parti 6--10: https://it.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/crj-mailinglist/conversations/messages/8737
Siccome un misogino, xenofobo, apertamente razzista e nemico dell'umanità come il presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America ha criticato la Nato durante il vertice di Bruxelles dell'11-12 Luglio, qualcuno potrebbe avere la falsa idea che valga la pena difendere l'Alleanza Atlantica. Assolutamente no!
Qualunque sia l'obiettivo a lungo termine di Donald Trump sulla Nato, supponendo che ne abbia uno, l'Organizzazione è nemica dell'umanità e lo è sempre stata.
Uno sguardo ai suoi membri e alla sua storia ci può mostrare il perché...
La NATO consiste in...
Per la maggior parte della sua storia, la Nato ha incluso tutte le maggiori potenze imperialiste, ad eccezione del Giappone e dell'Australia. I membri sono stati: Francia, Gran Bretagna, Italia, Canada e Stati Uniti dal 1949, mentre la Germania, quella Occidentale, dal 1955. Questi Paesi, insieme al Giappone, costituiscono il G7 attraverso il quale attualmente decidono le regole economiche del mondo.
La Nato, inoltre, include stati anche più piccoli quali Spagna, Portogallo, Belgio, Paesi Bassi, Lussemburgo, Norvegia, Danimarca e la piccola Islanda, tutti membri di lunga data del mondo imperialista. Anche la Grecia e la Turchia appartengono all'Alleanza Atlantica.
Le principali potenze della NATO sono i paesi imperialisti perché le loro classi dirigenti e finanziarie, principalmente attraverso le loro banche, controllano la maggior parte della ricchezza mondiale. Il capitale sotto il loro controllo viene utilizzato per sfruttare il lavoro ed estrarre risorse in tutto il mondo.
Fino alla Seconda guerra mondiale, la Gran Bretagna e la Francia governavano direttamente vaste regioni dell'Africa e dell'Asia attraverso le colonie. Anche la Germania ne possedeva, ma meno rispetto alle altre due Potenze. I Paesi Bassi, il Belgio e persino la piccola Danimarca avevano colonie più grandi dei paesi d'origine.
I principali paesi della Nato sono ora in possesso di tecnologie all'avanguardia, controllano i mezzi di comunicazione di massa, fabbricano armi potenti e sono i meglio armati del pianeta. Vendono armi al mondo, ma tengono per se stessi le armi più all'avanguardia.
Attraverso il controllo del mercato mondiale, degli scambi di valute e delle banche, e con i loro vantaggi tecnologici, questi sette Paesi opprimono direttamente e indirettamente la maggior parte del mondo.
Tra i paesi del G7, gli Stati Uniti imperialisti, la più grande economia nazionale e di gran lunga la più grande potenza militare, sono i più pericolosi per l'umanità.
Il ruolo della NATO dal 1949 al 1989
Durante la prima metà del ventesimo secolo, questi stati predatori lottarono per avere il dominio di mercati, colonie e materie prime. A causa della loro rivalità, hanno provocato due Guerre mondiali che insieme hanno portato alla morte centinaia di milioni di persone - per lo più lavoratori e contadini.
Dopo la fine della Seconda guerra mondiale, la classe dei saccheggiatori e dei ladri che governavano quegli Stati videro che, mentre si combattevano, un terzo dell'umanità era riuscito a liberarsi dal loro dominio.
La Rivoluzione russa, che pose fine alla Prima guerra mondiale, sopravvisse anche all'assalto della Germania nazista. La Seconda guerra mondiale terminò in Europa con le rivoluzioni jugoslave, albanese e la marcia dell'Armata Rossa sovietica a Berlino. Nel 1949, tutta la Cina e Corea vennero liberate mentre il popolo vietnamita stava vincendo contro i francesi. Ci fu una guerra civile rivoluzionaria in Grecia. I regimi coloniali stavano iniziando a crollare in tutto il mondo. La classe operaia in Francia e in Italia sembrava sul punto di prendere il potere, Paesi questi in cui i partiti comunisti avevano organizzato la resistenza armata dei lavoratori al fascismo.
Così nel 1949, Washington, di gran lunga il potere imperialista dominante, fondò la NATO per impedire le rivoluzioni operaie nell'Europa occidentale devastata dalla guerra e per affrontare l'Unione Sovietica e i suoi alleati nell'Europa orientale. Solo nel 1955 l'Unione Sovietica stabilì il Patto di Varsavia con i suoi alleati dell'Europa orientale.
Il ruolo reazionario della NATO ha incluso la pianificazione di un colpo di stato militare in Grecia nel 1967, regime poi durato fino al 1974. Si sospetta che l'Alleanza abbia partecipato alla «strategia della tensione» del 1968-82 in Italia, quando gruppi di destra clandestini, utilizzati sia da pezzi della classe dirigente che dello stato italiano, portarono avanti attacchi terroristici. Nel 1975, la NATO inviò navi da guerra per intervenire in Portogallo col fine di impedire alla classe operaia di aprire una lotta per il socialismo, dopo che una rivoluzione aveva sconfitto il regime fascista.
Il presidente degli Stati Uniti sceglie sempre il comandante della NATO, e il Generale in carica è sempre del Pentagono. Pertanto, la NATO è sempre stata uno strumento della politica imperialista statunitense. Essa quindi rimane tale, nonostante le lamentele di Trump.
Nuovo ruolo della NATO: poliziotto capitalista mondiale
Nel 1990, durante le trattative tra i leader statunitensi e quelli sovietici per porre fine alla Guerra Fredda, Washington promise di non spostare la NATO verso est. Lo scopo dichiarato dell'Alleanza Atlantico fino a quel momento era quello di «difendere le nazioni membri dalle minacce dei paesi comunisti». Questo scopo apparente sarebbe dovuto finire con la disintegrazione dell'Unione Sovietica nel 1991 e la dissoluzione del Patto di Varsavia.
Ma dal 1991, lungi dal dissolvere la NATO, Washington ha insistito affinché il patto militare si espandesse, rimanendo tuttavia sotto il comando degli Stati Uniti.
La politica degli Stati Uniti ha trasformato quindi l'Organizzazione in una sorta di polizia imperialista. Non più confinata in Europa, la NATO è diventata una forza di intervento su scala globale al servizio dei monopoli transnazionali che sfruttano il lavoro e le risorse globali.
La Polonia, l'Ungheria e la Repubblica Ceca entrarono a far parte dell'Alleanza nell'aprile 1999. Questa espansione coincise con la guerra aerea USA-NATO nei Balcani che distrusse il paese sovrano e multinazionale della Jugoslavia.
Gli imperialisti mentono ancora sulle ragioni della guerra in Jugoslavia, sostenendo che era per difendere il Kosovo, un'area a maggioranza islamica. Nel suo libro Waging Modern Warfare, il comandante della NATO del 1999, il generale Wesley Clark, ammise che la guerra in Kosovo era «diplomazia coercitiva ... molto più simile agli interventi di un'epoca precedente» - il riferimento è alla fase storica precedente la Seconda guerra mondiale, epoca in cui le potenze imperialiste occupavano apertamente colonie e protettorati (p.418).
L'ex Jugoslavia - Stato che rappresentava circa 20 milioni di persone - è stata suddivisa in sette ministati che sono facili da controllare per l'imperialismodell'Europa occidentale e degli Stati Uniti.
A questo, seguirono altri interventi militari NATO guidati da Washington. Gli Stati Uniti hanno invaso l'Afghanistan in Asia centrale nel 2001, usando il pretesto dell'attacco dell'11 settembre e invocando l'articolo 5 della carta della NATO che chiedeva la difesa collettiva. Oggi l'occupazione di quell'area continua.
Nel 2011, con un ancor più pallido pretesto, la NATO attaccò e distrusse la Libia. Quello stesso anno i paesi dell'Alleanza sabotarono e tentarono di sovvertire il governo siriano.
La distruzione causata da questi interventi ha aggravato in modo orribile la crisi dei rifugiati che continua ancora oggi.
La Francia e la Germania hanno esitato a unirsi all'invasione dell'Iraq nel 2003, perché i loro governi lo ritenevano un pericoloso e folle tentativo. Per questo motivo, la NATO non ha partecipato direttamente a questo disastro. Più tardi, tuttavia, molti stati membri dell'Organizzazione hanno aiutato l'occupazione del Paese mediorientale, anche se era noto la non veridicità del pretesto statunitense per la guerra - le «armi di distruzione di massa» in possesso del governo iracheno
L'ultima espansione della NATO
Bulgaria, Estonia, Lettonia, Lituania, Romania, Slovacchia e Slovenia sono state annesse nella NATO nel 2004. Albania e Croazia invece hanno aderito all'alleanza nel 2009. Ora ci sono 29 membri, più altri paesi come la Svezia che con l'Alleanza hanno una relazione speciale.
Gli apologeti della NATO affermano che essa difende libertà e diritti umani. Al contrario, il suo ruolo è quello di riconquistare le aree del mondo che durante l'esistenza dell'Unione Sovietica sono riuscite ad acquisire una certa indipendenza dall'imperialismo Occidentale.
Per affrontare l'assalto dell'imperialismo americano, è necessario dire sia «Down with Trump!», che, allo stesso modo, «No alla NATO!».
Catalinotto, Co-Director of the International Action Center, co-edited the book “Hidden Agenda: U.S./NATO Takeover of Yugoslavia,” New York: International Action Center, 2001
Da iaccenter Traduzione di Andrea C. per civg.it
http://misionverdad.com/TRAMA-GLOBAL/los-origenes-nazis-de-la-otan
Traduzione di Marco Pondrelli per Marx21.it
Potete trovare facilmente sul web la storia delle ratline [ https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines ] (sentieri dei ratti) e di come il Vaticano partecipò alla sua logistica. Consisteva in una serie di vie, punti di transizione e di destinazione, per alcuni personaggi nazisti che il governo degli Stati Uniti assunse, che facilitarono il loro reclutamento attraverso la clandestinità. Da qui il riferimento ai ratti.
Questa conversione dal nazismo alla parte occidentale contro il comunismo è stata solo formale, dal momento che il Reich cercò nella seconda guerra mondiale di sconfiggere l'Unione Sovietica. Come sappiamo, non ci riuscì. Ma alti comandanti militari nazisti furono riciclati nella struttura della principale coalizione transatlantica guidata dagli Stati Uniti contro il blocco sovietico.
Di seguito sono riportati brevi profili dei seguenti ufficiali che sono passati da essere nazisti a diventare importanti ufficiali militari dell'Organizzazione Nord Atlantica (NATO).
Adolf Heusinger [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger ] salì alle più alte gerarchie militari del Terzo Reich. Divenuto capo di stato maggiore nel 1944 per un breve periodo, fu poi declassato al comando della divisione cartografica per una possibile collaborazione con l'attentato contro Hitler. Fu coinvolto nei piani nazisti di invasione della Polonia, della Norvegia, della Danimarca e della Francia. La sua storia è la più interessante di questa lista di ufficiali, dal momento che dopo la guerra divenne una spia per la CIA, è stato militare durante il governo di Konrad Adenauer tra il 1957 e il 1961 nella Repubblica Federale di Germania, poi ha assunto la presidenza del Comitato Militare della NATO, la carica più alta nell'organizzazione fino al 1964.
L'obiettivo principale della Germania nazista era quello di distruggere il progetto sovietico, come ha fatto la NATO fino alla caduta del muro di Berlino. Per questo ufficiali nazisti con esperienza sul campo di battaglia europeo e conoscenza delle successive tattiche di combattimento che la NATO avrebbe usato contro la Jugoslavia e la Libia, per citare due casi, furono reclutati dalle élite statunitense e tedesca per svolgere ancora una volta l'operazione Barbarossa attraverso canali più sottili e con la stessa foga ideologica.
Così come l'Organizzazione di Gehlen [ https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizaci%C3%B3n_Gehlen ] [2] fu attivata dagli Stati Uniti e dalla Germania Federale nel dopoguerra attraverso le reti di intelligence e spionaggio dei nazisti nell'Europa dell'Est, gli stessi funzionari che ebbero successo durante le campagne militari furono riattivati per svolgere un ruolo commisurato ai loro tempi e interessi.
La ricapitolazione delle origini naziste di questa organizzazione transatlantica spiega ciò che molti altri analisti militari hanno a lungo pensato: che il nazismo in Europa è ormai storicamente manifesto nell'attuale struttura della NATO [ http://www.voltairenet.org/article196855.html ]. Il sogno di Hitler si realizza oggi e punta direttamente alla Russia ed al progetto eurasiatico.
NOTE
[1] aeronautica militare tedesca
[2] Reinhard Gehlen fu a capo dei servizi segreti nazisti sul fronte orientale durante la seconda guerra mondiale
БАЗЕ НАТО ЗА ТЕРОРИСТЕ У ЕВРОПИ
Вејни Мадсен, СКФ
МЕК је основан 1965. године и посебно се истицао акцијама на рушењу како бивше владе иранског Шаха тако и Исламске Републике Иран - ослањајући се на терористичке акције. У раним 1970-их, МЕК је започео програм атентата на иранске званичнике и америчког особља у Ирану. Током револуције у Ирану 1979. године, МЕК се истицао великим бомбашким нападима и ватреним окршајима великог интензитета.. МЕК предводи супружнички пар Масуда и Меријам Раџави, које противници и бивши чланови МЕК описују као лидере познатог - Раџави култа. Тај је Раџави-култ озлоглашен је по томе што све критичаре МЕК-а, а његове бивше следбенике,константно напада или још горе, убија.
Међу најтежим терористичким акцијама МЕК-а налазе се:
• покушај отмице амбасадора САД у Ирану, Дагласа Макартура II, нећака славног генерала из Другог светског рата.
• покушај атентата у САД 1972 на бригадног генерала ваздухопловства Харолда Прајса импровизованом експлозивном направом (ИЕД).
• атентат на америчког официра Лоиса Ли Хокинса 1973 у Техерану. Исте године, МЕК је убио официра УС ер-форса, пуковника Пола Шафера и потпуковника Џека Тарнера.
• 1973 нападнуте су бомбама Пан Американове и Шел Оилове канцеларије у Техерану.
• убиство 1976 у Техерану тројице америчких службеника Роквел интернејшнела - Вилијама Котрела, Доналда Сита и Роберта Кронгарда. Председник САД Џералд Форд је рекао да се нада да ће "убице бити приведене правди." Уместо тога, они су сматрани херојима и део будуће власти у Ирана од стране страначких лидера у Вашингтону.
• МЕК је претио да ће убити председнике Ричарда Никсона и Џимија Картера током њихових посета Ирану у мају 1972 односно у децембру 1977 године.
• 1978 убијен је у атентату директор Тексако оила Пол Грим у Ахвазу,у Ирану.
• активно учешће 1979 у акцији којом су ирански милитанати запосели америчку амбасаду у Техерану.
• 1979 бомбашки напад у Техерану у коме су убијени демократски изабрни председник Ирана, Мохамад Али-Раџаи и премијер Мохамад Џавад Бахонар.
Током иранско-ирачког рата 80-тих година, Садам Хусеин је допустио МЕК-у, кога су називали „Народним муџахединима“ да формира базе унутар Ирака. Садам је наоружавао МЕК и снабдевао их финансијски – уз логистичку помоћ у извршавању терористичких напада унутар Ирана. У 1988, МЕК је, уз подршку Садама, покренуо копнену инвазију на Иран.
У операцији Мерсад, иранске снаге су поразиле МЕК, који је планирао да освоји контролу над иранском територијом како би инсталирао владу . Да је МЕК успео у томе,Блиски исток би добио своју прву праву терористичку државу. Формирање терористичке државе морало је да сачека рат у Сирији, када је ИСИЛ прогласио независи калифат на окупираној територији у Сирији и Ираку.
Након што су САД инвазијом срушиле Садама у 2003 и окипирале Ирак, снаге МЕК-а су стациониране у кампове под заштитом америчких снага у Ираку, од којих је најпознатији Камп Ашраф, бивши амерички логор Кемп Либерти. Нова ирачка влада захтевала је да снаге МЕК напусте Ирак.Потом су американци пребацили 3000 бораца МЕК-а у базу Манез, у Албанију, коју МЕК назива Ашраф-3. За МЕК, који наводно прима помоћ од израелског Мосада, тврди се да је укључен у прање новца и трговиу сексуалним робљем, сталним коришћењем крипто-монете Биткоин.
Сасвим је разумљиво што су снаге МЕК удружене са снагама ИСИЛ-а у борби против сиријских и ирачких владиних снага. МЕК сматра ИСИЛ природнимг савезником у борби против про-иранске владе у Багдаду и Дамаску. Добро је познато западним обавештајним агенцијама да су МЕК и ИСИЛ створили јак савез, па ипак је администрација Барак Обаме скинула МЕК са листе терористичких организација Стејт департмента у 2012.. Од 1997. до 2012. године, Сједињене Државе званично су сматрале МЕК страном терористичком организацијом.
Када су снаге ИСИЛ-а избачене из Сирије и Ирака, Америка је убедила Албанију да допусти исламским терористима да се прикључе својим савезнцима из МЕК-а у Албанији. Породице бораца ИСИЛ-а су стациониране у зградама у Тирани, које су раније држали чланови МЕК-а пре него што су пребачени у базу Манез. Из своје базе у Албанији, МЕК-ови оперативци су лако прелазили на Косово, на локацију наредне кључне војне базе НАТО - у Камп Бонстил, близу Феризаја (Урошевца) у источном Косову. Са симпатизерима у Албанији и на Косову, терристи МЕК-а су нападали Шиа и Суфи-исламистичке инстуитуције. Поједини албански новинари, који су малтретирани од албанске власти и МЕК-а, верују да се Ашраф 3 и Камп Бонстил користе за обуку плаћеника МЕК и плћаеника за Блиски Исток, за рат против Ирана, који треба да осртвари намеру НАТО да промени тамошњу власт.
Албанска и косовска влада одржавају блиске контакте са администрацијом Доналда Трампа. Албанског премијера Еди Раму и председника Косова Хашима Тачија, који је до скора био лидер терористичке КЛА, заступа у Вашингтону Брајан Балард, бивши званичк Трампове председничке кампање , директор Балард Партнерса, лобистичке фирму стациоиране у Талахаусу на Флориди.
Захваљујући политиком утицају брачног пара Раџави, Раме и Тачија, тог својеврсног (не)светог тројства, терристи МЕК-а у Албаији и на Косову напредују пред носом НАТО-пакта и то на Балкану. Та тројка има своје пипке широм од Балкана па све до Западне Европе, посебно Француске, Италије и Немачке.
У јуну 2003. године, ћелија фамилије Раџави из МЕК-а, похапшена је у париском предграђу Аверс-сур-Оисе од стране француске полиције, по налогу шефа анти-терористичке јединицее Жан-Луја Бругијереа. Меријем Раџави је ухапшена, заједно са више од 100 других чланова МЕК. Након интензивног политичког притиска како републиканаца,тако и демократа у Конгресу САД, против њих су поднете кривичне пријаве, укључујући и оне које се односе на прање новца, доказаног од стране француске владе. Канцеларија за Заштиту немачког устава (ДПА), оптужила је МЕК не само за прање новца, већ и за примање донација у замену за „помоћ“ избјеглицама. Немци тврде да је МЕК користио донације за спровођење терористичких операција.
У 2004., извештај америчког Федералног истражног бироа је навео да МЕК финансира своје операције „преко сложене међународне операције прања новца, коришћењем рачуна у Турској, Немачкој, Француској, Белгији, Норвешкој, Шведској, Јордана, и Уједињених Арапски Емиратима. МЕК ужива широку подршку у Трамповој Белој кући, као и у америчком Конгресу. Један од МЕК-ових највећих помагача је Трумпов саветник за националну безбедност Џон Болтон. 1. априла, 2017. Болтон се обратио присутнима на МЕК-овој конференцији током „Новруза“ (Персијска Нова година), у Албанији и изјавио да ће МЕК прославити преузимање власти у Техерану пре 2019. Болтон је додао: „Више од десет година живим с уверењем да званична политика САД треба да буде промена режима у Ирану. И што пре то боље, због међународног мира и безбедности“. Током низа година, Болтон је у више наврата говорио на МЕК-овим скуповима у Паризу и Њујорку и наводно је прикупио око 180.000 долара као говорник за ову организацију. МЕК примарно добија финансијску подршку из Саудијске Арабије и Израела.Део тог новца се прослеђује говорницима на скуповима које организује МЕК у Паризу, Тирани и Њујорку.
Поред Болтона, чест прималац хонорара као говорник МЕК-а је бивши градоначелник Њујорка и лични адвокат Трампов, Рудолф Ђулијани, особа која је до те мере корумпирана, да га чак и итаијанска мафија жели да „елиминише“. И два бивша директора ЦИА,, Џејмс Вулси и Портер Гос, су говорила на скуповима МЕК-а, поред бившег директора ФБИ Лујиса Фрихом јуиора,
МЕК у Вашингтону заступа адвокатска фирма Џозефа Диђенова и његове супруге Викторије Тенсинг. Диђенова је циљао да постане лични Трампов адвокат. Међутим, мора је да се повуче због конфликта интереса па је посао добио Ђулијани.
Неоконси из Трампове администрације, посебно Болтон и Ђулијани, цркли би за промену режима у Ирану. Они ојачавају своју териростику армију на Балкану очекују будући рат.
NATO’s Terrorist Bases in Europe
NATO and the United States, which, together, claim to be fighting some sort of amorphous “global war on terrorism,” have enabled a terrorist group to establish bases in two NATO member states – France and Albania – and one NATO protectorate, Kosovo. After evacuating forces of the anti-Iranian terrorist group Mojahedin-e-Khalq from their former bases in Iraq, the United States and NATO facilitated the group’s establishment of a well-guarded military base in Manez, Albania, near Tirana. In addition to hosting MEK members, NATO has convinced Albania to accept members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), who surrendered to Western special forces in Syria and Iraq.
The MEK was founded in 1965 and it has the unusual distinction of taking action to overthrow both the former government of the Shah of Iran and the Islamic Republic of Iran by relying on terrorist actions. In the early 1970s, the MEK embarked on a program of assassinating Iranian officials and U.S. personnel in Iran. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 saw the MEK's program of bombings and shootings increase in intensity. The MEK is led by the husband-wife team of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, who opponents and ex-members of the MEK describe as leaders of what has become known as the "Rajavi Cult." The Rajavis abhor criticism and have been known to silence former MEK members-turned-critics by having them constantly harassed or worse, assassinated.
The MEK’s most notable terrorist actions included:
- the attempted kidnapping in 1970 of the U.S. ambassador to Iran, Douglas MacArthur II, the nephew of the famed World War II general.
- the attempted assassination in 1972 of U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Harold Price with an improvised explosive device (IED).
- the assassination in 1973 of U.S. Army officer Louis Lee Hawkins in Tehran. That same year, the MEK assassinated U.S. Air Force officers Col. Paul Shaffer and Lt. Col. Jack Turner.
- the 1973 bombings of Pan-American World Airlines and Shell Oil offices in Tehran.
- the assassination in Tehran in 1976 of three American employees of Rockwell International -- William Cottrell, Donald Smith, and Robert Krongard. U.S. President Gerald Ford said he hoped that “the murderers will be brought to justice.” Instead, they are treated as heroes and the future government of Iran by bi-partisan leaders in Washington.
- MEK threats to kill Presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter during their respective May 1972 and December 1977 visits to Iran.
- the 1978 assassination of Texaco oil executive Paul Grimm in Ahwaz, Iran.
- assisting in the 1979 takeover by Iranian militants of the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
- the 1979 bombing in Tehran that killed the democratically-elected Iranian President, Mohammad Ali-Rajai, and Prime Minister, Mohammad Javad Bahonar.
During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein permitted the MEK, also known as the “People’s Mojahedin,” to establish bases inside Iraq. Saddam armed the MEK and provided them with financial and logistical support to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran. In 1988, the MEK, with Saddam’s assistance, launched a ground invasion of Iran.
In Operation Mersad, Iranian forces defeated the MEK, which had hoped to establish control over Iranian territory to establish a rival Iranian government. Had the MEK succeeded, the Middle East would have seen its first genuine terrorist state. Establishment of a terrorist state would have to wait until the Syrian civil war, when ISIL proclaimed an independent caliphate in occupied territory in Syria and Iraq.
After the United States ousted Saddam in the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, the MEK forces were confined to U.S.-protected compounds in Iraq, the most prominent being Camp Ashraf, the former U.S. military's Camp Liberty. The new Iraqi government demanded the MEK forces leave Iraq. Acceding to Iraqi demands, the United States re-located 3,000 MEK members to the Manez base in Albania, which the MEK calls “Ashraf 3.” The MEK, which reportedly receives support from Israel’s Mossad, is said to be involved in money laundering and sex trafficking through the intensive use of crypto-currencies like Bitcoin.
Not surprisingly, MEK forces joined with ISIL forces in battling against Syrian and Iraqi government forces. The MEK saw ISIL as a natural ally in fighting pro-Iranian governments in Baghdad and Damascus. It was well-known to Western intelligence agencies that the MEK and ISIL had established an alliance, but, nevertheless, the Barack Obama administration removed the MEK from the U.S. State Department’s terrorist list in 2012. From 1997 to 2012, the United States officially designated the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization.
After ISIL forces were routed in Syria and Iraq, the United States pressured Albania to allow the Islamist terrorists to join their MEK allies in Albania. ISIL terrorists and their families have reportedly been housed in buildings in Tirana that were formerly occupied by MEK members prior to their transfer to the Manez base. From their Albanian base, MEK operatives have easily entered Kosovo, the location of another major NATO military base at Camp Bondsteel, near Ferizaj in eastern Kosovo. MEK terrorists, allied with sympathizers in Albania and Kosovo, have targeted Shi’a and Sufi Islamic institutions. It is also believed by some Albanian journalists, who have been intimidated by the Albanian government and MEK, that Ashraf 3 and Camp Bondsteel are being used to train MEK and other Middle Eastern mercenaries for a war against Iran to effect a NATO-led regime change operation..
The Albanian and Kosovo governments enjoy top-level access to the Trump administration. Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama and Kosovo President Hashim Thaci, himself a one-time terrorist leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army, are represented in Washington by Brian Ballard, a former Trump presidential campaign official who runs Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm based in Tallahassee, Florida.
Thanks to the political influence of the Rajavis, Rama, and Thaci, an unholy troika of the MEK, Albania, and Kosovo has blossomed under NATO’s nose in the Balkans. This troika’s tentacles extend throughout the Balkans and into Western Europe, particularly France, Italy, and Germany.
In June 2003, the Rajavi-operated MEK compound in the Paris suburb of Auvers-sur-Oise was raided by French police on the orders of anti-terrorist magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguière. Maryam Rajavi was arrested, along with over 100 other MEK members. Intense political pressure from Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress resulted in criminal charges, including those involving money laundering, being dropped by the French government.
The Office for the Protection of the German Constitution (DPA) has accused the MEK of not only money laundering but receiving charitable donations in return for "assisting" refugees. The Germans charges that the MEK’s charitable donations were spent on terrorist operations.
In 2004, a U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation report stated that the MEK financed its operations "through a complex international money laundering operation that uses accounts in Turkey, Germany, France, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates."
The MEK enjoys widespread support in the Trump White House, as well as in the U.S. Congress. One of the MEK's biggest boosters is Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton. On April 1, 2017, Bolton addressed an MEK Nowruz (Persian New Year) conference in Albania and declared that the MEK would be celebrating taking power in Tehran before 2019. Bolton added, "I have believed for over a decade now that the declared policy of the United States should be regime change in Iran. And the sooner the better, for the sake of international peace and security." Over many years, Bolton has repeatedly spoken at MEK events in Paris and New York and has reportedly accepted a total of $180,000 in speaker’s fees from the organization. The MEK primarily receives financial backing from Saudi Arabia and Israel. Some of the funds are funneled to Western politicians as honoraria in return for their speeches at MEK events in venues like Paris, Tirana, and New York.
In addition to Bolton, a frequent recipient of MEK speakers’ honoraria is former New York Mayor and Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, a person who is so corrupt, the Italian mafia wanted to have him “eliminated.” Two former CIA directors, James Woolsey and Porter Goss, have spoken at MEK events, along with one former FBI director, Louis Freeh, Jr.
The MEK is represented in Washington by the law firm of Joseph diGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing. DiGenova almost became Trump's personal attorney. However, diGenova took his name out of consideration due to conflicts of interest and Giuliani accepted the job.
In June 2017, the MEK and ISIL coordinated a terrorist attack on the Iranian parliament in Tehran and the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The terrorists were armed with AK-47s, hand grenades, and explosive-laden suicide vests. At least 12 people were killed in the attacks. The Trump White House defended the MEK/ISIL attack in stating, "We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote." Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called the White House statement "repugnant."
The Trump administration’s neocons, notably Bolton and Giuliani, are hell-bent on regime change in Iran. They are ramping up their terrorist army in the Balkans for such a future war.
NATO – an extension of US military power and, in turn, US economic power
an article by Rae Street, published in the winter edition of ‘Transform journal‘, the journal of Left Unity
NATO – the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
It is worth remembering when discussing NATO in 2018 that it was formed before the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War and was from the start dominated by the US government and its foreign policies. Since the time when it was formed in 1949 NATO has been an extension of US military power and, in turn, US economic power. In 1968, Bertrand Russell was saying, ‘There is a danger that those who watch with horror the barbarism of the United States in Vietnam, and the nauseous opportunism of Wilson and George Brown, may feel that this something nevertheless remote from their lives. That is not so. We in Western Europe are the allies and hosts of that same America. As long as we are tied by treaty, we are active accomplices of war criminals. It is a sad reflection on the brutality of our times that it is necessary to argue the case for an absolute dissociation from aggression, indiscriminate slaughter and experimental warfare. Only 20 years ago we hanged men at Nuremberg for such crimes. Today our government applauds them.’ Russell went on to say, ‘It is clear that it is not the UN but NATO which determines and dominates the foreign policy of Britain and of all the junior members of the American alliance.’ At the time, in 1969, there would have been an opportunity under Article 13 of the treaty to opt out. Russell knew that was unlikely under the Wilson government but, as he said, Britain would have lost ‘the opportunity to have an independent foreign policy for a further decade or two’. How right he was and not just two decades, but four – and counting.
Nowhere is that more evident than in the case of nuclear weapons. From its beginning NATO has held a policy of using nuclear weapons. It stated as recently as the 1999 review that nuclear weapons ‘bring peace’. Furthermore NATO, incredibly, holds a policy of using nuclear weapons first. So, the UK government kowtows to these policies and also still holds a policy, little known among the general population, of first use of nuclear weapons. The NATO leaders apparently believed, and still do, in the myth of ‘nuclear deterrence’. However, it can be clearly seen over the years that nuclear weapons have never deterred conflict or violence. Indeed, at the present time the main threats to security in the UK analysed by the government are cyber security and terrorists. When asked in Parliament about first use, in 1995, Geoff Hoon, the then Minister for Defence, replied, ‘We hold a policy of first use because of our obligations to NATO’. So, this subservience to NATO continues. And NATO continues to support nuclear weapons.
In 2014 a group of non-government organisations, frustrated at the lack of progress at the Conference on Disarmament at the United Nations, formed the International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). NATO refused to take part in the negotiations and advised its member states not to take part. Thus, the UK took no part. Other member states took a different view. In Belgium the former NATO Secretary General, Willy Claes, and the former Prime Minister published an article in which they supported ICAN and called upon the government to remove US nuclear weapons from Belgian soil. They claimed Belgium could sign the Treaty without leaving NATO. Now there are calls for Canada to follow the same path. The US nuclear weapons which are deployed by the NATO nuclear armed states are vast. In Europe, both France and the UK have nuclear weapons. The UK (in reality US) fleet of 4 Trident nuclear armed submarines are ‘integrated’ into NATO and the one always at sea could be under the South China seas as you read this. The USA has 13 Trident submarines, nine of which are now based on the west coast of the US in Bangor, Washington state, facing China. In a further extension of its nuclear policies, ‘nuclear sharing’, NATO has 6 bases in five countries across Europe, Belgium, (Kleine Brogel), Germany, (Buchel), Italy, (Aviano and Ghedi), the Netherlands (Volkel) and Turkey, (Incirlik) where the B61 nuclear bombs on the US F35 planes are deployed; in effect making those states, ‘nuclear armed states’. Of the three nuclear weapon states in NATO – France, the UK and the USA – only the USA has provided weapons for nuclear sharing. The United States Air Force guards the weapons in the non-nuclear states but in the event of war, the bombs are to be put onto the host countries’ war planes, so therefore the pilots have to be trained to operate the nuclear armed planes and be ready to use the bombs.
This military alliance keeps on growing and growing. When the Warsaw Pact crumbled heralding the end of the Cold War, some misguided optimists believed this would also be the end of NATO. On the contrary, NATO, led by the US, set about working to bring in, firstly the central European states of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary in 1999 – despite strong protests from the USSR and China. There followed Bulgaria and Romania; Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to the north; and Turkey to the south. Thus Russia was hemmed in. These moves were given huge impetus by the mainly US military manufacturers. Indeed, the Vice President of Lockheed Martin, Bruce Jackson, became the President of the US Committee on NATO and a determined proponent of expansion. If a state became a member of NATO then because of ‘interoperability’ where all the pilots need to be able to fly and operate the same planes, etc., it was out with the old Soviet hardware and into buying new US military planes – from Lockheed Martin. The relatively poor countries of Europe were then committed to buying hugely expensive military planes – this also included Greece, already in such a parlous condition economically. Over the next decades all the countries along the Russian border, including the Baltic states were to join. NATO now comprises 29 states – Montenegro joined in 2017. In all NATO’s total defence spending comprises 70% of the global total. The UK contributed US$ 55.237 million in 2017. NATO military budget is obscene when we remember the poverty and suffering of the poorest in the world: in 2018 it will be $1.55 billion.
NATO’s war preparations grow in other ways too. Reports from the Nordic countries state that they are being re-armed under the leadership of NATO. Two new command centres are to be established: an Atlantic centre and a logistic centre so that NATO can move its forces freely across Europe. The first steps to establish permanent military bases in Norway have been taken. 300 US marines have been stationed in Vaernes near Trondheim, the next step being a base in Setermoen in Troms.. A large amount of military equipment is stored for the Americans, located in mountain caves in Trondelag and at the five airports Andoya, Dola, Bodo, Evenes and Bardufoss. Training areas for British soldiers have been organised. The US base at Keflavik in Iceland is being modernised, and there are plans for placing a central training and command centre for all the northern European F-35 fighter jets in Jutland. The first F-35 fighters have arrived in Norway and there will also be F-35s in Denmark. With these fighters the Nordic countries are in possession of an offensive weapon, capable of carrying nuclear bombs. Their extended range gives them the capability of reaching goals far inside Russia. The F-35s jets form part of NATO’s fleet of war planes under US command. The missile ‘defence’ system of the US and NATO is being integrated into the Nordic Military system, through the new Globus 3 radar station in Vardo, Finnmark. Sweden and Finland have established host country agreements with the US. This means that NATO – on the basis of an invitation from the host nation – can not only exercise, but also threaten or conduct a war against a third country from the territory of the host nation. This is just some of the information on NATO activities and expansion in the Nordic countries which has been sent from the coordinating group against NATO, Tid Til Fred – aktiv mod krig – (It’s time for peace – be active against war).
Clearly all these military developments in the Nordic countries are aimed at Russia. The stand off between Russia and NATO has become increasingly tense. Indeed many commentators refer to a new ‘Cold War’. There certainly does seem to be a new arms race. Since both ‘sides’ are nuclear armed this makes the dangers of a confrontation even more serious. In the western media the aggressor is always Russia; it is never provocation from the ‘western’ military alliance, NATO. The recent (July 2018), ‘Summit Declaration’, states the Alliance has ‘suspended all practical and military cooperation between NATO and Russia’. But what is urgently needed with regard to these border areas, is a de-escalation of military activity, including a withdrawal of non-national troops, from the member states and a removal of the anti missile systems.
NATO has been developing an anti missile defence system across Europe which it claims will provide a ‘coherent defence system to protect all NATO European populations, territory and forces against the threat of ballistic missiles’.. The bases for these are in Poland and Romania. The Russians say these bases are a threat to them. They also say that the systems violate the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty which was signed by Gorbachev and Reagan. This is because the platforms at the bases could be used to launch Cruise missiles. This is vigorously denied by NATO. Not content with the land based anti-missile systems, NATO is also deploying the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence Systems on ships. Many commentators, not only in Russia, but in western Europe, would call these ‘offensive’ not ‘defensive’ systems.
NATO has now made 21 ‘Partnerships for Peace’, including with the so-called neutral countries of Sweden, Austria and Ireland. Note how NATO, skilled in public relations, can call a military connection ‘a partnership for peace’. Alongside this, the concept of the North Atlantic has rapidly faded. In 1997, NATO set up the Mediterranean Dialogue (again a bland name) in 1997 and has in the following years done military exercises with Israel..
NATO is sold to the people of the member states as a peace alliance not a military alliance. Dominated as it is by the US, the NATO policy makers are skilled in the arts of presentation, in public relations.. Notice the language: not ‘bombing’ but ‘strikes’, the word ‘peace’ used over again. You can also see this in NATO’s visuals. In the USA on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding of NATO, a stamp was issued to commemorate this with a picture of a dove of peace. NATO used to publish a paper ‘Review’ and in it you would see pictures of soldiers helping women and children. Or on the cover of the 2000 Review a graphic of the world where the NATO countries, at the top of course, were depicted in glowing yellow while the south and the non-NATO countries were in dark green below. There never seems to have been included a graphic of the nuclear free zones in the world.
But rather than bringing light and peace to the world, NATO presents a global threat. Once it was a military alliance which did have a geographical area: the North Atlantic. Now its tentacles spread across the world with agreements with states which encircle Russia and China. It has made agreements with countries far removed from the Atlantic; its Partners Across the Globe (never a mention of the military in these titles of ‘allies’) include: Afghanistan, Australia, Colombia (its only link in South America), Iraq, Japan, The Republic of Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand and Pakistan.
The recent link with Colombia reveals the ruthless expansion of NATO. In 1967 the Treaty of Tlatelolco was signed by 33 parties in Mexico City; that was the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean. Under the treaty, the states parties agree to prohibit and prevent the “testing, use, manufacture, production or acquisition by any means whatsoever of any nuclear weapons.” There are two additional protocols to the treaty: Protocol I binds those overseas countries with territories in the region (the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands) to the terms of the treaty. Protocol II requires the world’s declared nuclear weapon states to refrain from undermining in any way the nuclear free status of the region; it has been signed and ratified by the USA, the UK, France, China and Russia. The treaty also provided for a comprehensive control and verification mechanism, overseen by the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), based in Mexico City.. It was the first such treaty to cover such a huge populated area. (Earlier treaties had covered Antartica and Outer Space). The treaty was drafted quite simply to keep the region free of nuclear weapons. Then 50 Years later along comes NATO, with a nuclear arms policy not only of retaining nuclear weapons but of using them first, getting a toehold in the area, with no criticism in the UK mainstream press. In a statement, Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry said:
‘Venezuela denounces once more before the international community the intention of Colombian authorities to introduce, in Latin America and the Caribbean, a foreign military alliance with nuclear capacity, which in every way constitutes a serious threat for peace and regional stability’.
Now we have the era of President Trump. When he declared in 2016 NATO was ‘obsolete’ some people imagined he might be moving to break up NATO. Even if it had been true, he wouldn’t have intended to reduce arms, development of weapons of mass destruction, militarism or US foreign military bases. But of course leaving or attempting to fracture NATO wasn’t the case. Trump swings this way and that in his foreign policies, but what he made clear at the recent NATO Summit in 2018 was that he was expecting nation states to contribute more money. And, in his usual wild way, he claimed, wrongly, that the US was paying 90% of NATO’s budget. (It is nearer 22%) He certainly wants each member state to contribute 2% of their GDP. It couldn’t be that he was looking to squeeze more money for the US military manufacturers, could it?
NATO is nuclear armed and in the US Nuclear Posture Review it was envisioned that nuclear weapons could be used. This becomes especially frightening in the context of NATO’s nuclear capabilities and the spread of the F-35 nuclear capable fighter planes. Trump’s blustering statements include that he would protect NATO allies ‘even in the event of a nuclear strike’ and ‘any use of nuclear weapons will be met with a massive military response that is both effective and overwhelming’. In fact, the often, nicknamed ‘d’Artagnan’ clause, ‘all for one and one for all’, Article 5, ‘mutual defence’ of the NATO charter, has been invoked after the September 11th attacks on the USA. Therefore, it was said that it was justified to send Alliance troops to Afghanistan.
Trump’s uncontrolled and unthoughtout statements, usually via Twitter, disturb not only people working for peace outside the USA, but those inside the US. US Senator Chris Murphy (Democrat Connecticut) said
‘We are concerned that the President of the USA is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is so quixotic that he might order a nuclear weapons strike that is wildly out of step with US national security interests’.
In recent years in Europe, it has felt as if the Cold War has been revived. While holding no brief for President Putin, it has been provocative for NATO to deploy four battalions, ‘an Enlarged Forward Presence’, along the Russian border. A further 650 soldiers from the British army have been sent mainly to Estonia, with some in Poland. This is not to mention the anti-missiles defence bases in Poland and Romania. These military manoeuvres then allow President Putin to tell his citizens that they are being threatened by NATO and the USA. NATO isn’t standing still. It is spreading its military far and wide provoking both Russia and China. As the Nordic NATO resisters say,
‘We must stand together against NATO’s preparations for war. Together we must protest against military exercises and re-armament. Re-armament is financed by welfare budgets and threatens us all with the danger of a mad nuclear war’.
Why is NATO needed? Many would argue it isn’t. As a vast war machine, it swallows huge amount of money and resource which would be better spent on welfare for the poor both within NATO member states and across the world. Its nuclear policies are exceptionally dangerous, especially its recent blocking of moving forward on a nuclear weapons ban treaty. It is time for politicians to think hard about the military alliance.. John Bright said, back in the mid 19th century,
‘Alliances are dangerous things. I would not advise alliances with any nation, but would cultivate friendship with all nations’.
Lastly, it may give readers some comfort to know NATO now (from January 2018) has its own official hymn, the music for which was composed in 1989 for the 40th anniversary. The words that are to be used begin, ‘Seek you peace, Prepare for War’.
R Street
September 2018
L'arte della guerra. Il 70° anniversario della Nato sarà celebrato dai 29 ministri degli Esteri dell’Alleanza, riuniti a Washington il 4 aprile
di Manlio Dinucci, su Il Manifesto del 02.04.2019
Il 70° anniversario della Nato sarà celebrato dai 29 ministri degli Esteri dell’Alleanza, riuniti a Washington il 4 aprile. Un Consiglio Nord Atlantico in tono minore rispetto a quello al massimo livello dei capi di stato e di governo. Lo ha voluto il presidente Trump, non tanto contento degli alleati soprattutto perché sono per la maggior parte in ritardo nell’adeguare la spesa militare a quanto richiesto da Washington.
Presiederà il meeting il Segretario generale della Nato Jens Stoltenberg, al quale il Consiglio Nord Atlantico ha appena rinnovato il mandato di altri due anni per meriti acquisiti al servizio degli Stati uniti. Il calendario di Stoltenberg a Washington è stato organizzato in base a una attenta regia, per confermare chi comanda nell’Alleanza. Il 2 aprile il Segretario generale della Nato sarà ricevuto dal presidente Donald Trump alla Casa Bianca. Il 3 aprile, farà una relazione alle due Camere riunite del Congresso e sarà ricevuto dal segretario di stato Michael Pompeo.
Quindi, ricevute le ultime istruzioni, presiederà il Consiglio Nord Atlantico del 4 aprile. Lo stesso Consiglio Nord Atlantico ha appena approvato la nomina del generale Tod Wolters, della US Air Force, quale Comandante Supremo alleato in Europa al posto del generale Curtis Scaparrotti dello US Army. Come è «tradizione», da 70 anni il Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa è sempre un generale statunitense, nominato dal presidente degli Stati uniti.
Poiché il generale che ha l’incarico di comandante supremo della Nato è allo stesso tempo comandante del Comando Europeo degli Stati uniti, la Nato è di fatto inserita nella catena di comando che fa capo al presidente degli Stati uniti. Non si sa ancora quali saranno le «priorità» del generale Wolters, ma di certo non differiranno da quelle del generale Scaparrotti: anzitutto «assicurare gli interessi degli Stati uniti e sostenere una Europa che sia intera e in pace», impegno quest’ultimo che suona tragicamente grottesco a vent’anni dalla guerra con cui la Nato sotto comando Usa demolì la Federazione Jugoslava.
Priorità odierna – dichiara il generale Scaparrotti – è quella che le infrastrutture europee siano potenziate e integrate per permettere alle forze Usa/Nato di essere rapidamente posizionate contro «l’aggressione russa». La Nato sotto comando Usa prosegue così da settant’anni di guerra in guerra. Dalla guerra fredda, quando gli Stati uniti mantenevano gli alleati sotto il loro dominio, usando l’Europa come prima linea nel confronto nucleare con l’Unione Sovietica, all’attuale confronto con la Russia provocato dagli Stati uniti fondamentalmente per gli stessi scopi..
Di tale scenario parleremo al Convegno internazionale «I 70 anni della Nato: quale bilancio storico? Uscire dal sistema di guerra, ora», domenica 7 aprile a Firenze (Cinema Teatro Odeon, ore 10:15-18). Temi delle tavole rotonde: «Jugoslavia: 20 anni fa la guerra fondante della nuova Nato. I due fronti della Nato ad Est e a Sud. L’Europa in prima linea nel confronto nucleare. Cultura di pace o cultura di guerra?». Intervengono: M. Chossudovsky, direttore di Global Research (Canada): V. Kozin, esperto politico-militare del Ministero degli Esteri (Russia); Ž. Jovanović, presidente del Forum di Belgrado (Serbia); P. Craig Roberts, editorialista (Usa).
Tra i relatori italiani: A. Zanotelli, F. Cardini, F. Mini, G. Chiesa, A.. Negri, T. Di Francesco, M. Dinucci.
Per partecipare al Convegno (ad ingresso libero) comunicare nome e luogo di residenza a G. Padovano: Email giuseppepadovano.gp @ gmail.com
[[ https://it.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/crj-mailinglist/conversations/messages/9028 ]]