Informazione



ATTENTI AL PUPO!

In “Trieste 1945” (Laterza, 2010 ) lo storico triestino Raoul Pupo ha dedicato un lungo capitolo agli avvenimenti di Basovizza, e prima di parlare della questione della cosiddetta “foiba”, ha trattato della fucilazione dei quattro antifascisti (Bidovec, Marusič, Miloš e Valenčič) avvenuta presso il vecchio poligono di tiro il 6 settembre 1930.
Sulla vicenda vi rimandiamo all’articolo “Martiri di Basovizza” pubblicato in questo stesso sito, così come non riprendiamo qui l’annoso discorso su chi, quanti e come sarebbero stati “infoibati” a Basovizza: ricordiamo solo che nel suo libro Pupo ha concluso il capitolo facendo un paragone (a nostro parere aberrante) tra i due “luoghi della memoria” di Basovizza: sui fucilati di Basovizza, scrive lo storico, aleggia il sospetto del terrorismo, sugli infoibati di Basovizza che vi siano i torturatori dell’Ispettorato Speciale di PS.
Data questa considerazione sui martiri di Basovizza, eravamo quantomeno curiosi di sentire come il professor Pupo avrebbe condotto il suo discorso in occasione delle cerimonia commemorativa per l’80° anniversario dell’episodio, svoltasi sulla gmajna di Basovizza il 12 settembre scorso, alla presenza di alte autorità slovene, nonché della Presidente della Provincia Trieste ed alcuni sindaci della provincia di Trieste (significativa l’assenza del sindaco di Trieste Roberto Di Piazza, nonostante il sito si trovi nel territorio di competenza del suo Comune).
Commenteremo solo in parte l’intervento “storico” del relatore ufficiale in lingua italiana. 
Relativamente alla questione del “terrorismo” il professor Pupo ha affermato che la lotta dei primi antifascisti non era stata di massa ma si era basata su “azioni cospirative e dimostrative”, usando come strumenti di intervento la “propaganda” ed il “terrorismo”, ed ha ribadito che non si deve “avere paura delle parole” perché scelte simili furono tipiche anche di movimenti di unificazione nazionale, aggiungendo che non si deve “caricare la terminologia di significati che non ha”, visto che il termine “terrorismo” può adattarsi sia alle “stragi sunnite nelle moschee sciite”, sia a “tentativi un po’ goffi” come quello di Guglielmo Oberdan (che gettare bombe in mezzo alla folla sia un “tentativo goffo” di fare terrorismo è un’interpretazione che ci lascia un po’ basiti, ma tant’è).
Lo storico ha aggiunto quindi che “il termine è corretto” ma “operativamente come categoria interpretativa non ci fa capire la specificità del fenomeno”.
Osserviamo che di norma il significato che si dà al termine “terrorismo” è quello di un comportamento tale da portare, mediante azioni violente indiscriminate, ad un terrore generalizzato nella popolazione. Così terrorismo è quello che abbiamo vissuto negli anni della strategia della tensione, quando le bombe poste nelle piazze o sui treni, o genericamente in luoghi pubblici, dove avrebbero potuto colpire chiunque si trovasse a passare in quel posto al momento dell’esplosione, incutevano terrore in quanto non si poteva immaginare chi avrebbe potuto essere la prossima vittima. Mentre altri atti (eticamente altrettanto esecrabili, sia chiaro) come l’attentato alla singola persona, individuata come un obiettivo mirato (“gambizzazioni”, rapimenti, omicidi operati dalle Brigate rosse), vengono di solito considerati come azioni di “lotta armata”, e non di “terrorismo”, in quanto non sono finalizzati a creare il “terrore” generalizzato.
Per questo motivo ci permettiamo di dissentire dalla definizione di “terroristi” che il professor Pupo usa a proposito degli attivisti del TIGR fucilati a Basovizza. Le azioni del Movimento erano innanzitutto dimostrative, ed il loro scopo non era quello di fare vittime, è appurato che le bombe venivano posizionate modo che esplodessero quando negli edifici non ci sarebbe stato nessuno. La morte di Guido Neri, che si trovava nei locali della redazione del “Popolo di Trieste” non fu voluta, perché la sua presenza non era prevista nell’ora in cui fu piazzato l’esplosivo. Anche qui, se dal punto di vista etico la questione non fa differenza, perché un morto è sempre un morto, bisogna però distinguere nelle finalità che gli attentatori si erano dati: e dato che il loro fine non era quello di spargere il terrore nella popolazione, ma di colpire i simboli della snazionalizzazione operata dal fascismo e del fascismo stesso, non ha senso, a parer nostro, definirli “terroristi”, visto che il termine ha un significato ben preciso e non ha senso cercarne altri per adattarlo alle proprie interpretazioni e valutazioni.
Un successivo punto del discorso del professor Pupo dal quale dissentiamo è la sua interpretazione di come si sarebbero svolti i fatti in quello che lui definisce “fronte orientale” (dal senso del discorso si suppone che l’oratore intendesse con questo termine il confine orientale dell’Italia), e cioè che negli anni ’40 si sarebbero “confrontati la propensione nazista allo sterminio e l’eredità della rivoluzione bolscevica e delle politiche staliniane”, e che “quanto concretamente successo nelle nostre terre” sarebbe che “alla fase eroica della liberazione” sarebbe “succeduta quella dell’affermazione”, e che “l’ansia di libertà” si sarebbe trasformata in “intolleranza verso chi non appartiene alla comunità nazionale vincente”.
Storicamente ciò che accadde “nelle nostre terre” negli anni ’40 (generalizzazione un po’ azzardata, visto che dal 1940 al 1945 l’Europa era in guerra e dal 1945 in poi gli avvenimenti erano diversi di anno in anno), è che la politica di guerra imperialista nazifascista, finalizzata al genocidio dei popoli considerati “inferiori” (Ebrei, genericamente “Slavi”, Rom…) nonché all’annientamento delle cosiddette “esistenze zavorra” (invalidi, omosessuali ed oppositori politici), fu fermata da un blocco di alleati che andavano dalla Francia e la Gran Bretagna, agli Stati Uniti, all’Unione Sovietica, passando per la Jugoslavia, ed altri minori. Nell’ambito di questa guerra (che non si limitò all’area europea ma coinvolse l’intero pianeta) vi furono massacri indiscriminati, bombardamenti devastanti (sia dall’una che dall’altra parte, citiamo i due esempi speculari di Coventry e Dresda), rappresaglie feroci sulle popolazioni civili, campi di sterminio, e si concluse con il lancio delle atomiche su Hiroshima e Nagasaki.
In questo contesto mondiale, gli avvenimenti “nelle nostre terre”, diventano una piccolissima parte della tragedia generalizzata della Seconda guerra mondiale. Se il professor Pupo intendeva dire (ma forse avrebbe fatto meglio a dirlo chiaramente e non con circonlocuzioni di parole) che dopo gli eccidi nazifascisti qui vi fu il cosiddetto “fenomeno delle foibe”, vorremmo ricordargli che regolamenti di conti a fine guerra si ebbero sì in questa zona, ma in misura minore che nel resto dell’Italia del Nord, per non parlare di quello che accadde in Francia, e generalmente in tutta l’Europa, come è normale che accada dopo un’occupazione feroce come fu quella nazifascista (ciò non significa “giustificare”, ma semplicemente prendere atto della realtà dei fatti). 
E se quello che il professor Pupo intendeva dire è che le “foibe” rappresentano “l’eredità della rivoluzione bolscevica e delle politiche staliniane”, dobbiamo ribattere che nessun paragone può essere fatto in questi termini, storicamente e politicamente parlando. Innanzitutto perché la rivoluzione bolscevica e le politiche staliniane sono due eventi del tutto diversi e che non si possono accomunare con tale faciloneria (ma entrare nel merito di questo richiederebbe un’analisi di diverse pagine), e poi perché, anche volendo paragonare le “foibe” con i “gulag”, non ci siamo proprio. Nei “gulag” venivano imprigionati gli oppositori nell’interno dell’Unione sovietica; le “foibe”, anche volendo considerare con questo termine (cosa che però non accettiamo storicamente) la “generalizzazione” che è uso fare il professor Pupo, e cioè le “ violenze di massa a danno di militari e civili, in larga prevalenza italiani, scatenatesi nell’autunno del 1943 e nella primavera del 1945 in diverse aree della Venezia Giulia e che nel loro insieme procurarono alcune migliaia di vittime”, significano prigionieri di guerra internati e poi deceduti nei campi, criminali di guerra giustiziati dopo processo, regolamenti di conti e vendette personali. Cosa c’entri tutto questo con le “politiche staliniane”, non riusciamo proprio a comprendere.
Infine l’affermazione a proposito dell’“ansia di libertà che si trasforma in intolleranza verso chi non appartiene alla comunità nazionale vincente”: almeno per quanto concerne la politica della “nuova” Jugoslavia, cioè la Jugoslavia uscita vittoriosa dalla guerra di liberazione popolare, è doveroso riconoscere che non vi fu alcuna “intolleranza” di tipo etnico alla fine del conflitto. Vi furono, da parte istituzionale, esecuzioni di collaborazionisti e di criminali di guerra, soprattutto jugoslavi: ma nessuno fu ucciso perché “non appartenente alla comunità nazionale vincente”, cosa che dovrebbe essere quantomeno ovvia se si considera che nell’Esercito di liberazione jugoslavo combatterono, con spirito internazionalista ed antifascista, volontari di decine di etnie (tra cui moltissimi furono anche gli italiani), uniti dal desiderio di creare un mondo migliore.
Non riconoscere questi dati storici in un intervento all’interno di una cerimonia dall’importanza internazionale di quella che si svolge ogni anno a Basovizza per ricordare i quattro fucilati antifascisti, significa voler ridurre quello che dovrebbe essere uno spazio di riflessione storica ad un intervento di mere valutazioni politiche, del tutto fuori luogo in un contesto simile.

settembre 2010



APPUNTAMENTI PER RICORDARE:
- Trieste, 20 settembre 2010, ore 17 in campo S. Giacomo
- Trieste, 8 ottobre 2010, ore 17 in Sala Tessitori, piazza Oberdan 6


Da: Claudio Cossu <claudio.cossu @...>
Oggetto: [antifa-ts] Settembre 1920: barricate e rivolta operaia a S. Giacomo.
A: "coordinamento antifascista" <antifa-ts @...>
Data: Venerdì 17 settembre 2010, 00:06


Oggetto: I: Settembre 1920: barricate e rivolta operaia a S. Giacomo.

Per ricordare la rivolta operaia di S.Giacomo, settembre 1920, come sinteticamente descritto quì di seguito,"I cittadini liberi ed eguali "unitamente al" Coordinamento antifascista "di Trieste renderanno omaggio ai caduti di quelle tragiche giornate alle ore 17 in campo S. Giacomo, a lato della Chiesa, il giorno 20 settembre lunedì. La cittadinanza  e personalità del mondo del lavoro, del Sindacato  e della cultura triestina  sono invitati ad intervenire  PER ONORARE QUEI GIOVANI CADUTI PER  LA LIBERTA' E L'EGUAGLIANZA SOCIALE. L'otto ottobre, inoltre, vi sarà un incontro-dibattito curato da Marina Rossi, storica, Claudio Cossu e Claudio Venza dei Cittadini liberi ed eguali, un operaio della rivolta di S.Giacomo del 1966, che  offrirà una sua personale testimonianza della rivolta spontanea di quell'ottobre 1966.  Inteverrà brevemente la storica Silva Bon.  L' incontro si terrà presso LA   SALA  TESSITORI DEL CONSIGLIO REGIONALE,  il giorno 8 OTTOBRE, VENERDI, ORE 17 , PIAZZA OBERDAN n 6. Saranno ricordati, inoltre, anche i moti di protesta spontanea, sempre di campo S. Giacomo, dell'ottobre 1966, in occasione della chiusura dei Cantieri S.Marco, da parte dei cantierini della  città giuliana. La cittadinanza ed i cultori della materia sono invitati ad intervenire, a 90 anni esatti da quei fatti, a questa Memoria in omaggio a quelle giovani vite di operai stroncate nel settembre 1920, ed a  ricordo di quei  drammatici accadimenti  che costituiscono ormai Storia della Trieste lavoratrice di quegli anni, all'alba dell'avvento della barbarie fascista al potere  in Italia.


----- Messaggio inoltrato -----
Da: Claudio Cossu <claudio.cossu @...>
A: segnalazioni@...
Cc: segreteriaredazione@...
Inviato: Mer 25 agosto 2010, 16:02:11
Oggetto: Settembre 1920: barricate e rivolta operaia a S. Giacomo.

 
Chi erano,ribelli,rivoltosi o che altro coloro che nel settembre 1920 eressero le barricate ,nel Rione di S.Giacomo, per difendersi dal regio esercito inviato dalle autorità al fine di sedare l'insurrezione spontanea ,al canto dell'internazionale e sventolando i drappi rossi , insegne del socialismo contro chi cercava di negare ad essi i diritti  più elementari, una vita dignitosa e una condizione  giusta , con adeguata retribuzione.  Erano in  realtà operai e lavoratori italiani e sloveni , ragazzi e donne del popolo di Trieste, dai tre ai quattro mila ,che protestavano contro un potere opprimente ed autoritario . Poi, dal rione popolare i lavoratori si immettevano nelle vie adiacenti, per arrivare prima nella piazza ora denominata Garibaldi e, in seguito ,fino alla via Malcantòn,per poi giungere fino alla Piazza Grande,divenuta più tardi piazza Unità. E nuovamente intervenne l'esercito ed i regi carabinieri che spararono per intimidire la folla in tumulto. Poi non spararono più a scopo intimidatorio,ma uccisero ,a S. Giacomo, giovani di vent'anni,ragazzi ed operai ed i morti furono in gran numero,forse più di 20 ed anche la reazione fu dura ed adeguata alla violenza dei colpi di cannone della brigata "Sassari" fatta intervenire brutalmente. Si spararono colpi di pistola , per resistere  a quegli attacchi, anche dalle finestre ed una giovane guardia regia, Giovanni Giuffrida il suo nome, rimase  a terra, vittima della reazione  popolare alla violenza dei militari sopraggiunti nelle strade circostanti.
Gli scontri,duri e violenti ,durarono dal sei al nove settembre,nell'aria vagamente autunnale che stava sopraggiungendo,in quel mese di fine stagione. Giorni tragici e funesti per la città.  Ma perchè si arrivò a tale tragedia, a questo sangue versato dalla classe operaia triestina? Diversamente dal resto del Paese, non si arrivò , a Trieste, ad un'occupazione delle fabbriche, ma ci fu ,in quel settembre ,lo sciopero generale. Nel novembre del 1918,dopo l'arrivo festante delle truppe italiane, a ridimensionare quella gioia ci pensò il famigerato decreto 29 novembre 1918 che per alcuni reati, tra cui il vilipendio alla bandiera, prevedeva pesanti condanne a parecchi anni di galera. Al governatore militare successe allora ,nell'estate del 1919 ,un commissario civile. Ma le condizioni disastrose, fra cui miseria,fame , disoccupazione e disagio sociale, causate dal regime speciale nella Venezia-Giulia, non mutarono certo.  I comuni erano ammministrati da commissari civili inviati dal Governo di  Roma che non comprendevano  certo la situazione reale ,economica  e politica locale.  E parimenti erano all'oscuro della situazione etnica e sociale di queste terre. Naturalmente non conoscevano nemmeno la  lingua slovena o croata, parlata dagli abitanti dei comuni dell'altipiano e dell'interno dell'Istria. Il disagio era evidente e si propagò con rapidità in tutta la regione Giulia.  Inoltre,ad aggravare la situazione, si verificarono  provocazioni fasciste. A Monfalcone gli operai protestarono vibratamente per gli assalti degli squadristi e per l'istituzione di un ufficio di collocamento filo mussoliniano. Allo sciopero proclamato aderirono anche i lavoratori del Friuli. Lo sciopero si estese e fu dichiarato,a oltranza ,fino a che non ci fosse stata l'abolizione del regime di occupazione e dei tribunali di guerra nella Venezia Giulia.  Naturalmente le richieste degli operai,pur essendo a cuore al governo, così almeno assicurò il commissario generale, mentendo , non vennero accolte e gli scontri furono pertanto inevitabili. Vincenzo Forgioni, operaio di appena sedici anni, rimase ucciso. Ai suoi funerali ,a seguito di attacchi fascisti ,vi furono ulteriori scontri tra operai,squadristi e polizia. La Camera del Lavoro proclamò un ulteriore sciopero il nove settembre.  I sangiacomini occuparono il quartiere  e spararono contro il camion che trasportava gli arrestati. Vennero erette,come detto all'inizio,barricate.  Alla fine gli esponenti della Camera del Lavoro riuscirono a convincere i più giovani ed infervorati, disposti a resistere per altri giorni, dell'inutilità della lotta. L'undici settembre lo sciopero generale poteva dirsi concluso,ma a quale prezzo!  550 scioperanti arrestati,nove operai rimasero uccisi (dodici riferì il giornale Delo) 70 feriti(250 il Delo).  Ma ormai  era chiaro che il regime di occupazione  finalmente sarebbe stato abolito. Non si comprende,da ultimo se non con la gran confusione in cui versava il Paese in quegli anni, in prossimità dell'avvento del fascismo al potere, come l'attacco delle autorità governative a Trieste ,della polizia e dell'esercito potesse concordarsi con la linea politica del Governo Giolitti.   A novant'anni da quei  caduti, da quello sciopero sfociato nella repressione violenta e reazionaria del potere militare, portatrice di lutti per la classe operaia ,volevamo ricordare quei fatti,che  sono forse dimenticati.  Ma anche quegli accadimenti sono ormai Storia,costituiscono una triste e tragica pagina per Trieste e tutta la Venezia Giulia.  E va ricordata ,con rispetto.  Anche questa è Memoria.




(A proposito della espansione della tedesca Telekom nelle repubbliche jugoslave e dei connessi, gravi, attuali casi di corruzione...)


Umkämpfte Märkte
 
16.09.2010

BONN/SKOPJE/PODGORICA
 
(Eigener Bericht) - Zum wiederholten Male werden gegen einen deutschen Konzern schwere Vorwürfe wegen dubioser Osteuropa-Geschäfte laut. Demnach soll die Deutsche Telekom sich vor einigen Jahren korrupter Praktiken bedient haben, um ihre Dominanz in einem ihrer Expansionsländer, in Mazedonien, zu sichern. Im Rahmen eines Ermittlungsverfahrens hat die Staatsanwaltschaft nun die Unternehmenszentrale und die Privatwohnung des Konzernchefs durchsucht. Die Vorwürfe werden zu einer Zeit laut, da die vormalige Konzernspitze der Deutschen Telekom beschuldigt wird, in die illegale Bespitzelung kritischer Journalisten im Inland eingeweiht gewesen zu sein. Ziel war es dabei, die Konzernmacht mittels Unterbindung kritischer Berichte zu wahren. Bei der Expansion deutscher Konzerne in Ost- und Südosteuropa kommt es immer wieder zu zweifelhaften Vorgängen, die, wie mutmaßlich im Falle der Deutschen Telekom in Mazedonien, auch illegale Praktiken beinhalten.

Expansion im Osten

Den Hintergrund der Ereignisse, um die sich das aktuelle Ermittlungsverfahren in Sachen Telekom dreht, bildet die Expansion des Konzerns nach Osteuropa. Wie die gesamte deutsche Wirtschaft hat auch die Deutsche Telekom in den 1990er Jahren begonnen, die Märkte Ost- und Südosteuropas zu erobern, um im traditionellen deutschen Einflussgebiet Profit und Macht zu steigern. Zu den ersten ost- und südosteuropäischen Unternehmen, die der Bonner Konzern dabei übernahm, gehörte das ehemalige ungarische Staatsunternehmen Matáv (heute: Magyar Telekom). Weitere Übernahmen vollzog die Deutsche Telekom entweder selbst (im Falle der Hrvatski Telekom und später der PTC Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa) oder aber über ihre 59-prozentige Tochter Matáv/Magyar Telekom, die beispielsweise 51 Prozent der Makedonski Telekom, 76,5 Prozent der Telekom Montenegro sowie 100 Prozent der rumänischen Combridge kontrolliert. Das Modell, bei dem deutsche Firmen über ungarische Tochtergesellschaften in Südosteuropa expandieren, ist keineswegs unüblich und hat seine Ursprünge in der historisch fundierten Kooperation zwischen Berlin und Budapest.[1]

Konkurrenten

In der Tat trieb der Bonner Konzern seine Expansion um die Jahrtausendwende ganz systematisch voran. "Mit Polen, Tschechien, der Slowakei, Ungarn, Kroatien, Bosnien-Herzegowina und Mazedonien", schrieb die Wirtschaftspresse im Juni 2004, "kann die Telekom eine fast lückenlose Abdeckung zwischen Gdansk und Sarajevo vorweisen".[2] Anfang 2005 führte das Unternehmen seine Expansion mit der Übernahme der Telekom Montenegro durch die Konzerntochter Magyar Telekom weiter. Um die 51-prozentige Mehrheit an der montenegrinischen Firma hatte sich auch die Telekom Austria beworben, die in Südosteuropa in Konkurrenz zur Deutschen Telekom steht.[3] Ein Konkurrenzverhältnis - nicht nur, aber auch - zur Telekom Austria ist auch in Mazedonien gegeben, wo im September 2007 eine Telekom Austria-Mobiltochter, "Vip operator", den Betrieb aufnahm; sie rivalisiert dort direkt mit T-Mobile Macedonia. Zwei Jahre vorher könnte, bestätigen sich die aktuellen Vorwürfe, die Deutsche Telekom ihre Dominanz in der mazedonischen Festnetzsparte mit illegalen Methoden gesichert haben.

Korruptionsverfahren

Gegenstand der aktuellen Berichte ist ein Ermittlungsverfahren gegen die Deutsche Telekom und Konzernchef René Obermann. Das Verfahren ist in Reaktion auf ein Rechtshilfeersuchen aus den USA eingeleitet worden, wo die Telekom einst an der Börse notiert war und deshalb von der US-Börsenaufsicht kontrolliert wurde. Gegenstand der Ermittlungen sind dubiose Zahlungen, die der Jahresabschluss der Magyar Telekom aus dem Jahr 2005 verzeichnet. Genannt wird ein Betrag in Höhe von sieben, nach anderen Quellen 30 Millionen Euro. Laut offiziellen Angaben handelte es sich dabei um Honorare für angebliche "Berater"; die Behörden vermuten Bestechungsgelder für Regierungsbeamte, vermutlich sowohl in Montenegro als auch in Mazedonien. Zugleich wird Konzernchef René Obermann unterstellt, er habe bei einem Treffen mit dem Vorsitzenden der Makedonski Telekom, einer Tochterfirma der Magyar Telekom und damit einer "Enkelin" der Deutschen Telekom, seine Zustimmung zur Zahlung von Dividenden davon abhängig gemacht, dass die geplante Öffnung des mazedonischen Marktes für andere Wettbewerber unterbleibe - und die Deutsche Telekom damit ihr Monopol behalte.[4] Von den Dividenden der Makedonski Telekom profitiert als Teileigner der mazedonische Staat, der zu den bedürftigsten in Europa gehört, aber die Kompetenz besitzt, die Marktöffnung zu beschließen oder sie gewinnbringend zu unterlassen.

Spitzelskandal

Der Verdacht, die Deutsche Telekom habe ihre Marktposition in Mazedonien durch Bestechung auf dem Umweg über ihre Tochtergesellschaft Magyar Telekom gesichert, ist nicht der einzige Skandal, der den Bonner Konzern in diesen Tagen in die Schlagzeilen bringt. Das Unternehmen hat 2005 und 2006 rund 60 Journalisten, Gewerkschafter und Aufsichtsräte bespitzelt, darunter einige Redakteure der größten deutschen Tageszeitungen. Dabei griff es auf persönliche Verbindungsdaten zurück, die selbst staatliche Ermittler nur mit richterlicher Genehmigung erheben dürfen. Zu Monatsbeginn hat nun einer der Angeklagten im Telekom-Spitzelprozess die Firmenleitung schwer belastet. Demnach seien im Jahr 2005 die damaligen Chefs von Vorstand und Aufsichtsrat der Telekom in die illegalen Bespitzelungspläne eingeweiht gewesen und hätten dem Vorgehen zugestimmt, um Marktnachteile aufgrund kritischer Berichterstattung zu verhindern. Die kriminellen Maßnahmen des Konzerns im Inland entsprechen dabei den mutmaßlichen Bestechungsfällen im Ausland - beides diente letztlich der Vergrößerung von Profit und Macht des deutschen Unternehmens.[5]

Kein Einzelfall

Die dubiosen Telekom-Geschäfte bei der Expansion in Ost- und Südosteuropa sind beileibe kein Einzelfall. Erst vor kurzem forderte der serbische Wirtschaftsminister den Essener Medienkonzern WAZ wegen zumindest zweifelhafter Hinterzimmergeschäfte mit dem Ziel, ein faktisches Monopol in Serbien zu errichten, zum Rückzug aus dem Land auf.[6] Zuvor war die WAZ bereits auf heftige Proteste in Rumänien gestoßen - ihr waren dort Eingriffe in die Pressefreiheit vorgeworfen worden.[7] Auch die Deutsche Telekom hat in Osteuropa bereits vor Jahren auf Mittel zurückgegriffen, die laut Urteil eines deutschen Wirtschaftsmagazins "in zivilisierten Rechtsstaaten des 21. Jahrhunderts eigentlich kaum noch vorstellbar sind" [8]: Dabei gingen Bodyguards im Dienste der Bonner Firma gegen Personal eines konkurrierenden französischen Konzerns vor und setzten einen Rechtsstreit in handgreiflicher Praxis fort.[9] Derlei Praktiken begleiten den Vormarsch deutscher Unternehmen in Ost- und Südosteuropa und helfen, die deutsche Hegemonie dort zu zementieren.

[1] s. dazu Ein Zeichen der FreundschaftDrohbrief aus Berlin und Die Donaustrategie
[2] Deutsche Telekom: Weiße Flecken tilgen; www.wiwo.de 23.06.2004
[3] mobilkom austria gibt Angebot für Mehrheitsbeteiligung an Telekom Montenegro ab; www.telekomaustria.com 22.12.2004
[4] Ermittlungen gegen Obermann; www.faz.net 15.09.2010
[5] s. dazu Spitzelkultur
[6] s. dazu Meinung bilden (I) und Meinung bilden (II)
[7] s. dazu Betrogen
[8] Germanen, Gallier, Gorillas; manager magazin 31.05.2006
[9] s. dazu Wachstumsprobleme




Lunedì 13 Settembre 2010 21:10

«Le Monde» scopre i dubbi sull'11 settembre


di Giulietto Chiesa – Megachip.

«Le Monde» dell'11 settembre 2010 si accorge, con nove anni di ritardo, che la versione ufficiale dell'11 Settembre non sta in piedi. Quanto a tempestività giornalistica non c'è male! Ma, come si suol dire, meglio tardi che mai. Naturalmente le carte in tavola non vengono messe: né tutte, né le più importanti. Ma, come il lettore potrà leggere da questi estratti che traduciamo dalla pagina web del più autorevole giornale francese, «Le Monde» è costretto a riconoscere che la storia ufficiale non solo puzza di marcio, ma che nemmeno l'amministrazione americana di Barack Obama è in condizione di tirarla fuori dal congelatore che non funziona più. Che cosa diranno ora i "debunkers"?


C'è solo da immaginare che metteranno anche «Le Monde» nella categoria dei cospirazionisti. Povero «Le Monde»!
Ma, a giudicare dalle prime reazioni dei lettori del giornale francese, quasi la metà non solo non protestano ma insistono, chiedono chiarimenti, si stupiscono.
L'altra metà s'indigna, naturalmente. Vorrebbero che «Le Monde» pubblicasse non solo il link a Loose Change, ma anche quelli dei siti cosiddetti debunking. Come se, in questi anni, fosse esistita una qualche par condicio tra la menzogna di tutti i media (alla quale «Le Monde» ha attivamente partecipato) e le verità delle domande che, insieme a migliaia di altri ricercatori di tutto il mondo, andavamo ponendo. Il bello è che il prossimo anno, il decimo anniversario, sarà tutto un festival di rivelazioni attorno al mistero.
«Le Monde» ha solo preso atto che la pagina, chiusa dalla versione ufficiale («è stato Osama bin Laden») si va riaprendo inesorabilmente. E si va riaprendo perché l'Impero sta sgretolandosi, giorno dopo giorno, e non c'è cemento che possa tenerlo insieme ancora molto a lungo. E, quando la nave affonda, è noto che i topi scappano.


ESTRATTI DELL’ARTICOLO DI «LE MONDE»:

 

Titolo: Gli Stati Uniti non hanno ancora finito con l'11 settembre
di Heléne Bekmezian - [lemonde.fr] - 11 settembre 2010.

 

Già nove anni. Nove anni che gli aerei della American Airlines hanno colpito le torri gemelle del World Trade Center di Manhattan, uccidendo più di tremila persone e ferendone più di seimila in un attentato rivendicato da Al-Qa‛ida.

(almeno tre gravi imprecisioni sono contenute in queste tre righe iniziali, per finire con l'affermazione, completamente destituita di fondamento, secondo cui Al-Qaida avrebbe rivendicato l'attentato, ma non ne segnaleremo le altre per non perdere tempo, ndr).

Oppure si trattava di aerei militari? E non ci sono state anche, piuttosto, settantamila feriti, se noi contassimo le vittime delle polveri tossiche? E quanto si dovrà attendere per giudicare gli autori presunti di tutto ciò? E perché Ground Zero è ancora un cantiere? Nove anni dopo, dunque, le domande rimangono e gli Stati Uniti sono ancora lontani dall'aver tratto le somme con l'11 settembre.
Ancora nessun processo. Un anno dopo aver annunciato che cinque presunti autori degli attentati dell'11 settembre 2001 saranno giudicati da un tribunale federale di New York, e non da un tribunale militare, la Casa Bianca non sembra oggi avere premura di giudicare questi uomini.
Secondo il «Daily News», il governo ha difficoltà a trovare una città pronta ad accogliere questo processo, che potrebbe durare anni e avere conseguenze sulla vita locale. Peggio ancora, con le elezioni di mezzo termine che si annunciano delicate per i democratici, questi ultimi non hanno interesse a riportare questo dossier dinnanzi a agli occhi del pubblico. (...)
Migliaia di vittime sono all'abbandono. Sono i dimenticati dell'11 settembre: circa settantamila persone - pompieri e squadre di soccorso - sono tuttora censite come vittime delle polveri tossiche prodotte dal crollo delle torri, con sintomi di difficoltà respiratorie, malattie dei polmoni, disturbi psicologici.
(...)
Domande senza risposte. Immediatamente dopo gli attentati sono apparsi dubbi sulla versione ufficiale dei fatti, in primo luogo i dubbi sollevati dalle famiglie delle vittime. In seguito sono fiorite su internet le teorie della cospirazione, attraverso video e siti web. Quasi ogni giorno, si può dire, decine di nuovi video vengono scoperti e pubblicati, alimentando i dubbi. Sebbene, puntualmente, le autorità abbiano contraddetto alcune teorie del complotto pubblicando nuovi documenti o nuovi video, non c'è mai stata una spiegazione globale e ufficiale capace di rispondere, una buona volta per tutte a tutte le domande che venivano poste (versioni contraddittorie sulla natura degli aerei, immagini che mostrano esplosioni sospette...).
I dubbi non hanno fatto che svilupparsi, tanto più che le autorità non hanno mai accettato di aprire un’inchiesta indipendente, che era chiesta dalle famiglie delle vittime.
In uno dei primi e più celebri filmati di questo genere, la serie "Loose Change" (dell'AssociazioneReopen 911) , venivano evidenziati fatti giudicati sospetti e basati su dati documentati e testimonianze.

(coloro che hanno seguito tutte le polemiche in questi anni e che quindi conoscono i rudimenti minimi della materia, avranno notato le ambiguità, reticenze, perfino la sciatteria, e le imprecisioni che caratterizzano questo non capolavoro della letteratura giornalistica. Ma ce n'è abbastanza per essere soddisfatti. Gli spiragli verso la verità si vanno allargando. ndr)



(E' noto che il leghismo ha un saldo legame storico con l'imperialismo tedesco - si veda ad es. https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/europaquemada.htm . Recenti episodi e dichiarazioni rinnovano l'impressione che il secessionismo del Nord-Est sia al traino della potenza economica d'oltralpe...)


Deutsche Größe
 

13.09.2010
ROM/BERLIN/VENETO
 
(Eigener Bericht) - Italienische Wirtschaftseliten feiern das deutsche Herrschaftsmodell und bieten sich als Gefolgschaft der europäischen Hegemonialmacht an. Anlass ist der weitere Niedergang der italienischen Wirtschaftsleistung, die den Abstand zur Bundesrepublik noch größer werden lässt. Die "deutsche Lokomotive" gehe "wieder auf Kurs", der politisch vorbildhaft sei, heißt es in der liberalen italienischen Presse. Wesentliche Ursache der deutschen Wirtschaftserfolge sei die Gefügigkeit der Gewerkschaften, die sich einer "absoluten Kooperation" zwischen "Kapital und Arbeit" verschrieben hätten, lobt Giuseppe Vita, Präsident der Banca Leonardo, Vizepräsident der Allianz Italien und Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender der Axel Springer AG. Vita sieht die italienische Wirtschaft in einer "Symbiose" mit Deutschland. Die desolate Lage der römischen Finanzen treibt Zentrifugalkräfte an, die auf eine Zersplitterung des italienischen Territoriums hinarbeiten.
Die italienische Schuldenlast nimmt von Monat zu Monat zu. Das Handelsbilanzdefizit Italiens stieg von 1,787 Milliarden Euro im Januar kontinuierlich und erreichte im Mai den Monatswert von 1,827 Milliarden. Das Gesamtdefizit im Außenhandel in den ersten fünf Monaten 2010 beläuft sich auf elf Milliarden Euro mit stabiler Tendenz. Damit rangiert Italien immerhin noch vor Frankreich, dessen Handelsbilanz im selben Zeitraum minus 25 Milliarden Euro verzeichnet (Bundesrepublik Deutschland: plus 60 Milliarden). Die gewohnte Bautätigkeit hat in der italienischen Landesmitte und in Süditalien erheblich nachgelassen und lässt die Arbeitslosigkeit regional stark steigen. Klagen über die Wirtschaftslage führen zu Verwerfungen im römischen Regierungsbündnis, das auf Neuwahlen zusteuert.

Besondere Rolle

Die Irritationen sind Anlass beispielloser Lobpreisungen der deutschen Wirtschaftskraft und ihres politischen Basismodells. Man erhoffe sich für den Rest des Jahres ein deutsches Wachstum "im chinesischen Rhythmus", schreibt der Corriere della Sera, eine Art italienischer FAZ.[1] In einem Interview weiht Giuseppe Vita die Leser in das "geheime Rezept" [2] der Berliner Industriepolitik ein. Der heutige Aufsichtsrat zahlreicher deutscher Großunternehmen, der Schering den Weg nach Italien ebnete und die Vorzüge der deutschen Verhältnisse kennt, hebt die besondere Rolle der deutschen Gewerkschaften hervor.

Korporativ

Ihre positive Beteiligung am internationalen Konkurrenzkampf der deutschen Unternehmen halte "seit dem Fall der Mauer an" und habe "seit der Krise im Jahr 2003 zugenommen" - "maximale Kooperation", wie Vita findet.[3] "Kapital und Arbeit wissen, dass sie im selben Boot sitzen, und versuchen gemeinsam, obenauf zu schwimmen." Selbst Verdiensteinbußen durch Kurzarbeit nähmen die deutschen Gewerkschaften klaglos hin, wenn es dem Unternehmen nutze. Das von Vita skizzierte korporative Modell lasse die deutsche Wirtschaft "erheblich flexibler" reagieren als in anderen europäischen Ländern, wo die Krise zu Massenentlassungen geführt habe und der Neustart mühselig ist.

Identität

Die schwierigen italienischen Verhältnisse feuern separatistische Kräfte an, die seit Jahren auf eine Dissoziation der italienischen Gesellschaft setzen. So ist die rechtsgerichtete Lega Nord inzwischen nicht nur in ihren Mailänder Stammgebieten erfolgreich, den Wohlstandszentren des italienischen Bürgertums, sondern versucht in ganz Norditalien neue Wählerschichten zu erschließen. Lega-Führer Umberto Bossi, den seine politischen Gegner für einen Rassisten halten, trat kürzlich in Venedig auf, wo er eine separatistische Kampagne unterstützte: "Venetien zuerst!"[4] Ziel ist die Anerkennung einer besonderen "Identität" der Region, die durch Änderungen der Regionalverfassung festgeschrieben werden soll. Venetien müsse über autonome Rechte verfügen "wie Katalonien".

Anschluss

Damit droht die Lega Nord dem italienischen Zentralstaat mit territorialen Entgrenzungen spanischer Art, sollte den wirtschaftlichen Sonderwünschen des oberitalienischen Bürgertums nicht nachgegeben werden.[5] Verlangt wird der weitgehende Einbehalt der in Norditalien erwirtschafteten Steuereinnahmen, die dem wirtschaftsschwächeren Süden entzogen werden müssten. Vorbild der Kampagne ist die Politik der deutschsprachigen Eliten im Alto Adige ("Südtirol"). Ständige Sezessionsdrohungen, die mit einem Anschluss an Österreich spielen, werden aus Rom mit Millionensubventionen beantwortet. Das Gebiet um Bolzano (Bozen) gehört zu den reichsten Italiens und ist Sprungbrett deutscher Wirtschaftsexpansion, der die Zweisprachigkeit im Alto Adige einen maßgeblichen Konkurrenzvorteil verschafft.

Symbiose

Wie der italienische Springer-Manager Giuseppe Vita meint, darf die italienische Wirtschaft darauf hoffen, dass ihre dienende Funktion von den deutschen Großunternehmen weiter in Anspruch genommen wird - als "Hauptlieferantin" [6] bei der weltweiten deutschen Exportführerschaft. Die periphere Zuarbeit kleinerer und mittlerer italienischer Firmen habe zu einer "Symbiose" geführt: deutsche Größe plus italienische Gefolgschaft.

[1] La locomotiva Germania riprende la corsa; Corriere della Sera 14.08.2010
[2] La ricetta segreta di Berlino; Corriere della Sera 14.08.2010
[3] Vita: il capitalismo renano? Ha anticipato l'Europa con le ristrutturazioni; Corriere della Sera 14.08.2010
[4] "Veneto come la Catalogna", bufera zu Zaia; Reppublica 13.08.2010
[5] s. dazu Zukunft als VolkSprachenkampfEuropa der Völker und Das deutsche Blutsmodell (IV) Unsere Berichterstattung Spanien
[6] Vita: il capitaliso renano? Ha anticipato l'Europa con le ristrutturazioni; Corriere della Sera 14.08.2010



Negligenza mortale 
testo di Paul Polansky sulle responsabilità dei governatori coloniali del Kosovo nell'avvelenamento e nell'apartheid della popolazione rom.
Si vedano le puntate precedenti:
http://www.sivola.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=3919
http://www.sivola.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=3933
http://www.sivola.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=3946
http://www.sivola.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=3956
http://www.sivola.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=3966
http://www.sivola.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=3979
http://www.sivola.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=3986
http://www.sivola.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=3997
http://www.sivola.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=4006
http://www.sivola.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=4018

---


Negligenza mortale (XI puntata)


by Paul Polansky

[continua]


Saša Rašić


IL PREMIO OFFUSCAMENTO: mette in discussione le intenzioni, l'apertura e la trasparenza di un ministro del governo kosovaro riguardo al salvare gli zingari dei campi di Mitrovica sotto la sua giurisdizione.

Saša Rašić, Ministro per le Comunità ed i Ritorni nel Governo del Kosovo, è nato il 18-07-1973, nel povero villaggio serbo di campagna di Dobrotin, comune di Lipljan. Prima di diventare ministro del governo kosovaro, questo Serbo è stato vice ministro agli Affari Interni. Prima ancora ha lavorato come avvocato, interprete della KFOR britannica a Lipljan, ed assistente e coordinatore della polizia UNMIK a Lipljan e Priština.

Uno dei suoi compiti dopo essere diventato Ministro per le Comunità ed i Ritorni era di supervisionare ed evacuare i campi zingari che si trovano su terreni contaminati, la cui gestione è stata passata nel 2008 dall'UNHCR al governo del Kosovo. Nonostante i ripetuti rapporti dei media mondiali (BBC, International Herald Tribune, Washington Times, Aljazeera, Bild Zeitung, ZDF, ARTE TV, The Sun, ecc.) che richiamavano l'attenzione su questi "campi di morte", né Rašić né nessun membro del suo ufficio hanno mai visitato i campi. A tutt'oggi, il Ministro Rašić non ha ancora rivelato un piano per evacuare medicalmente i campi, come richiesto dall'OMS (Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità) e da innumerevoli altre OnG.

Da quando è diventato membro del gabinetto del Primo Ministro Thachi, Rašić ha rifiutato di incontrare i giornalisti stranieri che volevano discutere il tema dei campi contaminati dal piombo, o la costruzione dei 60 appartamenti per IDP (Persone Disperse Internamente), nel villaggio di Laplje Selo dove gli zingari dei campi fuori dalla città di Mitrovica (che non hanno mai vissuto nel quartiere Fabricka a Mitrovica sud) potrebbero essere trasferiti. Nonostante fosse programmato come uno sviluppo multietnico dal ministero di Rašić, i 60 appartamenti sono stati assegnati soltanto a Serbi, che non hanno sofferto una situazione di minaccia alla vita come gli zingari sui terreni contaminati.

Sebbene in loco ci siano forti sospetti che chi ha costruito i 60 appartamenti ha costruito nel contempo sull'altro lato della strada un palazzo per il Ministro Rašić, anche se la stupenda casa in effetti esiste (l'ho fotografata), non credo ci sia una prova scritta che provi questo gossip. Sono sicuro che il governo del Kosovo ha già investigato su questi rumori locali senza sostanza e li abbia trovati infondati. Nondimeno, sarebbe conveniente che il Ministro Rašić ed il governo kosovaro fossero più trasparenti con i giornalisti e con il pubblico e, naturalmente, per salvare i Rom/Askali assieme ai vicini serbi del Ministro Rašić.

sasa.rasic@...



Ambasciata Svizzera a Pristina
Agenzia Svizzera per lo Sviluppo e la Cooperazione (SDC)
Società per i Popoli Minacciati (GFBV - sezione Svizzera)


PREMIO "NON FATE NESSUN RUMORE": disonora i summenzionati partner che rifiutarono di "fare rumore" a favore dei bambini zingari che soffrivano di livelli di piombo mortali negli ex campi ONU ora gestiti dal governo del Kosovo.

Poco dopo la morte di Jenita Mehmeti, quattro anni, per avvelenamento da piombo nel campo ONU di Zitkovavc, mi precipitai nell'ufficio SDC di Pristina e li supplicai di aiutarmi. Per due anni SDC aveva generosamente finanziato le mie classi per insegnare l'inglese ai Rom nelle enclavi serbe vicino a Pristina, ed anche nei quartieri Gabeli/Egizi a Peja e Gjakova. SDC aveva anche finanziato i miei piccoli progetti lavorativi per gli zingari di tutto il Kosovo.

La morte di Jenita non era stata causata soltanto dal terreno contaminato dove l'ONU aveva piazzato la sua famiglia, ma anche dal fatto che suo padre riciclava batterie d'auto nella loro baracca ONU. L'attività era stata approvata dai gestori del campo. I Serbi che gli portavano le batterie avevano una licenza rilasciata dall'ufficio ONU di Zitkovac. ACT (Agenzia Svizzera di Soccorso) e NCA (Norwegian Church Agency) che assieme amministravano il campo ONU ammettevano che le batterie per auto, consegnate di solito a mezzogiorno in un camioncino aperto, venissero scaricate dai bambini zingari che non avevano altro da fare. L'atteggiamento di NCA era che gli zingari trovassero un lavoro (di qualsiasi tipo) invece di essere parassiti, dipendenti dagli aiuti umanitari.

La mia richiesta all'SDC era di farmi finanziare piccoli progetti lavorativi per i campi Rom/Askali, così che non dovessero smaltire le batterie delle macchine. Sfortunatamente, l'SDC aveva appena cambiato il proprio capo missione. Ero sicuro che il capo precedente avrebbe istantaneamente approvato il mio progetto che salvava delle vite, ma il nuovo, una donna svizzera di nome Barbara Burri, rifiutò.

Non ne fui sorpreso. Per diversi anni come vice capo missione, aveva rifiutato di assumere personale delle minoranze, solo Albanesi. Il capo precedente dell'SDC a Pristina era imbarazzato per questo atteggiamento, ma fece con me un accordo. Fintanto che non mi lamentavo del rifiuto dell'SDC di assumere minoranze, avrebbe finanziato i miei progetti zingari. Ma il nuovo capo missione non la pensava così. Ero andato troppo oltre nel tentare di coinvolgere la Svizzera. L'SDC intendeva ancora aiutare gli zingari onesti che vivevano nelle enclavi. Ma non gli zingari che morivano nei campi ONU. Sarebbe stato troppo politico per la loro "mentalità svizzera neutrale". Dopo tutto, dove aveva l'UNHCR (gli amministratori dei campi della morte) il proprio quartier generale? A Ginevra, Svizzera.

Con l'Ambasciata Svizzera non andò meglio. Anche loro si rifiutavano di assumere dalle minoranze, solo Albanesi. Quando feci appello all'ambasciatore in carica per aiutare questi bambini che morivano di avvelenamento da piombo, mi disse di cercare dei fondi altrove. Farsi coinvolgere in un progetto che avrebbe potuto imbarazzare l'ONU o gli Albanesi, non era nelle corde della Svizzera.

Il mio terzo tentativo di cercare aiuto dalla Svizzera avvenne cinque anni più tardi, quando contattai la Società per i Popoli Minacciati, a Berna. Sin dall'estate 1999 l'organizzazione madre in Germania era stata attiva nel denunciare l'avvelenamento da piombo nei campi e a chiederne l'evacuazione assieme all'OMS ed altre OnG. Infatti, la GFBV tedesca aiutò mandando una TV della Germania (ZDF) e la Bild Zeitung nei campi per dare più risonanza possibile sulla sofferenza di quei bambini. All'inizio GFBV (Svizzera) mostrò appoggio per un'azione diretta, proponendo persino di tenere assieme a noi una manifestazione presso il quartier generale UNHCR a Ginevra. Ma dopo una visita in Kosovo e dopo discussioni con l'Ambasciata Svizzera a Pristina (che disse loro di non creare rumori attorno ai campi), GFBV (Svizzera) non solo rifiutò di appoggiare la nostra campagna ma convinse anche GFBV in Germania ad unirsi a loro nel non dare più risalto alla questione dei campi.

Adottando la medesima mentalità della II guerra mondiale, la neutralità rimane il modus operandi della Svizzera. E proprio come agli Ebrei venne impedito di entrare in Svizzera durante la guerra, così pure ai nostri bambini Rom/Askali veniva proibito adesso di entrare nei cuori e nelle menti dell'Ambasciata Svizzera e dell'ufficio SDC a Pristina.

Ancora, non ne fui sorpreso. Assumendo solo Albanesi per lavorare nei loro uffici; essendo uno dei primi paesi a riconoscere il Kosovo come uno stato indipendente; perché ora gli Svizzeri avrebbero voluto "salvare gli zingari" e mettere in imbarazzo il governo del Kosovo? Probabilmente gli Svizzeri avevano paura che salvare dei "gypos" nei "campi della morte" ora gestiti dagli Albanesi poteva causare uno sciopero del loro staff albanese.


Fine undicesima puntata

---



Negligenza mortale (XII puntata)

by Paul Polansky

[continua]


Prof. dr. Alush Gashi


IL PREMIO MENGELE: disonora e disgrazia questo ministro della Sanità del Kosovo che rifiuta di svolgere i suoi dovere e richiedere l'immediata evacuazione medica dei campi contaminati dove più di 80 zingari sono morti per complicazioni dovute all'avvelenamento da piombo e dove ogni bambino nasce con danni irreversibili al cervello.

Se vuoi bere il miglior vino rosso in Kosovo, il prof. dr. Alush Gashi è l'uomo da tenere in considerazione nei "suoi giri". Nei ristoranti di Pristina il vino migliore non è mai sul menù. E' riservato soltanto ai "politicos" come Gashi, che è un grande intenditore. Vorrei soltanto che ponesse altrettanta attenzione ai bambini zingari che muoiono nei campi ONU, ora sotto l'amministrazione del governo del Kosovo e del suo ministero della salute.

Una volta bevvi con Alush in un ristorante esclusivo in un parco fuori Pristina. Stavamo discutendo con un comandante di marina degli USA degli attacchi nel marzo2004 di rivoltosi albanesi contro le enclavi delle minoranze. Alush era stato nominato dal parlamento del Kosovo per investigare sulle cause della rivolta. Alla terza o quarta bottiglia di squisito vino rosso, Alush confessò che l'attacco era stato così ben pianificato che non intendeva procedere oltre con le indagini. Avrebbe soltanto imbarazzato gli alleati del Kosovo se si fosse rivelato quali politici kosovari avevano organizzato i disordini. Invece, Alush ordinò un'altra bottiglia "del migliore" nascosto nella cantina del ristorante lontano dai normali clienti.

Alush Gashi è nato il 4 ottobre 1950. La sua biografia sulla pagina web del governo del Kosovo per i gabinetti ministeriali è molto approssimativa. Ma tramite una ricerca su Google ho trovato che Alush ha scritto di essere dottore in medicina, professore di anatomia, chirurgo generale ed una volta è stato professore assistente alla facoltà di medicina dell'Università di California a San Francisco. Ha anche dichiarato di essersi recato diverse volte in America e in Europa per scopi di studio ed è autore di testi professionali e scientifici pubblicati in Kosovo, Europa Occidentale ed America (non sono riuscito a trovarne nessuno). E' stato preside della facoltà di medicina a Pristina e consigliere per i Diritti Umani del dr. Rugova, l'ultimo presidente del Kosovo. Attualmente è membro del parlamento del Kosovo per il partito LDK e ministro della Sanità del Kosovo.

Andavo a trovare Alush molte volte nel suo ufficio di ministro della Sanità. Fummo buoni amici fino a quando non portai troppi giornalisti a vederlo a proposito dei campi zingari contaminati dal piombo, che ora erano di sua responsabilità. Due anni fa le sue ultime parole che mi disse furono: "Quei campi sono la mia priorità numero uno." Ma non ci andò mai. Nemmeno nessun membro del suo staff.

Alush una volta descrisse se stesso in un'intervista ad un giornale americano come "...un innocente medico che cerca di aiutare gli altri."

Un giornale britannico una volta scrisse "ALUSH GASHI è un uomo piccolo, asciutto, dagli occhi vivaci, un chirurgo, un guaritore."

Ma i riconoscimenti della stampa straniera sono finiti da quando Alush ora rifiuta di incontrare i giornalisti stranieri che cercano da lui risposte sui bambini zingari che muoiono nei campi di morte del governo del Kosovo. A volte Alush concede al suo addetto stampa di parlare coi giornalisti internazionali, ma quando questi menzionano i campi zingari l'intervista viene improvvisamente interrotta.

Anche se il prof. dr. Alush Gashi non è il salvatore degli zingari del Kosovo, è un grande entusiasta dell'America e dei valori americani. In un'intervista ad una pubblicazione di Washington DC, Alush ha detto: "...L'America ha dato ai membri di questa comunità dei Balcani conoscenza e simpatia per i valori americani. Gli Stati Uniti sono venuti in aiuto del Kosovo in risposta alla campagna di pulizia etnica del presidente dell'ex Jugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic, che intendeva sterminare qualsiasi popolo non-serbo dalla provincia. L'impegno americano in Kosovo è unico, a partire dall'aiuto umanitario pre-guerra... poi l'America inviò i suoi figli e le sue figlie a combattere Milosevic e le truppe serbe per salvare civili innocenti, a cui era capitato di essere musulmani... e creare le condizioni perché i Kosovari potessero tornare a casa, stabilire la democrazia e rimodellare il loro futuro. Sotto la protezione NATO i Kosovari sono ritornati a casa, ma gli Americani ed i loro alleati sono rimasti. Sono rimasti ed hanno continuato a supportare chi amava la pace e stava costruendo un Kosova post-bellico... costruendo scuole, ospedali, strade e moschee. Credo che gli Albanesi del Kosova amino l'America perché sono coscienti dei valori americani."

Sfortunatamente, anche i valori americani (assieme ad Alush) sono assenti nei campi zingari. Non solo l'ambasciata americana a Pristina ha rifiutato di chiederne l'evacuazione per motivi medici, come richiesto dall'OMS,  ma l'ambasciatore americano si è rifiutato di incontrarmi per discutere una soluzione sanitaria (vedi lettera seguente). Forse Alush Gashi, ministro della Sanità del Kosovo, i suoi valori li ha appresi dall'ambasciatore americano Christopher Dell.



Ambasciatore Cristopher W. Dell


6 luglio 2009

Spett. Ambasciatore Dell,

Sono un cittadino americano che ha lavorato in Kosovo dal luglio 2009 come capo missione della Società per i Popoli Minacciati. Il mio lavoro è stato quasi esclusivamente con i Rom kosovari, specialmente con quanti vivono dal settembre 1999 nei campi per IDP costruiti su terreni contaminati a Mitrovica nord. Dalla vostra udienza di conferma, vedo che siete a conoscenza di questa tragedia che dura da dieci anni.

Per diverso tempo, ho cercato senza successo di parlare con l'attuale ambasciatore americano a Pristina sulle adeguate cure mediche per questi Rom. Sfortunatamente, nessuno vuole discutere  di un'immediata soluzione sanitaria, solo di future rilocazioni, ancora molto lontane. Anche quanti sono stati reinsediati dal 2006 nella loro precedente mahala a Mitrovica sud, non hanno ancora ricevuto il promesso trattamento per avvelenamento da piombo.

Ci sono precedenti in Kosovo per salvare migliaia di vite di vite di Albanesi e Serbi con l'immediata evacuazione, quando le loro vite erano in pericolo. Tuttora per questi Rom di Mitrovica che hanno i più alti livelli di piombo nella storia medica, non è stata considerata nessuna evacuazione d'emergenza.

Riguardo al reinsediamento, Mercy Corps non intende iniziare la costruzione delle 50 case prima di settembre, e soltanto se i test sulla tossicità del terreno (ancora da fare) saranno negativi. Nel contempo, MC rifiuta di rivelare qualsiasi piano sanitario. Come Ambasciatore americano in Kosovo, ritengo Lei possa incoraggiare il governo del Kosovo, Mercy Corps, USAID, UE/CE a salvare questi poveri Rom. Non soltanto abbiamo avuto già tra di loro 82 morti (molti di loro bambini) su questi terreni contaminati, ma secondo un dottore tedesco che li ha visitati e analizzato i risultati dei test, ogni bambino concepito nascerà con danni irreversibili al cervello.

Spero, Ambasciatore Dell, che lei mi riceva per discutere un'urgente soluzione medica prima che sia troppo tardi per salvare questi bambini.

In fede,

Paul Polansky

Il senatore USA Russ Feingold ha inviato la mia lettera assieme ad una sua presentazione, chiedendo all'ambasciatore Dell di ricevermi. L'ambasciatore Dell non ha mai risposto.

Fine dodicesima puntata


---


Negligenza mortale (XIII puntata)

by Paul Polansky

[continua]


Dr. Sergey Shevchenko


[FOTO] Il Percorso della Salute del dr. Shevchenko costruito accanto ai cumuli di scorie tossiche che attorniano i campi zingari. I cartelli sono in inglese, serbo ed albanese. In inglese dicono: Inala l'odoure (sic) della salute. E' una sfida per te. VINCILA. L'esercizio creato per un corpo sano.


IL PREMIO "PERCORSO DELLA MORTE": disonora e disgrazia quel dottore ONU che approfittò finanziariamente della costruzione di impianti sportivi su terreni contaminati.

Non tanto tempo fa, chiesi ad un incaricato dell'UNMIK chi avrebbe perseguito per questa tragedia dei campi zingari contaminati da piombo. Senza esitazione, mi disse: 1- il dr. Kouchner per aver messo lì gli zingari; 2- Norwegian Church Aid per aver amministrato i campi senza riportare un decesso o senza aver poi protestato; 3- il dr. Shevchenko per essersi riempito le tasche di soldi con i progetti sportivi realizzati su terreni contaminati.

Il dr. Shevchenko, un optometrista, era il dottore ONU incaricato di Mitrovica nord, che includeva due dei tre campi originari (Cesmin Lug e Kablare). Alcuni del suo staff dicono che è un russo originario di Vladivostok e gira con un passaporto diplomatico russo, ma che vive oggi a Vancouver, BC, Canada. Però, nel 2005 disse all'avvocato americano Dianne Post di avere passaporto canadese.

Ma la cattiva fama del dr. Shevchenko è dovuta al "Percorso della Salute". Ispirandosi ad un parco della salute in Canada, Shevchenko costruì il suo Percorso della Salute su un terreno contaminato tra i campi zingari di Kablare e Cesmin Lug ed i 100 milioni di scorie tossiche la cui polvere per molti giorni ricopriva i campi. Il dr. Shevchenko trasformò un vecchio sentiero di 1,5 Km. in un percorso di jogging tossico ed installò anche barre per gli esercizi accanto al cammino, più una rete da basket e due porte improvvisate da calcio. Pose cartelli blu di due metri con scritte in bianco, firmati dall'ONU in tre lingue, incoraggiando i locali a "respirare l'odore della salute". Gli esercizi, aprire i polmoni, permette a più polvere tossica di entrare nel corpo, ma questo non era menzionato sopra la firma dell'ONU.

Secondo il suo staff ONU, Shevchenko raccolse 66.000 euro per costruire queste infrastrutture sportive, pagandole però ai contraenti locali che le costruirono solo 10.000 euro. Incoraggiato da come fosse facile ottenere fondi per "progetti zingari", il dottore-affarista Shevchenko scrisse allora un progetto da 300.000 euro per costruire più baracche sui terreni contaminati per rifugiati zingari, a favore dei rifugiati che l'ONU stava rimpatriando dalla Serbia. Secondo il suo staff locale il nostro optometrista in orgasmo da sviluppo aveva un contraente serbo locale che intendeva costruire le baracche per 100.000 euro. Quando venne chiesto loro (il suo staff) su perché non premessero per dar luogo ai lavori, mi dissero che avevano così paura di perderlo. Shevchenko lasciò il Kosovo prima che il suo progetto dei baracche venisse approvato.



KAAD (Kosovo Agency for Advacacy and Development)


IL PREMIO DIETA SPECIALE: disonora questa OnG di Pristina che ha amministrato il campo zingaro di Osterode dal dicembre 2008, ma sta facendo pochissimi sforzi per tenere in vita i bambini.

Non ho mai pensato che potesse esserci un amministratore di campi peggiore di Norwegian Church Aid nel non curarsi se i bambini dei campi zingari vivessero o morissero. Ma questa OnG albanese a contratto e finanziata dal governo del Kosovo, potrebbe essere di parecchio peggiore. Ergin Salihi, bambino di nove anni, è entrato ed uscito sette volte dall'ospedale negli ultimi anni per insufficienza renale causata da malnutrizione e debolezza del sistema immunitario causata da avvelenamento da piombo. Suo fratello Robert, cinque anni, è in condizioni persino peggiori. Senza una dieta adeguata, dicono i dottori locali, non vivranno a lungo. Sino a settembre 2009, KAAD ha fornito la dieta speciale al costo di 7 euro al giorno. Da settembre, KAAD ha sospeso la somministrazione dicendo di non potersela permettere.

Quando Human Rights Watch (l'OnG internazionale con base a New York) a novembre 2008 visitò i campi, parlò con una dottoressa part-time del campo, Javorka Jovanovic, che dichiarò che era impossibile distinguere tra cause mediche dipendenti solamente dal piombo e quelle semplicemente collegate alla povertà e alla deprivazione. Aggiunse che la combinazione dei due fattori peggiorava sempre di più ogni condizione. Tuttavia, notava nei bambini su base giornaliera i sintomi da contaminazione come rachitismo, nervosismo, fatica ed epilessia. Disse che l'avvelenamento da piombo stava rendendo i bambini più vulnerabili alle altre malattie.

La dottoressa Jovanovic sentiva che la cattiva salute dei bambini peggiorava a causa della loro dieta. Molte, se non la maggior parte, delle famiglie vanno a cercare il cibo nei container delle discariche cittadine. Nel 2002 ACT/NCA interruppero tutti gli aiuti alimentari ai campi, dicendo che gli zingari ne rivendevano una parte per comprarsi le sigarette. Gli zingari ammisero di vendere alcuni degli aiuti, ma soprattutto per comprare le scarpe perché i bambini potessero andare a scuola. Nondimeno, tutti gli aiuti alimentari vennero fermati nel 2002.

Tutte le madri del campo si sono lamentate con KAAD sulle cattive condizioni igieniche e per la dieta che sta esacerbando la situazione sanitaria dei più vulnerabili, i bambini sotto i sei anni d'età e le donne incinte. La dottoressa Jovanovic ha detto che la concentrazione di malattie nei campi rende la situazione medica senza paragoni con nient'altro che abbia mai visto nei suoi 35 anni come dottoressa.

Anche se KAAD ed il governo del Kosovo non sono responsabili per la costruzione di questi campi su terreni contaminati, furono gli Albanesi che allontanarono gli zingari dalle loro case dopo che le truppe NATO francesi avevano occupato la città. Punire ora i bambini nati lì dopo la guerra appare una rivincita senza senso. Ma è quello che sta succedendo adesso. Altrimenti perché KAAD dovrebbe interrompere  la dieta speciale del novenne Ergin? Sicuramente KAAD che mantiene uno staff di 42 persone ed è finanziata dal governo del Kosovo può permettersi 7 euro al giorno per salvare Ergin ed i suoi fratelli. Nessuno in Kosovo, KAAD specialmente, sembra comprendere che la negligenza dolosa verso i bambini è un crimine.

Fine tredicesima puntata




Malga Bala, ennesimo caso di revisionismo storico

(Fonte: mailing list Storia e conflitto - http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/storia_e_conflitto/ )

Leggendo il bellissimo libro di Giordano Sivini ("Il banchiere del Papa e la sua miniera. Lotte operaie nel villaggio minerario di Cave del Predil, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2009), ho trovato il riferimento ad un episodio della Resistenza, recentemente trasformato da parte "revisionista" in un ulteriore capitolo della saga qualunquista-fascistoide.
In buona sostanza, un drappello di carabinieri (lo scrivo con la minuscola) arruolati al servizio degli occupatori nazisti - che avevano asservito le regioni nordorientali d'Italia al Reich millenario di Adolf Hitler - fu eliminato dalla Resistenza jugoslava per sabotare gli impianti di produzione bellica da loro protetti. Questo episodio, che verte attorno al controllo di una centralina elettrica alimentante le miniere di Raibl/Cave del Predil, che col loro piombo e zinco servivano alla Wehrmach, si trasforma in un ulteriore "foiba", con rovesciamento della storia. Come se fosse stata la Jugoslavia a scatenare la guerra mondiale con la sua aggressione, e non la Germania e l'Italia.
Ma quel che è peggio è che tutta questa storia viene legittimata dal sito ufficiale dei Carabinieri (con la maiuscola: cfr. http://www.carabinieri.it/Internet/Arma/Curiosita/Non+tutti+sanno+che/M/4+M.htm ), quelli che noi cittadini retribuiamo per difendere la nostra sicurezza dai delinquenti, nonché - en passant - l'ordine repubblicano, quello della Costituzione nata dalla Resistenza. Con buona pace di quel genio di Minimo D'Alema che, essendo presidente del consiglio, li trasformò da corpo dell'Esercito in arma autonoma (come i Carabineros cileni, altri alacri testimonial della democrazia globale sotto il dittatore Pinochet). Oggi più che mai, i Carabinieri debbono essere smilitarizzati e sottratti all'autoritarismo di gerarchie evidentemente poco use al culto della Resistenza antifascista. Ed il sito deve essere ripulito da simili volgarità.

Gian Luigi Bettoli

Per approfondimenti, cfr il link sottostante:
http://www.anpipianoro.it/memoria%20commenti/malga%20bala%20ennesimo%20caso%20di%20revisionismo%20storico.html
[il link rimanda tra l'altro all'articolo apparso su La Nuova Alabarda nel febbraio 2007:



               * Jugoslavenski glas - Voce jugoslava *

"Od Triglava do Vardara..." "Dal monte Triglav al fiume Vardar..."

Svakog drugog utorka, od 14,00 do 14,30, na Radio Città Aperta, i valu FM 88.9 za regiju Lazio, emisija:
                       JUGOSLAVENSKI GLAS
Moze se pratiti i preko Interneta: http://www.radiocittaperta.it/stream.htm 
Pisite nam na jugocoord@... 
Podrzite ovaj glas, kupovanjem nasih brosura, video kazeta i t.sl. Odazovite se.


Ogni due martedì dalle ore 14,00 alle 14,30, su Radio Città Aperta, FM 88.9 per il Lazio:
                          VOCE JUGOSLAVA
Si può seguire, come del resto anche le altre trasmissioni della Radio, via Internet: http://www.radiocittaperta.it/stream.htm 
La trasmissione è bilingue (a seconda del tempo disponibile e della necessità).
Scriveteci all'indirizzo email: jugocoord@... 
Sostenete questa voce libera e indipendente acquistando video cassette, libri, bollettini a nostra disposizione. 


*** Program 14.9.2010. Programma ***

La trasmissione riprende dopo la pausa estiva. Vista la perdurante attualità del tema degli attacchi della FIAT contro i lavoratori italiani e serbi, si ripropone la registrazione dei colloqui avuti a inizio luglio con i sindacalisti della Zastava di Kragujevac. Sullo stesso argomento segnaliamo anche le dichiarazioni seguenti, rilasciate pochi giorni fa al "Manifesto":

Il Manifesto, 2.9.2010

IL SINDACATO SERBO


«Non ci lasceremo usare contro gli operai italiani»

di Lo. C.

Sono un migliaio, assemblano 15 mila vecchie Punto l'anno con i pezzi provenienti da Torino e guadagnano, in teoria, 320 euro al mese. In pratica in busta paga se ne ritrovano 270 perché da mesi il mercato è saturo, la crisi picchia duro e una settimana al mese sono in cassa integrazione. Eccoli gli operai della Fiat Auto Serbia, figli della già gloriosa Zastava con cui pure la Fiat, fino agli anni Novanta, aveva avuto molto a che fare. Altri operai sono ancora parcheggiati in una sorta di bad company che continua a chiamarsi Zastava con lavoratori inattivi, in attesa di entrare in Fiat quando (e se) si materializzerà il nuovo progetto del Lingotto: 300 mila vetture - una low cost di fascia B e una city car per complessive 200 mila unità annue e un modello di fascia C per altre 100 mila - alla fine del 2012, un organico di 2.540 dipendenti. Se i progetti di Marchionne incontreranno la domanda, naturalmente. E allora molte cose cambieranno, dai ritmi agli orari (oggi 40 ore settimanali su 5 giorni), ai salari.
Mihajlovic Zoran è il segretario generale del sindacato Samostalni alla Fiat Auto Serbia, a cui aderisce il 75% dei dipendenti, e ricopre numerose altre cariche sindacali. Lo intervistiamo con l'aiuto di Rajka Veljovic, più che traduttrice cuore della Zastava che collabora con il manifesto dal '99 per le traduzioni e le adozioni a distanza dei figli degli operai «licenziati» dalle bombe «umanitarie». «Siamo rimasti molto sorpresi dalle decisione Fiat di spostare da noi la produzione destinata a Mirafiori e ci teniamo a sottrarci dal gioco sporco che vorrebbe schierare operai contro operai. Naturalmente abbiamo bisogno di lavoro come il pane, ma non togliendolo a degli altri lavoratori. Siamo fiduciosi, ma non comprendiamo fino in fondo la logica della Fiat né si possono dare per scontati i numeri di vetture e di operai previsti nal mercato. L'allestimento delle nuove linee è già in ritardo. Preciso che i motori delle future vetture arriveranno dall'Italia, così come le piattaforme comuni ad altri modelli».
Mihajlovic è in Italia dove ha incontrato, tra gli altri interlocutori, il gruppo dirigente Fiom, proprio per stabilire un legame e condividere alcune scelte. «In Serbia abbiamo poche informazioni, è importante per capire con chi abbiamo a che fare sapere come la Fiat si muove, a Melfi o a Pomigliano. Abbiamo molte cose in comune con voi: in Serbia stanno passando tre leggi pesanti che colpiscono le pensioni, il lavoro e il diritto di sciopero». Quel che si è scritto sull'interesse della Fiat per la Serbia - l'assenza di tasse doganali con la Russia faciliterebbe l'esportazione in quel mercato - non risponde al vero: «Tasse doganali non esistono (c'è un 1% simbolico) per prodotti le cui componenti siano costruite in Serbia al 70%. Per le auto Fiat non è così, noi assembliamo pezzi italiani». Mille operai per 15 mila auto l'anno, 2.540 per farne 300 mila: non pensi che dietro questa sproporzione si celi una radicale modifica delle condizioni, turni e straordinari? «Certo, ma il problema d'oggi è la cassa integrazione, non gli straordinari».



(Riportiamo integralmente, in tre parti, il saggio di Andrew Gavin Marshall dedicato alle politiche di egemonia imperiale degli USA nell'epoca dell'"11 Settembre". L'autore si sofferma in particolare su Al-Qaeda, creatura della CIA utilizzata come strumento di provocazione delle più recenti guerre di conquista coloniale-imperialista da parte della declinante superpotenza mondiale. La terza parte è incentrata sulle incongruenze e falsità nella versione di regime sui fatti dell'11 settembre 2001 a New York, di cui oggi ricorre l'anniversario.
Andrew Gavin Marshall è un collaboratore del grande saggista Michael Chossudovsky e del suo "Centro per la Ricerca sulla Globalizzazione" - http://www.globalresearch.ca )



The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the “Arc of Crisis”

Part I

by Andrew Gavin Marshall

Global Research, September 5, 2010
- 2010-09-04

Introduction
 
As the 9th anniversary of 9/11 nears, and the war on terror continues to be waged and grows in ferocity and geography, it seems all the more imperative to return to the events of that fateful September morning and re-examine the reasons for war and the nature of the stated culprit, Al-Qaeda.
 
The events of 9/11 pervade the American and indeed the world imagination as an historical myth. The events of that day and those leading up to it remain largely unknown and little understood by the general public, apart from the disturbing images repeated ad nauseam in the media. The facts and troubled truths of that day are lost in the folklore of the 9/11 myth: that the largest attack carried out on American ground was orchestrated by 19 Muslims armed with box cutters and urged on by religious fundamentalism, all under the direction of Osama bin Laden, the leader of a global terrorist network called al-Qaeda, based out of a cave in Afghanistan.
 
The myth sweeps aside the facts and complex nature of terror, al-Qaeda, the American empire and literally defies the laws of physics. As John F. Kennedy once said, “The greatest enemy of the truth is not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, pervasive, and unrealistic.”
 
This three-part series on “The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda” examines the geopolitical historical origins and nature of what we today know as al-Qaeda, which is in fact an Anglo-American intelligence network of terrorist assets used to advance American and NATO imperial objectives in various regions around the world.
 
Part 1 examines the origins of the intelligence network known as the Safari Club, which financed and organized an international conglomerate of terrorists, the CIA’s role in the global drug trade, the emergence of the Taliban and the origins of al-Qaeda.
 
The Safari Club
 
Following Nixon’s resignation as President, Gerald Ford became the new US President in 1974. Henry Kissinger remained as Secretary of State and Ford brought into his administration two names that would come to play important roles in the future of the American Empire: Donald Rumsfeld as Ford’s Chief of Staff, and Dick Cheney, as Deputy Assistant to the President. The Vice President was Nelson Rockefeller, David Rockefeller’s brother. When Donald Rumsfeld was promoted to Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney was promoted to Chief of Staff. Ford had also appointed a man named George H.W. Bush as CIA Director.

           

In 1976, a coalition of intelligence agencies was formed, which was called the Safari Club. This marked the discreet and highly covert coordination among various intelligence agencies, which would last for decades. It formed at a time when the CIA was embroiled in domestic scrutiny over the Watergate scandal and a Congressional investigation into covert CIA activities, forcing the CIA to become more covert in its activities.
 
In 2002, the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal gave a speech in which he stated that in response to the CIA’s need for more discretion, “a group of countries got together in the hope of fighting Communism and established what was called the Safari Club. The Safari Club included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran [under the Shah].”[1] However, “The Safari Club needed a network of banks to finance its intelligence operations. With the official blessing of George H.W. Bush as the head of the CIA,” Saudi intelligence chief, Kamal Adham, “transformed a small Pakistani merchant bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), into a world-wide money-laundering machine, buying banks around the world to create the biggest clandestine money network in history.”[2]
 
As CIA director, George H.W. Bush “cemented strong relations with the intelligence services of both Saudi Arabia and the shah of Iran. He worked closely with Kamal Adham, the head of Saudi intelligence, brother-in-law of King Faisal and an early BCCI insider.” Adham had previously acted as a “channel between [Henry] Kissinger and [Egyptian President] Anwar Sadat” in 1972. In 1976, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia formed the Safari Club “to conduct through their own intelligence agencies operations that were now difficult for the CIA,” which was largely organized by the head of French intelligence, Alexandre de Marenches.[3]
 
The “Arc of Crisis” and the Iranian Revolution
 
When Jimmy Carter became President in 1977, he appointed over two-dozen members of the Trilateral Commission to his administration, which was an international think tank formed by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller in 1973. Brzezinski had invited Carter to join the Trilateral Commission, and when Carter became President, Brzezinski became National Security Adviser; Cyrus Vance, also a member of the Commission, became Secretary of State; and Samuel Huntington, another Commission member, became Coordinator of National Security and Deputy to Brzezinski. Author and researcher Peter Dale Scott deserves much credit for his comprehensive analysis of the events leading up to and during the Iranian Revolution in his book, “The Road to 9/11”,* which provides much of the information below.
 
Samuel Huntington and Zbigniew Brzezinski were to determine the US policy position in the Cold War, and the US-Soviet policy they created was termed, “Cooperation and Competition,” in which Brzezinski would press for “Cooperation” when talking to the press, yet, privately push for “competition.” So, while Secretary of State Cyrus Vance was pursuing détente with the Soviet Union, Brzezinski was pushing for American supremacy over the Soviet Union. Brzezinski and Vance would come to disagree on almost every issue.[4]
 
In 1978, Zbigniew Brzezinski gave a speech in which he stated, “An arc of crisis stretches along the shores of the Indian Ocean, with fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us threatened with fragmentation. The resulting political chaos could well be filled by elements hostile to our values and sympathetic to our adversaries.” The Arc of Crisis stretched from Indochina to southern Africa, although, more specifically, the particular area of focus was “the nations that stretch across the southern flank of the Soviet Union from the Indian subcontinent to Turkey, and southward through the Arabian Peninsula to the Horn of Africa.” Further, the “center of gravity of this arc is Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer and for more than two decades a citadel of U.S. military and economic strength in the Middle East. Now it appears that the 37-year reign of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi is almost over, ended by months of rising civil unrest and revolution.”[5]
 
With rising discontent in the region, “There was this idea that the Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets. It was a Brzezinski concept.”[6] A month prior to Brzezinski’s speech, in November of 1978, “President Carter named the Bilderberg group’s George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council’s Brzezinski.” Further, “Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalist Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini.”[7] George Ball’s visit to Iran was a secret mission.[8]
 
Throughout 1978, the Shah was under the impression that “the Carter administration was plotting to topple his regime.” In 1978, the Queen and Shah’s wife, told Manouchehr Ganji, a minister in the Shah’s government, that, “I wanted to tell you that the Americans are maneuvering to bring down the Shah,” and she continued saying that she believed “they even want to topple the regime.”[9] The US Ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, thought that the revolution would succeed, and told this to Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General under the Johnson administration, as well as professor Richard Falk, when they were visiting Sullivan in Iran in 1978. Clark and Falk then went from Iran to Paris, to visit Khomeini, who was there in exile. James Bill, a Carter adviser, felt that, “a religious movement brought about with the United States’ assistance would be a natural friend of the United States.”[10]
 
Also interesting is the fact that the British BBC broadcast pro-Khomeini Persian-language programs daily in Iran, as a subtle form of propaganda, which “gave credibility to the perception of United States and British support of Khomeini.”[11] The BBC refused to give the Shah a platform to respond, and “[r]epeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result.”[12]
 
In the May 1979 meeting of the Bilderberg Group, Bernard Lewis, a British historian of great influence (hence, the Bilderberg membership), presented a British-American strategy which, “endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an ‘Arc of Crisis,’ which would spill over into the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.”[13] Further, it would prevent Soviet influence from entering the Middle East, as the Soviet Union was viewed as an empire of atheism and godlessness: essentially a secular and immoral empire, which would seek to impose secularism across Muslim countries. So supporting radical Islamic groups would mean that the Soviet Union would be less likely to have any influence or relations with Middle Eastern countries, making the US a more acceptable candidate for developing relations.

           

A 1979 article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, described the Arc of Crisis, saying that, “The Middle East constitutes its central core. Its strategic position is unequalled: it is the last major region of the Free World directly adjacent to the Soviet Union, it holds in its subsoil about three-fourths of the proven and estimated world oil reserves, and it is the locus of one of the most intractable conflicts of the twentieth century: that of Zionism versus Arab nationalism.” It went on to explain that post-war US policy in the region was focused on “containment” of the Soviet Union, as well as access to the regions oil.[14] The article continued, explaining that the most “obvious division” within the Middle East is, “that which separates the Northern Tier (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan) from the Arab core,” and that, “After World War II, Turkey and Iran were the two countries most immediately threatened by Soviet territorial expansionism and political subversion.”[15] Ultimately, “the Northern Tier was assured of a serious and sustained American commitment to save it from sharing the fate of Eastern Europe.”[16]
 
While Khomeini was in Paris prior to the Revolution, a representative of the French President organized a meeting between Khomeini and “current world powers,” in which Khomeini made certain demands, such as, “the shah's removal from Iran and help in avoiding a coup d'état by the Iranian Army.” The Western powers, however, “were worried about the Soviet Union's empowerment and penetration and a disruption in Iran's oil supply to the west. Khomeini gave the necessary guarantees. These meetings and contacts were taking place in January of 1979, just a few days before the Islamic Revolution in February 1979.”[17] In February of 1979, Khomeini was flown out of Paris on an Air France flight, to return to Iran, “with the blessing of Jimmy Carter.”[18] Ayatollah Khomeini named Mehdi Bazargan as prime minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government on February 4, 1979. As Khomeini had demanded during his Paris meeting in January 1979, that western powers must help in avoiding a coup by the Iranian Army; in that same month, the Carter administration, under the direction of Brzezinski, had begun planning a military coup.[19]
 
Could this have been planned in the event that Khomeini was overthrown, the US would quickly reinstate order, perhaps even place Khomeini back in power? Interestingly, in January of 1979, “as the Shah was about to leave the country, the American Deputy Commander in NATO, General Huyser, arrived and over a period of a month conferred constantly with Iranian military leaders. His influence may have been substantial on the military's decision not to attempt a coup and eventually to yield to the Khomeini forces, especially if press reports are accurate that he or others threatened to withhold military supplies if a coup were attempted.”[20] No coup was subsequently undertaken, and Khomeini came to power as the Ayatollah of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
 
As tensions increased among the population within Iran, the US sent “security advisers” to Iran to pressure the Shah’s SAVAK (secret police) to implement “a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah.” The Carter administration also began publicly criticizing the Shah’s human rights abuses.[21] On September 6, 1978, the Shah banned demonstrations, and the following day, between 700 and 2000 demonstrators were gunned down, following “advice from Brzezinski to be firm.”[22]
 
The US Ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, a Trilateral Commission member, said that, “Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint,” and the US Ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, said, “Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure,” while Carter’s adviser, James Bill, said that Khomeini was a man of “impeccable integrity and honesty.”[23]
 
The Shah was also very sick in late 1978 and early 1979. So the Shah fled Iran in January of 1979 to the Bahamas, allowing for the revolution to take place. It is especially interesting to understand the relationship between David Rockefeller and the Shah of Iran. David Rockefeller’s personal assistant, Joseph V. Reed, had been “assigned to handle the shah’s finances and his personal needs;” Robert Armao, who worked for Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, was sent to “act as the shah’s public relations agent and lobbyist;” and Benjamin H. Kean, “a longtime associate of Chase Manhattan Bank chairman David Rockefeller,” and David Rockefeller’s “personal physician,” who was sent to Mexico when the shah was there, and advised that he “be treated at an American hospital.”[24]
 
It is important to note that Rockefeller interests “had directed U.S. policy in Iran since the CIA coup of 1953.”[25] Following the Shah’s flight from Iran, there were increased pressures within the United States by a handful of powerful people to have the Shah admitted to the United States. These individuals were Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, John J. McCloy, former statesman and senior member of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, who was also a lawyer for Chase Manhattan, and of course, David Rockefeller.[26]
 
Chase Manhattan Bank had more interests in Iran than any other US bank. In fact, the Shah had “ordered that all his government’s major operating accounts be held at Chase and that letters of credit for the purchase of oil be handled exclusively through Chase. The bank also became the agent and lead manager for many of the loans to Iran. In short, Iran became the crown jewel of Chase’s international banking portfolio.”[27]
 
The Iranian interim government, headed by Prime Minister Bazargan, collapsed in November of 1979, when Iranian hostages seized the US Embassy in Teheran. However, there is much more to this event than meets the eye. During the time of the interim government (February, 1979 to November, 1979), several actions were undertaken which threatened some very powerful interests who had helped the Ayatollah into power.
 
Chase Manhattan Bank faced a liquidity crisis as there had been billions in questionable loans to Iran funneled through Chase.[28] Several of Chase’s loans were “possibly illegal under the Iranian constitution.”[29] Further, in February of 1979, once the interim government was put in power, it began to take “steps to market its oil independently of the Western oil majors.” Also, the interim government “wanted Chase Manhattan to return Iranian assets, which Rockefeller put at more than $1 billion in 1978, although some estimates ran much higher,” which could have “created a liquidity crisis for the bank which already was coping with financial troubles.”[30]
 
With the seizure of the American Embassy in Iran, President Carter took moves to freeze Iranian financial assets. As David Rockefeller wrote in his book, “Carter’s ‘freeze’ of official Iranian assets protected our [Chase Manhattan’s] position, but no one at Chase played a role in convincing the administration to institute it.”[31]
 
In February of 1979, Iran had been taking “steps to market its oil independently of the Western oil majors. In 1979, as in 1953, a freeze of Iranian assets made this action more difficult.”[32] This was significant for Chase Manhattan not simply because of the close interlocking of the board with those of oil companies, not to mention Rockefeller himself, who is patriarch of the family whose name is synonymous with oil, but also because Chase exclusively handled all the letters of credit for the purchase of Iranian oil.[33]
 
The Shah being accepted into the United States, under public pressure from Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller, precipitated the hostage crisis, which occurred on November 4. Ten days later, Carter froze all Iranian assets in US banks, on the advice of his Treasury Secretary, William Miller. Miller just happened to have ties to Chase Manhattan Bank.[34]
 
Although Chase Manhattan directly benefited from the seizure of Iranian assets, the reasoning behind the seizure as well as the events leading up to it, such as a hidden role for the Anglo-Americans behind the Iranian Revolution, bringing the Shah to America, which precipitated the hostage crisis, cannot simply be relegated to personal benefit for Chase. There were larger designs behind this crisis. So the 1979 crises in Iran cannot simply be pawned off as a spur of the moment undertaking, but rather should be seen as quick actions taken upon a perceived opportunity. The opportunity was the rising discontent within Iran at the Shah; the quick actions were in covertly pushing the country into Revolution.
 
In 1979, “effectively restricting the access of Iran to the global oil market, the Iranian assets freeze became a major factor in the huge oil price increases of 1979 and 1981.”[35] Added to this, in 1979, British Petroleum cancelled major oil contracts for oil supply, which along with cancellations taken by Royal Dutch Shell, drove the price of oil up higher.[36] With the first major oil price rises in 1973 (urged on by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger), the Third World was forced to borrow heavily from US and European banks to finance development. With the second oil price shocks of 1979, the US Federal Reserve, with Paul Volcker as its new Chairman, (himself having served a career under David Rockefeller at Chase Manhattan), dramatically raised interest rates from 2% in the late 70s to 18% in the early 80s. Developing nations could not afford to pay such interest on their loans, and thus the 1980s debt crisis spread throughout the Third World, with the IMF and World Bank coming to the “rescue” with their Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which ensured western control over the developing world’s economies.[37]
 
Covertly, the United States helped a radical Islamist government come to power in Iran, “the center of the Arc of Crisis,” and then immediately stirred up conflict and war in the region. Five months before Iraq invaded Iran, in April of 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski openly declared the willingness of the US to work closely with Iraq. Two months before the war, Brzezinski met with Saddam Hussein in Jordan, where he gave support for the destabilization of Iran.[38] While Saddam was in Jordan, he also met with three senior CIA agents, which was arranged by King Hussein of Jordan. He then went to meet with King Fahd in Saudi Arabia, informing him of his plans to invade Iran, and then met with the King of Kuwait to inform him of the same thing. He gained support from America, and financial and arms support from the Arab oil producing countries. Arms to Iraq were funneled through Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.[39] The war lasted until 1988 and resulted in over a million deaths.
 
This was the emergence of the “strategy of tension” in the “Arc of Crisis,” in particular, the covert support (whether in arming, training, or financing) of radical Islamic elements to foment violence and conflict in a region. It was the old imperial tactic of ‘divide and conquer’: pit the people against each other so that they cannot join forces against the imperial power. This violence and radical Islamism would further provide the pretext for which the US and its imperial allies could then engage in war and occupation within the region, all the while securing its vast economic and strategic interests.
 
The “Arc of Crisis” in Afghanistan: The Safari Club in Action
 
In 1978, the progressive Taraki government in Afghanistan managed to incur the anger of the United States due to “its egalitarian and collectivist economic policies.”[40] The Afghan government was widely portrayed in the West as “Communist” and thus, a threat to US national security. The government, did, however, undertake friendly policies and engagement with the Soviet Union, but was not a Communist government.
 
In 1978, as the new government came to power, almost immediately the US began covertly funding rebel groups through the CIA.[41] In 1979, Zbigniew Brzezinski worked closely with his aid from the CIA, Robert Gates (who is currently Secretary of Defense), in shifting President Carter’s Islamic policy. As Brzezinski said in a 1998 interview with a French publication:
 
According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 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.[42]
 
Brzezinski elaborated, saying he “Knowingly increased the probability that [the Soviets] would invade,” and he recalled writing to Carter on the day of the Soviet invasion that, “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.” When asked about the repercussions for such support in fostering the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, Brzezinski responded, “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?”[43]
 
As author Peter Dale Scott pointed out in, The Road to 9/11:*
 
For generations in both Afghanistan and the Soviet Muslim Republics the dominant form of Islam had been local and largely Sufi. The decision to work with the Saudi and Pakistani secret services meant that billions of CIA and Saudi dollars would ultimately be spent in programs that would help enhance the globalistic and Wahhabistic jihadism that are associated today with al Qaeda.[44]
 
Hafizullah Amin, a top official in Taraki’s government, who many believed to be a CIA asset, orchestrated a coup in September of 1979, and “executed Taraki, halted the reforms, and murdered, jailed, or exiled thousands of Taraki supporters as he moved toward establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. But within two months, he was overthrown by PDP remnants including elements within the military.”[45] The Soviets also intervened in order to replace Amin, who was seen as “unpredictable and extremist” with “the more moderate Barbak Karmal.”[46]
 
The Soviet invasion thus prompted the US national security establishment to undertake the largest covert operation in history. When Ronald Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter in 1981, the covert assistance to the Afghan Mujahideen not only continued on the path set by Brzezinski but it rapidly accelerated, as did the overall strategy in the “Arc of Crisis.” When Reagan became President, his Vice President became George H.W. Bush, who, as CIA director during the Ford administration, had helped establish the Safari Club intelligence network and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in Pakistan. In the “campaign to aid the Afghan rebels ... BCCI clearly emerged as a U.S. intelligence asset,” and CIA Director “Casey began to use the outside – the Saudis, the Pakistanis, BCCI – to run what they couldn’t get through Congress. [BCCI president] Abedi had the money to help,” and the CIA director had “met repeatedly” with the president of BCCI.[47]
 
Thus, in 1981, Director Casey of the CIA worked with Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal who ran the Saudi intelligence agency GID, and the Pakistani ISI “to create a foreign legion of jihadi Muslims or so-called Arab Afghans.” This idea had “originated in the elite Safari Club that had been created by French intelligence chief Alexandre de Marenches.”[48]
 
In 1986, the CIA backed a plan by the Pakistani ISI “to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad.” Subsequently:
 
More than 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by CIA and MI6, with the SAS [British Special Forces] training future al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. Their leaders were trained at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called Operation Cyclone and continued long after the Soviets had withdrawn in 1989.[49]
 
CIA funding for the operations “was funneled through General Zia and the ISI in Pakistan.”[50] Interestingly, Robert Gates, who previously served as assistant to Brzezinski in the National Security Council, stayed on in the Reagan-Bush administration as executive assistant to CIA director Casey, and who is currently Secretary of Defense.
 
The Global Drug Trade and the CIA
 
As a central facet of the covert financing and training of the Afghan Mujahideen, the role of the drug trade became invaluable. The global drug trade has long been used by empires for fuelling and financing conflict with the aim of facilitating imperial domination.
 
In 1773, the British colonial governor in Bengal “established a colonial monopoly on the sale of opium.” As Alfred W. McCoy explained in his masterful book, The Politics of Heroin:
 
As the East India Company expanded production, opium became India’s main export. [. . . ] Over the next 130 years, Britain actively promoted the export of Indian opium to China, defying Chinese drug laws and fighting two wars to open China’s opium market for its merchants. Using its military and mercantile power, Britain played a central role in making China a vast drug market and in accelerating opium cultivation throughout China. By 1900 China had 13.5 million addicts consuming 39,000 tons of opium.[51]
 
In Indochina in the 1940s and 50s, the French intelligence services “enabled the opium trade to survive government suppression efforts,” and subsequently, “CIA activities in Burma helped transform the Shan states from a relatively minor poppy-cultivating area into the largest opium-growing region in the world.”[52] The CIA did this by supporting the Kuomintang (KMT) army in Burma for an invasion of China, and facilitated its monopolization and expansion of the opium trade, allowing the KMT to remain in Burma until a coup in 1961, when they were driven into Laos and Thailand.[53] The CIA subsequently played a very large role in the facilitation of the drugs trade in Laos and Vietnam throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s.[54]
 
It was during the 1980s that “the CIA’s covert war in Afghanistan transformed Central Asia from a self-contained opium zone into a major supplier of heroin for the world market,” as:
 
Until the late 1970s, tribal farmers in the highlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan grew limited quantities of opium and sold it to merchant caravans bound west for Iran and east to India. In its decade of covert warfare against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the CIA’s operations provided the political protection and logistics linkages that joined Afghanistan’s poppy fields to heroin markets in Europe and America.[55]
 
In 1977, General Zia Ul Haq in Pakistan launched a military coup, “imposed a harsh martial-law regime,” and executed former President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (father to Benazir Bhutto). When Zia came to power, the Pakistani ISI was a “minor military intelligence unit,” but, under the “advice and assistance of the CIA,” General Zia transformed the ISI “into a powerful covert unit and made it the strong arm of his martial-law regime.”[56]
 
The CIA and Saudi money flowed not only to weapons and training for the Mujahideen, but also into the drug trade. Pakistani President Zia-ul-Haq appointed General Fazle Haq as the military governor of Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), who would “consult with Brzezinski on developing an Afghan resistance program,” and who became a CIA asset. When CIA Director Casey or Vice President George H.W. Bush reviewed the CIA Afghan operation, they went to see Haq; who by 1982, was considered by Interpol to be an international narcotics trafficker. Haq moved much of the narcotics money through the BCCI.[57]
 
In May of 1979, prior to the December invasion of the Soviet Union into Afghanistan, a CIA envoy met with Afghan resistance leaders in a meeting organized by the ISI. The ISI “offered the CIA envoy an alliance with its own Afghan client, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar,” who led a small guerilla group. The CIA accepted, and over the following decade, half of the CIA’s aid went to Hekmatyar’s guerillas.[58] Hekmatyar became Afghanistan’s leading mujahideen drug lord, and developed a “complex of six heroin labs in an ISI-controlled area of Baluchistan (Pakistan).”[59]
 
The US subsequently, through the 1980s, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, gave Hekmatyar more than $1 billion in armaments. Immediately, heroin began flowing from Afghanistan to America. By 1980, drug-related deaths in New York City rose 77% since 1979.[60] By 1981, the drug lords in Pakistan and Afghanistan supplied 60% of America’s heroin. Trucks going into Afghanistan with CIA arms from Pakistan would return with heroin “protected by ISI papers from police search.”[61]
 
Haq, the CIA asset in Pakistan, “was also running the drug trade,” of which the bank BCCI “was completely involved.” In the 1980s, the CIA insisted that the ISI create “a special cell for the use of heroin for covert actions.” Elaborating:
 
This cell promoted the cultivation of opium and the extraction of heroin in Pakistani territory as well as in the Afghan territory under Mujahideen control for being smuggled into Soviet controlled areas in order to make the Soviet troops heroin addicts.[62]
 
This plan apparently originated at the suggestion of French intelligence chief and founder of the Safari Club, Alexandre de Marenches, who recommended it to CIA Director Casey.[63]
 
In the 1980s, one program undertaken by the United States was to finance Mujahideen propaganda in textbooks for Afghan schools. The US gave the Mujahideen $43 million in “non-lethal” aid for the textbook project alone, which was given by USAID: “The U.S. Agency for International Development, [USAID] coordinated its work with the CIA, which ran the weapons program,” and “The U.S. government told the AID to let the Afghan war chiefs decide the school curriculum and the content of the textbooks.”[64]
 
The textbooks were “filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings,” and “were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines.” Even since the covert war of the 1980s, the textbooks “have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books.” The books were developed through a USAID grant to the “University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies,” and when the books were smuggled into Afghanistan through regional military leaders, “Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines.” USAID stopped this funding in 1994.[65]
 
The Rise of the Taliban
 
When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the fighting continued between the Afghan government backed by the USSR and the Mujahideen backed by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, so too did its aid to the Afghan government, which itself was overthrown in 1992. However, fighting almost immediately broke out between rival factions vying for power, including Hekmatyar.
 
In the early 1990s, an obscure group of “Pashtun country folk” had become a powerful military and political force in Afghanistan, known as the Taliban.[66] The Taliban “surfaced as a small militia force operating near Kandahar city during the spring and summer of 1994, carrying out vigilante attacks against minor warlords.” As growing discontent with the warlords grew, so too did the reputation of the Taliban.[67]
 
The Taliban acquired an alliance with the ISI in 1994, and throughout 1995, the relationship between the Taliban and the ISI accelerated and “became more and more of a direct military alliance.” The Taliban ultimately became “an asset of the ISI” and “a client of the Pakistan army.”[68] Further, “Between 1994 and 1996, the USA supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia, and pro-Western.”[69]
 
Selig Harrison, a scholar with the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars and “a leading US expert on South Asia,” said at a conference in India that the CIA worked with Pakistan to create the Taliban. Harrison has “extensive contact” with the CIA, as “he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan,” while he was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As he further revealed in 2001, “The CIA still has close links with the ISI.”[70] By 1996, the Taliban had control of Kandahar, but still fighting and instability continued in the country.
 
Osama and Al-Qaeda
 
Between 1980 and 1989, roughly $600 million was passed through Osama bin Laden’s charity front organizations, specifically the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK), also known as Al-Kifah. The money mostly originated with wealthy donors in Saudi Arabia and other areas in the Persian Gulf, and was funneled through his charity fronts to arm and fund the mujahideen in Afghanistan.[71]
 
In the 1980s, the British Special Forces (SAS) were training mujahideen in Afghanistan, as well as in secret camps in Scotland, and the SAS is largely taking orders from the CIA. The CIA also indirectly begins to arm Osama bin Laden.[72] Osama bin Laden’s front charity, the MAK, “was nurtured” by the Pakistani ISI.[73]
 
Osama bin Laden was reported to have been personally recruited by the CIA in 1979 in Istanbul. He had the close support of Prince Turki bin Faisal, his friend and head of Saudi intelligence, and also developed ties with Hekmatyar in Afghanistan,[74] both of whom were pivotal figures in the CIA-Safari Club network. General Akhtar Abdul Rahman, the head of the Pakistani ISI from 1980 to 1987, would meet regularly with Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, and they formed a partnership in demanding a tax on the opium trade from warlords so that by 1985, bin Laden and the ISI were splitting the profits of over $100 million per year.[75] In 1985, Osama bin Laden’s brother, Salem, stated that Osama was “the liaison between the US, the Saudi government, and the Afghan rebels.”[76]
 
In 1988, Bin Laden discussed “the establishment of a new military group,” which would come to be known as Al-Qaeda.[77] Osama bin Laden’s charity front, the MAK, (eventually to form Al-Qaeda) founded the al-Kifah Center in Brooklyn, New York, to recruit Muslims for the jihad against the Soviets. The al-Kifah Center was founded in the late 1980s with the support of the U.S. government, which provided visas for known terrorists associated with the organization, including Ali Mohamed, the “blind sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman and possibly the lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohamed Atta.[78]
 
This coincided with the creation of Al-Qaeda, of which the al-Kifah Center was a recruiting front. Foot soldiers for Al-Qaeda were “admitted to the United States for training under a special visa program.” The FBI had been surveilling the training of terrorists, however, “it terminated this surveillance in the fall of 1989.” In 1990, the CIA granted Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman a visa to come run the al-Kifah Center, who was considered an “untouchable” as he was “being protected by no fewer than three agencies,” including the State Department, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA.[79]
 
Robin Cook, a former British MP and Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote that Al-Qaeda, “literally ‘the database’, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.”[80] Thus, “Al-Qaeda” was born as an instrument of western intelligence agencies. This account of al-Qaeda was further corroborated by a former French military intelligence agent, who stated that, “In the mid-1980s, Al Qaida was a database,” and that it remained as such into the 1990s. He contended that, “Al Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden's personal property,” and further:
 
The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.[81]
 
The creation of Al-Qaeda was thus facilitated by the CIA and allied intelligence networks, the purpose of which was to maintain this “database” of Mujahideen to be used as intelligence assets to achieve US foreign policy objectives, throughout both the Cold War, and into the post-Cold War era of the ‘new world order’.
 
Part 2 of “The Imperial Anatomy of al-Qaeda” takes the reader through an examination of the new imperial strategy laid out by American geopolitical strategists at the end of the Cold War, designed for America to maintain control over the world’s resources and prevent the rise of competitive powers. Covertly, the “database” (al-Qaeda) became central to this process, being used to advance imperial aims in various regions, such as in the dismantling of Yugoslavia. Part 2 further examines the exact nature of ‘al-Qaeda’, its origins, terms, training, arming, financing, and expansion. In particular, the roles of western intelligence agencies in the evolution and expansion of al-Qaeda is a central focus. Finally, an analysis of the preparations for the war in Afghanistan is undertaken

(Message over 64 KB, truncated)


(Riportiamo integralmente, in tre parti, il saggio di Andrew Gavin Marshall dedicato alle politiche di egemonia imperiale degli USA nell'epoca dell'"11 Settembre". L'autore si sofferma in particolare su Al-Qaeda, creatura della CIA utilizzata come strumento di provocazione delle più recenti guerre di conquista coloniale-imperialista da parte della declinante superpotenza mondiale. La terza parte è incentrata sulle incongruenze e falsità nella versione di regime sui fatti dell'11 settembre 2001 a New York, di cui oggi ricorre l'anniversario.
Andrew Gavin Marshall è un collaboratore del grande saggista Michael Chossudovsky e del suo "Centro per la Ricerca sulla Globalizzazione" - http://www.globalresearch.ca )

I PART: The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the “Arc of Crisis”

---


Empire, Energy and Al-Qaeda: The Anglo-American Terror Network

The Imperial Anatomy of al-Qaeda, Part II

by Andrew Gavin Marshall


Global Research, September 8, 2010


The End of the Cold War and Strategy for the New World Order

 
With the end of the Cold War a new strategy had to be determined to manage the global system. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, declarations of a “New World Order” sprang forward, focusing on the United States as the single world superpower. This presented a great many challenges as well as opportunities for the worlds most powerful hegemon.
 
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a number of new Central Asian and Eastern European nations were formed and became independent, and with that, their immense deposits of natural gas and energy became available for exploitation. Afghanistan itself was considered “a major strategic pivot,” as it was “the primary gateway to Central Asia and the immense energy deposits therein.”[1] Western oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Texaco, Unocal, BP Amoco, Shell, and Enron begin pouring billions of dollars into the countries of Central Asia in the early 1990s.[2]
 
In 1992, a Pentagon document titled “Defense Planning Guidance” was leaked to the press, in which it described a strategy for the United States in the “new world order,” and it was drafted by George H.W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. It stated that, “America’s political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union,” and that, “The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy.”[3]
 
Further, “the new draft sketches a world in which there is one dominant military power whose leaders ‘must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role’.” Among the necessary challenges to American supremacy, the document “postulated regional wars against Iraq and North Korea,” and identified China and Russia as its major threats. It further “suggests that the United States could also consider extending to Eastern and Central European nations security commitments similar to those extended to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab states along the Persian Gulf.”[4]
 
Similarly, in 1992, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, one of the most influential think tanks in the United States, had established a commission to determine a new foreign policy for the United States in the wake of the Cold War. Participants included Madeleine Albright, Henry Cisneros, John Deutch, Richard Holbrooke, Alice Rivlin, David Gergen and Admiral William Crowe. In the summer of 1992, the final report, “Changing Our Ways: America and the New World,” was published. The report urged “a new principle of international relations: the destruction or displacement of groups of people within states can justify international intervention.” It suggested that the US “realign NATO and OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] to deal with new security problems in Europe,” and “urged military intervention under humanitarian guises.” This report subsequently “planted the policy seedlings for the Kosovo war” as it “provided both the rationale for U.S. interventionism and a policy recommendation about the best means--NATO--for waging that war.”[5]
 
Another Carnegie publication in the same year, “Self-Determination in the New World Order,” furthered imperialist goals for America, as it “set criteria for officials to use in deciding when to support separatist ethnic groups seeking independence, and advocated military force for that purpose.” It recommended that “international military coalitions, preferably U.N.-led, could send armed force not as peacekeepers but peacemakers--to prevent conflict from breaking out and stay in place indefinitely.” It further stated that, “the use of military force to create a new state would require conduct by the parent government so egregious that it has forfeited any right to govern the minority claiming self-determination.”[6]
 
The United States and its NATO allies soon undertook a new strategy, seeking to maintain dominance over the world, expand their hegemony over regions previously under the influence of the Soviet Union (such as in Eastern Europe and Central Asia), and prevent the rise of a resurgent Russia or China. One of the key facets of this strategy was the notion of “humanitarian intervention.”
 
Yugoslavia Dismantled by Design
 
In the 1990s, the United States and its NATO allies, in particular Germany and the UK, undertook a strategy of destabilization in Yugoslavia, seeking to dismantle and ultimately fracture the country. To do this, the imperial strategy of divide and conquer was employed, manipulating various ethnic tensions and arming and training various militias and terrorist organizations. Throughout this strategy, the “database”, or Al-Qaeda was used to promote the agenda of the destabilization and dismantling of Yugoslavia.
 
In 1989, Yugoslavia had to seek financial aid from the World Bank and IMF, which implemented a Structural Adjustment Program (SAP), which resulted in the dismantling of the public state, exacerbating social issues and fueling secessionist tendencies, leading to Croatia and Slovenia seceding from the republic in 1991.[7] In 1990, the US intelligence community had released a report predicting that Yugoslavia would break apart and erupt in civil war, and it blamed Milosevic for the impending disaster.[8]
 
As far back as 1988, the leader of Croatia met with the German Chancellor Helmut Kohl to create “a joint policy to break up Yugoslavia,” and bring Slovenia and Croatia into the “German economic zone.” So, US Army officers were dispatched to Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, and Macedonia as “advisers” and brought in US Special Forces to help.[9]
 
Fighting broke out between Yugoslavia and Croatia when the latter declared independence in 1991. The fighting subsequently lasted until 1995, and merged in part with the Bosnian war. The US supported the operation and the CIA actively provided intelligence to Croat forces, leading to the displacement of between 150,000 and 200,000 Serbs, largely through means of murder, plundering, burning villages and ethnic cleansing.[10] The Croatian Army was trained by U.S. advisers and a general later put on trial at the Hague for war crimes was personally supported by the CIA.[11] So we see the double standard of ethnic cleansing and genocide: when the US does it or supports it, it’s “humanitarian intervention,” politically justified, or it is simply unacknowledged; when an enemy state does it, (or is accused of doing it), the “international community” demands action and any means is deemed necessary to “prevent genocide”, including committing genocide.
 
The Clinton administration gave the “green light” to Iran to arm the Bosnian Muslims and “from 1992 to January 1996, there was an influx of Iranian weapons and advisers into Bosnia.” Further, “Iran, and other Muslim states, helped to bring Mujahideen fighters into Bosnia to fight with the Muslims against the Serbs, 'holy warriors' from Afghanistan, Chechnya, Yemen and Algeria, some of whom had suspected links with Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan.”[12]
 
During the war in Bosnia, there “was a vast secret conduit of weapons smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine agencies of the US, Turkey and Iran, together with a range of radical Islamist groups, including Afghan mojahedin and the pro-Iranian Hizbullah.” Further, “the secret services of Ukraine, Greece and Israel were busy arming the Bosnian Serbs.”[13] Germany’s intelligence agency, the BND, also ran arms shipments to the Bosnian Muslims and Croatia to fight against the Serbs.[14] Thus, every side was being funded and armed by outside powers seeking to foment conflict and ultimately break up Yugoslavia to serve their own imperial objectives in the region.
 
In 1992, the al-Kifah Center in Brooklyn, the recruiting center for al-Qaeda, made Bosnia its chief target. By 1993, it opened a branch in Croatia. The recruitment operation for Bosnian Muslims “was a covert action project sponsored not only by Saudi Arabia but also in part by the US government.”[15]
 
In 1996, the Albanian Mafia, in collaboration with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a militant guerilla organization, took control over the enormous Balkan heroin trafficking routes. The KLA was linked to former Afghan Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden.[16]
 
In 1997, the KLA began fighting against Serbian forces,[17] and in 1998, the US State Department removed the KLA from its list of terrorist organizations.[18] Before and after 1998, the KLA was receiving arms, training and support from the US and NATO, and Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, was close with KLA leader Hashim Thaci.[19]
 
Both the CIA and German intelligence, the BND, supported the KLA terrorists in Yugoslavia prior to and after the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. The BND had KLA contacts since the early 1990s, the same period that the KLA was establishing its Al-Qaeda contacts.[20] KLA members were trained by Osama bin Laden at training camps in Afghanistan. Even the UN stated that much of the violence at the time came from KLA members, “especially those allied with Hashim Thaci.”[21]
 
The March 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo was justified on the pretense of putting an end to Serbian oppression of Kosovo Albanians, which was termed genocide. The Clinton Administration made claims that at least 100,000 Kosovo Albanians were missing and “may have been killed” by the Serbs. Bill Clinton personally compared events in Kosovo to the Holocaust. The US State Department had stated that up to 500,000 Albanians were feared dead. Eventually, the official estimate was reduced to 10,000, however, after exhaustive investigations, it was revealed that the death of less than 2,500 Albanians could be attributed to the Serbs. During the NATO bombing campaign, between 400 and 1,500 Serb civilians were killed, and NATO committed war crimes, including the bombing of a Serb TV station and a hospital.[22]
 
Ultimately the strategy of the destabilization of Yugoslavia served various imperial objectives. The war in Yugoslavia was waged in order to enlarge NATO, Serbia was to be excluded permanently from European development to justify a US military presence in the region, and expansion was ultimately designed to contain Russia.[23]
 
An op-ed in the New York Times in 1996 stated that, “instead of seeing Bosnia as the eastern frontier of NATO, we should view the Balkans as the western frontier of America's rapidly expanding sphere of influence in the Middle East.” Further:
 
The fact that the United States is more enthusiastic than its European allies about a Bosnian Muslim state reflects, among other things, the new American role as the leader of an informal collection of Muslim nations from the Persian Gulf to the Balkans. The regions once ruled by the Ottoman Turks show signs of becoming the heart of a third American empire.
 
[ . . . ] Now, in the years after the cold war, the United States is again establishing suzerainty over the empire of a former foe. The disintegration of the Soviet Union has prompted the United States to expand its zone of military hegemony into Eastern Europe (through NATO) and into formerly neutral Yugoslavia. And -- most important of all -- the end of the cold war has permitted America to deepen its involvement the Middle East.[24]
 
Further, with the dismantling of the former Yugoslavia, a passageway for the transport of oil and natural gas from the Caspian region was to be facilitated through the construction of the Trans-Balkan pipeline, which will “run from the Black sea port of Burgas to the Adriatic at Vlore, passing through Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania. It is likely to become the main route to the west for the oil and gas now being extracted in central Asia. It will carry 750,000 barrels a day: a throughput, at current prices, of some $600m a month.” As the Guardian reported:
 
The project is necessary, according to a paper published by the US Trade and Development Agency last May, because the oil coming from the Caspian Sea "will quickly surpass the safe capacity of the Bosphorus as a shipping lane". The scheme, the agency notes, will "provide a consistent source of crude oil to American refineries", "provide American companies with a key role in developing the vital east-west corridor", "advance the privatisation aspirations of the US government in the region" and "facilitate rapid integration" of the Balkans "with western Europe".
 
In November 1998, Bill Richardson, then US energy secretary, spelt out his policy on the extraction and transport of Caspian oil. "This is about America's energy security," he explained. "It's also about preventing strategic inroads by those who don't share our values. We're trying to move these newly independent countries toward the west.
 
"We would like to see them reliant on western commercial and political interests rather than going another way. We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian, and it's very important to us that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right."[25]
 
The pipeline project, supported since 1994, “featured prominently in Balkan war politics. On December 9 1998, the Albanian president attended a meeting about the scheme in Sofia, and linked it inextricably to Kosovo.” The message given at the meeting was that, “if you [the United States] want Albanian consent for the Trans-Balkan pipeline, you had better wrest Kosovo out of the hands of the Serbs.”[26]
 
And so, with the help of an international network of CIA-trained Islamic militants, American political and economic hegemony expanded into Central Asia and the Caspian region.
 
The Spread of Al-Qaeda
 
Al-Qaeda did not just spread to Bosnia and Albania/Kosovo, but rather a great many places around the world saw the spread of this vast “database” of Islamist fighters, and always aided by Western intelligence agencies or their regional conduits (such as the ISI and Saudi intelligence agencies). Following on the heels of the established American and NATO strategy following the Cold War, Islamic fundamentalism also came to play a part in this strategy.
 
Bernard Lewis was a former British intelligence officer and historian who is infamous for explaining Arab discontent towards the West as not being rooted in a reaction toward imperialism, but rather that it is rooted in Islam; in that Islam is incompatible with the West, and that they are destined to clash, using the term, “Clash of Civilizations.” For decades, “Lewis played a critical role as professor, mentor, and guru to two generations of Orientalists, academics, U.S. and British intelligence specialists, think tank denizens, and assorted neoconservatives.” In the 1980s, Lewis “was hobnobbing with top Department of Defense officials.”[27] He was also one of the originators, along with Brzezinski, of the “Arc of Crisis” strategy employed in the late 1970s.
 
Lewis wrote a 1992 article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, titled, “Rethinking the Middle East.” In this article, Lewis raised the prospect of another policy towards the Middle East in the wake of the end of the Cold War and beginnings of the New World Order, “which could even be precipitated by fundamentalism, is what has of late become fashionable to call 'Lebanonization.' Most of the states of the Middle East - Egypt is an obvious exception - are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates - as happened in Lebanon - into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties.”[28]
 
Thus, the “database” of Al-Qaeda could be spread internationally so as to destabilize various regions, and thus provide the justification for intervention or even war. All that was needed was well-placed intelligence operatives to control key leadership positions within the terrorist organization. The great majority of both its higher-ups and nearly all al-Qaeda operatives would not have to be made aware of the organizations covert use as an arm of US geo-policy.
 
In the 1990s, Osama bin Laden “built a shadow air force to support his terrorist activities, using Afghanistan's national airline, a surplus U.S. Air Force jet and clandestine charters.” Further, as the Los Angeles Times revealed:
 
With the Taliban's blessing, Bin Laden effectively had hijacked Ariana, the national civilian airline of Afghanistan. For four years, according to former U.S. aides and exiled Afghan officials, Ariana's passenger and charter flights ferried Islamic militants, arms, cash and opium through the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan. Members of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist network were provided false Ariana identification that gave them free run of airports in the Middle East.
 
[ . . . ] Taliban authorities also opened the country's airstrips to high-ranking Persian Gulf state officials who routinely flew in for lavish hunting parties. Sometimes joined by Bin Laden and Taliban leaders, the dignitaries, who included several high-ranking officials from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates--left behind money, vehicles and equipment with their hosts, according to U.S. and Afghan accounts.[29]  
 
Bin Laden’s secret purchase of a US Air Force jet in 1992 “was used to ferry Al Qaeda commanders to East Africa, where they trained Somali tribesmen for attacks on U.S. peacekeeping forces,” and Americans had “unwittingly” helped bin Laden “disguise the plane as a civilian jet.” US security officials were well aware of Ariana airlines being used by al-Qaeda,[30]
 
Among the high-ranking Persian Gulf officials who flew to Afghanistan for “hunting trips” were Prince Turki al Faisal who ran Saudi intelligence until August 2001, “maintaining close ties with Bin Laden and the Taliban,” as well as “Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, the Dubai crown prince and Emirates defense minister.” On occasions both Osama bin Laden and Omar, the head of the Taliban, mingled with the hunters. Upon their departure, “the wealthy visitors often left behind late-model jeeps, trucks and supplies,” which was “one way the Taliban got their equipment.”[31]
 
What the article does not mention, however, was that the ISI was the prime sponsor of the Taliban, with the complete backing and facilitation of the CIA. The connection to the Saudi intelligence chief further strengthens the thesis that the Safari Club, created in 1976 by the French intelligence chief, may have survived as a covert intelligence network encompassing western intelligence agencies working through regional agencies such as those of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
 
The German intelligence agency, the BND, revealed in 2004 that two Saudi companies that were linked with financing al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s were in fact front organizations for Saudi intelligence, with close connections to its chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal.[32]
 
Between 1989 and 2001, Billy Waugh, a CIA contractor, trained several al-Qaeda operatives around the world.[33] In 2002, it was revealed that, “British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.” In 1998, Libya had issued an arrest warrant for Osama bin Laden, yet:
 
British and US intelligence agencies buried the fact that the arrest warrant had come from Libya and played down the threat. Five months after the warrant was issued, al-Qaeda killed more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.[34] 
 
However, “the resistance of Western intelligence agencies to the Libyan concerns can be explained by MI6's involvement with the al-Qaeda coup plot.” Anas al-Liby, a Libyan al-Qaeda leader, “was given political asylum in Britain and lived in Manchester until May of 2000 when he eluded a police raid on his house and fled abroad.”[35]
 
Following the end of the Cold War, many mujahideen fighters were relocated to Russia’s unstable region of Chechnya, where the two main rebel leaders who came to power had previously been trained and funded by the CIA in Afghanistan. The war in Chechnya was planned in a secret meeting in 1996 attended by Osama bin Laden and high-ranking officials of the Pakistani ISI, whose involvement in Chechnya went “far beyond supplying the Chechens with weapons and expertise: the ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are actually calling the shots in this war.”[36] In other words, the CIA was directing the war through the ISI.
 
The US and U.K. have supported Chechen separatism as it, “weakens Russia, advances U.S. power in the vital Caspian Sea region, and cripples a potential future rival.”[37] Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of Russia, claimed that the British had been arming the Chechen rebels.[38] Oil also features prominently in the Chechen conflict, as Chechnya is home to large reserves of oil, as well as pipeline corridor routes being competed over by Russian and Anglo-American oil conglomerates. Thus, the Anglo-Americans support the Chechen separatists, while the Russians send in the military.[39] US intelligence helped fund and transport al-Qaeda into Chechnya in the early 1990s, American intelligence remained involved until the end of the decade, seeing the “sponsorship of ‘Islamist jihad in the Caucasus’ as a way to ‘deprive Russia of a viable pipeline route through spiraling violence and terrorism’.”[40]
 
The Global Domination Strategy for a New Century
 
Following upon the strategic objectives set out in the early 1990s for the United States and NATO to expand their hegemony across the world, in preventing the rise of rivals (China and Russia), and expanding the access of western economic interests to the Caspian region, new designs were being drawn in the powerful think-tank community in the United States as well as being outlined by highly influential strategic thinkers. The renewed strategy, hardly a break from the previously determined aim of encirclement and containment of China and Russia, simply expanded the scope of this strategy. From one faction, the neo-conservatives, came the initial aim at expanding militarily into the Middle East, starting with Iraq, while the more established hard-line realist hawks such as Zbigniew Brzezinski outlined a far more comprehensive and long-term strategy of world domination by controlling the entirety of Eurasia (Europe and Asia), and subsequently, Africa.
 
The neo-Conservative hawks in the US foreign policy establishment formed the think tank, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in the 1990s. In 2000, they published their report, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, in which they outlined a strategy for the United States in the “new century.” Following where the Defense Planning Guidance document left off (during the first Bush administration), the report stated that, “the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars,” and that there is a “need to retain sufficient combat forces to fight and win, multiple, nearly simultaneous major theatre wars,” as “the Pentagon needs to begin to calculate the force necessary to protect, independently, US interests in Europe, East Asia and the Gulf at all times.”[41]
 
It recommended the “regime change” of Saddam Hussein in Iraq as the “immediate justification” for a US military presence in the Gulf; however, “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” In advocating for a massive increase in defense spending, and outlining military operations against Iraq, North Korea, and possibly Iran, the report stated that, “further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”[42]
 
Zbigniew Brzezinski outlined a long-term American imperial strategy to control Eurasia in his book, The Grand Chessboard. He stated bluntly that, “it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America,” and then made clear the imperial nature of his strategy:
 
To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.[43]
 
He further explained that the Central Asian nations (or “Eurasian Balkans” as he refers to them):
 
are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.[44]
 
Brzezinski emphasizes “that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.”[45]
 
Preparing for War Against Afghanistan
 
In 1997, Taliban officials traveled to Texas to meet with Unocal Oil Company to discuss the possibility of a pipeline being built from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and to Pakistan. Unocal had agreements with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it. The missing link was getting the gas to Pakistan through Afghanistan, which is where the Taliban came into the picture. Unocal’s main competitor in the pipeline bid was with Bridas, an Argentine firm. However, at this time, Afghanistan was still embroiled in civil war, making the prospect of a pipeline being built an unstable venture.[46]
 
A month before the Taliban visited Texas, Bridas, Unocal’s main competitor, merged its oil and gas assets with Amoco-Argentina Oil, a subsidiary of British Petroleum (BP), one of the world’s top three oil companies.[47] Shortly before this merger was finalized, Bridas had announced that it was close to signing a 2 billion dollar deal with the Taliban, saying “the talks were in their final stages.”[48]
 
After meeting with Unocal officials in Texas, the Taliban announced in January of 1998 that, “they're close to reaching a final agreement on the building of a gas pipeline across Afghanistan,” however, they “didn't indicate which of two competing companies the Taliban favoured.”[49]
 
It is significant to note some of the important figures that were involved with the oil companies in relation to Central Asian gas reserves and pipeline projects. In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the (self-proclaimed) mastermind for the Afghan-Soviet War, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, and cofounder with David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission, was an adviser to BP-Amoco, specifically dealing with the Caspian region.[50] Unocal, in an effort to try to secure their pipeline contract with the Taliban, hired former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad, former Reagan State Department Advisor on Afghanistan during the Afghan-Soviet War, was also brought on as a consultant for a group hired by Unocal. He would later become US envoy to Afghanistan after the US invasion in 2001.[51]
 
The pipeline project then ran into significant problems when, in December of 1998, Unocal announced that it quit its Afghan pipeline project.[52] Between 1996 and 2001, Enron bosses had given millions of dollars in bribes to Taliban officials to secure contracts for building pipelines. After Unocal withdrew from the deal, Enron continued to pressure the Taliban to continue with a pipeline. In 1996, neighboring Uzbekistan signed a deal with Enron to develop Uzbek natural gas fields.[53] In 1997, Halliburton, with Dick Cheney as its CEO, secured a contract in Turkmenistan for exploration and drilling in the Caspian Sea basin.[54] However, in December of 2001, Enron filed for bankruptcy.
 
Eventually, Unocal pulled out of the deal as a result of Afghanistan’s Taliban government not being fully recognized internationally as the legitimate Afghan government, and therefore, the pipeline project could not receive funding from international financial institutions like the World Bank. Unocal also pulled out as a result of the continual conflict raging in Afghanistan between various groups.[55]
 
In 1999, the Pentagon issued a secret document confirmed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense, which stated that, “Oil conflicts over production facilities and transport routes, particularly in the Persian Gulf and Caspian regions, are specifically envisaged” in the near future, stating that, “energy and resource issues will continue to shape international security.” The document “vividly highlights how the highest levels of the US Defence community accepted the waging of an oil war as a legitimate military option.”[56]
 
Before George W. Bush became President in January of 2001, there were plans at the highest levels of the United States government in beginning preparations for a war against Afghanistan, which included attempts to secure an alliance with the Russians in “calling for military action against Afghanistan.”[57]
 
In March of 2001 it was reported that India has joined the US, Russia and Iran in an effort to militarily replace the Afghan Taliban government, with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to be used as bases to launch incursions into Afghanistan against the Taliban.[58] In the Spring of 2001, the US military envisaged and war gamed the entire scenario of a US attack on Afghanistan, which subsequently became the operational plan for the war.[59]
 
In the summer of 2001, the Taliban were leaked information from top-secret meetings that the Bush regime was planning to launch a military operation against the Taliban in July to replace the government. A US military contingency plan existed on paper to attack Afghanistan from the north by the end of the summer of 2001, as in, prior to 9/11.[60]
 
A former Pakistani diplomat told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban before the 9/11 attacks. Niaz Naik, former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, “was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.” The invasion subsequently took place on October 7, 2001. Naik was told of this information at a secretive UN-sponsored meeting which took place in Berlin in July 2001, with officials from the US, Russia, and many Central Asian countries. He also stated that the US would launch the operation from their bases in Tajikistan, “where American advisers were already in place.”[61]
 
As revealed by MSNBC, “President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11,” and that, “The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan.” It outlined “essentially the same” war plan as was put into action following the 9/11 attacks. The National Security document was also submitted to Condoleezza Rice prior to the attacks, and included plans to attack the Taliban and remove them from power in Afghanistan.[62] Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that, “To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.”[63]
 
Following the start of the war on Afghanistan in October of 2001, the Guardian’s George Monbiot wrote that the war “may also be a late colonial adventure,” as “Afghanistan is as indispensable to the regional control and transport of oil in central Asia as Egypt was in the Middle East.” It is worth quoting Monbiot at some length:
 
Afghanistan has some oil and gas of its own, but not enough to qualify as a major strategic concern. Its northern neighbours, by contrast, contain reserves which could be critical to future global supply. In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.
 
Transporting all the Caspian basin's fossil fuel through Russia or Azerbaijan would greatly enhance Russia's political and economic control over the central Asian republics, which is precisely what the west has spent 10 years trying to prevent. Piping it through Iran would enrich a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate. Sending it the long way round through China, quite aside from the strategic considerations, would be prohibitively expensive. But pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its aim of "diversifying energy supply" and to penetrate the world's most lucrative markets. Growth in European oil consumption is slow and competition is intense. In south Asia, by contrast, demand is booming and competitors are scarce. Pumping oil south and selling it in Pakistan and India, in other words, is far more profitable than pumping it west and selling it in Europe.
 
As the author Ahmed Rashid has documented, in 1995 the US oil company Unocal started negotiating to build oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian sea. The company's scheme required a single administration in Afghanistan, which would guarantee safe passage for its goods. Soon after the Taliban took Kabul in September 1996, the Telegraph reported that "oil industry insiders say the dream of securing a pipeline across Afghanistan is the main reason why Pakistan, a close political ally of America's, has been so supportive of the Taliban, and why America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan". Unocal invited some of the leaders of the Taliban to Houston, where they were royally entertained. The company suggested paying these barbarians 15 cents for every thousand cubic feet of gas it pumped through the land they had conquered.
 
For the first year of Taliban rule, US policy towards the regime appears to have been determined principally by Unocal's interests. In 1997 a US diplomat told Rashid "the Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco [the former US oil consortium in Saudi Arabia] pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that."
 
[. . . ] In February 1998, John Maresca, [Unocal’s] head of international relations, told representatives that the growth in demand for energy in Asia and sanctions against Iran determined that Afghanistan remained "the only other possible route" for Caspian oil. The company, once the Afghan government was recognised by foreign diplomats and banks, still hoped to build a 1,000-mile pipeline, which would carry a million barrels a day. Only in December 1998, four months after the embassy bombings in east Africa, did Unocal drop its plans.
 
But Afghanistan's strategic importance has not changed. In September, a few days before the attack on New York, the US energy information administration reported that "Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from central Asia to the Arabian sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan". Given that the US government is dominated by former oil industry executives, we would be foolish to suppose that such plans no longer figure in its strategic thinking. As the researcher Keith Fisher has pointed out, the possible economic outcomes of the war in Afghanistan mirror the possible economic outcomes of the war in the Balkans, where the development of "Corridor 8", an economic zone built around a pipeline carrying oil and gas from the Caspian to Europe, is a critical allied concern.
 
American foreign policy is governed by the doctrine of "full-spectrum dominance", which means that the US should control military, economic and political development worldwide. China has responded by seeking to expand its interests in central Asia. The defence white paper Beijing published last year argued that "China's fundamental interests lie in ... the establishment and maintenance of a new regional security order". In June, China and Russia pulled four central Asian republics into a "Shanghai cooperation organisation". Its purpose, according to Jiang Zemin, is to "foster world multi-polarisation", by which he means contesting US full-spectrum dominance.
 
If the US succeeds in overthrowing the Taliban and replacing them with a stable and grateful pro-western government and if the US then binds the economies of central Asia to that of its ally Pakistan, it will have crushed not only terrorism, but also the growing ambitions of both Russia and China. Afghanistan, as ever, is the key to the western domination of Asia.[64]
 
As revealed by the San Francisco Chronicle in November of 2001, “the United States and Pakistan decided to install a stable regime in place in Afghanistan around 1994 -- a regime that would end the country's civil war and thus ensure the safety of the Unocal pipeline project.” And so:
 
the State Department and Pakistan's Inter- Services Intelligence agency agreed to funnel arms and funding to the Taliban in their war against the ethnically Tajik Northern Alliance. As recently as 1999, U.S. taxpayers paid the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official, all in the hopes of returning to the days of dollar-a- gallon

(Message over 64 KB, truncated)


(Riportiamo integralmente, in tre parti, il saggio di Andrew Gavin Marshall dedicato alle politiche di egemonia imperiale degli USA nell'epoca dell'"11 Settembre". L'autore si sofferma in particolare su Al-Qaeda, creatura della CIA utilizzata come strumento di provocazione delle più recenti guerre di conquista coloniale-imperialista da parte della declinante superpotenza mondiale. La terza parte è incentrata sulle incongruenze e falsità nella versione di regime sui fatti dell'11 settembre 2001 a New York, di cui oggi ricorre l'anniversario.
Andrew Gavin Marshall è un collaboratore del grande saggista Michael Chossudovsky e del suo "Centro per la Ricerca sulla Globalizzazione" - http://www.globalresearch.ca )

I PART: The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the “Arc of Crisis”

II PART: Empire, Energy and Al-Qaeda: The Anglo-American Terror Network
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20944
---


9/11 ANALYSIS: 9/11 and America’s Secret Terror Campaign

The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda, Part III

by Andrew Gavin Marshall

Global Research, September 10, 2010

Anticipating An Attack

 
For several years prior to the events of 9/11, top American strategists had been acknowledging the necessity of what they oft-termed a “new Pearl Harbor”, a momentous attack upon America itself, in order to mobilize the American populace for a new global war of domination.
 
As Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard, “America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space [of Central Asia] and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.”[1] Brzezinski acknowledged in his book that, “the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being.”[2] He also wrote that, “The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”[3]
 
In 1999, Andrew Krepinevich, Executive Director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments testified before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. He stated that the US faces an “unprecedented challenge”:
 
[T]he need to transform our armed forces into a very different kind of military from that which exists today, while sustaining the military’s ability to play a very active role in supporting U.S. near-term efforts to preserve global stability within a national security strategy of engagement and enlargement.[4]
 
After advocating a massive re-imagining of the role and nature of US military might, pushing the notion of a “revolution in military affairs” and an acceleration of imperial ambitions, he told the Senate Committee:
 
There appears to be general agreement concerning the need to transform the U.S. military into a significantly different kind of force from that which emerged victorious from the Cold and Gulf Wars. Yet this verbal support has not been translated into a defense program supporting transformation. [. . . ] While there is growing support in Congress for transformation, the “critical mass” [i.e., public support] needed to effect it has not yet been achieved. One may conclude that, in the absence of a strong external shock to the United States—a latter-day “Pearl Harbor” of sorts—surmounting the barriers to transformation will likely prove a long, arduous process.[5]
 
In 1999, Graham Fuller, former Deputy Director of the CIA’s National Council on Intelligence, advocated using Muslim forces to further US interests in Central Asia. He stated that, “The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against [the Russians]. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia.”[6]
 
In June of 2000, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Pentagon released Joint Vision 2020, outlining the American military strategy that the Department of Defense “will follow in the future.” The emphasis in the report was put on the notion of “Full Spectrum Dominance,” which means “the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations”:
 
Joint Vision 2020 addresses full-spectrum dominance across the range of conflicts from nuclear war to major theater wars to smaller-scale contingencies. It also addresses amorphous situations like peacekeeping and noncombat humanitarian relief.[7]
 
The neoconservative think tank the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) released a report in September of 2000 called Rebuilding America’s Defenses in which they advocated for a massive expansion of America’s empire and “full spectrum dominance” as well as the necessity to undertake a “Revolution in military affairs,” and undertake multiple simultaneous wars in different regions of the world. Several members of the think tank and authors of the report would go on to enter key policy positions within the Bush administration several months later (including, but not limited to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Zalmay Khalilzad). While acknowledging the massive undertaking this “project” would be, the report stated:
 
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”[8]
 
In January of 2001, the Rumsfeld Commission, which was set up to analyze the US National Security Space Management and Organization, chaired by incoming US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (who had also been a signatory to and member of the Project for the New American Century at the same time). It advocated an expansion of military capabilities in Space and a total reorganization of the armed forces and intelligence agencies of the United States. The report stated that:
 
History is replete with instances in which warning signs were ignored and change resisted until an external, “improbable” event forced resistant bureaucracies to take action. The question is whether the US will be wise enough to act responsibly and soon enough to reduce US space vulnerability. Or whether, as in the past, a disabling attack against the country and its people – a “Space Pearl Harbor” – will be the only event able to galvanize the nation and cause the US Government to act.[9]
 
As early as 1998, the President was warned in his CIA daily briefing that, “bin Laden and his allies are preparing for an attack in the US, including an aircraft hijacking.” NORAD, the “North American Aerospace Defense command also conducted an exercise to counter a terrorist attack involving smashing an airplane into a building.” In August 1999, “the Federal Aviation Administration's intelligence branch warned of a possible "suicide hijacking operation" by Osama Bin Laden.”[10]
 
In October of 2000, the Pentagon undertook an emergency response exercise in which “there was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident,” and it further envisioned a “downed passenger aircraft” in the Pentagon courtyard.[11]
 
For years, NORAD had been conducting military exercises and drills in which it envisioned planes being hijacked and flown into buildings in the United States.[12] One of the intended targets in the NORAD drills was the World Trade Center:
 
In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic.[13]
 
As the Guardian revealed in April of 2004:
 
Five months before the September 11 attacks, US military planners suggested a war game to practise a response to a terrorist attack using a commercial airliner flown into the Pentagon, but senior officers rejected the scenario as "too unrealistic".[14]
 
In May of 2001, an exercise involving U.S. Central Command, U.S. Special Operations Command and U.S. Joint Forces Command took place in which the military establishment “forecasted” the first war of the 21st century so closely that, “Nostradamus couldn't have nailed the first battle of the next war any closer than we did,” as articulated by a former top official with the exercise, Dave Ozolek. The exercise, Unified Vision 2001:
 
[G]rew out of the realization that the threat was changing. Ozolek said the scenario was a major regional threat emanating from the Middle East. The scenario called for global deployment into a landlocked country with hostile terrain and a lack of basing and agreements with neighboring countries for U.S. access.
 
[. . . ] The threat we portrayed was an unstable and hostile state, but the primary enemy was not the state itself but a transnational actor based out of that area, globally connected, capable and willing to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. as part of that campaign.
 
[. . . ] "Many of the participants in Unified Vision, 100 days later, were war planners," Ozolek said. They took their experiences in Unified Vision back to their commands and put them to use as the commands created plans for operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle, he said. They had an idea of the tactics, techniques and procedures needed to operate against such an enemy, he noted.
 
Ozolek said Unified Vision refutes the pundits who make a living out of critiquing the Department of Defense. "The first thing they like to talk about is that we always dwell on the last battle of the last war," he said. "What we're showing them is that this time we got it right: We really were looking at the first battle of the next war, and we nailed it pretty darned close."[15]
 
After 9/11, in May of 2002, Condoleezza Rice stated that, “I don't think anybody could have predicted that ... they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.”[16] So Condi is a fool or a liar, because that statement is nothing if not entirely and utterly false. The national security apparatus had fully anticipated, and even war gamed and drilled this very scenario. It was expected, planned for, and no less with war plans waiting in the wings.
 
The 9/11 Commission
 
Of critical importance in understanding the events of 9/11 is taking note of the funding for the operation. The 9/11 Commission itself stated:
 
To date the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.[17]
 
However, one should take issue with this claim. The fact is that any comprehensive investigation, criminal or otherwise, should pay special attention to the role of financing; follow the money. This is not the only failure of the 9/11 Commission, as has been amply documented.
 
From its inception, the 9/11 Commission was plagued with problems. The Bush administration had resisted attempts to form a commission to investigate the attacks of 9/11 for over a year, even pressuring Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle not to launch an inquiry.[18] In May of 2002, President Bush voiced his opposition to the formation of a 9/11 commission.[19]
 
In September of 2002, Bush reversed his previous decision and backed the proposal to form an “independent” commission to investigate the attacks.[20] Within a month of this statement, the White House began undermining the process, as “an almost completed Congressional deal was suddenly undone in October after a Republican lawmaker involved in the final negotiations received a call from Vice President Dick Cheney,” which led to a stalling of the process.[21]
 
In mid-November, Congress approved the creation of a bi-partisan 9/11 Commission to investigate the attacks, with 10 Congressmen, 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, with the Chairman appointed by the Bush administration and the Vice Chair appointed by the Democrats.[22]
 
The Bush administration chose as the Chairman none other than Henry Kissinger, former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State for Nixon and Ford, “a consummate Washington insider,” not to mention war criminal. Even the New York Times had to admit:
 
Unfortunately, his affinity for power and the commercial interests he has cultivated since leaving government may make him less than the staunchly independent figure that is needed for this critical post. Indeed, it is tempting to wonder if the choice of Mr. Kissinger is not a clever maneuver by the White House to contain an investigation it long opposed.[23]
 
Two week later, “Facing questions about potential conflicts of interest, Henry Kissinger resigned” as Chairman of the 9/11 Commission.[24] He was replaced with former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean. As of November 2003, one Commissioner, Max Cleland, claimed that the “investigation is now compromised” by the White House.[25]
 
Shortly after the release of the final 9/11 Commission Report in 2004, Harper’s Magazine called it “a cheat and a fraud,” declaring the report a “whitewash.”[26]
 
In 2006, the two co-Chairs of the Commission published a book in which they claimed that the Commission was lied to by both the FAA and the Department of Defense, specifically NORAD.[27] Several commissioners are on the record as saying they felt that the Pentagon purposely lied to them in order to mislead them.[28] Further, much of the information the commission received and used in its report “was the product of harsh interrogations of al-Qaida operatives - interrogations that many critics have labeled torture.”[29]
 
As it turned out, the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, was a man of dubious priorities and connections. He was the ultimate author of the final report and controlled the research staff of the commission. Zelikow, “a former colleague of then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, was appointed executive director of the 9/11 Commission despite his close ties to the Bush White House, and he remained in regular contact with [Karl] Rove while overseeing the commission.” Zelikow “secretly spoke with President Bush's close adviser Karl Rove and others within the White House while the ostensibly autonomous commission was completing its report.” Zelikow had even previously co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice. Following the publication of the report, Zelikow then went to work as an adviser to Condoleezza Rice in the White House.[30]
 
The Bin Ladens
 
There are many fascinating and important revelations regarding the intricate relationship between the CIA, the ISI, and al-Qaeda in the lead-up to the events of 9/11 that deserve to be subjected to more scrutiny.
 
First, let’s take a look at Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, whose relationship with the CIA in the past had been well documented, reportedly acted as a rogue following the 1991 US Gulf War against Iraq and American stationing of troops and military bases in Saudi Arabia. However, there are reports that would indicate that the relationship between bin Laden and the US intelligence apparatus remained, at least to some degree, for many years.
 
We must remember the nature of al-Qaeda, as an organization, or network, of intelligence assets funded, armed, trained and dispersed around the world by a complex network of intelligence agencies from the United States, France, Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.
 
A French court undertook a probe into the financial network of Osama bin Laden, who was widely assumed to simply be independently wealthy, and financed al-Qaeda operations through his own funds. However, it was revealed that Osama maintained a joint bank account with his half-brother Yeslam bin Laden in Switzerland between 1990 and 1997. Of particular interest to investigators was “a 241 million euro transfer made to Pakistan in 2000 from an account belonging to a company called Cambridge, a SBG [Saudi Bin Laden Group] subsidiary, that was opened at Deutsche Bank in Geneva,” with the funds “transferred into an account belonging jointly to Osama bin Laden and someone of Pakistani nationality.”[31]
 
Der Spiegel, a major German newspaper, was granted access to thousands of pages of intelligence documents relating to bin Laden and al-Qaeda. In the report on the documents, the authors revealed that when bin Laden needed financing, “The Saudi elite -- and his own family -- came to his assistance.” The list of financiers:
 
is a veritable who's who of the Middle Eastern monarchy, including the signatures of two former cabinet ministers, six bankers and twelve prominent businessmen. The list also mentions "the bin Laden brothers." ... Did "the bin Laden brothers," who first pledged money to Al-Qaida and then, in 1994, issued a joint press statement declaring that they were ejecting Osama from the family as a "black sheep," truly break ties with their blood relatives -- or were they simply pulling the wool over the eyes of the world?[32]
 
Osama bin Laden’s sister-in-law even stated:
 
I absolutely do not believe that the bin Ladens disowned Osama. In this family, a brother is always a brother, no matter what he has done. I am convinced that the complex and tightly woven network between the bin Laden clan and the Saudi royal family is still in operation.[33]
 
Following the death of Osama’s father, Salem bin Laden, Osama’s brother, became head of the company, Saudi Binladen Group (SBG). As Der Spiegel reported:
 
Salem bin Laden established the company's ties to the American political elite when, according to French intelligence sources, he helped the Reagan administration circumvent the US Senate and funnel $34 million to the right-wing Contra rebels operating in Nicaragua. He also developed close ties with the Bush family in Texas.[34]
 
While Osama was fighting in Afghanistan against the Soviets, he would often be personally visited by Saudi Prince Turki, the head of Saudi intelligence, and was funded by both the Saudi Binladen Group (SBG) and the Saudi royal family. In 1990, when King Fahd of Saudi Arabia allowed the Americans to establish military bases in Saudi Arabia, the SBG got the contract to build the bases.[35]
 
Though the Bin Laden family claimed Osama was a “black sheep” and that they cut off ties with him in the early 1990s, the evidence remains strong that not only did Osama maintain ties with his family, but he maintained his ties with Saudi intelligence. While Osama was in Sudan in the early 1990s, Saudi intelligence would so frequently send his family over to meet with him, and kept in such close contact with him, that the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, believed Osama was a Saudi spy. In 1994, under intense public pressure, both Saudi Arabia and the bin Laden family publicly revoked their ties with Osama.[36]
 
Yet, even after this, when Osama returned to Afghanistan in the mid-1990s to work with the Taliban, Prince Turki of Saudi intelligence would still maintain contact and even visit Osama, even bringing “gifts” such as dozens of trucks:
 
According to a former member of the Taliban intelligence service, Prince Turki and OBL [Osama bin Laden] made a deal: The Saudis would support al-Qaida financially, but only under the condition that there would be no attacks on Saudi soil.[37]
 
On January 9, 2001, Osama attended his sons wedding in Afghanistan, accompanied by his mother and two brothers, hardly the actions of a “black sheep”. Further, two of Osama’s sisters traveled to Abu Dhabi in February of 2001 to “deliver large sums of cash” to an al-Qaeda agent. In the United States, the Bin Laden family had diplomatic passports, so following the 9/11 attacks, they could not be questioned, but instead were flown out of the country. The Bin Ladens were also in business with the Bush family through the investment company, the Carlyle Group.[38] No one ever seemed to question why the bin Laden family had diplomatic passports, a strange occurrence, it would seem, for a Saudi ‘business’ family who weren’t engaged in any official or formal ‘diplomacy’.
 
In March of 2000, it was reported that Osama bin Laden was sick and suffering from kidney and liver disease.[39] A western intelligence source told the Hong-Kong based magazine, Asiaweek, that bin Laden was dying of kidney failure.[40]
 
In July of 2001, Osama bin Laden spent 10 days at the American hospital in Dubai for treatment. He traveled from Pakistan to Dubai on July 4, 2001, to be treated in the urology department. While he was in the hospital, Osama was visited by several members of his family, Saudi officials, and the CIA. One visitor was Saudi Prince Turki al Faisal, the head of Saudi intelligence, and the CIA station chief in Dubai, who was soon after recalled back to Washington.[41]
 
On September 10, 2001, the night before the attacks of 9/11, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan “getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan.” Pakistani intelligence reported that bin Laden was quickly taken to a military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment. As one medical worker said, “they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them.” Pakistani President Musharraf openly stated in public that Osama suffers from kidney disease and is near death.[42]
 
The Pakistani ISI and 9/11
 
Throughout the entire time of overt and covert assistance by Pakistan’s ISI to both the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the CIA had maintained its close ties with the ISI that they had developed during the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980s, in which they used the ISI as a conduit; as was set up through the Safari Club in the 1970s, which was the organization of western intelligence agencies which used Middle Eastern and Asian intelligence agencies as conduits for their covert activities. Thus, the CIA maintained its extensive contact with the ISI, and so would be well aware of its activities.[43]
 
A top Indian intelligence official even stated that, “America's Defence Intelligence Agency was aware that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was sponsoring the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but the Bush Administration chose to ignore its findings.”[44] Is it inconceivable that since the CIA maintained its extensive contacts with the ISI, and the ISI maintained and expanded its contacts with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, that the CIA was not in fact sponsoring both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda through the ISI as well? We know that the CIA was supporting the Taliban through the same network of the ISI that was supporting al-Qaeda operatives,[45] thus it would take a stretch of the imagination to think that the CIA would be unaware of its subsequent support for al-Qaeda. Whether direct or indirect, the CIA was supporting al-Qaeda.
 
Shortly after 9/11, Indian intelligence became aware of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) had wired $100,000 from Saeed Sheikh, a convicted terrorist who had associations with the ISI, to Mohamed Atta, the purported ringleader and one of the 9/11 hijackers. Thus, the ISI in effect, financed the 9/11 attacks. However, there are several more ambiguous facets to this story. It just so happens that General Mahmoud Ahmad went to Washington, D.C. on September 4th, 2001 for a weeklong visit. On September 10, the day before 9/11, a Pakistani newspaper ran a story on Ahmad’s visit:
 
ISI Chief Lt-Gen Mahmood's week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. Officially, State Department sources say he is on a routine visit in return to 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 Mark Grossman, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
 
... What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmood's predecessor, was here during Nawaz Sharif's government the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days. That this is not the first visit by Mahmood in the last three months shows the urgency of the ongoing parleys.[46]
 
General Ahmad, while in Washington, met with CIA Director George Tenet and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. On the morning of 9/11, General Ahmad was in a meeting with the Chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss, a former 10-year veteran of CIA clandestine operations. Porter Goss was later put in charge of a joint House-Senate investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, and later became the CIA director.[47]
 
General Mahmoud, having wired $100,000 to Mohamad Atta, the purported lead 9/11 hijacker, implicates the ISI in the attacks of 9/11, at least from a financial standing. The FBI even confirmed the transaction took place.[48] The ISI’s extensive ties to American intelligence and the fact that Ahmad was in D.C. talking to high level legislators, State Department, Pentagon and intelligence officials begs the question of what the precise nature of these secret meetings were. 
 
Michael Meacher, a former British MP and member of Tony Blair’s cabinet, wrote in the Guardian that:
 
Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf.[49]
 
Meacher further discussed the case of Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator-turned-whistleblower who tried to expose evidence of what she saw as collusion between intelligence agencies and the terrorists behind 9/11. She was subsequently gagged by the U.S. Department of Justice:
 
She is a 33-year-old Turkish-American former FBI translator of intelligence, fluent in Farsi, the language spoken mainly in Iran and Afghanistan, who had top-secret security clearance. She tried to blow the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, but is now under two gagging orders that forbid her from testifying in court or mentioning the names of the people or the countries involved. She has been quoted as saying: "My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information ... if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] ... and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up".[50]
 
In August of 2009, Sibel Edmonds revealed that, “the US was on 'intimate' terms with the Taliban and al-Qaeda using the militants to further certain goals in central Asia,” and stated, “With those groups, we had operations in Central Asia.” She explained that Washington used those groups “as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict.”[51] In other words, the US was arming, funding and using al-Qaeda for its own objectives, just as it always had.
 
On September 11, 2009, 8 years to the day of the events of 9/11, a major British newspaper, the Daily Mail, ran a story critical of the official story regarding Osama bin Laden. In it, the author posed the question:
 
What if he has been dead for years, and the British and U.S. intelligence services are actually playing a game of double bluff? What if everything we have seen or heard of him on video and audio tapes since the early days after 9/11 is a fake - and that he is being kept 'alive' by the Western allies to stir up support for the war on terror?[52]
 
The article quoted former U.S. foreign intelligence officer and senior editor Angelo M. Codevilla, a professor of international relations at Boston University as saying, “All the evidence suggests Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama Bin Laden”:
 
Prof Codevilla asserted: 'The video and audio tapes alleged to be Osama's never convince the impartial observer,' he asserted. 'The guy just does not look like Osama. Some videos show him with a Semitic, aquiline nose, while others show him with a shorter, broader one. Next to that, differences between the colours and styles of his beard are small stuff.'[53]
 
Interesting to note is that following the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, in at least four separate statements to Middle Eastern press and media, stated that he did not take part in the 9/11 attacks, while the video in which he supposedly claimed responsibility for the attacks has him wearing gold rings, which is forbidden by his Wahhabist religion, as well as writing with his right hand, whereas the FBI website says that he is left handed, and his face is blurred and difficult to make out. On September 28, 2001, Osama bin Laden said, “'I have already said I am not involved. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge... nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act.”[54]
 
Osama bin Laden was even reported to have died of kidney failure on December 13, 2001, in the mountains of Tora Bora on the Afghan-Pakistan border. On that same day, the U.S. government released the fateful videotape in which Osama claimed responsibility for the attacks. However, the bin Laden in the video was very different from the known images of the real bin Laden, and even had a different shaped nose, his beard was darker, his skin paler, and his fingers were no longer long and thin, as well as the fact that he looked to be in good health.[55]
 
As the Los Angeles Times reported in November of 2009, the extensive and close relationship between the CIA and the ISI has not diminished since 9/11, but had in fact, accelerated: “the CIA has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Pakistan's intelligence service since the Sept. 11 attacks, accounting for as much as one-third of the foreign spy agency's annual budget.” Further, “the payments to Pakistan are authorized under a covert program initially approved by then-President Bush and continued under President Obama.” Further, “the CIA has routinely brought ISI operatives to a secret training facility in North Carolina,” and as the article pointed out, “the CIA also directs millions of dollars to other foreign spy services. But the magnitude of the payments to the ISI reflect Pakistan's central role.” As the report in the Los Angeles Times explained, the CIA financial support to the ISI began during the Afghan-Soviet conflict, and has not stopped since then, and since 9/11, it has actually accelerated.[56]
 
The Nexus Personified: The Case of Ali Mohamed
 
Perhaps the perfect example of the complex relationship and nexus between intelligence agencies and al-Qaeda is the case of a man named Ali Mohamed. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2001, “A former U.S. Army sergeant who trained Osama bin Laden's bodyguards and helped plan the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya was a U.S. government informant during much of his terrorist career.” Ali Mohamed, an Egyptian-born US citizen had approached the CIA in the mid-1980s to inform for them. He also spent years as an FBI informant, all the while being a top-level al-Qaeda operative, even training Osama bin Laden’s bodyguards, as well as training terrorists in camps in Afghanistan and Sudan, and planned the 1998 US Embassy bombing in Kenya.[57]
 
State Department officials proclaimed this was merely a sign of the problems associated with recruiting informants, that Mohamed was a double agent working for al-Qaeda, and they should have “known better.” However, the ignorance plea can only go so far, and considering Mohamed’s extensive ties to not one, but several US agencies, there is no doubt he was a double agent, but perhaps it is more likely he was working as an al-Qaeda operative for the US government. After all, it is one thing to say the Ali Mohamed was lucky in his evading being caught, but he was continuously lucky, over and over again. One wonders when ‘luck’ is organized.
 
In 1971, Ali Mohamed joined the Egyptian Army, rising to the rank of major. Well educated in Egypt, he was fluent in English. In 1981, he joined the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, “a group of radical Muslim fundamentalists opposed to the Egyptian government's ties to the United States and Israel that included members of the Egyptian military.” The very same year, in 1981, Mohamed traveled to the United States for the first time, “graduating from a special program for foreign officers at the U.S. Army Special Forces school at Fort Bragg, N.C.” In 1984, Mohamed left the Egyptian military.[58]
 
In 1984, Ali Mohamed approached the CIA office in Egypt offering to be a spy. Officially, the CIA then cut off contact with him shortly thereafter, as he made contact with terrorist organizations and informed them he was working with the CIA, supposedly proposing to spy on US intelligence agencies. So the CIA had the State Department add him to a “watch list” so that he could not enter the United States. However, the next year, Ali Mohamed obtained a visa from the American Embassy and went to the United States. He then joined the American Army and “served with one of its most elite units.”[59]
 
From 1986 until 1989, Ali Mohamed served at the Army’s Special Forces base in Fort Bragg, N.C., until he was honourably discharged in 1989. While on active duty, he went to New York where he trained local Muslims in military tactics to go fight in the Afghan-Soviet war. One of his students was “El Sayyid A. Nosair, the Egyptian immigrant convicted of killing Rabbi Meir Kahane, the founder of the Jewish Defense League, in 1990,” which was the first recorded al-Qaeda operation on U.S. soil.[60]
 
In the early 1990s, Ali Mohamed began working for the FBI. Mohamed then forged ties with Osama bin Laden as early as 1991, and assisted in a variety of ways, such as helping bin Laden and ‘al-Qaeda’ obtain fake documents, assisted with logistical tasks, and even helped Osama relocate from Afghanistan to the Sudan in 1991. Many terrorists that Mohamed trained were subsequently involved in the 1993 plot to blow up the World Trade Center. In 1992, Mohamed returned to Afghanistan to continue training militants. That same year, he was detained by officials in Rome, yet was released shortly thereafter.[61]
 
In 1992, Ali Mohamed created an al-Qaeda terrorist cell in Kenya, and in 1993, bin Laden asked Mohamed to scout for potential terrorist targets in Nairobi, Kenya. He took photos of and scouted the French Embassy, the US AID office and the American Embassy. Bin Laden subsequently chose the American Embassy as the target.[62]
 
In 1993, he was detained by the RCMP in Vancouver, Canada, “while traveling in the company of a suspected associate of Mr. bin Laden's who was trying to enter the United States using false documents.”[63] However, after the RCMP were told to contact his FBI handlers, Mohamed was released.[64] He subsequently masterminded the American Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.[65]
 
However, there are implications that may suggest that Ali Mohamed’s ties to the CIA did not end or evaporate in the 1980s. Following 9/11, several revelations were reported in the media about a covert program of allowing high-level terrorists to enter the United States under a secret CIA program which had the State Department issue visas to terrorists in order to enter the United States.
 


L'URLO DEL KOSOVO

libro e DVD

sulle conseguenze subite dalla popolazione civile dopo i bombardamenti della Nato del 1999 sulla Jugoslavia

di Alessandro Di Meo
edito da ExOrma - 2010

Il libro e il dvd - L'Urlo del Kosovo - sono disponibili in edizione unica al costo di 18 euro. Le copie si possono richiedere direttamente all'autore (alessandro.di.meo@...), all'associazione Un Ponte per... (posta@... o info@...), a ExOrma edizioni (o.pagnani@... o m.sassara@...) o attraverso il sito internet di Un Ponte per...


Leggi la recensione apparsa su Il Manifesto: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/6808

---

Grottaferrata (RM), 18 settembre 2010

presso AGRICOLTURA CAPODARCO, Via del Grottino snc, 00046 (RM)

(da Grottaferrata prendere viale San Nilo, quindi Via del Grottino)
tel.06-94549191 email info@...

presentazione del libro e del DVD 
L'URLO DEL KOSOVO

dalle ore 16 fino a notte inoltrata, ci sarà una bella iniziativa che gli amici della comunità di Capodarco (Agricoltura Biologica e Biosolidale, a Grottaferrata) hanno preparato in solidarietà con famiglie della ex Jugoslavia, vittime dei bombardamenti del 99 e residenti in villaggi serbi del Kosovo e Metohija.
Nell'occasione, come recita il volantino, verrà proiettato il documentario "L'Urlo del Kosovo" (intorno alle ore 19-19,30).

Intervenite numerosi!

Scarica il volantino: