Protect Democracy & Expose Western Liberal Democracy

Posts tagged ‘New World Order’

How America Went Rogue


America's Shadow Wars

America's Shadow Wars

What We All Need to Know About Our Government’s Shadow Wars

Reagan’s shadow government was a disaster, but it was a pygmy compared with Obama’s.

April 22, 2012   The Nation / By Juan Cole

Covert operations are nothing new in American history, but it could be argued that during the past decade they have moved from being a relatively minor arrow in the national security quiver to being the cutting edge of American power. Drone strikes, electronic surveillance and stealth engagements by military units such as the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), as well as dependence on private corporations, mercenary armies and terrorist groups, are now arguably more common as tools of US foreign policy than conventional warfare or diplomacy. But these tools lend themselves to rogue operations that create peril for the United States when they blow back on us. And they often make the United States deeply unpopular.

Shadow power has even become an issue in the presidential campaign. Newt Gingrich advocates ramped-up “covert operations” inside Iran. President Obama replied to Mitt Romney’s charge that he is an “appeaser” by suggesting that his critics “ask bin Laden” about that.

Obama often speaks of the “tide of war receding,” but that phrase refers only to conventional war. In Afghanistan, where the administration hopes to roll up conventional fighting by the end of 2013, it is making plans for long-term operations by special forces through units such as JSOC. It is unclear what legal framework will be constructed for their activities, other than a wink and a nod from President Hamid Karzai.

Although the Iraqis managed to compel the withdrawal of US troops by the end of last year, Washington is nevertheless seeking to remain influential through shadow power. The US embassy in Baghdad has 16,000 employees, most of them civilian contractors. They include 2,000 diplomats and several hundred intelligence operatives. By contrast, the entire US Foreign Service corps comprises fewer than 14,000. The Obama administration has decided to slash the number of contractors, planning for an embassy force of “only” 8,000. This monument to shadow power clearly is not intended merely to represent US interests in Iraq but rather to shape that country and to serve as a command center for the eastern reaches of the greater Middle East. The US shadow warriors will, for instance, attempt to block “the influence of Iran,” according to the Washington Post. Since Iraq’s Shiite political parties, which dominate Parliament and the cabinet, are often close to Iran, that charge would inescapably involve meddling in internal Iraqi politics.

Nor can we be sure that the CIA will engage only in espionage or influence-peddling in Iraq. The American shadow government routinely kidnaps people it considers dangerous and has sent them to black sites for torture, often by third-party governments to keep American hands clean. As usual with the shadow government, private corporations have been enlisted to help in these “rendition” programs, which are pursued outside the framework of national and international law and in defiance of the sensibilities of our allies. How the United States might behave in Iraq can be extrapolated from its recent behavior in other allied countries. In November 2009 an Italian court convicted in absentia twenty-three people, most of them CIA field officers who had kidnapped an alleged Al Qaeda recruiter, Abu Omar, on a Milan street in the middle of the day and sent him to Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt for “interrogation.” Obama has explicitly continued this practice as a “counterterrorism tool,” though he says torture has been halted. Iraq is likely to continue to be an arena of such veiled struggles.

The Obama administration’s severe unilateral sanctions on Iran and attempts to cut that country off from the world banking system have a shadow power aspect. Aimed at crippling Iran’s oil exports, they are making it difficult for Iran to import staples like wheat. Although Washington denies carrying out covert operations in Iran, the US government and allies like Israel are suspected of doing just that. According to anonymous US intelligence officials and military sources interviewed by The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh, the United States has trained members of the MEK (Mojahedin-e Khalq, or People’s Jihadis), based in Iraq at Camp Ashraf, to spy on Iran and carry out covert operations there, just as Saddam Hussein had done, though any American support for the organization would directly contradict the State Department listing of it as a terrorist organization. The MEK is suspected of carrying out a string of assassinations against Iranian nuclear scientists, but US intelligence leaks say Israel’s Mossad, not the CIA, is the accomplice. Indeed, the difficulty of disentangling Washington’s shadow power from that of its junior partners can be seen in the leak by US intelligence complaining that Mossad agents had impersonated CIA field officers in recruiting members of the Jundullah terrorist group in Iranian Baluchistan for covert operations against Iran. Jundullah, a Sunni group, has repeatedly bombed Shiite mosques in Zahedan and elsewhere in the country’s southeast. Needless to say, the kind of overt and covert pressure Obama is putting on Iran could easily, even if inadvertently, spark a war.

The recent release of more than 5 million e-mails hacked from the server of the private intelligence firm Stratfor shows that it did more than analysis. It engaged in surveillance and intelligence activities on behalf of corporate sponsors. Dow Chemical, for example, hired Stratfor to monitor a protest group agitating on the issue of the catastrophic 1984 gas leak in Bhopal, India, which killed at least 3,500. WikiLeaks maintains that Stratfor exemplifies the “revolving door” between private intelligence firms and the US government agencies that share information with them.

The increasingly frequent use of civilian “security contractors” — essentially mercenaries — should be a sore point for Americans. The tens of thousands of mercenaries deployed in Iraq were crucial to the US occupation of that country, but they also demonstrate the severe drawbacks of using shadow warriors. Ignorance about local attitudes, arrogance and lack of coordination with the US military and with local police and military led to fiascoes such as the 2007 shootings at Baghdad’s Nisour Square, where Blackwater employees killed seventeen Iraqis. The Iraqi government ultimately expelled Blackwater, even before it did the same with the US military, which had brought the contractors into their country.

* * *

The bad feelings toward the United States generated by hired guns can also be seen in the infamous Raymond Davis incident in Lahore, Pakistan. On January 27, 2011, Davis, a CIA contractor, was waiting at a traffic light when two Pakistanis pulled up next to him on a motorcycle. Davis, who later alleged that one of them had a gun, became alarmed and shot the men. The driver survived the initial volley and tried to run away, but Davis shot him twice in the back. Instead of fleeing the scene, he spent time searching and then photographing the bodies and calling the US consulate for an extraction team. Undercover CIA field officers raced toward the site of the shooting in a consulate SUV, hoping to keep Davis out of the hands of Pakistani authorities, who were approaching, sirens blaring. In its haste, the extraction team killed a motorcyclist and failed in its mission. Davis was taken into custody. His cellphone yielded the identities of some forty-five members of his covert network in Pakistan, who were also arrested.

The incident provoked rolling street demonstrations and enraged Pakistanis, who are convinced that the country is crawling with such agents. Davis was jailed and charged with double homicide, and only released months later, when a Persian Gulf oil monarchy allegedly paid millions on behalf of the United States to the families (in Islamic law, families of a murder victim may pardon the murderer on payment of a satisfactory sum). It was a public relations debacle for Washington, of course, but the salient fact is that a US public servant shot two Pakistanis (likely not terrorists) in cold blood, one of them in the back.

American drone strikes on individuals and groups in the tribal belt of northwestern Pakistan, as well as in Yemen, also typify Washington’s global shadow wars. The United States has 7,000 unmanned aerial vehicles, which it has deployed in strikes in six countries. Both the CIA and the US military operate the drones. Rather than being adjuncts to conventional war, drone strikes are mostly carried out in places where no war has been declared and no Status of Forces Agreement has been signed. They operate outside the framework of the Constitution, with no due process or habeas corpus, recalling premodern practices of the English monarchy, such as declaring people outlaws, issuing bills of attainder against individuals who offend the crown and trying them in secret Star Chamber proceedings.

Despite President Obama’s denials, the Britain-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism has found that not only are civilians routinely killed by US drone strikes in northern Pakistan; often people rushing to the scene of a strike to help the wounded are killed by a second launch. The BIJ estimates that the United States has killed on the order of 3,000 people in 319 drone strikes, some 600 of them civilian bystanders and 174 of those, children. Some 84 percent of all such strikes were launched after Obama came to office.

Moreover, the drone operations are classified. When asked about strikes, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refuses to confirm or deny that they have occurred. The drones cannot be openly debated in Congress or covered in any detail by the US media. Therefore, they cannot be the subject of a national political debate, except in the abstract. The Congressional intelligence committees are briefed on the program, but it is unlikely that any serious checks and balances can operate in so secret and murky a realm, and the committees’ leaders have complained about the inadequacy of the information they are given. No hearing could be called about them, since the drone strikes cannot be publicly confirmed. Classified operations create gods, above the law.

* * *

The WikiLeaks State Department cables reveal that Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh secretly authorized US drone strikes, pledging to take the blame from their angry publics. But a private conversation with a single leader, repeatedly denied thereafter in public, is hardly a treaty. The only international legal doctrine (recognized in the United Nations charter) invoked to justify drone strikes is the right of the United States to defend itself from attack. But it cannot be demonstrated that any drone strike victims had attacked, or were in a position to attack, the United States. Other proposed legal justifications also falter.

The doctrine of “hot pursuit” does not apply in Yemen or Somalia, and often does not apply in Pakistan, either. The only due process afforded those killed from the air is an intelligence assessment, possibly based on dubious sources and not reviewed by a judge. Those targeted are typically alleged to belong to Al Qaeda, the Taliban or some kindred group, and apparently thought to fall under the mandate of the September 14, 2001, Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force by the president against those behind the September 11 attacks and those who harbored them. The AUMF could probably legitimately be applied to Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Al Qaeda faction, which still plots against the United States. But a new generation of Muslim militants has arisen, far too young to be implicated in 9/11 and who may have rethought that disastrous strategy.

Increasingly, moreover, “Al Qaeda” is a vague term somewhat arbitrarily applied by Washington to regional groups involved in local fundamentalist politics, as with the Partisans of Sharia, the Yemeni militants who have taken over the city of Zinjibar, or expatriate Arab supporters in Pakistan of the Haqqani network of Pashtun fighters — former allies of the United States in their struggle against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. How long will the AUMF be deployed in the Muslim world to authorize cowboy tactics from the skies? There is no consistency, no application of the rule of law. Guilt by association and absence of due process are the hallmarks of shadow government. In September the Obama administration used a drone to kill a US citizen in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki. But since the Supreme Court had already ruled, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), that the AUMF could not authorize military tribunals for Guantánamo detainees that sidestepped civil due process — and since the subsequent Military Commissions Act of 2006 allows such tribunals only for aliens — it is hard to see how Awlaki’s right to a trial could be summarily abrogated. Two weeks after he was killed, his 16-year-old son, also a US citizen and less obviously a menace to the superpower, was also killed by a drone.

By contrast, the United States and its allies are sanguine about a figure like the Libyan Abdel Hakim Belhadj, now in charge of security in Tripoli, who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union and was later held in US black sites. Released, he emerged as a rebel leader in Libya last year. The circumstantial case against him would easily allow a US drone strike on him even now under the current rules, but he was rehabilitated because of his enmity toward Muammar el-Qaddafi.

* * *

Among the greatest dangers to American citizens from Washington’s shadow power is “blowback,” the common term for a covert operation that boomerangs on its initiator. Arguably, the Reagan administration marked a turning point in the history of US infatuation with shadow power. Reagan strong-armed King Fahd of Saudi Arabia into providing funds to the right-wing Contras in Nicaragua, and the president developed his own resources for the Contras by illegally selling weapons to Iran (despite its being on the terrorist watch list and ineligible for such sales). Washington also joined Fahd in giving billions of dollars of arms and aid to the fundamentalist mujahedeen in Afghanistan (“freedom fighters,” Reagan called them, “the equivalent of America’s founding fathers”), where Arab volunteers ultimately coalesced into Al Qaeda. They later used the tradecraft they had absorbed from CIA-trained Afghan colleagues to stage operations in the Middle East against US allies and to carry out the 9/11 attacks. Two allied groups that received massive aid from the Reagan administration became among the deadliest US enemies in Afghanistan after 2002: the Haqqani network and the Hizb-i-Islami. Blowback goes hand in hand with covert operations.

The use of mercenaries and black units by the US government undermines discipline, lawfulness and a strong and consistent chain of command. Regular armies can be deployed and then demobilized, but Al Qaeda-like networks, once created, cannot be rolled up so easily, and they often turn against former allies. Black intelligence and military operations with virtually no public oversight can easily go rogue.

Reagan’s shadow government was a disaster, but it was a pygmy compared with Obama’s. Americans will have to be prepared for much more blowback to come if we go on like this — not to mention further erosion of civil liberties at home, as the shadow government reaches back toward us from abroad. (Electronic surveillance without a warrant and the militarization of our police forces are cases in point.) Moreover, the practices associated with the shadow government, because of the rage they provoke, deepen mistrust of Washington and reduce the international cooperation that the United States, like all countries, needs. The shadow government masquerades as a way to keep the United States strong, but if it is not rolled back, it could fatally weaken American diplomacy.


Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and the director of the Center for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. His latest book, Engaging the Muslim World, is available in a revised paperback edition from Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the Informed Comment website.

Copyright © 2012 The Nation – distributed by Agence Global

Stories by Juan Cole

Juan Cole is a professor of history at the University of Michigan and maintains the popular blog Informed Comment.

How America Went Rogue: What We All Need to Know About Our Government’s Shadow Wars

Posted on Apr 22, 2012, Source: The Nation

Reagan’s shadow government was a disaster, but it was a pygmy compared with Obama’s.

Why Washington’s Iran Policy Could Lead to Global Disaster

Posted on Apr 12, 2012, Source: TomDispatch.com

What history should teach us about blockading Iran.

10 Catholic Teachings Conservatives Reject While Obsessing About Birth Control

Posted on Feb 13, 2012, Source: JuanCole.com

Santorum and Gingrich are both Catholics, and wear their faith on their sleeves, but they are hypocritical in picking and choosing when they wish to listen to the bishops.

How Students Landed on the Front Lines of Class War

Posted on Nov 23, 2011, Source: Truthdig

University students find themselves victimized by the same neoliberal agenda that has created the current economic crisis.

What Norway’s Terrorist Has in Common With the American Tea Party and Right Wing

Posted on Jul 24, 2011, Source: Informed Comment

Why seeing the world in black and white is so dangerous.

Police Downloading Your Data off Your Phone After Pulling You Over — A Nightmare Reality

Posted on Apr 20, 2011, Source: Truthdig

Obama is siding with police who want to use GPS devices to track you without a warrant.

Was the West’s Intervention in Libya Justified?

Posted on Mar 29, 2011, Source: Democracy Now!

Juan Cole defends the use of force to aid the Libyan rebel movement. Professor Prashad warns the US has involved itself in a decades-long internal Libyan struggle.

An Open Letter to the Left on Libya: Why Intervention in Libya Is a Good Thing

Posted on Mar 29, 2011, Source: JuanCole.com

Juan Cole: “I am unabashedly cheering the liberation movement on, and glad that the UNSC-authorized intervention has saved them from being crushed.”

Uprisings in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt — America Is Paying the Price for Supporting Corrupt Dictatorships in the Muslim World

Posted on Jan 25, 2011, Source: TomDispatch.com

Paranoia about Muslim fundamentalist movements and terrorism is causing Washington to make bad choices that will ultimately harm American interests and standing abroad.

Tunisian Revolution Shakes and Inspires Middle East

Posted on Jan 19, 2011, Source: Truthdig

Every state and movement in the Middle East is reading into the events in Tunisia its own anxieties and aspirations.

WikiLeaks: Israel Plans Total War on Lebanon, Gaza

Posted on Jan 3, 2011, Source: Informed Comment

The Israeli military is planning out massive bombings of areas full of innocent civilians.

Afghanistan: Obscenely Well-Funded, But Largely Unsuccessful War Rages on Out of Sight of the American Public

Posted on Nov 18, 2010, Source: Truthdig

That there has been heavy fighting in Afghanistan this fall would come as a surprise to most Americans. 10 NATO troops were killed this past Saturday and Sunday alone.

Asian Powers Are Starting to Call the Shots, and the US Can’t Do Anything About It

Posted on Nov 11, 2010, Source: TomDispatch.com

Just how weakened the United States has been in Asia is easily demonstrated by the series of rebuffs its overtures have suffered from regional powers.

Harvard Professor’s Shocking Proposal: Starve the Palestinians in Gaza into Having Fewer Babies

Posted on Feb 26, 2010, Source: JuanCole.com

At a recent conference, Prof. Martin Kramer called for population growth in the Muslim world to be restrained and made a series of other outrageous claims.

The Ten Worst Nightmares Bush Inflicted on America

Posted on Dec 22, 2009, Source: Informed Comment

Here are my picks for the top ten worst things about the wretched period, which will continue to follow us until citizens stand up to fix them.

100 Years of Imperial Paranoia About the Pashtuns

Posted on Jul 28, 2009, Source: TomDispatch.com

The doomsday rhetoric in Washington over lightly settled, mountainous Pashtun tribal lands is strikingly similar to that of the British Empire.

Let’s Hope India Doesn’t React Like We Did to 9/11

Posted on Dec 2, 2008, Source: Outlook India

The choices India makes now about the threat of terrorism will help determine what kind of superpower it will be.

Forget the Surge — Violence Is Down in Iraq Because Ethnic Cleansing Was Brutally Effective

Posted on Jul 29, 2008, Source: JuanCole.com

The bloodbath in Baghdad has resulted in fewer ethnically mixed neighborhoods, leading to the recent drop in violence.

Juan Cole — Iraq Civil War Round-Up

Posted on Mar 28, 2008, Source: Informed Comment

The latest, as violence flares up across Iraq.

Iraq’s Three Civil Wars

Posted on Mar 6, 2008, Source: MIT Center for International Studies

There are three major conflicts in Iraq — and the U.S. is virtually powerless to stop them.

New Iraqi Law on Baath Worries Ex-Baathists

Posted on Jan 14, 2008, Source: Informed Comment

The passage of the new law will be hailed by the War party as a major achievement. But as usual they’re misreading what really happened.

Romney: Some Beliefs are More Equal than Others

Posted on Dec 9, 2007, Source: Informed Comment

Romney’s “landmark” speech didn’t follow in Kennedy’s footsteps — it was the antithesis of JFK’s call for religious tolerance.

Iraq Oil Bonanza for Hunt; Displacement, Hunger, Alcoholism, Addiction for Iraqis

Posted on Sep 10, 2007, Source: Informed Comment

Texas oil cronies readying to clean up.

Big Lies Surround the Iraq “Surge”

Posted on Sep 1, 2007, Source: Informed Comment

Juan Cole slices and dices the administration’s spin.

Bush and Napoleon Both Believed Their Own Propaganda About a “Greater Middle East”

Posted on Aug 25, 2007, Source: TomDispatch.com

There are times when the resonances of history are positively eerie. The parallels of Napoleon’s occupation of Egypt with Bush’s disaster in Iraq are enough to make you jump out of your chair.

Al-Maliki Declines Turkish Terror Treaty; Kurds Pass Oil Law

Posted on Aug 8, 2007, Source: Informed Comment

Iraqi-Turkish relations are strained, and the Kurds pass an oil law before the national government in Baghdad.

Top Ten Iraq Myths for 2006

Posted on Dec 29, 2006, Source: Informed Comment

Sunnis, Civil War, Sadr and the prospects of ‘victory.’

A Ceasefire Call in Lebanon Bush Can’t Ignore

Posted on Aug 3, 2006, Source: Informed Comment

Shiite leader Ayatollah Sistani’s call for a ceasefire should be heeded, or else the U.S. military mission in Iraq could quickly become untenable.

Hitchens the Warmongering Hacker

Posted on May 5, 2006, Source: AlterNet

Juan Cole chastises Christopher Hitchens and tells warmongers to ‘sit down and shut up.’

Fishing for a Pretext to Squeeze Iran

Posted on Mar 17, 2006, Source: Truthdig

Despite Bush’s new national security report, it’s clear that Iran presents little threat, so the administration must have other motivations.

The Democracy Lie

Posted on Mar 19, 2005, Source: TomPaine.com

President Bush and his supporters are taking credit for spreading freedom across the Middle East. But where changes are genuinely occurring they have nothing to do with the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Elections: A Baby Step

Posted on Feb 2, 2005, Source: Informed Comment

The details behind the ballyhooed elections – that Bush first opposed them and then postponed them for his own benefit – tend to get lost in the media’s boosterism.

The Other Shoe Drops: bin Laden Weighs in

Posted on Oct 30, 2004, Source: Informed Comment

In a new video, bin Laden indicts Bush for still hiding the truth from Americans, saying that the reasons for attacking the U.S. are still there. In other words, Bush has not made us safer.

The New and Improved Iraq

Posted on Jun 28, 2004, Source: In These Times

The so-called handover is merely a symbolic act that does little to alter the daunting reality on the ground. The only move that could bring real change is the complete withdrawal of the United States.

The Cleric Who Would Be Rousseau

Posted on Jun 10, 2004, Source: TomPaine.com

The man who will determine the shape of the new Iraq is not Iyad Allawi but Shi’ite leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The good news: He’s no Khomeini.

Battle of the Photographs

Posted on May 3, 2004, Source: TomDispatch.com

The problem of war images from Iraq alienating Iraqis and Arabs has dogged the Bush administration from the start of the war. Now, the administration is losing the battle of images with the American public, as well.

The European Union Is an Evil Plan


European Union Treaty of Nice

European Union Treaty of Nice

1986 was a turning point in the history of Europe in which the  Single  European  Act  was  signed  by  EU  governments. The Act was meant for providing  for  the creation of a single market in which people, goods, capital and services can move freely around the EC. But are they the real objectives of transforming the EC to EU?

The Treaty of Nice was signed by European leaders on 26 February 2001 and came into force on 1 February 2003. It amended the Maastricht Treaty (or the Treaty on European Union) and the Treaty of Rome (or the Treaty establishing the European Community).

It was widely accepted that the Treaty of Nice has failed to deal with the basic question of wide-ranging institutional reform, the European Union institutions being widely viewed as overly complicated, and hence the establishment of the European Convention, leading to a new IGC (Intergovernmental Conference) in 2004, was agreed at Nice.

Opponents of the Treaty claimed that it was a “technocratic” rather than “democratic” treaty, which would further diminish the sovereignty of national and regional parliaments, and would further concentrate power into a centralised and unaccountable bureaucracy. They also claimed that five applicant countries could have joined the EU without changing the EU’s rules, and that others could have negotiated on an individual basis; something opponents to the treaty argued would have been to the applicants’ advantage. They also claimed that the Treaty of Nice would create a two-tier EU. Opponents pointed out that leading pro-treaty politicians had admitted if referendums had been held in countries other than Ireland, it would probably have been defeated there as well.

The Commission and the European Parliament were disappointed that the Nice IGC did not adopt many of their proposals for reform of the institutional structure or introduction of new Community powers, such as the appointment of a European Public Prosecutor. The European Parliament threatened to pass a resolution against the Treaty; although it has no formal power of veto, the Italian Parliament threatened that it would not ratify without the European Parliament’s support. However, in the end this did not come to pass and the European Parliament approved the Treaty.

Nationalism and national sovereignty have no place in the new EU which is totally different from the original Treaties  of  Rome of the EC. With such plans it is very obvious that big economies in Europe are the only masters and winners in a vast European superstate.

To Be Part of the Global “WE”? Sell The Arabs! (Turkey’s Policy)


Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu

Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu

This is the very definition of Erdogan’s, and Davutoglu’s, ambitions.

In the recent batch of State Department cables disclosed by WikiLeaks, one scholar was quoted as anointing the Turkish foreign minister “Turkey’s Kissinger,” while in 2004 a secondhand source was quoted as calling him “exceptionally dangerous.” But his abilities, and his worldview, matter because of the country whose diplomacy he drives: an Islamic democracy, a developing nation with a booming economy, a member of NATO with one foot in Europe and the other in Asia. Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a canny, forward-thinking populist who has drastically altered Turkish politics. Erdogan and Davutoglu share a grand vision: a renascent Turkey, expanding to fill a bygone Ottoman imperial space.

Davutoglu is seen as a champion of Turkish greatness.

Henri Barkey, a Turkey scholar at Lehigh University, pronounces his book “Strategic Depth” as“mumbo jumbo,” adding that Davutoglu “thinks of himself as God”.

Foreign Policy magazine ranked him No. 7 in its recent list of “100 Global Thinkers,” writing that under his leadership, “Turkey has assumed an international role not matched since a sultan sat in Istanbul’s Topkapi Palace.”

Davutoğlu is generally linked to the notion of Turkish neo-Ottomanism, which favours a commonwealth with its neighbours and old Ottoman connections. Although his foreign policies have been regarded as neo-Ottomanist by Western and especially U.S. media, Davutoğlu does not accept such a characterization.

One of Davutoglu’s greatest diplomatic achievements was the creation of a visa-free zone linking Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, thus reconstituting part of the old Ottoman space.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

The victory of the moderate Islamist AK party in the 2002 parliamentary elections was a seismic event in Turkey, culturally as well as politically. Turkey had been an aggressively secular republic since its establishment in 1923; Turkey’s Westernized intellectuals, living in the coastal cities, especially Istanbul, looked upon the Islamists as bumpkins from the Anatolian hinterland. “These people came out of nowhere,” as Candar puts it.

On the flight home from Brussels, where he conferred privately with Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and met with his European counterparts, Davutoglu was in an ebullient mood. He feels the wind of history filling his sails. Turkey, the crossroads of civilizations, the land where East and West, North and South, converge, is pointing the way to the world’s future. “Turkey is the litmus test of globalization,” he told me. “Success for Turkey will mean the success of globalization.” The world, as Davutoglu likes to say, expects great things from Turkey.

Young Turks to Permanently Control Middle East


Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston 1784– 1865 (Lord Palmerston)

Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston 1784– 1865 (Lord Palmerston)

Palmerston Launches Young Turks to Permanently Control Middle East

by Joseph Brewda, delivered to the Conference of the Schiller Institute/ICLC Conference in suburban Washington, DC., on President’s Day weekend, 1994. “Solving the Paradox of Current World History

Chorus: It is clear that the B’nai B’rith is an abject tool of British intelligence, run and directed to serve the interests of British imperial policy, and not the interests of Jews, nor even of B’nai B’rith members. The one peculiarity of B’nai B’rith in comparison to the other organizations launched by Palmerston and his three stooges, is that B’nai B’rith will be used for a wider variety of tasks in various countries and epochs. Therefore, the B’nai B’rith will be more permanent in its continuous organization than its Mazzinian counterparts, among which it stands out as the most specialized.

At the end of this century, one of the tasks assigned to the B’nai B’rith will be to direct, with the help of other Mazzinian agents, the dismemberment and partition of the Ottoman Empire. This is the state the British will call “the sick man of Europe.” Historically, the Ottoman Empire offers surprising tolerance to its ethnic minorities. In order to blow up the empire, that will have to be changed into brutal racial oppression on the Mazzini model.

In 1862, during the time of the American Civil War, Mazzini will call on all his agents anywhere near Russia to foment revolt as a way of causing trouble for Alexander II. A bit later, with the help of Young Poland, Mazzini will start a Young Ottoman movement out of an Adam Smith translation project in Paris. In 1876, the Young Ottomans will briefly seize power in Constantinople. They will end a debt moratorium, pay off the British, declare free trade, and bring in Anglo-French bankers. They will be quickly overthrown; but the same network will soon make a comeback as the Young Turks, whose rule will finally destroy the Ottoman Empire.

In 1908, the Committee for Union and Progress, better known as the Young Turks, carried out a military coup, overthrew the sultan, and took power in the Ottoman Turkish empire. Once in power, they carried out a racist campaign of suppressing all non-Turkish minorities. Within four years, their anti-minority campaigns provoked the Balkan wars of 1912-13, among Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia. By 1914, these wars had triggered World War I, with Turkey becoming an ally of Germany.

Within seven years of coming into power, the Young Turks destroyed the Ottoman Empire. British intelligence had manipulated every nationalist group in the Empire, both the Young Turks, and their opponents.

When the Young Turks took power, the Ottoman Empire still included Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, and the Arabian Peninsula. The empire still included much of the Balkans: half of Greece, half of Bulgaria, half of Serbia, and all of Albania. Its land area was much bigger than present-day Turkey.

Although most of the population of the Ottoman empire were Turks, there were also large numbers of Slavs, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, and Kurds. The Ottoman empire was a multi-ethnic empire, as were the nearby Austrian and Russian empires.

The Young Turks came to power waving the banner of democracy, but they soon picked up the banner of pan-Turkism. The idea was to form a state that included all the Turkic peoples of Asia. Since half of these people lived in Russia, this policy meant a collision with Russia.

But pan-Turkism was not created by the Young Turks or even in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1860s by a Hungarian Zionist named Arminius Vambery, who had become an adviser to the sultan, but who secretly worked for Lord Palmerston and the British Foreign Office. Vambery later tried to broker a deal between the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl and the sultan, over the creation of Israel.

The Young Turks also raised the banner of a pan-Islamic state. The idea was to bring all the Muslim peoples of the world into one empire, whether or not they were Turkish. This was another goal that meant conflict with Russia.

This idea was also not created by the Young Turks or in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1870s by an English nobleman named Wilfred Blunt, whose family had created the Bank of England. Blunt was a top British intelligence official who advocated using Islam to destroy Russia. Blunt’s family later patronized the British KGB spy “Kim” Philby.

While the Young Turks were pushing the pan-Turkic and pan-Islamic movements, the British were also boosting all the anti-Turkish independence movements within the empire. They were supporting Arab nationalism, led by Lawrence of Arabia. They were supporting Serbian nationalism, led by the British agent Seton-Watson; Albanian nationalism, led by Lady Dunham; and Bulgarian nationalism, led by Noel Buxton. All of these peoples wanted to break free from the Ottoman Empire; but they also claimed the land of their neighbors.

For example, the British supported the idea of carving a “Greater Armenia” out of Turkey, Iran, and Russia. This “Greater Armenia” had no possibility of existing. None of the Great Powers, including Britain, really wanted it. The Kurds, who lived in the same area, didn’t want it. But the British told the Armenians they supported their plans.

At the same time, the British were also telling the Kurds they supported the idea of “Greater Kurdistan.” As the map shows, the proposed territories of “Greater Kurdistan” and “Greater Armenia” were almost identical.

In 1915, during World War I, the Kurds killed about 1 million Armenians. The Young Turks, who had been put in power by the British, used the Kurds (who thought they had the support of the British) to slaughter the Armenians (who also thought they had the support of the British). The British then used this genocide as a justification for trying to eliminate Turkey.

In fact, the next year, the British and French got together to plan the division of the Ottoman Empire between themselves. According to the plan, which only partially worked, Turkey itself would be reduced to a tiny area on the Black Sea. The rest of the empire would go to Britain and France.

B’nai B’rith and the Young Turks

But who were these “Young Turks,” who so efficiently destroyed the empire?
The founder of the Young Turks was an Italian B’nai B’rith official named Emmanuel Carasso. Carasso set up the Young Turk secret society in the 1890s in Salonika, then part of Turkey, and now part of Greece. Carasso was also the grand master of an Italian masonic lodge there, called “Macedonia Resurrected.” The lodge was the headquarters of the Young Turks, and all the top Young Turk leadership were members.

The Italian masonic lodges in the Ottoman Empire had been set up by a follower of Giuseppe Mazzini named Emmanuel Veneziano, who was also a leader of B’nai B’rith’s European affiliate, the Universal Israelite Alliance.

During the Young Turk regime, Carasso continued to play a leading role. He met with the sultan, to tell him that he was overthrown. He was in charge of putting the sultan under house arrest. He ran the Young Turk intelligence network in the Balkans. And he was in charge of all food supplies in the empire during World War I.

(more…)

Islamist Western Secret Societies of Turkey


Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

 

Turkey May Set up Buffer zone at Syrian Border! This is a further step of  aggression against Syria.

Turkey which is now ruled by an Islamist government is a very active member of NATO; desperately aspiring for EU membership; involved in fighting different national minorities; close friend to the USA and to puppet Gulf Arab states; ambitious seeker for greater geopolitical regional role; leader of Pan-Islamism is definitely controlled by secret societies; a tunnel for arming and funding Jihadists in Minor Asia bordering Russia and now the spearhead for western regimes changes in Libya; Syria and Egypt.

This government of Turkey is playing very dangerous games far much bigger than their actual size. They are being assisted by the west to improve their economy and win naive populist support inside Turkey. They have been given the green light to form a pro-western regional block and architect favorable changes in the Middle East.

The enemies of this government in Turkey are the same enemies of the USA and the west who are: Russia, Iran; and nationalist movements.

All that being done under pretenses from the west and from their Turkish partner of protecting “civilians” and bringing “Democracy”; while actually this is an international campaign of state-sponsored terrorism.

The RAND Corporation: America’s University of Imperialism


RAND Corporation (Research ANd Development)

RAND Corporation (Research ANd Development)

By Chalmers Johnson, TomDispatch.com

[This essay is a review written by Chalmers Ashby Johnson for the book: Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire by Alex Abella]

The RAND Corporation of Santa Monica, California, was set up immediately after World War II by the U.S. Army Air Corps (soon to become the U.S. Air Force). The Air Force generals who had the idea were trying to perpetuate the wartime relationship that had developed between the scientific and intellectual communities and the American military, as exemplified by the Manhattan Project to develop and build the atomic bomb.

Soon enough, however, RAND became a key institutional building block of the Cold War American Empire. As the premier think tank for the U.S.’s role as hegemon of the Western world, RAND was instrumental in giving that empire the militaristic cast it retains to this day and in hugely enlarging official demands for atomic bombs, nuclear submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and long-range bombers. Without RAND, our military-industrial complex, as well as our democracy, would look quite different.

Alex Abella, the author of Soldiers of Reason, is a Cuban-American living in Los Angeles who has written several well-received action and adventure novels set in Cuba and a less successful nonfiction account of attempted Nazi sabotage within the United States during World War II. The publisher of his latest book claims that it is “the first history of the shadowy think tank that reshaped the modern world.” Such a history is long overdue. Unfortunately, this book does not exhaust the demand. We still need a less hagiographic, more critical, more penetrating analysis of RAND’s peculiar contributions to the modern world.

Abella has nonetheless made a valiant, often revealing and original effort to uncover RAND’s internal struggles — not least of which involved the decision of analyst Daniel Ellsberg, in 1971, to leak the Department of Defense’s top secret history of the Vietnam War, known as The Pentagon Papers to Congress and the press. But Abella’s book is profoundly schizophrenic. On the one hand, the author is breathlessly captivated by RAND’s fast-talking economists, mathematicians, and thinkers-about-the-unthinkable; on the other hand, he agrees with Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis’s assessment in his book, The Cold War: A New History, that, in promoting the interests of the Air Force, RAND concocted an “unnecessary Cold War” that gave the dying Soviet empire an extra 30 years of life.

We need a study that really lives up to Abella’s subtitle and takes a more jaundiced view of RAND’s geniuses, Nobel prize winners, egghead gourmands and wine connoisseurs, Laurel Canyon swimming pool parties, and self-professed saviors of the Western world. It is likely that, after the American empire has gone the way of all previous empires, the RAND Corporation will be more accurately seen as a handmaiden of the government that was always super-cautious about speaking truth to power. Meanwhile, Soldiers of Reason is a serviceable, if often overwrought, guide to how strategy has been formulated in the post-World War II American Empire.

(more…)

US Debt in Graphs and Charts


Political Party Responsibility in US Debt 1901-2009

Political Party Responsibility in US Debt 1901-2009

Composition of U.S. Long-Term Treasury Debt 2005-2010

Composition of U.S. Long-Term Treasury Debt 2005-2010

(more…)

The Nameless War: Contineous International Thuggery


[The following article is a horrendous indictment of history and the political and education systems of the western world. It opens a pandora’s box of betrayal of “a nation’s people” – but which nation?

Archibald Ramsay Author of the Nameless War

Captain Archibald Henry Maule Ramsay

However, the material is presented in the public interest as an outline of the thuggery being perpetrated by those who would see themselves as world masters in the so-called New World Order being implemented by the puppet regime known as the United Nations. The material in itself shows that the NWO is far from being NEW, but in fact, is more a continuing domination of “greedy egomaniacs” who aspire to something they cannot be in any other way – than by subversion, corruption and perversion.

If you read on (the article because of it’s size has been serialized over a number of editions.) you will see that it is not just one country but many countries that have been ‘pulverized and brutalized’ by many who are far from what they appear to be.

Recently in England (1993) the Chancellor of the Ex-Chequer, Mr. Lamont, resigned from the position and said words to this affect in a TV interview; “it is impossible to continue in a parliament which in fact is controlled by unseen hands” …

Amazingly, some one hundred and fifty years earlier, in 1844, much the same words were used – by a former Prime Minister of England, Mr. Benjamin Disraeli, allegedly a “damped”, or baptized Jew, published his novel, Coningsby, in which occurs this ominous passage:-

“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”.]

These are the introduction of an article submitted by wmfinck on Sat, 2011-12-31 and was published at The Saxon Messenger. (A Side of History not seen in the History books)

It is bringing to light the extremely important book written by Captain A.H.M. Ramsay (Archibald Henry Maule Ramsay) in 1952. The book title is: The Nameless War.

This article is just an introduction to this very small but very packed with facts and analyses. It is a must read for those who want to understand the New World Order, major European wars and “revolutions” and the current world affairs.

Captain A.H.M. Ramsay (4 May 1894 – 11 March 1955) was a British Army officer who later went into politics as a Scottish Unionist Member of Parliament (MP). He was educated at Eton and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and served with the 2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards in the First World War until he was severely wounded in 1916 – thereafter at Regimental H.Q. and the War Office and the British War Mission in Paris until the end of the war.
From 1920 he became a Member of H.M. Scottish Bodyguard.

In 1931 he was elected a Member of Parliament for Midlothian and Peeblesshire. Arrested under Regulation 18b on the 23rd May, 1940, he was detained, without charge or trial, in a cell in Brixton Prison until the 26th September, 1944. On the following morning he resumed his seat in the House of Commons and remained there until the end of that Parliament in 1945.

Captain A.H.M. Ramsay began his book with these words:
[To the memory of those Patriots who in 1215 at Runnymede signed Magna Carta and those who in 1320 at Arbroath signed the Declaration of Independence this book is dedicated. 27th July 1952.

The Contents of the book:
Prologue
1.The British Revolution
2. The French Revolution
3. The Russian Revolution
4. Development of Revoutionary Technique
5. Germany Bells The Cat
6. 1933: Jewry Declares War
7. “Phoney War” Ended By Civilian Bombing
8. Dunkirk And After
9. The Shape Of Things To Come
10. President Roosevelt’s Role
11. Regulation 18B
12. Who Dares?
Epilogue
Appendixes

PROLOGUE

Edward I banished the Jews from England for many grave offences endangering the welfare of his realm and lieges, which were to a great extent indicated in the Statutes of Jewry, enacted by his Parliament in 1290, the Commons playing a prominent part.

The King of France very shortly followed suit, as did other Rulers in Christian Europe. So grave did the situation for the Jews in Europe
become, that an urgent appeal for help and advice was addressed by them to the Sanhedrin, then located at Constantinople.

This appeal was sent over the signature of Chemor, Rabbi of Arles in Provence, on the 13th January, 1489. The reply came in November, 1489, which was issued over the signature of V.S.S. V.F.F. Prince of the Jews. It advised the Jews of Europe to adopt the tactics of the Trojan Horse; to make their sons Christian priests, lawyers, doctors, etc., and work to destroy the Christian structure from within.

The first notable repercussion to this advice occurred in Spain in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella. Many Jews were by then enrolled as Christians, but remaining secretly Jews were working to destroy the Christian church in Spain. So grave became the menace finally, that the Inquisition was instituted in an endeavour to cleanse the country from these conspirators.

Once again the Jews were compelled to commence an exodus from yet another country, whose hospitality they had abused. Trekking eastwards, these Jews joined other Jewish communities in western Europe; considerable numbers flowed on to Holland and Switzerland. From now on these two countries were to become active centres of  Jewish intrigue. Jewry, however, has always needed a powerful seafaring nation to which to attach itself.

Great Britain, newly united under James I, was a rising naval power, which was already beginning to sway the four corners of the discovered world. Here also there existed a wonderful field for disruptive criticism; for although it was a Christian kingdom, yet it was one most sharply divided as between Protestant and Catholic. A campaign for exploiting this division and fanning hatreds between the Christian communities was soon in process of organization.

How well the Jews succeeded in this campaign in Britain may be judged from the fact that one of the earliest acts of their creature and hireling Oliver Cromwell – after executing the King according to plan – was to allow the Jews free access to England once more.

CHAPTER 1 – THE BRITISH REVOLUTION (1688)

“It was fated that England should be the first of a series of Revolutions, which is not yet finished.”]

Readers are advised to read the 12 small chapters at The Saxon Messenger , or download a full free copy from The Internet Archive.

(There are two versions at the Archive. The first published by Britons Publishing Company (106 pages) which warns readers from severely  truncated  and  heavily censored copies.
The second version at the Archive is of 36-pages and less popular)

Operation Sarkozy (Mr Sarkozy and the CIA)


Based on Thierry Meyssan’s “Operation Sarkozy” Robert Thompson wrote at Axis of Logic on July 18, 2008 warning the world and particularly the Arabs, more than three years ago, from eminent dangers which we can see them clearly now in regime change in Ivory Coast, Libya, and the so-called “Arab Spring”:

[A most interesting study dated 14th July 2008 by Thierry Meyssan, entitled Operation Sarkozy, has been brought to my attention on how the CIA managed to place one of its agents, namely Mr Nicolas Sarkozy, as president of the French Republic.

To make his point, Mr Meyssan does not content himself with vague conjecture, but puts together check-able facts relating to the relationship between our President and the CIA (the well-known terrorist organisation financed by the tax-payers in the USA), and the USA establishment in general, with a view to ensuring that French policy should be dramatically re-aligned to serve the interests of the present USA administration (not, of course, the people of the USA).

The links between various arms of the USA establishment and Mr Sarkozy are much closer than I could ever have imagined, although I was aware of a fair number of the facts reported and examined by Mr Meyssan. I had not however thought, and this is indeed my own fault, how closely these links tie up with other links with groups on both sides of the Atlantic allied, or similar, to the Mafia and other conspiratorial bodies based in Italy and neighbouring states as well as being well entrenched in the USA.

Acceptance of the arguments put forward by Mr Meyssan serves to explain many of the otherwise seemingly inexplicable decisions made by Mr Sarkozy since he took over from Jacques Chirac in 2007, as well as giving very personal private reasons (previously totally unknown to me, but then I am not a fan of the gossip columns) for the obvious dislike, and perhaps even hatred, which Mr Chirac has for his successor.

This article should be read by everyone as the implications are extremely serious for the future of the world. I make this claim not because France is still a great power — it is not and most of us recognise this — but it shows a more subtle means of achieving a coup d’etat than using military or other violent means.  Mr Meyssan very carefully tracks the whole story of Mr Sarkozy’s rise within the ranks of the successive parties which have claimed to be “Gaulliste” (as following the broad lines of policy laid down by the General, later President, but many of us still think of him as the great leader during the Second World War from 1940 onwards). It is a tale of most cunning duplicity supported by hyper-intelligent backing from within the USA establishment.

If the conclusions reached by Mr Meyssan are correct, and I can see no reason to doubt his analysis of the facts, then Mr Sarkozy is even more dangerous than he has so far appeared to be, and the poor and the oppressed can expect to suffer almost anywhere in the world from his actions on behalf of his masters in the USA. The Arab world, above all others, can expect to be the victim of highly sophisticated concerted trickery as he does everything that he can to crush any moves which the people may try to make towards freedom from tyranny, wherever such moves might in any way limit the greedy ambitions of those who rule the USA.

Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com]

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a “live link” to the article. Thank you!

The article in question was written by Thierry Meyssan on July 14, 2004.  It was translated for Axis of Logic from French to English by Robert Thompson and was published on Red Ice Creations (a news website and radio program, hosted by founder, filmmaker and researcher Henrik Palmgren.) The following is this translation:

How the CIA planted one of its agents as President of the French Republic

Nicolas Sarkozy

Nicolas Sarkozy should be judged on his actions and not on his personality. But when his actions surprise even his own electors, it is legitimate to examine in detail his biography and to ask about the alliances which brought him to power. Thierry Meyssan decided to write the truth about the origins of the President of the French Republic. All the information contained in this article is verifiable, with the exception of two imputations, pointed out by the author who assumes sole responsibility for them.

The French people, weary of the over-long presidencies of François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac, elected Nicolas Sarkozy and counted on his energy to revitalise their country. They hoped for a break with the years of immobilism and superannuated ideologies. They have had a break with the principles which form the foundation of the French nation. They have been stupefied by this “hyper president”, every day grabbing hold of another new file, drawing the right and the left to him, thus disposing of all the land-marks to the point of creating complete confusion.

Like children who have just done something very stupid, the French are too busy finding excuses to admit the extent of the damage and of their naïvety. This makes them refuse all the more to see who Nicolas Sarkozy is, which they ought to have realised long ago.

The man is clever. Like an illusionist, he has diverted their attention by offering them his private life as a spectacle and in posing in celebrity magazines, to the point of making them overlook his political history.

Let the sense of this article be fully understood: it is not to reproach Mr Sarkozy with his links of family, friends and professional contacts, but to reproach him with having hidden his links from the French people who believed that they were electing a free man.

To understand how a man in whom all agree they see an agent of the United States and Israel has been able to become the head of the Gaullist party, then the President of the French Republic, one must go back in time. Far back. We must follow a long digression during which we shall introduce the protagonists who are today taking their revenge.

Family secrets
At the end of the Second World War, the USA secret services counted on the Italo-US godfather Lucky Luciano to control the security of American ports and to prepare the allied landings in Sicily.

Luciano’s contacts with the US services passed above all through Frank Wisner Sr. then, when the ‘godfather’ was freed and went into exile in Italy, through his Corsican ‘ambassador’, Étienne Léandri.

In 1958, the United States, worried about a possible victory of the FLN in Algeria which would have opened North Africa to Soviet influence, decided to give rise to a military coup d’état in France. The operation was organised jointly by the Planning Direction of the CIA – in theory run by Frank Wisner Sr.- and by NATO. But Wisner had already sunk into dementia so that it was his successor, Allan Dulles, who supervised the action. From Algiers, the French Generals formed a Committee of Public Safety which exerted pressure on the civil government in Paris and forced it to give full powers to General De Gaulle without any need to use force.

However, Charles De Gaulle was not the pawn whom the Anglo-Saxons believed they could manipulate. To start with, he tried to find a way out of the colonial contradiction by giving wide autonomy to the overseas territories within a French Union. But it was already too late to save the French Empire since the colonised peoples did not believe in the promises from the metropolis and insisted on their independence. After having successfully led fierce campaigns of repression against the independentists, De Gaulle realised what had to be done. Showing rare political wisdom, he decided to give each colony its independence.

This U-turn was seen as a betrayal by most of those who brought him to power. The CIA and NATO then backed all sorts of plots to get rid of him, including a failed putsch and some forty attempts to assassinate him. However, some of his partisans approved of his political evolution. Around Charles Pasqua, they formed the SAC, a militia to protect him.

Pasqua is both a Corsican crook and a former member of the resistance. He married the daughter of a Canadian bootlegger who made a fortune during prohibition. He ran the Ricard company which, after having dealt in absinthe, a forbidden drink, made itself respectable by selling anisette. However, the company continued to serve as a cover for all sorts of deals in relation with the Italo-New Yorker Genovese family, that of Lucky Luciano. It was therefore not surprising that Pasqua called on Étienne Léandri (Luciano’s “ambassador”) to recruit strong arm men and build up a Gaullist militia. A third man played an important role in the formation of the SAC, De Gaulle’s former body-guard, Achille Peretti -another Corsican.

Thus protected, De Gaulle drew up with panache a policy of national independence. While confirming that he belonged to the Atlantic camp, he questioned the Anglo-Saxon leadership. He objected to the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Common Market (1961 and 1967); he refused the deployment of UNO blue helmets in the Congo (1961); he encouraged Latin American states to break free of US imperialism (speech in Mexico, 1964); he expelled NATO from France and withdrew form the Integrated Command Structure of the Atlantic Alliance (1966); he denounced the Viet-Nam War (speech in Phnon Penh, 1966); he condemned Israeli expansionism during the Six Day War (1967); he supported the independence of Quebec (speech in Montreal 1967) ; etc…

At the same time, De Gaulle consolidated France’s power by giving it a military-industrial complex including a nuclear dissuasion force, and by guaranteeing its supply of energy. He usefully separated the troublesome Corsicans from his entourage by giving them overseas missions. Thus Étienne Léandri became the dealer for the Elf group (now Total), while Charles Pasqua became the confidant of the heads of state in French-speaking Africa.

Aware that he could now defy the Anglo-Saxons everywhere at the same time, De Gaulle allied himself with the Rothschild family. He chose as Prime Minister the Director of the Bank, Georges Pompidou. The two men formed an efficient tandem. The political audacity of the first never lost sight of the economic realism of the second.

When De Gaulle resigned, in 1969, Georges Pompidou briefly succeeded him as President before being carried off by cancer. The historical Gaullists did not accept his leadership and were worried by his excessively anglophile attitude. They cried treason when Pompidou, seconded by the Secretary General of the Elyse Eduard Balladur, allowed “perfidious Albion” into the European Common Market.

The making of Nicolas Sarkozy
Having thus described the background, let us come back to our principal personage, Nicolas Sarkozy. Born in 1955, he was the son of a Hungarian nobleman, Pal Sarkösy de Nagy-Bocsa, who fled to France after fleeing the Red Army, and Andrée Mallah, a Jewish lady from Sallonica. After having had three children (Guillaume, Nicolas and François), the couple divorced. Pal Sarkösy de Nagy-Bocsa remarried with an aristocrat, Christine de Ganay, by whom he had two children (Pierre-Olivier and Caroline). Nicolas was not brought up by his parents alone, but passed to and fro in this recomposed family.

His mother became the Secretary of Achille Peretti. After having co-founded the SAC, De Gaulle’s body-guard had pursued a brilliant political career. He was elected Député and Mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine, the richest suburb of the capital, then President of the National Assembly.

Unhappily, in 1972, Achille Peretti was subject to serious accusations. In the United States, the magazine Time revealed the existence of a secret Corsican criminal organisation the ‘Union corse ‘ which was said to control a large share of the traffic in drugs between Europe and America, the famous “French connection” which Hollywood brought to the screen. Based on parliamentary hearings and its own investigations, Time quoted the name of a Mafia boss, Jean Venturi, arrested some years earlier in Canada, who was no other than the commercial representative of Charles Pasqua for the drinks company Ricard. The names of several families were mentioned who were said to run the “Union corse”, including the Perettis. Achille denied this, but had to resign from the presidency of the National Assembly and even escaped from a “suicide”.

In 1977, Pal Sarközy separated from his second wife, Christine de Ganay, who then linked herself with the number two of the central administration of the Department of State in the United States. She married him and set up home with him in America. The world being small, as is well known, her husband was no other than Frank Wisner Jr., the son of the previous one. The functions of Junior at the CIA are not known, but it was clear that he had an important role there. Nicolas, who remained close to his step-mother, his half-brother and his half-sister, began to turn towards the United States where he “benefitted” from training programmes in the Department of State.

At the same time, Nicolas Sarkozy joined the Gaullist Party. He there met and had contacts with Charles Pasqua more speedily as he was not only a national leader, but also in charge of the local section in the Hauts-de-Seine.

In 1982, Nicolas Sarkozy, having completed his legal training and having been called to the Bar, married Achilles Pretty’s niece. His best man was Charles Pasqual. As an Avocet, Maître Sarkozy looked after the interests of the Corsican friends of his mentors. He bought a property in Corsica, at Vice, and thought of making his name more Corsican by replacing the ‘y’ with an ‘I’: Sarkozy.

The following year, he was elected Mayor of Neuilly-sure-Seine in the place of his uncle-in-law, Achilles Pretty, stricken by a heart attack.

However, Nicolas did not take long to betray his wife and, from 1984 onward, he had a hidden liaison with Cecilia, the wife of the most famous French television personality at the time, Jacques Martin, whom he had met when celebrating their marriage as Mayor of Neuilly. This double life lasted for five years, before the lovers left their respective spouses to set up a new household.

Nicolas was a witness at the marriage, in 1992, of Jacques Chirac’s daughter, Claude, to an editorialist at Le Figaro. he could not stop himself from seducing Claude and to have a brief affair with her, while living officially with Cecilia. The betrayed husband committed suicide by taking drugs. The break between the Chirac’s and Nicolas Sarkozy was brutal and permanent.

In 1993, the left lost the parliamentary elections. President François Mitterrand refused to resign and entered into a cohabitation with a Prime Minister from the right, Jacques Chirac. His ambition was to become President and thought of then forming a tandem with Eduard Balladur comparable with that of De Gaulle and Pompidou, and he refused to be Prime Minister again and left the place to his “friend for over thirty years”, Eduard Balladur. Despite his dubious past, Charles Pasqual became Minister of the Interior. Even if he kept a firm grip Moroccan marijuana, he took advantage of his position to legalise his other activities by taking control of the casinos, gaming and racing in French-speaking Africa. He also established links in Saudi Arabia and in Israel an became an honorary officer in the Mossad. As for Nicolas Sarkozy, he was Minister of the Budget and government spokesman.

Frank Wisner Jr.

In Washington, Frank Wisner Jr. took over from Paul Wolfowitz as being responsible for political planning in the Defence Department. Nobody commented on the links which he had with the French government’s spokesman.

This was when the tension within the Gaullist Party came back as thirty years earlier between the historic Gaullists and the financial right, in the person of Balladur. The novelty was that Charles Pasqua and with him the young Nicolas Sarkozy betrayed Jacques Chirac to come closer to the Rothschild tendency. Everything went wrong. The conflict reached its peak in 1995 when Édouard Balladur put himself forward against his ex-friend Jacques Chirac for the presidential election, and was beaten. Above all, following the instructions received from London and Washington, the Balladur government opened negotiations for adhesion to the European Union and to NATO of the States in Central and Eastern Europe, freed from Soviet control.

Everything went wrong in the Gaullist Party where the friends of yester-year were ready to kill one another. To finance his electoral campaign, Édouard Balladur tried to get hold of the Gaullist Party’s black funds, hidden within the double accounting system of the oil company Elf. Hardly had the old Étienne Léandri died, when Judges looked into the company and its bosses were incarcerated. But Balladur, Pasqua and Sarkozy never managed to recuperate the booty.

Crossing the desert
Throughout his first term, Jacques Chirac kept Nicolas Sarkozy at a distance. The man became discreet during this long period of crossing the desert. Discreetly, he continued to make links in financial circles.

In 1996, Nicolas Sarkozy having finally managed to end an endless divorce procedure married Cécilia. As witnesses they had the two billionaires Martin Bouygues and Bernard Arnaud (the richest man in the country).

Last act
Well before the Iraq crisis, Frank Wisner Jr. and his colleagues at the CIA were planning the destruction of the Gaullist line and the rise in power of Nicolas Sarkozy. They acted in three stages: firstly the elimination of the leaders of the Gaullist Party and taking over this body, then the elimination of the principal rival on the right and the investiture by the Gaullist Party for the presidential election, and finally the elimination of any serious challenger from the left in order to be sure of carrying off the presidential election.

For years, the media were kept excited by posthumous revelations by a real property speculator. Before dying of a serious illness, he had registered for reasons never made clear a video confession. For even more obscure reasons, the “cassette” fell into the hands of a highly placed member of the Socialist Party, Dominique Strauss-Khan, who passed it on indirectly to the press.

Even if the confessions of the speculator did not lead to any judicial sanction, they opened a Pandora’s box. The principal victim of the successive affairs was to be the Prime Minister Alain Juppé. To protect Chirac, he alone took on all the criminal offences. Putting Juppé out of the way left the way clear for Nicolas Sarkozy to take over the running of the Gaullist Party.

Sarkozy then made use of his position to force Jacques Chirac to take him back into the government, despite their mutual hatred. He was definitively to be the Minister of the Interior. What a mistake! In this post, he controlled the Préfets and the interior intelligence network which he used to put his appointees into the major branches of the administration.

He also dealt with Corsican matters. The Préfet Claude Érignac had been assassinated. Although no-one had claimed it, the murder was immediately interpreted as a challenge made by the independentists to the Republic. After a long hunt, the police managed to arrest a fleeing suspect, Yvan Colonna, the son of a Socialist Député. Without regard for the presumption of innocence, Nicolas Sarkozy announced this arrest accusing the suspect of being the assassin. This news was too good two days before a referendum being organised by the Minister of the Interior in Corsica to modify the status of the Island. However that may be, the voters rejected the Sarkozy project which, according to some, favoured Mafia interests.

Although Yvan Colonna was later found guilty, he has always claimed his innocence and no material evidence has been found against him. Strangely, the man refused to talk, preferring to be found guilty than to reveal what he knows. We here reveal that the Préfet Érignac was not killed by nationalists, but shot by the hit-man, Igor Pecatte, immediately sent off to Angola where he has been taken on by the Elf group. The motive for the crime was closely linked to the previous functions of Érignac, in charge of the African networks of Charles Pasqua at the Ministry of Cooperation. As for Yvan Colonna, he has been a personal friend of Nicolas Sarkozy for many years and their children are in friendly contact with one another.

A new affair came to light: false listings were circulating which untruthfully accused certain personalities of hiding bank accounts in Luxembourg, with Clearstream. Among the personalities defamed: Nicolas Sarkozy. He took the case to court and let it seem that his right-wing rival for the presidential election, the Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, had organised this machination. He did not hide his intention to have him sent to prison. In reality, the false listings were put in circulation by members of the Franco-American Foundation, of which John Negroponte was the President and Frank Wisner Jr. the Director. What the Judges did not know and we reveal here was that the listings were made in London by a joint office of the CIA and the MI6, Hakluyt & Co, of which Frank Wisner Jr. is also Director. Villepin fights back against the accusations, but he is charged, forbidden to leave his home and, de facto, temporarily removed from political life. The way is open for on the right for Nicolas Sarkozy.

It remained necessary to neutralise opposition candidates. The membership dues to the Socialist Party have gone down to a symbolic level to attract new members. Suddenly thousands of young people applied for membership cards. Among them are at least ten thousand new members who are in reality members of the Trotskyite “Lambertist” Party (so called from the name of their founder Pierre Lambert). This small extreme left formation has a history of working for the CIA against the Stalinist communists during the Cold War (it was the equivalent of the SD/USA of Max Shatchman, which formed the neoconservatives in the USA). This was not the first time that the “Lambertists” had infiltrated the Socialist Party.

In particular they planted two famous CIA agents: Lionel Jospin (who became Prime Minister) and Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, the principal adviser to Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Primaries were organised in the Socialist Party to appoint its candidate for the presidential election. Two personalities were competing: Laurent Fabius and Ségolène Royal. Only the first represented a danger for Sarkozy. Dominique Strauss-Kahn became a candidate with the task of eliminating Fabius at the last moment. This he was able to do thanks to the votes of the infiltrated “Lambertist” militants who voted not for him but for Royal. The operation was possible because Strauss-Kahn, of Moroccan Jewish origin, had been on the US payroll for many years. The French were not aware that he lectured at Stanford, where he had been taken on by the Provost of the University, Condoleezza Rice. As soon as he took office, Nicolas Sarkozy and Condoleezza Rice thanked Strauss-Kahn by having him appointed to head the International Monetary Fund.

First days at the Élysée Palace
On the evening of the second round of the presidential election, when the opinion polls announced his probable victory, Nicolas Sarkozy made a short speech to the nation from his campaign HQ. Then, contrary to custom, he did not go to celebrate with the militants of his party, but went to Fouquet’s. The famous restaurant on the Champs-Élysées, which had once been the meeting place for the “Union Corse” now belongs to the casino operator Dominique Desseigne. It was placed at the disposition of the elected President to receive his friends and principal donors to his campaign. A hundred or so guests crowded in, the richest men in France were there with the casino bosses.

Then the elected President allowed himself a few days of earned rest. Taken there in a private Falcon-900 to Malta, he rested there on the Paloma, the 65 metre yacht of his friend Vincent Bolloré, a billionaire formed at the Banque Rothschild.

Finally, Nicolas Sarkozy was invested as President of the French Republic. The first decree which he signed was not to proclaim an amnesty, but to allow casinos to be operated by his friends Desseigne et Partouche and increase the number of gambling machines.

He formed his working team and his government. With no surprise, one finds there a very worrying casino owner (Minister of Youth and Sport) and lobbyist for the casinos of his friend Desseigne (who became spokesman for the “Gaullist” Party).

Nicolas Sarkozy relied above all on four men: Claude Guéant, Secretary General of the Élysée Palace. He was the former right arm of Charles Pasqua. François Pérol, Assistant Secretary General of the Élysée. He was a managing partner of the Banque Rothschild. Jean-David Lévitte, diplomatic adviser. Son of the former Director of the Jewish Agency. French Ambassador to UNO, he was removed from his post by Chirac who considered him too close to George Bush. Alain Bauer, the man in the shadow. His name does not appear in any directory. He is in charge of the intelligence services. Grandson of the Grand Rabbi of Lyon, former Grand-Master of the Grand Orient of France (the principal Masonic obedience in France) and former number 2 of the USA National Security Agency in Europe.

Frank Wisner Jr., who had in the meantime been appointed special envoy by President Bush for the independence of Kosovo, insisted that Bernard Kouchner be appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs with a dual priority mission: The independence of Kosovo and the ending of France’s Arab policy.

Kouchner, of Baltic Jewish origin, started his career by taking part in creating a humanitarian NGO. Thanks to money from the National Endowment for Democracy, he took part in operations for Zbigniew Brzezinski in Afghanistan, alongside Osama Ben Laden and the Karzaï brothers against the Soviets. He could be found in the 90s alongside Alija Izetbegoviç in Bosnia-Herzegovina. From 1999 to 2001, he was the High Representative of UNO in Kosovo.

Under the control of the younger brother of President Hamid Karzaï, Afghanistan became the largest producer in the world of opium poppies. The juice is transformed on the spot into heroin and transported by the US Air Force to Camp Bondsteed (Kosovo). There the drug is taken over by the men of Haçim Thaçi who distribute it principally in Europe and also in the United States. The profits are used to finance the illegal operations of the CIA. Karzaï and Thaçi are long-time personal friends of Bernard Kouchner, who obviously knows nothing of their criminal activities despite the international reports which have been made on the subject.

To complete his government, Nicolas Sarkozy appoints Christine Lagarde, Minister of Economy and Finance. She had made all her career in the United States where she ran the prestigious law firm of Baker & McKenzie. Within Dick Cheney’s the Center for International & Strategic Studies, she co-chaired with Zbigniew Brzezinski a working group which supervised the privatisations in Poland. She had organised intense lobbying for Lockheed Martin against the French aircraft manufacturer Dassault.

Sarkozy with Carla Bruni

A new escapade during the summer. Nicolas, Cécilia, their joint mistress and their children were offered holidays in the USA at Wolfenboro, not far from President Bush’s property. The bill this time was paid by Robert F. Agostinelli, an Italo-New York merchant banker, a Zionist and a leading neo-conservative who gives his views in Commentary, the magazine of the American Jewish Committee.

The success of Nicolas spreads to his half-brother Pierre-Olivier. Under the Americanised name of “Oliver”, he was appointed by Frank Carlucci (who was the number 2 of the CIA after having been recruited by Frank Wisner Sr.) Director of a new investment fund of the Carlyle Group (the joint management company of the portfolios of the Bushes and the Ben Ladens). Having become the 5th deal-maker in the world, he manages the principal assets of the sovereign funds of Kuwait and Singapore.

The popularity of the President is in free-fall in the opinion polls. One of his advisers in communication, Jacques Séguéla, planned to distract the attention of the public with new “celebrity stories”. The announcement of the divorce from Cécilia was published by Libération, the newspaper of his friend Édouard de Rothschild, to cover up the demonstrators’ slogans during a day of general strikes. Going further still, the communicator organised a meeting with the singer and former model, Carla Bruni. Several days later, her affair with the President became official and the media din again covered up the political criticisms. A few weeks later still and it was Nicolas’ third marriage. This time the witnesses whom he chose were Mathilde Agostinelli (the wife of Robert) and Nicolas Bazire, former private secretary of Édouard Balladur who had become a managing partner at the Banque Rothschild.

When will the French open their eyes to see what they should do?

© Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com (Translation Copyright)

This Axis of Logic translation is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author, translator and Axis of Logic as the original source including a “live link” to the article. Thank you!

Liberal Nationalism against Left and Right Politics in Africa


The National Liberal Party (NLP) (UK) published on January 7, 2012 this article about Nationalism and Liberalism in Africa:

[Over the last year we have been approached by a number of persons outside the UK keen on exploring, even promoting, the ideology of National Liberalism. Given that it first emerged as an active force in continental Europe in the mid 19th century, contacts from there was not surprising. However, we have received interest from further afield in areas with no blatant NL tradition such as Africa.

One person making contact is Tarig Anter, a retired civil engineer based in Khartoum, Sudan. He says his main project is the design of new form of national democracy and system of governance, which he calls “Three Dimensional Democracy”. (XYZ democracy), in contrast to the Western democratic system which he says has corrupted the region’s politicians. He is part of a new breed of African who is trying to understand why his continent is suffering so much. He places much of the blame on the US and the ‘New World Order’ and their quest to control the world’s resources. But, he says he doesn’t “blame the USA or Europe but rather I blame the powers that are controlling them and I feel that Europeans are Americans are either victims or tools, but not the shakers and makers of their systems which are wrongly described as democratic and mistakenly considered models.”

In his/their quest for an alternative, we hope they will turn, not to dictatorship or authoritarianism, but to a creed that seeks to preserve a nation’s meaningful independence and its’ people’s liberties and welfare – National Liberalism. In that spirit he has written a short article about the prospects of National Liberalism (and in particular its’ twin Liberal Nationalism) in Africa.–]

Liberal Nationalism against Left and Right Politics in Africa

Liberal Nationalism in Africa versus Left and Right Politics

[As a prelude for discussing the needs and prospects of Liberal Nationalism in Africa, this personal opinion is trying to define the ideology of Liberal Nationalism in comparison to other forms of nationalism; and its challenges against right and left social and economic politics. Ironically, Nationalism is systematically accused of being leftist and rightist by the both globalist camps at the same time although many experts have found that placing Nationalism on a conventional left-right political spectrum is difficult and wrong.

The opinions stated here are personal and does not represent the NLP; they might be critical and even controversial; but that is why they are liberal.

First, it is important to note that Liberal Nationalism (one variation is also called Civic Nationalism) is a new advanced form of nationalism; while National Liberalism appeared in the West since the 19th century as a variant of liberalism. Liberal Nationalism is about establishing resilient governance based on social and economic justice and solidarity; while National Liberalism believes in a stronger national presence on the international stage, mainly through economic and cultural liberalism.

A constructive form of liberalism first (originating in about 1650–1700) became a powerful force rejecting several practices of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings.

On the other hand, classical nationalism is a very ancient collective identification of a multitude of individuals within or without ethnic and tribal groups that are working together to preserve and strengthen their various essential interests.

There are a number of different types of Nationalism and types of Liberalism. Many of these forms and practices are unsustainable and aggressive while the principles of both ideologies contain many positive attributes. The most famous African and Asian examples of liberal nationalism so far, are manifested by the South African National Congress Party (ANC) and the Indian National Congress (INC). The closest form of liberalism to Liberal Nationalism is National Liberalism; which is fundamentally different from Social Liberalism (classical liberalism with a social welfare tone).

Other forms of nationalism are: Ethnocentrism; Social Nationalism; Pan-nationalism. All forms of nationalism are anti-colonialism; anti-imperialism; and anti-corporate-globalism. Opposition to Liberal Nationalism comes from Communism; Ultra-nationalism; Socialism; Capitalism; neo-Liberalism; Liberal International; Africa Liberal Network; and religious brotherhoods, in addition to international secret societies.

To promote the principles of Democracy and Liberties together with Nationalism on continental and global levels, international organizations need to be established. These networks shall strengthen Liberal Nationalism in Africa and around the world. Liberal Democracy and Social Democracy are penetrating the world as a result of their institutional organization and support, yet Liberal Nationalism has all the qualities and reasons to succeed all over the world. Such a much-needed federation should be tasked with the following:

Coordinating between Liberal Nationalist groups.

Encouraging solidarity among member groups.

Establishing sharing of information and experiences.

I invite you to read and debate on articles at my Tarig Anter blog; such as:
Why Africa Must Trash Western Liberal Democracy?…..& Their Way of Life Too?
Swindles of Modern Liberal Democracy”Swindles of Modern Liberal Democracy
Three-dimensional Democracy (XYZ Democracy)
Neoliberal Corporations & Sunnite Islamism Attacking Nationalism
The Swadeshi Movement

The current developments in Europe; South America; and the USA – and in different aspects in Africa and Asia – are good signs (on top of the list: debts and social injustices). But these crises call for greater and coordinated actions and expositions.

Liberal Nationalism has two main fields for engagement in Africa; the first is to expose the failures of the conventional democratic system as being hijacked and corrupted by liberal and social democracy for global hegemony. The second goal is to propose and call for different national genuinely democratic governance electoral systems where truly Africans have “As much government as necessary, as little government as possible.”

I assume that it is most important for Liberal Nationalism to make the public very aware of the fundamental differences between the various ideologies and trends of liberalism on social; individual/community; economic; and political domains.

Let me add few words about yet another brilliant spirit in liberal nationalism uncommonly seen and may be ignored in an Indian humble movement called “Swadeshi”:

Let me tell you about the Swadeshi movement:

“Spirit Of Swadeshi; (Source: Mani Bhavan Gandhi)

Swadeshi is that spirit in us which restricts us to the use and service of our immediate surroundings to the exclusion of the more remote. Thus, as for religion, in order to satisfy the requirements of the definition, I must restrict myself to my ancestral religion. That is, the use of my immediate religious surrounding. If I find it defective, I should serve it by purging it of its defects.

In the domain of politics, I should make use of the indigenous institutions and serve them by curing them of their proved defects. In that of economics I should use only things that are produced by my immediate neighbors and serve those industries by making them efficient and complete where they might be found wanting. It is suggested that such Swadeshi, if reduced to practice, will lead to the millennium.. . .”

The hostilities towards any form of nationalism, meek or aggressive, were very strongly coming from financiers and bankers in the USA and their communist twin in Moscow, a deceptive polarity aiming at nationalism from both directions. (Social) liberalism (a vacuum cleaner) and communism were and still are the most racist, anti-human rights and totalitarian systems, despite of all the slogans and pretences.

Tarig Mohamed Mohamed-kheir Anter, Khartoum, Sudan]

The source: The National Liberal Party (NLP) (UK) website.


Date: January 7, 2012

%d bloggers like this: