U.S. Wary of Aristide’s Return to Haiti
© Voice of America
By David Gollust, State Department
February 9, 2011
The U.S. State Department said Wednesday the early return to Haiti of exiled former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide would be an “unfortunate distraction” from the country’s run-off presidential election campaign. The former leader, who has lived in South Africa for the last several years, has been granted a Haitian passport.
Officials here are not saying what the United States has told the Haitian and South African governments about Mr. Aristide’s prospective return home.
But the State Department is making clear publicly that it would consider such a move, in the midst of the campaign for Haiti’s March 20 presidential run-off election, a bad idea.
Mr. Aristide has been in South Africa most of the time since fleeing Haiti in 2004 amid a popular rebellion.
The former Roman Catholic priest became Haiti’s first democratically-elected president in 1991 but was quickly ousted by the military.
He was restored to power after U.S. intervention in 1994 but driven from office a decade later amid charges of corruption and autocratic rule.
After former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier made a surprise return from exile last month, Mr. Aristide has said he, too, would like to return home.
But it would come at a sensitive time as Haiti struggles to recover from last year’s devastating earthquake, and a bitterly disputed first-round president vote in late November.
At a news briefing, State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley said he is unaware of specific travel plans by Mr. Aristide but that the United States “would hate to see” any action that introduces divisiveness into the election process.
“I think that we would be concerned that if former president Aristide returns to Haiti before the election, it would prove to be an unfortunate distraction,” said P.J. Crowley. “The people of Haiti should be evaluating the two candidates that will participate in the runoff, and that I think that should be their focus.”
The State Department also criticized former leader Duvalier’s return but later welcomed steps to prosecute him for corruption during his rule.
Spokesman Crowley said any action by any player that distracts from getting Haiti the kind of government it needs to rebuild would be “unwise”.
The March 20 run-off, scheduled after a lengthy dispute about the November vote-count, pits a former Haitian first lady and college administrator Mirlande Manigat againsted popular entertainer Michel Martelly.
Mr. Aristide reportedly still has wide popular support but is considered a polarizing figure. He has said he would limit himself to teaching if he returned, and his spokeswoman rejected the notion his return would be ill-timed.
[Blogmaster note: See also A future of small brutal wars, RIA Novosti, Jan. 9, 2011.]
The following commentary is reprinted with permission from International Relations & Security Network (ISN), Center for Security Studies, Zurich.
The Future of Private Forces
© Jody Ray Bennett
Source: ISN Insights
January 12, 2011
Despite a tarnished image, the private military security industry is thriving – and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future. In fact, these private companies continue to expand their reach beyond security and military matters into nearly every facet of government service.
A recent report from ProPublica, based on analysis of U.S. Department of Labor statistics, showed that “more private contractors than soldiers were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent months,” making 2010 the “first time in history that corporate casualties have outweighed military losses on America’s battlefields.”
The swelling numbers of contractor deaths could only result from the greatest foreign policy experiment in privatization in U.S. history. These numbers call for a closer look at the changing role of private force and its impact on the industry.
For years the private military and security industry has dealt with a troubled, tarnished image resulting from several high-profile abuses perpetrated in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade. As Blackwater quickly became the most recognized and controversial name in the industry, it long ago set out to rebrand its image, changing its name to Xe Services. More recently the entire industry appears to have felt the need for a new marketing strategy. For example, the industry’s trade union and lobbying group, the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA), changed its name to the International Stability Operations Association (ISOA).
Further, 60 private security companies – Blackwater included – signed a global Code of Conduct (COC) in Geneva last November, pledging to “curb their use of force, vet and train personnel, and report any breaches [of contract].” But even this prompted the criticism that the COC was merely symbolic, arriving nine years too late. For others, however: better late than never.
“[The Code of Conduct] could be meaningful, but if only the language is written into all contracts issued by member state governments. In the case of the United States it would mean inserting the COC language into the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and DFAR (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations),” industry analyst and author of Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq, David Isenberg told ISN Insights.
“This is a really important step, and one that I have supported from its inception (and before). It was made possible, in part, by a convergence among a wide array of actors on the idea of regulation and the need for more of it. It used to be that people opposed PMSCs for what they were; now they are more interested in what they do. The Code of Conduct is the first step in stipulating appropriate behavior,” explained professor of political science and director of International Studies at UC Irvine, Deborah Avant.
‘One nation under contract’
Despite the creation of the COC and the recent sale of Blackwater, hundreds of PMSCs remain operational around the globe. And even as U.S. President Barack Obama has pulled American troops from Iraq, thousands of contractors remain (or even find new business opportunities there). These companies will always be looking for the next opportunity.
“Industry is always looking for new business, regardless of what happens in Iraq. It has been years since the bursting of the Baghdad bubble for PSCs in Iraq. The biggest change is that the majority of PSCs in Iraq in the future will be working for the State Department and not the Pentagon,” Isenberg told ISN Insights.
“They have already expanded. To paraphrase the old Virginia Slims cigarette commercial, ‘they are not your Daddy’s PMC’. Private contractors are working for intelligence, homeland security, foreign aid, border patrol, cyber security and immigration,” he added.
Allison Stanger explained part of the reason for PMSCs’ expansion during an event held by the Carnegie Council last October, entitled One Nation Under Contract: The Outsourcing of American Power and the Future of Foreign Policy:
The size of the Executive Branch work force in 2008 – that is, the federal work force – is the same size as it was in 1963. Yet, the federal budget in that same period of time has more than tripled, adjusted for inflation, and the population has doubled. That enormous gap, in part, is filled by contractors. A firm like Lockheed Martin is today doing more than servicing weapon systems. It also sorts your mail, tallies up your taxes, cuts Social Security checks, counts people for the U.S. Census, runs space flights, and monitors air traffic.
That we have become one nation under contract means that there is no longer any vigorous and disinterested government to turn to for help. The business of government is increasingly in private hands.
And the same logic seems to hold true for armed contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“[PMSCs] are already evolved from the days of Executive Outcomes (EO) and Sandline to the more corporate and government approved Blackwater, Triple Canopy, Dyncorp, Armor Group, etc. The key difference between the days of EO and now is that governments embrace PMCs. It is not well remembered that EO was actually working in places like Angola and Sierra Leone, despite the opposition of the South African government,” Isenberg explained.
Despite harsh criticism, private forces will remain viable and active well into the future. In fact, in late December 2010, the U.S. Army announced it would award $1.6 billion to a private security firm to train an Afghan police force. This speaks not only to the overwhelming and seemingly ubiquitous era of the private corporation, but the resilience of the private military and security industry to withstand its detractors and capture the interest of governments to execute their foreign policies.
“PMSCs are ever changing; that is the whole idea – flexibility. Companies can easily morph to do all kinds of things (aid, development, homeland security). That flexibility poses some serious hurdles to effective regulation, but regulators also need to be flexible. Someone needs to know about what industry personnel are doing, and they also need to know enough to distinguish between good and bad behavior,” Avant warned.
Jody Ray Bennett is a freelance writer and academic researcher. His areas of analysis include the private military and security industry, the materialization of non-state forces and the transformation of modern warfare.
The following commentary is reprinted with permission from Global Research.
South African Mercenary Outfit Training Troops in Somalia
© Odeusp Eman
Source: Global Research
January 2, 2011
Recently, the Associated Press (AP) broke the story that there were 1050 troops being trained in the north eastern region of Somalia, otherwise known as Puntland, by a mercenary group, or security contractors from South Africa known as Saracen International.
At the end of the Apartheid era, many of the special forces of that regime ventured into various yet similar vocations and enterprises that offered lucrative, opportunities as well as providing absolute impunity. Never mind that “Mercenaries” as persons recruited for armed conflict by or in a country other than their own who are motivated solely by personal gain are outlawed under Article 47 of the Geneva Convention.
Saracen International is a complex web of businesses that sell luxury real estate properties as well as international investment opportunities. It has taken over under a different name the now defunct Executive Outcomes. The latter has a broad record in Angola, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. They were guns for hire; a private army to perform a variety of “good” and “dirty jobs” necessary to enforce peace or silence dissent.
Major Lafras Luitingh, one of the founders and the former CEO of Executive Outcomes, now plays a key leading role in Saracen International. Major Luitingh — a man who has been implicated in a number of reports — was a board member of the South African Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB) of the Apartheid era. Contrary to what the name might suggest, this was a government-sponsored covert operation; a hit squad during the apartheid era that operated under the authority of Defense Minister General Magnus Malan. This covert organization had three main objectives: to eliminate anti-apartheid activists throughout the world; to destroy ANC facilities both inside and outside South Africa; and, to circumvent UN-imposed arms embargo. The Truth and Reconciliation Committee found the CCB guilty of numerous killings and atrocities.
Ignorantly or perhaps recklessly insensitive to the historic role that the South African mercenaries have played in carrying out former dictator Siyad Barre’s persecution of particular dissenting clans in the north-western region of Somalia, the TFG [Transitional Federal Gov’t] again has signed a contract with mercenaries from South Africa.
According to Hussein Abdi Halane, Somalia’s Minister of Finance, who was interviewed by the VOA Somali branch, “Saracen will help the Somali government train some of its forces.” Among other things, this private security group would be training anti-piracy forces as well as the bodyguards of Somali government officials, drivers, and civil servants.
Ever since the AP report, concerns were raised by a number of stakeholders ranging from the UN, AU, AMISOM, US, and EU.
Concerns range from “Who will be financing this contract?”, to “Is this going to violate the arms embargo imposed on Somalia since 1992?” However, the real concern, from the Somali perspective, ought to be: Since civilians are already exposed to great dangers with al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam’s mortar attacks on AMISOM and the latter’s counter attacks, and neither of the former militias (now one group) are waging their attacks from a jungle, how are they going to protect civilian lives from their advanced, state-of-the-art weaponry? Is this group going to uphold basic human rights and respect all international conventions? Who would have the responsibility and/or jurisdiction to prosecute any violation that may be made? Would they be able to differentiate between civilians “Saracens” and combatant ones?
And, from the UN and the international community perspective, the concern ought to be: Would this group keep its hands off the uranium deposits in the central regions of Somalia where they are now allowed to operate freely?
It is quite apparent that the TFG has not done its due diligence. Among other things, the TFG agreed to not tax any of the goods and equipments that this group brings into the country which is euphemism for not searching any and all they possess.
It is incumbent upon the TFG to immediately end this contract, and upon the international community to pressure Saracen International and all other mercenary groups believed to be operating in “Somaliland” and “Puntland” to leave Somalia.
The following commentary is reprinted with permission from World Socialist Web Site.
China-South Africa deals highlight great-power rivalry in Africa
© World Socialist Web Site
By Zac Hambides
September 13, 2010
The visit by South African President Jacob Zuma to Beijing from August 24 to 26, heading a delegation of 400 business representatives and 11 government ministers, was another indication of intensifying international rivalry within the African continent.
A total of 12 deals were struck, pointing to South Africa’s efforts to develop economic and political partnerships with the world’s second-largest economy. The main agreements involved the building of a new titanium mine, as well as a processing site to produce pig iron in South Africa, with Chinese companies taking the main role in the construction. Also included were agreements on building railway lines and electricity grids throughout South Africa. Memoranda were signed to exchange nuclear power technology.
Beijing has pursued similar infrastructure projects throughout Africa, primarily to facilitate the transport of mineral resources to China and provide trade-offs for access to raw materials. To sustain annual economic growth of more than 10 percent, the Chinese regime is seeking to exploit Africa’s vast natural resources, cheap labour and new markets via South Africa, which is the largest investor in the continent, outside of the U.S. and Europe.
Over the past decade, China-Africa trade increased 10-fold, from $10 billion in 2001 to $107 billion in 2008. Fu Ziying, China’s vice commerce minister, predicted that this year’s trade with Africa would again exceed $100 billion, after a relative drop to $91 billion in 2009.
While total Chinese investment in Africa is small compared to European and American capital, its annual rate increased 10-fold from $80 million in 2003 to $1.36 billion in 2009.
In the case of South Africa, China is now its largest trading partner, tripling imports and exports from $4.87 billion in 2006 to $15.2 billion in 2008. Last year, China overtook the U.S. as South Africa’s largest export market. South Africa exports $6.57 billion worth of iron ore, copper, chrome, timber and paper pulp to China each year and imports $9.45 billion worth of mostly cheap manufacturing goods.
In the face of the deepening global economic crisis, Zuma’s African National Congress (ANC) government is attempting to boost growth and narrow the $2.7 billion trade deficit with China by pushing for more exports. South Africa is expected to grow a modest 2.8 percent this year.
Zuma’s Beijing visit was the last stop on a tour of the four BRIC “emerging” economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China), where Zuma did deals as part of South Africa’s bid to join BRIC. The grouping is a loose coalition, seeking to counter the global influence of the established powers of the U.S., Europe and Japan.
By joining BRIC, South Africa aims to position itself as a major regional power in Africa. Some of the memoranda signed in Beijing covered “joint efforts in the global arena” such as in the UN. South Africa is attempting to enter the UN Security Council and is looking to garner Beijing’s support. In 2008, South Africa was widely criticised by Western powers for voting with China and Russia against a UN resolution condemning the Burmese regime, a close Chinese ally.
While the EU accounts for more than half the total foreign investment in South Africa, China’s growing economic weight in Africa has provided South African ruling elites with greater bargaining power in the dealing with the U.S. and European powers. An article entitled “Zuma’s China policy: Is it good or bad for us?” in South Africa’s Times Live on September 5 declared: “South Africa has resisted tying its flag to the mast of any major power and has carved out a niche as a country which walks its own path in global affairs.”
Zuma’s government is defying criticism of China by the Western powers. Concerned by China’s rapidly expanding influence in Africa, Western commentators cynically argue that China is exploiting the African masses and natural resources like a colonial power. Three years ago, Zuma’s predecessor Thabo Mbeki warned that Africa risked falling into a “colonial relationship” with China.
There has been a shift under Zuma, however. Trade Minister Rob Davies, who was accompanying Zuma in Beijing, denied that China engaged in “neo-colonial” activity in Africa. Davies declared that South Africa now has greater bargaining power against the Western countries because of China: “We don’t have to sign on the dotted line whatever is shoved under our noses any longer; we now have alternatives and that’s to our benefit.”
Delivering a lecture at Beijing’s Renmin University, Zuma sought to make a distinction between Chinese economic influence and that of the old Western powers. “Chinese assistance in infrastructure development in some of the less developed parts of Africa is certainly making an important contribution to future Africa development,” he stated. “We are still at an early stage of what will be an exciting journey, a journey out of poverty, a journey to sustainable improvements in the lives of our people, here in China and on the African continent.”
Zuma’s defence of China reflects bankrupt African bourgeois nationalism and Stalinism. During the Cold War, the now ruling ANC was politically backed against the apartheid order by the Stalinist regimes in Soviet Union and China. Like various African nationalist movements, the ANC’s perspective, supported by the South African Communist Party, which Zuma joined in 1963, is not to overthrow capitalism, but to seeking a better place for sections of the African bourgeoisie within world imperialism.
Just as Mao’s anti-imperialist rhetoric and guerrilla war perspective for the “Third World” evolved into a government imposing naked capitalist exploitation of the Chinese working class, the ANC has become the chief instrument for the South African bourgeoisie since the end of apartheid in 1990. Initially, President Nelson Mandela attempted to maintain diplomatic relations with both Beijing and Taipei as two Chinese governments, but shifted decisively in 1996 toward China as the latter emerged as the chief cheap labour platform for global capitalism. Full diplomatic ties between the two countries were established in 1998.
With China now a significant exporter of capital, its capitalist elite has no qualms about aggressively moving to secure vital raw materials in Africa. In opposition to accusations of Chinese colonialism, commentators in China note that its activities are not so different from the old colonial powers. The state-run Global Times declared recently: “China’s behaviour in Africa plays by the rules set by western powers themselves.”
While the European powers and the U.S. accuse various African regimes aligned to Beijing, such as Sudan, of “human rights abuses,” this criticism ignores centuries of crimes and the ongoing exploitation of the African masses by Western governments and corporations.
A Financial Times editorial on August 25, entitled “China’s new scramble for Africa”, warned: “Former colonial powers are in a weak position to lecture China on Africa. And, having preached the virtues of competition, the west cannot really grumble about being outbid by the Chinese in the race for natural resources in Africa.” Nevertheless the editorial in effect called on the old colonial powers to find a way to counteract China.
At an Africa-France summit in Nice in June, French President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed for direct competition with Chinese corporations through infrastructure and aid interventions, without actually mentioning China. “Africa is our future,” Sarkozy stated. “The African continent is asserting itself more and more as a major player in international life.” To make his message heard, Sarkozy brought with him executives of major French companies, nuclear giant Areva, oil company Total, France Telecom and Veolia, the world’s largest water supply company.
The most aggressive strategy comes from the U.S., which is boosting its military capacity in Africa. The Bush administration established a separate Pentagon African Command (AFRICOM) in 2007 as part of Washington’s global efforts to offset its economic decline with military might. This year, the Obama administration has allocated $278 million to AFRICOM, not including expenses for other U.S. military programs in the continent under the name of countering “terrorism”. Military funding to pro-U.S. regimes in Africa is being increased by more than 300 percent this year, from $8.2 million to $25.5 million. The major recipients are South Africa, Morocco, Nigeria and strife-torn countries such as Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya and Liberia.
Washington’s militaristic policy underscores the fact that the Western powers will not allow China to impinge on their interests in Africa without resisting. South Africa’s new ties with China, far from bringing new geo-political stability, will only intensify this great-power rivalry.
The following column is reprinted with permission from Gordon Duff, staff writer and Senior Editor at Veterans Today.
False Flag Nuke Attack On U.S. Justified… “King Torah”
© Gordon Duff
Source: Veterans Today
August 2, 2010
Israel To Use Iranian And Pakistani Dupes In Dirty Nuke Ploy
This week, the last piece fell into place. The National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Science, heavy on politics and light on science, announced that America was no longer able to track nukes threatening our shores. Their report titled Nuclear Forensics: A Capability at Risk, released last week, outlines the details of a secret study requested by the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense and Energy, specifically the National Nuclear Security Administration. The gist of the story is easy, if a nuke goes off in America, dirty nuke in Times Square, one in a container at a port, anywhere, America won’t be able to tell who made it. Not a word of the report is true. It is wild speculation and disinformation written in broad language with no hard science, written for a reason.
A powerful group within the United States, one with influence over the press and the ability to derail an investigation as was done with 9/11, has been “tasked” with laying the groundwork for a terrorist attack on America, one using nuclear material. This report, unneeded, and highly inaccurate was printed in the New York Times to provide “cover.” It isn’t just this report, the pieces are falling together around the world. The Wiki-Leaks story, pre-staging Pakistan’s ISI as a terrorist organization, a story built out of almost no information but fleshed out with massive speculation by “operatives” in the press is part of the process.
The Defense Authorization Act of 2006 allows, “in case of a terrorist attack” for the president to declare marshal law, disband congress and rule by executive decree. With the suspension of habeas corpus by the Military Commissions act, also in 2006, America as we know it officially comes to an end the second a weapon of mass destruction in used. Only then will America learn who has been pulling the strings all along, who is scripting Wolf Blitzer and Glen Beck.
British Prime Minister David Cameron’s attacks on Pakistan, made from New Delhi last week, seen by most as a serious political blunder, are part of the narrative. We will get to more background on a younger David Cameron later.
Another piece of the puzzle involved a federal task force, Defense, Energy, FBI, descending on a warehouse in Greenfield, Indiana under the guise of a “records search.” This “Waco style” assault on a facility storing furniture for college dorm rooms was much more than it seemed. No case, criminal or civil, provided any underlying reason for the search.
Further, the bizarre tale of rumored missing nukes, illegally transported on a B-52 from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana, a major Defense Department scandal, is meant to create, not only fear and doubt, but “plausible deniability” if a weapon is exploded inside the U.S. These, however, are not, by far, the only missing nuclear weapons America has to fear as we will get into later.
Two recent attacks, the “Times Square Fizzler” and the Detroit “Crotch Bomber” were both amateurish affairs except for a couple of things. Both perpetrators had strong ties to Israeli organizations, one actually employed by an Israeli-American financial firm, the other the son of Israel’s primary partner in their defense industry complex in Nigeria. None of this was reported or investigated once discovered. It was shoved under the rug immediately. When cursory investigations of both suspects showed travel histories only possible with significant help from an intelligence agency, both stories disappeared from the news entirely. It is like everyone involved vanished from the face of the earth like the second person arrested in Detroit or the “well dressed Indian” who aided the “Crotch Bomber” onto the plane in Amsterdam.
Legal Justification For Attacks On Gentiles
Conservative interpretations of Jewish law, currently being used to justify resettlement of Palestinians and even total removal of all non-Jews from greater Palestine and adjacent areas have long been used to justify acts such as the attack on the USS Liberty, bombings of U.S. facilities in Egypt and, less openly, “false flag” terror attacks attributed to Muslims but performed by Israeli security forces. Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira and Rabbi Yosef Elitzur, seen as the ethical conscience behind the Netanyahu government have taken the following position as reported by Jonathan Cook:
“In the 230-page book, Shapira and his co-author, Rabbi Yosef Elitzur (The King’s Torah) argue that Jewish law permits the killing of non-Jews in a wide variety of circumstances. They write that Jews have the right to kill Gentiles in any situation in which “a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives” even if the Gentile is “not at all guilty for the situation that has been created”.
The book sanctions the killing of non-Jewish children and babies: “There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”
The rabbis suggest that harming the children of non-Jewish leaders is justified if it is likely to bring pressure to bear on them to change policy. The authors also advocate committing “cruel deeds to create the proper balance of terror” and treating all members of an “enemy nation” as targets for retaliation, even if they are not directly participating in hostile activities.” (false flag terrorism)
This rationale allows deadly force to be used against Christians if their deaths advance the cause of Israeli security even if only through economic profit. Thus, if an attack such as 9/11 were to lead to America fighting wars against enemies of Israel or if, as in Afghanistan, Israeli companies were to profit from weapons or narcotics sales, any deaths of gentiles, no matter how innocent, would be justified by Jewish law as stated in the Torah.
Were an attack on the United States to bring that country to war against Iran, even if that attack were perpetrated by Israelis, it would be legal according to Israeli law, the same law being relied upon for justice in the attack on the Mavi Marmara.
More often however, attacks on Israel itself are believed to have been staged, not only to instill the population with fear and rage but to continue the “holocaust” tradition of Jewish victimhood as a justification for policies that have led to 62 vetoes in the United Nations by the U.S., vetoes against sanctions imposed against Israel for violations of international law.
We expect increased attacks on Israel, quickly tied to Hezbollah and Iran, attacks that will either involve no casualties or the deaths of either foreign workers or Russian emigres. This pattern has been used repeatedly, such as the March 18 “attack” killing a lone Thai ”guest” worker timed to coincide with the visit of the European Union’s high commissioner for security, Catherine Ashton, a critic of Israel’s apartheid policy in Gaza.
On a side note, 400 children of “guest workers” are being expelled from Israel this week. Eventually all will be expelled, guilty of destroying “the Jewish character” through lack of “racial purity.”
When the U.S. and Israel released Sharam Amiri, alleged Iranian nuclear scientist, we learned one thing. There is an inventory of Muslims, perhaps arrested, perhaps kidnapped, maybe lured into custody, rendition, imprisonment or “cold storage,” whatever you want to call it. Each one has an elaborate “legend” built around them, describing them as a “lone gunman” or “terrorist mastermind.” This is the group that will supply the names and photographs we will see after the next terror attack.
As Wayne Madsen described to us this week, this was the process the CIA and Mossad used to create Osama bin Laden from nothing. The organization we know of as Al Qaeda is, in itself, a false creation, an invention initially to serve as terrorists when we needed them and as enemies when we needed them too:
“Press clips gathered by the CIA and discovered in the National Archives’ stored CIA files point to an agency keenly interested in any leaks about the highly-classified CIA-Mossad program to establish Osama Bin Laden and the most radical elements of the Afghan Mujahidin as the primary leaders of the anti-Soviet rebels in the 1980s.
WMR [Wayne Madsen Report] has pored through the CIA files and a complicated picture emerges of America’s and Israel’s top intelligence agencies, in cahoots with Saudi Arabia, establishing financial links and carve out intelligence programs to provide manpower and financial support to Bin Laden and his allies in Afghanistan. It was these very elements that later created the so-called “Al Qaeda,” which the late British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook described as nothing more than a “database” of CIA front organizations, financial supporters, and field operatives. However, one component omitted by Cook in the Al Qaeda construct is the Israeli participation.”
A pattern of evidence is emerging that “cold storage” dupes and CIA/Mossad nurtured organizations may have had a hand in, not only the Mumbai attacks but the London and Madrid bombings as well. Additional trails are leading to attacks on American troops inside Iraq and Afghanistan and against security forces inside Pakistan, particularly against Pakistan’s ISI, primary target of press stories on the recent Wiki-Leak.
America And The “Tory Nukes”
There are two reasons to attack America’s “forensic capabilities” when it comes to nuclear weapons. A leak the press chose not to cover, one bringing Israel under scrutiny for egregious violations of international treaties on Nuclear Proliferation, treaties Israel has never signed, were brought to the surface recently. Back on September 22 1979, Israel and South Africa tested a nuclear device, an 18.2 kiloton bomb. This test in a remote area of the Indian Ocean was detected by America’s VELA satellite system and confirmed by acoustic sensors. A forensic signature of this weapon was developed, not only through optics but through particle emissions. When an identical weapon was detonated by North Korea on May 25, 2009, a question was raised. How did a nuclear weapon built by Armscor, an Israel company operating in South Africa, end up in North Korea?
This is the story of the “Tory nukes,” nuclear weapons purchased by Margaret Thatcher in 1991 from South Africa under a secret authorization describing the weapons as “cylinders.” Those involved in putting these bombs into special containers, transporting them to Durban and then off to a container storage facility in Oman from which they disappeared. When the weapons containers which had laid unguarded for months were forwarded to the United States for dis-assembly in accordance with treaty requirements, only concrete blocks were found. The disappearance has been directly tied to two arms traders who ran illegal trafficking for Israel and South Africa during the Iran-Iraq War.
Israel says Saddam stole the weapons. As late as 2003, Tony Blair used this “tale” to back what Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg calls “the illegal invasion of Iraq.” Blair had financial incentives to back the invasion, several million of them, as secret letters leaked to the press but never printed have shown.
Prime Minister David Cameron, Dr. David Kelly and Armscor
Back in 1990, a very young David Cameron, later to become Prime Minister David Cameron, was offered a free trip to South Africa, paid for by Israeli owned Armscor, a nuclear weapons manufacturer. Cameron was supposedly working with Dr. David Kelly investigating weapons of mass destruction in South Africa. In fact something much different was going on. On January 16, 2005, Tim Shipman, Defense Editor of the Sunday Express released the following story, one never reported in U.S. papers. Today, Dr. David Kelly is dead, clearly murdered because of what he knew and David Cameron is in India carefully reading from a script written in Tel Aviv. This is the 2005 story from the Express:
”Dr. David Kelly, the weapons expert who died in mysterious circumstances after the Iraq war, may have been about to reveal alarming details concerning missing nuclear weapons. Sources familiar with Dr Kelly’s work with South Africa’s security services say he also knew damaging details of how nuclear weapons decommissioned by South Africa were lost in the Middle East in 1991…
Informed experts who have contacted the Sunday Express claim the missing nuclear weapons found their way to Iraq. The claims raise new questions about the extent of Dr Kelly’s knowledge of British security secrets, which some insiders believe may have contributed to his death. Some believe he may have been silenced to prevent him revealing more secrets to the media. The South African weapons allegedly went missing in Oman on their way to be decommissioned in the U.S. and may have then been smuggled to Iraq. A source claimed: “Dr Kelly knew about the South African nukes because he worked for research facilities there.
Over the last year intelligence sources in both Britain and America have told journalists they believe that whatever Doomsday arsenal Saddam Hussein had accumulated before the second Gulf War was smuggled into Syria before the Spring 2003 invasion.
Last month the Sunday Express revealed that MI5 investigators looking for details of Dr Kelly’s involvement with the South African government, seized his laptop computers after he died. The coroner charged with investigating the Government scientist’s death has said he will not reopen the case.”
While British and American troops stormed across Iraq in 2003, searching for these missing nukes, defense experts now fear they had been in Israeli hands all along, a secret Dr. David Kelly was no longer willing to keep, one that led to his death. The missing containers may easily have been transferred to the Netherlands, Nigeria or even the United States, perhaps even Indiana or Toledo as is now rumored. British police have raided the homes of many involved in the missing weapons, seizing computers, personal papers and “frightening the hell out of people.” Some of those terrorized are scheduled witnesses for the Iraq War inquiry.
Only American Dead Can Pre-Stage The Iran Attack
This summer, Turkey and Brazil negotiated a deal with Iran to remove any nuclear fuel that could be used for weapons development. It was exactly what everyone had been asking for. President Obama ignored it and pushed for sanctions demanded by Israel. Russia cancelled the sale of an S300 air defense system to Iran and voted to back sanctions against its ally, Iran also. The relationship between Tel Aviv and the Russian oligarchs, seen so clearly during the Jonathan Pollard spy scandal, had reappeared for the public again though no news organization picked any of this up.
With secret Israeli bases, believed used for transit of narcotics from Afghanistan, ringing Iran, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and other nations in the region, and U.S. supplies and munitions in place or being delivered through Black Sea ports, only American public opinion is holding up an attack on Iran, despite the fact that Iran’s president Ahmadinejad has requested an immediate conference with President Obama to “settle outstanding issues.”
Even though Iran is isolated, even from its Islamic neighbors, it has a substantial defensive capability. Iran can quickly destroy all gulf region oil production facilities and close off shipping to that region, an act likely to collapse all Western economies in days. Militarily, however, Iran is unable to defend itself against the vast technological superiority of the United States. However, after a decade of wars with Iraq remaining, not only unstable but increasingly so, and the United States facing defeat in Afghanistan, the American people are unlikely to want to begin a new conflict, especially with an adversary much more powerful than either Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel as the only ally, a country the United States has no mutual defense treaty with and no ability to sustain conflict beyond its own immediate borders for more than 48 hours.
Earlier this year, Israeli military historian Dr. Martin Karfeld announced Israel’s “King Torah” policy toward the “gentile nations:”
“We have hundreds of nuclear warheads and missiles that can reach different targets in the heart of the European continent, including beyond the borders of Rome, the Italian capital… most European capitals would become preferred targets for the Israeli air force.”
The legal justification for a nuclear attack is in place, part of Israeli law. The will to do so is there if such an attack can be pulled off and few doubt Israel’s ability who have seen the power of the Israeli lobby in Washington and have spoken of their control of the press, such as with the recent media castration of director Oliver Stone.
The tools are in place. Israel is believed to possess two Hiroshima sized nuclear weapons. The third weapon was exploded by North Korea with the media blackout leaving Israel as the only possible source for this weapon.
The ground is prepared, America is now stripped of “forensic” ability to track nuclear explosions, so the cover story tells us. Israel still threatens the world with the missing nukes, weapons reason tells us they control. Any container in any port, any truck, any warehouse could hide these weapons, anywhere in the United States.
When it happens, the vast majority of Americans will find the trail left, Pakistanis, Iranians, all as planned. They will immediately call for the destruction of the Islamic world as is intended by Israel. The internet will be shut down, Congress sent home and anyone mentioning that only Israel profits and that only Israel could have done it will be imprisoned, as intended.
They learned from 9/11. Too many questions were asked. They won’t make the same mistake again.
Gordon Duff is a U.S. Marine Vietnam veteran, grunt and 100% disabled vet. He has been a U.N. Diplomat, defense contractor and is a widely published expert on military and defense issues. He is active in the financial industry and is a specialist on global trade. Gordon Duff acts as political and economic advisor to a number of governments in Africa and the Middle East. He is Senior Editor at Veterans Today.