 |
| Hajia Alima Mahama, Minister of Local Government |
Parliament
has, by consensus, approved a total of GhS321million as annual budget for the
Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, and as it turns out, some
85 percent of the amount is expected from donor sources.
Whether
donors will release the funds, meanwhile, is contingent on the government of
Ghana providing counterpart funding, which has been in arrears to the tune of
US$40million, under the District Development Fund (DDF).
Worse
still, the DDF is expected to end this year, and the parliamentary committee on
Local Government and Rural Development is worried funding challenges may arise
after 2017.
The
DDF is supported by a number of foreign agencies, including the Agence
Francaise De Development (AFD), the Canadian Development Agency, the Danish
Development Agency, the German Development Bank, as well as counterpart funding
from the Government of Ghana. It was instituted to augment what assemblies get
from the District Assemblies Common Fund, based on their performance.
Addressing
a plenary session on the floor of parliament, Vice Chairman of the local
government committee, Kwasi Boateng Adjei, expressed worry over the heavy
dependence on donor support.
“The
Committee was informed that the donor support for the District Development Fund
(DDF) will end in 2017 and this may negatively impact the ministry’s ability to
realise its objectives after 2017. The committee is, therefore, urging the
ministry to liaise with the Ministry of Finance to explore other sources of
funding to support its activities.” the committee’s report noted.
Particularly
worrying for the parliamentarians is the fact that counterpart funding from the
government for the District Development Fund has an outstanding arrears of
US$40million, which is not captured in the 2017 budget to be cleared.
Government’s
failure to provide for the counterpart fund implies the ministry would not be
able to draw down on the donor support under the DDF.
Furthermore,
the report also observed an increased allocation for compensation between 2016
and 2017; whereas the total expenditure for compensation for 2016 was GhS14m,
it went up to GhS18m in 2017, representing an increase of GhS3,591,328 or
25percent over the 2016 expenditure.
Meanwhile,
the ministry intends to implement a number of activities this year, including
providing formal training for 1,500 youth in technical and vocational
education, training 450 technical instructors on TVET reforms by August 2017,
completing the construction and rehabilitation of 101 feeder roads and also
rehabilitating 67 small Earth Dams in rural communities under the Ghana Social
Opportunities Project.
It
also intends to provide inputs (fertilisers, seedings, etc) to at least 4,000
farmer groups and other actors along the agriculture value chain under the
Social Investment Fund(SIF)/Integrated Rural Development Project(IRDP) and
Expand the Community Population Registration Programme in 30 communities by
establishing Registration Centres in 26 communities.
For
the outlook for this year, the ministry told the committee members that it
intends to pursue strategies aimed at resolving district boundary disputes in
the country to ensure co-existence and improve revenue mobilisation by the
affected MMDAs. This includes the implementation of the Benin Committee’s
Report on District Boundary Disputes.
The
Ministry will also seek to review relevant legislations to provide for the
election of MMDCEs.
For
the 2016 financial year, a total amount of GhS228,655,075 was approved for the
ministry, out of which GhS200,758,406.72 was expended, leaving a balance of
GhS27,896,668.28.
Source:
B&FT
Editorial
SHOCKING!
The
disclosure that as much as 85 percent of the budgetary allocation for local
government is expected from foreign donor agencies is extremely worrying.
This
means that if for some reason the foreign donors and their governments feel
uncomfortable with our government, it could lead to the collapse of local
government.
We
fully agree with Kwesi Boateng Adjei, Vice chairman of the Local Government
Committee that there is an urgent need to find local sources of funding for
local government structures.
Local
government is so important that we expect the Government of Ghana to set aside
adequate funding for its smooth operation.
This
is very shocking and we need to do something about it.
LOCAL STORIES:
Our appointments not “job for boys”- Dep.
Minister-nominee
 |
| Pius Hadzide |
By Mohammed Awal
The
Deputy Youth and Sports Minister-nominee, Pius Hadzide, has strenuously
rejected description of President Akufo-Addo’s 110 ministerial appointments as
“job for the boys.”
“We
should stop saying this is Job for the Boys,” he said Thursday on Morning
Starr.
The
President has come under a barrage of scathing criticism following the
disclosure of the full list of his ministerial appointees — which stands at
110. The number makes him the president with the largest government size since
the fourth republic.
Many,
including the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD), IMANI, the opposition
National Democratic Congress (NDC) have described the president’s numbers as
shocking and an enterprise for rewarding ‘foot soldiers’ of the governing NPP.
In a
statement issued on Thursday March 16, 2017, the CDD said the 110 ministerial
appointments was “unprecedented” and “obscene.”
But
Hadzide who is one of the 110 appointees said the criticisms were unwarranted,
urging that they should be ignored.
“I
mean if you hear some of these comments we can take it in stride and move on,” he
told Morning Starr host Francis Abban.
He
said the size of the government is negligible as the monies that will be spent
on them is small and that “We have to measure Akufo-Addo by the output of the
appointees, not the numbers.”
He
added those appointed were not anticipating ministerial appointments but having
being appointed, they were genuinely committed to fixing the mess left behind
by the previous administration.
“Admittedly,
what was happening in the country at the time…was a disaster. That was what
it was, the president never negotiated with any one of us to say; come
and then [I’ll reward you with appointment],” he said.
He
also denied suggestions that most of the people appointed lobbied for the
portfolios.
“I’m
not aware of anybody who lobbied,” he said, adding “the President we have is
the president that knows his people…the Ghanaian people. He is the president
that knows his people, the party , and he is the president that has been
attempting to be president for a long time,” he noted.
Source:StarrFMonline
Agro-based groups get support to generate more income
By
Stephen Asante
One
hundred-and-eighty (180) selected agro-based groups in the Ashanti and Volta
Regions have undergone training in “regenerative farming”, an integrated
farming system, that seeks to provide the rural population with improved and
sustainable income.
They
included livestock and vegetable farmers, agricultural students, seed and plant
breeders.
They
were taught how to use spent mushroom bags and animal droppings as compost for
vegetable farming and feeding of rabbits and other animals on the farm on
vegetable leftovers.
Mr.
Samuel Owusu-Takyi, an agricultural researcher at the Kumasi Institute of
Tropical Agriculture (KITA), said the goal was to substantially boost
productivity and returns to the farmer.
He
indicated that “regenerative farming” had emerged as vital tool for assuring
farmers’ of all-year round income.
The
other high point, he noted, was that it would help to also enhance
biodiversity.
Mr.
Owusu-Takyi announced that the training programme, would last for three years
and was being jointly funded by Modular Organic Regenerative Environment (MORE)
Institute and Perpetual Prosperity Pumps Foundation – all based in the United
States (US).
The
Food and Agriculture Ministry (MOFA) and the Kwame Nkrumah University of
Science and Technology (KNUST) are providing technical support.
He
hinted that 1,000 farm stations would be established nationwide for the
purpose.
The
beneficiaries in addition to the supply of inputs including tree seedlings,
mushroom bags, pens, feeding and drinking troughs, rabbits, poultry birds,
wellington boots and bicycles would also be exposed to financial management, he
added.
GNA
The Global Famine
Begins
 |
| A malnourished child |
We
always knew that this would start happening. Earlier this month, I wrote about
the severe economic problems that are plaguing South America, but up to this
point I have neglected to discuss the horrific famines that are breaking out
all over Africa.
Right
now there is a desperate need for food in South Sudan, Somalia, northeast
Nigeria, Eritrea and Kenya. And Yemen, even though it is not technically part
of Africa, is being affected by many of the same factors that are crippling nations
all over eastern Africa.
The
United Nations says that more than 20 million people could die from starvation
and disease if nothing is done. When I write about economic collapse, this is the kind
of thing that I am talking about, and we are starting to see alarming
conditions spread across the globe. Many believe that we could never possibly
face this kind of food crisis in the western world, but unfortunately wishful
thinking will only get you so far.
The
United Nations was formed in 1945, and the UN has just announced that what we
are facing this year is “the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of
the UN”. The following comes from a CNN article entitled “20 million at risk of starvation in world’s largest crisis
since 1945, UN says“…
“We
stand at a critical point in history. Already at the beginning of the year we
are facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the
UN,” UN humanitarian chief Stephen O’Brien said Friday.
“Now,
more than 20 million people across four countries face starvation and famine.
Without collective and coordinated global efforts, people will simply starve to
death. Many more will suffer and die from disease.”
It
would be hard to overstate the level of human suffering that we are witnessing
in many parts of Africa at this moment. In Somalia, the UN estimates that more
than 6 million people are in desperate need of food aid…
As
Somalia inches closer to a calamitous famine, the prospect of utter devastation
and colossal loss of human life is once again becoming an imminent reality. The
humanitarian situation in Somalia is deteriorating by the day with up to
6.2 million people in need of urgent aid. People across Somalia have been
forced to walk hundreds of miles in search of food, water and shelter- with
women and children disproportionately affected. Over 300,000 children under the
age of five are severely malnourished, with over 200,000 more children at risk
of acute malnutrition.
In
South Sudan, close to half the population is in dire need of assistance, and
things have gotten so bad there that people will literally eat grass if they can find it…
Across
South Sudan more than one million children are believed to be acutely
malnourished and UNICEF have said that if urgent aid does not reach them, many
of them will die. “There is no food, we eat anything we can find,” one South
Sudanese mother told ITV. “We will find grass, we will eat it. That’s just
the way it us for us now.”
Over
in Yemen, there are about seven million people in need of food help, and
authorities are warning that if nothing is done “millions of children”
could starve to death…
“The
numbers affected are absolutely extraordinary,” said Mark Kaye, Save the
Children’s Yemen spokesperson.
“We
keep on talking about a country that’s on the brink of famine, but for me these
numbers highlight that we’re at the point of no return. If things are not done
now we are going to be looking back on this and millions of children will
have starved to death, and we’ll all have been aware of this for some time.
That will shame us as an international community for years to come.
Eritrea
was not specifically included in the recent UN alert, but it should have
been. Much of the country has been hit by a crippling drought, and approximately half of all children in Eritrea are stunted…
But
we cannot understand why Eritrea is not included in the appeal. Unicef has
confirmed what we know from our friends and families inside the country. In a
report in January, the agency said that the El Niño drought has hit half of all
Eritrea’s regions. Acute malnutrition is widespread. As Unicef put it:
“Malnutrition rates already exceeded emergency levels, with 22,700 children
under five projected to suffer from severe acute malnutrition in 2017
… Half of all children in Eritrea are stunted, and as a result, these
children are even more vulnerable to malnutrition and disease outbreaks.”
We
have been warned that there would be famines in diverse places in these
times. But here in the western world we tend to be lulled into a false sense of
security by our comfortable lives, not realizing that the massively inflated
standard of living that we have been enjoying has been fueled by the largest
mountain of debt in the history of
the planet.
In
Kenya, a national emergency has been declared due to drought and famine. For
those of you that are parents, what would you do if your children were crying out
for food but you didn’t have anything to give them? The following story from Kenya is beyond
heartbreaking…
Emmanuel
Ayapar is three years old and can no longer walk. The flesh on his legs, which
dangle from his mother’s hip as she carries him around, is wasting away.
He
seems listless and sad, tongue flicking repeatedly in and out of his mouth.
‘We
do not have enough food,’ said Veronica, his 28-year-old mother. ‘We eat only
once a day.’
The
little boy is suffering from severe malnutrition and is at risk of starving to
death. He weighs just 15lb – half the typical weight for a boy of his age.
I
don’t even know what to say after that.
In
the western world we can be so incredibly self-absorbed that we don’t even
realize that children are literally starving to death on the other side of the
planet.
Hopefully
those of us that live in “wealthy” western countries will step up to the plate
and aid those in need, and hopefully this crisis will also help us to
understand that we need to prepare for the day when things get difficult in our
own nations too.
FOREIGN STORIES
“Conspiracy Theory”:
Foundations of a Weaponized Term
First
published by Global Research in 2013, this pathbreaking analysis by Professor
James Tracy shows how the term “conspiracy theory” is being used to label
critical analysis and dissenting viewpoints.
“Conspiracy
theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most
every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s
the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly
effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate.
Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious
official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public
policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche
at all costs.
Conspiracy
theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian
Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the “New Right.” Yet it was
the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in
effectively “weaponizing” the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism
toward the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John
F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch
played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be
wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s
increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question.
This
important memorandum and its broad implications for American politics and
public discourse are detailed in a forthcoming book by Florida State University
political scientist Lance de-Haven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America. Dr.
de-Haven-Smith devised the state crimes
against democracy concept to interpret and explain potential
government complicity in events such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the major
political assassinations of the 1960s, and 9/11.
“CIA
Document 1035-960” was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by
the New York Times. The directive is especially significant because it
outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American
government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially
interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information
to the [Warren] investigation.”
The
memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for “countering
and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the
circulation of such claims in other countries.” For example, approaching
“friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” to remind them
of the Warren Commission’s integrity and soundness should be prioritized.
“[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation,” the document
reads, and “further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the
[Communist] opposition.”
The
agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and
refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are
particularly appropriate for this purpose.”
1035-960
further delineates specific techniques for countering “conspiratorial”
arguments centering on the Warren Commission’s findings. Such responses and
their coupling with the pejorative label have been routinely wheeled out in
various guises by corporate media outlets, commentators and political leaders
to this day against those demanding truth and accountability about momentous
public events.
§ No significant new evidence has emerged which
the [Warren] Commission did not consider.
§ Critics usually overvalue particular items and
ignore others.
§ Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested
would be impossible to conceal in the United States.
§ Critics have often been enticed by a form of
intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it.
§ Oswald would not have been any sensible
person’s choice for a co-conspirator.
§ Such vague accusations as that “more than ten
people have died mysteriously” [during the Warren Commission’s inquiry] can
always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have
for the most part died of natural causes.
Today
more so than ever news media personalities and commentators occupy powerful
positions for initiating propaganda activities closely resembling those set out
in 1035-960 against anyone who might question state-sanctioned narratives of
controversial and poorly understood occurrences. Indeed, as the motives and
methods encompassed in the document have become fully internalized by
intellectual workers and operationalized through such media, the almost uniform
public acceptance of official accounts concerning unresolved events such as the
Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing, 9/11, and most recently the
Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, is largely guaranteed.
The
effect on academic and journalistic inquiry into ambiguous and unexplained
events that may in turn mobilize public inquiry, debate and action has been
dramatic and far-reaching. One need only look to the rising police state and
evisceration of civil liberties and constitutional protections as evidence of
how this set of subtle and deceptive intimidation tactics has profoundly
encumbered the potential for future independent self-determination and civic
empowerment.
The
original source of this article is Global Research
Al Qaeda and the
“War on Terrorism”
 |
| Osama Bin Ladenh |
By Prof
Michel Chossudovsky
The
following text was first published in Italian in: Giuletto Chiesa
(Editor), Zero, Perché la versione ufficiale sull’ 11/9 è un Falso
[Zero: Why the Official Version on 9/11 is a Falsehood], Piemme, Casale
Monferrato, 2007.
A
detailed analysis of the relevant issues covered in this article is also
contained in the author’s book America’s “War on
Terrorism”, Global Research, 2005
Introduction
One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to “fabricate an enemy”. The “outside enemy” personified by Osama bin Laden is “threatening America”.
One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to “fabricate an enemy”. The “outside enemy” personified by Osama bin Laden is “threatening America”.
Pre-emptive
war directed against “Islamic terrorists” is required to defend the Homeland.
Realities are turned upside down. America is under attack.
In
the wake of 9/11, the creation of this “outside enemy” has served to obfuscate
the real economic and strategic objectives behind the war in the Middle East
and Central Asia. Waged on the grounds of self-defense, the pre-emptive war is
upheld as a “just war” with a humanitarian mandate.
As
anti-war sentiment grows and the political legitimacy the Bush Administration
falters, doubts regarding the existence of this illusive “outside enemy” must
be dispelled.
Counter-terrorism
and war propaganda are intertwined. The propaganda apparatus feeds
disinformation into the news chain. The terror warnings must appear to be
“genuine”. The objective is to present the terror groups as “enemies of
America.”
Ironically,
Al Qaeda –the “outside enemy of America” as well as the alleged
architect of the 9/11 attacks– is a creation of the CIA.
From
the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence
apparatus has supported the formation of the “Islamic brigades”. Propaganda
purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and “kill the
evidence” on how this “outside enemy” was fabricated and transformed into
“Enemy Number One”.
The
US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist organizations. And at
the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist
organizations which it has itself created. Meanwhile, a cohesive multibillion
dollar counterterrorism program “to go after” these terrorist organizations has
been put in place.
Portrayed
in stylized fashion by the Western media, Osama bin Laden, supported by his
various henchmen, constitutes America’s post-Cold war bogeyman, who “threatens
Western democracy”. The alleged threat of “Islamic terrorists”, permeates
the entire US national security doctrine. Its purpose is to justify wars of
aggression in the Middle East, while establishing within America, the contours
of the Homeland Security State.
Historical
Background
What
are the historical origins of Al Qaeda? Who is Osama bin Laden?
The
alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorists attacks, Saudi-born Osama bin
Laden, was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war, “ironically under the
auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders”.(Hugh Davies, “`Informers’ point
the finger at bin Laden; Washington on alert for suicide bombers.” The Daily
Telegraph, London, 24 August 1998).
In
1979 the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA was launched in
Afghanistan:
“With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI,
who wanted to turn the Afghan Jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim
states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic
countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands
more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually, more than 100,000
foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.” (Ahmed
Rashid, “The Taliban: Exporting Extremism”, Foreign Affairs, November-December
1999).
This
project of the US intelligence apparatus was conducted with the active support
of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), which was entrusted in channeling
covert military aid to the Islamic brigades and financing, in liaison with the
CIA, the madrassahs and Mujahedeen training camps.
U.S.
government support to the Mujahedeen was presented to world public opinion as a
“necessary response” to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of
the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.
The
CIA’s military-intelligence operation in Afghanistan, which consisted in
creating the “Islamic brigades”, was launched prior rather than in response to
the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan. In fact, Washington’s intent was
to deliberately trigger a civil war, which has lasted for more than 25 years.
The
CIA’s role in laying the foundations of Al Qaeda is confirmed in an 1998
interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who at the time was National Security
Adviser to President Jimmy Carter:
Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the
Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded
Afghanistan, [on] 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until
now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President
Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the
pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to
the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion, this aid was
going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Question:
Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you
yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It
isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly
increased the probability that they would.
Question: When
the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to
fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people
didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret
anything today?
Brzezinski:
Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of
drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day
that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President
Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War.
Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the
government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the
breakup of the Soviet empire.
Question: And neither do you regret
having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to
future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or
the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of
Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?
( “The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan, Interview with
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser”, Le
Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, published in English, Centre for
Research on Globalisation, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html, 5 October 2001
Consistent
with Brzezinski’s account, a “Militant Islamic Network” was created by the CIA.
The
“Islamic Jihad” (or holy war against the Soviets) became an integral part of
the CIA’s intelligence ploy. It was supported by the United States and Saudi
Arabia, with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden
Crescent drug trade:
“In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security
Decision Directive 166 … [which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to
the Mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to
defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a
Soviet withdrawal.
The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in
arms supplies — a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987 … as well as a
“ceaseless stream” of CIA and Pentagon specialists who travelled to the secret
headquarters of Pakistan’s ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
There, the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help
plan operations for the Afghan rebels.”(Steve Coll, The Washington Post, July
19, 1992.)
Referred to as
“Freedom Fighters”, president Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen leaders at the
White House
The
Central Intelligence Agency using Pakistan’s ISI as a go-between played a key
role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training
was integrated with the teachings of Islam. The madrasahs were set up by Wahabi
fundamentalists financed out of Saudi Arabia:
“[I]t was the government of the United States who supported
Pakistani dictator General Zia-ul Haq in creating thousands of religious
schools, from which the germs of the Taliban emerged.”(Revolutionary
Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), “RAWA Statement on the
Terrorist Attacks in the U.S.”, Centre for Research on Globalisation
(CRG), http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RAW109A.html , 16 September 2001)
Predominant
themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam
was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people
of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist
Afghan regime propped up by Moscow. (Dilip Hiro, Fallout from the Afghan Jihad,
Inter Press Services, 21 November 1995.)
Pakistan’s
ISI Used as a “Go-Between”
CIA
covert support to the “Islamic Jihad” operated indirectly through the Pakistani
ISI — i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. For
these covert operations to be “successful”, Washington was careful not to
reveal the ultimate objective of the “Jihad”, which consisted not only in
destabilising the secular (pro-Soviet) government in Afghanistan, but also
destroying the Soviet Union.
In
the words of the CIA’s Milton Beardman, “We didn’t train Arabs.” Yet, according
to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo,
bin Laden and the “Afghan Arabs” had been imparted “with very sophisticated
types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA”. (National Public Radio,
Weekend Sunday (NPR) with Eric Weiner and Ted Clark, 16 August 1998).
The
CIA’s Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of
the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. According to bin Laden (as
quoted by Beardman): “Neither I, nor my brothers, saw evidence of American
help.” (National Public Radio, Weekend Sunday (NPR) with Eric Weiner and Ted
Clark, transcript, 16 August 1998).
Motivated
by nationalism and religious fervour, the Islamic warriors were unaware that
they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were
contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel
leaders in the war theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA.
With
CIA backing and the funnelling of massive amounts of U.S. military aid, the
Pakistani ISI had developed into a “parallel structure wielding enormous power
over all aspects of government”. (Dipankar Banerjee, “Possible Connection of
ISI With Drug Industry”, India Abroad, 2 December 1994). The ISI had a staff
composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents
and informers, estimated at 150,000. (Ibid).
Meanwhile,
CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General
Zia Ul Haq:
“Relations between the CIA and the ISI had grown increasingly
warm following [General] Zia’s ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military
regime. … During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively
anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded
Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet
Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984.
The CIA was more cautious than the Pakistanis. Both Pakistan and
the United States took the line of deception on Afghanistan with a public
posture of negotiating a settlement, while privately agreeing that military
escalation was the best course.” (Diego Cordovez and Selig Harrison, Out of
Afghanistan: The Inside Story of the Soviet Withdrawal, Oxford University
Press, New York, 1995. See also the review of Cordovez and Harrison in
International Press Services, 22 August 1995).
The
CIA sponsored Narcotics Trade
The
history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA’s
covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in
Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no
local production of heroin. (Alfred McCoy, Drug Fallout: the CIA’s Forty Year
Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive, 1 August 1997).
Researcher
Alfred McCoy’s study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA
operation in Afghanistan, “the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the
world’s top heroin producer, supplying 60 per cent of U.S. demand.” (Ibid)
“CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the
Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered
peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan,
Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan
Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of
wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to
instigate major seizures or arrests. … (Ibid)
Afghanistan
is a strategic hub in Central Asia, bordering on China’s Western frontier and
on the former Soviet Union. While it constitutes a land bridge for the oil and
gas pipeline corridors linking the Caspian sea basin to the Arabian sea, it is
also strategic for its opium production, which today, according to UN sources,
supplies more than 90 % of the World’s heroin market, representing
multi-billion dollar revenues for business syndicates, financial institutions,
intelligence agencies and organized crime. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s
“War on Terrorism, Global Research, 2005, Chapter XVI)
Protected
by the CIA, a new surge in opium production unfolded in the post cold War era.
Since the October 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan, opium production has
increased 33 fold since the US led invasion. The annual proceeds of the Golden
Crescent drug trade are estimated between 120 and 194 billion dollars (2006),
representing more than one third of the worldwide annual turnover of the
narcotics trade. (Michel Chossudovsky, Heroin is good for Your Health,
Occupation Forces Support Afghan Drug Trade, Global Research, April 2007. see
also Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a Changing World, Technical document No. 4,
1998)
From
the Soviet-Afghan War to the “War on Terrorism”
Despite
the demise of the Soviet Union, Pakistan’s extensive military-intelligence
apparatus (the ISI) was not dismantled. In the wake of the Cold War, the CIA
continued to support the Islamic brigades out of Pakistan. New undercover
initiatives were set in motion in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Balkans
and south East Asia. In the immediate wke of the Cold War, Pakistan’s ISI
“served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the
emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia”. (International Press
Services, 22 August 1995).
Meanwhile,
Islamic missionaries of the Wahabi sect from Saudi Arabia had established
themselves in the Muslim republics, as well as within the Russian federation,
encroaching upon the institutions of the secular State. Despite its
anti-American ideology, Islamic fundamentalism was largely serving Washington’s
strategic interests in the former Soviet Union, the Balkans and the Middle
East.
Following
the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, the civil war in Afghanistan continued
unabated. The Taliban were being supported by the Pakistani Deobandis and their
political party, the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). In 1993, the JUI entered
Pakistan’s government coalition of Prime Minister Benazzir Bhutto. Ties between
the JUI, the Army and the ISI were established. In 1996, with the downfall of
the Hezb-I-Islami Hektmatyar government in Kabul, the Taliban not only instated
a hardline Islamic government, they also “handed control of training camps in
Afghanistan over to JUI factions …”. (Ahmed Rashid, “The Taliban: Exporting
Extremism”, Foreign Affairs, November – December, 1999, p. 22.)
The
JUI, with the support of the Saudi Wahabi movement, played a key role in
recruiting volunteers to fight in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.
(Ibid)
Jane
Defence Weekly confirms, that “half of Taliban manpower and equipment
originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI”. In fact, it would appear that
following the Soviet withdrawal, both sides in the Afghan civil war continued
to receive US covert support through Pakistan’s ISI. (Tim McGirk, “Kabul Learns
to Live with its Bearded Conquerors”, The Independent,
London, 6 November 1996.)
Backed
by Pakistan’s military intelligence, which in turn was controlled by the CIA,
the Taliban Islamic State largely served US geopolitical interests. No doubt
this explains why Washington had closed its eyes on the reign of terror imposed
by the Taliban in 1996, including the blatant derogation of women’s rights, the
closing down of schools for girls, the dismissal of women employees from government
offices and the enforcement of “the Sharia laws of punishment”. (K.
Subrahmanyam, “Pakistan is Pursuing Asian Goals”, India Abroad, 3 November
1995.)
The
Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian
Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).
In fact, at the time of the September 11 attacks, CIA-sponsored Mujahideen
mercenaries were fighting within the ranks of KLA-NLA terrorists in their
assaults into Macedonia.
The
War in Chechnya
In
Chechnya, the renegade autonomous region of the Russian Federation, the main
rebel leaders, Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab, were trained and indoctrinated in
CIA-sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to Yossef Bodansky,
director of the U.S. Congress’ Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional
Warfare, the war in Chechnya had been planned during a secret summit of
HizbAllah International held in 1996 in Mogadishu, Somalia. (Levon Sevunts,
“Who’s Calling The Shots? Chechen conflict finds Islamic roots in Afghanistan
and Pakistan”, The Gazette, Montreal, 26 October 1999.)
The
summit was attended by none other than Osama bin Laden, as well as high-ranking
Iranian and Pakistani intelligence officers. It’s obvious that the involvement
of Pakistan’s ISI in Chechnya “goes far beyond supplying the Chechens with
weapons and expertise: The ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are actually
calling the shots in this war.”(Ibid)
Russia’s
main pipeline route transits through Chechnya and Dagestan. Despite
Washington’s condemnation of “Islamic terrorism”, the indirect beneficiaries of
the wars in Chechnya are the Anglo-American oil conglomerates which are vying
for complete control over oil resources and pipeline corridors out of the
Caspian Sea basin.
The
two main Chechen rebel armies (which at the time were led by the (late)
Commander Shamil Basayev and Emir Khattab), estimated at 35,000 strong,
were supported by Pakistan’s ISI, which also played a key role in organizing
and training the rebel army:
“[In 1994] the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence arranged
for Basayev and his trusted lieutenants to undergo intensive Islamic
indoctrination and training in guerrilla warfare in the Khost province of
Afghanistan at Amir Muawia camp, set up in the early 1980s by the CIA and ISI
and run by famous Afghani warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In July 1994, upon
graduating from Amir Muawia, Basayev was transferred to Markaz-i-Dawar camp in
Pakistan to undergo training in advanced guerrilla tactics. In Pakistan, Basayev
met the highest ranking Pakistani military and intelligence officers: Minister
of Defence General Aftab Shahban Mirani, Minister of Interior General
Naserullah Babar, and the head of the ISI branch in charge of supporting
Islamic causes, General Javed Ashraf (all now retired). High-level connections
soon proved very useful to Basayev.” (Ibid)
Following
his training and indoctrination stint, Basayev was assigned to lead the assault
against Russian federal troops in the first Chechen war in 1995. His organization
had also developed extensive links to criminal syndicates in Moscow as well as
ties to Albanian organized crime and the KLA. In 1997-1998, according to
Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) “Chechen warlords started buying up
real estate in Kosovo … through several real estate firms registered as a cover
in Yugoslavia.” (Vitaly Romanov and Viktor Yadukha, “Chechen Front Moves To
Kosovo”, Segodnia, Moscow, 23 Feb 2000)
Dismantling
Secular Institutions in the former Soviet Union
The
enforcement of Islamic law in the largely secular Muslim societies of the
former Soviet Union has served America’s strategic interests in the region.
Previously, a strong secular tradition based on a rejection of Islamic law
prevailed throughout the Central Asian republics and the Caucasus, including
Chechnya and Dagestan (which are part of the Russian Federation).
The
1994-1996 Chechen war, instigated by the main rebel movements against Moscow,
has served to undermine secular state institutions. A parallel system of local
government, controlled by the Islamic militia, was implanted in many localities
in Chechnya. In some of the small towns and villages, Islamic Sharia courts
were established under a reign of political terror.
Financial
aid from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to the rebel armies was conditional
upon the installation of the Sharia courts, despite strong opposition of the
civilian population. The Principal Judge and Ameer of the Sharia courts in
Chechnya was Sheikh Abu Umar, who “came to Chechnya in 1995 and joined the
ranks of the Mujahideen there under the leadership of Ibn-ul-Khattab. … He set
about teaching Islam with the correct Aqeedah to the Chechen Mujahideen, many
of whom held incorrect and distorted beliefs about Islam.” (Global Muslim News, http://www.islam.org.au/articles/21/news.htm,
December 1997).
Meanwhile,
state institutions of the Russian Federation in Chechnya were crumbling under
the brunt of the IMF-sponsored austerity measures imposed under the Presidency
of Boris Yeltsin. In contrast, the Sharia courts, financed and equipped out of
Saudi Arabia, were gradually displacing existing State institutions of the
Russian Federation and the Chechnya autonomous region.
The
Wahabi movement from Saudi Arabia was not only attempting to overrun civilian
State institutions in Dagestan and Chechnya, it was also seeking to displace
the traditional Sufi Muslim leaders. In fact, the resistance to the Islamic
rebels in Dagestan was based on the alliance of the (secular) local governments
with the Sufi sheiks:
“These [Wahabi] groups consist of a very tiny but well-financed
and well-armed minority. They propose with these attacks the creation of terror
in the hearts of the masses. … By creating anarchy and lawlessness, these
groups can enforce their own harsh, intolerant brand of Islam. … Such groups do
not represent the common view of Islam, held by the vast majority of Muslims
and Islamic scholars, for whom Islam exemplifies the paragon of civilization
and perfected morality. They represent what is nothing less than a movement to
anarchy under an Islamic label. … Their intention is not so much to create an
Islamic state, but to create a state of confusion in which they are able to
thrive.34 Mateen Siddiqui, “Differentiating Islam from Militant
‘Islamists’” San Francisco Chronicle, 21 September
1999
Promoting
Secessionist Movements in India
In
parallel with its covert operations in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union,
Pakistan’s ISI has provided, since the 1980s, support to several secessionist
Islamic insurgencies in India’s Kashmir.
Although
officially condemned by Washington, these covert ISI operations were undertaken
with the tacit approval of the U.S. government. Coinciding with the 1989 Geneva
Peace Agreement and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the ISI was
instrumental in the creation of the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul
Mujahideen (JKHM). (See K. Subrahmanyam, “Pakistan is Pursuing Asian
Goals”, India Abroad, 3 November 19950.
In
the immediate wake of 9/11, the December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian
Parliament — which contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of
war — were conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba, (Army
of the Pure) and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Army of Mohammed), both of which are
covertly supported by Pakistan’s ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations,
“Terrorism: Questions and Answers, Harakat ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Taiba,
Jaish-e Muhammad”, http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html,
Washington 2002.Note: This report is no longer available on the CFR website.)
The
timely attack on the Indian Parliament, followed by the ethnic riots in Gujarat
in early 2002, were the culmination of a process initiated in the 1980s,
financed by drug money and abetted by Pakistan’s military intelligence.
Needless
to say, these ISI-supported terrorist attacks serve the geopolitical interests
of the U.S. The powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which plays a
behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy, confirms that
the Lashkar and Jaish rebel groups are supported by the ISI:
Through its Inter-Service Intelligence Agency (ISI), Pakistan
has provided funding, arms, training facilities, and aid in crossing borders to
Lashkar and Jaish. This assistance — an attempt to replicate in Kashmir the
international Islamist brigade’s “holy war” against the Soviet Union in
Afghanistan — helped introduce radical Islam into the long-standing conflict
over the fate of Kashmir. …
Have these groups received funding from sources other than the
Pakistani government?
Yes. Members of the Pakistani and Kashmiri communities in
England send millions of dollars a year, and Wahabi sympathizers in the Persian
Gulf also provide support.
Do Islamist terrorists in Kashmir have ties to Al-Qaeda?
Yes. In 1998, the leader of Harakat, Farooq Kashmiri Khalil,
signed Osama bin Laden’s declaration calling for attacks on Americans,
including civilians, and their allies. Bin Laden is also suspected of funding
Jaish, according to U.S. and Indian officials. And Maulana Massoud Azhar, who
founded Jaish, travelled to Afghanistan several times to meet bin Laden.
Where
were these Islamist militants trained?
Many were given ideological training in the same madrasahs, or
Muslim seminaries, that taught the Taliban and foreign fighters in Afghanistan.
They received military training at camps in Afghanistan or in villages in
Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. Extremist groups have recently opened several new
madrasas in Azad Kashmir.
(Council on Foreign Relations, “Terrorism: Questions and
Answers, Harakat ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad”,
Washington 2002. This text was removed from the CFR website in
2006)
What
the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) fails to acknowledge are the links
between the ISI and the CIA and the fact that the “international Islamic
brigades” were a creation of the CIA.
U.S.-Sponsored
Insurgencies in China
Also
of significance in understanding America’s “War on Terrorism” is the existence
of ISI-supported Islamic insurgencies on China’s Western border with
Afghanistan and Pakistan. In fact, several of the Islamic movements in the
Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union are integrated with the Turkestan
and Uigur movements in China’s Xinjiang-Uigur autonomous region.
These
separatist groups — which include the East Turkestan Terrorist Force, the
Islamic Reformist Party, the East Turkestan National Unity Alliance, the Uigur
Liberation Organization and the Central Asian Uigur Jihad Party — have all
received support and training from Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. (According to
official Chinese sources quoted in UPI, 20 November 2001.). The declared
objective of these Chinese-based Islamic insurgencies is the “establishment of
an Islamic caliphate in the region”. (Defence and Security, May 30, 2001).
The
caliphate would integrate Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan (West Turkestan)
and the Uigur autonomous region of China (East Turkestan) into a single
political entity.
The
“caliphate project” encroaches upon Chinese territorial sovereignty. Supported
by various Wahabi “foundations” from the Gulf States, secessionism on China’s
Western frontier is, once again, consistent with U.S. strategic interests in
Central Asia. Meanwhile, a powerful U.S.-based lobby is channelling support to
separatist forces in Tibet.
By
tacitly promoting the secession of the Xinjiang-Uigur region (using Pakistan’s
ISI as a “go-between”), Washington is attempting to trigger a broader process
of political destabilization and fracturing of the People’s Republic of China.
In addition to these various covert operations, the U.S. has established
military bases in Afghanistan and in several of the former Soviet republics,
directly on China’s Western border.
The
militarization of the South China Sea and of the Taiwan Straits is also an
integral part of this strategy.
Yugoslavia
Throughout
the 1990s, the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was used by the CIA
as a go-between — to channel weapons and Mujahideen mercenaries to the Bosnian
Muslim Army in the civil war in Yugoslavia. According to a report of the London
based International Media Corporation:
“Reliable sources report that the United States is now [1994]
actively participating in the arming and training of the Muslim forces of
Bosnia-Herzegovina in direct contravention of the United Nations accords. US
agencies have been providing weapons made in … China (PRC), North Korea (DPRK)
and Iran. The sources indicated that … Iran, with the knowledge and agreement
of the US Government, supplied the Bosnian forces with a large number of multiple
rocket launchers and a large quantity of ammunition. These included 107mm and
122mm rockets from the PRC, and VBR-230 multiple rocket launchers … made in
Iran. … It was [also] reported that 400 members of the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard (Pasdaran) arrived in Bosnia with a large supply of arms and ammunition.
It was alleged that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had full knowledge
of the operation and that the CIA believed that some of the 400 had been
detached for future terrorist operations in Western Europe.
The US Administration has not restricted its involvement to the
clandestine contravention of the UN arms embargo on the region … It [also]
committed three high-ranking delegations over the past two years [prior to
1994] in failed attempts to bring the Yugoslav Government into line with US
policy. Yugoslavia is the only state in the region to have failed to acquiesce
to US pressure.” (International Media Corporation, Defence and Strategy Policy,
U.S. Commits Forces, Weapons to Bosnia, London, 31 October 1994)
“From
the Horse’s Mouth”
Ironically,
the US Administration’s undercover military-intelligence operations in Bosnia,
which consisted in promoting the formation of “Islamic brigades”, have been
fully documented by the Republican Party. A lengthy Congressional report by the
Senate Republican Party Committee (RPC) published in 1997, largely confirms the
International Media Corporation report quoted above. The RPC Congressional
report accuses the Clinton administration of having “helped turn Bosnia into a
militant Islamic base” leading to the recruitment through the so-called
“Militant Islamic Network,” of thousands of Mujahideen from the Muslim world:
“Perhaps most threatening to the SFOR mission – and more
importantly, to the safety of the American personnel serving in Bosnia –
is the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with
the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery
of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo. That
policy, personally approved by Bill Clinton in April 1994 at the urging of CIA
Director-designate (and then-NSC chief) Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to
Croatia Peter Galbraith, has, according to the Los Angeles Times (citing
classified intelligence community sources), “played a central role in the
dramatic increase in Iranian influence in Bosnia.
Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK
intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands
of mujahedin (“holy warriors”) from across the Muslim world.Also engaged in the
effort were several other Muslim countries (including Brunei, Malaysia,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey) and a number of radical Muslim
organizations. For example, the role of one Sudan-based “humanitarian
organization,” called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well documented.
The Clinton Administration’s “hands-on” involvement with the
Islamic network’s arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by
U.S. government officials… the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based,
phoney humanitarian organization … has been a major link in the arms pipeline
to Bosnia. … TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic
terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the
1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden, a
wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. [Washington
Post, 9/22/96]
(Congressional Press Release, Republican Party Committee (RPC),
U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into
Militant Islamic Base, Washington DC, 16 January 1997, available on the website
of the Centre of Research on Globalisation (CRG) at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html. The original document is on the website of the U.S.
Senate Republican Party Committee (Senator Larry Craig), at http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm; see also Washington Post, 22 September 1999,
Emphasis added)
Complicity
of the Clinton Administration
In
other words, the Republican Party Committee report confirms unequivocally the
complicity of the Clinton Administration with several Islamic fundamentalist
organisations including Al Qaeda.
The
Republicans wanted at the time to undermine the Clinton Administration.
However, at a time when the entire country had its eyes riveted on the Monica
Lewinsky scandal, the Republicans no doubt chose not to trigger an untimely
“Iran-Bosniagate” affair, which might have unduly diverted public attention
away from the Lewinsky scandal. The Republicans wanted to impeach Bill Clinton
“for having lied to the American People” regarding his affair with White House
intern Monica Lewinsky. On the more substantive “foreign policy lies” regarding
drug running and covert operations in the Balkans, Democrats and Republicans
agreed in unison, no doubt pressured by the Pentagon and the CIA not to “spill
the beans”.
From
Bosnia to Kosovo
The
“Bosnian pattern” described in the 1997 Congressional RPC report was replicated
in Kosovo. With the complicity of NATO and the US State
Department, Mujahideen mercenaries from the Middle East and Central Asia
were recruited to fight in the ranks of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in
1998-99, largely supporting NATO’s war effort.
Confirmed
by British military sources, the task of arming and training of the KLA had
been entrusted in 1998 to the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and
Britain’s Secret Intelligence Services MI6, together with “former and serving
members of 22 SAS [Britain's 22nd Special Air Services Regiment], as well as
three British and American private security companies”. (The Scotsman, Edinburgh, 29 August 1999).
The
US DIA approached MI6 to arrange a training programme for the KLA, said a
senior British military source. `MI6 then sub-contracted the operation to two
British security companies, who in turn approached a number of former members
of the (22 SAS) regiment. Lists were then drawn up of weapons and equipment
needed by the KLA.’ While these covert operations were continuing, serving
members of 22 SAS Regiment, mostly from the unit’s D Squadron, were first
deployed in Kosovo before the beginning of the bombing campaign in March.
(Truth in Media, “Kosovo in Crisis”, Phoenix, Arizona, http://www.truthinmedia.org/, 2 April 1999).
While
British SAS Special Forces in bases in Northern Albania were training the KLA,
military instructors from Turkey and Afghanistan financed by the “Islamic
jihad” were collaborating in training the KLA in guerilla and diversion
tactics.:(The Sunday Times, London, 29 November 1998).
“Bin Laden had visited Albania himself. He was one of several
fundamentalist groups that had sent units to fight in Kosovo, … Bin Laden is
believed to have established an operation in Albania in 1994 … Albanian sources
say Sali Berisha, who was then president, had links with some groups that later
proved to be extreme fundamentalists.” (Ibid)
Congressional
Testimonies on KLA-Al Qaeda links
In
the mid-1990s, the CIA and Germany’s Secret Service, the BND, joined hands in
providing covert support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In turn, the
latter was receiving support from Al Qaeda.
According
to Frank Ciluffo of the Globalized Organised Crime Program, in a December 2000
testimony to the House of Representatives Judicial Committee:
“What was largely hidden from public view was the fact that the
KLA raise part of their funds from the sale of narcotics. Albania and Kosovo
lie at the heart of the “Balkan Route” that links the “Golden Crescent” of
Afghanistan and Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe. This route is worth an
estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80 percent of heroin destined for
Europe.” (U.S. Congress, Testimony of Frank J. Cilluffo, Deputy Director of the
Global Organized Crime Program, to the House Judiciary Committee, Washington
DC, 13 December 2000).
According
to Ralf Mutschke of Interpol’s Criminal Intelligence division also in a
testimony to the House Judicial Committee:
“The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist
organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from
the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and
individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden” . Another link to bin Laden
is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad organization and
also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit
during the Kosovo conflict.”(U.S. Congress, Testimony of Ralf Mutschke of
Interpol’s Criminal Intelligence Division, to the House Judicial Committee,
Washington DC, 13 December 2000.)
Madeleine
Albright Covets the KLA
These
KLA links to international terrorism and organised crime documented by the US
Congress were totally ignored by the Clinton Administration. In fact, in the
months preceding the bombing of Yugoslavia, Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright (image Albright with KLA leader Hashim Thaci, 1999) was busy building
a “political legitimacy” for the KLA. The paramilitary army had –from one day
to the next– been elevated to the status of a bona fide “democratic” force in
Kosovo. In turn, Madeleine Albright has forced the pace of international
diplomacy: the KLA had been spearheaded into playing a central role in the
failed “peace negotiations” at Rambouiillet in early 1999.
The
Senate and the House tacitly endorse State Terrorism
While
the various Congressional reports confirmed that the US government had been
working hand in glove with Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, this did not prevent the
Clinton and later the Bush Administration from arming and equipping the KLA.
The Congressional documents also confirm that members of the Senate and the
House knew the relationship of the Administration to international terrorism.
To quote the statement of Rep. John Kasich of the House Armed Services
Committee: “We connected ourselves [in 1998-99] with the KLA, which was the
staging point for bin Laden…” (U.S. Congress, Transcripts of the House Armed
Services Committee, Washington, DC, 5 October 1999,)
In
the wake of the tragic events of September 11, Republicans and Democrats in
unison have given their full support to the President to “wage war on Osama”.
In
1999, Senator Jo Lieberman had stated authoritatively that “Fighting for the
KLA is fighting for human rights and American values.” In the hours following
the October 7 missile attacks on Afghanistan, the same Jo Lieberman called for punitive
air strikes against Iraq: “We’re in a war against terrorism… We can’t stop with
bin Laden and the Taliban.” Yet Senator Jo Lieberman, as member of the Armed
Services Committee of the Senate had access to all the Congressional documents
pertaining to “KLA-Osama” links. In making this statement, he was fully aware
that that agencies of the US government as well as NATO were supporting
international terrorism.
“The
Islamic Militant Network” and NATO join hands in Macedonia
In
the wake of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, the terrorist activities of the KLA
were extended into Southern Serbia and Macedonia. Meanwhile, the KLA –renamed
the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC)– was elevated to United Nations status,
implying the granting of “legitimate” sources of funding through United Nations
as well as through bilateral channels, including direct US military aid.
And
barely two months after the official inauguration of the KPC under UN auspices
(September 1999), KPC-KLA commanders – using UN resources and equipment – were
already preparing the assaults into Macedonia, as a logical follow-up to their
terrorist activities in Kosovo. According to the Skopje daily Dnevnik, the KPC
had established a “sixth operation zone” in Southern Serbia and Macedonia:
“Sources, who insist on anonymity, claim that the headquarters
of the Kosovo protection brigades [i.e. linked to the UN sponsored KPC] have
[March 2000] already been formed in Tetovo, Gostivar and Skopje. They are being
prepared in Debar and Struga [on the border with Albania] as well, and their
members have defined codes.” (Macedonian Information Centre
Newsletter, Skopje, 21 March 2000, published by BBC Summary of World
Broadcast, 24 March 2000.)
According
to the BBC, “Western special forces were still training the guerrillas” meaning
that they were assisting the KLA in opening up “a sixth operation zone” in
Southern Serbia and Macedonia. (BBC, 29 January 2001.)
Among
the foreign mercenaries fighting in Macedonia in 2001 in the ranks of
self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA) were Mujahideen from the Middle
East and the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Also within
the KLA’s proxy force in Macedonia were senior US military advisers from a
private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon as well as “soldiers of
fortune” from Britain, Holland and Germany. Some of these Western mercenaries
had previously fought with the KLA and the Bosnian Muslim Army. (Scotland on
Sunday, 15 June 2001. See also UPI, 9 July 2001. For further details see Michel
Chossudovsky, America’s “War on Terrorism”, Global Research, 2005, Chapter III
).
Extensively
documented by the Macedonian press and statements of the Macedonian
authorities, the US government and the “Islamic Militant Network” were working
hand in glove in supporting and financing the self-proclaimed National
Liberation Army (NLA), involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia. The NLA
is a proxy of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In turn the KLA and the UN
sponsored Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) are identical institutions with the
same commanders and military personnel. KPC Commanders on UN salaries are
fighting in the NLA together with the Mujahideen.
In
a bitter twist, while supported and financed by Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, the
KLA-NLA was also being supported by NATO and the United Nations mission to
Kosovo (UNMIK). In fact, the “Islamic Militant Network” still constitutes an
integral part of Washington’s covert military-intelligence operations in
Macedonia and Southern Serbia.
The
KLA-NLA terrorists were funded from US military aid, the United Nations
peace-keeping budget as well as by several Islamic organisations including Al
Qaeda. Drug money was also used to finance the terrorists with the complicity
of the US government. The recruitment of Mujahideen to fight in the ranks of
the NLA in Macedonia was implemented through various Islamic groups.
US
military advisers mingle with Mujahideen within the same paramilitary force,
Western mercenaries from NATO countries fight alongside Mujahideen recruited in
the Middle East and Central Asia. And the US media calls this a “blowback”
where so-called “intelligence assets” have gone against their sponsors!
But
this did not happen during the Cold war! It happened in Macedonia in 2000-2001.
Confirmed by numerous press reports, eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence
as well as official statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister, who accused
the Western military alliance of abetting the terrorists, the US had been
supporting the Islamic brigades barely a few months prior to the 9/11 attacks.
Washington’s
Hidden Agenda
U.S.
foreign policy is not geared towards curbing the tide of Islamic
fundamentalism. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The significant development
of “radical Islam”, in the wake of the Cold War in the former Soviet Union and
the Middle East is consistent with Washington’s hidden agenda. The latter
consists in sustaining rather than combating international terrorism, with a
view to destabilizing national societies and preventing the articulation of
genuine secular social movements directed against the American Empire.
Washington
continues to support — through CIA covert operations — the development of
Islamic fundamentalism, throughout the Middle East, in the former Soviet Union
as well in China and India.
Throughout
the developing world, the growth of sectarian, fundamentalist and other such
organizations tends to serve U.S. interests. These various organizations and
armed insurgents have been developed, particularly in countries where state
institutions have collapsed under the brunt of the IMF-sponsored economic
reforms.
These
fundamentalist organizations contribute by destroying and displacing secular
institutions.
Islamic
fundamentalism creates social and ethnic divisions. It undermines the capacity
of people to organize against the American Empire. These organizations or
movements, such as the Taliban, often foment “opposition to Uncle Sam” in a way
which does not constitute any real threat to America’s broader geopolitical and
economic interests.
Erasing
the History of Al Qaeda
Since
September 2001, this history of Al Qaeda has largely been erased. The links of
successive US administrations to the “Islamic terror network” is rarely
mentioned.
A
major war in the Middle East and Central Asia, supposedly “against
international terrorism” was launched in October 2001 by a government which had
been harboring international terrorism as part of its foreign policy agenda. In
other words, the main justification for waging war on Afghanistan and Iraq has been
totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately and consciously
misled by their government.
This
decision to mislead the American people was taken on September 11, 2001 barely
a few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. Without
supporting evidence, Osama had already been tagged as the “prime suspect”. Two
days later on Thursday the 13th of September — while the FBI investigation had
barely commenced — President Bush pledged to “lead the world to victory”.
While
the CIA tacitly acknowledges that Al Qaeda was an “intelligence asset” during
the Cold War, the relationship is said to “go way back” to a bygone era.
Most
post-September 11 news reports tend to consider that these Al Qaeda -CIA links
belong to the “bygone era” of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are invariably viewed
as irrelevant to an understanding of 9/11 and the
“Global War on Terrorism”. Yet barely a few months before 9/11, there was
evidence of active collaboration between members of the US military and Al Qaeda
operatives in the civil war in Macedonia.
Lost
in the barrage of recent history, the role of the CIA, in supporting and
developing international terrorist organizations during the Cold War and its
aftermath, is casually ignored or downplayed by the Western media.
A
blatant example of post-9/11 media distortion is the “blowback” thesis:
“Intelligence assets” are said to “have gone against their sponsors; what we’ve
created blows back in our face”.1 In a display of twisted logic, the U.S.
administration and the CIA are portrayed as the ill-fated victims:
The
sophisticated methods taught to the Mujahideen, and the thousands of tons of
arms supplied to them by the U.S. — and Britain — are now tormenting the West
in the phenomenon known as “blowback”, whereby a policy strategy rebounds on
its own devisers.(The Guardian, London, 15
September 2001)
The
U.S. media, nonetheless, concedes that “the Taliban’s coming to power [in 1996]
is partly the outcome of the U.S. support of the Mujahideen — the radical
Islamic group — in the 1980s in the war against the Soviet Union”. 3 But it
also readily dismisses its own factual statements and concludes, in chorus,
that the CIA had been tricked by a deceitful Osama. It’s like “a son going
against his father”.
The
Post 9/11 “War on Terrorism”
The
“blowback” thesis is a fabrication.
The
CIA never severed its ties to the “Islamic Militant Network”. There is ample
evidence that Al Qaeda remains a US sponsored intelligence asset.
Al
Qaeda is presented as the architect of 9/11 without ever mentioning its
historical links to the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI.
While
Al Qaeda remains firmly under the control of the US intelligence apparatus, the
US administration has repeatedly intimated that this “outside enemy” will
strike again, that a “second 9/11’ will occur somewhere in America or in the
western World:
[there
are] “indications that [the] near-term attacks … will either rival or exceed
the [9/11] attacks…
And
it’s pretty clear that the nation’s capital and New York city would be on any
list…”(Tom Ridge, Christmas 2003)
“You
ask, ‘Is it serious?’ Yes, you bet your life. People don’t do that unless it’s
a serious situation.”(Donald Rumsfeld, Christmas 2003)
“Credible
reporting indicates that Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out
a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our
democratic process… This is sobering information about those who wish to do us
harm… But every day we strengthen the security of our nation.” (George W. Bush,
July 2004)
“The
enemy that struck on 9/11 is fractured and weakened, yet still lethal, still
determined to hit us again”(Dick Cheney, July 2006)
“Another
[9/11] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate
against some known targets”(Pentagon official, quoted in the Washington Post,
23 April 2006)
War
Propaganda
A
terrorist attack on American soil of the size and nature of September 11, would
lead –according to former US Central Command (USCENTCOM) Commander, General
Tommy Franks, who led the invasion of Iraq in 2003 — to the demise of
Constitutional government. In a December 2003 interview, which was barely
mentioned in the US media, General Franks had actually outlined a
scenario which would result in the suspension of the Constitution and the
installation of military rule in America:
“[A]
terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the
Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our
population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our
country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.
(Cigar Aficionado, December 2003)
Franks
was alluding to a so-called “Pearl Harbor type event” which would be used to
galvanize US public opinion in support of a military government and police
state.
The
“terrorist massive casualty-producing event” was presented by General Franks as
a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis, social turmoil and
public indignation would facilitate a major shift in US political, social and
institutional structures.
It
is important to understand that General Franks was not giving a personal
opinion on this issue. His statement is consistent with the dominant viewpoint
both in the Pentagon and the Homeland Security department as to how events
might unfold in the case of a national emergency.
“Massive
Casualty Producing Events”
The
“massive casualty producing event” is a integral part of military doctrine. The
destruction and loss of life resulting from a terrorist attack serve to create
a wave of public indignation. They create conditions of collective fear and
intimidation, which facilitate the derogation of civil liberties and the
introduction of police state measures.
The
September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were used
to galvanize public support for the invasion of Afghanistan, which took place
barely four weeks later. Without supporting evidence, Al Qaeda, which was
allegedly supported by the Taliban government, was held responsible for the 911
attacks.
The
planning of a major theater war had been ongoing well before 9/11. Whereas the
US military was already in an “advanced state of readiness”, well at in advance
of the 9/11 attacks, the decision to go to war with Afghanistan was taken on
the evening of September 11 and was formally announced the following morning.
Meanwhile, NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty and declared war on
Afghanistan on behalf of all signatory member states of the Atlantic Alliance.
NATO’s declaration of war based on the principle of “self-defense” was taken
within 24 hours of the September 11 attacks.
Article
5 of the Washington Treaty was first invoked on September 12, 2001. America’s
European Allies plus Canada offered their support in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. NATO embraced the US sponsored “Global War on Terrorism”. Fourteen
NATO member states sent troops to Afghanistan. (See NATO Review, Summer
2006, http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2006/issue2/english/summaries.html)
Operation
Northwoods
The
9/11 “massive casualty producing event” played a crucial role in the process of
military planning. It provided, in the eyes of public opinion, a pretext to go
to war.
The
triggering of “war pretext incidents” is part of the Pentagon’s assumptions. In
fact it is an integral part of US military history.
In
1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled “Operation
Northwoods, to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion
of Cuba:
“We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,”
“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other
Florida cities and even in Washington” “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would
cause a helpful wave of national indignation.” (See the declassified Top Secret
1962 document titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba”,
See Operation Northwoods at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ).
Terror
Warnings and Terror Events
To
be “effective” the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on
unsubstantiated “warnings” of future attacks, it also requires “real” terrorist
occurrences or “incidents”, which provide credibility to the Administration’s
war plans. Propaganda endorses the need to implement “emergency measures” as
well as carry out retaliatory military actions.
Both
the terror warnings and the terror events have served as a pretext to justify
far-reaching military decisions.
Following
the July 2005 London bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney was reported to have
instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan “to be employed in response
to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States”. Implied in the
contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11.
This
“contingency plan” used the pretext of a “Second 9/11″, which had not yet
happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran, while
pressure was also exerted on Tehran in relation to its (non-existent) nuclear
weapons program.
What
is diabolical in this decision of the US Vice President is that the
justification presented by Cheney to wage war on Iran rested on Iran’s alleged
involvement in a hypothetical terrorist attack on America, which had not yet
occurred:
The
plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and
tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic
targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development
sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not
be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case
of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the
act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force
officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications
of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear
attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
(Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive
Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)
Are
we to understand that US, British and Israeli military planners are waiting in
limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Syria
and Iran?
Cheney’s
proposed “contingency plan” did not in the least focus on preventing a Second
9/11. The Cheney plan was predicated on the presumption that Iran would be
behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings could immediately be activated,
prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks
on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the alleged
support of the Taliban government to the 9/11 terrorists.
It
is worth noting that one does not plan a war in three weeks: the bombing and
invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael
Keefer points out in an incisive review article:
“At
a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in
Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of
aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and
its corporate propaganda-amplification system…. (Michael Keefer, Petrodollars
and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Understanding the Planned Assault on Iran,
Global Research, February 10, 2006)
Since
2001, Vice President Cheney has reiterated his warning of a second 9/11 on
several occasions
“The
enemy that struck on 9/11 is fractured and weakened, yet still lethal, still determined to hit us again”
(Waterloo Courier, Iowa, 19 July 2006, italics added).
“Justification
and Opportunity to Retaliate against some known targets”
In
April 2006, (former) Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld launched a
far-reaching military plan to fight terrorism around the World, with a view to
retaliating in the case of a second major terrorist attack on America.
“Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has approved the
military’s most ambitious plan yet to fight terrorism around the world and
retaliate more rapidly and decisively in the case of another major terrorist
attack on the United States, according to defense officials.
The long-awaited campaign plan for the global war on terrorism,
as well as two subordinate plans also approved within the past month by
Rumsfeld, are considered the Pentagon’s highest priority, according to
officials familiar with the three documents who spoke on the condition of
anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about them publicly.
Details of the plans are secret, but in general they envision a
significantly expanded role for the military — and, in particular, a growing
force of elite Special Operations troops — in continuous operations to combat
terrorism outside of war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Developed over
about three years by the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, the plans
reflect a beefing up of the Pentagon’s involvement in domains traditionally
handled by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department.
(Washington Post, 23 April 2006)
This
plan is predicated on the possibility of a Second 911 and the need to retaliate
if and when the US is attacked:
“A third plan sets out how the military can both disrupt and
respond to another major terrorist strike on the United States. It includes
lengthy annexes that offer a menu of options for the military to retaliate
quickly against specific terrorist groups, individuals or state sponsors
depending on who is believed to be behind an attack. Another attack could create both a justification and an
opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets,
according to current and former defense officials familiar with the plan.
This plan details “what terrorists or bad guys we would hit if
the gloves came off. The gloves are not off,” said one official, who asked not
to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject.” (italics added,
Washington Post, 23 April 2006)
The
presumption of this military document, is that a Second 911 attack “which is
lacking today” would usefully create both a “justification and an opportunity”
to wage war on “some known targets [Iran and Syria]“.
Realities
are twisted upside down. The disinformation campaign has gone into full gear.
The British and US media are increasingly pointing towards “preemptive war” as
an act of “self defense” against Al Qaeda and the State sponsors of terrorism,
who are allegedly preparing a Second 911. The underlying objective, through
fear and intimidation, is ultimately to build public acceptance for the next
stage of the Middle East “war on terrorism” which is directed against Syria and
Iran.
Concluding
Remarks
The
threat of an Al Qaeda “Attack on America” is being used profusely by the Bush
administration and its indefectible British ally to galvanize public opinion in
support of a global military agenda.
Known
and documented, the “Islamic terror network” is a creation of the US
intelligence apparatus. There is firm evidence that several of the terrorist
“mass casualty events” which have resulted in civilian casualties were
triggered by the military and/or intelligence services. Similarly, corroborated
by evidence, several of the terror alerts were based on fake intelligence as
revealed in the London 2006 foiled “liquid bomb attack”, where the alleged
hijackers had not purchased airline tickets and several did not have passports
to board the aircraft.
The
“war on terrorism” is bogus. The 911 narrative as conveyed by the 911
Commission report is fabricated. The Bush administration is involved in acts of
cover-up and complicity at the highest levels of government.
Revealing
the lies behind 911 would serve to undermine the legitimacy of the “war on
terrorism”.
Revealing
the lies behind 911 should be part of a consistent antiwar movement.
Without
911, the war criminals in high office do not have a leg to stand on. The entire
national security constructs collapses like a deck of cards.
Michel
Chossudovsky is the author of the international
bestseller America’s “War on
Terrorism” Global Research, 2005. He
is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the
Center for Research on Globalization.
No comments:
Post a Comment