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

This report provides valuable historical background for current events. Brilliant and detailed article to distribute widely.

By Andrew Gavin Marshall
Global Research, September 08, 2010
8 September 2010

This is Part 2 of the series, “The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda.“

Part 1: The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the “Arc of Crisis”

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

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

With the end of the Cold War a new strategy had to be determined to manage the global system. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, declarations of a “New World Order” sprang forward, focusing on the United States as the single world superpower. This presented a great many challenges as well as opportunities for the worlds most powerful hegemon.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a number of new Central Asian and Eastern European nations were formed and became independent, and with that, their immense deposits of natural gas and energy became available for exploitation. Afghanistan itself was considered “a major strategic pivot,” as it was “the primary gateway to Central Asia and the immense energy deposits therein.”[1] Western oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Texaco, Unocal, BP Amoco, Shell, and Enron begin pouring billions of dollars into the countries of Central Asia in the early 1990s.[2]

In 1992, a Pentagon document titled “Defense Planning Guidance” was leaked to the press, in which it described a strategy for the United States in the “new world order,” and it was drafted by George H.W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. It stated that, “America’s political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union,” and that, “The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy.”[3]

Further, “the new draft sketches a world in which there is one dominant military power whose leaders ‘must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role’.” Among the necessary challenges to American supremacy, the document “postulated regional wars against Iraq and North Korea,” and identified China and Russia as its major threats. It further “suggests that the United States could also consider extending to Eastern and Central European nations security commitments similar to those extended to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab states along the Persian Gulf.”[4]

Similarly, in 1992, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, one of the most influential think tanks in the United States, had established a commission to determine a new foreign policy for the United States in the wake of the Cold War. Participants included Madeleine Albright, Henry Cisneros, John Deutch, Richard Holbrooke, Alice Rivlin, David Gergen and Admiral William Crowe. In the summer of 1992, the final report, “Changing Our Ways: America and the New World,” was published. The report urged “a new principle of international relations: the destruction or displacement of groups of people within states can justify international intervention.” It suggested that the US “realign NATO and OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] to deal with new security problems in Europe,” and “urged military intervention under humanitarian guises.” This report subsequently “planted the policy seedlings for the Kosovo war” as it “provided both the rationale for U.S. interventionism and a policy recommendation about the best means–NATO–for waging that war.”[5]

Another Carnegie publication in the same year, “Self-Determination in the New World Order,” furthered imperialist goals for America, as it “set criteria for officials to use in deciding when to support separatist ethnic groups seeking independence, and advocated military force for that purpose.” It recommended that “international military coalitions, preferably U.N.-led, could send armed force not as peacekeepers but peacemakers–to prevent conflict from breaking out and stay in place indefinitely.” It further stated that, “the use of military force to create a new state would require conduct by the parent government so egregious that it has forfeited any right to govern the minority claiming self-determination.”[6]

The United States and its NATO allies soon undertook a new strategy, seeking to maintain dominance over the world, expand their hegemony over regions previously under the influence of the Soviet Union (such as in Eastern Europe and Central Asia), and prevent the rise of a resurgent Russia or China. One of the key facets of this strategy was the notion of “humanitarian intervention.”

Yugoslavia Dismantled by Design

In the 1990s, the United States and its NATO allies, in particular Germany and the UK, undertook a strategy of destabilization in Yugoslavia, seeking to dismantle and ultimately fracture the country. To do this, the imperial strategy of divide and conquer was employed, manipulating various ethnic tensions and arming and training various militias and terrorist organizations. Throughout this strategy, the “database”, or Al-Qaeda was used to promote the agenda of the destabilization and dismantling of Yugoslavia.

In 1989, Yugoslavia had to seek financial aid from the World Bank and IMF, which implemented a Structural Adjustment Program (SAP), which resulted in the dismantling of the public state, exacerbating social issues and fueling secessionist tendencies, leading to Croatia and Slovenia seceding from the republic in 1991.[7] In 1990, the US intelligence community had released a report predicting that Yugoslavia would break apart and erupt in civil war, and it blamed Milosevic for the impending disaster.[8]

As far back as 1988, the leader of Croatia met with the German Chancellor Helmut Kohl to create “a joint policy to break up Yugoslavia,” and bring Slovenia and Croatia into the “German economic zone.” So, US Army officers were dispatched to Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, and Macedonia as “advisers” and brought in US Special Forces to help.[9]

Fighting broke out between Yugoslavia and Croatia when the latter declared independence in 1991. The fighting subsequently lasted until 1995, and merged in part with the Bosnian war. The US supported the operation and the CIA actively provided intelligence to Croat forces, leading to the displacement of between 150,000 and 200,000 Serbs, largely through means of murder, plundering, burning villages and ethnic cleansing.[10] The Croatian Army was trained by U.S. advisers and a general later put on trial at the Hague for war crimes was personally supported by the CIA.[11] So we see the double standard of ethnic cleansing and genocide: when the US does it or supports it, it’s “humanitarian intervention,” politically justified, or it is simply unacknowledged; when an enemy state does it, (or is accused of doing it), the “international community” demands action and any means is deemed necessary to “prevent genocide”, including committing genocide.

The Clinton administration gave the “green light” to Iran to arm the Bosnian Muslims and “from 1992 to January 1996, there was an influx of Iranian weapons and advisers into Bosnia.” Further, “Iran, and other Muslim states, helped to bring Mujahideen fighters into Bosnia to fight with the Muslims against the Serbs, ‘holy warriors’ from Afghanistan, Chechnya, Yemen and Algeria, some of whom had suspected links with Osama bin Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan.”[12]

During the war in Bosnia, there “was a vast secret conduit of weapons smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine agencies of the US, Turkey and Iran, together with a range of radical Islamist groups, including Afghan mojahedin and the pro-Iranian Hizbullah.” Further, “the secret services of Ukraine, Greece and Israel were busy arming the Bosnian Serbs.”[13] Germany’s intelligence agency, the BND, also ran arms shipments to the Bosnian Muslims and Croatia to fight against the Serbs.[14] Thus, every side was being funded and armed by outside powers seeking to foment conflict and ultimately break up Yugoslavia to serve their own imperial objectives in the region.

In 1992, the al-Kifah Center in Brooklyn, the recruiting center for al-Qaeda, made Bosnia its chief target. By 1993, it opened a branch in Croatia. The recruitment operation for Bosnian Muslims “was a covert action project sponsored not only by Saudi Arabia but also in part by the US government.”[15]

In 1996, the Albanian Mafia, in collaboration with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a militant guerilla organization, took control over the enormous Balkan heroin trafficking routes. The KLA was linked to former Afghan Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden.[16]

In 1997, the KLA began fighting against Serbian forces,[17] and in 1998, the US State Department removed the KLA from its list of terrorist organizations.[18] Before and after 1998, the KLA was receiving arms, training and support from the US and NATO, and Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, was close with KLA leader Hashim Thaci.[19]

Both the CIA and German intelligence, the BND, supported the KLA terrorists in Yugoslavia prior to and after the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. The BND had KLA contacts since the early 1990s, the same period that the KLA was establishing its Al-Qaeda contacts.[20] KLA members were trained by Osama bin Laden at training camps in Afghanistan. Even the UN stated that much of the violence at the time came from KLA members, “especially those allied with Hashim Thaci.”[21]

The March 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo was justified on the pretense of putting an end to Serbian oppression of Kosovo Albanians, which was termed genocide. The Clinton Administration made claims that at least 100,000 Kosovo Albanians were missing and “may have been killed” by the Serbs. Bill Clinton personally compared events in Kosovo to the Holocaust. The US State Department had stated that up to 500,000 Albanians were feared dead. Eventually, the official estimate was reduced to 10,000, however, after exhaustive investigations, it was revealed that the death of less than 2,500 Albanians could be attributed to the Serbs. During the NATO bombing campaign, between 400 and 1,500 Serb civilians were killed, and NATO committed war crimes, including the bombing of a Serb TV station and a hospital.[22]

Ultimately the strategy of the destabilization of Yugoslavia served various imperial objectives. The war in Yugoslavia was waged in order to enlarge NATO, Serbia was to be excluded permanently from European development to justify a US military presence in the region, and expansion was ultimately designed to contain Russia.[23]

An op-ed in the New York Times in 1996 stated that, “instead of seeing Bosnia as the eastern frontier of NATO, we should view the Balkans as the western frontier of America’s rapidly expanding sphere of influence in the Middle East.” Further:

The fact that the United States is more enthusiastic than its European allies about a Bosnian Muslim state reflects, among other things, the new American role as the leader of an informal collection of Muslim nations from the Persian Gulf to the Balkans. The regions once ruled by the Ottoman Turks show signs of becoming the heart of a third American empire.

[ . . . ] Now, in the years after the cold war, the United States is again establishing suzerainty over the empire of a former foe. The disintegration of the Soviet Union has prompted the United States to expand its zone of military hegemony into Eastern Europe (through NATO) and into formerly neutral Yugoslavia. And — most important of all — the end of the cold war has permitted America to deepen its involvement the Middle East.[24]

Further, with the dismantling of the former Yugoslavia, a passageway for the transport of oil and natural gas from the Caspian region was to be facilitated through the construction of the Trans-Balkan pipeline, which will “run from the Black sea port of Burgas to the Adriatic at Vlore, passing through Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania. It is likely to become the main route to the west for the oil and gas now being extracted in central Asia. It will carry 750,000 barrels a day: a throughput, at current prices, of some $600m a month.” As the Guardian reported:

The project is necessary, according to a paper published by the US Trade and Development Agency last May, because the oil coming from the Caspian Sea “will quickly surpass the safe capacity of the Bosphorus as a shipping lane”. The scheme, the agency notes, will “provide a consistent source of crude oil to American refineries”, “provide American companies with a key role in developing the vital east-west corridor”, “advance the privatisation aspirations of the US government in the region” and “facilitate rapid integration” of the Balkans “with western Europe”.

In November 1998, Bill Richardson, then US energy secretary, spelt out his policy on the extraction and transport of Caspian oil. “This is about America’s energy security,” he explained. “It’s also about preventing strategic inroads by those who don’t share our values. We’re trying to move these newly independent countries toward the west. [Bill Richardson, former governor of New Mexico, was a Presidential candidate in 2007.]

Continue reading

Advertisements

The Japanese pivot

Posted on Fort Russ

 

May 23, 2015
The Japanese Pivot
By Fritzmorgen
Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

Will Japan agree to drop its claims on the South Kurile islands for the sake of signing a peace treaty with Russia? Even a couple of years ago I would have said with certainty that it’s not possible, and that the Japanese will continue to cover our islands to the last.

Let’s recall some history. Japan attacked Russia in 1904 in a not very nice way and after the 1905 peace received from us the southern half of the Sakhalin Island and a few other islands.  The Japanese did not celebrate for very long: upon the end of WW2 Russia took back its territory. Japan took the loss of what they stole rather calmly. During the Khrushchev era they even tried to reach a peace agreement in order to affirm their losses and turn a new leaf in its relations with Russia, the US however vetoed the proposed treaty.

http://ruxpert.ru/Территориальные_споры_России

I’ll add that we did not exactly twist Japan’s arms. The two southern islands, Kunashir and Iturup, are vital to us since they sit astride a never freezing waterway to Vladivostok. The small Kurile range, which are not as valuable to us, Khrushchev was willing to give up in order to end the conflict.

However, the status quo also satisfied both sides. We had our ice free passage to Vladivostok and de-facto controlled the islands, while the Japanese were not concerned by the absence of a peace treaty because they understood Russia was not about to attack them. The half-hearted negotiations of the “give us the islands–no we won’t” could have continued for decades…if it weren’t for the fact that the star-spangled collossus is now sporting cracks visible to the naked eye.

The bomb surfaced in the middle of the week. Japan suddenly said that it is inviting Vladimir Vladimirovich for a visit, and not just for the sake of small talk but…to conclude a peace treaty and resolve the territorial issue:

http://www.interfax.ru/world/442616

Russia’s position has not changed–we are not prepared to give the islands to the Japanese in exchange for a peace treaty: the signing of that document is not so important to us that we would make territorial concessions. Therefore we can carefully conclude that Japan’s position has changed. It may be that Japan decided to sign the peace treaty on Russia’s terms and finally part with the islands which were under its control for a few decades of the 20th century.

The gravity of what’s happening can be judged by the US reaction. Shortly after the unexpected Japanese announcement a relevant Assistant Secretary of State gathered journalist and told them that Japan should not deal with Russia, because Russia is guilty and should be punished:

http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/2015/05/22/gosdep-ssha-yaponii-ne-stoit-vesti-dela-s-rossiei-kak-obichno

What is more, George Soros woke up and in so many words said that China is scheming to attack Japan, which is only being kept safe from the hordes of Chinese occupiers by the brave US Marines:

http://aftershock.su/?q=node/309880

How are we to interpret all this? What is happening, and why are the Japanese acting as if they intend to make, for no apparent reason, an unacceptably generous gesture toward Russia?

Let’s recall history again, this time of WW2. Japan bravely fought against the US on the Pacific front but in final account suffered a tremendous defeat which was underscored by the US atomic strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I’ll note that the Japanese were not exactly playing nice either during the war. The Japanese military acted with such brutality that they eclipsed eve the most odious fascist criminals. Interested individuals should search the net for, for example, “Unit 731” or read the novel “Playing Go.” Samurai fearlessness was a double-edged sword: they were not only indifferent to their own suffering, but to the pain of others as well.

Therefore ultimately Japan fell to the US and…made a very bold move. They acknowledged themselves to be completely defeated and became the most faithful servants of the US. They fulfilled all of the US conditions, forgave them for nuclear bombardments, gave up on having a military and found a secure spot for themselves in the US world order on the terms of favorite colony, acting for a while as if it’s not the US and USSR who fought against Japan, but rather US and Japan who fought against USSR.

We know that the tactic worked. The tiny Japan made an economic leap forward and became the world’s second economy, allowing itself to fall to the fourth place due to the rise of Japan and India only recently. Granted, in the last couple of decades Japan’s economy has been barely ticking under the crushing US colonial ceiling, but the defeated Japan managed to extract far more benefits from its defeat than anyone could have predicted in the distant 1945.

We should also understand that the US were able to subordinate Japan with their nukes but not domesticate it. The Japanese are not savages from US comic books who are happy to kiss the hand of their white master. The Japanese elites remember well all of that “democracy” which the US inflicted on them before, during, and after WW2.

Now the US main enemy are China and Russia, but mainly China. Japan is conveniently located to serve as a sledgehammer against China: in other words, to start a war with China that give the US to use its nuclear club on China or at the very least seriously weaken it by a major war. At the same time, the US is not in the least concerned about what happens to the hammer, just as they are not concerned about what happens to their other combat implement, Ukraine.

Therefore, from the point of view of cold-blooded Japanese, now is the time to try to escape from the ill tyrant. Let me say again that there is no possibility of a genuine friendship between the US and Japan: the Japanese understand perfectly well they were defeated and they view the Americans as occupiers.

Cooperation with China is, from Japan’s perspective, more preferable to continuing as America’s colony. Japan has technologies and a highly developed industry. If the Japanese convincingly apologize before the Chinese for the Rape of Nanking and other crimes of that era, if they resolve their territorial disputes with China, the PRC will be happy to establish a strong partnership with Japa.

But what can protect Japan from jilted America’s anger? Obviously, only Russia. Which can extend its nuclear umbrella over Japan, should it feel the need. Therefore now is the time to make a bold move: acknowledge the islands to be part of Russia and join Russia as a junior partner.

The potential cooperation between Japan and Russia looks even more promising than possible cooperation between Japan and China. Apart from the nuclear umbrella, we can help Japan with hydrocarbons it so badly needs by building a Power of Siberia extension to Japan. Access to Russian gas would allow Japan to greatly reduce its production costs.

There’s still the question of the impossibly large national debt which is currently pulling Japan’s economy to the bottom. However, that problem can be solved Japanese-style. It would be enough for the government to address the nation: “Yamato is in danger, we need to unite in the face of adversity.” Then default, hyperinflation, debt nullification and…inevitable economic take-off.

Who’s afraid of default?

Default terrifies those who have a trade deficit. Those who buy more than sell. In the event of default, they have nothing with which to cover the difference between imports and exports, which means they have to sharply reduce imports which then leads to catastrophic economic consequences.

But countries with a trade surplus–and Japan has one even right now, in spite of temporary energy problems–don’t need credits nearly as much. Japan enjoys a continual influx of money from its foreign economic activity.

Right now Japan is half-bankrupt because the US is sucking out all of its financial juices, forcing them to buy their junk-status government bonds. If Japan manages to free itself from this honorable duty, it will quickly grow rich. What’s more, within a year of yen devaluation the country will undergo a devaluation euphoria: the cost of manufacturing will drop sharply and Japanese goods will become even more competitive.

If you add to this cheap Russian gas, we’ll see that after trading the status of US colony for that of Russian and Chinese junior partner, Japan will be able to repeat the economic miracle of the ’60s.

This scenario is beneficial to both Japan and Russia. And not only because of the peace treaty. There are more important reasons for us to help Japan free itself.

Already today Japan is trying to buy oil for yen–obtaining full independence would allow it to reject dollars altogether. The loss of a major colony and the subsequent narrowing of the dollar space would place the US in such a difficult situation that our US friends and partners would have far less eagerness to do stupid things close to Russia’s borders.

On the other hand, our army and our hydrocarbons will become so important to the defenseless Japan that we can count not only on a long-term relationship but also on Japanese help to expand domestic machine tool production.

What is more, we are nudging Japan in that direction. Sergey Naryshkin said a couple of days ago said that nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I quote, “to this day did not receive appropriate evaluation on the international level.”

http://russian.rt.com/inotv/2015-05-21/Mainichi-V-YAponii-Narishkin-udaril

This way we are giving Japan yet another reason to opt for independence from the US–arrogant Americans still think they are the only superpower on the planet and don’t intend to apologize for anything.

It’s self evident that it would be too soon to write off Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam may be ill, but is still quite strong and clever. But there is one more reason which allows Japan to hope for a successful escape. The US is entering into its election cycle–the US elites are becoming absorbed by the upcoming elections and are paying less attention to external irritants.

US presidential elections will take place in November 2016–therefore Japan now has a window of opportunity of about a year. If Japan quickly establishes relations with Russia and China–or at least one of them–Washington, in all likelihood, will not be able to react adequately to the departure of the fattest pearl of its imperial crown.

http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-japanese-pivot.html

A comment:

The Pentagon and the intelligence community do not live by election cycles. There is no “off” season for them.

So, no country should be so naïve as to think it can “sneak” something by the ruling establishment in Washington. It can’t happen.

And it is a mistake to think that the Pentagon and the intelligence community are controlled by elected officials. The reality is that the military and intelligence community, plus the business community and Wall St., control American elected officials.

 

 

China a Military Threat? No Wonder China is Nervous as Obama Pivots

http://www.globalresearch.ca/no-wonder-china-is-nervous-as-obama-pivots/5312523

By F. William Engdahl, November 21, 2012
Posted on Global Research

To read the mainstream Western media, one would conclude that China has become an economic giant now intent on flexing its military muscle and making a massive arms buildup to do so. China’s designated new President, Xi Jinping, has just won both the top Communist party post from predecessor Hu Jintao as well as the head of the powerful Central Military Commission, giving Xi a full takeover of party and armed forces.

A recent BBC analysis, in an article titled “China extending military reach,” is typical of Western media coverage of China’s military program: “China‘s first aircraft carrier will begin sea trials later this year. Late last year, the first pictures were leaked of the prototype of Beijing‘s new “stealth” fighter. And US military experts believe that China has begun to deploy the world’s first long-range ballistic missile capable of hitting a moving ship at sea.[1]

In Japan, nationalist politicians like politically ambitious Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara and Toru Hashimoto, the mayor of Osaka, are gaining popularity with anti-China rhetoric and by claiming Japan must develop capacities to oppose Chinese military ascendency. In May the authoritative New York Times ran an alarming story to the effect that China announced a “double-digit increase” in military spending. In the actual text of the article they report an 11% increase over the previous budget, far less than even the rate of inflation.

However, when we examine in detail the actual redeployment and military moves of US Armed Forces in the Asia region following President Obama’s announcement of a new “Asia Pivot” refocus of US military capacities from Western Europe to the Asia region, it becomes clear China is re-acting, in order to attempt to deal with quite real threats to its future sovereignty rather than acting in an aggressive posture.

The mere fact that a standing President, Obama, during nationally televised Presidential debates labeled China as an “adversary” is indicative of the US military posture change. The depth and nature of the US pivot to China is crystal clear when one takes a closer look at the recent developments in an Asian US Missile Defense deployment, clearly aimed at China and no other.

China officially spent barely 10% of what the US does on its defense, some $90 billion, or if certain defense-related arms import and other costs are included, perhaps $111 billion a year. Even if the Chinese authorities do not publish complete data on such sensitive areas, it’s clear China spends a mere fraction of the USA and is starting from a military-technology base far behind the USA.

The US defense budget is not just by far the world’s largest. It dominates everyone else, completely independent of any perceived threat. In the nineteenth century, the British Royal Navy built the size of its fleet according to the fleets of Britain’s two most powerful potential enemies; America’s defense budget strategists declare it will be “doomsday” if the United States builds its navy to anything less than five times that of China and Russia combined.[2]

If we include the spending by Russia, China’s strongest ally within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, their combined total annual defense spending is barely $142 billion. The world’s ten top defense spending nations in addition to the USA as largest, and China as second largest, include the UK, France, Japan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Indiaand Brazil. In 2011 the military spending of the United States totaled a staggering 46% of total spending by the world’s 171 governments and territories, almost half the entire world. [3]

Clearly, for all its rhetoric about peace-keeping missions and “democracy” promotion, the Pentagon is pursuing what its planners refer to as “Full Spectrum Dominance,” the total control of all global air, land, ocean, space, outer-space and now cyberspace.[4] It is clearly determined to use its military might to secure global domination or hegemony. No other interpretation is possible.

China today, because of its dynamic economic growth and its determination to pursue sovereign Chinese national interests, merely because China exists, is becoming the Pentagon new “enemy image,” or adversary, now replacing the no longer useful “enemy image” of Islam used after September 2001 by the Bush-Cheney Administration to justify the Pentagon’s global power pursuit.

After almost two decades of neglect of its interests in East Asia, in 2011, the Obama Administration announced that the US would make “a strategic pivot” in its foreign policy to focus its military and political attention on the Asia-Pacific, particularly Southeast Asia, that is, China. Continue reading