy of America's indefectible ally Pakistan. Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) told CBS that bin Laden had received dialysis treatment in Rawalpindi, in a military hospital at Pak Army's headquarters:

DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR: As the United States and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States [on] September 11.

This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS's Barry Petersen. Here is his report.

BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here's the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the US war on terror in Afghanistan.

Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment. On that night, says this medical worker who wanted her identity protected, they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was treatment for a very special person. The special team was obviously up to no good.

"The military had him surrounded," says this hospital employee who also wanted his identity masked, "and I saw the mysterious patient helped out of a car. Since that time," he says, "I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden. I also heard two army officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden had to be watched carefully and looked after." Those who know bin Laden say he suffers from numerous ailments, back and stomach problems. Ahmed Rashid, who has written extensively on the Taliban, says the military was often there to help before 9/11.

AHMED RASHID, TALIBAN EXPERT: There were reports that Pakistani intelligence had helped the Taliban buy dialysis machines. And the rumor was that these were wanted for Osama bin Laden.

PETERSEN (on camera): Doctors at the hospital told CBS News there was nothing special about that night, but they refused our request to see any records. Government officials tonight denied that bin Laden had any medical treatment on that night.

(voice-over): But it was Pakistan's President Musharraf who said in public what many suspected, that bin Laden suffers from kidney disease, saying he thinks bin Laden may be near death. His evidence, watching this most recent video, showing a pale and haggard bin Laden, his left hand never moving. Bush administration officials admit they don't know if bin Laden is sick or even dead.

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: With respect to the issue of Osama bin Laden's health, I just am-don't have any knowledge.

PETERSEN: The United States has no way of knowing who in Pakistan's military or intelligence supported the Taliban or Osama bin Laden maybe up to the night before 9/11 by arranging dialysis to keep him alive. So the United States may not know if those same people might help him again perhaps to freedom.(6)
It should be noted that the hospital is directly under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. US military advisers based in Rawalpindi work closely with the Pakistani Armed Forces. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America's best known fugitive, but then maybe bin Laden was serving another "better purpose". Rumsfeld claimed at the time that he had no knowledge regarding Osama's health.(7)

The CBS report is a crucial piece of information in the 9/11 jigsaw. It refutes the administration's claim that the whereabouts of bin Laden are unknown. It points to a Pakistani connection; it suggests a cover-up at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

Dan Rather and Barry Petersen failed to draw the implications of their January 2002 report. They failed to beg the key question: where was Osama on 9/11? If they are to stand by their report, the conclusion is obvious: The administration is lying regarding the whereabouts of Osama.

If the CBS report is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on the evening of September 10 (local time), courtesy of America's ally, he was in all likelihood still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred. Even if he had been released from the hospital the following morning on the 11th (local time), in all probability, his whereabouts were known to US officials on September 12, when Secretary of State Colin Powell initiated negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing bin Laden. (See Chapter IV.)

Notes

1. Reuters, 13 November 2003.
2. See Alexandra Richard, "La CIA aurait rencontré ben Laden en juillet", 2 November 2001, Le Figaro, English translation by Tiphaine Dickson, Centre for Research on Globalization, November 2001, http://www.globalresearch.ca/arti-cles/RIC111B.html.
3. Ibid.
4. The Times, London, 1 November 2001.
5. See the Hospital's website at http://www.ahdubai.com/site/ps18_2.htm.
6. Transcript of CBS report, 28 January 2002, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml.
7. Ibid.

Where was Osama bin Laden on 9/11?

2008-09-10T18:42:00.000-07:00

Appendix to Chapter 1

2008-09-07T19:42:00.000-07:00

Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security, and Control Issues

By Amy F. Woolf
Congressional Research Service, 05/03/01

Contents

Summary

Most Recent Developments

Background And Analysis

1. Nuclear Weapons After the Demise of the Soviet Union
A. Location of Nuclear Weapons in the Former Soviet Union
B. Continuing Concerns about Command, Control, Safety, and Security
C. Russia's Nuclear Command and Control System
D. Safety and Security of Stored Nuclear Warheads
E. Former Soviet Nuclear Facilities and Materials

2. Cooperative Programs For Nuclear Threat Reduction
A. The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program
- Program Objectives and Funding
- Implementing the Programs
B. International Science and Technology Centers
C. Material Protection, Control, and Accounting Programs
D. Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
E. Nuclear Cities Initiative
F. Bilateral Meetings
- The U.S.-Russian Commission on Economic and Technological Cooperation (The
Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission)
- The Strategic Stability Working Group (SSWG)
- Safeguards, Transparency, and Irreversibility Talks
G. Arms Control Proposals
- Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons
- Agreement on the Disposition of Weapons-grade Plutonium
- Sharing Early Warning Data
- Alert Rates for Strategic Nuclear Weapons

Congressional Hearings, Reports, And Documents

For Additional Reading

Summary

When the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991, it reportedly possessed more than 27,000 nuclear weapons, and these weapons were deployed on the territories of several of the former Soviet republics. All of the nuclear warheads have now been moved to Russia, but Russia still has around 6,000 strategic nuclear weapons and perhaps as many as 12,000 warheads for nonstrategic nuclear weapons.

Many analysts in the United States and Russia have expressed concerns about the safety, security, and control over these weapons. Some of these concerns focus on Russia’s nuclear command and control structure. Financial constraints have slowed the modernization and replacement of many aging satellites and communications links, raising the possibility that Russia might not be able to identify a potential attack or communicate with troops in the field if an attack were underway. Some fear that the misinterpretation of an ambiguous event might lead to the launch of nuclear weapons. Some also expressed concern that that the year 2000 computer bug could affect Russia’s command and control system, but it did not.

Some concerns are also focused on the safety and security of nuclear warheads in storage facilities in Russia. Press reports and statements by Russian officials about possible missing warheads have added to these concerns. However, General Eugene Habiger, former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, stated that he had no major concerns about security at Russian nuclear storage facilities after he visited several storage sites in October 1997 and June 1998.

Reports of Russian nuclear materials for sale on the black market, when combined with evidence of weaknesses in the security systems have raised concerns about the possible theft or diversion of nuclear materials from these facilities.

The United States and Russia are cooperating in many fora to improve the safety, security, and control over Russia’s nuclear weapons and materials. Through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, the U.S. Department of Defense has provided assistance worth nearly $2 billion to help Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus safely transport and store weapons and eliminate launchers under the START Treaties. The Department of Energy’s Materials Protec-
tion, Control and Accounting Program is helping Russia and other former Soviet republics secure nuclear materials at research and other facilities in the former Soviet Union. The nations have also held bilateral meetings to identify ways in which they might cooperate to improve security and resolve concerns.

Some have proposed that the United States and Russia negotiate arms control agreements to reduce their stockpiles of nonstrategic nuclear weapons and to improve transparency and confidence in the elimination of those weapons. Others have proposed that the two sides agree to "de-alert" their strategic nuclear weapons to reduce the pressures and relieve concerns about Russia’s nuclear command and control system.

Most Recent Developments

During the campaign, President Bush expressed support for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, stating that he believed it was an area "where we can work with Russia in the post-Cold War era." He stated that he would continue to fund the program. However, in response to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee prior to his nomination hearings, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld called for a review of CTR spending and said that Russia should not request addition funding for weapons dismantlement while it continued to build new weapons. He did, however, acknowledge that the program had benefitted U.S. security.

Background And Analysis

1. Nuclear Weapons After the Demise of the Soviet Union

The demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 raised questions about control over Soviet nuclear weapons. Initially, most concerns focused on the possibility that some weapons might be lost or stolen, or that weapons might be launched by accident or without authorization by responsible officials. Many of these weapons were located outside Russia. Both the Bush and Clinton Administrations received assurances from officials in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan that the weapons remained under secure, central control. The United States has also offered these nations assistance, through efforts such as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, to encourage the return of all nuclear warheads to Russia and to enhance safety and security at nuclear facilities in Russia.

By the late 1990s, many of the early concerns about the potential for loss of control have eased, but concerns about the long-term effects of economic hardship and the increasing age of Soviet-era systems continue to prompt questions about the disposition of Russia's nuclear weapons. This issue brief highlights the continuing concerns that many have about the safety and security of these weapons and ongoing U.S. assistance programs.

A. Location of Nuclear Weapons in the Former Soviet Union

When the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991, it possessed, according to most estimates, more than 27,000 nuclear weapons. These included more than 11,000 strategic nuclear weapons-warheads on land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and in bombers with the range needed to attack the continental United States-and over 15,000 warheads for nonstrategic tactical nuclear weapons (such as artillery shells, short-range missiles, nuclear air-defense and ballistic missile defense interceptors, nuclear torpedoes and sea-launched cruise missiles, and nuclear weapons for shorter-range aircraft). In early 1998, Russia reportedly retained approximately 6,000 warheads on its strategic nuclear weapons and, according to some reports, between 7,000 and 12,000 warheads for nonstrategic nuclear weapons.

In 1991, more than 80% of Soviet strategic nuclear weapons, including all ballistic missile submarines, were deployed at bases in Russia. The remaining strategic nuclear weapons were deployed in Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. By the end of 1996, each of these states had returned the nuclear warheads on its territory to Russia and each had begun to eliminate the launchers for strategic nuclear weapons under the terms of the START I Treaty. By the end of 1998, only Ukraine still had Soviet-era strategic missiles in silos on its territory, and it continued its efforts to eliminate these missiles and their silos. The last SS-19 ICBM was eliminated at the end of February 1999, and work continued on the elimination of SS-24 ICBMs. Approximately half of these remained in place in July 2000. After lengthy and unsuccessful negotiations with Russia, Ukraine began to dismantle the Soviet-era bombers that remained on its territory. However, in August 1999, Ukraine and Russia announced that Russia would take 8 of these aircraft as partial payment for Ukraine's debt for natural gas deliveries from Russia. In October, the two nations completed the details of the transaction and noted that Russia would buy 11 of the strategic bombers from Ukraine.

Source: U.S. Department of Defense.

Many of the Soviet Union's tactical nuclear weapons were also stationed outside Russia, in Eastern Europe or in republics that were closer to prospective theaters of operation. The weapons in Eastern Europe had reportedly been returned to Russia by 1989. In late 1991, the majority of weapons outside Russia reportedly were in Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, with perhaps less than 5% in Georgia and the Central Asian states (Kirghizia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.) According to officials in Russia and these other states, all
the weapons had been moved to storage areas in Russia by the end of 1992.

According to American and Russian sources, the command and control system for all Soviet strategic and tactical nuclear weapons is centered in Moscow. This central command would have to authorize the use of any nuclear weapons. As the Soviet Union dissolved in December 1991, Russian President Boris Yeltsin replaced Soviet President Gorbachev at the top of the command authority, but the rest of the system remained the same.

B. Continuing Concerns about Command, Control, Safety, and Security

Many in the United States and Russia remain concerned about safety, security, and control over nuclear weapons in Russia. These concerns center on three general areas-concerns about the possibility for an accidental or unintended launch of nuclear weapons due to weaknesses in Russia's command and control system; concerns about the possible theft or loss of nuclear warheads due to lax security or accounting at nuclear weapons facilities; and concerns that nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union's nuclear weapons facilities might be lost or sold to nations seeking their own nuclear weapons.

C. Russia's Nuclear Command and Control System

Russia's nuclear command and control system consists, generally speaking, of early warning satellites and sensors that would warn of an imminent attack on Russian territory; the senior political and military leaders who would assess the nature of the attack and, if necessary, authorize a response using Russia's nuclear weapons; and the communications links that these commanders would use to consult with each other and to transmit messages authorizing the use of nuclear weapons to commanders in the field. These messages would contain the authorizing and enabling codes needed to "unlock" the permissive action links (PALs) and other technologies used to make sure that nuclear weapons could not be armed and launched without authorization from the central command authority. (For a more detailed description of this command and control system, see CRS Report 97-586, Russia's Nuclear Forces: Doctrine and Force Structure Issues.)

Analysts in the United States and Russia have pointed to the degradation of Russia's early warning network of satellites and radars to note that Russia may soon lack the ability to monitor and react to strategic threats to its own territory. In early 1997, Russia's Defense Minister Rodionov stated that he feared a loss of control over Russian strategic nuclear forces in the future if additional funding were not available to maintain and modernize the communications links in the nuclear command and control structure. Furthermore, in June and July 1998, both of Russia's geostationary early warning satellites failed; this leaves Russia relying on its older satellites and ground radar stations for early warning of ballistic missile attacks. These systems cannot provide continuous coverage of U.S. missile launch sites. At the end of August, Russia lost another early warning asset when Latvia shut down the Skrunda radar, which provided Russia with early warning of ballistic missile attacks. Russia had hoped that Latvia would allow this radar to continue operating until a new radar in Belarus was completed.

The U.S. Defense Department has downplayed concerns about a loss of control over Russia's nuclear weapons, noting that the central command structure remains in place. But some analysts fear that Russia could respond to the degradation of the system by disseminating codes needed to launch nuclear weapons to commanders in the field to make sure that these commanders had the ability to launch missiles in a conflict. This might raise the possibility of an accidental or unauthorized use of these weapons.

Reports in the Russian press have also noted that some strategic rocket forces personnel
have faced serious financial hardship. Reports of inadequate funding for training and maintenance, along with low morale among the troops, have raised concerns about an eventual breakdown of authority among strategic rocket troops. Recent reports of shooting incidents at facilities that house nuclear weapons or materials and onboard a nuclear-powered attack submarined have raised further concerns about the reliability of Russia's military personnel. Although problems with the troops probably would not lead to the unauthorized use of nuclear weapons, they could make it difficult for Russia to remain confident in the reliability and effectiveness of its nuclear deterrent.

In early 1999, officials in the Russian government acknowledged that the Y2K bug could pose problems for Russia's military systems and some stated it could cost Russia $2-3 billion to solve the problems. A team from the U.S. Defense Department that traveled to Moscow in mid-February 1999 to assess the problem and proposed that the two nations man a joint early warning center in Colorado Springs at the end of December 1999 and early January 2000. During a visit to Moscow in mid-September, Secretary of Defense Cohen and Russia's Defense Minister Sergeyev signed an agreement establishing the Y2K Center for Strategic Stability. This facility, which was based at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, monitored ballistic missile launches world-wide from December 30, 1999 through January 15, 2000. Russian officers manned the center and had access to data from U.S. early warning assets. The New Year passed with no apparent or reported missile warning problems.

D. Safety and Security of Stored Nuclear Warheads

In October 1991 and January 1992, Soviet President Gorbachev and Russian President Yeltsin pledged to withdraw most nonstrategic nuclear weapons from deployment and to place them in secure storage areas. All the warheads for nonstrategic nuclear weapons based outside Russia had been moved to storage facilities in Russia by the middle of 1992 and Russia has consolidated the remaining weapons, reducing the number of storage facilities from several hundred to, perhaps, less than one hundred. Russian officials also contend that they have begun to dismantle these warheads at a rate of around 2,000 per year. The United States does not have independent confirmation of this number, and some analysts suspect that Russia could still have 12,000 warheads for nonstrategic nuclear weapons in its storage facilities. Many in the United States remain concerned about the level of security at these storage facilities and some fear that, as a result of poor security and inadequate record-keeping, Russia may not be able to keep track of all the warheads in these facilities.

In March 1992, reports suggested that a few nuclear warheads from Kazakhstan might have been sold to Iran. These reports stated that Iran did not have codes needed to detonate the weapons but that it might use them to gain design information it needs for its own nuclear weapons programs. At the time, Russian and Kazakh officials denied that nuclear weapons were missing, and U.S. officials stated that the United States has no evidence of such a transfer. Nevertheless, these reports resurfaced in April 1998-the Jerusalem Post newspaper reported that an Israeli politician had received Iranian documents showing that Iran had received these weapons. Russia repeated its denials and U.S. officials repeated that the United States had no evidence that any nuclear warheads were missing from Russia. The 1998 reports surfaced amidst concerns about Russia construction of nuclear power reactor in Iran and reports that Russian firms were assisting Iran's missile development program. Some believe the timing was intended to apply added pressure on Russia to cease its cooperation with Iran and on the U.S. Congress to impose sanctions on Russia.

In September 1997, former Russian Security Council head and national security advisor Alexander Lebed alleged that Russian authorities were uncertain of the whereabouts of 100 out of 250 small portable nuclear demolition munitio ns. The Russian Defense Ministry responded by noting that "the Russian system of nuclear weapons safety keeps nuclear weapons under full control and makes any unauthorized transport of them impossible." It also stressed that all nuclear weapons had been withdrawn to Russia from the former Soviet republics. Other Russian observers also discounted Lebed's allegations. In early October 1997, Lebed appeared to withdraw his allegation, stating that he had investigated the matter and had found no evidence of missing nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the debate in Russia continued, with some alleging that Russia never had such small munitions and others confirming that the munitions existed but denying that any are unaccounted for. The White House stressed that the United States had "no credible information that any [Russian] nuclear weapon ... has ever been available on the black market."

In late 1997, George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence reportedly stated that the United States remained concerned about the possible loss or theft of nuclear weapons and materials in Russia due to declining social and economic conditions. He did not, however, offer any evidence that such losses had already occurred. But conditions have continued to deteriorate, and some wages have gone unpaid for several months during the financial crisis that began in mid-1998. As a result, many analysts have continued to express concerns about the "human factor" and the possibility that low morale and poor living conditions may combine to weaken security and controls over nuclear weapons.

In contrast, General Eugene Habiger, the former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, expressed confidence in Russia's ability to safeguard its weapons. He visited nuclear weapons storage facilities in Russia to observe safety and security procedures on two occasions. In October 1997, he reportedly came away impressed with what he saw, although he acknowledged that his tour only focused on strategic nuclear weapons and provided no information or insights into the security procedures at storage facilities for nonstrategic nuclear weapons. He also noted that Russia lacked many of the high-tech devices the United States used to maintain security at nuclear bases and that it seemed to rely more heavily on added manpower to protect its weapons. In June 1998, he visited five major nuclear sites, including bases with operational missiles and storage areas for nuclear weapons. He viewed security procedures around the silos and at the launch control center; visited a national nuclear weapons storage site where U.S. assistance has provided fencing and sensors, and viewed the weapons storage facility at Engels Air Force Base, where Russian heavy bombers are deployed. He also visited an ICBM weapons storage site and a naval nuclear weapons storage facility. In a press briefing after this trip, General Habiger again noted that Russia used more manpower and less technology than the United States to safeguard its nuclear weapons. But he stated that he did not have any serious concerns about the security of Russia's nuclear weapons.

Some in Congress remain concerned about Russia's stockpile of nonstrategic nuclear weapons. The Senate added an amendment to the FY1999 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 105-261) and the FY2000 Defense Authorization Bill (S.1059) calling on the President to press Russia to reduce these weapons in accordance with its pledges from 1991 and 1992. The amendment also requires that the Secretary of Defense submit a report detailing the numbers, types, strategic implications, and proliferation risks associated with Russia's nonstrategic nuclear weapons. A request for this report remains in the House and Senate versions of the FY2001 Defense Authorization Bill.

E. Former Soviet Nuclear Facilities and Materials

There have been numerous reports of nuclear materials from facilities in the former Soviet Union appearing on the black market in Europe. In most cases, the materials lacked the purity to be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. However,in approximately 6-8 of the reported cases, the materials could have been useful to a nation seeking to develop nuclear weapons. In May 1999, the National Research Council, an arm of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, issued a report stating that security at Russia's nuclear materials facilities was worse than previously reported. The report argued for sustained cooperation between the United States and Russia to improve security and prevent the diversion of these materials. Officials from the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry disputed these reports and argued that some safeguards are Russian facilities were more stringent than those at U.S. facilities.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that there may be enough weapons-usable nuclear materials to produce 40,000 nuclear weapons at facilities in 8 countries that were once a part of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union secured most of these facilities by placing them in closed cities or by using with gates and armed guards. But, according to DOE, budget cuts and political upheavals have undercut this system. Many facilities lacked fences, monitors, alarms, and comprehensive accounting systems to keep track of materials. Reports indicate that even those facilities with security and monitoring systems often disconnected them to save money on electric bills and to reduce false alarms. They also have been unable to pay the guards and officers charged with maintaining security at the facilities.

Deterioration of economic conditions and the decline in military spending has also displaced many scientists and engineers who worked in Soviet nuclear programs. Although reports of scientists moving to other countries have waned, the economic problems continue. For example, on July 23, 1998, several thousand staff members at Arzamas-16, one of Russia's premier nuclear research facilities, stopped work during a three-hour strike. They sought back payment for wages and budget allocations for 1997 and a pay increase for 1998. Nuclear workers from several of the closed cities participated in a strike in mid-September 1998, with many traveling to Moscow for protests at the Atomic Ministry (MINATOM).

2. Cooperative Programs For Nuclear Threat Reduction

A. The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program

- Program Objectives and Funding.

In November 1991, Congress allocated $400 million in Department of Defense funds to help the former Soviet republics secure their nuclear weapons. The funds were to provide Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan assistance in 1) the transportation, storage, safeguarding and destruction of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the dismantlement of missiles and launchers; 2) the prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and, 3) the prevention of diversion of weapons-related scientific expertise. (For details on the CTR program, see CRS Report 97- 1027, Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs: Issues For Congress.)

Although some Members have questioned the benefits and administration of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program, Congress has consistently supported the central objectives of the program, allocating $400 million each year in FY1993, 1994, and 1995 and an additional $300 million in FY1996. In FY1997, the Senate passed a new amendment sponsored by Senators Nunn, Lugar and Domenici that added $94 million to DOD and DOE budgets to expand U.S. efforts to contain and control nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the former Soviet Union. These funds were included in the House-Senate Conference Report, which provided $364.9 million to DOD for CTR, in addition to the funds for DOE, in the FY1997 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 104-201). Congress also approved $382.2 million for CTR in FY1998 (P.L. 105-85, H.Rept. 105-340), and $440.4 million in FY1999 (P.L. 105-261, H.Rept. 105-736). In FY1999, the House sought to eliminate funding for chemical weapons destruction, but the Senate restored the funding and prevailed in conference.

The Clinton Administration requested $475.5 million for CTR in FY2000. The Senate (S.1059) approved the full request, but it expressed concerns about Russia’s financial commitment to the CTR programs and about other areas of Russia’s nuclear weapons programs. As a result, it required that the Administration re-submit certifications that had been required by earlier versions of the legislation. The House approved $444.1 million for CTR and again eliminated funding for the construction of a chemical weapons destruction facility. The House Armed Services Committee expressed concerns with U.S. funding for this program and cited a GAO study that questioned the nonproliferation benefits of the facility. It mandated, instead, that U.S. assistance seek to improve security at existing chemical weapons storage facilities. The Conference Committee on the FY2000 Defense Authorization Bill (H.Rept 106-301) approved the Administration’s request for $475.5 million for CTR programs, but it also approved House position precluding funding for the construction of a chemical weapons destruction facility.

The Clinton Administration requested $458.4 million for CTR in its FY2001 budget. The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the full amount in its version of the FY2001 Defense Authorization Bill (S. 2549). It did, however, limit the use of funds for the construction of the chemical weapons destruction facility until the Secretary of Defense could certify that Russia was committed to providing at least $25 million per year to help construct and operate the facility; that Russia was committed to destroying all its remaining nerve agent; that other nations were committed to providing funding for the social infrastructure around this facility; and that Russia was committed to destroying its chemical weapons production acilities. The House, in contrast, again eliminated all funding for the chemical weapons destruction facility. In its version of the Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 4205), it provided only $433.4 million for CTR. The House prevailed in the Conference Committee, and the Conference Report (H.Rept. 106-945) authorizes the appropriation of only $433.4 million for CTR and precludes any expenditures on the construction of a chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia. Instead, it expresses the sense of Congress that the international community should do more to help Russia eliminate its chemical weapons in accordance with its obligations under the Chemical Weapons convention.

-Implementing the Programs.

The United States government has signed Memoranda of Understanding, known as "umbrella agreements" with each of the nations receiving assistance under the CTR program. These agreements, which form the legal framework for CTR and lay out the rights and responsibilities of each of the parties. The original agreement between the United States and Russia was set to expire in mid-June 1999, and many observers expected that it would not be renewed in time to continue implementing CTR programs because the two nations had held few high-level meetings on the issue. Russia had been reluctant to hold these meetings after NATO forces began their attacks against Serbian forces in Kosovo and Serbia. However, the United States and Russia concluded and signed a 7-year extension for the U.S.-Russian umbrella agreement on June 17, 1999.

By February 2001, the Department of Defense had obligated over $2.6 billion for CTR projects and had spent nearly than $2 billion implementing those efforts. Early CTR projects focused on transportation of nuclear warheads; the United States provided secure rail cars, storage containers, and kevlar blankets to protect nuclear warheads moving to storage areas inside Russia. The United States is also helping Russia with nuclear weapons control and accounting systems at storage facilities. CTR projects have also helped Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan eliminate Soviet-era strategic nuclear weapons and facilities on their territories. Russia will also receive CTR funds to help it dismantle nuclear weapons slated for elimination under START II. In addition, in FY1999, DOD requested funds to begin helping Russia with a warhead dismantling project. The two sides are also building a storage facility at Mayak for plutonium removed from Russia’s nuclear weapons. The facility’s design has been completed and construction is underway. However delays have occurred because Russia has been unable to fund its portion of the project and the two sides have been unable to agree on transparency measures that will ensure that materials stored in the facility are not removed and returned to nuclear weapons uses.

The CTR program has also funded special projects that addressed a particular proliferation concern. For example, in November 1997, the United States purchased 21 nuclear-capable MIG-29 aircraft from the Republic of Moldova. The United States feared that Moldova might sell these aircraft to a nation seeking nuclear delivery capabilities. In April 1998, the United States and Great Britain moved 8.8 pounds of highly enriched uranium and 17.6 pounds of highly radioactive spent fuel from a nuclear reactor outside Tbilisi, Georgia to Dounreay, Scotland. According to officials in the U.S. State Department, Georgia had first requested assistance in securing these materials in 1996. The U.S. Department of Energy worked to improve security at the facility, with both physical improvements and changes in security procedures. But the U.S., U.K. and Georgia eventually agreed that the only way to be sure the materials were safe was to remove them from the country. In September 1998, the government of Kazakhstan announced that it planned to move 3 tons of weapons-useable nuclear materials from a facility near the Iranian border to Semipalatinsk, on the other side of the nation, over the next several years. Funds from the CTR program would help secure this material, as well.

B. International Science and Technology Centers

The United States, several European countries, and Japan have all provided funding to
International Science and Technology Centers (ISTC) in Moscow and Kiev. These centers-which were originally funded through the CTR program, but are now funded by the State Department-are designed to provide research and peaceful employment opportunities for nuclear scientists and engineers. The United States has contributed just over $75 million to the centers. The Centers began operations in 1992 and have, thus far, funded around 450 projects at a cost of $145 million. More than 17,000 scientists and engineers have participated in ISTC projects. Many continue to work at their primary jobs in Russia’s research facilities. But, because most have not received their full salaries at their primary jobs, the grants from the ISTC permit them to support their families without contemplating selling their knowledge to nations seeking nuclear weapons.

C. Material Protection, Control, and Accounting Programs

As was noted above, many in the United States have expressed concerns about the safety and security of nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. Although some of the materials believed to be at risk are located at nuclear weapons facilities, many others are located at civilian nuclear research facilities. Although the Nunn-Lugar CTR program focused on securing nuclear weapons, not materials, it did include some funding for materials control and protection. But government-to-government negotiations with Russia and the other republics proceeded slowly, so projects at facilities with these materials did not begin until 1994. In a parallel effort that sought to reduce these delays, experts from the U.S. nuclear laboratories also began, in 1994, less formal contacts with their counterparts in Russia to identify and solve safety and security problems at Russian facilities. Together, the government-to government and lab-to-lab projects constitute the Material Protection, Control and Accounting(MPC&A) program, which is funded through the U.S. Department of Energy; these merged into a single program in 1997.

The MPC&A program began with less than $3 million in the FY1993 Nunn-Lugar budget and $11 million in FY1994. This amount grew to $73 million in FY1995. In FY1996, Congress expanded these programs through the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Amendment, and provided $99 million in the DOE budget for MPC&A. The program received an additional $115 million in FY1997 and $137 million in FY1998. The Administration requested $152 million for MPC&A activities in FY1999; the House and Senate have both included that amount in the FY1999 Appropriations for the Department of Energy. The Clinton Administration requested $145 million for MPC&A activities for FY2000; the House and Senate both approved this request.

According to a recent GAO report, the Department of Energy has identified 332 buildings that require nuclear security systems. By late 1999, DOE had helped upgrade security systems at 113 buildings that contained about 50 metric tons of nuclear materials, or 7% of the 650 metric tons that DOE believed were at risk of theft. These upgrades include the installation of improved security systems that use modern technology and strict material control and accounting systems. The program has also provided security training for Russian nuclear specialists. DOE officials have noted that the program had has experienced some problems and results have been limited because most of the materials are in Russia’s closed nuclear cities and nuclear weapons complex. MINATOM, which is responsible for these facilities, has been slow to provide DOE with information about and access to these facilities because of the sensitive nature of the nuclear weapons complex.

In August 2000, the Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council, a private non-profit organization issued a report that praised the past efforts of the MPC&A program, but criticized DOE and the Administration for moving too slowly and with too little priority to secure nuclear materials in the Former Soviet Union. The report outlined a number of steps that it believes the next Administration should take to accelerate and strengthen the program.

The Clinton Administration requested $145 million for MPC&A activities for FY2001. It also requested an additional $100 million for a new initiative, the Long Term Nonproliferation Program for Russia. DOE plans to use $70 million of this amount to help Russia strengthen security and accounting for existing civil plutonium stockpiles and to prevent the further accumulation of separated plutonium from spent fuel produced by civil nuclear power programs. The remaining $30 million would support a number of nonproliferation programs related to Russia’s nuclear infrastructure, including new initiatives for securing weapons-usable materials in Russia and to accelerate the closure of Russian nuclear weapons assembly facilities. The two sides have not, however, reached a final agreement on the implementation of these programs. The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the Administration’s request for the MPC&A program, but did not fund the new Long Term initiative, noting that funding for this program was premature.

D. Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention

The Department of Energy has also sponsored a program to help former nuclear weapons scientists and engineers in Russia so that they will not seek employment in nations seeking nuclear weapons. The Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) program, which began in 1994, funds projects with non-military applications that have commercial value for both the United States and the former Soviet republics. n its first phase, the program coordinated lab-to-lab contacts that sought to identify technologies at former Soviet weapons facilities that might have commercial applications. In its second phase, the program matches U.S. government funds with funds provided by U.S. companies in projects that seek to commercialize the technologies identified in the first phase.

The IPP program initially received $35 million in the FY1994 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, and it funded 193 projects in its first phase in 1995. In FY1996, Congress provided $10 million in the DOE budget and the program received another $20 million from the Nunn-Lugar CTR budget. IPP received $30 million in the DOE budget each year in FY1997 and FY1998. Through FY1998, the IPP program had obligated $115 million to 435 projects throughout the former Soviet republics. In FY1999, DOE requested only $15 million, noting that it had sufficient unexpended funds from previous years to continue ongoing projects with this funding level. The Senate, however, in its version of the FY1999 Defense Authorization Bill (S. 2057) provided $30 million for the IPP program. The Conference Report on the Defense Authorization Bill (H.Rept. 105-736) provided $20 million for the IPP Program. It also required that the Secretary of Defense submit a study on the number of former Soviet nuclear weapons scientists and engineers who are likely to be unemployed or unpaid and the extent to which commercialization projects, such as those sponsored by IPP, might employ these people and discourage them from selling their knowledge to other nations. The Clinton Administration requested $30 million for the IPP program for FY2000 and $22.5 million for FY2001.

In February 1999, the General Accounting Office issued a report that reviewed and criticized the IPP program. The report noted that Russian institutes had received only around one-third of the funds allocated to IPP projects-around 50% of the funds had gone to the DOE labs for oversight and implementation and around 12% had gone to U.S. companies that were participating in the program-and that taxes, fees, and other charges had further reduced the amount of money available to Russian scientists. The report also questioned DOE’s oversight of the programs, noting that program officials do not always know how many scientists are receiving funds through the IPP program. Finally, the report questioned whether the program was contributing to U.S. nonproliferation objectives because none of the projects was yet a commercial success and because some scientists who received IPP funding might still be working in Russia’s WMD programs. DOE agreed that the IPP program needed improved oversight, but it questioned the conclusions about its contributions to U.S. nonproliferation objectives. DOE noted that IPP has temporarily employed thousands of scientists in around 170 institutes. DOE also stated that the program did not subsidize scientists who were performing weapons-related work.

In response to the GAO report, the House and Senate both reduced the Administration’s request for funding for the IPP program in FY2000 and limited the proportion of the funding that can be allocated to the U.S. national labs. In the Conference report on the FY2000 Defense Authorization Bill, Congress approved $25 million for IPP and specified that no more than 35% of the funds be spent at the U.S. labs. It also mandated that the United States seek to negotiate agreements with Russia to ensure that funds provided under this program are not subject to taxes in Russia. Furthermore, it requested that the Secretary of Energy review IPP programs for their commercialization potential.

E. Nuclear Cities Initiative

In August 1998, Vice President Gore and then-Prime Minister Kiriyenko signed an agreement establishing the Nuclear Cities Initiative. This program is designed to bring commercial enterprises to Russia’s closed nuclear cities, so that scientists and engineers will not be tempted to sell their knowledge to nations seeking nuclear weapons. In September 1998, Secretary of Energy Richardson and Russia’s Minister of Atomic Energy signed an implementing agreement for this program. It is designed to promote nonproliferation goals by helping to redirect the work of nuclear weapons scientists, engineers, and technicians and to develop commercial opportunities in those cities. For example, it helped finance a computing center in Sarov, formerly known as Arzamas-16, that will produce software for sale around the world.

The Clinton Administration requested $30 million for the NCI program in FY2000. In its February 1999 report, the GAO recommended that DOE move slowly with this initiative to ensure that it met its stated goals and objectives. As a result, Congress reduced funding for this program to $7.5 million in FY2000, limiting U.S. assistance to only one of three nuclear cities that were included in the Administration’s initiative. The Clinton Administration has requested $17.5 million for this program in FY2001. Although most members of Congress have questioned the value of this program, in April 2000, Senator Domenici announced that he was considering introducing legislation that would expand funding for the NCI program. He stated that his goal would be to expand U.S. efforts to help Russia downsize its nuclear complex. This legislation became S.Amdt. 3760 to the Senate version of the Defense Authorization Bill. It authorized $30 million for the NCI program for FY2001, and passed the Senate on July 13, 2000. The Conference Committee accepted this level of funding for NCI in FY2001, but limited the amount that could be expended until the Secretary of Energy implemented a review process for the program.

In August 1999, a bipartisan group of U.S. Congressmen traveled to the closed Russian city of Snezhinsk, to assess prospects for the nuclear cities initiative. They found Russian scientists to be receptive to the idea of converting their cities to civilian and commercial enterprises. They also argued that the program would be effective in convincing Russian scientists to remain in Russia instead of selling their knowledge to other nations. A new computing center that would employ 120 former Soviet weapons specialists in commercial projects opened in this city in late 2000. In addition to providing assistance with commercial developments, the NCI has sponsored the Energy Communities Alliance, where mayors from the 10 Russian nuclear cities and 5 U.S. cities with DOE nuclear weapons facilities can meet to discuss ways to transform the economies in their communities from weapons work to civilian enterprises. This group held consultations in Washington in late January, 2000.

F. Bilateral Meetings

Officials from the United States and Russia have met in several groups over the past 5 years to address specific problems in Russia’s nuclear weapons complex. Some groups have produced numerous agreements and cooperative efforts; others have shown few results. This section briefly reviews the objectives of some of these bilateral working groups.

- The U.S.-Russian Commission on Economic and Technological

Cooperation (The Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission). In April 1993, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin established the U.S.-Russian Commission on Economic and Technological Cooperation, to be chaired by Vice President Gore and Russia’s Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. The commission has held 11 sessions, with the latest in late July 1998 chaired by Vice President Gore and Russia’s recent Prime Minister Kiriyenko. Although the Commission was created to foster cooperation on space and energy issues, its mandate has expanded to include a number of other different policy areas. In addition, Vice President Gore and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin often used their meetings to address issues, such as arms control and missile defense cooperation, on the agenda for upcoming Presidential summits.

The Energy Committee has a working group that addresses fissile materials (e.g. weapons-grade uranium and plutonium) in an effort to ensure that they do not pose a proliferation or environmental threat. This working group has agreed on numerous projects, most of which were subsequently funded by the Nunn-Lugar CTR program. For example, in 1994, the commission announced that the two sides would cooperate in building a storage facility at Mayak (described above) for plutonium removed from Russia’s nuclear weapons. In 1994, Vice President Gore and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin also signed the agreement that established the program through which the United States will purchase 500 metric tons of uranium removed from Russian nuclear weapons for use in nuclear power reactors.

In June 1994, the two sides signed an agreement requiring the shutdown of nuclear reactors that produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Russia initially balked at this agreement because it used the same reactors to produce light and heat in the cities of Tomsk and Krasnoyarsk, but the two sides agreed to find ways to replace these energy sources. Although it announced that it had stopped producing plutonium for weapons in the reactors by the end of 1994, Russia refused to proceed with the shutdown because these alternatives were not yet available. In 1996, the two sides agreed to convert the reactors to a type that would not produce weapons-grade materials as a byproduct of energy production. The United States planned to contribute $80 million, through the Nunn-Lugar CTR Program, to convert the reactors. An implementing agreement was signed at the commission’s meeting in September 1997. However, in February 2000, the Russian government reportedly told the Clinton Administration that it wanted to cancel the reactor conversion project because of delays, cost overruns, and fears of a catastrophic accident. Instead, Russia suggested that it would close the reactors altogether if the United States would help fund conventional energy sources for the affected cities. In response, in its version of the Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 4205), the House prohibited the use of any CTR funds for the construction of "fossil fuel energy plants." And the Senate Armed Services Committee, in its version of the bill (S. 2549), limited the amount of funds that could be spent on this project until a new option was selected for the shutdown or conversion of the reactors.

During their June 24, 1998 meeting, Vice President Gore and Prime Minister Kiriyenko signed two agreements on nuclear issues. The United States agreed to provide Russia with assistance in converting plutonium from nuclear weapons to fuel for nuclear reactors. In the second agreement, the United States pledged $3.1 million for 9 projects that are designed to help scientists in Russia’s closed nuclear cities convert their efforts to peaceful civilian endeavors, a project known as the Nuclear Cities Initiative.

- The Strategic Stability Working Group (SSWG).

In September 1993, Secretary of Defense Aspin and Defense Minister Grachev established a working group of experts from the U.S. DOD and the Russian MOD, to discuss ways to improve strategic stability, increase mutual confidence, and relax the Cold War nuclear force postures. One of the first topics the SSWG addressed was ballistic missile "detargeting." In an agreement that took effect on May 30, 1994, the two nations agreed that no country would be targeted by any strategic forces on either side. Many observers praised this agreement as an overdue sign that the United States and Russia no longer consider each other enemies. Some also saw it as a move away from the nuclear hair-trigger and a concrete step to reduce the risk of accidental missile launches. Others, however, argued that its benefits were strictly symbolic because both sides could quickly retarget missiles during a crisis. Many also noted that the measure was not verifiable, so neither side could be sure that the other’s missiles were actually detargeted.

During the mid-1990s the United States shared information with the Russians about threats to both sides from short-range ballistic missiles, and the two sides discussed holding a joint exercise in which they would coordinate their defenses against short-range ballistic missile attacks. The first phase of this project occurred in June 1996, in Colorado Springs. At that time, the Russians deployed SA-12 interceptors and the U.S. deployed Patriot batteries in a simulated combat scenario to defend against a common enemy. Another joint exercise took place in 1998, and a third occurred in early 2001. The exercises involved computer simulations, rather than actual military operations, and focused on scenarios where the two nations might practice coordinating and communicating in engaging targets in a theater of operations.

- Safeguards, Transparency, and Irreversibility Talks.

In January 1994, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin established a working group to consider steps to ensure the transparency and irreversibility of the process of reducing nuclear weapons. The Safeguards, Transparency, and Irreversibility working group produced an agreement, in principle, for the two sides to exchange data on warhead stockpiles. But they were unable to complete an agreement that would permit the exchange of classified data on nuclear warheads. Congress had amended U.S. law to permit this exchange in 1994, but Russia has neither passed legislation nor issued the necessary executive decree.

G. Arms Control Proposals

- Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons

In 1991, the United States and Soviet Union both announced that they were withdrawing most of their deployed nonstrategic nuclear weapons and placing them in central storage areas. Each side adopted these measures unilaterally, without formal negotiations and without a formal verification regime. The United States and Russia have periodically exchanged information updating the status of the withdrawals and assuring the other side that the remaining weapons are in safe and secure storage areas. During their summit meeting in Helsinki in March 1997, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed that the two sides would explore possible arms control measures relating to tactical nuclear weapons and warheads removed from strategic nuclear weapons during the proposed START III negotiations (which will not begin until START II enters into force). These initiatives could include transparency measures and confidence-building measures, along with reciprocal inspections and monitoring at storage and dismantlement facilities.

The United States would like further restrictions on Russian tactical nuclear weapons both because it believes these might pose a proliferation risk and because Russia has a far greater number of these weapons than does the United States. Russia has resisted formal limits. However, in late April 1998, officials from NATO and Russia exchanged information about their nonstrategic nuclear weapons. This effort was designed not only to ease Russia’s concerns about NATO’s nuclear weapons, but also to provide NATO with information about the thousands of tactical nuclear weapons still in service in Russia.

- Agreement on the Disposition of Weapons-grade Plutonium

During their Moscow summit in Sept. 1998, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed that each nation would convert 50 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium to a form that could not be returned to nuclear weapons. Clinton Administration officials estimated that this amount was approximately half of the U.S. stockpile and perhaps 25% of Russia’s stockpile. The agreement highlighted two means for converting the plutonium-the parties could either convert it to fuel for nuclear power reactors or mix it with other nuclear wastes and dispose of it in a way the would preclude its use in nuclear weapons. This agreement is designed to ease concerns about the possible theft or diversion of weapons-grade plutonium by nations or others seeking to develop their own nuclear weapons. However, the Clinton Administration emphasized that this effort could cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and it called on other nations to help Russia implement the program. Congress allocated $200 million for this program in the Omnibus Appropriations Act passed at the end of the 105 Congress.

- Sharing Early Warning Data

In September 1998, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed that the United States and Russia would share early warning data for all space launches and ballistic missile launches world wide. hey signed a Memorandum of Agreement establishing this center at their summit meeting in Moscow in June 2000. The two sides have agreed that they will share data on a continual basis, in real time (rather than providing it annually or biannually); they agreed that data would include information on strategic, theater, and intermediate range missiles, and on space launches; they agreed the data would be derived from early warning satellites and ground-based radars; and they agreed to establish a multilateral pre-launch notification system that would be open to all nations who agreed to share data prior to missile or space launches from their territories. The Clinton Administration emphasized that this agreement would strengthen stability and protect against the possibility of a nuclear launch triggered by false warning of an attack. Administration officials have also highlighted the cooperative nature of this endeavor; this Center will provide the first opportunity for U.S. and Russian military personnel to be permanently involved in a joint military operation.

In mid-December 2000, the United States and Russia signed an agreement outlining the types of information that would be exchanged in the newly-formed Joint Data Exchange Center (JDEC) near Moscow. This agreement establishes a pre-launch and post-launch notification system for ballistic missile and space launches and designed to reduce the risk that a test, experiment, or space launch, could be misread as a ballistic missile attack. Some critics of the planned center argued it would hinder U.S. access to space by requiring that notifications before launches, but the military space community reportedly reviewed all the provisions and approved of the plan because it allows for exceptions to the notification requirement in the interest of national security.

- Alert Rates for Strategic Nuclear Weapons

Many analysts argue that Russia’s aging satellite and communication systems, when combined with the high alert rates for U.S. and Russian nuclear forces (both can launch on very short notice), increase the possibility of a nuclear attack. Many analysts note that Russia may lack complete information about the status of U.S. forces and, therefore, might interpret ambiguous events as a missile launch. The agreement on sharing early warning data seeks to address this problem by providing Russia with information about ambiguous events. Some in the United States, such as Bruce Blair and former Senator Sam Nunn, have proposed that the United States and Russia go further and "de-alert" their nuclear weapons. They argue that, if U.S. weapons were not on alert, Russia would be less likely to assume that it were under attack if it detected ambiguous activities. In addition, if Russia took its forces off alert, it would not have to loosen controls over them to ensure their launch in a crisis because the missiles would not be ready to be launched in a crisis. Those who support de-alerting have outlined several different measures, from removing warheads from missiles and storing them separately, to removing launch keys from control centers or removing critical data from launch computers.

Those who oppose the idea of "de-alerting" argue that it will undermine, not enhance stability. They note that warheads in a few storage depots may be far more vulnerable to a preemptive attack than warheads deployed on hundreds of missiles in hardened silos. They also argue that each side might feel compelled to "re-alert" its forces quickly if it suspected that the other side had started the process, and that this could lead to a destabilizing "alert" race, with each trying to gain an advantage over the other. Finally, some have noted that officials in Russia have shown no interest in this proposal; instead, some Russians have argued that "de-alerting" appears to be a U.S. attempt to disarm Russian missiles.

In late 1997, an inter-agency working group assessed possible measures to "de-alert" U.S. nuclear forces. This effort stemmed, in part from the U.S.-Russian agreement to deactivate weapons that would be eliminated under START II by the end of 2003, even though they would not have to be eliminated until 2007. But it also was an effort to explore the idea of a more comprehensive change in nuclear weapons alert status. The effort, however, did not result in any changes in the alert status of U.S. nuclear forces. During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Eugene Habiger, the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, noted that the reductions in offensive forces mandated by the START Treaties would serve to reduce the number of alert weapons in the U.S. force from about 2,300 today to less than 1,000 under START II and less than 700 under START III because only a portion of the U.S. force is on alert at any one time.

Congressional Hearings, Reports, And Documents
U.S. Congress, House. Committee on National Security. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. H.Rept. 105-532, 105th Cong. 2nd sess. May 12, 1998.

For Additional Reading
Executive Branch Reports
U.S. Department of Defense. Cooperative Threat Reduction. August 1997.
U.S. Department of Energy. MPC&A Strategic Plan. January 1998.
CRS Reports and Issue Briefs
CRS Report 97-586. Russia’s Nuclear Forces: Doctrine and Force Structure Issues.
CRS Report 97-1027. Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs: Issues for Congress.
CRS Issue Brief IB98030. Nuclear Arms Control: The U.S.-Russian Agenda.