kriminalitaet

A Meta-Group Managing Drugs, Violence, and the State

politicacomment5. September 2006 Hinterlasse einen Kommentar

Saidov, Surikov, Muslim Insurrectionism, and Drug Trafficking / Part VIII

Peter Dale Scott – Another example of Dunlop’s curtailment of Yasenev is his abridged description of “Mekhmet,” another attendee at the Beaulieu meeting, as a “certain Turk, in the past an advisor to the Islamicist premier of Turkey, [Necmettin] Erbakan.” (1) In the same year 1999, Erbakan reportedly arranged for both cash and arms to be sent to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), a drug-trafficking group whose heroin reached Europe through Chechnya. (2) The IMU was backed not only by Turks but also by Pakistan’s ISI, who had also trained Shamil Basayev for the Chechnyan insurgency. For strategic reasons, ISI oversaw the spread of mujahedin and their narcotics from Afghanistan to Chechnya, a spread which as we have seen continued on into Kosovo.

In addition Yasenev links Mekhmet (“whose real name is Ruslan Saidov”) not only to Erbakan but also to the CIA, to Saudi intelligence, and to al-Qaeda:

In 2003 the Turkish citizen Mehmet whose real name is Ruslan Saidov, persuaded the President of the Chechen Republic, Ahmed Kadyrov, that he could be of use with Kadyrov’s policy of “national reconciliation.” Saidov took part in organizing Kadyrov’s visit to Saudi Arabia. There Kadyrov made an agreement with the head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Naif Ibn Abdel-Aziz, that the Arab militants under the Lieutenant Colonel Aziz ben Said ben Ali al Hamdi (alias Abu al Walid al-Hamadi), Prince Naif’s subordinate, would be removed from Chechnya by May 2004. The agreement stipulated that Kadyrov guaranteed safe passage to Abu al-Walid. Playing a double game and intending to set up both parties, Saidov (probably together with Abu al-Walid himself) gave this information to the CIA. Apparently the CIA was concerned that having left Chechnya the Arab militants would resurface in Iraq and join the terrorist group of the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi that belongs to the al-Qaida network.

Trying to prevent this, and besides, wanting to discredit Kadyrov in the eyes of Prince Naif, the CIA gave Saidov an “assignment”. On April 13 in the Nozhai-Yurt district of Chechnya, Russian troops killed Abu al-Walid (or alleged having done so). Saidov paid $300,000 to those who carried out this operation. Their bosses in Moscow received $500,000. How much the CIA paid Saidov is unknown….

Yasenev describes Saidov as both a drug trafficker and an arms trafficker, involved with the supply of Russian arms to Yemen. He adds that, since the mid-1990s, “Saidov formed stable relations with the Saudi businessman Adnan Khashoggi, Prince Turki al-Faisal [then head of Saudi intelligence, now Saudi Ambassador in Washington] and Prince Naif [Saudi Interior Minister].”

Furthermore:

In the spring of 1995 Saidov began to cooperate with the organized society, led by Vladimir Filin and Alexei Likhvintsev in handling [narcotics] traffic through the port of Novorossiysk.

Saidov is described by Yasenev as having good relations not only with the CIA and Saudi intelligence, but also with both Turkish Islamists and even with Ayman al-Zawahiri, the man often described as both the “mastermind” behind 9/11 and the senior partner in al Qaeda active in the Balkans. (3)

In addition Yasenev described Saidov as not pro-Putin, but a Muslim activist who was passionately anti-Putin and indeed anti-Russian:

In September 2003, Saidov participated in the congress of the extremist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami in Jordan. At this congress he announced that Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami was an organization effectively acting in the underground throughout Russia, Central Asia and the Crimea…. (4)

On December 8, 2004 Saidov addressed Muslim youth in Moscow. In his words, “following Ukraine, the Orange Revolution is coming to Russia.” “Our liberals say that in 2008 the situation in Moscow will be like the one in Kiev.” However, everything will be different, and not in 2008, but earlier.” “Amirs and mudjahideen will soon make the Kremlin shudder with horror.” In 2005, “they will throw into hell the servant of Satan,” i.e., President Putin, who is allegedly “wanted by the International Tribunal at The Hague.” (5)

The same goal of Muslim liberation was attributed by Yasenev to the organizer of the Beaulieu meeting, Anton Surikov:

On December 13 2004, in Adygeia, Surikov had a meeting with a group of Sufi believers and said this: “In the past we were against ahl-ad-dalala (those who gone astray) with their Arab money. We used to say that one should not separate from Russia. But now “Russia is on the brink of collapse and chaos.” So “we’ll be separating [from Russia] with all Muslims of the Caucasus.” A new state will be created on our historical lands from Psou and the Black Sea to Laba and Kuban.” (6)

The portraits of Saidov’s and Surikov’s connections with al-Zawahiri, Erbakan, and Hizb ut-Tahrir reinforce the thesis that the “Pristina dash” aimed at facilitating drug flows to strengthen Islamism in the Balkans. They also confirm the criticism, by the Indian analyst B. Raman and others, that American studies of Islamism and jihadism err in their restrictive focus on al-Qaeda. (7) The full range of Islamic jihadism is far more complex.

It appears that Russia and America, believing that they can use Islamist traffickers as assets, are also in fact being used by them.

Footnotes:
1: Dunlop, “Storm in Moscow,” 42. Dunlop’s important and truncated description of Mekhmet has a strange and irrelevant citation: “On Erbakan, see Shireen T. Hunter, Islam in Russia: The Politics of Identity and Security (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2004), p. 365.” But there is no need to identify Erbakan, and Hunter is silent about Mekhmet.

2: Napoleoni, Terror Incorporated, 91: “It was partly thanks to [IMU leader] Namangiani’s contacts in Chechnya that heroin reached Europe. According to Interpol, about 60 percent of exported Afghan narcotics in 2002 passed through Central Asia. The IMU controlled 70 percent of the opium that moved through this area.”

3: “For the past 10 years…Ayman al-Zawahiri has operated terrorist training … and drug-trading networks throughout Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Turkey and Bosnia” (Wall Street Journal, 11/1/01). Cf. Independent (London), 8/5/05.

4: “Russia is also concerned about the HT [Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami], for it fears that the movement will spread to Muslim regions of Russia. Russian intelligence is now collaborating closely with the Central Asian states to combat the HT” (Ahmed Rashid, Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia [New Haven: Yale UP, 2002], 132). Cf. Surikov statement to Sufis below. Rashid regards the Hizb ut-Tahrir as essentially non-violent, but others have seen it as a target for terrorist recruitment by Osama bin Laden. Cf. Bakhram Tursunov, “Extremism in Uzbekistan,” Conflict Studies Research Centre, 12, “It should also be noted that bin Laden’s scheme, under which the unification of all extremist forces and movements in the cause of establishing a caliphate was supposed to occur, also envisaged sponsoring activities inside the Islamic underground in states selected by him as appropriate subjects for his efforts. The religious and political movement Hizb-ut-Takhrir, widespread in the countries of Central Asia and among Muslim minorities in China, can quite justifiably be regarded as one of the underground movements.”

5: The goal of splitting up Russia, attributed here to Surikov, is that which, in an earlier text co-authored by Surikov, is attributed by Russian “radicals” to the United States (Graeme Herd with Ene Rôngelep and Anton Surikov, Crisis for Estonia? Russia, Estonia and a Post-Chechen Cold War [London: Brassey’s for the Centre for Defence Studies, 1994], 33).

6: Surikov, like Saidov, may not be Russian. A recent article refers to “Ret. Colonel Anton Surikov (Turkish citizen Mansur Natkhoev) and Ret. Major Ruslan Saidov (Turkish citizen Ugur Mehmed)” (Andrei Petrov and Valentin Zorin, Academician Anton Surikov Confirms Professor Peter Dale Scott’s „Prishtina Dash“.

7: Cf. B. Raman, “Istanbul: The enemy within,” Asia Times, 11/22/03, In this essay Raman shows the direct links between Turkish terrorists (former disciples of Erbakan) and groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba sponsored by Pakistan’s ISI.

Part I: History and the Political Requirements of the Global Drug Traffic
Part II: The Meta-Group, West, and East
Part III: The Meta-Group, BCCI, and Adnan Khashoggi
Part IV: Dunlop’s Account of the Beaulieu Meeting’s Purpose: The “Russian 9/11” in 1999
Part V: Dunlop’s Redactions of His Source Yasenev
Part VI: The Khashoggi Villa Meeting, Kosovo, and the “Pristina Dash”
Part VII: The Role of Anton Surikov: The Dunlop and Yasenev Versions
Part VIII: Saidov, Surikov, Muslim Insurrectionism, and Drug Trafficking
Part IX: Allegations of Drug-Trafficking and Far West Ltd.
Part X: Far West Ltd, Halliburton, Diligence LLC, New Bridge, and Neil Bush
Part XI: The U.S. Contribution to the Afghan-Kosovo Drug Traffic.
Last Part XII: Concluding Remarks: Meta-Groups and Transpolitics.

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher.

Soeldner

Blair drängt auf Söldnernachschub aus Südafrika

politicacomment4. September 2006 Hinterlasse einen Kommentar

Dr. Alexander von Paleske —- 4.9. 2006 — Am 29. August 2006 beschloss das südafrikanische Parlament mit 211 zu 28 Stimmen eine drastische Verschärfung des Anti-Söldner-Gesetzes. Künftig ist es bei erheblicher Strafandrohung untersagt in Kriegs oder Spannungsgebieten militärischen Dienst zu leisten. Ausgenommen davon sind Freiheitsbewegungen – es sei denn, eine Genehmigung der Regierung liege vor, die jedoch kaum erhältlich sein dürfte. Die britische Regierung versuchte über ihren Botschafter Paul Boateng in Pretoria bis zuletzt das Gesetz zu verhindern oder zumindest im Wesentlichen abzuschwächen.

Das ist überraschend. Doch was hat die britische Regierung mit dem Anti-Söldner-Gesetz in Südafrika zu tun?
Um das zu klären, will ich mich mit dem Hintergrund, der zu dem Gesetz geführt hat, befassen: Mittlerweile stehen zwischen 10.000 und 20.000 Südafrianer, größtenteils ehemalige Soldaten, in so genannten privaten Sicherheitsfirmen unter Vertrag. Eine treffendere Beschreibung aber für Sicherheitsfirma ist „Söldnerfirma“, denn um nichts anderes handelt es sich dabei.

Paul Boateng: Der Botschafter Großbritanniens versuchte Südafrikas Anti-Söldner-Gesetz zu verhindern oder zumindest im Wesentlichen abzuschwächen.

Zwei Gründe dafür.
Erstens leisten circa 800 Südafrikaner in der britischen Armee Militärdienst und zweitens möchte die britische Regierung bei den britischen Sicherheitsfirmen, wie „AEGIS“ und anderen, die Südafrikaner nicht missen; im Irak stellen sie inzwischen bei den Söldnern das größte Nationen-Kontingent.

Proven in Combat.
Diese Söldner stammen zu einem nicht unerheblichen Teil auch noch aus Südafrikas Terror-, Mörder- und Zerstörungseinheiten wie der 44. Parachute-Brigade, den Reconnaissance-Commandos (kurz „Recce“ genannt), dem Söldner-32-Buffalo-Battailion, Koevoet oder aus der Todesschwadron Civil-Cooperation-Bureau (CCB).

Morden wie die Teufel.
Diese Einheiten machten oftmals keine Gefangenen und wenn doch, dann wurden viele von ihnen mit Hilfe von Gift umgebracht, das von Südafrikas „Dr. Mengele“, Dr. Wouter Basson, bereitgestellt wurde. Ihre Leichen wurden aus einem Flugzeug über dem Atlantik „entsorgt“. Auch verwandelten diese Terroreinheiten den Süden Angolas zu Apartheidszeiten in ein Gebiet verbrannter Erde oder kamen zu „mörderischen Ausflügen“ in benachbarte Länder wie Sambia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Lesotho und selbst Tansania. Kurzum Soldaten, für die unabhängige schwarze Staaten ein Feind und die Genfer Konvention ein Fremdwort waren. Also bestens geeignet für Länder, in denen der Bürgerkrieg tobt oder das Töten von Zivilisten nicht bestraft wird; wie zum Beispiel im Irak.

Dr. Wouter Basson: Die Anklageschrift des Gerichts von Pretoria beschreibt ihn als gewissenlosen Wissenschaftler. Er soll die abscheulichen Pläne seiner Auftraggeber skrupellos realisiert haben und wie einst Dr. Mengele gierig auf außergewöhnliche Forschungsreihen gewesen sein.

Die Iraker haben keinerlei Gerichtshoheit über diese Schießwütigen, deren Zahl mittlerweile bei über 20.000 liegt – also höher als das Kontingent der britischen Armee und, da sie keiner Armee angehören, fallen sie auch nicht unter die Militärgerichtsbarkeit irgendeines Entsendelandes. Ein rechtsfreier Raum sozusagen, der zum Töten einlädt. Und wenn einige von den Söldnern umkommen, dann kräht, anders als bei dem Tod regulärer Soldaten, kein Hahn danach. Also ideal – allerdings nicht für die irakische Bevölkerung. Und weil die südafrikanische Regierung ein Gegner des Krieges im Irak ist, hat sie keinerlei Interesse den Export dieser Söldner fortführen zu lassen. Deshalb hat sie sich von den Demarchen des britischen Botschafters auch nicht beeindrucken lassen – bisher jedenfalls nicht.

Spuren der Zerstörung durch Suedafrikas Soldateska, Lobito, Angola,1975.

Aber die britische Regierung will keine Ruhe geben. Sie will nach der Verabschiedung des Gesetzes durch die Länderkammer, das eine reine Formsache werden dürfte, nunmehr alle Hebel in Bewegung zu setzen, um das Gesetz nachträglich aufzuweichen: So sehr sind ihr die Söldner aus Südafrika ans Herz gewachsen.

Die südafrikanische Regierung denkt naturgemäß da ganz anders.
Die Söldnerfirmen, die sich wie nach einem Weißwaschgang jetzt „Sicherheitsfirmen“ nennen, haben ihren Ursprung in Südafrika in den Überbleibseln des Apartheidsregimes. Mit dessen Ende wurden die alten Terrorverbände und Todesschwadronen wie 32. Buffalo-Bataillion und Civil-Cooperation-Bureau aufgelöst. Die Lohnempfänger dieser Killereinheiten wären brotlos geworden, wenn nicht ein ehemaliger Offizier namens Eeben Barlow, der sowohl im Buffallo-Battalion als auch in der Todesschwadron CCB treu gedient hatte, auf die Idee gekommen wäre diesen alten Apartheidsdreck nun außerhalb Südafrikas eine Beschäftigung zu verschaffen, um selbst damit Geld zu machen.

Gesagt getan. Eine Firma namens Executive Outcomes wurde gegründet. Die ersten, die seine Dienste in großem Umfang in Anspruch nahmen, waren die Firmen Ranger Oil und Heritage Oil, beide aus Kanada. Letztere war von einem Mann namens Tony Buckingham aus den britischen Special Boat Services, einer Einheit ähnlich des Special Air Service (SAS) einer Spezialeinheit des britischen Militärs, gegründet worden.

Freude und Biertrinken nach dem Zerstörungswerk (Angola 1975), Eeben Barlow mit Schlapphut.

Ranger und Heritage Oil hatten ihre Förderanlagen in Soyo/Angola, und die standen unter Beschuss der Rebellenbewegung UNITA, geleitet von Jonas Savimbi, der einstmals von Südafrika und dem Buffalo-Battaion unterstützt wurde. Für Geld kann man sicher alles machen, auch die Seiten wechseln.

Executive Outcomes kam, sah und siegte in Soyo.
Die angolanische Regierung bot daraufhin Executive Outcomes einen Jahresvertrag von über 50 Millionen US-Dollar an, außerdem Schürfrechte für Diamanten und Öl. Buckingham mit seinem Mitstreiter Simon Mann – auch er ein ehemaliger SAS-Mann -, rieben sich die Hände, denn das Kämpfen und Sterben wurde von den schwarzen Söldnern von Executive Outcomes ausgeübt – 1989 von Eeben Barlow gegründet; erster Einsatz 1992 in Angola.

Allerdings forderte im Jahre 1996 US-Präsident Clinton die Regierung in Angola auf, diese Söldner heraus zu werfen, aber mittlerweile hatten andere Diktatoren und labile Regierungen in Afrika und anderswo von dieser Truppe gehört und heuerten sie an, wie z.B. Sierra Leone und auf der anderen Seite des Globus, Papua Neu Guinea. Executive Outcomes, das die Regierung von Angola in letzter Minute vor dem Untergang gerettet hatte, ging. Die Instrukteure blieben dort, wie auch die Minenrechte in der Hand von Buckingham und Barlow.

Von Apartheidtruppen zerstörte Brücke bei Fort Rocades – Angola 1976.

Auch Sierra Leone bot Schürfrechte an, weil man kein Bares hatte und in Papua Neu Guinea wurde diese Zahlungsmodalität gleich von der Söldnerfirma vorgeschlagen.

Da Herrn Buckingham dieser Geschäftszweig der Sicherheitsunternehmen so viel Freude machte, gründete er gleich in England eine ähnliche Version mit gehobenem Standard, die Firma Sandline, beheimatet in Chelsey, registriert auf den Bahamas. Wie schön! Als Subunternehmer dann aber wieder die Executive Outcomes.

Wie Südafrika Sehen lernte.
Die neue südafrikanische Regierung unter Nelson Mandela war anfangs froh, diesen Apartheidsdreck, der leicht für einen Bürgerkrieg seitens der Rechtsradikalen hätte mobilisiert werden können, woanders beschäftigt zu wissen. Nach und nach wurde das aber zu einem außenpolitischen Problem und bohrende Fragen wurden an die südafrikanische Regierung über diesen zweifelhaften Exportartikel gerichtet, der sich anschickte zu einem Söldner- und Minenkonglomerat mit Dependancen in Sierra Leone, Kenia, Uganda, Demokratische Republik Kongo, Rwanda, Kongo-Brazzaville, Namibia – um nur einige zu nennen – heranzuwachsen.

Dank der Recherchen der ZEIT und des FIGARO wurden 1997 diese Aktivitäten in ihren vollen Umfang, auch durch ein Dossier, der breiteren Öffentlichkeit in Europa bekannt. Daher entschloss sich Südafrika 1998 dem Spuk ein Ende zu bereiten.
Die Flugzeuge des Herrn Buckingham, Fluglinie „IBIS-Air“, sollten nicht mehr vom Flughafen Lanseria bei Johannesburg aus halb Afrika mit Söldnern, Waffen und Nachschub versorgen. Das wurde nun unter Strafe gestellt durch das erste Anti-Söldner-Gesetz. Es ist das Ende für Executive Outcomes, aber nicht für die Geschäftsidee. Tony Buckingham hatte immerhin bereits Sandline kreiert, wohin es auch den ehemaligen Oberst und späteren Obersöldner Tim Spicer – auch er ein ehemaliger SAS Mann – trieb. Executive Outcomes brauchte man nicht mehr, wohl aber die Söldner „proven in combat“. Jedoch man hatte die Adressen der Söldner, und Simon Mann konnte die Einstellungsgespräche vor Ort führen.

Das erste Söldnergesetz von 1998 war also eine nicht sehr scharfe Waffe. Und wer hätte das gedacht: Ausgerechnet Mark Thatcher, der nach Südafrika gezogen war und als „Tunichtgut“ bekannt gewordene Sohn der Eisernen Lady, der ehemaligen Premierministerin Großbritanniens wurde der Erste, der dieses Gesetz in vollem Umfang zu spüren bekam. Er und eine ganze Meute von Glücksrittern, Herren aus der britischen High Society und Offiziere aus den Terrorkommandos der südafrikanischen Apartheidszeit, hatten es sich in den Kopf gesetzt, wie einst die berüchtigten postkolonialen Söldner Bob Denard, Jean-Jaques Schramme und der Deutsche „Kongo-Müller“, mal eben einen ölreichen afrikanischen Staat – in diesem Fall Äquatorial Guinea – zu kapern, um sich von den Öleinnahmen einen schönen Lebensabend zu machen.

Diese gewissenlosen Gesellen, offensichtlich ohne geschichtliche Bildung, für die die Kompassnadel des Lebens immer nur auf den Geldsack zeigte, hatten sich wahrscheinlich in der Zeit vertan und Afrika 2004 mit dem Afrika von 1960 verwechselt. Das Ende ist bekannt.

Für Söhnchen Mark musste Mutter Maggie Thatcher die Jahrhundertgestalt Nelson Mandela um Gnade und Vermittlung bitten – jenen Mann also, den sie einst als „politischen Schwerkriminellen“ verleumdet hatte.

Gegen 300.000 britische Pfund und einer Bewährungsstrafe kam Mark Thatcher dann frei. Die Alternative wäre die Auslieferung an Äquatorrial Guineas Diktator Obiang Mbasogo Ngumea gewesen. Eine Reise ohne sichere Rueckfahrkarte.
Dort nämlich werden die Gräber für Angeklagte in Hochverratsprozessen bereits während des Gerichtsverfahrens ausgehoben. Zynisch könnte man das auch eine „gute Planungsarbeit“ nennen.

Nach Beginn des Irakkrieges begann ein riesiger Rekrutierungsdrive der Söldnerfirmen.
Ganz vorne dabei Tim Spicer; wir kennen ihn schon. Der hatte gerade einen 293 Millionen schweren US-Dollar-Kontrakt für seine Firma AEGIS vom Pentagon erhalten, weil er sich in Afrika und anderswo „so gut bewährt“ hatte, eben „Proven in Combat“. Aber nicht nur er, sondern auch amerikanische und südafrikanische Firmen waren dabei, und die Liste ist lang, enthält Namen wie Dyncorp, Blackwater, Erinys MPRI. Kurzum ein Multimilliarden-Dollar Gechäftszweig hatte sich etabliert.

Aber der Menschennachschub aus Europa tröpfelte nur und viele sahen, dass der Irak kein Spaziergang, sondern eher ein Marsch in die Hölle ist. Dennoch waren aber viele Südafrikaner bereit, diesen fürstlich entlohnten Marsch anzutreten; zu gering war ihr Einkommen als Wachmänner – der einzige Berufszweig, der ihnen im neuen Südafrika offen stand.

Nun also kann man den Drang des britischen Botschafters Paul Boateng verstehen. Denn was sind Sicherheitsfirmen ohne Menschenmaterial? Ich will ihm bei diesem Einsatz allerdings keinen Erfolg wünschen.

Epilog
Sandline gibt es nicht mehr. Buckingham machte die Firma sechs Wochen nach dem fehlgeschlagenen Putsch in Äquatorial Guinea dicht. Allerdings schaffte es der Herr Buckingham noch, ein paar Nebelkerzen zu werfen, um den wahren Grund für die Schließung zu verschleiern, Unter anderem zeigte sich der SPIEGEL bereit, ein Interview mit seinem Finanzchef Michael Grunberg am 3. Mai 2004 zu drucken, in dem dieser allerhand Märchen über die Vergangenheit der Firma verbreiten durfte.

Und: Das Outsourcen in Söldnerfirmen und das Töten von Zivilisten im Irak geht derweil leider munter weiter.

Dr. Alexander von Paleske ist Arzt für Innere Medizin – Haematologie und Head des Department of Oncology am Princess Marina Hospital im afrikanischen Gabarone in Botswana. Herr Dr. von Paleske ist ehemaliger Rechtsanwalt beim Landgericht Frankfurt (M).

Im Labyrinth der Glücksritter

kriminalitaet

A Meta-Group Managing Drugs, Violence, and the State

politicacomment4. September 2006 Hinterlasse einen Kommentar

The Role of Anton Surikov: The Dunlop and Yasenev Versions / Part VII

Peter Dale Scott – As we have seen, Dunlop describes Anton Surikov, the organizer of the Beaulieu meeting, as “a retired officer in the GRU.” He fails to quote from his source Yasenev’s description of Surikov:

Anton Victorovich Surikov (b. 1961). Presents himself as political scientist. Responsible for informational and political projects. Actively publishes in press. Some of his publications resemble ciphered directives to the elements in Russian special services disloyal to President Vladimir Putin. His other articles contain political messages intended for abroad. Surikov has contacts with F[ritz] Ermarth, former leading CIA analyst of the USSR and Russia, now in the Nixon Foundation…. (1)

Both Boris Kagarlitsky’s essay and Yasenev’s memo, taken from intelligence files, talk about Surikov, but from opposing perspectives. Kagarlitsky, a longtime dissident and foe of Putin, presented Surikov’s presence at the Beaulieu meeting as a venue for Kremlin-instigated violence, designed to restore the Kremlin’s popularity before the coming election. Yasenev’s memo sees Surikov as part of an on-going effort to destabilize Russia, and weaken the Kremlin.

9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, is scheduled to appear in August 2006

Kagarlitsky (and after him Dunlop) say almost nothing about Surikov, other than to refer to his past years with Russian military intelligence, the GRU. (2) However Yasenev’s memo in December 2004 links Surikov, not to the government or Kremlin, but (through Alexei Kondaurov) to the sphere of the man who by that time had emerged as America’s best friend and Putin’s most powerful enemy in Russia, the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky of Yukos Oil. (The Kondaurov-Khodorkovsky connection is abundantly documented: both men freely admit it.)

Forbes magazine, which underwrote Klebnikov’s damning account of Berezovsky, wrote on March 18, 2002 that Khodorkovsky appeared “to be the West’s best friend” in Russia. According to PBS in 2003, Khodorkovsky’s firm Menatep shared business interests with the western investment firms Global Asset Management, the Blackstone Group, the Carlyle Group and AIG Capital Partners. In addition

He frequently travels to the United States. He reportedly dined with Condoleezza Rice last year and recently was a guest at Herb Allen’s Idaho ranch, along with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and other luminaries, for an annual telecommunications executives meeting. (3)

Quoting from an anti-Yeltsin essay of May 1999 by Surikov in Versiya, the American right-wing Jamestown Foundation agreed with Yasenev (against Kagarlitsky and Dunlop) that “Surikov is clearly in the camp of Yeltsin’s opponents.” (4) More recently Surikov has also shown himself to be anti-Putin, criticizing Putin’s “obvious inability … to struggle against terrorism effectively.” (5)

Furthermore Surikov had western support in his opposition to government corruption under Yeltsin. The Centre for Defence Studies, a British think-tank at King’s College, London, published two small books by Surikov, including one entitled Crime in Russia: the international implications. (6) According to his webpage at Kagarlitsky’s IPROG website, Surikov spent the year 1994 at the Centre for Defence Studies. (7) Audrius Butkevicius of Far West is said to have spent the year there with him.

As for Yasenev’s allegations that “Surikov has contacts with F. Ermarth,” Surikov when questioned about this admitted it frankly: “I am personally acquainted with Mr. Ermarth as political scientist since 1996. It’s well known by many people and we never hid this fact.” (8) In saying this, Surikov was admitting to a CIA connection, however casual: Ermarth, a senior officer who twice served on the National Security Council, did not retire from the CIA until 1998. (9)

Above all, Kagarlitsky is silent about the charge which has since aroused controversy in the Russian media: Surikov’s supposed involvement with “a group of renegade Soviet secret service officers who are allegedly involved in international drug trafficking and have ties with Western and Saudi security apparatus.” (10)

It would be interesting to learn at what point Kagarlitsky first met Surikov, and whether Surikov was in fact the source for Kagarlitsky’s article about the meeting in southern France. Today the two men are close, and serve together at the Moscow Institute for the Study of Globalization (IPROG).

Footnotes
1: Yasenev, “Rossiyu zhdet,” emphasis added.

2: To quote Dunlop, “Kagarlitskii also notes: `During Primakov’s time, Surikov worked on the staff of the government of the Russian Federation. Despite this fact, he also developed regular work relations with Voloshin’s people. It seems therefore quite likely that Surikov and Voloshin were personally acquainted’” (Dunlop, “Storm in Moscow,” 44-45).

3: PBS, Frontline, October 2003,. Cf. Menatep Press Release of 4/30/02.

4: “Former Primakov Official Attacks High-Level Corruption and Yeltsin’s Plans in 2000,” Jamestown Foundation Monitor, 5/25/99, JRL 3306.

5: Chechen Press, 5/28/05

6: Anton Surikov, Crime in Russia: the International Implications (London: Brassey’s for the Centre for Defence Studies, University of London, 1995).

7: http://www.iprog.ru/cast/?id=8.

8: Letter of 9/17/05 to Oleg Grechenevsky. According to one 1999 article in Russia, Ermarth introduced Surikov to Steve Forbes who offered to help him participate in the project –together with Ermarth and UK Ambassador Sir Rodric Braithwaite –to reveal the ties between the Yeltsin Administration and Russian corruption. But this claim needs to be treated with extreme caution, given the false stories at the time linking Ermarth, Braithwaite, and Surikov to an imaginary joint campaign against Russian corruption. See The Electronic Telegraph (UK), 9/11/99, JRI #3493.

9: The two men had met in April 1996 at a Global International Security Seminar in Virginia Commersant (n.d). In an alleged transcript of a drug-related dialogue beween Sergei [Petrov] and a businessman, the latter says, “You’ve said Surikov was also a CIA man” See transcript of audio recorded conversation between businessman Gennady Nikolaevich (GN) with Sergei (S), which took place on September 29, 2003 in the Hotel Noga Hilton in Geneva.

10: Left Front Press Conference. Kagarlitsky was defended at the press conference by the former Yukos official Ilya Ponomarev, another IPROG member.

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher.

kriminalitaet

A Meta-Group Managing Drugs, Violence, and the State

politicacomment2. September 2006 Hinterlasse einen Kommentar

The Khashoggi Villa Meeting, Kosovo, and the “Pristina Dash” / Part VI

Peter Dale Scott – Dunlop ignores the implications of the drug backgrounds of Davidovich and Kosman. For example, he acknowledges the presence of four Abkhazians at the meeting – Kosman, “a certain Tsveiba,” Sultan Sosnaliev, and Surikov — and yet offers no explanation for their presence. (A map will show that Abkhazia is irrelevant to the subsequent events in Dagestan and Chechnya.)

It seems likely that a drug-route was discussed involving Abkhazia, which now “has become a key heroin transiting point.” (1) Its drug-trafficking importance is noted by none other than Surikov himself: “In general then, the Chechen [drug-trafficking] group has allotted a very important place to Abkhazia in its plans….Abkhazia today is one of the most criminalised areas of the former Soviet Union.” (2) The London paper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat has written that Basaev controlled the “Abkhaz heroin road,” used by the Taliban as a transit route to Europe. (3) And (whether or not Basaev was at the Beaulieu meeting) it is certain that Basaev and Surikov were both leaders in the Russian-backed Abkhazian revolt from Georgia in 1991.

9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, is scheduled to appear in August 2006

The Beaulieu meeting allegedly took place on July 4, 1999, or shortly after the unexpected entry of Russian troops into Kosovo. On June 11, 200 Russian troops drove unexpectedly from Bosnia to Pristina and secured Slatina airport. Gen Wesley Clark then ordered British Gen. Sir Mike Jackson (who was at the scene) “to seize the airport. Jackson responded, famously, that he would not start World War Three for him” (4)

Instead there followed weeks of “protracted negotiations on Russia’s role in the Kosovo peacekeeping mission.” (5) In the end, under circumstances still not fully understood, the United States and NATO agreed that the Russians could stay.

The Russian troops finally withdrew from the airport in July 2003. (6) Significantly, a chart of Russian drug-trafficking prepared by one of Surikov’s partners, Sergei Petrov, indicates that in 2003 Kosovo ceased to be a main point of export for Russian drugs, its place being taken by the Black Sea oil port of Novorossiysk. (7)

Within a year of the troops’ arrival, by 2000, according to DEA statistics, Afghan heroin accounted for almost 20 percent of the heroin seized in the United States – nearly double the percentage taken four years earlier. Much of it was now distributed in America by Kosovar Albanians. (8)

It is significant therefore that, according to Lilia Shevtsova,

The `Pristina dash’ by Russian parachutists in 1999 during the Kosovo crisis (the purpose of the `dash’ was to force NATO to guarantee for Russia a separate sector of responsibility in Kosovo) was organized by the head of the General Staff, Anatoly Kvashnin, and his deputy, Leonid Ivashov, without the knowledge of minister of defense Igor Sergeyev and most likely without Yeltsin’s knowledge. (9)

Yasenev says nothing about this, but does assert that Kvashnin was the Russian Army connection of the two leading drug traffickers (Vladimir Ilyich Filin and Alexey Likhvintsev) in the Saidov-Surikov group, Far West.

In February 2006 Anton Surikov himself confirmed that the Pristina dash had been prepared for by his meta-group colleague Filin:

When V. I. Filin, who was at that time in Belgrade, learned about the advance of [Russian] peace keepers towards Pristina, he, together with Colonel V. S. Kovalchuk, went to Kosovo on their own risk, unarmed and without bodyguards. They arrived there several hours before our paratroopers. They used this time to get in touch with the field commanders of KLA and received personal guarantees from Hashim Thaci and Ramush Haradinaj that there would be no provocations against the Russian peacekeepers on the part of Albanians. (10)

This was possible because Hashim Thaçi, as we have seen, was advised by Filin’s meta-group partner Yakov Kosman.

Ramush Haradinaj became known as a leading KLA terrorist, war criminal, and drug trafficker. Nevertheless, according to the London Observer, he was also “the key US military and intelligence asset in Kosovo during the civil war.” The Observer also reported UN investigators’ charges that American officials in Kosovo were interfering with an investigation into his war crimes. (11) Today Haradinaj is an indicted war criminal awaiting trial at the Hague War Crimes Tribunal. (12)

It may be relevant that Rusham Haradinaj’s brother Daut, another alleged drug trafficker, is said to have been placed by their KLA faction

in charge of coordinating operations with the Islamic terrorist organization Al Qaeda. In that capacity, he organized a meeting with Muhamed Al Zawahiri, brother of the ideological leader of the aforementioned organization Dr. Ayman Al Zawahiri, in Sofia in October 2001. (13)

The meeting probably concerned the KLA offshoot fighting in Macedonia, the NLA, which was led by Muhamed al-Zawahiri and overseen by former KLA leader Agim Ceku, another U.S. ally and indicted war criminal, (14) later chief of the KLA’s successor, the KPC (where Daut Haradinaj was his deputy). In 2001 the Washington Times reported, „Osama bin Laden is the biggest financial supporter of the National Liberation Army (NLA) in Macedonia.“ (15) Other sources claimed that the American company Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI), which had trained Ceku in first Croatia and then Bosnia, provided the 17 American instructors which (according to the Hamburger Abendblatt) were training and assisting the NLA in Macedonia. (16)

Daut and Ramush Haradinaj are accused of using their smuggling activities to finance the flow of arms to the NLA in Macedonia, and Daut of participating personally in NLA attacks. (17) Though they profit from other smuggled commodities, notably cigarettes, it would appear that the Pristina Dash may have helped provide narco-financing for Islamist insurrection in Macedonia.

This possibility is reinforced by the Yasenev version of the meta-group’s politics, which he portrays as Islamist and anti-Russian, rather than pro-Putin.

Footnotes:
1: SIDA/Cornell Caspian Consulting, “The South Caucasus: A Regional Overview,” 2002.

2: Anton Surikov, Crime in Russia, 38-39.

3: Paul Murphy, The Wolves of Islam: Russia and the Faces of Chechen Terror (Washington: Brassey’s Inc., 2004), 136.

4: Tim Judah, Kosovo: War and Revenge (New Haven: Yale UP, 2002), 279, 284-85.

5: Toronto Sun, 6/27/99.

6: Pravda.ru, 7/3/03.

7: The map was allegedly shown by Surikov’s partner Sergei Petrov to a Russian businessman in Geneva while discussing a drug deal

8: Peter Klebnikov, “Heroin Heroes,” Mother Jones, January/February 2000, Peter Dale Scott, “Deep Politics: Drugs, Oil, Covert Operations and Terrorism,”

9: Shevtsova, Putin’s Russia, 285, fn. 11. That Yeltsin was ignorant has been disputed. But a Sky journalist heard in Kosovo, from “a man who `freelances’ as a go-between for Moscow,” that “the army took the decision to move without consulting the politicians” (Tim Marshall, Shadowplay [Beograd : Samizdat B92, 2003], 153)

10: Anton Surikov, Pravda-info, 2/8/06,

11:
Nick Wood, “US ‚covered up‘ for Kosovo ally,” Observer, 9/10/00,: Cf. Agence France Presse – English, 10/25/00.

12: Baltimore Sun, 5/10/06.

13: “Daut Haradinaj,” in “Kosovo’s 156 lawless: Biographies of the men in the Albanian-dominated Serbian province of Kosovo,” Serbianna.. Daut Haradinaj was blacklisted by President Bush as an Albanian terrorist in an Executive Order of July 1, 2001. See “The US Black List of Albanian Terrorists,”
14: Halifax Herald, 9/10/01.

15: Washington Times, 7/22/01.

16: Christopher Deliso, “US Betrayed Us In Macedonia,” Antiwar.com, 6/26/02. Cf. London Times, 9/3/01. In Croatia, Agim Ceku and other MPRI trainees were accused of ethnic cleansing in the forced Serbian evacuation of the Krajina.

17: “Ramush Haradinaj,” in “Kosovo’s 156 lawless: Biographies of the men in the Albanian-dominated Serbian province of Kosovo,” Serbianna..

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher.

kriminalitaet

A Meta-Group Managing Drugs, Violence, and the State

politicacomment1. September 2006 Hinterlasse einen Kommentar

Dunlop’s Redactions of His Source Yasenev / Part V

Peter Dale Scott – Dunlop’s essay is 52 pages long, with 142 footnotes. But having thus provocatively included references to both Khashoggi and narcotics, Dunlop does not mention either again. Dunlop does however make one more reference to Davidovich: “`It soon emerged,’ Versiya continued, `that a very frequent visitor to Davidovich was a certain French businessman of Israeli-Soviet origin, a native of Sokhumi [Abkhazia], 53-year-old Yakov Kosman.’”

Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina, explores the underlying factors that have engendered a U.S. strategy of indirect intervention in Third World countries through alliances with drug-trafficking proxies.

Dunlop’s cited source for information about both Davidovich and Kosman is the website article by Yuri Yasenev, “Rossiyu zhdet oranzhevaya revolytsiya” (“Russia Awaits an Orange Revolution”). But Dunlop recurrently abridges what Yasenev wrote:

The article “Rossiyu zhdet oranzhevaya revolytsiya,” … reports that Davidovich lives in Munich and enjoys both German and Venezuelan citizenship. He is also said to be personally acquainted with international arms dealer Khashoggi.

curtailing Yasenev’s description:

Alfonso Davidovich – (1948), Venezuelan, lives in Munich. Has German and Venezuelan citizenship.

Speaks Spanish, English, French, German, and Russian fluently. In the 1970s went through special training in the USSR (Privol’noe, Nikolaevskaya oblast) and East Germany.

Owns companies and banks in Barbados, the Caymans and other off-shores.

Has friendly relations with Hugo Chavez, and is acquainted with Fidel Castro, Marcus Wolf and Adnan Khashoggi. Has many contacts in Colombia, including FARC. In 1999 Davidovich was alleged to have engaged in arms trafficking for guerillas in Chiapas, Mexico and in money laundering for the Colombian drug mafia. Finances antiglobalization movement in Europe and Latin America.”

With respect to Kosman, Dunlop’s version is: “Kosman is reported in the same 17 December 2004 issue of compromat.ru, to live in Nice and to possess German and, possibly, Israeli citizenship.”

Yasenev wrote:

Yakov Abramovich Kosman (b. 1946), resides in Nice, France. Has German and, possibly, Israeli citizenship. Involved in real estate operations and banking. Has contacts with Kosovo Albanian criminal societies in European countries. In 1997-2000 he served as financial consultant to Hashim Thaçi, the chief commander of KLA.”

Consider that “In 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA – formally known as the Ushtria Clirimtare e Kosoves, or UCK – as an international terrorist organization, saying it had bankrolled its operations with proceeds from the international heroin trade and from loans from known terrorists like Osama bin Laden.” According to Loretta Napoleoni, “It was thanks to the mediation of Chechen criminal groups that the KLA and the Albanian mafia managed to gain control of the transit of heroin in the Balkans,”

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher.

spionage

Senator Hillary Clinton: All Show and no Substance

politicacomment31. August 2006 Hinterlasse einen Kommentar

Sibel Edmonds & William Weaver – Recent surveys measuring public opinion and confidence in congress all arrived at the same conclusion: over seventy percent of Americans have lost faith and confidence in the United States Congress. The public no longer trusts this body of politicians who were elected to represent the people and the peoples’ interests.

Instead, they now view these “representatives” as servants of special interest groups, corporations and high-powered lobbyists. Americans are tired of watching and listening to elected officials who refrain from taking a strong stand on crucial issues, and who almost never state their positions with conviction and sincerity.

In the eyes of the nation these senators and representatives are nothing more than programmed publicity puppets, competing for face time in the media. Common adjectives used by our citizens to describe these officials clearly reflect their sentiments:

“spineless,” “phony,” “corrupt,” “out of touch,” “timid,” “all show and no substance,” and the list goes on. Why have we Americans lost confidence and faith in those elected? Where and when did we go wrong; or perhaps more correctly, they go wrong? What have these representatives done, or, failed to do, that arouses such anger and loathing in the very same constituents who voted them into office?

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is a perfect example; an elected senator who has served six years in her seat, never taking a strong stand in support of her constituents on any serious or controversial issue; a senator who has used her record-breaking TV public appearances to say “nothing”; a senator whose senate office adheres strictly to a motto of “See no Evil, Hear no Evil”; an elected official who has no record of conducting investigations into cases that are matters of great concern to her constituents and to our nation; a senator who has consistently stood quietly on the sidelines when the issues at hand demand public hearings –waiting to determine the direction of each blowing wind; a politician who has spent all her focus and energy on a campaign of shallow publicity glitz and her PR empire behind it. Here are some documented illustrative examples:

James J. DiGeorgio and Carl Steubing died in ways no war veteran should. They were subjected to illegal drug experimentation by employees of the Stratton Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Albany, New York; killed by servants of the very government they fought to protect. Scores of other veterans were injured in these experiments, and only by the courage of whistleblowers Jeffrey Fudin and Anthony Mariano was any measure of justice achieved for these misdeeds.

One person was convicted of manslaughter, but investigations into other officials collapsed because of a lack of institutional nerve to follow the investigation to the end. A scape-goated employee went to prison, while those who supervised, facilitated, and reaped the benefits of the lucrative, illegal drug testing went on to other VA positions with promotions and raises.

Between 2000 and June 2006, numerous contacts with Senator Hillary Clinton over the Stratton tragedy went unacknowledged, or glossed over, or shuffled around to various offices with no substantive action.

No less than five Clinton staff members heard presentations and received documentation about the experiments, and Senator Clinton herself is personally aware of the detailed facts of the case. This personal knowledge did not translate into action, for though Senator Clinton carefully scripts her numerous public appearances to give the impression of caring and concern, her actions speak otherwise. She noted „our nation made a pact with those who serve their country in the Armed Forces – a commitment that those who served would have access to quality health care through the VA hospital system . . . and they deserve to be treated as the best.“ But while Senator Clinton was issuing such lofty statements and mugging for photo opportunities with active duty military, she did nothing about the systematic abuse and murder of veterans within her own constituency.

The Veterans Affairs Whistleblowers Coalition, and more recently the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, sent numerous letters and e-mails and copious documentation, pleading for help from the Senator to investigate and address the crimes committed at Stratton, including unrelenting retaliation against the whistleblowers who brought these matters to public attention.

Notably, the VAWBC recognized that the motivations and incentives that led to abuse at Stratton were present at many hospitals throughout the VA system, and that greed and poor management in the VA guaranteed that the events of Stratton would be repeated elsewhere. The most vulnerable people, the sick and dying with nowhere to turn but to the VA, were exploited and killed by those tasked with their medical care, and their suffering and death were ignored by Senator Clinton.

It is doubly offensive that this woman sits on the Armed Services Committee, which, along with the Veterans Affairs Committee, has the duty to provide for the well-being of current and former military service members. For all her posturing; for a senator who advertises herself as a hawk and pro military; how does she show it in action? By abandoning our veterans and war heroes in need!

Senator Clinton’s failure concerning Stratton is not an isolated event; it is part of a pattern of studious avoidance of principled action in the face of serious government misconduct, and the refusal to come to the aid of those people who expose that misconduct.

When Bunnatine Greenhouse exposed extraordinary graft and impropriety in government contracting with Halliburton, when Sergeant Samuel Provance reported prisoner abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib, when Russ Tice disclosed violations of the Constitution by the National Security Agency, and when Jay Stroup, Thomas Bittler, Jim Griffin, and Ray Guagliardi exposed serious defects and negligence in the Transportation Security Administration that puts travelers at risk, Clinton did nothing. No words of support, no calls for investigations, no efforts to prevent the lives and careers of whistleblowers from being destroyed. Documents on numerous cases were shared with her office, offers to brief her and her staff have been made on many occasions, pleas for her to live up to the words she so casually utters, have all been ignored, or even ridiculed.

In her six years as senator she has done nothing but attempt to position herself for the presidency, done nothing but avoid acting out of principle and justice, done everything to offend no one. We respect our opponents in much greater measure than we respect Senator Clinton, for with our opponents at least the fight is joined; at least they have the courage of their convictions, at least they place their bets in public.

But Senator Clinton, by trying to be something to everyone ends up being nothing to anyone. Where she cannot act safely, she does not act. The current times call for politicians to act with conviction and intelligence, not with cynical, calculated action in response to what opinion polls indicate.

If Senator Clinton cannot even come to the aid of constituent veterans being killed through grotesquely immoral and illegal medical experimentation, if she cannot commit herself to call for investigations of national security vulnerabilities that risk national catastrophe, if she cannot offer even moral support to those who disclose outrageous government incompetence and impropriety, is there anything that would prompt her to take a stance out of conviction? Such a person has no business representing the people of this country. Nothing stirs her soul except for her own selfish ambitions; ambitions that she places in front of the nation’s welfare.

Two weeks from today, New Yorkers will cast their vote to determine their upcoming democratic candidate. We hope that they will ask themselves a few hard questions and consider their answers before they cast their vital votes. Are they among those who are tired and disgusted with the current Congress, which has abdicated its duty and responsibility to the public at large? Are they going to have “needed change and reform” in mind when voting for their next candidate? Will they vote for someone with an established record of failure?

Or will they take a chance on new blood? Are they going to take into consideration this incumbent’s misuse of “national security and terrorism”?

Will they reflect on her failures when presented with real issues threatening our security – brought to her by those on the front lines?

Will they consider having raised more money than any other democratic candidate a plus or a minus – questioning all she had to promise and everyone she had to sell out in order to raise those millions?

Will they simply ask, isn’t six years long enough? Isn’t it time for a change? Isn’t it time to give another democrat the opportunity to step up and become what we all long for – a true representative of the people?

We have confidence in the sophistication of our New Yorkers. We believe they’ll say: “Ms. Clinton, fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice shame on us.”

All That’s Given Up In The Name Of Security

Sibel Edmonds is the founder and director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). Ms. Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her case have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secret Privilege”; the Congress of the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification by the Department of Justice. Ms. Edmonds is fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani; and has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University. PEN American Center awarded Ms. Edmonds the 2006 PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award.

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, founded in August 2004, is an independent and nonpartisan alliance of whistleblowers who have come forward to address our nation’s security weaknesses; to inform authorities of security vulnerabilities in our intelligence agencies, at nuclear power plants and weapon facilities, in airports, and at our nation’s borders and ports; to uncover government waste, fraud, abuse, and in some cases criminal conduct. The NSWBC is dedicated to aiding national security whistleblowers through a variety of methods, including advocacy of governmental and legal reform, educating the public concerning whistleblowing activity, provision of comfort and fellowship to national security whistleblowers suffering retaliation and other harms, and working with other public interest organizations to affect goals defined in the NSWBC mission statement. For more on NSWBC visit http://www.nswbc.org

Krieg

Iran-backed group has occupied northern West Bank

politicacomment31. August 2006 Hinterlasse einen Kommentar

World Tribune – The Israel Security Agency has determined that Islamic Jihad, an Iranian-sponsored insurgency, has imposed control over large parts of the northern West Bank. The agency concluded that Jihad has been operating in areas evacuated by the Israel Army in September 2005.

„The area of northern Samaria has become Jihad land,“ ISA director Yuval Diskin said.

On Tuesday, Diskin told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Jihad has used the northern West Bank for arms smuggling, training and the production of rockets. Diskin said Jihad increased its activity in wake of the Israeli withdrawal from the area in 2005 and the dismantling of four Jewish communities, Middle East Newsline reported.

„I’d like to remind the panel that we opposed the withdrawal,“ Diskin said.

Officials said Jihad has become the leading insurgency group in the northern West Bank. They said Iran and Hizbullah have poured millions of dollars for an infrastructure to abduct Israelis and send suicide bombers into the Jewish state.

The Israeli withdrawal from the northern West Bank has also damaged the intelligence capability of the ISA and military, officials said. Diskin said Israel’s presence in the area has been virtually nil.

The ISA has expressed opposition to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s plan for a unilateral withdrawal from 97 percent of the West Bank. In August, Olmert said he was suspending the plan to focus on rebuilding northern Israel in the aftermath of Hizbullah rocket strikes.

Diskin said Jihad and other Palestinian insurgency groups have sought to follow Hizbullah’s model in southern Lebanon. He said Palestinian insurgents have focused on smuggling rockets and missiles from Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula to the Gaza Strip.

Over the last few months, Diskin said, the Palestinians smuggled 15,000 rifles, 2,300 pistols, 15 tons of TNT, four million munitions rounds, 15 Grad BM-21 rockets, 400 rocket-propelled grenades, 65 anti-tank missiles and dozens of anti-aircraft missiles. He said Jihad and other groups have sought to transfer weapons and plans from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.

„At this point, anybody who wants to smuggle something through the Philadelphi route [Egypt-Gaza border] can apparently do so,“ Diskin said. „You can smuggle anything through Philadelphi except maybe a tank or plane.“

Krieg

USA warnen Teheran vor Konfrontation

politicacomment31. August 2006 Hinterlasse einen Kommentar

AFP – Das UN-Ultimatum zum Stopp der Urananreicherung an den Iran läuft heute ab, und mit jeder Stunde schwindet die Hoffnung auf eine Einigung. Bundesaußenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) warnte Teheran für den Fall des Festhaltens an der umstrittenen Urananreicherung vor den Folgen einer Konfrontation mit der westlichen Welt. Die USA rechnen damit, dass bereits im September ein Sanktionspaket beschlossen werden könnte.

Steinmeier sagte der „Bild“-Zeitung, sollte die Internationale Atomenergiebehörde (IAEA) in ihrem heute erwarteten Bericht feststellen, dass die UN-Auflagen nicht erfüllt seien, müsse der Iran mit „Einschränkungen seiner internationalen Handlungsfähigkeit“ rechnen. Das Verhandlungsangebot an den Iran bestehe uneingeschränkt weiter, betonte der Minister. Wenn Teheran die Anreicherung von Uran einstelle, „sind wir bereit, mit dem Iran über umfassende Zusammenarbeit und technische Unterstützung zu verhandeln. Unsere Hand bleibt ausgestreckt. Wir wollen eine diplomatische Lösung.“ Der Iran habe zwar ein Recht auf friedliche Nutzung der Kernenergie, aber kein Recht auf Atomwaffen.

Die USA rechnen offenbar nicht mehr mit einer gütlichen Einigung. Es sei „mehr als klar“, dass der Iran nicht die Absicht habe, die vor drei Monaten formulierten UN-Forderungen zu erfüllen, sagte US-Außenstaatssekretär Nicholas Burns im Fernsehsender CNN. Er glaube, dass der Sicherheitsrat sich schon im September auf Strafmaßnahmen gegen den Iran einigen werde.

Nach einem Bericht der „New York Times“ haben sich die USA, Großbritannien, Frankreich und Deutschland schon auf eine Liste von Sanktionen geeinigt. Diese zielten mit einem Lieferverbot für Nuklearmaterial und einem Reiseverbot für iranische Atomexperten zunächst auf die Blockade des Atomprogramms, berichtet das Blatt unter Berufung auf europäische und US-Vertreter. Sollte der Iran dennoch an der Urananreicherung festhalten, sollten auch Regierungsbeamte mit Reiseverboten belegt und ihre Auslandskonten eingefroren werden.

Sollte die IAEA – wie allgemein erwartet – zu dem Urteil kommen, dass der Iran der Forderung zum Stopp der Urananreicherung nicht nachgekommen ist, kann der Sicherheitsrat über politische und wirtschaftliche Sanktionen entscheiden. Er hatte Teheran eine Frist bis zum 31. August gesetzt, sein Programm zur Urananreicherung zu stoppen. Die iranische Führung hatte dies abgelehnt.

kriminalitaet

A Meta-Group Managing Drugs, Violence, and the State

politicacomment31. August 2006 Hinterlasse einen Kommentar

Dunlop’s Account of the Beaulieu Meeting’s Purpose: The “Russian 9/11” in 1999 / Part IV

Peter Dale Scott – According to Russian sources, one of the alleged purposes of the meeting at the villa – but not the only one – was to give the threatened Yeltsin “family” in the Kremlin what it supposedly needed in 1999: a Russian 9/11. Russia has been familiar for some time with charges that the bombings in Moscow in 1999, and an accompanying invasion of Russian Dagestan that rekindled the ongoing war in neighboring Chechnya, were both planned by Chechen Islamists, in collusion with a Kremin representative.

It is claimed that the well-connected drug-trafficking meta-group, with connections to both the Kremlin and the CIA, arranged in advance for the bombings and invasion at the meeting, in July 1999, at a French villa owned by Adnan Khashoggi. The group allegedly operated with support from Saudi Arabia and organized global drug trafficking, some of it probably through Kosovo.

9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, is scheduled to appear in August 2006

The evidence for this western face of the group is laid out in an article by a so-called Yuri Yasenev, on a Russian website. The article is cited – very selectively – as authoritative by a reputable Hoover Institution scholar, John B. Dunlop. But Dunlop completely ignores, indeed suppresses, Yasenev’s case as I have summarized it above. He uses the article instead to document a more familiar case: that in 1999 the Yeltsin “family” in the Kremlin dealt with this same group to create what might be called the “Russian 9/11.”

When I say that Dunlop suppresses certain details, I do not mean to suggest that he does so conspiratorially, or even consciously. My notion of deep politics, which I have developed elsewhere, posits that in every culture and society there are facts which tend to be suppressed collectively, because of the social and psychological costs of not doing so. Like all other observers, I too have involuntarily suppressed facts and even memories about the drug traffic that were too disturbing to be retained with equanimity.

Dunlop’s thesis (taken from his two main Russian sources) is that men of influence in Yeltsin’s Kremlin, building on connections established by the oligarch Boris Berezovsky, arranged for staged violence in order to reinforce support for an unpopular Russian government. This violence took the form of lethal bombings in Moscow, and an agreed-upon (and partly staged) Islamist incursion by Chechens into Russian Dagestan.

Western versions of the story, such as one in the Independent, have stressed that these events were arranged by Russian intelligence:

Boris Kagarlitsky … writing in the weekly Novaya Gazeta, says that the bombings in Moscow and elsewhere were arranged by the GRU (the Russian military intelligence service). He says they used members of a group controlled by Shirvani Basayev, brother of the Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev, to plant the bombs. These killed 300 people in Buikask, Moscow and Volgodonsk in September.

The bombings and war were allegedly a stratagem to boost the popularity of the Kremlin, and particularly the little-known new Prime Minister Putin, for the coming elections in November 1999. Dunlop blames the plotting on three protégés of the Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky – Valentin Yumashev, Alexander Voloshin, and Roman Abramovich – who at this point were members of Yeltsin’s “Family” in the Kremlin.

Dunlop’s thesis of Kremlin-structured violence follows the Russian journal Vestiya’s account of the Beaulieu meeting on July 4, 1999. In Dunlop’s words,

On the day following the initial incursion of rebel forces into the Dagestani highlands in early August of 1999, the investigative weekly Versiya published a path-breaking report claiming that the head of the Russian Presidential Administration, Aleksandr Voloshin, had met secretly with the most wanted man in Russia, Shamil’ Basaev, through the good offices of a retired officer in the GRU, Anton Surikov, at a villa belonging to international arms merchant Adnan Khashoggi located [in Beaulieu] between Nice and Monaco.

Since October 2005, when I first wrote about the meta-group and the Beaulieu, the Versiya/Dunlop claim that Basaev was there has been challenged, because on July 3, 1999, only one day earlier, Basaev met with Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov in Grozny, Chechnya. But Basaev’s presence or absence is not of major concern to me, because of my belief that the primary purpose of the meeting was not managed violence in Russia, but arrangements for a narcotics route through Kosovo.

If Dunlop is right about the meeting, it would be another example of the meta-group’s ability to manage both violence and the state. But in the course of this article two things should become clear. The first is that Surikov and other plotters at Beaulieu were not pro-Putin, but anti-Putin, indeed anti-Russian. The second is that Kagarlitsky, one of Dunlop’s two main sources for his story, was by 2002 close to Surikov.

We shall see that if politics were discussed at Beaulieu, it was more likely to have been the use of narcotics proceeds to finance anti-Russian Islamist activity, in a broad swathe of countries ranging from Macedonia to Russia itself. Dunlop himself corroborates a drug link to the meeting:

In June of 1999 there took up residence at the villa a Venezuelan banker named Alfonso Davidovich. In the Latin American press, he is said to be responsible for laundering the funds of the Columbian left insurrection organization FARC, which carries out an armed struggle with the official authorities, supported by the narcotics business.

But Dunlop has no explanation for his presence.

Next: Dunlop’s Redactions of His Source Yasenev

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher.

vermischtes

Fidel bald wieder fidel

politicacomment30. August 2006

Harald Haack – In Kuba herrsche absolute Ruhe, wie Raul Castro, der Bruder des kubanischen Revolutionsführers Fidel Castro, jetzt einer syrischen Delegation erklärte. Außerdem, so berichtet die Parteizeitung „Granma“, erhole sich Fidel „allmählich und zufrieden stellend“. Raul ist der derzeit amtierende Präsident von Kuba. Fidel Castro hatte ihm, da schwer erkrankt, den Posten übertragen. Unter Raul Castros Führung wird zurzeit das Gipfeltreffen der Blockfreien vorbereitet, das vom 11. bis 16. September 2006 in Havanna stattfinden soll. Damit wird es das dritte Mal sein, dass sich diese Staatsgruppe in Havanna trifft. Angesagt haben sich Delegationen aus 116 Staaten. Fidel Castro hatte dieses Treffen zu einem Forum gegen die USA machen wollen, wie die „Basler Zeitung“ schreibt. Wir dürfen also gespannt sein, in wie weit sein Bruder Raul sein Vorhaben realisiert und ob Fidel Castro bald wieder fidel genug ist, um wieder mit großen Worten gegen die USA ätzen zu können.

politanalysis dot com

hier ein untertitel

Autor: politicacomment

A Meta-Group Managing Drugs, Violence, and the State

Blair drängt auf Söldnernachschub aus Südafrika

A Meta-Group Managing Drugs, Violence, and the State

A Meta-Group Managing Drugs, Violence, and the State

A Meta-Group Managing Drugs, Violence, and the State

Senator Hillary Clinton: All Show and no Substance

Iran-backed group has occupied northern West Bank

USA warnen Teheran vor Konfrontation

A Meta-Group Managing Drugs, Violence, and the State

Fidel bald wieder fidel