The Washington Times reports that PUBLIC DETAILS ARE VAGUE, but a recent deal between Iran and Venezuela provides for the exploitation of Venezuela's strategic minerals, prompting OPPOSITION FIGURES and the LOCAL PRESS to warn that President Hugo Chavez's government COULD be planning to provide Tehran with uranium for its nuclear program. Hmmm--lots of credibility here...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060313-121547-4071r.htm
Niger yellowcake redux. Joseph Wilson exposed Bush's fabrication of Saddam's supposed effort to buy uranium from Niger. In retaliation, Wilson's wife Valerie Pflame gets outed as a CIA agent, and Dick Cheney's assistant got indicted for lying about it. By now everybody should know about the Niger yellowcake lies and how the administration goes about propogating disinformation.
But now a variation magically appears just as the administration ramps up its effort to demonize Iran and Venezuela. Soon the ever credible Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will be citing press reports about an ominous Chavez-Iran connection. And the ever gullible American public won't notice that the fabricators are at work once again, the same lie has been reincarnated, and they'll probably get spooked by it all once again.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
"Operation Swarm of Lies" By Dahr Jamail
The stated mission of Operation Swarmer, launched late last week in an area just northeast of Samarra, in Iraq, was to "break up a center of insurgent resistance" and to disrupt "terrorist activity," according to the US military.
Comprised of over 1,500 US and Iraqi soldiers, 50 US attack and transport helicopters airlifted the bold force into a flat area of farmland filled not with fighters belonging to the "center of insurgent resistance," but with impoverished farmers, cows, goats and women baking bread. The first drop of soldiers onto the ground from this air-operation doubled the meager population of 1,500 souls living in the 50 square-mile area.
US troops acted bravely, snatching up 48 "suspected insurgents," then promptly releasing 17 of them. They were precise in their operations, and did not detain a single cow or goat.
What did the military say about why no resistance was met?
"We believe we achieved tactical surprise," said Lt. Col. Edward Loomis, the spokesman for the 101st Airborne Division.
Fallaciously hailed as the largest air assault in Iraq since the Anglo-American invasion three years ago, Lt. Col. Loomis said that two days into the operation his forces "continue to move" through the area, and "tactical interviews began immediately." According to Time magazine
<http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174448,00.html> reporters:
"Four Black Hawk helicopters landed in a wheat field and dropped off a television crew, three photographers, three print reporters and three Iraqi government officials right into the middle of Operation Swarmer. Iraqi soldiers in newly painted humvees, green and red Iraqi flags
stenciled on the tailgates, had just finished searching the farm populated by a half-dozen skinny cows and a woman kneading freshly risen dough and slapping it to the walls of a mud oven. But contrary to what many television networks erroneously reported, the operation was by no
means the largest use of airpower since the start of the war. ("Air Assault" is a military term that refers specifically to transporting troops into an area.) In fact, there were no air-strikes and no leading insurgents were nabbed in an operation that some skeptical military analysts described as little more than a photo op. What's more, there were no shots fired at all and the units had met no resistance, said the US and Iraqi commanders."
Of course, the US military claimed that two local leaders of the group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were to have been in the area, but alas, they were not to be caught up in Operation Swarmer or any of the "tactical interviews."
Meanwhile on Sunday, fresh from a relaxing weekend at Camp David, Mr. Bush said of Iraq, "I'm encouraged by the progress," while talking to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House.
Bush, his comments sticking to the talking points of his administration which surround this three year anniversary of the launching of Operation Iraqi Freedom, nearly mirrored those made recently by General Peter Pace. Pace, as you recall, when asked on "Meet the Press" about Iraq, said things were "going very, very well from everything you look at."
Operation Swarm of Lies is part of yet another Cheney administration media blitz to put a happy face on this horrendously failed misadventure in Iraq. All too aware of the plummeting US public support for the war effort, and with approval ratings for the so-called president at an all time low, Bush had been sent out on the campaign trail to apply fresh gloss to the tattered sheen of the US occupation of Iraq. Sticking with their talking points of having Iraqi forces take over security responsibilities, the primary purpose of Operation Swarm of Lies was obviously to send the message to Americans that the US military are allowing Iraqis to "take the fight to the enemy."
But this operation of mass distraction has served other purposes as well.
Operation Swarm of Lies served well in diverting media attention in the US from US/UK covert operations in Iran last Friday.
Even the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported
<http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/17/iran060317.html> that
Iran's national police chief, Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddamm, accused US and British agents of playing a role in the deaths of 21 people in southeastern Iran. Moghaddamm accused the intelligence services of both the US and UK of encouraging attacks by Iranian rebel groups against civilians.
Operation Swarm of Lies also effectively distracted media attention from the arrest of an American "security contractor" in Tikrit last week. According to the Joint Coordination Center between the US and Iraqi military in Tikrit, "the man is described as a security contractor
working for a private company," and he "possessed explosives which were found in his car" when he was arrested last Tuesday
<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-03-14T102336Z_01_OLI434593_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-AMERICAN.xml&archived=False>.
This incident was also reported on al-Sharqiyah Television on March 14th, where they added that the man was arrested during an imposed curfew, and "he had explosives in his car, noting that contacts are being held between officials in Salah al-Din Governorate and US Army officials regarding the incident."
Meanwhile back in the Motherland, "Vice" President Cheney said this past weekend that Iraq is not in a civil war, but that terrorists there were involved in desperate tactics to stop Iraq's move towards democracy.
"What we've seen is a serious effort by them to foment a civil war," Cheney said during an interview on the CBS program "Face the Nation" recently, "But I don't think they've been successful."
He's right - the Iraqi people have thus far managed, miraculously, to thwart the ongoing attempts by the occupiers to "foment civil war."
Because the recent incident in Tikrit is but one example of many which have shown who the real terrorists are in Iraq. Even just last September, two undercover British SAS soldiers were detained by Iraqi police in Basra. The Brits were dressed as Iraqis, traveling in an unmarked civilian car, and "Iraqi security officials ... accused the two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives. Photographs of the two men in custody showed them in civilian clothes."
According the same article by the Washington Post
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091900572.html>,
the British military promptly razed the Iraqi jail in order to free their two soldiers. In response, Mohammed Walli, the governor of the province, told news agencies that the British assault was "barbaric, savage and irresponsible."
Barbaric, savage and irresponsible are words that can also be used to describe the true nature of Operation Swarm of Lies.
Just this past Sunday, the Director of the Monitoring Net of Human Rights in Iraq (MHRI), Muhamad al-Deraji, issued an appeal to the UN mission in Baghdad regarding violations committed by the US military operation near Samarra.
"We have received information from citizens and human rights activists in Samarra stating that the region, under American and Iraqi military operation ... is witnessing dangerous human rights violations, which is confirmed by the following:
1 - The Red Crescent aiding missions are not allowed to enter the region.
2 - [Independent] Press and media are, as well, forbidden from entering the region.
3 - Women and children are not allowed to leave the region of military operations.
4 - Receipt of news indicates presence of violations and assault for citizens aiming to terrorize them and forces them to emigrate from this region, through arresting the men and forcing women and their horrified children to escape later, on and leave the region aiming to build a
military base there."
Most importantly, however, is the human tragedy which Operation Swarm of Lies has both generated as well as diverted attention from.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, via the Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) reported on Sunday, "Hundreds of families displaced
<http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=52300&SelectRegion=Middle_East&SelectCountry=IRAQ>
due to major offensive."
The report says "hundreds of families have fled the city of Samarra" as the result of Operation Swarmer. Barakat Muhammad, a resident and father of five who lives in Samarra told IRIN, "When they started to hit our city I didn't take anything. I just took my family and ran like hell. We don't have anything to eat or wear."
Despite claims by the US military that no shots were fired, obviously bombs were dropped on civilians.
The IRIN report adds that "local doctors say that at least 35 civilians, including women and children, have been treated at the local hospital with injuries caused by the air strikes. In addition, 18 bodies had been taken to the hospital since 17 March."
Yet there have been ongoing air strikes north/northeast of Baghdad since at least last Wednesday.
According to the aforementioned Iraqi NGO MHRI, as well as AP reporters, "eleven people - most of them women and children - have been killed after US forces bombed a house during a raid north of Baghdad." The US military acknowledged <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11819857/> the raid which occurred near Balad, about 50 miles north of Baghdad, but said only four people were killed - a man, two women and a child.
Relatives, however, said 11 bodies wrapped in blankets were driven in the back of three pickup trucks to the Tikrit General Hospital, about 40 miles north of where the air strike occurred.
As usual, reality contradicted the claims by the US military of only four dead, when AP photographs showed the bodies of two men, five children and four other covered figures arriving at the hospital accompanied by grief-stricken relatives.
Even a police captain from nearby Samarra, Laith Mohammed, said that American warplanes and armor were used in the strike which flatted the house, killing all 11 people inside.
An AP reporter at the scene of the bombing in the rural area of Isahaqi said "the roof of the house collapsed, three cars were destroyed and two cows killed."
Riyadh Majid, the nephew of the head of the family who was killed, told the AP that US forces landed in helicopters and raided the home early last Wednesday. Ahmed Khalaf, the brother of the deceased head of the household, said nine of the victims were family members who lived at the house and two were visitors.
"The killed family was not part of the resistance, they were women and children," said Khalaf, "The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death."
As per their now standard operating procedure, the US military claimed the strike targeted an individual "suspected" of supporting al-Qaida. And as usual, the military claimed they were under attack from the house.
"Troops were engaged by enemy fire as they approached the building," according to Tech. Sgt. Stacy Simon, "Coalition forces returned fire utilizing both air and ground assets."
And the al-Qaida suspects killed by this particular air strike were of the younger variety
<http://209.97.202.24/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album37&id=clip_image002>
this time around, again as usual
<http://209.97.202.24/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album37&id=clip_image001>
for the US military in Iraq.
But of course, all of this was effectively overshadowed by Operation Swarm of Lies.
///
To view more photos of the results of the US air-strike on the home in
Balad, click here
<http://209.97.202.24/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album37>
Comprised of over 1,500 US and Iraqi soldiers, 50 US attack and transport helicopters airlifted the bold force into a flat area of farmland filled not with fighters belonging to the "center of insurgent resistance," but with impoverished farmers, cows, goats and women baking bread. The first drop of soldiers onto the ground from this air-operation doubled the meager population of 1,500 souls living in the 50 square-mile area.
US troops acted bravely, snatching up 48 "suspected insurgents," then promptly releasing 17 of them. They were precise in their operations, and did not detain a single cow or goat.
What did the military say about why no resistance was met?
"We believe we achieved tactical surprise," said Lt. Col. Edward Loomis, the spokesman for the 101st Airborne Division.
Fallaciously hailed as the largest air assault in Iraq since the Anglo-American invasion three years ago, Lt. Col. Loomis said that two days into the operation his forces "continue to move" through the area, and "tactical interviews began immediately." According to Time magazine
<http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174448,00.html> reporters:
"Four Black Hawk helicopters landed in a wheat field and dropped off a television crew, three photographers, three print reporters and three Iraqi government officials right into the middle of Operation Swarmer. Iraqi soldiers in newly painted humvees, green and red Iraqi flags
stenciled on the tailgates, had just finished searching the farm populated by a half-dozen skinny cows and a woman kneading freshly risen dough and slapping it to the walls of a mud oven. But contrary to what many television networks erroneously reported, the operation was by no
means the largest use of airpower since the start of the war. ("Air Assault" is a military term that refers specifically to transporting troops into an area.) In fact, there were no air-strikes and no leading insurgents were nabbed in an operation that some skeptical military analysts described as little more than a photo op. What's more, there were no shots fired at all and the units had met no resistance, said the US and Iraqi commanders."
Of course, the US military claimed that two local leaders of the group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were to have been in the area, but alas, they were not to be caught up in Operation Swarmer or any of the "tactical interviews."
Meanwhile on Sunday, fresh from a relaxing weekend at Camp David, Mr. Bush said of Iraq, "I'm encouraged by the progress," while talking to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House.
Bush, his comments sticking to the talking points of his administration which surround this three year anniversary of the launching of Operation Iraqi Freedom, nearly mirrored those made recently by General Peter Pace. Pace, as you recall, when asked on "Meet the Press" about Iraq, said things were "going very, very well from everything you look at."
Operation Swarm of Lies is part of yet another Cheney administration media blitz to put a happy face on this horrendously failed misadventure in Iraq. All too aware of the plummeting US public support for the war effort, and with approval ratings for the so-called president at an all time low, Bush had been sent out on the campaign trail to apply fresh gloss to the tattered sheen of the US occupation of Iraq. Sticking with their talking points of having Iraqi forces take over security responsibilities, the primary purpose of Operation Swarm of Lies was obviously to send the message to Americans that the US military are allowing Iraqis to "take the fight to the enemy."
But this operation of mass distraction has served other purposes as well.
Operation Swarm of Lies served well in diverting media attention in the US from US/UK covert operations in Iran last Friday.
Even the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported
<http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/17/iran060317.html> that
Iran's national police chief, Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddamm, accused US and British agents of playing a role in the deaths of 21 people in southeastern Iran. Moghaddamm accused the intelligence services of both the US and UK of encouraging attacks by Iranian rebel groups against civilians.
Operation Swarm of Lies also effectively distracted media attention from the arrest of an American "security contractor" in Tikrit last week. According to the Joint Coordination Center between the US and Iraqi military in Tikrit, "the man is described as a security contractor
working for a private company," and he "possessed explosives which were found in his car" when he was arrested last Tuesday
<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-03-14T102336Z_01_OLI434593_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-AMERICAN.xml&archived=False>.
This incident was also reported on al-Sharqiyah Television on March 14th, where they added that the man was arrested during an imposed curfew, and "he had explosives in his car, noting that contacts are being held between officials in Salah al-Din Governorate and US Army officials regarding the incident."
Meanwhile back in the Motherland, "Vice" President Cheney said this past weekend that Iraq is not in a civil war, but that terrorists there were involved in desperate tactics to stop Iraq's move towards democracy.
"What we've seen is a serious effort by them to foment a civil war," Cheney said during an interview on the CBS program "Face the Nation" recently, "But I don't think they've been successful."
He's right - the Iraqi people have thus far managed, miraculously, to thwart the ongoing attempts by the occupiers to "foment civil war."
Because the recent incident in Tikrit is but one example of many which have shown who the real terrorists are in Iraq. Even just last September, two undercover British SAS soldiers were detained by Iraqi police in Basra. The Brits were dressed as Iraqis, traveling in an unmarked civilian car, and "Iraqi security officials ... accused the two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives. Photographs of the two men in custody showed them in civilian clothes."
According the same article by the Washington Post
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091900572.html>,
the British military promptly razed the Iraqi jail in order to free their two soldiers. In response, Mohammed Walli, the governor of the province, told news agencies that the British assault was "barbaric, savage and irresponsible."
Barbaric, savage and irresponsible are words that can also be used to describe the true nature of Operation Swarm of Lies.
Just this past Sunday, the Director of the Monitoring Net of Human Rights in Iraq (MHRI), Muhamad al-Deraji, issued an appeal to the UN mission in Baghdad regarding violations committed by the US military operation near Samarra.
"We have received information from citizens and human rights activists in Samarra stating that the region, under American and Iraqi military operation ... is witnessing dangerous human rights violations, which is confirmed by the following:
1 - The Red Crescent aiding missions are not allowed to enter the region.
2 - [Independent] Press and media are, as well, forbidden from entering the region.
3 - Women and children are not allowed to leave the region of military operations.
4 - Receipt of news indicates presence of violations and assault for citizens aiming to terrorize them and forces them to emigrate from this region, through arresting the men and forcing women and their horrified children to escape later, on and leave the region aiming to build a
military base there."
Most importantly, however, is the human tragedy which Operation Swarm of Lies has both generated as well as diverted attention from.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, via the Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) reported on Sunday, "Hundreds of families displaced
<http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=52300&SelectRegion=Middle_East&SelectCountry=IRAQ>
due to major offensive."
The report says "hundreds of families have fled the city of Samarra" as the result of Operation Swarmer. Barakat Muhammad, a resident and father of five who lives in Samarra told IRIN, "When they started to hit our city I didn't take anything. I just took my family and ran like hell. We don't have anything to eat or wear."
Despite claims by the US military that no shots were fired, obviously bombs were dropped on civilians.
The IRIN report adds that "local doctors say that at least 35 civilians, including women and children, have been treated at the local hospital with injuries caused by the air strikes. In addition, 18 bodies had been taken to the hospital since 17 March."
Yet there have been ongoing air strikes north/northeast of Baghdad since at least last Wednesday.
According to the aforementioned Iraqi NGO MHRI, as well as AP reporters, "eleven people - most of them women and children - have been killed after US forces bombed a house during a raid north of Baghdad." The US military acknowledged <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11819857/> the raid which occurred near Balad, about 50 miles north of Baghdad, but said only four people were killed - a man, two women and a child.
Relatives, however, said 11 bodies wrapped in blankets were driven in the back of three pickup trucks to the Tikrit General Hospital, about 40 miles north of where the air strike occurred.
As usual, reality contradicted the claims by the US military of only four dead, when AP photographs showed the bodies of two men, five children and four other covered figures arriving at the hospital accompanied by grief-stricken relatives.
Even a police captain from nearby Samarra, Laith Mohammed, said that American warplanes and armor were used in the strike which flatted the house, killing all 11 people inside.
An AP reporter at the scene of the bombing in the rural area of Isahaqi said "the roof of the house collapsed, three cars were destroyed and two cows killed."
Riyadh Majid, the nephew of the head of the family who was killed, told the AP that US forces landed in helicopters and raided the home early last Wednesday. Ahmed Khalaf, the brother of the deceased head of the household, said nine of the victims were family members who lived at the house and two were visitors.
"The killed family was not part of the resistance, they were women and children," said Khalaf, "The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death."
As per their now standard operating procedure, the US military claimed the strike targeted an individual "suspected" of supporting al-Qaida. And as usual, the military claimed they were under attack from the house.
"Troops were engaged by enemy fire as they approached the building," according to Tech. Sgt. Stacy Simon, "Coalition forces returned fire utilizing both air and ground assets."
And the al-Qaida suspects killed by this particular air strike were of the younger variety
<http://209.97.202.24/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album37&id=clip_image002>
this time around, again as usual
<http://209.97.202.24/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album37&id=clip_image001>
for the US military in Iraq.
But of course, all of this was effectively overshadowed by Operation Swarm of Lies.
///
To view more photos of the results of the US air-strike on the home in
Balad, click here
<http://209.97.202.24/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album37>
Bush Didn't Bungle Iraq, You Fools THE MISSION WAS INDEED ACCCOMPLISHED by Greg Palast
Get off it. All the carping, belly-aching and complaining about George Bush's incompetence in Iraq, from both the Left and now the Right, is just dead wrong.
On the third anniversary of the tanks rolling over Iraq's border, most of the 59 million Homer Simpsons who voted for Bush are beginning to doubt if his mission was accomplished.
But don't kid yourself -- Bush and his co-conspirator, Dick Cheney, accomplished exactly what they set out to do. In case you've forgotten what their real mission was, let me remind you of White House spokesman Ari Fleisher's original announcement, three years ago, launching of what he called,
"Operation
Iraqi
Liberation."
O.I.L. How droll of them, how cute. Then, Karl Rove made the giggling boys in the White House change it to "OIF" -- Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the 101st Airborne wasn't sent to Basra to get its hands on Iraq's OIF.
"It's about oil," Robert Ebel told me. Who is Ebel? Formerly the CIA's top oil analyst, he was sent by the Pentagon, about a month before the invasion, to a secret confab in London with Saddam's former oil minister to finalize the plans for "liberating" Iraq's oil industry. In London, Bush's emissary Ebel also instructed Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, the man the Pentagon would choose as post-OIF oil minister for Iraq, on the correct method of disposing Iraq's crude.
And what did the USA want Iraq to do with Iraq's oil? The answer will surprise many of you: and it is uglier, more twisted, devilish and devious than anything imagined by the most conspiracy-addicted blogger. The answer can be found in a 323-page plan for Iraq's oil secretly drafted by the State Department. Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn't matter. The key thing is what's inside this thick Bush diktat: a directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will "enhance its relationship with OPEC."
Enhance its relationship with OPEC??? How strange: the government of the United States ordering Iraq to support the very OPEC oil cartel which is strangling our nation with outrageously high prices for crude.
Specifically, the system ordered up by the Bush cabal would keep a lid on Iraq's oil production -- limiting Iraq's oil pumping to the tight quota set by Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel.
There you have it. Yes, Bush went in for the oil -- not to get more of Iraq's oil, but to prevent Iraq producing too much of it.
You must keep in mind who paid for George's ranch and Dick's bunker: Big Oil. And Big Oil -- and their buck-buddies, the Saudis -- don't make money from pumping more oil, but from pumping less of it. The lower the supply, the higher the price.
It's Economics 101. The oil industry is run by a cartel, OPEC, and what economists call an "oligopoly" -- a tiny handful of operators who make more money when there's less oil, not more of it. So, every time the "insurgents" blow up a pipeline in Basra, every time Mad Mahmoud in Tehran threatens to cut supply, the price of oil leaps. And Dick and George just love it.
Dick and George didn't want more oil from Iraq, they wanted less. I know some of you, no matter what I write, insist that our President and his Veep are on the hunt for more crude so you can cheaply fill your family Hummer; that somehow, these two oil-patch babies are concerned that the price of gas in the USA is bumping up to $3 a gallon.
Not so, gentle souls. Three bucks a gallon in the States (and a quid a litre in Britain) means colossal profits for Big Oil, and that makes Dick's ticker go pitty-pat with joy. The top oily-gopolists, the five largest oil companies, pulled in $113 billion in profit in 2005 -- compared to a piddly $34 billion in 2002 before Operation Iraqi Liberation. In other words, it's been a good war for Big Oil.
As per Plan Bush, Bahr Al-Ulum became Iraq's occupation oil minister; the conquered nation "enhanced its relationship with OPEC;" and the price of oil, from Clinton peace-time to Bush war-time, shot up 317%.
In other words, on the third anniversary of invasion, we can say the attack and occupation is, indeed, a Mission Accomplished. However, it wasn't America's mission, nor the Iraqis'. It was a Mission Accomplished for OPEC and Big Oil.
On the third anniversary of the tanks rolling over Iraq's border, most of the 59 million Homer Simpsons who voted for Bush are beginning to doubt if his mission was accomplished.
But don't kid yourself -- Bush and his co-conspirator, Dick Cheney, accomplished exactly what they set out to do. In case you've forgotten what their real mission was, let me remind you of White House spokesman Ari Fleisher's original announcement, three years ago, launching of what he called,
"Operation
Iraqi
Liberation."
O.I.L. How droll of them, how cute. Then, Karl Rove made the giggling boys in the White House change it to "OIF" -- Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the 101st Airborne wasn't sent to Basra to get its hands on Iraq's OIF.
"It's about oil," Robert Ebel told me. Who is Ebel? Formerly the CIA's top oil analyst, he was sent by the Pentagon, about a month before the invasion, to a secret confab in London with Saddam's former oil minister to finalize the plans for "liberating" Iraq's oil industry. In London, Bush's emissary Ebel also instructed Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, the man the Pentagon would choose as post-OIF oil minister for Iraq, on the correct method of disposing Iraq's crude.
And what did the USA want Iraq to do with Iraq's oil? The answer will surprise many of you: and it is uglier, more twisted, devilish and devious than anything imagined by the most conspiracy-addicted blogger. The answer can be found in a 323-page plan for Iraq's oil secretly drafted by the State Department. Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn't matter. The key thing is what's inside this thick Bush diktat: a directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will "enhance its relationship with OPEC."
Enhance its relationship with OPEC??? How strange: the government of the United States ordering Iraq to support the very OPEC oil cartel which is strangling our nation with outrageously high prices for crude.
Specifically, the system ordered up by the Bush cabal would keep a lid on Iraq's oil production -- limiting Iraq's oil pumping to the tight quota set by Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel.
There you have it. Yes, Bush went in for the oil -- not to get more of Iraq's oil, but to prevent Iraq producing too much of it.
You must keep in mind who paid for George's ranch and Dick's bunker: Big Oil. And Big Oil -- and their buck-buddies, the Saudis -- don't make money from pumping more oil, but from pumping less of it. The lower the supply, the higher the price.
It's Economics 101. The oil industry is run by a cartel, OPEC, and what economists call an "oligopoly" -- a tiny handful of operators who make more money when there's less oil, not more of it. So, every time the "insurgents" blow up a pipeline in Basra, every time Mad Mahmoud in Tehran threatens to cut supply, the price of oil leaps. And Dick and George just love it.
Dick and George didn't want more oil from Iraq, they wanted less. I know some of you, no matter what I write, insist that our President and his Veep are on the hunt for more crude so you can cheaply fill your family Hummer; that somehow, these two oil-patch babies are concerned that the price of gas in the USA is bumping up to $3 a gallon.
Not so, gentle souls. Three bucks a gallon in the States (and a quid a litre in Britain) means colossal profits for Big Oil, and that makes Dick's ticker go pitty-pat with joy. The top oily-gopolists, the five largest oil companies, pulled in $113 billion in profit in 2005 -- compared to a piddly $34 billion in 2002 before Operation Iraqi Liberation. In other words, it's been a good war for Big Oil.
As per Plan Bush, Bahr Al-Ulum became Iraq's occupation oil minister; the conquered nation "enhanced its relationship with OPEC;" and the price of oil, from Clinton peace-time to Bush war-time, shot up 317%.
In other words, on the third anniversary of invasion, we can say the attack and occupation is, indeed, a Mission Accomplished. However, it wasn't America's mission, nor the Iraqis'. It was a Mission Accomplished for OPEC and Big Oil.
A visit to Venezuela contradicts the picture our leaders are painting
A visit to Venezuela contradicts the picture our leaders are painting
by Molly Sweetser
published March 19, 2006 6:00 am, Ashville Citizen Times
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060319/OPINION03/60317072/1006
by Molly Sweetser
published March 19, 2006 6:00 am, Ashville Citizen Times
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060319/OPINION03/60317072/1006
On Feb. 2, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld compared Hugo Chavez, the democratically-elected leader of Venezuela, to Adolf Hitler. Sitting in the morning sun, the sounds of life on the streets below me and thinking back on my two weeks here in Venezuela, nothing would lead me to compare this bright diverse country to Nazi Germany. I spent the last two weeks traveling in and learning about Venezuela with the San Francisco-based Global Exchange. Our delegation of almost 200 met with students of all ages, officials from PDVSA (the Venezuelan oil company), community leaders, doctors, farmers and many other Venezuelans.
The experience that best illustrates the feeling I find here in Venezuela was an evening spent with students in Mission Ribas, one of the social missions set up by the Chavez government. This center allows people who never had the opportunity to attend or finish high school to study and get a high school degree. One teacher wiped tears from her eyes as she told us how moving it was to empower her students to reach goals that had previously been impossible for them. The teacher had studied at a university before Chavez was elected and had not thought much of the educational missions until her mother began studying at the Mission Ribas school. The pride and knowledge that her mother received from the school then motivated the young teacher to get involved and to work at the Mission Ribas school.
Other students from their 20s to their 70s stood and told us how good it felt to finally be able to help their children with their homework or to have a whole new world of opportunities because they learned to read.
I have encountered the same pride and sense of empowerment throughout the communities I have visited. These are people who feel that Chavez has opened doors for them and is helping them to lift themselves up out of dependence and destitution.
These are not people who feel that they live in an oppressive dictatorship. Chavez, like any human being, is not perfect and there is a significant opposition and important questions left to be answered. However, much of the opposition is fueled by the United States.
Before the April 2002 coup that replaced the Chavez administration for two days, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and U.S.-AID gave large grants to the nongovernmental organization Sumate to develop its anti-Chavez platform. Resolution 328, currently in the House of Representatives, would continue this disrespectful and dangerous policy of funding anti-Chavez organizations. Many of the accusations in this bill are very misleading. In fact, the processes here have been very democratic. For example, the new constitution was drafted in 1999 by an elected constitutional assembly and then ratified with 72 percent support in a national referendum. Today, Chavez continues to have a high approval rating, much higher than our own president, and he was democratically elected not once but twice after the April referendum.
Coming from the United States, where our government regularly insults and threatens Venezuela’s democracy, I have been met with open arms and an overwhelming obligation to report back to the people of my country. The truth is that there is no dictatorship here.
As one student, a young man who had graduated from Mission Ribas and spoke impeccable English, said, “We want to be big people too. Why not?” That is my question — why not? The United States of America was founded on the principles of democracy and freedom. Would it be so wrong to stop meddling in Venezuela so that it too can enjoy its free and democratic government?
Molly Sweetser graduated from the North Carolina School of Science and Math and has deferred admission to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She lives in Asheville.
CITGO to Continue Supporting and Aiding Program for US Poor Communities
March 5, 2006
The Bolivarian Government defends strategic lines regarding social aid in Venezuela and overseas. The CITGO program is not an issue of political nature since it demonstrates the company’s social responsibility
President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez Frías, assured that the CITGO program aim to assist US poor people will continue. “I just want the Venezuelan people to be aware of what we are doing by helping the Caribbean, South America, and North America (…) Formerly, CITGO and the Venezuelan money was aimed at presidential electoral campaigns and US congressmen (…) Now it is aimed to help and support poor people. That is the way it should be.” He also said that this initiative is framed within the proposal to form a multi-state energy company called Petroamerica.
This program will benefit 5,000 homes and it will supply oil at a 40 percent discount.
So far, some of the regions that have benefited from this program are Massachusetts, New York, Maine, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Vermont. President Chávez stated on March, 4, that Connecticut governor had reservations about the program and asked help from the region prosecutor office, which informed about the program legality and said it is not an issue of political nature since it is a social aid provided by CITGO, a PDVSA subsidiary.
The Venezuelan President mentioned the program after he received a call from Edgrad Rocero, Ecuadorian citizen residing in Atlanta, Georgia, during his TV and radio show Aló Presidente. Edgar Rocero, also a member of a Christian church, thanked CITGO for its social program and invited President Chávez to continue working to the causes of justice and social claims.
Rocero’s gratitude was also backed up with a video showing testimonies given by US citizens that have been aided by the program implemented by CITGO in some US regions.
Presidential Press/Translated by Cesar Torres
CITGO to Continue Supporting and Aiding Program for US Poor Communities
The Bolivarian Government defends strategic lines regarding social aid in Venezuela and overseas. The CITGO program is not an issue of political nature since it demonstrates the company’s social responsibility
President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez Frías, assured that the CITGO program aim to assist US poor people will continue. “I just want the Venezuelan people to be aware of what we are doing by helping the Caribbean, South America, and North America (…) Formerly, CITGO and the Venezuelan money was aimed at presidential electoral campaigns and US congressmen (…) Now it is aimed to help and support poor people. That is the way it should be.” He also said that this initiative is framed within the proposal to form a multi-state energy company called Petroamerica.
This program will benefit 5,000 homes and it will supply oil at a 40 percent discount.
So far, some of the regions that have benefited from this program are Massachusetts, New York, Maine, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Vermont. President Chávez stated on March, 4, that Connecticut governor had reservations about the program and asked help from the region prosecutor office, which informed about the program legality and said it is not an issue of political nature since it is a social aid provided by CITGO, a PDVSA subsidiary.
The Venezuelan President mentioned the program after he received a call from Edgrad Rocero, Ecuadorian citizen residing in Atlanta, Georgia, during his TV and radio show Aló Presidente. Edgar Rocero, also a member of a Christian church, thanked CITGO for its social program and invited President Chávez to continue working to the causes of justice and social claims.
Rocero’s gratitude was also backed up with a video showing testimonies given by US citizens that have been aided by the program implemented by CITGO in some US regions.
Presidential Press/Translated by Cesar Torres
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Bush at the Tipping Point - A Lawless and Incompetent Leadership By RALPH NADER
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, two top outlaws smashing our country's rule of law and democratic liberties, are testing the American people's resistance. Every day they are testing. Every day they think by flaunting the words, "war on terror", they can get Americans to concede more and more of what makes the United States a constitutionally-abiding government under the rule of law.
You know what? With not enough exceptions, they are right. Day by day, we're giving up what our forefathers fought to bequeath us since that famous Declaration of Independence of 1776. They were determined that people in this country would not be arrested without charges and jailed indefinitely, that they would not be tortured, or sent to be tortured in dictatorial regimes, or deprived of habeas corpus to take their incarceration to our courts of law, or be snooped on at the whim of the President and his deputies or that people in faraway lands would be destroyed in the tens of thousands due to a fabricated war-invasion-quagmire.
They instituted a constitution so that people would not be jailed without "probable cause", or be lied to about taking this country and its soldiers to war, or have shoved aside the checks and balances represented by American courts and the Congress. All these are being done by two pro-Vietnam war draft dodgers!
What does all this tell you about all of us out there in the great United States of America? A giant yawn of "who cares" by citizens, nearly two-thirds of whom now have turned against these two White House fabricators in poll after poll regarding the war, the surrender to Big Business, the gross incompetence in managing taxpayer dollars and the Katrina disaster.
But listen, the rumble of resistance and opposition is getting louder and not just from the increasing number of public demonstrations around the country.
A new Zogby poll reports that 72% of American soldiers serving in Iraq think the U.S. should get out within the next year, including 58% of the Marines! Three-quarters of National Guard and Reserve units support withdrawal within 6 months. Every month, more former high-ranking military officers, intelligence officials and diplomats are declaring their opposition to the war.
For a few examples of many: Retired four-star General, Joseph P. Hoar, who commanded the U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf after the 1991 war, described the Iraq war as "wrong from the beginning". Similar tough criticism has come from John Deutch, former head of the CIA, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor to President Carter and Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to the first President Bush.
Retired General William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency and security adviser to Ronald Reagan, wrote that the Iraq war "is serving the interests of Osama bin Laden, the Iranians, and is fomenting civil war in Iraq." He describes the Iraq war as "the most strategic foreign policy disaster in U.S. history."
More recently, internal memos of criticism or dissent, Inspector General reports from Defense the Justice Department, and former highly-positioned staff within the Bush Administration, like Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Colin Powell, are taking apart the public relations sheen concocted by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triad.
Now comes the conservative American Bar Association--400,000 lawyers--whose House of Delegates has overwhelmingly approved a task force report accusing President Bush, in polite legal language, of violating both the Constitution and federal law. ABA President Michael S. Greco sent it to Mr. Bush with a cover letter dated February 13, 2006 (see www.abanet.org/op/domsurv for the full report).
The mass media, which has finally produced many exposes of the Bush war, ignored the significance of this condemnation by the nation's largest body of lawyers, written in part by attorneys who have served in the FBI, CIA and NSA. It should have been page one news.
There comes a tipping point, however, when the opposition of the establishment, the public opinion of the citizenry, the disgust of the soldiers--their spreading casualties, diseases and mental traumas - and the corruption of the large corporate contractors to whom much of the military's functions have been outsourced, all congeal and overcome the cowardliness of most members of Congress. Then a surge of Congressional followers and allies of Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), war veteran and leading voice against the Bush Iraq policies, will come to the forefront.
The illegal, disastrous (to both Iraqis and Americans) Iraq war is now almost three years of quagmire old. The chaos and bloodshed are worsening.
It is time to make the spring of 2006 the tipping point period for constitutionalism, justice and a sane foreign and national security policy. More yawns must turn into growls from outside Washington, DC. See http://www.DemocracyRising.US for more information.
You know what? With not enough exceptions, they are right. Day by day, we're giving up what our forefathers fought to bequeath us since that famous Declaration of Independence of 1776. They were determined that people in this country would not be arrested without charges and jailed indefinitely, that they would not be tortured, or sent to be tortured in dictatorial regimes, or deprived of habeas corpus to take their incarceration to our courts of law, or be snooped on at the whim of the President and his deputies or that people in faraway lands would be destroyed in the tens of thousands due to a fabricated war-invasion-quagmire.
They instituted a constitution so that people would not be jailed without "probable cause", or be lied to about taking this country and its soldiers to war, or have shoved aside the checks and balances represented by American courts and the Congress. All these are being done by two pro-Vietnam war draft dodgers!
What does all this tell you about all of us out there in the great United States of America? A giant yawn of "who cares" by citizens, nearly two-thirds of whom now have turned against these two White House fabricators in poll after poll regarding the war, the surrender to Big Business, the gross incompetence in managing taxpayer dollars and the Katrina disaster.
But listen, the rumble of resistance and opposition is getting louder and not just from the increasing number of public demonstrations around the country.
A new Zogby poll reports that 72% of American soldiers serving in Iraq think the U.S. should get out within the next year, including 58% of the Marines! Three-quarters of National Guard and Reserve units support withdrawal within 6 months. Every month, more former high-ranking military officers, intelligence officials and diplomats are declaring their opposition to the war.
For a few examples of many: Retired four-star General, Joseph P. Hoar, who commanded the U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf after the 1991 war, described the Iraq war as "wrong from the beginning". Similar tough criticism has come from John Deutch, former head of the CIA, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor to President Carter and Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to the first President Bush.
Retired General William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency and security adviser to Ronald Reagan, wrote that the Iraq war "is serving the interests of Osama bin Laden, the Iranians, and is fomenting civil war in Iraq." He describes the Iraq war as "the most strategic foreign policy disaster in U.S. history."
More recently, internal memos of criticism or dissent, Inspector General reports from Defense the Justice Department, and former highly-positioned staff within the Bush Administration, like Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Colin Powell, are taking apart the public relations sheen concocted by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triad.
Now comes the conservative American Bar Association--400,000 lawyers--whose House of Delegates has overwhelmingly approved a task force report accusing President Bush, in polite legal language, of violating both the Constitution and federal law. ABA President Michael S. Greco sent it to Mr. Bush with a cover letter dated February 13, 2006 (see www.abanet.org/op/domsurv for the full report).
The mass media, which has finally produced many exposes of the Bush war, ignored the significance of this condemnation by the nation's largest body of lawyers, written in part by attorneys who have served in the FBI, CIA and NSA. It should have been page one news.
There comes a tipping point, however, when the opposition of the establishment, the public opinion of the citizenry, the disgust of the soldiers--their spreading casualties, diseases and mental traumas - and the corruption of the large corporate contractors to whom much of the military's functions have been outsourced, all congeal and overcome the cowardliness of most members of Congress. Then a surge of Congressional followers and allies of Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), war veteran and leading voice against the Bush Iraq policies, will come to the forefront.
The illegal, disastrous (to both Iraqis and Americans) Iraq war is now almost three years of quagmire old. The chaos and bloodshed are worsening.
It is time to make the spring of 2006 the tipping point period for constitutionalism, justice and a sane foreign and national security policy. More yawns must turn into growls from outside Washington, DC. See http://www.DemocracyRising.US for more information.
Las embajadas de Estados Unidos tienen tropas de elite expertas en asalto, captura y asesinato de "terroristas"
Donald Rumsfeld está colocando grupos militares especializados en “operaciones especiales” en un número creciente de embajadas de EEUU “para recolectar inteligencia sobre terroristas en lugares inestables del mundo”, tales como América del Sur y otras latitudes. Las tropas de elite, entrenadas para eventuales misiones de asalto, captura y muerte, se denominan Elementos Militares de Enlace, o Military Liaison Elements (MLE) y están adscritas al nuevo Comando de Operaciones Especiales, o Special Operations Command (Socom). Así lo informaron los periodistas Thom Shanker y Scott Shane, en el New York Times del 8 de marzo.
El reportaje explica cómo el departamento de Defensa militariza las embajadas, invade las esferas del departamento de Estado, subordina bajo su mando a todas las agencias de espionaje, provoca malestar entre las más antiguas, como la CIA y el FBI, e incluso “somete” las facultades de John D. Negroponte, designado por Bush para dirigir la llamada “comunidad de inteligencia como un zar del espionaje estadounidense global, interno y externo.
Jerarcas del Pentágono y altos oficiales militares dijeron a los periodistas que la presencia de tropas de elite en las embajadas corona dos años de esfuerzos del secretario de Defensa Donald H. Rumsfeld por asignar a los militares un rol de inteligencia más activo en la guerra al terrorismo. Pero crece el malestar entre algunos jefes de las agencias de inteligencia más antiguas, como la CIA, que resienten una incursión provocativa en sus dominios.
Las fuentes consultadas por Shanker y Shane dijeron que ya se instalaron hasta dos grupos de tropas MLE-Socom por cada embajada de una docena de países de Africa, Asia Sur Oriental y Sudamérica. El Pentágono asegura que en estas regiones existen terroristas que planean ataques, obtienen dinero o consiguen refugio seguro. Su tarea consiste en recopilar información para apoyar la planificación de misiones de contra-terrorismo y colaborar con militares locales en la conducción de sus propias operaciones, dijeron los funcionarios.
El affaire Paraguay
Las nuevas tareas en las embajadas dan mayores responsabilidades al Comando de Operaciones Especiales -de “despliegue rápido”- establecido por George W. Bush en marzo de 2004 para asumir el liderazgo en las operaciones militares anti terroristas. Estas nuevas tareas darían al Socom un papel preponderante en la organización de todos los esfuerzos de inteligencia de EEUU.
El Socom responde directamente a Rumsfeld y, por tanto, no está bajo el control de John D. Negroponte, ungido por Bush en un nuevo cargo de zar global de la inteligencia nacional, con poderes para supervisar a todas las agencias de EEUU. Un episodio que ocurrió antes en Paraguay con un equipo MLE subrayó el peligro de entrenar soldados para misiones secretas sensibles de combate en el exterior, escribieron los periodistas del NYT.
El diario recordó que uno de estos grupos MLE -que por lo demás gozan de total impunidad en los países en que operan- hace dos años tuvo que ser sacado de Paraguay después que sus miembros desplegados en ese país mataron a un ladrón armado de pistola y atacaron un club al que arribaron en un taxi. Como disparar no tenía que ver con su misión de fachada, el episodio desconcertó a los jefes de la embajada de EEUU en Asunción… porque nadie les había informado que ese equipo estaba operando en el país, según los informantes del diario.
Un funcionario que estuvo involucrado en los eventos pero tiene prohibición de hablar, dijo que los soldados no funcionaban en la embajada sino afuera, en un hotel. Ahora, según los oficiales del Socom, no puede arribar ningún equipo sin la aprobación del embajador local, los grupos funcionan en las embajadas y se adiestra previamente a los soldados para evitar metidas de pata de alto perfil.
Desconfianza en tanto espionaje
Las pautas dictadas por Negroponte establecen que el jefe de la estación CIA de cada país es quien asigna a las embajadas la mayoría de las coordenadas de inteligencia. En casi todas las representaciones diplomáticas existen, además, agregados de Defensa y personal militar que trabaja con las fuerzas armadas locales e informa a la Agencia de Inteligencia de Defensa, del Pentágono. Pero el nuevo personal del Socom tiene un papel militar más directo: satisfacer las nuevas responsabilidades militares de contra terrorismo, dijeron los informantes del NYT.
Las fuerzas del Socom incluyen a “boinas verdes” y a “rangers” del Ejército, a equipos especiales e infantería de Marina y a grupos de la Fuerza Aérea que realizan misiones militares especializadas o más secretas. Sus habilidades se extienden desde golpes rápidos a reconocimientos de largo alcance en territorio hostil, entrenamiento militar y asistencia médica.
La creación de los Elementos Militares de Enlace y el rol más belicoso asignado al Comando de Operaciones Especiales parecen haber exacerbado la desorganización, e incluso la desconfianza, que asignan los críticos del Congreso y del mundo académico a los esfuerzos anti terroristas del gobierno Bush.
Los funcionarios que aceptaron comentar reservadamente estos cambios dijeron que la situación podría requerir que Bush y sus principales consejeros de seguridad nacional y de Defensa actuaran como árbitros, fijando límites y clarificando las aspiraciones de los militares y de las agencias de inteligencia.
Muchos funcionarios activos y retirados de la CIA consideran exagerados los propósitos del Socom. Un tal Mr. Brennan -citado por los cronistas del NYT-, que ahora es presidente de una empresa contratista de inteligencia de Virginia llamada Analysis Corporation, dijo que los 'intereses de EEUU estarían mucho mejor servidos' si las operaciones Socom fueran coordinadas estrechamente con el país anfitrión y el embajador.
Pero el mismo Brennan agregó: “Con certeza, los problemas de EEUU en el exterior aumentarán significativamente si la presencia prevista de Socom en las embajadas de EEUU es un esfuerzo por pavimentar el camino a operaciones militares estadounidenses unilaterales o de permitir que elementos del Pentágono enganchen en actividades de acción encubierta independientes de la CIA'.
Supremacía del Pentágono
El portavoz CIA Paul Gimigliano dio una respuesta mesurada al programa, pero acentuó la importancia del jefe de la estación de la agencia en cada país. 'Hay un montón de trabajo alrededor', dijo. Y añadió: 'Una clave del éxito es que las actividades de inteligencia en un país dado estén coordinadas, un proceso donde el jefe de la estación desempeñe el papel crucial'.
Un funcionario del departamento de Estado dijo el martes: 'No tenemos ningún acuerdo con DOD respecto a esto', usando las iniciales del Department of Defense (departamento -o ministerio- de Defensa). El funcionario del departamento de Estado dijo que el programa Elementos Militares de Enlace fue establecido para “preservar la autoridad' del embajador o del jefe de la embajada.
El Comando de Operaciones Especiales no ha hecho pública la misión de los Elementos Militares de Enlace y ha respondido a las preguntas sobre sus planes sólo después que fueron descritos por funcionarios de otras instancias del gobierno que se oponen el programa.
'El MLE juega un rol clave de enlace militar, coordinación y planeamiento inter-agencias en el país anfitrión', dijo Kenneth S. McGraw, un portavoz del Comando de Operaciones Especiales basado en Tampa, Florida. El personal de operaciones especiales trabaja 'con el embajador de EEUU y conocimiento del equipo del país para planear y coordinar actividades', agregó.
Los funcionarios involucrados con el programa que conversaron con los reporteros del NYT dijeron que sus metas son la inteligencia y la planificación, y no conducir misiones de combate. Un oficial militar resumió lacónicamente el trabajo pero aclaró no estar autorizado a discutirlo públicamente, aunque dijo que han desplegado más de 20 equipos y que los planes llaman a que el esfuerzo sea ampliado significativamente.
En un cambio importante del centro de gravedad de los militares, el Unified Command Plan (Plan de Comando Unificado) firmado por Bush en 2004 estableció que ahora el Comando de Operaciones Especiales 'liderará, planeará, sincronizará y dirigirá la ejecución de operaciones globales contra redes terroristas', además de sus asignaciones más tradicionales de entrenar, organizar y equipar fuerzas de Operaciones Especiales para misiones bajo el mando de los comandantes regionales.
Pasión por el asesinato
El general Bryan D. Brown, comandante del Socom, y su equipo produjeron recientemente una estrategia de contra terrorismo descrita en más de 600 páginas que en las próximas semanas será presentada a Rumsfeld para su aprobación final.
Según funcionarios civiles y militares que leyeron el documento o conocieron resúmenes, se disponen blancos, misiones y plazos específicos para acciones inmediatas y a largo plazo.
Las metas del documento fijan las condiciones dondequiera que los militares pudieran desear actuar en el futuro, crear áreas inhóspitas para los terroristas y procurar la clase de información que el Comando Especial de Operaciones podría necesitar para funcionar.
Los Elementos Militares de Enlace fueron concebidos para operar en naciones donde no hay presencia masiva de militares estadounidenses y, en particular, donde EEUU no está en guerra. Así, los MLE pueden no necesitarse en puntos notoriamente calientes, como los países del Oriente Medio en que existen despliegues militares estadounidenses masivos.
Durante sus recientes viajes al exterior, el general Brown intentó explicar el programa a los funcionarios CIA y FBI basados en las embajadas. Tras largas conversaciones, logró adoctrinarlos como consejeros políticos asignados al departamento de Estado a tiempo completo, señalaron los periodistas del NYT.
Durante el verano pasado, Socom también llevó a cabo una conferencia en Tampa, Florida, para adoctrinar a los comandantes de Operaciones Especiales de otras naciones, seguida por una sesión en octubre en que el personal de las embajadas extranjeras de Washington fue instruido en la gama ideológica del contra terrorismo.
Un ex miembro del equipo de Operaciones Especiales que conversó con los periodistas Shanker y Shane dijo que el truco para hacer trabajar el programa consiste en navegar las rivalidades burocráticas dentro de las embajadas y detrás de las jefaturas de comando. 'Todo lo que usted tiene que hacer es lograr que todos, el embajador, el jefe de estación [CIA] y el Socom, piensen que usted está trabajando precisamente para ellos', dijo, bajo la condición de anonimato porque no está autorizado a discutir estos temas en público.
“Encuentre y mate”
Lee H. Hamilton, quien se desempeñó como vice presidente de la Comisión Nacional de los Ataques Terroristas del 11 de septiembre, dijo que los conflictos entre la CIA y las operaciones paramilitares excesivas del departamento de Defensa han ocurrido periódicamente por décadas, y que la comisión del 11/9 recomendó que el departamento de Defensa entregue el liderazgo de la responsabilidad de tal actividad.
También dijo que el programa planteó una óptica diferente a las embajadas. 'Si usted tiene dos o tres individuos del DOD que vagan alrededor de un país, ciertamente podrían causar algunos problemas', dijo Hamilton. 'Precisamente, se plantea la cuestión de quién está a cargo de la recolección de inteligencia'.
La guerra fría presentó a los militares blancos fáciles de hallar pero difíciles de matar, como una división armada soviética. La cruzada estadounidense anti terrorismo presenta blancos que son duros de encontrar pero relativamente fáciles de matar, como un líder de Al Qaeda.
El general Brown y el Comando de Operaciones Especiales ahora trabajan según un concepto que se ha convertido en el lema más nuevo del Pentágono: 'encuentre, controle, mate y siga”, o sea, localizar líderes terroristas, seguirlos con precisión, capturarlos o matarlos y, después, usar la información recopilada para planear otra operación.
'Los militares somos grandes en controlar y acabar con el enemigo, y en explotar cualquier base de operaciones que tomemos', dijo un comandante de Operaciones Especiales a condición de guardar su anonimato, porque no está autorizado a discutir estos temas en público. 'Sólo ‘hallar’ la pieza sigue siendo un arte primitivo. Socom no puede matar ni capturar a los malos a menos que la gente de Intel [inteligencia] pueda encontrarlos y, precisamente, eso no está ocurriendo'.
'El departamento de Defensa es muy impaciente en intensificar su participación en actividades de contra terrorismo y ha puesto sus ojos en responsabilidades operacionales tradicionales de la CIA y las autoridades', dijo Juan O. Brennan, oficial con 25 años en la CIA que dirigió el Centro Nacional de Contra Terrorismo hasta su retiro el año pasado. 'Absoluta y desafortunadamente, se está erosionando constantemente el importante rol de liderazgo de la CIA en muchas de estas áreas, y en un futuro muy cercano, la militarización actual de muchas funciones de inteligencia de la nación y las responsabilidades serán vistas como un gran error'.
* Ernesto Carmona, periodista y escritor chileno
El reportaje explica cómo el departamento de Defensa militariza las embajadas, invade las esferas del departamento de Estado, subordina bajo su mando a todas las agencias de espionaje, provoca malestar entre las más antiguas, como la CIA y el FBI, e incluso “somete” las facultades de John D. Negroponte, designado por Bush para dirigir la llamada “comunidad de inteligencia como un zar del espionaje estadounidense global, interno y externo.
Jerarcas del Pentágono y altos oficiales militares dijeron a los periodistas que la presencia de tropas de elite en las embajadas corona dos años de esfuerzos del secretario de Defensa Donald H. Rumsfeld por asignar a los militares un rol de inteligencia más activo en la guerra al terrorismo. Pero crece el malestar entre algunos jefes de las agencias de inteligencia más antiguas, como la CIA, que resienten una incursión provocativa en sus dominios.
Las fuentes consultadas por Shanker y Shane dijeron que ya se instalaron hasta dos grupos de tropas MLE-Socom por cada embajada de una docena de países de Africa, Asia Sur Oriental y Sudamérica. El Pentágono asegura que en estas regiones existen terroristas que planean ataques, obtienen dinero o consiguen refugio seguro. Su tarea consiste en recopilar información para apoyar la planificación de misiones de contra-terrorismo y colaborar con militares locales en la conducción de sus propias operaciones, dijeron los funcionarios.
El affaire Paraguay
Las nuevas tareas en las embajadas dan mayores responsabilidades al Comando de Operaciones Especiales -de “despliegue rápido”- establecido por George W. Bush en marzo de 2004 para asumir el liderazgo en las operaciones militares anti terroristas. Estas nuevas tareas darían al Socom un papel preponderante en la organización de todos los esfuerzos de inteligencia de EEUU.
El Socom responde directamente a Rumsfeld y, por tanto, no está bajo el control de John D. Negroponte, ungido por Bush en un nuevo cargo de zar global de la inteligencia nacional, con poderes para supervisar a todas las agencias de EEUU. Un episodio que ocurrió antes en Paraguay con un equipo MLE subrayó el peligro de entrenar soldados para misiones secretas sensibles de combate en el exterior, escribieron los periodistas del NYT.
El diario recordó que uno de estos grupos MLE -que por lo demás gozan de total impunidad en los países en que operan- hace dos años tuvo que ser sacado de Paraguay después que sus miembros desplegados en ese país mataron a un ladrón armado de pistola y atacaron un club al que arribaron en un taxi. Como disparar no tenía que ver con su misión de fachada, el episodio desconcertó a los jefes de la embajada de EEUU en Asunción… porque nadie les había informado que ese equipo estaba operando en el país, según los informantes del diario.
Un funcionario que estuvo involucrado en los eventos pero tiene prohibición de hablar, dijo que los soldados no funcionaban en la embajada sino afuera, en un hotel. Ahora, según los oficiales del Socom, no puede arribar ningún equipo sin la aprobación del embajador local, los grupos funcionan en las embajadas y se adiestra previamente a los soldados para evitar metidas de pata de alto perfil.
Desconfianza en tanto espionaje
Las pautas dictadas por Negroponte establecen que el jefe de la estación CIA de cada país es quien asigna a las embajadas la mayoría de las coordenadas de inteligencia. En casi todas las representaciones diplomáticas existen, además, agregados de Defensa y personal militar que trabaja con las fuerzas armadas locales e informa a la Agencia de Inteligencia de Defensa, del Pentágono. Pero el nuevo personal del Socom tiene un papel militar más directo: satisfacer las nuevas responsabilidades militares de contra terrorismo, dijeron los informantes del NYT.
Las fuerzas del Socom incluyen a “boinas verdes” y a “rangers” del Ejército, a equipos especiales e infantería de Marina y a grupos de la Fuerza Aérea que realizan misiones militares especializadas o más secretas. Sus habilidades se extienden desde golpes rápidos a reconocimientos de largo alcance en territorio hostil, entrenamiento militar y asistencia médica.
La creación de los Elementos Militares de Enlace y el rol más belicoso asignado al Comando de Operaciones Especiales parecen haber exacerbado la desorganización, e incluso la desconfianza, que asignan los críticos del Congreso y del mundo académico a los esfuerzos anti terroristas del gobierno Bush.
Los funcionarios que aceptaron comentar reservadamente estos cambios dijeron que la situación podría requerir que Bush y sus principales consejeros de seguridad nacional y de Defensa actuaran como árbitros, fijando límites y clarificando las aspiraciones de los militares y de las agencias de inteligencia.
Muchos funcionarios activos y retirados de la CIA consideran exagerados los propósitos del Socom. Un tal Mr. Brennan -citado por los cronistas del NYT-, que ahora es presidente de una empresa contratista de inteligencia de Virginia llamada Analysis Corporation, dijo que los 'intereses de EEUU estarían mucho mejor servidos' si las operaciones Socom fueran coordinadas estrechamente con el país anfitrión y el embajador.
Pero el mismo Brennan agregó: “Con certeza, los problemas de EEUU en el exterior aumentarán significativamente si la presencia prevista de Socom en las embajadas de EEUU es un esfuerzo por pavimentar el camino a operaciones militares estadounidenses unilaterales o de permitir que elementos del Pentágono enganchen en actividades de acción encubierta independientes de la CIA'.
Supremacía del Pentágono
El portavoz CIA Paul Gimigliano dio una respuesta mesurada al programa, pero acentuó la importancia del jefe de la estación de la agencia en cada país. 'Hay un montón de trabajo alrededor', dijo. Y añadió: 'Una clave del éxito es que las actividades de inteligencia en un país dado estén coordinadas, un proceso donde el jefe de la estación desempeñe el papel crucial'.
Un funcionario del departamento de Estado dijo el martes: 'No tenemos ningún acuerdo con DOD respecto a esto', usando las iniciales del Department of Defense (departamento -o ministerio- de Defensa). El funcionario del departamento de Estado dijo que el programa Elementos Militares de Enlace fue establecido para “preservar la autoridad' del embajador o del jefe de la embajada.
El Comando de Operaciones Especiales no ha hecho pública la misión de los Elementos Militares de Enlace y ha respondido a las preguntas sobre sus planes sólo después que fueron descritos por funcionarios de otras instancias del gobierno que se oponen el programa.
'El MLE juega un rol clave de enlace militar, coordinación y planeamiento inter-agencias en el país anfitrión', dijo Kenneth S. McGraw, un portavoz del Comando de Operaciones Especiales basado en Tampa, Florida. El personal de operaciones especiales trabaja 'con el embajador de EEUU y conocimiento del equipo del país para planear y coordinar actividades', agregó.
Los funcionarios involucrados con el programa que conversaron con los reporteros del NYT dijeron que sus metas son la inteligencia y la planificación, y no conducir misiones de combate. Un oficial militar resumió lacónicamente el trabajo pero aclaró no estar autorizado a discutirlo públicamente, aunque dijo que han desplegado más de 20 equipos y que los planes llaman a que el esfuerzo sea ampliado significativamente.
En un cambio importante del centro de gravedad de los militares, el Unified Command Plan (Plan de Comando Unificado) firmado por Bush en 2004 estableció que ahora el Comando de Operaciones Especiales 'liderará, planeará, sincronizará y dirigirá la ejecución de operaciones globales contra redes terroristas', además de sus asignaciones más tradicionales de entrenar, organizar y equipar fuerzas de Operaciones Especiales para misiones bajo el mando de los comandantes regionales.
Pasión por el asesinato
El general Bryan D. Brown, comandante del Socom, y su equipo produjeron recientemente una estrategia de contra terrorismo descrita en más de 600 páginas que en las próximas semanas será presentada a Rumsfeld para su aprobación final.
Según funcionarios civiles y militares que leyeron el documento o conocieron resúmenes, se disponen blancos, misiones y plazos específicos para acciones inmediatas y a largo plazo.
Las metas del documento fijan las condiciones dondequiera que los militares pudieran desear actuar en el futuro, crear áreas inhóspitas para los terroristas y procurar la clase de información que el Comando Especial de Operaciones podría necesitar para funcionar.
Los Elementos Militares de Enlace fueron concebidos para operar en naciones donde no hay presencia masiva de militares estadounidenses y, en particular, donde EEUU no está en guerra. Así, los MLE pueden no necesitarse en puntos notoriamente calientes, como los países del Oriente Medio en que existen despliegues militares estadounidenses masivos.
Durante sus recientes viajes al exterior, el general Brown intentó explicar el programa a los funcionarios CIA y FBI basados en las embajadas. Tras largas conversaciones, logró adoctrinarlos como consejeros políticos asignados al departamento de Estado a tiempo completo, señalaron los periodistas del NYT.
Durante el verano pasado, Socom también llevó a cabo una conferencia en Tampa, Florida, para adoctrinar a los comandantes de Operaciones Especiales de otras naciones, seguida por una sesión en octubre en que el personal de las embajadas extranjeras de Washington fue instruido en la gama ideológica del contra terrorismo.
Un ex miembro del equipo de Operaciones Especiales que conversó con los periodistas Shanker y Shane dijo que el truco para hacer trabajar el programa consiste en navegar las rivalidades burocráticas dentro de las embajadas y detrás de las jefaturas de comando. 'Todo lo que usted tiene que hacer es lograr que todos, el embajador, el jefe de estación [CIA] y el Socom, piensen que usted está trabajando precisamente para ellos', dijo, bajo la condición de anonimato porque no está autorizado a discutir estos temas en público.
“Encuentre y mate”
Lee H. Hamilton, quien se desempeñó como vice presidente de la Comisión Nacional de los Ataques Terroristas del 11 de septiembre, dijo que los conflictos entre la CIA y las operaciones paramilitares excesivas del departamento de Defensa han ocurrido periódicamente por décadas, y que la comisión del 11/9 recomendó que el departamento de Defensa entregue el liderazgo de la responsabilidad de tal actividad.
También dijo que el programa planteó una óptica diferente a las embajadas. 'Si usted tiene dos o tres individuos del DOD que vagan alrededor de un país, ciertamente podrían causar algunos problemas', dijo Hamilton. 'Precisamente, se plantea la cuestión de quién está a cargo de la recolección de inteligencia'.
La guerra fría presentó a los militares blancos fáciles de hallar pero difíciles de matar, como una división armada soviética. La cruzada estadounidense anti terrorismo presenta blancos que son duros de encontrar pero relativamente fáciles de matar, como un líder de Al Qaeda.
El general Brown y el Comando de Operaciones Especiales ahora trabajan según un concepto que se ha convertido en el lema más nuevo del Pentágono: 'encuentre, controle, mate y siga”, o sea, localizar líderes terroristas, seguirlos con precisión, capturarlos o matarlos y, después, usar la información recopilada para planear otra operación.
'Los militares somos grandes en controlar y acabar con el enemigo, y en explotar cualquier base de operaciones que tomemos', dijo un comandante de Operaciones Especiales a condición de guardar su anonimato, porque no está autorizado a discutir estos temas en público. 'Sólo ‘hallar’ la pieza sigue siendo un arte primitivo. Socom no puede matar ni capturar a los malos a menos que la gente de Intel [inteligencia] pueda encontrarlos y, precisamente, eso no está ocurriendo'.
'El departamento de Defensa es muy impaciente en intensificar su participación en actividades de contra terrorismo y ha puesto sus ojos en responsabilidades operacionales tradicionales de la CIA y las autoridades', dijo Juan O. Brennan, oficial con 25 años en la CIA que dirigió el Centro Nacional de Contra Terrorismo hasta su retiro el año pasado. 'Absoluta y desafortunadamente, se está erosionando constantemente el importante rol de liderazgo de la CIA en muchas de estas áreas, y en un futuro muy cercano, la militarización actual de muchas funciones de inteligencia de la nación y las responsabilidades serán vistas como un gran error'.
* Ernesto Carmona, periodista y escritor chileno
Venezuela expresses alarm: FBI terror agents question recognized US academic
EMBASSY OF THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA
WASHINGTON DC
10 de marzo de 2006
STATEMENT
WASHINGTON DC
10 de marzo de 2006
STATEMENT
The Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela today expressed its alarm at a report published by New America Media stating that FBI agents had questioned a recognized U.S. academic on his relations with Venezuela, if he had ever been asked to speak in Venezuela's favor, and on links between Venezuela and terrorism.
Two agents from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) visited Miguel Tinker-Salas, a widely respected professor at Pomona College in Claremont, California, on Tuesday, March 7.
He was questioned for 20 minutes on a number of issues related to Venezuela. Several of Professor Tinker-Salas’ students were also questioned, and the agents took note of cartoons displayed on his door. Tinker-Salas, who was born in Venezuela and identifies himself as a critic of U.S. foreign policy, noted in the published report that he considered the questions an attempt "to intimidate and silence" him.
The Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela considers this incident a violation of the freedoms of expression, thought and academic inquiry, and views the move as a desperate attempt to link Venezuela to terrorism. The Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela also believes this incident draws comparisons to the Cold War, when academics and activists were regularly questioned and intimidated by government officials for their political views.
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a pluralistic, free and sovereign country, one that maintains relations with academics of all political leanings.
The Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela recently helped Michael Shifter, Vice President of the Inter-American Dialogue, professor at Georgetown University, and critic of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, in setting up meetings with high government officials, including the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs for North America, the president of the National Assembly and the country's vice president, and did so with in respecting his academic activities and inquiries.
Venezuela condemns the actions taken by the FBI agents, expresses its solidarity with the academic community in the United States, calls upon U.S. authorities to provide an explanation for this incident and their policy towards Venezuela, and demands respect for our sovereignty.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Venezuela in Washington’s Sights by Salim Lamrani*
Since early 2006, US officials have increased their verbal attacks against Venezuela. US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld compared President Hugo Chavez to Hitler in an insult that is not an isolated action and which was made following Pat Robertson’s calls to assassinate the Venezuelan President. In the face of the left-oriented shift of Latin America’s politics, the Bush administration seems to be determined to block the re-election of the Bolivarian president. It looks like the design of the FTAA, the dream of the White House, will only be a reality over the ashes of a Bolivarian counter-model that they need to destroy.
Washington’s hostile policy towards the government of Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez gains increasingly worrying momentum. In a recent document, the Pentagon called the “resurgence of authoritarian and populist movement in some countries like Venezuela [a] source of political and economic instability”. Such a statement is even more worrying, since the US Defence Department hardly ever cites countries in its strategic study (Quarterly Defence Review), published every four years; that department only limits itself to address general tendencies [1].
Some days before, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had compared Hugo Chavez to Hitler before Washington’s National Press Club: “In Venezuela, we have Chavez, who possesses lots of money that stem from oil. He was legally elected, as Hitler was. Then, he has consolidated his power and is now working along Fidel Castro, Mister Morales and others ”, he said. [2]. “We have seen how some populist leaders have attracted the people in those countries, as well as elections such as that of Evo Morales in Bolivia, which are clearly worrying” he concluded [3].
Venezuela’s response was not long awaited. Vice-president José Vicente Rangel strongly condemned Rumsfeld aggressive statements: “We are not willing to passively accept that our government […] be attacked with impunity by people who are fully disqualified from the political, moral and ethical points of view, as the gang of the US Hitler, George Bush ” [4].
In the same direction, the director of intelligence services John Negroponte, accused Venezuela of “launching a militant foreign policy in Latin America, which includes the supply of oil at preferential prices in exchange for allies”. At the same time, he stigmatized the international TV channel Telesur, whose role is that of breaking the CNN supremacy in the continent. He told a senate committee that “Venezuela is the main challenge to security in the hemisphere” and that Washington’s priority is to block at any price the re-election of Hugo Chavez in December, 2006. At last, he threatened Bolivia, which “continues to give ambiguous signs about its intentions” [5].
“The militant foreign policy” advocated by John Negroponte refers to Venezuela’s solidarity cooperation, which allows many poor nations in the region to purchase fuel at preferential tariffs. The Prime Minister of Grenada, Keith Mitchell, signed an energy cooperation agreement with President Hugo Chávez, which stipulates the supply of 1,000 barrels of oil daily with a 50 percent discount over the market price. Venezuela has also send a group of military and civil engineers to Grenada in order to repair schools damaged by hurricanes. The integration model promoted by the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), fully contrary to the ultra-liberal and destruction-oriented Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), has strongly irritated the White House [6].
In the face of open threats by the Bush administration, Venezuela has decided to reinforce its defence capacity by purchasing fighter aircrafts in Spain. But, Washington has prohibited the José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to sell Venezuela the military equipment, outfitted with US technology, since the total sale calculated in 2 billion dollars could “contribute to the destabilization of Latin America”, according to Sean McCormack, spokesperson of the US State Department [7]. Also in that same direction, Brazil rejected the US prohibition by stating that it would proceed to sell 20 planes to Venezuela [8].
According to Washington, the sale of weapons to Venezuela would imply the risk of regional destabilization. McCormark explains that the “concerns focus on what we consider an exaggerated militarization of Venezuela” [9].
Meanwhile, the US company Lockheed Martin has just released several F-16 planes to Chile and it expects to send another eight of those planes to that country this year. Chile now possesses the most modern aircraft fleet in Latin America with that posing no inconvenience for the Bush administration, which is only obsessed about the progressive reforms undertaken by Caracas [10].
Along with the significant purchase of necessary weapons for the defence of his nation (100,000 infantry guns and 15 helicopters purchased in Russia), President Chávez has decided to create an army with one million volunteers in order to face and eventual US military invasion of Venezuela. The Bolivarian government has decided to follow the Cuban example in terms of its preparation for war. “Why did the gringos invade half of the world except Cuba? In Cuba all the people [are ready] and trained to defend each corner of their national territory and the Cuban Revolution”, said Chávez [11].
The United States have also launched a campaign of espionage and promotion of internal subversion by using its embassy in Caracas, with the aim of destabilizing the country, which has increasingly experienced social advancements achieved by the Chávez government. “Some low-ranking officers used to provide the Pentagon with information”, said the Venezuelan Vice-president. US military attaché John Correa, who had made contact with those officers to conspire against Venezuelan authorities, was expelled from the country [12]. As to the Venezuelan military, they were all tried for having cooperated with a foreign power [13].
In retaliation, Washington declared Jenny Figueredo Frias, head of the cabinet of Venezuelan ambassador to Washington Bernardo Alvarez, person non grata and, at the same time, admitted that it was an arbitrary measure: “This decision is in response to the expelling by Venezuela of Commander John Correa, naval attaché at the US embassy in Caracas”, said the spokesperson of the US State Department [14].
Tony Blair, a loyal and unconditional ally of the Bush administration proved his full subordination to Washington during a weekly session of the British Parliament. Labor party parliamentarian Colin Burgon faced the Prime Minister: “I am sure that your share the satisfaction many labor party lawmakers feel about the left-oriented shift of Latin America [with the coming to power of ] governments that fight for the interests of the majority and not for the interests of a minority”. Later, he asked Blair: “Would you agree that it would be bad for us to admit that our policy towards those countries, especially nations like Venezuela, be drawn up by the rightist republican agenda of the US government?” [15].
In a surprising way, Anthony Blair replied: “Up to certain extent”, in an attempt to justify his statement by affirming that it was “important that the Venezuelan government should understand that if it wants the respect of the international community, it must abide by the rules of the international community”. Evidently, we have to understand that “international community” here means “the United States”, whose “rules” must be enforced with no discussion at all. For Prime Minister Blair, the sovereignty of Britain ends where US interests begin [16].
Washington’s concern is currently based on Hugo Chávez, since he symbolizes Latin America’s political renovation by using national resources in the benefit of less favoured social classes. The Venezuelan government has just approved an impressing salary increase for public officials, which ranges from + 34 percent to + 61,8 percent and that stands for a 47 percent average increase. The Venezuelan government also raised minimum salaries for private employees up to 15 percent. Since the year 2000, the minimum salary in Venezuela has been raised each year from 20 to 30 percent. All the population has been benefited with incomes stemming from the country’s economic growth, which went up to 9,4 percent in 2005 [17].
In contrast, in France, the fifth World power with a highly praised social model, the salaries of public officials was only raised by 1 percent in 2005. Private sector wages registered a 0,6 percent increase in real terms (2,8 pecent increase minus 2,2 percent inflation). “21st Century socialism”, promoted by President Chávez is not to be applied soon in France, where the government has undertaken a merciless anti-social policy since 2002 [18].
In the same way, one billion bolivares (Venezuelan currency) was destined to the “Barrio Adentro III” mission, a government-led free-of-charge and universal medical program. The money will allow the purchase of 30,932 medical equipment (ambulances and others). The fund, which stems from an oil surplus, is directly invested in the social sector [19].
The only-of-its-kind public health system developed in Venezuela thanks, among other factors to the assistance given by 15,000 Cuban doctors, has allowed for 163 million medical consultations; that is, 8 consultations per person. The “Barrio Adentro I” mission has saved 31,186 lives thanks to the setting up of 1,012 popular medical offices in the poorest regions, which will be joined by another 20, 359 similar facilities. The “Barrio Adentro II” mission has created 100 integral diagnosis centers, which provide comprehensive medical assistance; while another 500 similar centres are being built throughout the country. At last, with the implementation of the “Miracle Mission” led by Cuba, more than 176,000 Venezuelans who had lost their sight as a consequence of cataracts, were submitted to free-of-charge eye surgery by Cuban specialists [20].
Unemployment has continue to decrease in Venezuela from 13,2 percent in June 2005 down to 11,4 percent in December that year. The efficient government policy has allowed 367,199 people to find a job [21].
UNESCO recognized the outstanding social achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution by awarding President Hugo Chávez the José Martí International Prize. The distinction stresses the efforts made by Chávez in favour of Latin American and Caribbean unity, as well as the preservation of regional identities, traditions and cultures [22]. In effect, Venezuela provides its neighbors with oil at preferential tariffs, as well as some US zones, such as Vermont, Maine and Rhode Island. Inhabitants of those regions, abadonmed by the Bush administration, will be able to purchase fuel at 40-percent subsidized tariffs by Venezuela’s Citgo subsidiary. “That will translate into the saving of some million dollars for the people of Vermont”, said Erin Campbell, spokesman of Vermont [23].
On February 6, the Bush administration released its budget project for 2007, which includes significant increase in funds for the defence, internal security and foreign affairs. The US defence budget surpasses all records with a total of 439,3 billion dollars; that translates into a 6,9-percent rise respect to last year. At the same time, the budgets dedicated to health, justice, education and other sectors were drastically decreased. For instance, 141 social programs will undergo reductions or be interrupted. A 65-billion-dollar reduction is expected to affect the Medicare program, which provides medical attention to the elderly or physically impaired people. Pensions are also be deeply affected. Two contrary models of society face each other, the one in Caracas and the other in Washington. In the first the wellbeing of the population is at the center of the national program, while in the other, the development of the military industrial complex continues to be the absolute prioritiy [24].
While the Bush administration is willing to do just anything in order to avoid a new electoral victory by Hugo Chávez on December 3, 2006, Venezuela continues to implement reforms aimed at further improving the standard of living of the population. Its prestige in the continent is proportionally direct to the twilight of US influence in the region. The reason for that is quite simple: while Venezuela has destined 28 billion dollars in terms of external assistance for its neighbors for a seven-year term—an annual average of 3,6 billion dollars—, the United States has announced a massive decrease of its contribution for the year 2007, with a 28,5-percent fall in the assistance for the development of Latin America and the Caribbean, a 10-percent fall in medical assistance and an 11-pecent decrease of its financial contribution to the Organization of American States (OAS). Messages also opposed each other in this area: Caracas contributes 3,6 billion dollars annually as part of its assistance for Latin America, while Washington expects to decrease its 1,2 billion-dollar economic support [25].
The Bolivarian government successfully challenges the neo-liberal doctrine, which is unsustainable in social, economic and political terms and that explains the anger of the White House. Despite several aggressions and threats coming from the U.S., President Chávez launched signs of opening to Washington by saying: “If they change that attitude, we will respond in the same way. Everything can be improved […] if they show respect for our sovereignty, respect for our decisions”. However, is not very probable that reason and dialog lie in the heart of the belligerent Bush administration [26].
Salim Lamrani
French researcher at the University of Sorbonne, specialised in the US-Cuba relations.
Washington’s hostile policy towards the government of Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez gains increasingly worrying momentum. In a recent document, the Pentagon called the “resurgence of authoritarian and populist movement in some countries like Venezuela [a] source of political and economic instability”. Such a statement is even more worrying, since the US Defence Department hardly ever cites countries in its strategic study (Quarterly Defence Review), published every four years; that department only limits itself to address general tendencies [1].
Some days before, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had compared Hugo Chavez to Hitler before Washington’s National Press Club: “In Venezuela, we have Chavez, who possesses lots of money that stem from oil. He was legally elected, as Hitler was. Then, he has consolidated his power and is now working along Fidel Castro, Mister Morales and others ”, he said. [2]. “We have seen how some populist leaders have attracted the people in those countries, as well as elections such as that of Evo Morales in Bolivia, which are clearly worrying” he concluded [3].
Venezuela’s response was not long awaited. Vice-president José Vicente Rangel strongly condemned Rumsfeld aggressive statements: “We are not willing to passively accept that our government […] be attacked with impunity by people who are fully disqualified from the political, moral and ethical points of view, as the gang of the US Hitler, George Bush ” [4].
In the same direction, the director of intelligence services John Negroponte, accused Venezuela of “launching a militant foreign policy in Latin America, which includes the supply of oil at preferential prices in exchange for allies”. At the same time, he stigmatized the international TV channel Telesur, whose role is that of breaking the CNN supremacy in the continent. He told a senate committee that “Venezuela is the main challenge to security in the hemisphere” and that Washington’s priority is to block at any price the re-election of Hugo Chavez in December, 2006. At last, he threatened Bolivia, which “continues to give ambiguous signs about its intentions” [5].
“The militant foreign policy” advocated by John Negroponte refers to Venezuela’s solidarity cooperation, which allows many poor nations in the region to purchase fuel at preferential tariffs. The Prime Minister of Grenada, Keith Mitchell, signed an energy cooperation agreement with President Hugo Chávez, which stipulates the supply of 1,000 barrels of oil daily with a 50 percent discount over the market price. Venezuela has also send a group of military and civil engineers to Grenada in order to repair schools damaged by hurricanes. The integration model promoted by the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), fully contrary to the ultra-liberal and destruction-oriented Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), has strongly irritated the White House [6].
In the face of open threats by the Bush administration, Venezuela has decided to reinforce its defence capacity by purchasing fighter aircrafts in Spain. But, Washington has prohibited the José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to sell Venezuela the military equipment, outfitted with US technology, since the total sale calculated in 2 billion dollars could “contribute to the destabilization of Latin America”, according to Sean McCormack, spokesperson of the US State Department [7]. Also in that same direction, Brazil rejected the US prohibition by stating that it would proceed to sell 20 planes to Venezuela [8].
According to Washington, the sale of weapons to Venezuela would imply the risk of regional destabilization. McCormark explains that the “concerns focus on what we consider an exaggerated militarization of Venezuela” [9].
Meanwhile, the US company Lockheed Martin has just released several F-16 planes to Chile and it expects to send another eight of those planes to that country this year. Chile now possesses the most modern aircraft fleet in Latin America with that posing no inconvenience for the Bush administration, which is only obsessed about the progressive reforms undertaken by Caracas [10].
Along with the significant purchase of necessary weapons for the defence of his nation (100,000 infantry guns and 15 helicopters purchased in Russia), President Chávez has decided to create an army with one million volunteers in order to face and eventual US military invasion of Venezuela. The Bolivarian government has decided to follow the Cuban example in terms of its preparation for war. “Why did the gringos invade half of the world except Cuba? In Cuba all the people [are ready] and trained to defend each corner of their national territory and the Cuban Revolution”, said Chávez [11].
The United States have also launched a campaign of espionage and promotion of internal subversion by using its embassy in Caracas, with the aim of destabilizing the country, which has increasingly experienced social advancements achieved by the Chávez government. “Some low-ranking officers used to provide the Pentagon with information”, said the Venezuelan Vice-president. US military attaché John Correa, who had made contact with those officers to conspire against Venezuelan authorities, was expelled from the country [12]. As to the Venezuelan military, they were all tried for having cooperated with a foreign power [13].
In retaliation, Washington declared Jenny Figueredo Frias, head of the cabinet of Venezuelan ambassador to Washington Bernardo Alvarez, person non grata and, at the same time, admitted that it was an arbitrary measure: “This decision is in response to the expelling by Venezuela of Commander John Correa, naval attaché at the US embassy in Caracas”, said the spokesperson of the US State Department [14].
Tony Blair, a loyal and unconditional ally of the Bush administration proved his full subordination to Washington during a weekly session of the British Parliament. Labor party parliamentarian Colin Burgon faced the Prime Minister: “I am sure that your share the satisfaction many labor party lawmakers feel about the left-oriented shift of Latin America [with the coming to power of ] governments that fight for the interests of the majority and not for the interests of a minority”. Later, he asked Blair: “Would you agree that it would be bad for us to admit that our policy towards those countries, especially nations like Venezuela, be drawn up by the rightist republican agenda of the US government?” [15].
In a surprising way, Anthony Blair replied: “Up to certain extent”, in an attempt to justify his statement by affirming that it was “important that the Venezuelan government should understand that if it wants the respect of the international community, it must abide by the rules of the international community”. Evidently, we have to understand that “international community” here means “the United States”, whose “rules” must be enforced with no discussion at all. For Prime Minister Blair, the sovereignty of Britain ends where US interests begin [16].
Washington’s concern is currently based on Hugo Chávez, since he symbolizes Latin America’s political renovation by using national resources in the benefit of less favoured social classes. The Venezuelan government has just approved an impressing salary increase for public officials, which ranges from + 34 percent to + 61,8 percent and that stands for a 47 percent average increase. The Venezuelan government also raised minimum salaries for private employees up to 15 percent. Since the year 2000, the minimum salary in Venezuela has been raised each year from 20 to 30 percent. All the population has been benefited with incomes stemming from the country’s economic growth, which went up to 9,4 percent in 2005 [17].
In contrast, in France, the fifth World power with a highly praised social model, the salaries of public officials was only raised by 1 percent in 2005. Private sector wages registered a 0,6 percent increase in real terms (2,8 pecent increase minus 2,2 percent inflation). “21st Century socialism”, promoted by President Chávez is not to be applied soon in France, where the government has undertaken a merciless anti-social policy since 2002 [18].
In the same way, one billion bolivares (Venezuelan currency) was destined to the “Barrio Adentro III” mission, a government-led free-of-charge and universal medical program. The money will allow the purchase of 30,932 medical equipment (ambulances and others). The fund, which stems from an oil surplus, is directly invested in the social sector [19].
The only-of-its-kind public health system developed in Venezuela thanks, among other factors to the assistance given by 15,000 Cuban doctors, has allowed for 163 million medical consultations; that is, 8 consultations per person. The “Barrio Adentro I” mission has saved 31,186 lives thanks to the setting up of 1,012 popular medical offices in the poorest regions, which will be joined by another 20, 359 similar facilities. The “Barrio Adentro II” mission has created 100 integral diagnosis centers, which provide comprehensive medical assistance; while another 500 similar centres are being built throughout the country. At last, with the implementation of the “Miracle Mission” led by Cuba, more than 176,000 Venezuelans who had lost their sight as a consequence of cataracts, were submitted to free-of-charge eye surgery by Cuban specialists [20].
Unemployment has continue to decrease in Venezuela from 13,2 percent in June 2005 down to 11,4 percent in December that year. The efficient government policy has allowed 367,199 people to find a job [21].
UNESCO recognized the outstanding social achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution by awarding President Hugo Chávez the José Martí International Prize. The distinction stresses the efforts made by Chávez in favour of Latin American and Caribbean unity, as well as the preservation of regional identities, traditions and cultures [22]. In effect, Venezuela provides its neighbors with oil at preferential tariffs, as well as some US zones, such as Vermont, Maine and Rhode Island. Inhabitants of those regions, abadonmed by the Bush administration, will be able to purchase fuel at 40-percent subsidized tariffs by Venezuela’s Citgo subsidiary. “That will translate into the saving of some million dollars for the people of Vermont”, said Erin Campbell, spokesman of Vermont [23].
On February 6, the Bush administration released its budget project for 2007, which includes significant increase in funds for the defence, internal security and foreign affairs. The US defence budget surpasses all records with a total of 439,3 billion dollars; that translates into a 6,9-percent rise respect to last year. At the same time, the budgets dedicated to health, justice, education and other sectors were drastically decreased. For instance, 141 social programs will undergo reductions or be interrupted. A 65-billion-dollar reduction is expected to affect the Medicare program, which provides medical attention to the elderly or physically impaired people. Pensions are also be deeply affected. Two contrary models of society face each other, the one in Caracas and the other in Washington. In the first the wellbeing of the population is at the center of the national program, while in the other, the development of the military industrial complex continues to be the absolute prioritiy [24].
While the Bush administration is willing to do just anything in order to avoid a new electoral victory by Hugo Chávez on December 3, 2006, Venezuela continues to implement reforms aimed at further improving the standard of living of the population. Its prestige in the continent is proportionally direct to the twilight of US influence in the region. The reason for that is quite simple: while Venezuela has destined 28 billion dollars in terms of external assistance for its neighbors for a seven-year term—an annual average of 3,6 billion dollars—, the United States has announced a massive decrease of its contribution for the year 2007, with a 28,5-percent fall in the assistance for the development of Latin America and the Caribbean, a 10-percent fall in medical assistance and an 11-pecent decrease of its financial contribution to the Organization of American States (OAS). Messages also opposed each other in this area: Caracas contributes 3,6 billion dollars annually as part of its assistance for Latin America, while Washington expects to decrease its 1,2 billion-dollar economic support [25].
The Bolivarian government successfully challenges the neo-liberal doctrine, which is unsustainable in social, economic and political terms and that explains the anger of the White House. Despite several aggressions and threats coming from the U.S., President Chávez launched signs of opening to Washington by saying: “If they change that attitude, we will respond in the same way. Everything can be improved […] if they show respect for our sovereignty, respect for our decisions”. However, is not very probable that reason and dialog lie in the heart of the belligerent Bush administration [26].
Salim Lamrani
French researcher at the University of Sorbonne, specialised in the US-Cuba relations.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Iraqi Chickens Come Home To Roost
The rulers of the United States seem to make the same mistakes, every time. They empowered the Pakistani government, which created the Taliban that took over Afghanistan, and provided a haven for Osama bin Ladin. That same government's nuclear scientist, Mr. Khan, then proceeded to spread the technology of proliferation around the globe.
George Bush thanked the military dictator of Pakistan for slapping Mr. Khan on the wrist. Meanwhile, Mr. Khan's genies are out of the bottle, and liable to wind up in one of our ports, in a cargo container, some day. It's just a matter of time.
The greedy gluttons of the Republican Party have brought that time much closer, through another unholy alliance, with the government of the United Arab Emirates. It was that government that acted as a go-between with the Taliban for the United States. They did Washington's bidding, and are still doing it in the Middle East. So they are to be rewarded with a contract to handle all those cargo containers coming through U.S. ports. Even Republicans can't stomach that, but their greed is much stronger than their racism. The connections between the United Arab Emirates and the United States are ties of rich men. They have the logic of money, not ideology, or even of race.
And now we see the wholesale spread of fratricide in Iraq, promulgated by the Shi'ite militias that the United States installed as the military and police rulers of the country. What did they think the Shi'ites would do, once armed by the Americans? Apparently, these Americans don't think too well. They always make the same mistakes, and then blame the rest of the world for their stupidity.
I suppose it is, overall, a good thing that the Iraq venture is coming apart at the seams, although one cannot revel in the killings of hundreds in the fiasco that the United States has created. But it is amazing that these Americans, who set such diabolical forces in motion with billions of our tax dollars, always claim to have been victimized. Now, they want to demonize the Arabs of the Emirates, who were their great friends in the disaster that became Afghanistan. Will they finally turn on the Pakistanis – who have the only Islamic nuclear bomb? Have they changed their minds about the Shi'ites, whom they hated when the Ayatollahs took over Iran, but then armed against the Sunnis in Iraq – which has led to the holocaust sweeping that country?
It is clear that madmen are in command of the world's only superpower. What is worse, is that these madmen are rather stupid. They fund the Taliban, and support the fragile military regime in Pakistan, and wind up arming the Shi'ites in Iraq, while at the same time planning to attack the Shi'ite regime in neighboring Iran. What a bunch of idiots. But very dangerous idiots.
George Bush thanked the military dictator of Pakistan for slapping Mr. Khan on the wrist. Meanwhile, Mr. Khan's genies are out of the bottle, and liable to wind up in one of our ports, in a cargo container, some day. It's just a matter of time.
The greedy gluttons of the Republican Party have brought that time much closer, through another unholy alliance, with the government of the United Arab Emirates. It was that government that acted as a go-between with the Taliban for the United States. They did Washington's bidding, and are still doing it in the Middle East. So they are to be rewarded with a contract to handle all those cargo containers coming through U.S. ports. Even Republicans can't stomach that, but their greed is much stronger than their racism. The connections between the United Arab Emirates and the United States are ties of rich men. They have the logic of money, not ideology, or even of race.
And now we see the wholesale spread of fratricide in Iraq, promulgated by the Shi'ite militias that the United States installed as the military and police rulers of the country. What did they think the Shi'ites would do, once armed by the Americans? Apparently, these Americans don't think too well. They always make the same mistakes, and then blame the rest of the world for their stupidity.
I suppose it is, overall, a good thing that the Iraq venture is coming apart at the seams, although one cannot revel in the killings of hundreds in the fiasco that the United States has created. But it is amazing that these Americans, who set such diabolical forces in motion with billions of our tax dollars, always claim to have been victimized. Now, they want to demonize the Arabs of the Emirates, who were their great friends in the disaster that became Afghanistan. Will they finally turn on the Pakistanis – who have the only Islamic nuclear bomb? Have they changed their minds about the Shi'ites, whom they hated when the Ayatollahs took over Iran, but then armed against the Sunnis in Iraq – which has led to the holocaust sweeping that country?
It is clear that madmen are in command of the world's only superpower. What is worse, is that these madmen are rather stupid. They fund the Taliban, and support the fragile military regime in Pakistan, and wind up arming the Shi'ites in Iraq, while at the same time planning to attack the Shi'ite regime in neighboring Iran. What a bunch of idiots. But very dangerous idiots.
Bush, Chavez, and Hitler by Jacob G. Hornberger
U.S. officials become angry and indignant when someone compares the Bush administration’s policies to those of the Hitler regime. Even government officials at the local level get upset over the comparison, as reflected by the public schoolteacher who is under investigation for comparing Bush’s policies to those of Hitler in his classroom.
Ironically, however, the anger and indignation felt by U.S. officials when someone compares Bush’s policies to those of Hitler does not stop U.S. officials from comparing foreign leaders to Hitler.
The most recent example was when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld compared Venezuela’s democratically elected president, Hugo Chavez, to Hitler, saying, “He’s a person who was elected legally — just as Hitler was elected legally — and then consolidated power and now is, of course, working closely with Fidel Castro and Morales and others.”
When Rumsfeld compares Chavez to Hitler, he’s obviously not suggesting that Chavez is setting up deaths camps to commit another Holocaust. He’s simply saying that Chavez, like Hitler, is “consolidating power” and working closely with foreign rulers who, like Chavez, refuse to submit to the dictates of the U.S. Empire.
Consider Fidel Castro. The beef that U.S. officials have with Castro is not that he has imposed a communist/socialist order in Cuba. After all, U.S. officials fully support the types of socialist programs that Castro has put into place, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, income taxation, gun control, drug laws, occupational licensure, and equalization of income. U.S. officials even have no problems repatriating Cuban refugees back into Castro’s communism.
Their primary beef with Castro is that he simply has always refused to become a member of the U.S. Empire and thereby do the bidding of U.S. officials, like his predecessor Fulgencio Batista did. If Castro had done that, U.S. officials would no more complain about what he did inside Cuba than they complain about what their unelected military dictator in Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, does inside his country. Musharraf, of course, became a full-fledged, fully paid member of the U.S. Empire after 9/11, eagerly accepting hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid and presumably abandoning his deeply held, pre-9/11 commitment to the Taliban.
It’s the same thing with Bolivia’s newly elected president Evo Morales, to whom Rumsfeld was referring when he compared Chavez to Hitler. The immediate beef that U.S. officials have with Morales is that he’s going “independent” by threatening to end the war on drugs in Bolivia, a war that has torn not only Bolivia apart but also Colombia, Mexico, and many other Latin American nations. The problem, however, is that U.S. federal officials need this war — their budgets depend on it and their jobs depend on it. In fact, for some government officials, both at the state and federal level, their bribes depend on it. Thus, despite the fact that the drug war has totally failed to accomplish its objective — the elimination of drugs and drug abuse in the United States — as a recent official U.S. government report reflects, U.S. officials demand that foreign regimes continue waging it. That’s one reason they’re upset with Morales — he’s not buying into the drug-war nonsense. And so they’re expressing their displeasure with Morales by suggesting that he is now associating with “Hitler.”
Ironically, even as Rumsfeld calls Chavez “Hitler” for consolidating power, no one can deny that ever since 9/11, Bush has done everything he can to “consolidate power,” as evidenced by the USA PATRIOT Act, the unconstitutional assumption of power to declare war, the illegal attack and war of aggression on a country that had never attacked the United States, the illegal spying on Americans by recording their telephone conversations without a judicially issued warrant, the jailing and punishment of Americans without due process of law, illegal kidnapping and “rendition” of prisoners to foreign regimes for the purposes of torture, and of course the illegal torture, sex abuse, rape, and murder of detainees by U.S. forces.
Unfortunately, when U.S. officials such as Rumsfeld compare Chavez to Hitler for “consolidating power,” their own arrogance and hubris prevent them from seeing that President Bush has been doing the exact same thing ever since 9/11 — and arguably to a much greater extent than Chavez — “consolidating power.” While they have no hesitancy in placing the label of “Hitler” on foreign leaders for doing so, U.S. officials scratch their heads in befuddlement when foreigners place the label of “hypocrites” upon them.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email. jhornberger@fff.org
Ironically, however, the anger and indignation felt by U.S. officials when someone compares Bush’s policies to those of Hitler does not stop U.S. officials from comparing foreign leaders to Hitler.
The most recent example was when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld compared Venezuela’s democratically elected president, Hugo Chavez, to Hitler, saying, “He’s a person who was elected legally — just as Hitler was elected legally — and then consolidated power and now is, of course, working closely with Fidel Castro and Morales and others.”
When Rumsfeld compares Chavez to Hitler, he’s obviously not suggesting that Chavez is setting up deaths camps to commit another Holocaust. He’s simply saying that Chavez, like Hitler, is “consolidating power” and working closely with foreign rulers who, like Chavez, refuse to submit to the dictates of the U.S. Empire.
Consider Fidel Castro. The beef that U.S. officials have with Castro is not that he has imposed a communist/socialist order in Cuba. After all, U.S. officials fully support the types of socialist programs that Castro has put into place, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, income taxation, gun control, drug laws, occupational licensure, and equalization of income. U.S. officials even have no problems repatriating Cuban refugees back into Castro’s communism.
Their primary beef with Castro is that he simply has always refused to become a member of the U.S. Empire and thereby do the bidding of U.S. officials, like his predecessor Fulgencio Batista did. If Castro had done that, U.S. officials would no more complain about what he did inside Cuba than they complain about what their unelected military dictator in Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, does inside his country. Musharraf, of course, became a full-fledged, fully paid member of the U.S. Empire after 9/11, eagerly accepting hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid and presumably abandoning his deeply held, pre-9/11 commitment to the Taliban.
It’s the same thing with Bolivia’s newly elected president Evo Morales, to whom Rumsfeld was referring when he compared Chavez to Hitler. The immediate beef that U.S. officials have with Morales is that he’s going “independent” by threatening to end the war on drugs in Bolivia, a war that has torn not only Bolivia apart but also Colombia, Mexico, and many other Latin American nations. The problem, however, is that U.S. federal officials need this war — their budgets depend on it and their jobs depend on it. In fact, for some government officials, both at the state and federal level, their bribes depend on it. Thus, despite the fact that the drug war has totally failed to accomplish its objective — the elimination of drugs and drug abuse in the United States — as a recent official U.S. government report reflects, U.S. officials demand that foreign regimes continue waging it. That’s one reason they’re upset with Morales — he’s not buying into the drug-war nonsense. And so they’re expressing their displeasure with Morales by suggesting that he is now associating with “Hitler.”
Ironically, even as Rumsfeld calls Chavez “Hitler” for consolidating power, no one can deny that ever since 9/11, Bush has done everything he can to “consolidate power,” as evidenced by the USA PATRIOT Act, the unconstitutional assumption of power to declare war, the illegal attack and war of aggression on a country that had never attacked the United States, the illegal spying on Americans by recording their telephone conversations without a judicially issued warrant, the jailing and punishment of Americans without due process of law, illegal kidnapping and “rendition” of prisoners to foreign regimes for the purposes of torture, and of course the illegal torture, sex abuse, rape, and murder of detainees by U.S. forces.
Unfortunately, when U.S. officials such as Rumsfeld compare Chavez to Hitler for “consolidating power,” their own arrogance and hubris prevent them from seeing that President Bush has been doing the exact same thing ever since 9/11 — and arguably to a much greater extent than Chavez — “consolidating power.” While they have no hesitancy in placing the label of “Hitler” on foreign leaders for doing so, U.S. officials scratch their heads in befuddlement when foreigners place the label of “hypocrites” upon them.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email. jhornberger@fff.org
Bolivia to write new constitution
Bolivian President Evo Morales has signed a law convening a special assembly to rewrite the constitution.Mr Morales said Bolivia would be refounded, with indigenous peoples playing the role that they had been denied for hundreds of years.
Mr Morales also signed a law calling a referendum on greater regional autonomy, which will be held on 2 July.
He was elected in December 2005, pledging to reform the constitution and give more power to indigenous peoples.
Economic reform?
The assembly is expected to spend up to a year drawing up a new constitution before it is put to a referendum.
The 255-strong group, which will have a quota of women members, is also scheduled to be elected on 2 July.
Sessions are to be held in the city of Sucre.
Correspondents say the document is likely to increase indigenous rights and state control of the Bolivian economy.
Mr Morales has said the free-market model does not work in Bolivia, and the partial privatisation of basic services and natural resources should be reversed.
He called on Bolivians to take part in the country's reforms.
The July referendum is aimed at decentralising power in Bolivia. In the past, governors were appointed by the president, not by popular vote.
Global Gathering - The Social Forum of the Americas
The planning committee of the World Social Forum (WSF) 2005 decided that 2006 would be a year of "polycentric" (decentralized) meetings around the world. Gatherings were to be held in Africa, South America, Pakistan, and Thailand. Michael Albert and I, representing Z, attended the Social Forum of the Americas in Caracas from January 24-29, 2006—he was there to speak at a few of the sessions, I was there to film several events.
The World Social Forum—with the theme "another world is possible" --was first held in January 2001 as an alternative to the World Economic Forum, which is sponsored by such global capitalist institutions as the World Bank and the IMF. Since 2001, the WSF has been attended each year by close to 100,000 progressives who come to participate in "an open meeting place where social movements, networks, NGOs, and other civil society organizations opposed to neoliberalism and a world dominated by capital or by any form of imperialism come together to pursue their thinking, to debate ideas democratically, to formulate proposals, share their experiences freely, and network for effective action" (from the WSF Charter).
Approximately 80,000 were registered for the event in Caracas— with the largest delegations coming from Venezuela, Brazil, and Colombia. The six day event began with a wild ride from the airport over roads through mist-covered mountains surrounding Caracas. A key bridge was out on the main road so what was usually a thirty minute trip took anywhere from an hour and a half to five hours. We made it to the downtown Hilton Hotel where we were staying in just over two hair-raising hours. At the hotel, the lobby was filled with arrivals checking in and reuniting with old friends. We ran into friends from prior Social Forums, many of whom now write for Z, as well as a few graduates from Z Media Institute.
The first day began with a 4:00 PM march of tens of thousands through the streets of Caracas. The march is an especially important event because the sessions are held in many different venues, often spread across the host city, so the march is almost the only chance to get a sense of the size and mood of the participants. The Caracas march was lively and noisy. It was also anti-Bush (as were most of the sessions). The banners were mainly from organizations, unions, and left parties and reflected those groups’ particular issues and cultural clothing and colors, lending diversity to the event. However, it would be nice one day to see some unifying positive slogans, beyond "another world is possible."
The next five days were filled with a total of 2,000 sessions that began at 8:30 AM and continued until 9:00 PM. Activities by topic were:
Power, politics, and struggles for social emancipation: 493
Imperial strategies and peoples’ resistance: 314
Alternatives to the predatory model of civilization: 272
Diversities, identities, and worldviews in movement: 132
Work, exploitation, and reproduction of life: 183
Communication, culture, and education: 389
A quick survey of the 20 or so panels being held at the Hilton indicated that attendance was generally fewer than 100 people per session. We figured that number was pretty much the case at the 20 or so other venues. We did hear of sessions with a few thousand, but they were rare. While the numbers seemed small to us, relative to some of the sessions at the World Social Forums in Porto Alegre, Brazil and Mumbai, India, we observed a great deal of enthusiasm among the majority of attendees.
Meanwhile hundreds of participants were wandering halls and streets, enjoying just being there and talking with like-minded people. Interestingly, this distribution between sessions, private meetings, and just hanging out is reflected in a survey taken at the WSF 2005, which showed that 49.8 percent of participants in the Social Forum movement were there to exchange experiences with other participants; 47.8 percent wanted to contribute to a better society; 42.4 percent came for democratic debate; and 20.6 percent came to formulate proposals for alternatives to the neoliberal model.
On the morning of the fourth day, word of mouth indicated that Hugo Chavez was going to speak that evening, even though the program listed him as apearing two days later. We were hustled onto a bus of "important guests" for a 30-minute ride to an indoor stadium. There we were split into more "important guests" who were taken to a room to wait for a quick meeting with Chavez and the "less important guests" (us) who were taken to a special section on the stadium floor.
For the next three hours, we filmed the crowd in the stadium as they cheered, drummed, chanted, and danced. Finally, there was some entertainment, followed by the arrival on stage of the "more important guests" (including Che Guevara's daughter and Cindy Sheehan). After some additional security checks, Chavez arrived.
While the hierarchical "important guest" business was annoying, Hugo Chavez was impressive. He spoke to the crowd as if chatting with old friends. He boldly urged solidarity with Cuba, which, until Chavez, had been isolated--even condemned--by Latin Americans, right and left.
He quoted and/or referred to Marx, Rosa Luxemburg, and Noam Chomsky, among others (we're told he's a avid reader). It was amusing to compare his reading material with what we imagined our president’s was. He made a hopeful and inspiring case for a unified Latin America--a Bolivarian Revolution--that could serve as a progressive model throughout the world, as well as a challenge to U.S. domination.
He revealed that he had met with a few of the WSF organizers behind the scenes (some of whom were onstage). In that meeting he had told them that it was fine to have discussions, but if the Forum didn't result in conclusions and actions, then it was a waste of time.
The debate between those who want to keep the WSF a forum and those who want it to move toward a global movement organization with common goals and strategies has been going on since 2003. Answers to the aforementioned questionnaire are revealing in this respect. When asked where they considered themselves on the political map, 60.1 percent thought of themselves as left, 19.8 percent were center-left, 4.5 percent were center, 0.6 percent center right, and 1.6 percent was right (13.4 percent had no opinion).
When asked what process should be used for building "the other possible world," 90.4 percent said the road should include "strengthening the mobilization of civil society on a global, continental, national, and local level"; 72.3 percent said the path should include “the democratization of governments”; 59.3 percent said it should include direct action; 59.2 percent said it should include "the democratization of multilateral organizations (UN, WTO, World Bank, IMF)"; and 13.5 percent believed it should include "direct action with the use of force."
The direction the WSF should take is a difficult issue, but it's not clear why organizing a movement and continuing a forum structure can’t both be done. We've suggested in these pages that a portion of the WSF could be dedicated to discussion and decision-making leading to the founding of a movement organization or network that could aggressively promote common visions and values for "another world."
Regardless of what happens, it is extremely important for activists from the U.S. to become part of this growing global left. It would show the rest of the world that there is a left in the U.S. that is resisting the empire from within. It would remind those of us who feel isolated, and often discouraged, that there are other people in the world who want a revolution in values and institutions.
The World Social Forum—with the theme "another world is possible" --was first held in January 2001 as an alternative to the World Economic Forum, which is sponsored by such global capitalist institutions as the World Bank and the IMF. Since 2001, the WSF has been attended each year by close to 100,000 progressives who come to participate in "an open meeting place where social movements, networks, NGOs, and other civil society organizations opposed to neoliberalism and a world dominated by capital or by any form of imperialism come together to pursue their thinking, to debate ideas democratically, to formulate proposals, share their experiences freely, and network for effective action" (from the WSF Charter).
Approximately 80,000 were registered for the event in Caracas— with the largest delegations coming from Venezuela, Brazil, and Colombia. The six day event began with a wild ride from the airport over roads through mist-covered mountains surrounding Caracas. A key bridge was out on the main road so what was usually a thirty minute trip took anywhere from an hour and a half to five hours. We made it to the downtown Hilton Hotel where we were staying in just over two hair-raising hours. At the hotel, the lobby was filled with arrivals checking in and reuniting with old friends. We ran into friends from prior Social Forums, many of whom now write for Z, as well as a few graduates from Z Media Institute.
The first day began with a 4:00 PM march of tens of thousands through the streets of Caracas. The march is an especially important event because the sessions are held in many different venues, often spread across the host city, so the march is almost the only chance to get a sense of the size and mood of the participants. The Caracas march was lively and noisy. It was also anti-Bush (as were most of the sessions). The banners were mainly from organizations, unions, and left parties and reflected those groups’ particular issues and cultural clothing and colors, lending diversity to the event. However, it would be nice one day to see some unifying positive slogans, beyond "another world is possible."
The next five days were filled with a total of 2,000 sessions that began at 8:30 AM and continued until 9:00 PM. Activities by topic were:
Power, politics, and struggles for social emancipation: 493
Imperial strategies and peoples’ resistance: 314
Alternatives to the predatory model of civilization: 272
Diversities, identities, and worldviews in movement: 132
Work, exploitation, and reproduction of life: 183
Communication, culture, and education: 389
A quick survey of the 20 or so panels being held at the Hilton indicated that attendance was generally fewer than 100 people per session. We figured that number was pretty much the case at the 20 or so other venues. We did hear of sessions with a few thousand, but they were rare. While the numbers seemed small to us, relative to some of the sessions at the World Social Forums in Porto Alegre, Brazil and Mumbai, India, we observed a great deal of enthusiasm among the majority of attendees.
Meanwhile hundreds of participants were wandering halls and streets, enjoying just being there and talking with like-minded people. Interestingly, this distribution between sessions, private meetings, and just hanging out is reflected in a survey taken at the WSF 2005, which showed that 49.8 percent of participants in the Social Forum movement were there to exchange experiences with other participants; 47.8 percent wanted to contribute to a better society; 42.4 percent came for democratic debate; and 20.6 percent came to formulate proposals for alternatives to the neoliberal model.
On the morning of the fourth day, word of mouth indicated that Hugo Chavez was going to speak that evening, even though the program listed him as apearing two days later. We were hustled onto a bus of "important guests" for a 30-minute ride to an indoor stadium. There we were split into more "important guests" who were taken to a room to wait for a quick meeting with Chavez and the "less important guests" (us) who were taken to a special section on the stadium floor.
For the next three hours, we filmed the crowd in the stadium as they cheered, drummed, chanted, and danced. Finally, there was some entertainment, followed by the arrival on stage of the "more important guests" (including Che Guevara's daughter and Cindy Sheehan). After some additional security checks, Chavez arrived.
While the hierarchical "important guest" business was annoying, Hugo Chavez was impressive. He spoke to the crowd as if chatting with old friends. He boldly urged solidarity with Cuba, which, until Chavez, had been isolated--even condemned--by Latin Americans, right and left.
He quoted and/or referred to Marx, Rosa Luxemburg, and Noam Chomsky, among others (we're told he's a avid reader). It was amusing to compare his reading material with what we imagined our president’s was. He made a hopeful and inspiring case for a unified Latin America--a Bolivarian Revolution--that could serve as a progressive model throughout the world, as well as a challenge to U.S. domination.
He revealed that he had met with a few of the WSF organizers behind the scenes (some of whom were onstage). In that meeting he had told them that it was fine to have discussions, but if the Forum didn't result in conclusions and actions, then it was a waste of time.
The debate between those who want to keep the WSF a forum and those who want it to move toward a global movement organization with common goals and strategies has been going on since 2003. Answers to the aforementioned questionnaire are revealing in this respect. When asked where they considered themselves on the political map, 60.1 percent thought of themselves as left, 19.8 percent were center-left, 4.5 percent were center, 0.6 percent center right, and 1.6 percent was right (13.4 percent had no opinion).
When asked what process should be used for building "the other possible world," 90.4 percent said the road should include "strengthening the mobilization of civil society on a global, continental, national, and local level"; 72.3 percent said the path should include “the democratization of governments”; 59.3 percent said it should include direct action; 59.2 percent said it should include "the democratization of multilateral organizations (UN, WTO, World Bank, IMF)"; and 13.5 percent believed it should include "direct action with the use of force."
The direction the WSF should take is a difficult issue, but it's not clear why organizing a movement and continuing a forum structure can’t both be done. We've suggested in these pages that a portion of the WSF could be dedicated to discussion and decision-making leading to the founding of a movement organization or network that could aggressively promote common visions and values for "another world."
Regardless of what happens, it is extremely important for activists from the U.S. to become part of this growing global left. It would show the rest of the world that there is a left in the U.S. that is resisting the empire from within. It would remind those of us who feel isolated, and often discouraged, that there are other people in the world who want a revolution in values and institutions.
THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPTEMBER 11 - Must we wait for Bush to fall?
THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPTEMBER 11
Must we wait for Bush to fall?
• New revelations incriminate the U.S. government in the tragic events that cost thousands of lives in New York
Must we wait for Bush to fall?
• New revelations incriminate the U.S. government in the tragic events that cost thousands of lives in New York
BY JOAQUIN ORAMAS
EXACTLY what happened on September 11, 2001 in New York is still is a mystery. Investigators say that they are just waiting for the Bush administration to fall to demand the declassification of documents that would reveal the truth about what happened that day.
For many, indications and criminal evidence are already sufficiently overwhelming regarding the complicity of the U.S. administration in the events of that fateful day, when endless hours of broadcasts on U.S. television networks showed, one million times, an image that engraved itself on humanity’s memory as the Twin Towers collapsed in flames after being hit by two planes, as well as the official version of those events.
Since then, the world has been informed of what some experts are calling a fraud, because they are stating that the Twin Towers were destroyed by the U.S. administration itself to justify its current wars.
Just a few days after the dreadful event, some writers dared to hint that they did not believe the official information. They based themselves on flagrant facts; for example, the collapse of the World Trade Center occurring just as if it were a controlled demolition, referred to by highly experienced specialists.
Seasoned journalists began investigating along those same lines in order to confirm that today’s world history is built on an enormous shady deal.
In February 2002 it was announced that the Pentagon had decided to enter the media business. From then on the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), discreetly created after September 11, placed news items and other material supporting U.S. interests in the international media in order to create a favorable atmosphere for U.S. military operations and to counteract opposing views, such as the one that the attacks on New York on September 11, 2001 and on London on July 7, 2005 were to be simulated ones¼
It also refuted a documentary by British director Adam Curtis titled The Power of Nightmares, an entry in the Cannes Film Festival, in which he affirms that the nightmare of international terrorism known as Al Qaeda does not exist. According to the documentary, it is just another invention of the United States, which manufactures such horrors to justify its interventions and interests.
Or to influence voters, as was the case a few days before the U.S. presidential elections, when surprise TV reports disclosed a statement by Bin Laden threatening to attack the United States. When referring to the video broadcast four days before the November 2, 2004 elections, Bush confessed that the Al Qaeda leader “didn’t mean to” but had helped him to win.
In addition, U.S. investigator Michael C. Ruppert pointed to Vice President Dick Cheney as the top suspect in the September 11 attacks.
Meanwhile, in a series of conferences on Sept. 11 organized in Europe’s main capitals, U.S. journalists and writers affirmed the Bush administration’s responsibility for organizing the attacks, with an outcome that has enabled the stabilization of an exceptional regime in that country.
According to Andreas von Bulow, former German minister of defense and head of intelligence, in a revelation that has passed by unnoticed, the Sept. 11 attacks were the product of an undercover CIA operation, with immediate destruction of the evidence left at the sites of the events.
It is also claimed that the attack on the World Trade Center was anticipated by arms manufacturers, who are constantly asking for more money for their military budgets. According to analysts at the Rand Corporation in the United States, the Sept. 11 events were unimaginable, and constitute a revolution in terrorist acts, thus justifying the allocation of unlimited funds to combat terrorism. However, they themselves had analyzed in detail the unimaginable. Six months before the attacks, there was discussion at a U.S. Air Force Academy on the possibility of an air attack on the Twin Towers.
$7 BILLION LAWSUIT
In addition, Stanley Hilton, who was head of the team of former U.S. presidential candidate Bob Dole, accused the U.S. government of having been involved in the attacks. Hilton said that a group of high-ranking military officers affirm that members of the government were involved in the attacks.
He believes that Bush ordered the attack with the complicity of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, and the director of the CIA.
Alex Jones, a U.S. journalist, interviewed Hilton, a lawyer, who represents the majority of the families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, who are suing the government for $ 7 billion. Today, according to a survey by Zogby, half of New York’s residents believe the government was involved in the events.
Another argument of Hilton’s – for which he says he has evidence – is that the plane hijackers were FBI and CIA double agents who infiltrated different Islamic groups resident in the United States. He also affirms that when the U.S. population witnessed Bush’s indifference on television when the New York attacks were being explained to him, it was because the president already knew what was planned for that day.
Maneuvers by World Trade Center owners before and after the attack on the Twin Towers are similarly suspicious. Seven weeks before the attacks, Larry Abraham Silverstein, backed by a large number of investors, signed a 99-year leasing contract on those buildings. The names of those very wise investors remain a secret; seven weeks after that action, they cashed in on the colossal insurance of $3.5 billion.
Let’s say that the tragedy was not what those investigators are claiming. If that is the case, it turns out that for almost a decade, more than 200 countries, headed by the United States and the United Kingdom, have been at the mercy of one single organization that acts throughout the planet at its whim, without all of the arsenals and repressive agencies of those countries being sufficient to overcome that sinister terrorist monopoly. The most astute and efficient terrorist organization in the world in humanity’s entire history is supposedly in hiding in the Islamic Third World...
And to force it out of its lair, the United States and Britain have launched two wars in Middle Eastern countries and are threatening others. But four years later, after hundreds of thousands of deaths and the extraction of millions of barrels of oil, neither of them have any idea of the whereabouts of its main ringleader, Osama Bin Laden, who has not even shaven off his beard to give them the slip.
They don’t even know where the “second-in-command” is after he disappeared into the Afghan mountains on a motorcycle.
Goebbels, the Nazi, used to say that if lies are repeated often enough, they become the truth. He was right, but only for a short while. In 1930 and post-1930, they could be sustained for quite some while; but the current very bombardment of information means they don’t last as long.
At the very moment that the attacks took place, people who tuned into CNN might well have thought they were watching a movie when the first plane crashed. When they saw the second one, they realized that it was not a movie, and heard the announcer say off-air, very excited, that at least 50,000 people were probably in the buildings at the time. Perhaps someone remembers that. That was followed by pandemonium, shouting, etc.
When the total number of dead was given, the announcer’s quote sounded very concise. How did it drop from 50,000 to 5,000, and subsequently to the final count of 3,500? What happened to the other 42,500 people? The next day, on a Spanish-language radio station, Latin American residents of New York who worked at the Twin Towers were interviewed by Uruguayan and Argentine journalists, and told them why they had not gone to work that day. Their explanations were suspiciously identical: “My boss called and said not to come in;” “I work at such-and-such a company and they told me the day before not to go in on the 11;” “a coworker called to say that he had received instructions not to go in.”
Suspiciously, almost all the deaths were of maintenance and cleaning personnel. That detail alone led to the thinking that there was a cat in the bag, and later, further evidence emerged after exhaustive studies. History is full of versions aimed at preparing the terrain for an invasion; later, it was learned that the police and firefighters were banned from making statements about the events of Sept. 11.
Meanwhile, the U.S. people are living in a cloud of ignorance, and a half century will have to go by before other generations find out about the secrets kept locked away in safes by the masterminds of the crime.
Challenging the mighty dollar - If major nations trade on Iran's oil bourse, it may start a 'dollar flight' effect By Ramin Davoodi
Challenging the mighty dollar
If major nations trade on Iran's oil bourse, it may start a 'dollar flight' effect
By Ramin Davoodi
It's becoming increasingly obvious that there is a looming crisis brewing over Iran. The true 'whys' and 'what's' of the issue, however, are clouded to the American public due to our modern press and to the nature of the underlying stakes involved.If major nations trade on Iran's oil bourse, it may start a 'dollar flight' effect
By Ramin Davoodi
What people read is that there is a growing threat of a nuclear Iran that will threaten the safety of the West. Yet, that's essentially all that is said or written on the issue. However, to critically thinking people who turn to the internet and to foreign press for their news, the brewing crisis most likely has to do with intricate issues involving our incessant dependencies, not just on oil for our transportation and industrial needs, but more importantly for the means by which our modern economic system operates in the US, UK and much of the rest of the industrialized western world (strong hint: It's not a truly "free market").
You see, control over global oil trading and pricing standards essentially underwrites the sanctity of the US dollar as a fiat (i.e. government mandated) currency for trade and investments. Were anything to threaten that delicate arrangement between control over oil pricing in particular, and our economic system in general, then there would be tectonic shifts in global finance to the detriment of the banks and energy companies that essentially dictate the means and mores of modern US-dominated geopolitics, trade and wealth creation around the world.
I use the term "detriment" because of the conspicuously Himalayan-sized US trade and fiscal deficits that are not being reconciled by our government with the nations of the world that lend their savings to the US. Meanwhile, these nations are simultaneously being forced to buy and sell oil using our weakening dollar. Something's gotta give.
Those that sense this issue is either a bit too simplistic, archaic or even far-fetched should consider that the only two oil trading systems in the world right now -- the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) in London and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) -- are owned by large global banks based in either the US or UK (Goldman Sachs, et al.).
It should come as no coincidence that the ownership of the oil exchanges that set the West Texas Intermediate (in the US) and the North Sea Brent Crude (in the UK) oil markers -- two markers which, in turn, determine the price of oil per barrel globally -- is in the hands of Wall Street's largest investment banks.
What does all of this have to do with Iran?
In 2004, Iran decided to do what Iraq did before it -- start the process of eventually selling its oil and natural gas in euros instead of the globally mandated US dollar. Yet, Iran is 'one-upping' Iraq by starting its own energy exchange, labeled the Iran Oil Bourse, which would rival the aforementioned exchanges in London and New York.
[It's interesting to note here that, in a particularly instructive scene in the movie "Syriana", the Saudi Prince Nasir played by Alexander Liddig retorts to Matt Damon's character 'Bryan' that, indeed, Nasir wishes to set up his own national oil exchange, along with other progressive steps necessary to improve the infrastructure of his nation. Prince Nasir's fate in the film is also understandable, in light of such ambitious yet noble yearnings.]
This oil bourse is set to float in Tehran in March 2006. Although scoffed at as wildly implausible by market analysts in the US and UK, the bourse has also been seen as potentially very lucrative for investors and nations' central banks that wish to diversify their currency holdings and energy trading reserves away from the US dollar. Upon prudent observation, and on par, the input of the latter crew outweigh the scoffings of the former (just do a Google search using the words "oil", "Iran", "bourse" and for extra kicks, "NYMEX").
Were nations such as China, Russia, India, Germany, Venezuela, Brazil and even Saudi Arabia to consider participating in trades on this bourse in Iran, it may start a 'dollar flight' effect that the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, and said select investment banks would have trouble ceasing or reversing under already agreed upon trading schemes that were set in the mid-1970s (see the new book, "Petrodollar Warfare" by William Clark for the well researched history).
Basically, our global economic system is so overleveraged, profligate and tightly wound up, that something as seemingly obscure as an energy exchange starting in Tehran can potentially unravel the whole, intricate Monetarist Ponzi Scheme (regrets to Milton Friedman, but 'the gig is up', so to speak.).
And apparently, rather than approach the issue through much-needed negotiations with other industrialized nations so as to provide a fiscal soft landing for the dollar's debts while allowing for development in certain poorer countries, our government is apparently choosing to go to war instead.
Again. Not just any war, mind you, but with a nation of near-70 million nationalistic people who we've alienated for over a generation already. A people who claim, at least in public, to want to perform the change away from oil-as-prime-energy dependence that alternative energy gurus push so heavily in the West.
Some articles that announce, speculate and outright fret about the likelihoods of such a scenario are provided below:
-- "Trading oil in euros – does it matter?", by Cóilín Nunan
-- "Iran: the next war", John Pilger
-- "Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse", by William Clark
-- "The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse", by Krassimir Petrov
"Still", people claim, "that doesn't change the fact that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons." One certainly shouldn't trust the Iranian government's word on why they seek to procure nuclear technology, yet a rationalist and realist would sense that, if a major oil exporting nation wishes to launch an oil bourse that could be deemed as threatening to the US/UK-backed energy status quo, then that nation would also seek to adequately arm itself against inevitable attempts at regime change.
"Yes, but the mullahs want to wipe Israel off the map". In light of the already preexisting nuclear power inherent in Israel, Pakistan, Russia, India and obviously the US (which surrounds Iran with military bases), it doesn't make all that much sense that Iran would want nukes just so that it can conduct a first strike against another nation.
Iran's mullahs may be hardliners, but they're not suicidal, considering the riches Iran sits on. That would contradict the logic of deterrence, just as our government's building up of further tactical nuclear weapons, and recent shipping of hundreds of such "bunker busters" to Israel, contradicts the logic of anti-proliferation that Iran and others are apparently supposed to abide by. Please.
Lately, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter and other pundits have claimed that a likely scenario will go like this: The US or Israel will attack Iran's nuclear targets, Iran will retaliate by: 1) attacking Israel, and/or 2) trying to take out key oil production areas in the Gulf, and/or 3) Iranians will blitz across the Iraqi border. Upon such retaliation, the US will then drop a nuclear weapon on Iran to halt any further aggression; as such an act did against Japan 61 years ago. [See: "Ex-U .N. inspector: Iran’s next"]
If this is the extent, more or less, of Washington's war gaming, we're in trouble, because it assumes that Russia and China, two juggernauts that are heavily invested in Iran's energy and security sectors, will not respond viscerally to prevent Iran's oil and gas from being taken from them by the US, UK and Israel. China could also use a growing quagmire with Iran as an alleyway chance to finally 'annex' Taiwan once and for all (Russia and China were conducting joint military exercises last year very close to Taiwan).
Other nations, sensing a growing nuclear catastrophe, could dump the US dollar altogether as the Federal Reserve and Treasury print currency by the metric tonnes out of thin air to feed the frenzy (which may already be in the works, as the Fed will cease revealing the M3 aggregate money figure in, of all months, March 2006.). Oil would surpass $200/barrel in the US, gold would break $1000/troy ounce and martial law would be declared in multiple nations.
All because our government refuses to renegotiate the terms under which energy commodities are priced and traded around the world, despite the clear urgency for monetary and fiscal reform.
One has to ask oneself, in an apt yet still eerie paraphrase of Bud Fox's poignant question posed to Gordon Gekko in the movie "Wall Street":
How many wars will be enough?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)