portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

corporate dominance | drug war | imperialism & war

So what was our agenda in Yugoslavia?

If there was no evidence of Yugoslavian government-ordered atrocities against the Albanian and Muslim refugees, then what was the reason that would compel the United States to crawl into bed with a known terrorist organization and with the man (bin Laden) we claimed had been responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing?
So what was our agenda in Yugoslavia?
2002 by Jim Moore, from the forthcoming book "Big Oil - Big War: The true story of September 11, 2001 and the 'War on Terror' - Writer's Club Press: San Jose, New York, Lincoln, Shanghai.
If there was no evidence of Yugoslavian government-ordered atrocities against the Albanian and Muslim refugees, then what was the reason that would compel the United States to crawl into bed with a known terrorist organization and with the man (bin Laden) we claimed had been responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing?
The answer lies in something vaguely called "the New World Order." Most Americans wrote it off as some right-wing paranoia - until President George H. W. Bush made repeated references to it in speech after speech, not only to the American people but to the United Nations as well. It was, Bush pointed out, the very cornerstone upon which the Gulf War was being fought - to create "a New World Order."
After that war ended, the phrase retreated to the back of the American memory until we woke up one day to discover that his son, George W. Bush, had suddenly unloaded on us a "Shadow Government" that provided only for the executive branch, leaving both Congress and the federal judiciary to fend for themselves in case of government collapse.
Bush quickly retreated in use of the term "shadow government" and started using other terms to describe it. He somewhat correctly pointed out that it was nothing new. It had been created and funded by President Reagan during the Iran-Contra years. In fact, its existence goes back decades before Reagan. It was simply Reagan, with the assistance and urging of CIA Director William Casey and Col. Oliver North, who brought it to fruition without the knowledge or funding of Congress. Instead, they used billions of dollars in money generated by CIA drug trafficking that began at least as early as 1962, shortly after the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. (This will be covered in more extensive detail in another section).
Reagan's conquest and destruction of the Soviet Union through economic rather than military means has been described as one of the great events of the 20th Century. Others argue that despite surface appearances, it never happened, and that the Soviet Union is still very much alive and well, it's "demise" being nothing more than a propaganda ploy to lull the US into a false sense of security and to obtain virtually unlimited US funding. Again, there is a mountain of evidence to support this theory, including testimony of the highest-ranking intelligence officer to ever defect from the Soviet Union, Col. Stanislav Lunev, but that will have to be dealt with separately.
The 'Evil Empire' and the New World Order
The New World Order concept has aroused right-wingers for decades as being a Soviet scheme to take over the world, imposing a global government, global economy, global army and global religion, thus paving the way for the anti-Christ. They brand it as an evil plot hatched by the communist-dominated United Nations.
Ironically, the people of Russia fear the New World Order as much as US conservatives, but they see it as a US plot to accomplish the same goals.
In fact, both Russian and American conservatives are partly correct. The United Nations is the vehicle by which it is being implemented. NATO is its de facto global army, as we can't help but see from what has happened in the Balkans. In recent years, even the US left-wingers have joined the chorus, pointing to NAFTA, GATT and the WTO as the tools being used to destroy the sovereignty of all nations and impose upon us all an un-elected world government. Those nations who won't play ball are branded as pariahs in the world community and often find themselves looking down the NATO gun barrels.
The New World Order is neither a "communist" nor "fascist" invention. It, like the United Nations, is largely a US-created many-headed monster that has been pre-empted by the multinational corporations who see the world as its labor pool and marketplace, with we, the people, being the "property of the state" - the "state" being the New World Order.
Scores, if not hundreds of books have been written and videos produced on who and what the New World Order is all about, so I will not begin to go into all of that. Suffice it to say that the NWO is a reality, not a paranoid delusion of either right or left. It is strongly supported by both major political parties and by the "mainstream" political leaders of both liberal and conservative bent.

NATO as the New World Order Globo-Cop
The movement of NATO forces against Yugoslavia is part of a new military doctrine laid out by the Clinton administration. The goal: to turn NATO into an aggressive global police force - the New World Order Army if you will.
That became clear December 8, 1998 when US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright presented the plan to a meeting of NATO foreign ministers. Just three days earlier, Dec. 5, the International Herald Tribune had proclaimed: "Washington sees this as a precedent for a new NATO."
It goes beyond the Balkans, to authorizing actions anywhere in the world. NATO acted in the Balkans under US initiative and without even a UN mandate, demonstrating clearly that the NWO is an American brainchild.
Justification for this "new NATO" intervention was based on reports of alleged massacres of Albanians. The UN could find no evidence of such massacres, nor could German intelligence. The "evidence" was in the form of a report by one, William Walker, of the US State Department, who was head of the Kosovo Verification Mission.
Walker is anything but the neutral, independent observer we were told he was. He has a history of similar disinformation throughout South America, where he worked with the US-trained death squads of El Salvador (you know - those guys who raped and murdered Catholic nuns?), and was responsible for setting up a "humanitarian operation" in Nicaragua. That "humanitarian operation" was financed with Contra cocaine sent to the US and laundered through Col. Oliver North and others. It had no "humanitarian" mission whatsoever - unless you consider the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government "humanitarian."
His reports of Albanian massacres were scoffed at by most European news media, such as Le Monde and even Le Figaro (which has strong ties to George Bush through its owner, the Carlyle Group). So long as damage could be contained to Europe and not appear in the US press, Clinton officials didn't care.
The liberals and peaceniks of Vietnam were now the war hawks of the Balkans, a transformation lamented by CounterPunch, a very sassy and very liberal weekly magazine.
Being a peacenik is definitely passe'. Liberals are learning once again--did they every truly forget--that it's fun to be a warmonger and cheer the high explosive as it falls. After suffering indigestion towards the end of the Vietnam affair, they got the taste for war again in the mid-1990s, with Bosnia. They became the "laptop bombardiers," an apt phrase coined by Simon Jenkins in The Spectator in 1995.
Back then, there wasn't a week, for months on end, that Anthony Lewis didn't call for the bombardment of Serbia. The Serbs became demons, monsters, and Milosevic the most demonic monster of all. Last week I ran across an interesting piece by an Indian, Lt General Satish Nambiar who had been First Force Commissioner and Head of Mission of the United Nations force deployed in the former Yugoslavia from March 1992 to March 1993. He was writing in an Indian journal. "Portraying the Serbs as evil and everybody else as good was not only counterproductive but dishonest," the general writes. "According to my experience all sides were guilty but only the Serbs would admit that they were no angels while the others would insist that they were." (From Vietnam to Serbia, CounterPunch -  http://www.counterpunch.org/viet.html)
The magazine also put the blame squarely on the media:
The worst offender was the press, which carefully ignored detailed accounts of how the Bosnian Muslims were manipulating western opinion most notoriously by almost certainly lobbing a missile in to a marketplace filled with their own people. When the Croats ethnically cleansed the Krajina of hundreds of thousands of Serbs--the biggest such cleansing in the Balkans since World War II--with direction from US military and CIA officer, reporters and commentators mostly looked the other way or actually cheered. "The Serbs Asked For It," exulted the headline on a piece in the Los Angeles Times by pundit William Pfaff. Monitors for the European Union prepared a report on the Croat atrocities, and though it was confidential, Robert Fisk of the London Independent was able to get a copy. "Evidence of atrocities; an average of six corpses a day, continue to emerge...the corpses--some fresh, some decomposed--are mainly of old men. Many have been shot in the back of the head or had throats slit, others have been mutilated...Serbian homes and lands continue to be looted. The crimes have been perpetrated by the HV (Croatian Army) the CR (Croatian Police) and CR civilians. There have been no observed attempts to stop it and the indications point to a scorched earth policy." (From Vietnam to Serbia, CounterPunch -  http://www.counterpunch.org/viet.html)
US strategic political objectives in Yugoslavia were the same as they had been in the Gulf War - to destabilize and fragmentize nations or blocs of nations which the US saw as a potential threat, not just to legitimate foreign and domestic national security interests, but to US economic expansion. The two have historically been seen as one and the same, not only by the US, by its British "mother nation" as well.
In the Middle East, that potential threat came from a growing alliance of nations that included Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and more loosely-allied nations in Africa such as Yemen, the Sudan and others. This Middle Eastern alliance had far-reaching tentacles, stretching across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to include Moslem fundamentalist groups in the Phillipines, as well as communist or leftist governments or groups in Chile, Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico, Paraquay, and Peru.
The United States' first concern focused on our dependence on oil. As the popwer of OPEC grew, so, too, did the potential that this cartel could literally bring America and the entire industrialized world to its knees by cutting off the oil supply. That concern went back much farther than the Gulf War, to include the US overthrow of the Iranian government in the 1950s, replacing it with the Shah of Iran, overthrown during the Carter administration. It went back even farther than that - to World War II and even the 1930s, as Hitler's scientists developed synthetic oil, yet continued to do "business as usual" with the giant American oil companies (known as the Seven Sisters) throughout that war. Attempts by private interests, such as Aristotle Onassis, to corner oil supplies and shipping facilities also concerned consecutive administrations, because Onassis had no loyalty to the US. Successive administrations mistakenly believed that Standard Oil, British Petroleum, Conoco and the Seven Sister members did have such loyalty - until World War II showed the US government that multinational corporations bore no loyalty to any particular nation - only to their bottom line profits.
It was at that point in history that private corporate interests became thoroughly and inextricably bound up with US national security interests. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
The US attempt to create a fair and even-handed international community - the short-lived League of Nations and the United Nations which replaced it - turned out to be a disaster in the Korean War, when US military officials discovered, to their outrage, that the Soviet Union and China were quietly sending North Korea military intelligence that US commanders were required, by international law, to turn over to the UN. The UN at that time was dominated by communist interests and was using it as its own private spy agency based in New York. Records unveiled after that war revealed that North Korea often had more information about captured US troops than most US field commanders had - even down to their American street addresses and names of family members. All of this was mercilessly used against US prisoners of war in Chinese brainwashing and interrogation techniques. That information, plus the UN demand that the US was not allowed to cross the demarcation lines and defeat the invading North Korean-Chinese forces made Gen. Douglas MacArthur madder than anything he had encountered. His anger rose to the level of what President Truman felt was "insubordination" and MacArthur was fired.
Quietly, the US realized it had to alter the balance of power within the UN itself, or let it go crashing down as the League of Nations had done. Out of that awareness came a decision to covertly alter the leadership power within the various nations themselves rather than to risk a no-win public confrontation within the United Nations.
From that was born a secret foreign policy, made public when it suited national interests, to try to contain and fragment the Soviet-Chinese alliance. While the US poked and probed to find weak spots in that alliance, the Sino-Soviet empire was making similar stabs into the Western hemisphere. While the US initially cheered and funded the Cuban revolution of Fidel Castro, organized crime interests in the US had established their own power within the executive, legislative and judicial branches to protect its Cuban interests - gambling, alcohol, prostitution and money laundering - which Castro vowed to crush.
What the Eisenhower administration did not realize when it supported the Castro revolution was that La Cosa Nostra (Mafia, organized crime) had a far more powerful grip over America than anyone imagined. J. Edgar Hoover for years denied there was such a thing as "the mafia." Only after his death was it discovered that he himself had been indirectly accepting money from the very bootlegging powers he was supposed to be defeating, through Canadian contributions from Seagram's to the J. Edgar Hoover Foundation. Mafia influence over the national political agenda had begun in earnest during the Roosevelt years and extended into both political parties during the Dewey-Truman campaigns. It wasn't until the middle of the last century that organized crime, for the most part, buried the hatchet and formed a national power-sharing crime syndicate.
Those powerful forces, run by Southeastern US mob boss Carlos Marcello, managed to turn Castro into a pariah overnight. The Soviets saw our Achilles' heel and quickly moved in to establish a beachhead only 90 miles from the US shoreline. The Eisenhower-Nixon administration reacted with the Bay of Pigs invasion plan - but Nixon unexpectedly lost the 1960 election to John F Kennedy, thanks to the criminal assistance of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and his criminal empire (Sam Giancana), which was in competition with Marcello and other "Mafia families" across the nation. The 1950s, as those old enough will recall, was riddled with open gang warfare in the streets; it was a continuation of the warfare dating back to the days of Al Capone.
Kennedy effectively crushed the Bay of Pigs invasion by refusing to provide the air support Nixon had promised as White House liaison, outraging not only the military and intelligence forces involved (CIA), but also the Mafia and the Cuban exiles, who felt betrayed. For many years, the Mafia - conservatives politically - had avoided getting involved heavily in the drug trafficking business. It was there that, strangely, they drew a moral line in the sane. The Bay of Pigs changed that forever. The CIA was stuck with hundreds of angry Cuban exiles who had no legitimate source of income and were demanding to be "taken care of." It was at that point that the CIA actually re-introduced cocaine and marijuana (both had earlier been legal in the US; cocaine was the favorite ingredient of Coca-Cola and was widely used in patent medicines) into the US on a massive scale, utilizing the Central American connections of the Bay of Pigs veterans. At that point, the Mafia shrugged its shoulders and said, "Why not?"
Drugs became an integral part of US foreign policy with the Vietnam War, fought not for "democracy" but for control of the Golden Triangle. America's most decorated Green Beret, Col. Bo Gritz, has had much to say about Air America, the southeast Asian drug lords and the CIA, but no one wanted to listen. Britain had done the same thing years earlier in its famous Opium Wars.
Throughout most of the 1960s, the Mafia old guard still refused to touch the drug business, but independent traffickers moved in and with the help of the CIA monopolized the drug, until the 1970s, when the "young Turks" of the Mafia, eager for the money that drugs brought in, overthrew the old guard (or they simply died off). The CIA, coming under more intense scrutiny and, seemingly, oversight in the Vietnam years and immediately after, saw heroin and cocaine as an easy way to fund covert operations Congress would not.
Legitimate national security interests were diluted, with increasing influence and control by multinational corporate agendas and drug trafficking agendas, until the point they all became one and the same, dictating the broader framework of US foreign policy. The only thing that did not change that much was the original goal of containing and fragmenting "the enemy." That goal now became a common goal of not only the US government, but of the economic (oil-drug-corporate) interests involved in this unholy alliance. Virtually every military action the US has taken since then - as well as many domestic military/police/intelligence covert actions - have had two or more of those controlling interests calling the shots.
The public agenda of "making the world safe for democracy" became corrupted and became "making the world safe for capitalism." The problem was, it wasn't the kind of "capitalism" taught in high school economics classes; it was the worst form of greed and corruption possible and, over the years, came to pose a greater threat to true "national security" than any foreign power.
By the time the Balkan wars were launched, US officials had no qualms about publicly making it clear our goal was to create "market-oriented governments" around the world. Uninformed Americans had no idea what that phrase really meant. The only way to keep Americans uninformed - and to also eliminate the greatest threat to their "enterprise", a free press - was to gradually take control of the nation's news media. This is a process that began in earnest in the 1950s and continues to this day. From the destruction or perversion of the First Amendment, it was just a hop, skip and a jump to doing away with those other "out-dated" freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights.
As the New Millennium gets off to a lurching, uncertain start, all of those Constitutional rights are being dismantled with alarming rapidity. The alert reader of student of current events and history can quickly see that in the current "War on Terror" all of these factors - oil, drugs, total control of the press and the population, and a containment-based foreign policy - all come into play. The only change has been a subtle one in which "containment" policy has become "domination" policy.
The reasoning is coldly logical. "Containment" is only a temporary state of affairs, and has to be repeated over and over. "Domination" however, can become more permanent, more entrenched. Why waste valuable resources fighting the same battle over and over - when you can go that extra mile and win, not the battle, but the war?
The only question the populations of the nation's countries will be left asking is: who is the enemy? Who is the "controller" and who are the "controlled"? Is it some Cold War boogeyman called "communism?" Is it fascism? Is it some shadowy "New World Order"? Only when the goal of "total privatization" of the world's labor, capital and resources is achieves will the population of Planet Earth realize, like the blind men describing a part of the unseen, but felt elephant, it is all of the above, and the masters are those multinational corporations with their fingers in every pie, their noses pried into every life, and every resource of the earth from food to water to clean air an "asset" owned not by the people of Earth, but by the corporate taskmasters who have us their "labor pool."
This was the agenda in Yugoslavia and it has been the agenda in every conflict since, and in those we are about to witness, beginning in September 2002 when the true "mother of all battles" begins - an invasion of and war against Iran, Iraq and Syria, already planned, already being outfitted. We can only hope this will not be, as those who lived through World War I hoped that one would be, "the War to End All Wars." This time it could spell an end to more than war itself. It could spell an end to the human race.

homepage: homepage: http://www.tenntimes.org

What the hell did you think it was 13.Apr.2002 09:36


It's OIL stupid!

Friday February 15, 7:22 am Eastern Time
U.S. majors consider Balkan pipeline-project head
SOFIA, Feb 15 (Reuters) - U.S. oil giants ExxonMobil Corp.(NYSE:XOM - news) and ChevronTexaco Corp.(NYSE:CVX - news) are considering building a $1.13 billion trans-Balkan pipeline to ship oil westwards from the Caspian and the Black Sea, the project's manager said on Friday.

``We are in regular discussions with ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil and examine various aspects of the project,'' said Edward Ferguson, President and CEO of the Albanian, Macedonian and Bulgarian Oil Corporation (AMBO) which manages the project.

The project, in discussion since 1996, envisages carrying Caspian oil from Bulgaria to Albania via Macedonia, bypassing the heavily used Bosphorus Straits through Turkey.

AMBO, registered in the U.S., has letters of acceptance from the governments of the three Balkan countries for the 898 km (560 mile) underground pipeline linking Bulgaria's Black Sea port of Bourgas to the Albanian port of Vlora.

The pipeline would have a daily capacity of 750,000 barrels.

Ferguson said the project would be fully financed by Western companies and the three Balkan countries just had to provide institutional support.

He said the main consumers of the oil carried through the trans-Balkan pipeline would be northwestern Europe and the United States rather than the Mediterranean region.

``America's own crude resources are declining rapidly and it already imports over 50 percent of its annual needs. Europe enters in a similar situation -- reserves in the north are declining and it will start running out of oil supplies around 2010,'' said Ferguson.

AMBO was confident that another planned 700 million euro ($607 million) pipeline sending crude from Russia to Greece via Bulgaria would not threaten its own project as the two had targeted different investors and consumers.

The second project envisages carrying 35 million tonnes of crude per year from Russian port of Novorossiisk by tanker to Bourgas in Bulgaria, from where the 256 km underground pipeline will transfer the oil to Alexandroupulis in northeastern Greece.

``Bourgas-Alexandroupulis is going to be decided by Russia, Bulgaria and Greece with the help of Russian oil companies. The decision for Bourgas-Vlora will be made by Western firms supported by the U.S. and Europe,'' said Ferguson.

(1 euro equals $0.87)