|
Post by hyperopic on Feb 21, 2006 20:00:44 GMT -5
I don't know the logic behind this other than from a conspiracy point of view.
The way I see it, we need a scapegoat when the next "terrorist" attack happens.
If a nuke or some other WMD slips through an Arab owned port, who's gonna get the blame? Bush? I don't think so.
It's the Arabs, dammit.
That clears the path for us to go and nuke another part of the middle east.
Sorry if this topic has been posted before. I looked but didn't find one. Please delete it if it is a dupe. Thanks
If it hasn't, then whats your take on this?
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 22, 2006 0:33:12 GMT -5
No it wasn't posted because the real news seems to be the strange promotion of outrage over this issue by "peace org" Democrats.com, right along with the worst of the pro-Israeli war hawks.
The current owner of the Port operations is a London-based firm, and the pro-Israeli hawks didn't have a problem with that, though they probably know zilch about the firm. My guess is that the arrangement is UK-friendly, and actually is probably a bribe to the UAE, due to long-time UK oil relationship with UAE, and UAE co-operation w/ UK in GWOT and also perhaps in anti-Iran shananigans. Some of the Iran war hawks in UK have UAE connections oil-wise.
The pro-Israeli hawks here who are outraged are suggesting legislation against foreign gov owned corps owning Port operations. However, how about org crime-- that would be ok? corps with shady connections ok?
Whatever the deal, I am sure it isn't good, with the UK and Bush Admin backing it, however the opposition to it is even worse. Note that Menendez is connected to org crime and org crime connected labor, and is an Israel -firster. So I'm not sure what the motivations on either side are.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 22, 2006 15:40:48 GMT -5
Political Posturing Should Not Trump Real National Security Concerns
WASHINGTON-The Arab American Institute (AAI) is deeply concerned by the controversy that has been created by the proposed acquisition of London-based P&O Steam Navigation Company by Dubai's DP World. While the issue of how to enhance port security should be discussed, that is not what this controversy is about. What is taking place is nothing more than an irresponsible and ill-informed attack on an Arab country that has been a strong ally of the United States.
Here are the facts: Since 1999, P&O has successfully operated ports in six US cities-New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, and Philadelphia. The acquisition by DP World would not affect the ports' compliance with US security standards, which would remain the responsibility of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) (an agency of the Department of Homeland Security) and the US Coast Guard. In addition, there would be no adverse effect on American workers employed at the ports.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which includes officials from 12 federal agencies such as Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State, and Homeland Security completed a thirty day review of the acquisition and concluded that DP World's management of the ports would not obstruct the ability of CBP officers to protect our shores.
In fact, the United Arab Emirates has a record of partnership with the United States on the issue of port security and the war on terror. The Emirates committed troops to our efforts in Afghanistan and was the first Arab country to join the US government's Container Security Initiative—a program which places CBP officers at UAE ports to identify and pre-screen cargo headed for the US. When the Gulf nation signed the deal in December 2004, former CBP Commissioner Richard Bonner said, "Dubai Customs recognizes the absolute importance of protecting cargo against the terrorist threat. I applaud their bold action of assuming a leadership role in the Middle East." Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace describes US-UAE military relations as "superb" saying,"In everything that we have asked and work with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners."
"Of course my community supports any measure that makes our country more secure, including an honest debate about port security," said AAI President James Zogby. "However, this campaign is nothing more than a self-serving use of anti-Arab sentiment callously playing off of post-9/11 fear and insecurity. The rhetorical excesses on the part of those politicians who are most outspoken on this issue has been shameful, irresponsible, and uninformed. Port security will remain the sole responsibility of the US government, but it's an election year, national security remains a legitimate concern, and the UAE is an Arab country, and for some politicians, this represents an opportunity ripe for exploitation.
"The anti-Arab impetus behind these protests is impossible to ignore, certainly doesn't make us safer, and trumps any positive message our public diplomacy efforts seek to portray. The concern we have is that if an ally of the United States like the UAE can be smeared in this manner, simply because it's an Arab country, then our relations with the broader Arab world may be irreparably damaged. It is not just wrong, it is unconscionable for the UAE to be described using language such as a "rogue" government with "ties to Islamic Fascism." Because the challenges we face are global in nature, our national security is served by building strong alliances, not alienating ourselves unwisely."
Government Officials Have Been Weighing In On the Issue
President George W. Bush:"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction. But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue, and looked at it carefully."
"If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward."
"This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."
"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly.'"
President Jimmy Carter:"My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports. I don't think there's any particular threat to our security."
Former Homeland Security SecretaryTom Ridge: "The fact of the matter is, you're going to find in many, many ports … are owned and operated by foreign companies or foreign contractors. It's a matter of the global maritime industry. It happens around the world. The bottom line at the end of the day is who's ultimately responsible for security. A lot of people have confidence in the Coast Guard and they should. I admit that to the average citizen, the optics don’t appear very good, but frankly there's a huge difference between what they perceive and what really is.
"The conclusion that you draw from some of these public statements is that no one in this administration cares enough about security or port security, they like to be very cavalier about this transaction. That couldn't be the furthest thing from the truth. We all know better than that."
Former CBP Commissioner Robert Bonner:"The threat of terrorism is real and, it's a global threat. Dubai Customs recognizes the absolute importance of protecting cargo against the terrorist threat. I applaud their bold action of assuming a leadership role in the Middle East." [December 2004 upon UAE's entry into CBP's Container Security Initiative]
US Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates Michele Sison: "I congratulate the Dubai Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation on this historic event. They are now partnering with the United States and are a leader in protecting the global trading system." [December 2004 upon UAE's entry into CBP's Container Security Initiative]
DHS Assistant Secretary for Policy Stewart Baker: "We have a relationship with this company because they have been a participant in some of our cargo and port security measures. Remember, our interest in port security extends well beyond the United States. If we discover weapons of mass destruction inside a US port, we've already lost. So we do lots of screening abroad, and our general experience with this company has been positive."
WashingtonPost editorial, February 22:"At stake -- in theory -- is the question of whether we should "outsource major port security to a foreign-based company," in the words of Mr. Graham. But those words, like that of almost all of the others, sound, well, tone-deaf to us. For one, the deal cannot "outsource major port security," because management companies that run ports do not control security. The U.S. Coast Guard controls the physical security of our ports. The U.S. Customs Service controls container security. That doesn't change, no matter who runs the business operations. Nor is it clear why Mr. Graham or anybody else should be worried about "foreign-based" companies managing U.S. ports, since P&O is a British company. And Britain, as events of the last year have illustrated, is no less likely to harbor radical Islamic terrorists than Dubai…
"…Even more disturbing is the apparent difficulty of members of Congress in distinguishing among Arab countries. We'd like to remind them, as they've apparently forgotten, that the United Arab Emirates is a U.S. ally that has cooperated extensively with U.S. security operations in the war on terrorism, that supplied troops to the U.S.-led coalition during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and that sends humanitarian aid to Iraq. U.S. troops move freely in and out of Dubai on their way to Iraq now.
Finally, we're wondering if perhaps American politicians are having trouble understanding some of the most basic goals of contemporary U.S. foreign policy. A goal of "democracy promotion" in the Middle East, after all, is to encourage Arab countries to become economically and politically integrated with the rest of the world. What better way to do so than by encouraging Arab companies to invest in the United States? Clearly, Congress doesn't understand that basic principle, since its members prefer instead to spread prejudice and misinformation."
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Feb 22, 2006 19:31:30 GMT -5
Like the Danish cartoons, this story is clearly more anti-Arab and Muslim propaganda. It got its start on Clear Channel "newsradio," and is now being covered at a non-stop fever pitch by the usual suspects: Lou Dobbs and Leslie Blitzer. Those in Congress most vocal about it are the usual roster of Israel-firsters and operatives. None of whom seem to be concerned about Israel's role in Sept. 11th, when Ney pushed an Israeli corporation over an American one to handle Capitol communications, Israeli companies running security at US nuclear plants and water systems, as well as Israeli companies AmDocs and Comverse, which are in a position to eavesdrop on domestic telephone conversations and voicemail.
If we had politicians and a media that represented our interests, this story would have been a good springboard into discussing outsourcing and how globalization has destroyed industry in the country, leaving us screwed without jobs or benefits.
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Feb 25, 2006 3:53:55 GMT -5
This was published in The Village Voice 2 days ago, but not a peep about it from any "liberal" or neocon media shill. One would think revelations of organized crime and drug and weapons trafficking would trump Arabophobia, but I guess some people have their agendas. I find it an important article because it confirms a lot of what Sibel Edmonds has said about al-CIA/Mossad-a and the connection to organized crime. Ports: All 'Bout a Dealer Named BoutA Russian arms merchant funnels money, guns, and dope through the United Arab Emirates by James Ridgeway February 23rd, 2006 11:09 AM WASHINGTON, D.C.—To hear the administration and its supporters talk, you'd think the workers in New York ports are carefully vetted by the Waterfront Commission, the ports themselves protected by the ever watchful Coast Guard, and routinely surveilled by U.S. Customs. In truth,one administration after another has slashed the operational capability of the Coast Guard. Reagan even contemplated its privatization by a major defense firm. As for the Customs Service, it inspects as little as 5 percent of the cargo going through the New York ports. This is a dream setup for any arms or dope dealer, and that's exactly what the United Arab Emirates is all about.The ties between its top officials and royal family with the Taliban and Al Qaeda go back at least a decade. The UAE is not only the center of financial dealings in the Persian Gulf, it is switching central for dope and arms dealing. The dope comes out of Afghanistan into the UAE where tax monies are collected and used to buy arms, which were sent back in for the Taliban. Some of this money is thought to have helped finance the 9-11 attacks. A money trail is set forth in the government's filings in the Moussaoui case. Long at the center of this operation is the mysterious Russian arms dealer, Victor Bout. The U.N. has accused Bout of providing arms to brutal regimes in Sierra Leone,Angola and to Charles Taylor in Liberia. The Center for Public Integrity, a Washington, D.C. research organization that operates a network of foreign correspondents, published a report on Bout in January 2002, citing Belgian intelligence documents from before the 9-11 attacks it had obtained. These documents reportedly show Bout earned $50 million in profits from selling weapons to the Taliban after they came to power in the late 1990s. The Center states, "Another European intelligence source independently verified the sales, and intelligence documents from an African country in which Bout operates—obtained by the Center—claim that Bout ran guns for the Taliban 'on behalf of the Pakistan government.' " Peter Hain, the British Foreign Office Minister for Europe who has led the international effort to expose criminal networks behind the conflict diamonds and small arms trade in Africa, told the Center's reporters, it was clear that Bout's supply of weapons to the Taliban "and to its ally, Osama bin Laden" posed a real danger. [ And we know Charles Taylor's government was laundering diamonds for al-CIA/Mossad-a and was Pat Robertson's best pal.] Der Spiegel, the German magazine, said in early January 2002 that Vadim Rabinovich, an Israeli citizen of Ukrainian origin, along with the former director of the Ukrainian secret service and his son sold a consignment of 150 to 200 T-55 and T-62 tanks to the Taliban. Spiegel said the deal was conducted through the Pakistani secret service and uncovered by the Russian foreign intelligence service, SVR, in Kabul, the Afghan capital. A Western intelligence source told the Public Integrity Center that Rabinovich's weapons had been airlifted by one of Bout's airfreight companies from his base in the UAE. Rabinovich denied all this, and Bout said "For the record, I am not, and never have been, associated with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any of their officials, officers, or related organizations," Bout said, according to a copy of the statement released in the United States by one of his associates. "I am not, nor are any of my organizations, associated with arms traffickers and/or trafficking or the sale of arms of kind [sic] anywhere in the world. I am not, nor is any member of my family, associated with any military or intelligence organizations of any country." No one is suggesting Bout has any great love for the radical Muslim fundamentalists of Taliban ilk. He sold guns to the Russians fighting the CIA-backed Afghan mujahideen in their war with the Soviet Union and to the warlords opposing the Taliban. His planes are registered to various companies all operating out of the United Arab Emirates. [ Bout's planes have also been seen in places where the CIA has established secret prisons.] In fact, the United Arab Emirates have been viewed as hub for trade going and coming to Afghanistan, with drugs coming from Afghanistan on their way to the West, and weapons from Bout, going back. While transportation was via Bout's different air cargo interests, it also involved the Afghan state airlines, called Ariana Airlines. The airline was controlled by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda agents masquerading as Ariana employees flew out of Afghanistan, through Sharjah, one of the emirates, and on to points west. During the late 1990s Bout's center of operations was Ostend, Belgium, but when he came under pressure there, he left Belgium. The UAE office grew in importance. [ This is curious because Maj. Douglas and Can Dickerson fled to Belgium in 2002 after Sibel Edmonds started talking.] Bout used various air cargo outfits. One of them was called Flying Dolphin, which in the early 2000s was owned by Sheikh Adbullah bin Zayed bin Saqr al Nayhan, a former UAE ambassador to the United States and member of the ruling family in Abu Dhabi. He was described by the United Nations as a "close business associate of Bout." According to the December 20, 2000, U.N. report, Zayed's company is registered in Liberia, but its operations office is in Dubai. villagevoice.com/news/0609,ridgeway,72294,2.html
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Feb 25, 2006 3:57:26 GMT -5
More on Viktor Bout:December 11, 2005 -- SPECIAL REPORT. Additional ties between southern Christian fundamentalists, Texas oil interests, and Russian-Israeli mobsters and weapons smugglers uncovered. According to informed Washington insiders, there is increasing evidence of financial links between key "Christian Right" GOP notables and an international ring of Russian-Ukrainian-Israeli mobsters tied to notorious Russian weapons smuggler Viktor Vasilevich (aka Anatoliyevich) Bout. Bout, whose U.S. assets were frozen by the Treasury Department, continues to provide various contractor services in Iraq and is considered by Condoleezza Rice to be out-of-bounds for U.S. law enforcement authorities. When she was National Security Adviser, Rice pre-empted an attempt by Sharjah, United Arab Emirates authorities to arrest Bout. To U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies, Rice was very clear when it comes to Bout: "Look, but don't touch" was her direct order to the CIA and FBI. It appears that Bout has gone from arms smuggler for Al Qaeda and the Taliban to arms runner for the Bush administration. Bout's British Gulf International Airline, registered in Sao Tome and Principe and Kyrgyzstan and based in Sharjah, is a regular visitor to Baghdad International and airports in the north of Iraq. Bout also made a financial windfall from contracts let to his airline companies by the former Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority led by L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer. Bout also benefited from contracts let to his Dubai-based Falcon Express Cargo by Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Federal prosecutors are already examining links between indicted GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Italian Mafia hit men who have been charged with murdering Florida businessman Gus Boulis, former Christian Coalition director and Georgia Republican Lt. Governor candidate Ralph Reed, and indicted Texas GOP Representative Tom DeLay. Abramoff associate Adam Kidan has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in their investigation of Abramoff, especially deals involving the shake down of various Indian tribes in shady casino deals. There is also now interest in the activities of Richard T. Hines, the head of the powerful Republican lobbying firm RTH Consulting, Inc. Hines, a South Carolina native and a protege of the late GOP dirty trickmeister Lee Athingyer, was one of the architects of the dirty tricks campaign by Bush against John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary. A confederate of Abramoff in the 1980s Reagan administration's covert support network for the Nicaraguan contras, Angolan UNITA guerrillas, and Afghan mujaheddin, Hines is active in various Confederacy resurgence organizations, many of which have clear racist agendas. However, that has not prevented Hines from becoming the lobbyist for Gambian dictator Yahya Jammeh, a military officer who overthrew Gambia's democratically-elected President Sir Dawda K. Jawara in a 1994 military coup supported by the United States Navy. Hines inherited the lobbying contract for Gambia from the eclectic Washington lobbyist Edward von Kloberg III, an individual who represented Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, Liberia's Samuel K. Doe, Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania, Congolese leader Laurent Kabila, the exiled King Kigeli V of Rwanda, and Saddam Hussein. Last May, von Kloberg took a swan dive off of a castle in Rome, allegedly committing suicide after a spat with a gay partner. The connections between Hines and Gambia are important since the small narrow West African country is also a major base of operations for notorious Russian international arms smuggler Viktor Bout. The Gambia is the headquarters for one of many of Bout's front companies -- companies that are used to smuggle everything from weapons to diamonds and mercenaries to international relief supplies. In fact, Bout was the character on whom fictional arms smuggler Yuri Orlov, played by Nicolas Cage in the movie Lord of War, was largely based. Bout's connections with the Christian Right do not end with Gambia. Bout was Liberian dictator Charles Taylor's primary arms and diamond smuggler. Bout and his associates were given Liberian diplomatic passports and, with Taylor's blessing and protection, they registered a number of their front companies in Monrovia, the Liberian capital. Taylor, who is now in exile in Nigeria, was a business partner with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson. Robertson's organization mentored both Ralph Reed and Richard Hines. According to British and Israeli intelligence sources, Taylor also enabled Al Qaeda to launder blood diamonds for cash through Liberia. Liberia and neighboring Sierra Leone were where Israeli mobsters engaged in business with Israeli gangsters who operated under the full protection of the Israeli Likud government. Before Likud began purging Mossad of experienced intelligence officers with ties to the Israeli Labor Party, the Israeli-Al Qaeda diamond financial connection in West Africa was being pointed out by those officers as suicidal for Israeli interests. However, Taylor and Bout had powerful interests in the United States: a combination of the Christian Right and pro-Likud organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), both of which ignored and continue to ignore Israeli organized crime connections to Al Qaeda and terrorism. Robertson and Taylor were business partners in a Cayman Islands front company called Freedom Gold, Ltd. In fact, Freedom Gold bas headquartered at Robertson's CBN offices in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Robertson's African interests also crossed paths with Bout's in another country -- the former Zaire. Robertson's African Development Company used the cover of Robertson's tax-exempt "Operation Blessing" to ferry conflict diamonds out of civil war-ravaged Zaire (now Congo). [Yes. Greg Palast did several articles on Robertson's 'Operation Blessing' being a front for diamond smuggling and personal graft.] A UN Security Council report dated November 30, 2005, lists Bout's Gambia New Millennium Air Company as having its address at the residence of Hines' client Jammeh: State House, Banjul, Gambia. The UN report states, "The Director of this firm is Baba Jobe, who is already listed on the Liberia Sanctions Committee’s assets freeze list. According to a commercial aviation database, the firm acted as a cover for Victor Bout’s operations. Its one aircraft, a Russian-made passenger jet, was acquired from Centrafrican Airlines." It is noteworthy that Hines's client, President Jammeh, just took possession of the Russian-made VIP presidential passenger jet, an Ilyushin IL-62 (C5-GNM) [Gambia] (formerly CCCP-86511 [USSR], RA-86511 [Russia], 3D-RTI [Swaziland], TL-ACL [Central African Republic]). And also of interest is the owner of the presidential aircraft: it is none other than Gambia New Millennium Air, the Bout-owned company listed on the UN Security Council freeze list and which is headquartered at Jammeh's State House in Banjul, the Gambian capital. In fact, the plane had been previously registered to Bout front companies in Swaziland and the Central African Republic. Bout, who flew arms and passengers from Dubai and other locations to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan prior to 9-11, is now providing air services in post-Taliban Afghanistan as well as U.S.-occupied Iraq. Bout's transactions with the Taliban were handled by Vial, Inc., a firm based in Delaware. One of Bout's closest associates is the Russian-Israeli Odessa-born crime boss Leonid Minin, an Israeli national who, according to the UN Security Council, travels on forged German passports as well as legal Israeli, Russian, Greek, and Bolivian passports under at least ten aliases. It is also noteworthy that many of Bout's operations are based in Eastern European countries that have been mentioned in association with the rendition and transporting of CIA prisoners. Bout's numerous Russian-built cargo and passenger planes have been seen at the same airports used by CIA flights. For example, Bright Aviation, a suspected Bout front, is based at Sofia Airport in Bulgaria. Bulgaria is believed to be one of the countries used by the CIA to house secret prisoners. Another Bout front, Moldtransavia SRL, is based in Chisinau, Moldova, another suspected stopover point for CIA flights. One Chisinau, Moldova-based Bout front company, Aerocom, which also does business as Air Mero, is contracted to fly for Kellogg, Brown & Root in Iraq and elsewhere. Aerocom has also been cited in UN and DEA reports for being involved in drug smuggling in Belize. Some law enforcement officials in the United States and Europe believe that the covert flights being operated by CIA contractors and Bout's companies in support of secret prisoner movement are also involved in smuggling drugs. After being subjected to news reports, Aerocom quickly changed its name last year. Bright's Antonov AN-12 planes were also sighted in Western European airports frequented by CIA aircraft suspected of transporting prisoners. One of the most interesting connections was the presence of Bright Aviation's AN-12V (LZ-BRP) on October 5, 2004 at Helsinki's Vantaa Airport. Just two days before, U.S. private military contractor Blackwater's CASA C212-CC Aviocar (N960BW) also landed at Vantaa. Bright's LZ-BRP was also spotted at Budapest Ferihegy on October 26, April 30, and March 30, 2005; Marseilles on October 27, 2005; Toulouse in April 2005; Vigo, Spain on October 16, 2005; Amsterdam Schipol on September 17, 2005; Zurich on June 3, 2005; Plovdiv, Bulgaria on June 11, 2005; Lyons on January 24, 2005; Madrid on January 27, 2005 and July 16, 2004; Recife, Brazil on November 20, 2004, Zagreb, Croatia on September 9, 2004; Tenerife (Canary Islands) on June 13, 2004; Ostend, Belgium on June 2, 2004; and Geneva on May 11 and 12, 2004 (first visit for this aircraft to Geneva). Another Bright AN-12 (LZ-BRC) was spotted in Glasgow Prestwick on October 14, 2004; Tenerife (Canary Islands), where AN-12 visits are extremely rare; Maastricht/Aachen on December 22, 2003; Lisbon on June 7, 2004; Ostend on September 6, 2002; Stockholm Arlanda on November 5, 2002; Helsinki Vantaa (with the name Heli Air painted on its fuselage) on October 18, 2005; Budapest Ferihagy on November 19, 2005 (as Heli Air); and St. John's, Newfoundland on November 15, 2005 (as Heli Air). Bright's LZ-BRV AN12 was seen at Tel Aviv Ben Gurion on May 25, 2005; Zurich, May 24, 2005; and Palma de Mallorca on February 18, 2005. Bout's Air Bas and Irbis Air Russian-made transport aircraft were spotted throughout 2004 at Bilad airbase in northern Iraq. Bilad is the airfield near Camp Anaconda, one of the first detention camps set up by U.S. forces and the site of the first reported cases of U.S. prisoner torture. A Belgrade-based airline, Kosmas Air, also linked to Bout, is reportedly transporting weapons from Serbia to both Iraq and Afghanistan. The firm and documented connections between Bout (the smuggler for Al Qaeda and the Taliban) and Christian fundamentalists and Russian-Israeli mob interests provide yet more proof that the forces behind 9-11 and other terrorist attacks represented far more than a bunch of cave dwelling Islamist insurgents in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. As 9-11 co-chair Thomas Kean recently said, if there was a wider conspiracy behind 9-11 it would be a "monstrous" act. Other than Wahhabi mosques and madrassas around the world, the monsters behind 9-11 and other attacks can also be found in mega-churches in the South, oil company board rooms in Houston, airfields in the emirates of the Persian Gulf, Hasidic-run "blood diamond" centers in Europe and New York, GOP lobbying firms on K Street, and dank and dark arms warehouses in Ukraine and Moldova. www.waynemadsenreport.com/ A repository of news about Viktor Bout, his connections to the US Government and the movements of planes connected to his front companies: yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com/2005/06/all-viktor-bout-stuff-is-here.html
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Feb 25, 2006 5:16:41 GMT -5
I wonder if Bout and his network were on Plame and Brewster Jennings' radar before they were outed by the neocons.Viktor Bout and the PentagonBy Douglas Farah & Kathi Austin* New Republic January 12, 2006 Just after dawn on November 26, 2004, a small team of U.N. investigators--tracking aviation companies illicitly ferrying weapons to warring militias in the jungles of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)--arrived at the makeshift headquarters of a South African peacekeeping contingent in Goma. The investigators roused the armed guards to provide protection for an unprecedented and audacious move--a snap inspection of the aging aircraft lining the grassy field beside a nearby airstrip littered with volcanic ash. Charged with finding violators of the U.N.-mandated arms embargo, the investigators discovered aircraft using false registrations to deliver weapons to remote airstrips that funnel supplies into the war zone. In one case, an airplane was using a valid Kazakhstani registration prefix, "UN" (UN-79954), which fooled many people into thinking its illicit cargo deliveries were U.N. flights. In exchange for the weapons, the aircraft were flying out illegally mined tin ore and coltan, a mineral used to make cell phone and laptop components. Their Russian crews, arriving in dilapidated minibuses, were stunned by the U.N. officials' demands to inspect the airplanes' cargo and flight documents. As the day grew warmer, more airplanes landed, and soon investigators and peacekeepers were running up and down the pocked, blistering tarmac to keep planes from taking off before the inspections were completed. Some tense standoffs ensued, with the Russian aircrews occasionally threatening the investigators, indicating that they knew the whereabouts of one official's family members. [ A hallmark tactic of the Russian-Ukraine-Israel mafia. This is what they threaten women and girls they traffic for prostitution in Israel with.] Some of the planes escaped the airstrip with the aid of Congolese military officers, flying off to unknown destinations. But, over two days, the investigators managed to pore over the cargo and records of 26 aircraft. The guns-for-minerals pipeline bore the hallmarks of Viktor Bout, a notorious Russian arms dealer who operates one of the largest private air fleets in the world. Bout has made millions flying lethal cargo to many of the world's worst elements, from former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia to Rwandan genocidaires. Bout's activities are so egregious that Peter Hain, a British cabinet minister, publicly branded him "Africa's chief merchant of death." After years of prompting by the United Nations, President Bush issued an executive order in July 2004 making it illegal for any American person or institution to do business "directly or indirectly" with Charles Taylor's associates, including Bout. Nine months later, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) ordered the freezing of the U.S. assets of 30 Bout-related companies, along with those of his U.S.-based partner, his brother, and two other associates. The United Nations had already taken similar action against Bout, who has been wanted by Interpol since 2002 on an outstanding warrant for laundering the proceeds of illicit weapons sales. The punitive actions were based on Bout's relationship with Taylor, but, in announcing the OFAC action, the Treasury Department stressed another facet of Bout's activities, noting that he made $50 million in profits from arms transfers to the Taliban when the regime was hosting Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The Treasury statement also said Bout had used his aircraft to "transport tanks, helicopters, and weapons by the tons" all over the world and helped "fuel conflicts and support U.N.-sanctioned regimes in Afghanistan, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Sudan." Yet, remarkably, given this record and the international efforts to shut him down, Bout also counts among his clients the U.S. military and its contractors in Iraq, NATO forces in Afghanistan, and the United Nations in Sudan. The New Republic has learned that the Defense Department has largely turned a blind eye to Bout's activities and has continued to supply him with contracts, in violation of the executive order and despite the fact that other, more legitimate air carriers are available. Revenues from these flights enable Bout to carry on the profitable business of nurturing conflicts in other, less covered parts of the world, threatening further international instability. European and U.S. intelligence sources tell us they have identified at least three new Bout-controlled companies--based in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates (UAE)--that have been hired by the U.S. military and its contractors in the past four months for flights into Iraq. Two of the companies have taken aircraft formerly belonging to companies designated by Treasury as illegal and reregistered them under new names in Moldova. Another company did the same thing in Cyprus, the officials say. That company actually kept the same telephone number and address as one of the firms blacklisted by Treasury. Only the name on the door changed. Even some of the designated air companies continue to operate unimpeded. Irbis Air Company, which is on the OFAC list, reportedly placed a bid with Halliburton earlier this month to fly goods into Iraq, two sources monitoring Bout's activities in Sharjah tell us. It is not known whether Irbis won the contract. Halliburton did not respond to requests for comment, but, in the past, it has said that any use of Bout aircraft was inadvertent and that contracts with suspected companies had been immediately terminated. Spokesmen for U.S. Central Command and the Pentagon brushed off inquiries on the subject, saying they knew of no contracts with Bout-related companies. At the same time, they stressed the need to understand how complex contracting arrangements were in Iraq. The Pentagon, a military official said, could not check out the subcontractors who actually flew the flights into Iraq and Afghanistan. [ B.S. They run the airport and they can't check out who's flying in and out?] This attitude reflects a larger problem in putting Bout out of business. American officials tracking Bout tell us that many military officials feel they do not have the resources or the time to check aircraft records when a flight may contain badly needed ammunition or matériel. "They don't check because they don't care," says a civilian official who helped trace Bout's Iraq contracts with the U.S. military. "On the ground, what they care about is getting what they need. Unfortunately, this short-term mentality means that they may, in fact, be breaking the law." But Bout's flights for the U.S. government--and other legitimate clients like NATO and the United Nations--do more than merely break the letter of international law. They provide Bout with cash that helps fund his gunrunning to conflict zones like the DRC, where the steady supply of weapons helps sustain a conflict that is destabilizing much of Africa. U.S. and European intelligence sources tell us they are also investigating whether Bout's network is behind the thousands of new weapons surfacing in the hands of brutal militias in the Niger Delta region. Those militias pose a growing threat to stability in an area that provides around 10 percent of U.S. oil. While Congress has oversight responsibility for implementation of the OFAC list, its enforcement efforts have been sparse. Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russell Feingold first raised the issue of Bout's coalition military contracts on May 18, 2004, in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Feingold asked then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage about reports of U.S. military links to Bout's companies. It took Wolfowitz eight months to respond. In a January 31, 2005, letter to Feingold, Wolfowitz acknowledged that "both the U.S. Army and the Coalition Provisional Authority (in Iraq) did conduct business with companies that, in turn, subcontracted work to second tier suppliers who leased aircraft owned by companies associated with Mr. Bout.... Although we are aware of a few companies that are connected to Mr. Bout, most notably Air Bas and Jetline, we suspect Mr. Bout has other companies or enterprises unknown to the Government." In fact, as the Los Angeles Times first reported in 2004, Bout aircraft were in constant motion into Iraq after the invasion. A single Bout company, Irbis, flew more than 140 flights into Iraq for the U.S. military and its contractors by the end of 2004. Representative Sue Kelly, a New York Republican who chairs the Congressional Anti-Terrorist Financing Task Force, said in a statement to TNR that she felt a "considerable degree of frustration" over efforts to end U.S. contracts with Bout. Congressional investigators tell us that it is almost impossible to get answers on Bout from the Bush administration. And it took six months--until early December--for the OFAC list of sanctioned Bout-related companies to be fully synchronized with the U.N. list, thereby making it internationally binding. Robert Werner, the director of OFAC, said getting the OFAC list incorporated into the U.N. sanctions list was "a truly significant success in our continuing effort to combat Bout's arms-trafficking and sanctions-busting activities." In reality, however, the move was largely symbolic. During the time between the U.S. designation and the U.N. listing, according to U.S. and European intelligence sources, Bout revamped his operations, moving aircraft registrations and incorporating new companies. As a result, most of the designated companies no longer have any assets to be frozen, and it will take months to identify the new companies and begin sanctioning them. The U.S military has, from time to time, made efforts to scrub Bout-associated companies and aircraft from its list of contractors and subcontractors. In May, after the OFAC list went into effect, the Pentagon asked all companies and contractors applying for flights into Iraq and Afghanistan to reregister with a form that required detailed information on the aircraft and its owners. As a result, several of Bout's companies were denied permission to fly. As slow and incomplete as these U.S. efforts have been, they are far better than those of other nations. Russia, for example, has failed to move against Bout, despite the Interpol arrest warrant for him. His assets remain untouched, and he reportedly lives in the open in Moscow, frequently dining at a favorite sushi restaurant. Since 1999, the UAE, from which most of Bout's aircraft operate, has consistently rebuffed requests by American officials to help identify Bout-associated companies. The British military acknowledges hiring, through contractors, Bout aircraft on seven occasions in 2005. Bout's companies are hard to track because he constantly shifts his airplanes' registrations and the companies that own them. For instance, in Africa, he first registered his aircraft in Liberia and then moved their registrations to the Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Moldova, and other countries which are far from main aviation hubs. But the U.N.'s DRC operation showed that tracking Bout's aircraft is possible. Airplanes and crews have records--such as airworthiness certificates, insurance records, and logbooks--that are difficult to falsify and can be requested for inspection whenever an aircraft lands. Holes or inconsistencies in these records are relatively easy to detect, and they helped identify Bout's DRC and Liberian operations. The consequences of Bout's continuing operations have been devastating, both in human terms and for U.S. foreign interests. His network thrives because, while some dedicated public servants try to shut it down, there is no concerted effort to put Bout out of business. Perhaps there are too many people who feel they need to keep him around to fly into the next Iraq or Afghanistan. The Bush administration and the United Nations say they want to remove a threat to international peace. Rewarding Bout with lucrative contracts makes a farce of that goal. About the Authors: Douglas Farah was the West Africa bureau chief for The Washington Post from 2000-2002. He is currently writing a book on Viktor Bout. Kathi Austin is an arms-trafficking expert who worked with U.N. panels of experts in Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where she investigated. www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/wanted/2006/0112pentagon.htm
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Feb 25, 2006 6:01:01 GMT -5
British Army helpless as Afghan drug crop doubles By Kim Sengupta in Lashkar Gar, Helmand Published: 23 February 2006 The enormity of the problems in tackling Afghanistan's massive opium crop has become apparent as the first wave of British troops are deployed in one of the most dangerous parts of the country. British Government ministers had repeatedly declared that one of the primary tasks of the 5,700- strong expeditionary force was to help end Afghan heroin production, which supplies 90 per cent of the narcotic in Britain. But the commander of the British forces in southern Iraq insisted yesterday that his troops would play no part in destroying poppy fields, while senior British civil servants cautioned that ending cultivation may take years. "After all, it took 30 years to end opium production in Thailand under much more benign circumstances," said Nick Kay, the United Kingdom's regional co-ordinator for southern Afghanistan. "Considering the problems in Afghanistan one can see it will not be an easy process." Col Gordon Messenger of the Royal Marines said that British troops deploying to Helmand, the biggest centre of heroin production in the biggest heroin-producing country in the world, would not be involved in a process being considered by President Hamid Karzai's government of eradicating poppies. "There will be absolutely no maroon berets [of the marines] with scythes in a poppy field," he said. British forces will not even directly stop vehicles suspected of smuggling the drug. The main role of the British forces will be to enable the Afghan police and army to establish control over areas which have remained outside their reach and allowed a resurgent Taliban and drug lords to gain ascendancy, said Col Messenger. Even if the policy were changed to allow British involvement in poppy eradication, the troops would not be in a position to take part in such programmes, said Col Messenger, who won a DSO in the 1990-91 Iraq war. Helmand, the biggest and the most lawless province in Afghanistan, accounts for 25 per cent of the opium produced nationally. It is the most important conduit for trafficking the drug to the West through Iran and to the rest of Asia through Pakistan.According to British and Iraqi officials, the size of the crop is due to double next year, negating any gain made elsewhere in Afghanistan. However, the yield from heroin has risen almost 1,000 per cent from seven Afghanis (around 8p) a kilo to 300 Afghanis (£3.44) in just two years.Amir Mohammed, the district governor of Chemtal, west Mazar-I-Sharif, in northern Afghanistan , said: "We are trying to stop the problem, but people are poor and they are, of course, tempted by so much money." The United Kingdom is giving aid of £20m a year in efforts to stop opium cultivation. However, farmers will not get monetary compensation matching the amount they will lose if they agree to abandon poppy cultivation. Mr Kay said that a whole series of measures being implemented, including the establishment of law and order, and job opportunities, would eventually lead to a fall in opium production. British officials are keen not to repeat the "mistakes" made in Iraq. "There has been criticism that in Iraq the military was deployed and aid did not follow," said Wendy Phillips, the Department for International Development's development adviser. "We are being very careful not to do this here. Here the British troops are working in full co-ordination with other agencies. This is not just a military matter." But military matters are concentrating the minds of British commanders as a massive build-up takes place in southern Afghanistan. Lt-Col Henry Worsley, a senior British officer in Helmand, said: "Inevitably there will be opposition because there are more soldiers here now. If I were a Taliban commander I would want to have a go. But we will have quite a potent force and they will only get away with it once." The RAF is already involved in attrition ,with Harrier jets based in Kandahar repeatedly taking part in raids. Last Sunday they carried out strikes with CRV7 rockets in the province of Oruzgan. But the Taliban and their al-Qa'ida allies are lethally active in Helmand, with an attempted suicide bombing targeting the province's governor, teachers being beheaded for providing education for girls, and the murder of aid workers, including the shooting of one while he was praying at a mosque. Engineer Mohammed Daoud, the governor of Helmand, stresses that the revenue from opium is fuelling the insurgency. " You cannot separate instablity and drugs in this province," he said. "The smugglers and drug dealers have very close connections with the Taliban and both support each other." It will be interesting to see, say Afghan officials, how the British forces will fight this insurgency while refusing to get drawn into opium eradication. * A bomb exploded near a Nato peace-keeping convoy in northern Afghanistan yesterday, killing one Afghan civilian and wounding 12 people, including a German peacekeeper. news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article347129.ece
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 25, 2006 14:08:22 GMT -5
So I wonder if Clinton and Menendez will be quiet about the deal now that the Russian-Israeli mafia's role has come to their attention.
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Feb 25, 2006 16:32:59 GMT -5
Nope. Here's Hellary just yesterday going on again about "national security," but not one word about Viktor Bout and drug and weapons smuggling. Dealing with fictional organizations created by intelligence agencies is easier than biting the hand that feeds her.
It's a win-win for everyone involved though. Bout and his mafia get to cut out the middleman and ship in heorin directly. Instead of dealing with a maze of front companies, the neocons can more directly ship weapons to various hotspots around the world to create further instability. And Hellary and the Democrats get to look like they were acting as an opposition party, as well as stoking the latent Arabophobia common among today's "liberals."February 25, 2006 Clinton criticizes port deal during Miami visit Associated Press MIAMI BEACH -- Speaking just miles from the Port of Miami, U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she is pleased the Bush administration and a United Arab Emirates company have agreed to delay the company's takeover of significant operations at six major American ports. But the New York Democrat and former first lady said she is still opposed to the deal and plans to introduce legislation that would block Dubai Ports World or any other company owned by a foreign government from operating U.S. ports. Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the UAE government, had been expected to take control of operations at the ports under a $6.8 billion deal with London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. In her first public comments since Dubai Ports World volunteered to postpone its takeover late Thursday, Clinton said she is "very pleased when last night the administration and the Dubai company said that they would subject themselves to the questions that Americans and their elected representatives have. That's the way a democracy is supposed to work." But Clinton added that she did not believe another country should be running American ports. "We cannot cede sovereignty over critical infrastructure like our ports. This is a job that America has to do," Clinton told about 600 people at a breakfast sponsored by the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce. Union members protesting the proposed takeover echoed that sentiment. "We believe American companies who are willing to bid on the port operations in the U.S. should be given that opportunity," said Mike Scott, president of Teamsters Local 769. About 30 union members rallied Friday at the Port of Miami with signs that read "Goodbye Dubai -- Secure America's Ports." "The president is constantly talking about how tough he is on terrorism, yet he's willing to outsource one of our most vulnerable areas, the ports, to a country with known ties to terrorism," Scott said. Meanwhile, a Republican congressman from Florida said Friday that he planned to introduce legislation next week to give Congress oversight of how the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States makes foreign investment decisions. The interagency committee is chaired by the secretary of the treasury. "We have questions that time delays alone won't answer in the sale of our port operations to the UAE government," U.S. Rep. Mark Foley said in a statement. "National security concerns should come first and my legislation sheds light on the secret process by which foreign investment decisions are made and approved." In her 45-minute address in Miami Beach, Clinton also touched on issues such as improving health care, making a commitment to renewable energy, tax cuts, the war in Iraq and the budget. Clinton, who is seeking re-election in November, also talked about issues of particular interest to Floridians including relations with Latin America, the stability of the government in Haiti and the federal response to disasters like hurricanes. Clinton, who is seen a possible candidate for president in 2008, drew applause in renewing a call to take the Federal Emergency Management Agency out of the Department of Homeland Security and for having an independent commission investigate the response to the Hurricane Katrina. Next week marks six months since Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, destroying large portions of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the region has barely begun rebuilding, Clinton said. Clinton also talked about memories specific to Florida, including visiting the state after Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and her first visit to the state with her family in 1957. Clinton drew laughs saying that she will never forget a stop at a restaurant in the Florida Panhandle when a man entered with an alligator on a leash. Clinton also drew a parallel between today and her first visit to Florida, saying there were similar concerns about security with the launch of the first artificial satellite, Sputnik, by the Soviet Union in that year. The difference, she said, is that today America has lost some of its "can-do spirit." "We're not making the decisions today that will enable us as a nation to grow richer and safer and smarter and stronger," Clinton said. The Republican National Committee said Clinton spends a lot of time attacking Republicans. "While the president's focus is on defending America it seems New York's junior senator remains dedicated to her political aspirations," said Camille Anderson, a RNC spokeswoman. "For someone that claims to be solely concerned with serving her constituents, Senator Clinton spends an inordinate amount of time and energy attacking Republicans." www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Politics/Florida/floPOLFL03022506.htm
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 26, 2006 4:28:16 GMT -5
Maybe the US crime families don't like the Israeli org criminals to move in on their territory.
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Feb 27, 2006 17:02:41 GMT -5
Viktor Bout (who looks a bit Stalinish)Mid-1996-October 2001: Ariana Airlines Becomes Transport Arm of al-Qaeda In 1996, al-Qaeda assumes control of Ariana Airlines, Afghanistan's national airline, for use in its illegal trade network. Passenger flights become few and erratic, as planes are used to fly drugs, weapons, gold, and personnel, primarily between Afghanistan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Pakistan. The Emirate of Sharjah, in the UAE, becomes a hub for al-Qaeda drug and arms smuggling. Typically, “large quantities of drugs” are flown from Kandahar, Afghanistan, to Sharjah, and large quantities of weapons are flown back to Afghanistan. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] About three to four flights run the route each day. Many weapons come from Victor Bout, a notorious Russian arms dealer based in Sharjah. [Los Angeles Times, 1/20/02] Afghan taxes on opium production are paid in gold, and then the gold bullion is flown to Dubai, UAE, and laundered into cash. [Washington Post, 2/17/02] Taliban officials regularly provide militants with false papers identifying them as Ariana Airlines employees so they can move freely around the world. A former National Security Council official later claims the US is well aware at the time that al-Qaeda agents regularly fly on Ariana Airlines, but the US fails to act for several years. The US does press the UAE for tighter banking controls, but moves “delicately, not wanting to offend an ally in an already complicated relationship,” and little changes by 9/11. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] Much of the money for the 9/11 hijackers flows though these Sharjah, UAE, channels. There also are reports suggesting that Ariana Airlines might have been used to train Islamic militants as pilots. The illegal use of Ariana Airlines helps convince the United Nations to impose sanctions against Afghanistan in 1999, but the sanctions lack teeth and do not stop the airline. A second round of sanctions finally stops foreign Ariana Airlines flights, but its charter flights and other charter services keep the illegal network running. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] People and organizations involved: al-Qaeda, Ariana Airlines, Victor Bout, United Nations, United Arab Emirates, Taliban www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-530
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Feb 27, 2006 17:28:15 GMT -5
Washington's Hidden Agenda: Restore the Drug Trade The Spoils of War: Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Heroin Tradeby Michel Chossudovsky www.globalresearch.ca 5 April 2004 The URL of this article is: globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since the US led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, the Golden Crescent opium trade has soared. According to the US media, this lucrative contraband is protected by Osama, the Taliban, not to mention, of course, the regional warlords, in defiance of the "international community". The heroin business is said to be "filling the coffers of the Taliban". In the words of the US State Department: "Opium is a source of literally billions of dollars to extremist and criminal groups... [C]utting down the opium supply is central to establishing a secure and stable democracy, as well as winning the global war on terrorism," (Statement of Assistant Secretary of State Robert Charles. Congressional Hearing, 1 April 2004) According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), opium production in Afghanistan in 2003 is estimated at 3,600 tons, with an estimated area under cultivation of the order of 80,000 hectares. (UNODC at www.unodc.org/unodc/index.html ).An even larger bumper harvest is predicted for 2004. The State Department suggests that up to 120 000 hectares were under cultivation in 2004. (Congressional Hearing, op cit): "We could be on a path for a significant surge. Some observers indicate perhaps as much as 50 percent to 100 percent growth in the 2004 crop over the already troubling figures from last year."(Ibid) "Operation Containment" In response to the post-Taliban surge in opium production, the Bush administration has boosted its counter terrorism activities, while allocating substantial amounts of public money to the Drug Enforcement Administration's West Asia initiative, dubbed "Operation Containment." The various reports and official statements are, of course, blended in with the usual "balanced" self critique that "the international community is not doing enough", and that what we need is "transparency". The headlines are "Drugs, warlords and insecurity overshadow Afghanistan's path to democracy". In chorus, the US media is accusing the defunct "hard-line Islamic regime", without even acknowledging that the Taliban --in collaboration with the United Nations-- had imposed a successful ban on poppy cultivation in 2000. Opium production declined by more than 90 per cent in 2001. In fact the surge in opium cultivation production coincided with the onslaught of the US-led military operation and the downfall of the Taliban regime. From October through December 2001, farmers started to replant poppy on an extensive basis. The success of Afghanistan's 2000 drug eradication program under the Taliban had been acknowledged at the October 2001 session of the UN General Assembly (which took place barely a few days after the beginning of the 2001 bombing raids). No other UNODC member country was able to implement a comparable program: "Turning first to drug control, I had expected to concentrate my remarks on the implications of the Taliban's ban on opium poppy cultivation in areas under their control... We now have the results of our annual ground survey of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. This year's production [2001] is around 185 tons. This is down from the 3300 tons last year [2000], a decrease of over 94 per cent. Compared to the record harvest of 4700 tons two years ago, the decrease is well over 97 per cent. Any decrease in illicit cultivation is welcomed, especially in cases like this when no displacement, locally or in other countries, took place to weaken the achievement" (Remarks on behalf of UNODC Executive Director at the UN General Assembly, Oct 2001, www.unodc.org/unodc/en/speech_2001-10-12_1.html ) United Nations' Coverup In the wake of the US invasion, shift in rhetoric. UNODC is now acting as if the 2000 opium ban had never happened: "the battle against narcotics cultivation has been fought and won in other countries and it [is] possible to do so here [in Afghanistan], with strong, democratic governance, international assistance and improved security and integrity." ( Statement of the UNODC Representative in Afghanistan at the :February 2004 International Counter Narcotics Conference, www.unodc.org/pdf/afg/afg_intl_counter_narcotics_conf_2004.pdf , p. 5). In fact, both Washington and the UNODC now claim that the objective of the Taliban in 2000 was not really "drug eradication" but a devious scheme to trigger "an artificial shortfall in supply", which would drive up World prices of heroin. Ironically, this twisted logic, which now forms part of a new "UN consensus", is refuted by a report of the UNODC office in Pakistan, which confirmed, at the time, that there was no evidence of stockpiling by the Taliban. (Deseret News, Salt Lake City, Utah. 5 October 2003) Washington's Hidden Agenda: Restore the Drug Trade In the wake of the 2001 US bombing of Afghanistan, the British government of Tony Blair was entrusted by the G-8 Group of leading industrial nations to carry out a drug eradication program, which would, in theory, allow Afghan farmers to switch out of poppy cultivation into alternative crops. The British were working out of Kabul in close liaison with the US DEA's "Operation Containment". The UK sponsored crop eradication program is an obvious smokescreen. Since October 2001, opium poppy cultivation has skyrocketed. The presence of occupation forces in Afghanistan did not result in the eradication of poppy cultivation. Quite the opposite. The Taliban prohibition had indeed caused "the beginning of a heroin shortage in Europe by the end of 2001", as acknowledged by the UNODC. Heroin is a multibillion dollar business supported by powerful interests, which requires a steady and secure commodity flow. One of the "hidden" objectives of the war was precisely to restore the CIA sponsored drug trade to its historical levels and exert direct control over the drug routes. Immediately following the October 2001 invasion, opium markets were restored. Opium prices spiraled. By early 2002, the opium price (in dollars/kg) was almost 10 times higher than in 2000. In 2001, under the Taliban opiate production stood at 185 tons, increasing to 3400 tons in 2002 under the US sponsored puppet regime of President Hamid Karzai. While highlighting Karzai's patriotic struggle against the Taliban, the media fails to mention that Karzai collaborated with the Taliban. He had also been on the payroll of a major US oil company, UNOCAL. In fact, since the mid-1990s, Hamid Karzai had acted as a consultant and lobbyist for UNOCAL in negotiations with the Taliban. According to the Saudi newspaper Al-Watan: "Karzai has been a Central Intelligence Agency covert operator since the 1980s. He collaborated with the CIA in funneling U.S. aid to the Taliban as of 1994 when the Americans had secretly and through the Pakistanis [specifically the ISI] supported the Taliban's assumption of power." (quoted in Karen Talbot, U.S. Energy Giant Unocal Appoints Interim Government in Kabul, Global Outlook, No. 1, Spring 2002. p. 70. See also BBC Monitoring Service, 15 December 2001) History of the Golden Crescent Drug trade It is worth recalling the history of the Golden Crescent drug trade, which is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations in the region since the onslaught of the Soviet-Afghan war and its aftermath. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1989), opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. (Alfred McCoy, Drug Fallout: the CIA's Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive, 1 August 1997). The Afghan narcotics economy was a carefully designed project of the CIA, supported by US foreign policy. As revealed in the Iran-Contra and Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) scandals, CIA covert operations in support of the Afghan Mujahideen had been funded through the laundering of drug money. "Dirty money" was recycled --through a number of banking institutions (in the Middle East) as well as through anonymous CIA shell companies--, into "covert money," used to finance various insurgent groups during the Soviet-Afghan war, and its aftermath: "Because the US wanted to supply the Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan with stinger missiles and other military hardware it needed the full cooperation of Pakistan. By the mid-1980s, the CIA operation in Islamabad was one of the largest US intelligence stations in the World. `If BCCI is such an embarrassment to the US that forthright investigations are not being pursued it has a lot to do with the blind eye the US turned to the heroin trafficking in Pakistan', said a US intelligence officer. ("The Dirtiest Bank of All," Time, July 29, 1991, p. 22.) Researcher Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA's covert operation in Afghanistan in 1979, "the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer, supplying 60 per cent of U.S. demand. In Pakistan, the heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979 to 1.2 million by 1985, a much steeper rise than in any other nation." "CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests. U.S. officials had refused to investigate charges of heroin dealing by its Afghan allies because U.S. narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there. In 1995, the former CIA director of the Afghan operation, Charles Cogan, admitted the CIA had indeed sacrificed the drug war to fight the Cold War. 'Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade,' I don't think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout. There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.'"(McCoy, op cit) The role of the CIA, which is amply documented, is not mentioned in official UNODC publications, which focus on internal social and political factors. Needless to say, the historical roots of the opium trade have been grossly distorted. (See UNODC www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/afg_opium_economy_www.pdf According to the UNODC, Afghanistan’s opium production has increased, more than 15-fold since 1979. In the wake of the Soviet-Afghan war, the growth of the narcotics economy has continued unabated. The Taliban, which were supported by the US, were initially instrumental in the further growth of opiate production until the 2000 opium ban. (See UNODC www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/afg_opium_economy_www.pdf This recycling of drug money was used to finance the post-Cold War insurgencies in Central Asia and the Balkans including Al Qaeda. (For details, see Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, The Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook, 2002, globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html ) Narcotics: Second to Oil and the Arms Trade The revenues generated from the CIA sponsored Afghan drug trade are sizeable. The Afghan trade in opiates constitutes a large share of the worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, which was estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $400-500 billion. (Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a Changing World, Technical document No. 4, 1998, Vienna UNDCP, p. 4. See also United Nations Drug Control Program, Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999, E/INCB/1999/1 United Nations, Vienna 1999, p. 49-51, and Richard Lapper, UN Fears Growth of Heroin Trade, Financial Times, 24 February 2000). At the time these UN figures were first brought out (1994), the (estimated) global trade in drugs was of the same order of magnitude as the global trade in oil. The IMF estimated global money laundering to be between 590 billion and 1.5 trillion dollars a year, representing 2-5 percent of global GDP. (Asian Banker, 15 August 2003). A large share of global money laundering as estimated by the IMF is linked to the trade in narcotics. Based on recent figures (2003), drug trafficking constitutes "the third biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade." (The Independent, 29 February 2004). Moreover, the above figures including those on money laundering, confirm that the bulk of the revenues associated with the global trade in narcotics are not appropriated by terrorist groups and warlords, as suggested by the UNODC report. There are powerful business and financial interests behind narcotics. From this standpoint, geopolitical and military control over the drug routes is as strategic as oil and oil pipelines.However, what distinguishes narcotics from legal commodity trade is that narcotics constitutes a major source of wealth formation not only for organised crime but also for the US intelligence apparatus, which increasingly constitutes a powerful actor in the spheres of finance and banking. In turn, the CIA, which protects the drug trade, has developed complex business and undercover links to major criminal syndicates involved in the drug trade. In other words, intelligence agencies and powerful business syndicates allied with organized crime, are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes. The multi-billion dollar revenues of narcotics are deposited in the Western banking system. Most of the large international banks together with their affiliates in the offshore banking havens launder large amounts of narco-dollars. This trade can only prosper if the main actors involved in narcotics have "political friends in high places." Legal and illegal undertakings are increasingly intertwined, the dividing line between "businesspeople" and criminals is blurred. In turn, the relationship among criminals, politicians and members of the intelligence establishment has tainted the structures of the state and the role of its institutions.Where does the money go? Who benefits from the Afghan opium trade? This trade is characterized by a complex web of intermediaries. There are various stages of the drug trade, several interlocked markets, from the impoverished poppy farmer in Afghanistan to the wholesale and retail heroin markets in Western countries. In other words, there is a "hierarchy of prices" for opiates. This hierarchy of prices is acknowledged by the US administration: "Afghan heroin sells on the international narcotics market for 100 times the price farmers get for their opium right out of the field".(US State Department quoted by the Voice of America (VOA), 27 February 2004). According to the UNODC, opium in Afghanistan generated in 2003 "an income of one billion US dollars for farmers and US$ 1.3 billion for traffickers, equivalent to over half of its national income.” Consistent with these UNODC estimates, the average price for fresh opium was $350 a kg. (2002); the 2002 production was 3400 tons. (http://www.poppies.org/news/104267739031389.shtml ). The UNDOC estimate, based on local farmgate and wholesale prices constitutes, however, a very small percentage of the total turnover of the multibillion dollar Afghan drug trade. The UNODC, estimates "the total annual turn-over of international trade" in Afghan opiates at US$ 30 billion. An examination of the wholesale and retail prices for heroin in the Western countries suggests, however, that the total revenues generated, including those at the retail level, are substantially higher. Wholesale Prices of Heroin in Western Countries It is estimated that one kilo of opium produces approximately 100 grams of (pure) heroin. The US DEA confirms that "SWA [South West Asia meaning Afghanistan] heroin in New York City was selling in the late 1990s for $85,000 to $190,000 per kilogram wholesale with a 75 percent purity ratio (National Drug Intelligence Center, www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs/648/ny_econ.htm ). According to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) "the price of SEA [South East Asian] heroin ranges from $70,000 to $100,000 per unit (700 grams) and the purity of SEA heroin ranges from 85 to 90 percent" (ibid). The SEA unit of 700 gr (85-90 % purity) translates into a wholesale price per kg. for pure heroin ranging between $115,000 and $163,000. The DEA figures quoted above, while reflecting the situation in the 1990s, are broadly consistent with recent British figures. According to a report published in the Guardian (11 August 2002), the wholesale price of (pure) heroin in London (UK) was of the order of 50,000 pounds sterling, approximately $80,000 (2002). Whereas as there is competition between different sources of heroin supply, it should be emphasized that Afghan heroin represents a rather small percentage of the US heroin market, which is largely supplied out of Colombia. Retail Prices US "The NYPD notes that retail heroin prices are down and purity is relatively high. Heroin previously sold for about $90 per gram but now sells for $65 to $70 per gram or less. Anecdotal information from the NYPD indicates that purity for a bag of heroin commonly ranges from 50 to 80 percent but can be as low as 30 percent. Information as of June 2000 indicates that bundles (10 bags) purchased by Dominican buyers from Dominican sellers in larger quantities (about 150 bundles) sold for as little as $40 each, or $55 each in Central Park. DEA reports that an ounce of heroin usually sells for $2,500 to $5,000, a gram for $70 to $95, a bundle for $80 to $90, and a bag for $10. The DMP reports that the average heroin purity at the street level in 1999 was about 62 percent." (National Drug Intelligence Center, www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs/648/ny_econ.htm ). The NYPD and DEA retail price figures seem consistent. The DEA price of $70-$95, with a purity of 62 percent translates into $112 to $153 per gram of pure heroin. The NYPD figures are roughly similar with perhaps lower estimates for purity. It should be noted that when heroin is purchased in very small quantities, the retail price tends to be much higher. In the US, purchase is often by "the bag"; the typical bag according to Rocheleau and Boyum contains 25 milligrams of pure heroin.(http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/drugfact/american_users_spend/appc.html ) A $10 dollar bag in NYC (according to the DEA figure quoted above) would convert into a price of $400 per gram, each bag containing 0.025gr. of pure heroin. (op cit). In other words, for very small purchases marketed by street pushers, the retail margin tends to be significantly higher. In the case of the $10 bag purchase, it is roughly 3 to 4 times the corresponding retail price per gram.($112-$153) UK In Britain, the retail street price per gram of heroin, according to British Police sources, "has fallen from £74 in 1997 to £61 [in 2004]." [i.e. from approximately $133 to $110, based on the 2004 rate of exchange] (Independent, 3 March 2004). In some cities it was as low as £30-40 per gram with a low level of purity. (AAP News, 3 March 2004). According to Drugscope (http://www.drugscope.org.uk/ ), the average price for a gram of heroin in Britain is between £40 and £90 ($72- $162 per gram) (The report does not mention purity). The street price of heroin was £60 per gram in April 2002 according to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. (See: www.drugscope.org.uk/druginfo/drugsearch/ds_results.asp?file=%5Cwip%5C11%5C1%5C1%5Cheroin_opiates.html ) The Hierarchy of Prices We are dealing with a hierarchy of prices, from the farmgate price in the producing country, upwards, to the final retail street price. The latter is often 80-100 times the price paid to the farmer. In other words, the opiate product transits through several markets from the producing country to the transshipment country(ies), to the consuming countries. In the latter, there are wide margins between "the landing price" at the point of entry, demanded by the drug cartels and the wholesale prices and the retail street prices, protected by Western organized crime. [Continued in next post.]
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Feb 27, 2006 17:29:47 GMT -5
[Continued from previous post.] The Global Proceeds of the Afghan Narcotics Trade In Afghanistan, the reported production of 3600 tons of opium in 2003 would allow for the production of approximately 360,000 kg of pure heroin. Gross revenues accruing to Afghan farmers are roughly estimated by the UNODC to be of the order of $1 billion, with 1.3 billion accruing to local traffickers. When sold in Western markets at a heroin wholesale price of the order of $100,000 a kg (with a 70 percent purity ratio), the global wholesale proceeds (corresponding to 3600 tons of Afghan opium) would be of the order of 51.4 billion dollars. The latter constitutes a conservative estimate based on the various figures for wholesale prices in the previous section. The total proceeds of the Afghan narcotics trade (in terms of total value added) is estimated using the final heroin retail price. In other words, the retail value of the trade is ultimately the criterion for measuring the importance of the drug trade in terms of revenue generation and wealth formation. A meaningful estimate of the retail value, however, is almost impossible to ascertain due to the fact that retail prices vary considerably within urban areas, from one city to another and between consuming countries, not to mention variations in purity and quality (see above). The evidence on retail margins, namely the difference between wholesale and retail values in the consuming countries, nonetheless, suggests that a large share of the total (money) proceeds of the drug trade are generated at the retail level. In other words, a significant portion of the proceeds of the drug trade accrues to criminal and business syndicates in Western countries involved in the local wholesale and retail narcotics markets. And the various criminal gangs involved in retail trade are invariably protected by the "corporate" crime syndicates. 90 percent of heroin consumed in the UK is from Afghanistan. Using the British retail price figure from UK police sources of $110 a gram (with an assumed 50 percent purity level), the total retail value of the Afghan narcotics trade in 2003 (3600 tons of opium) would be the order of 79.2 billion dollars. The latter should be considered as a simulation rather than an estimate. Under this assumption (simulation), a billion dollars gross revenue to the farmers in Afghanistan (2003) would generate global narcotics earnings, --accruing at various stages and in various markets-- of the order of 79.2 billion dollars. These global proceeds accrue to business syndicates, intelligence agencies, organized crime, financial institutions, wholesalers, retailers, etc. involved directly or indirectly in the drug trade. In turn, the proceeds of this lucrative trade are deposited in Western banks, which constitute an essential mechanism in the laundering of dirty money. A very small percentage accrues to farmers and traders in the producing country. Bear in mind that the net income accruing to Afghan farmers is but a fraction of the estimated 1 billion dollar amount. The latter does not include payments of farm inputs, interest on loans to money lenders, political protection, etc. (See also UNODC, The Opium Economy in Afghanistan, www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/afg_opium_economy_www.pdf , Vienna, 2003, p. 7-8) The Share of the Afghan Heroin in the Global Drug Market Afghanistan produces over 70 percent of the global supply of heroin and heroin represents a sizeable fraction of the global narcotics market, estimated by the UN to be of the order of $400-500 billion. There are no reliable estimates on the distribution of the global narcotics trade between the main categories: Cocaine, Opium/Heroin, Cannabis, Amphetamine Type Stimulants (ATS), Other Drugs. The Laundering of Drug Money The proceeds of the drug trade are deposited in the banking system. Drug money is laundered in the numerous offshore banking havens in Switzerland, Luxembourg, the British Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands and some 50 other locations around the globe. It is here that the criminal syndicates involved in the drug trade and the representatives of the world's largest commercial banks interact. Dirty money is deposited in these offshore havens, which are controlled by the major Western commercial banks. The latter have a vested interest in maintaining and sustaining the drug trade. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, The Crimes of Business and the Business of Crimes, Covert Action Quarterly, Fall 1996) Once the money has been laundered, it can be recycled into bona fide investments not only in real estate, hotels, etc, but also in other areas such as the services economy and manufacturing. Dirty and covert money is also funneled into various financial instruments including the trade in derivatives, primary commodities, stocks, and government bonds.Concluding Remarks: Criminalization of US Foreign Policy US foreign policy supports the workings of a thriving criminal economy in which the demarcation between organized capital and organized crime has become increasingly blurred. The heroin business is not "filling the coffers of the Taliban" as claimed by US government and the international community: quite the opposite! The proceeds of this illegal trade are the source of wealth formation, largely reaped by powerful business/criminal interests within the Western countries. These interests are sustained by US foreign policy. Decision-making in the US State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon is instrumental in supporting this highly profitable multibillion dollar trade, third in commodity value after oil and the arms trade. The Afghan drug economy is "protected". The heroin trade was part of the war agenda. What this war has achieved is to restore a compliant narco-State, headed by a US appointed puppet.The powerful financial interests behind narcotics are supported by the militarisation of the world's major drug triangles (and transshipment routes), including the Golden Crescent and the Andean region of South America (under the so-called Andean Initiative). www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Feb 27, 2006 17:35:00 GMT -5
This has made me wonder about meth and the problem it's become in rural communities and small to medium-sized towns. While it's been around for some time, the "epidemic" seems to have come out of nowhere, like crack did in the '80s.
|
|