The people’s Prime Minister: Imran Khan’s triumph against the odds

FEB 12, 2024

Despite facing the collective opposition of Washington and its local allies, Pakistan’s incarcerated, charismatic leader has scored a stunning electoral victory against his detractors – though the military still holds the power play.

Photo Credit: The Cradle

F.M. Shakil

Imran Khan, Pakistan’s jailed 71-year-old former cricketer-turned-politician, surprised the US and its allies in Islamabad with his party’s stunning victory in the 8 February parliamentary elections.

Locked behind bars and serving a cumulative 30-year sentence over three corruption cases, the triumph of Khan’s Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) party defied all odds, snapping up most of the seats, “humiliating the country’s military rulers, and creating a political crisis” in the process.  

His ousting from office in April 2022 following a parliamentary no-confidence motion, which he claimed was orchestrated by the US, seemed like a temporary setback. Khan’s bold decision to visit Moscow on 23 February, 2022, on the eve of Russia’s Ukraine invasion and its deteriorating ties with the west, further ruffled feathers within Washington and the Pakistani military establishment.

The country’s de-facto military rulers, panicked by Khan’s ‘unexpected’ electoral victory, are presently planning to establish a unity government without Khan’s PTI, seeking to diminish its parliamentary influence through a combination of defections – both coerced and voluntary – leveraging various political factions to achieve their aims.

PTI’s comeback in a rigged game 

According to the country’s Election Commission (ECP), which announced the preliminary results more than 60 hours after polling ended, the independent candidates – fielded by the PTI – bagged 93 seats in the National Assembly (NA). Earlier, the ECP tally showed the PTI clinched 100 seats, but later, those independent members who were not part of the PTI were listed separately. Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) got 75, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) secured 54, Muthahida Qaumi Movement Pakistan (MQM-P) got 17, and other smaller and regional parties and non-PTI independent members clinched 26 seats. The NA has a total of 266 seats, excluding 60 reserved for women and non-Muslims.

Barrister Gohar Ali, who assumed the position of PTI Chairman after Khan’s incarceration for ethical and financial transgressions, tells The Cradle: “We secured 170 seats in the National Assembly and are ready to set up a government in the center as well as in the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces.” 

He adds that the PTI’s symbolic cricket bat emblem has been withdrawn by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in a petulant move that underscores how silly electoral machinations have become. 

Out of these seats, 100 are those that the ECP has admitted and issued provisional results for, but 70 seats, including three in Islamabad, four in Sindh, and the rest in Punjab, are being converted into defeated ones even though the PTI had won them.

According to Ali, the PTI was able to demonstrate such a tremendous achievement despite that its election campaign was not allowed. PTI candidates were harassed, arrested, and barred from holding public meetings. 

“Mobile networks were stopped statewide on Thursday, hindering party officials’ ability to inform supporters about their selected independent candidate in each constituency. Our workers were unable to monitor polling locations. The level of manipulation occurring in the poll was excessively absurd,” he declares.

Partisan maneuvering and manipulation

On 10 February, the Inter-Service Public Relations (ISPR), the official communication channel of the army, released a statement from the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), General Syed Asim Munir, outlining a policy-driven vision for the country’s governance. 

General Munir emphasized the imperative of establishing a “unity government” to ensure the stability needed to propel Pakistan’s economic progress forward.

A day earlier, Khan’s political rival, PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif echoed similar sentiments in his speech, tasking his brother, former prime minister Shehbaz Sharif, with reaching out to key parties like the PPP and MQM-P to explore alliances.

Subsequently, PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto and Vice Chairman Asif Ali Zardari engaged in discussions with PML-N’s Shahbaz Sharif, with Zardari entrusted to liaise with other parliamentary factions – including independents – to consolidate support for their envisioned coalition. Additionally, a delegation from MQM-P conferred with Nawaz Sharif to strategize for the future.

The hectic political activities in Islamabad aim to thwart the PTI’s chances of coming to power by reducing its parliamentary strength through forced or bribed defections. Before the poll, there were widespread speculations about a power-sharing arrangement between the PML-N and PPP, in which Sharif would take on the position of prime minister and Zardari would accept the post of president. The likelihood of a coalition being formed between the two parties is very high.

Since the PTI lawmakers are officially categorized as independents, they are not obligated to vote by party affiliation. This gives rise to the potential for coerced defections. Furthermore, without joining a political party, the PTI cannot secure its share of the National Assembly’s 70 “reserved seats” designated for women and minorities, which are distributed proportionally according to a party’s overall vote. It is also important to note that Khan is presently imprisoned and disqualified from seeking political candidacy.

Erosion of Pakistan’s electoral integrity

Despite these challenges, PTI emerged as the largest single party post-election, a formidable force poised to play a pivotal role in shaping Pakistan’s political future. However, a notable consequence of these elections has been the marginalization of religious and nationalist parties, particularly evident in regions like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where the Awami National Party (ANP) faced significant setbacks.

Speaking to The Cradle, Zahid Khan, the ANP central spokesperson says:

Once again, the people of smaller provinces have been denied their rightful representation, not as an act of revenge from voters, but as part of a preplanned strategy … The political forces in Punjab and Sindh are not willing to let them govern despite the PTI having sufficient seats in the Punjab provincial assembly and the national assembly.

In the lead-up to the national elections, efforts were underway to undermine Imran Khan’s chances of returning to power, orchestrated by influential elements within the state apparatus. The Election Commission, responsible for overseeing fair elections, dealt a blow to the PTI by invalidating its intra-party election on 22 December. 

However, PTI swiftly challenged this decision in the Peshawar High Court, securing a temporary suspension of the ruling on 26 December. However, this respite was short-lived as the court ultimately sided with the ECP, reinstating the decision to nullify PTI’s internal election and revoke its electoral symbol.

Prosecution or political persecution? 

Meanwhile, the legal machinery accelerated its proceedings, seemingly aimed at barring Khan from participating in the upcoming election. In a controversial ruling on 30 January, Khan was sentenced to 10 years in prison by a trial court for allegedly unlawfully disclosing sensitive information.

Notably, the hearings took place within the confines of Rawalpindi prison, where Khan was detained, deviating from the norm of a public courtroom setting. His legal team protested against this unconventional procedure, citing constitutional violations.

Khan’s incarceration since August stemmed from his vocal criticism of the military, with this particular case revolving around a diplomatic cable that went missing while under his purview. Khan, while denying direct involvement, had referenced the memo as evidence of foreign interference in his removal from office in 2022.

On 31 January, the next day, an anti-corruption court in Pakistan sentenced the former prime minister and his wife, Bushra Khan, to 14 years in prison each, on the charge of unlawfully selling state articles. This occurred just one day after Khan was sentenced to 10 years in prison in a separate case. Following the third conviction recently imposed on the beleaguered former cricket star, the conditions also entail a 10-year ban on holding public and party offices.

In another instance, a local court imposed a seven-year sentence on Khan and his spouse for engaging in a marriage that the court deemed “un-Islamic” – a ruling declared earlier this month in a case initiated by the ex-husband of Bushra Bibi.

If there were any lingering doubts regarding Khan’s allegations of US interference in Pakistan’s delicate democratic processes, recent events seem to validate his claims. This wouldn’t be the first instance of Washington and its intelligence networks undermining a populist, democratically-elected leader in the region, echoing historical precedents such as the 1953 coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Imran Khan PTI party leader and electoral candidate shot dead in rally

 January 31, 2024

Source: News Websites

Rehan Zaib Khan, Pakistan’s Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party leader and electoral candidate, was the target of an assassination plot.

Supporters of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and political party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) attend an election campaign rally in Lahore, Pakistan, Sunday, Jan. 28, 2024. (AP)

By Al Mayadeen English

Imran Khan’s party leader was shot dead in a rally on Wednesday, in the Bajur district along the Afghan border. 

Rehan Zaib Khan, Pakistan’s Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party leader and electoral candidate, was the target of an assassination plot that resulted in his death and the injury of four of his aides and three of his supporters. 

Police officer Rasheed Khan reported on the incident and revealed that the plot was possibly derived from rising tensions and militant violence amid the Pakistani elections, which are set to take place on February 8. 

Zaib Khan was a contestant for the National Assembly elections as an independent candidate after Pakistan’s top court disallowed the PTI from running. The assassination was conducted during a rally campaign for the PTI leader.

“PTI leader from NA-8 Bajaur, Rehan Zeb Khan, was shot dead by unidentified assailants. Three of his supporters were also injured. The incident happened during Khan’s election campaign,” a senior official remarked.

Related News

This comes after a bombing attack that targeted another PTI rally on Tuesday, killing at least four people and injuring five others. 

Threatening elections for the PTI

Zaib Khan’s assassination also coincided with Imran Khan’s official jail sentence. 

Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi were sentenced to 14 years in jail in the Toshakhana case. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) filed a new reference against them, accusing them of “retaining a jewelry set received from the Saudi crown prince at an undervalued assessment.”

The verdict, delivered just eight days before the February 8 general elections, adds to the challenges facing the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party amid a state crackdown and the absence of an electoral symbol. This comes just one day following another sentencing of Imran Khan and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi to 10 years in prison for allegedly “disclosing state secrets”.

The PTI has been allegedly backing independent candidates running in the elections but has been facing an intense state-led crackdown, widely believed to be orchestrated by Pakistan’s influential military, effectively excluding Khan and his party from the election campaign.

Jamal Ahsan Khan now stands for PTI in Mianwali instead of Imran Khan, with the latter facing legal challenges and currently being incarcerated due to a graft conviction believed to be politically motivated.

Ahsan Khan highlighted the grim reality of the campaign, stating, “Our party [activists] are facing harassment, and I personally have received death threats. Throughout my life, I have never witnessed an election as intense and threatening as this one.”

Iranian Missiles, Drones Hit Jaysh Al-Adl Terrorist Group’s Bases in Pakistan

January 16, 2024

 Iran – Live News – Middle East – News – Top

Two key strongholds of the “Jaysh Al-Adl” terrorist group in Pakistan have been obliterated through precision missile and drone strikes.

Significant bases belonging to the Jaysh Al-Adl terrorist group on Pakistani soil were destroyed on Tuesday.

According to reports obtained by the Tasnim news agency, these bases were specifically targeted and successfully demolished by a combination of missile and drone attacks.

The focal point of this operation was the region known as Kouh-Sabz (green mountain) in the Balochistan province of Pakistan, recognized as one of the largest hubs for the Jaysh al-Dhulm militants.

Additional information will be released in forthcoming updates.

In mid-December, the notorious Jaish al-Adl (known in Iran as Jaish al-Dhulm) terrorist group stormed a police station in Sistan and Balouchestan province’s city of Rask, southeast of Iran, which resulted in the martyrdom of 11 Iranian Police forces.

Following the incident, Iranian Foreign Minister Hussein Amirabdollahian and his Pakistani counterpart Jalil Abbas Jilani discussed ways to strengthen security cooperation between the two neighbors.

Jilani also condemned the terrorist attack, describing terrorism as a common threat to Iran, Pakistan and the wider region.

IRGC discloses details about anti-terror missile strikes

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has disclosed more information about its latest missile strikes targeting an Israeli espionage center in Iraq and terrorist positions in Syria.

In a statement on Tuesday, the IRGC said all the intended targets were precisely hit and destroyed using 24 ballistic missiles.

The elite force said that four Kheibar ballistic missiles were launched from Khuzestan Province in southwest Iran towards ISIL terrorist positions in the Idlib region of Syria.

ISIL claimed responsibility for two bomb blasts that killed nearly 100 people at a memorial for Iran’s top anti-terror commander General Qassem Suleimani in southeastern Iran early this month.

Four more missiles were launched from western Iran, along with seven others from the northwest of the country, targeting a Mossad center in the Kurdistan region of Iraq.

Nine missiles of various types also struck the positions of other terrorist groups in different areas of the occupied territories in Syria.

The IRGC reassured the Iranian nation that the retaliatory operations by will continue until “the last drop of blood of our beloved nation’s martyrs is avenged.”

In an earlier statement, the IRGC had said that the missile strike against the Mossad center in the Iraqi Kurdistan region was in retaliation for the recent assassinations of IRGC and other regional resistance commanders by the Israeli regime.

IRGC

Source: Tasnim News Agency

Related Videod

Scene | Iran’s ballistic messages…a new stage? | 01-16-2024
Habib Fayyad: These are the indications of Iran’s response. Any disruption could ignite the region… The party prepared and only used 2% of its strength!
Imad Rizk made fiery statements: Cruise missiles will close the port of Haifa, Ashdod, and Ashkelon! The American is hungry for Franjieh

Related News

U.S. Responsible for Coups Worldwide

September 26, 2023

Salvador Allende, was toppled and killed by the Chilean army with the support of the United States

By Asad Ismi

Global Research,

Newsbreak.com 20 September 2023

Sept. 11 is deeply singed in the collective memory of the American people.

The attacks on American soil on Sept. 11, 2001, were a watershed event that has affected almost everything we do.

I write this column in the background of our relentless preaching of democracy around the world, but the fact is our government has violated the democratic rights of people in other countries with abandon.

It just happens that this year Sept. 11 marked another anniversary of events that happened 50 years ago. On that fateful day the democratically elected socialist president of Chile,

Salvador Allende, was toppled and killed by the Chilean army with the support of the United States.

An army general by the name of Augusto Pinochet assumed power and for the next 17 years let loose a reign of terror on his people.

Pinochet’s crimes against his own people are monumental. He arrested 80,000 people, executed anywhere between 1,200 and 3,200, and tortured tens and thousands. In addition, thousands of Chileans disappeared on his watch.

While the country faced political instability and financial crisis, the dictator amassed vast amounts of wealth.

His 17-year rule of terror came to an end when people rejected him in a plebiscite in 1988. By the time of Pinochet’s death in 2006, there were already 300 criminal charges still pending against him for numerous human rights violations and embezzlement.

And all through this the Nixon administration stood by and supported the dictator.

Laughing on the Way to Armageddon. “Russian Influence”, Not a Scrap of Evidence

In 1979, the Pakistan army toppled the democratically elected government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. A meek and humble-looking army general, Zia ul Haq, became the dictator, and despite the promise of fresh elections within six months he protracted his rule for 10 years.

Zia ul Haq and Ronald Reagan

Left-leaning Bhutto had become an irritant for the United States. His idea of pursuing an independent foreign policy did not sit well in Washington. Neither did his ambition to develop an atomic bomb. Most people in Pakistan believe that the coup happened at the behest of the United States. Bhutto was later hanged by General Zia on flimsy evidence of ordering the murder of an opposition leader.

During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1978-1989), General Zia was the darling of the United States. He committed his country as a front-line state in the war against the Soviets.

Billions of dollars and sophisticated arms and ammunition were channeled through Pakistan to Afghan Mujahideen or freedom fighters. Young Muslim men from around the world, including the United States, were lured to participate in the jihad — holy war — against the Godless Soviet infidels. After 10 years, the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in humiliation.

The United States and other Western countries also picked up and left, leaving behind a rampant drug culture, religious militancy, and terrorism in Pakistan.

At that time the United States determined that General Zia had outlived his usefulness. He died in the fiery crash of C130 airplane, taking down with him the U.S. ambassador, Arnold Raphel, who had at the last moment accepted General Zia’s invitation to fly with him to Islamabad, the capital.

In an exhaustive article for the New Yorker magazine the investigative reporter Seymour Hersh analyzed the possible causes of crash and concluded that sabotage caused the plan to explode in the the sky.

Then-Secretary of State George Shultz prevented FBI from investigating the crash even though two American citizens, the American ambassador, and a high-ranking American military officer, were killed in the crash.

The latest incident of American interference in Pakistan was the ouster of the populist Prime Minister Imran Khan. He had made an official visit to Russia, despite opposition by the United States on the eve of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Later, he publicly stated that he was removed from office on behest of United States.

And then there is the story of Patrick Lumumba. In 1960, Congo (later the Democratic Republic of Congo) wrestled independence from Belgium, and a young Patrick Lumumba was elected prime minister. Soon a Belgian-backed army mutiny threatened the nascent democracy.

Lumumba appealed to the United States and United Nations for help, but his pleas were ignored.

The rebels executed Lumumba in 1961 and threw the country in turmoil. A 2001 report by the Belgian Commission implicated the United States and Belgium in the plot to kill Lumumba.

[The media and the governments casually blamed UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld for Lumumba’s execution. Hammarskjöld subsequently died in an air crash:

“On 18 September 1961, Hammarskjöld was en route to negotiate a cease-fire between United Nations Operation in the Congo forces and Katangese troops under Moise Tshombe. His Douglas DC-6 airliner SE-BDY crashed near Ndola, Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). Hammarskjöld perished as a result of the crash, as did all of the 15 other passengers. Wikipedia]

Every country has the right to safeguard its interest at home and abroad.

But willful sabotage of democracy around the world contradicts our public stand on spreading democracy in the world.

The original source of this article is Newsbreak.com

Copyright © Asad IsmiNewsbreak.com, 2023


Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

War of Economic Corridors: the India-Mideast-Europe ploy

SEP 25, 2023

Photo Credit: The Cradle

The India-Middle East-Europe transportation corridor may be the talk of the town, but it will likely go the way of the last three Asia-to-Europe connectivity projects touted by the west – to the dustbin. Here’s why.

Pepe Escobar

The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) is a massive public diplomacy op launched at the recent G20 summit in New Delhi, complete with a memorandum of understanding signed on 9 September. 

Players include the US, India, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and the EU, with a special role for the latter’s top three powers Germany, France, and Italy. It’s a multimodal railway project, coupled with trans-shipments and with ancillary digital and electricity roads extending to Jordan and Israel. 

If this walks and talks like the collective west’s very late response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched 10 years ago and celebrating a Belt and Road Forum in Beijing next month, that’s because it is. And yes, it is, above all, yet another American project to bypass China, to be claimed for crude electoral purposes as a meager foreign policy “success.”  

No one among the Global Majority remembers that the Americans came up with their own Silk Road plan way back in 2010. The concept came from the State Department’s Kurt Campbell and was sold by then-Secretary Hillary Clinton as her idea. History is implacable, it came down to nought.  

And no one among the Global Majority remembers the New Silk Road plan peddled by Poland, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Georgia in the early 2010s, complete with four troublesome trans-shipments in the Black Sea and the Caspian. History is implacable, this too came down to nought.   

In fact, very few among the Global Majority remember the $40 trillion US-sponsored Build Back Better World (BBBW, or B3W) global plan rolled out with great fanfare just two summers ago, focusing on “climate, health and health security, digital technology, and gender equity and equality.” 

A year later, at a G7 meeting, B3W had already shrunk to a $600 billion infrastructure-and-investment project. Of course, nothing was built. History really is implacable, it came down to nought. 

The same fate awaits IMEC, for a number of very specific reasons.

Map of The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC)

Pivoting to a black void 

The whole IMEC rationale rests on what writer and former Ambassador M.K. Bhadrakumar deliciously described as “conjuring up the Abraham Accords by the incantation of a Saudi-Israeli tango.”

This tango is Dead On Arrival; even the ghost of Piazzolla can’t revive it. For starters, one of the principals – Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman – has made it clear that Riyadh’s priorities are a new, energized Chinese-brokered relationship with Iran, with Turkiye, and with Syria after its return to the Arab League. 

Moreover, both Riyadh and its Emirati IMEC partner share immense trade, commerce, and energy interests with China, so they’re not going to do anything to upset Beijing.

At face value, IMEC proposes a joint drive by G7 and BRICS 11 nations. That’s the western method of seducing eternally-hedging India under Modi and US-allied Saudi Arabia and the UAE to its agenda. 

Its real intention, however, is not only to undermine BRI, but also the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INTSC), in which India is a major player alongside Russia and Iran.  

The game is quite crude and really quite obvious: a transportation corridor conceived to bypass the top three vectors of real Eurasia integration – and BRICS members China, Russia, and Iran – by dangling an enticing Divide and Rule carrot that promises Things That Cannot Be Delivered. 

The American neoliberal obsession at this stage of the New Great Game is, as always, all about Israel. Their goal is to make Haifa port viable and turn it into a key transportation hub between West Asia and Europe. Everything else is subordinated to this Israeli imperative. 

IMEC, in principle, will transit across West Asia to link India to Eastern and Western Europe – selling the fiction that India is a Global Pivot state and a Convergence of Civilizations. 

Nonsense. While India’s great dream is to become a pivot state, its best shot would be via the already up-and-running INTSC, which could open markets to New Delhi from Central Asia to the Caucasus. Otherwise, as a Global Pivot state, Russia is way ahead of India diplomatically, and China is way ahead in trade and connectivity. 

Comparisons between IMEC and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) are futile. IMEC is a joke compared to this BRI flagship project: the $57.7 billion plan to build a railway over 3,000 km long linking Kashgar in Xinjiang to Gwadar in the Arabian Sea, which will connect to other overland BRI corridors heading toward Iran and Turkiye. 

This is a matter of national security for China. So bets can be made that the leadership in Beijing will have some discreet and serious conversations with the current fifth-columnists in power in Islamabad, before or during the Belt and Road Forum, to remind them of the relevant geostrategic, geoeconomic, and investment Facts.

So, what’s left for Indian trade in all of this? Not much. They already use the Suez Canal, a direct, tested route. There’s no incentive to even start contemplating being stuck in black voids across the vast desert expanses surrounding the Persian Gulf. 

One glaring problem, for example, is that almost 1,100 km of tracks are “missing” from the railway from Fujairah in the UAE to Haifa, 745 km “missing” from Jebel Ali in Dubai to Haifa, and 630 km “missing” from the railway from Abu Dhabi to Haifa. 

When all the missing links are added up, there’s over 3,000 km of railway still to be built. The Chinese, of course, can do this for breakfast and on a dime, but they are not part of this game. And there’s no evidence the IMEC gang plans to invite them. 

All eyes on Syunik 

In the War of Transportation Corridors charted in detail for The Cradle in June 2022, it becomes clear that intentions rarely meet reality. These grand projects are all about logistics, logistics, logistics – of course, intertwined with the three other key pillars: energy and energy resources, labor and manufacturing, and market/trade rules. 

Let’s examine a Central Asian example. Russia and three Central Asian “stans” – Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan – are launching a multimodal Southern Transportation Corridor which will bypass Kazakhstan. 

Why? After all, Kazakhstan, alongside Russia, is a key member of both the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). 

The reason is because this new corridor solves two key problems for Russia that arose with the west’s sanctions hysteria. It bypasses the Kazakh border, where everything going to Russia is scrutinized in excruciating detail. And a significant part of the cargo may now be transferred to the Russian port of Astrakhan in the Caspian. 

So Astana, which under western pressure has played a risky hedging game on Russia, may end up losing the status of a full-fledged transport hub in Central Asia and the Caspian Sea region. Kazakhstan is also part of BRI; the Chinese are already very much interested in the potential of this new corridor.    

In the Caucasus, the story is even more complex, and once again, it’s all about Divide and Rule. 

Two months ago, Russia, Iran, and Azerbaijan committed to building a single railway from Iran and its ports in the Persian Gulf through Azerbaijan, to be linked to the Russian-Eastern Europe railway system. 

This is a railway project on the scale of the Trans-Siberian – to connect Eastern Europe with Eastern Africa and South Asia, bypassing the Suez Canal and European ports. The INSTC on steroids, in fact. 

Guess what happened next? A provocation in Nagorno-Karabakh, with the deadly potential of involving not only Armenia and Azerbaijan but also Iran and Turkiye. 

Tehran has been crystal clear on its red lines: it will never allow a defeat of Armenia, with direct participation from Turkiye, which fully supports Azerbaijan.

Add to the incendiary mix are joint military exercises with the US in Armenia – which happens to be a member of the Russian-led CSTO – cast, for public consumption, as one of those seemingly innocent “partnership” NATO programs. 

This all spells out an IMEC subplot bound to undermine INTSC. Both Russia and Iran are fully aware of the former’s endemic weaknesses: political trouble between several participants, those “missing links” of track, and all important infrastructure still to be built. 

Turkish Sultan Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for his part, will never give up the Zangezur corridor across Syunik, the south Armenian province, which was envisaged by the 2020 armistice, linking Azerbaijan to Turkiye via the Azeri enclave of Nakhitchevan – that will run through Armenian territory.

Baku did threaten to attack southern Armenia if the Zangezur corridor was not facilitated by Yerevan. So Syunik is the next big unresolved deal in this riddle. Tehran, it must be noted, will go no holds barred to prevent a Turkish-Israeli-NATO corridor cutting Iran off from Armenia, Georgia, the Black Sea, and Russia. That would be the reality if this NATO-tinted coalition grabs Syunik. 

Today, Erdogan and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev meet in the Nakhchivan enclave between Turkiye, Armenia, and Iran to start a gas pipeline and open a military production complex.   

The Sultan knows that Zangezur may finally allow Turkiye to be linked to China via a corridor that will transit the Turkic world, in Azerbaijan and the Caspian. This would also allow the collective west to go even bolder on Divide and Rule against Russia and Iran. 

Is the IMEC another far-fetched western fantasy? The place to watch is Syunik.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Top UK Journalist Isabel Oakeshott Gloated Over The US’ Role In Imran Khan’s Deposal

AUG 27, 2023

Source

Andrew Korybko

The Mainstream Media’s (MSM) narrative about former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s scandalous deposal in April 2022 has hitherto been that it supposedly represented a completely independent and purely democratic exercise that was entirely free of foreign influence. These analyses here and here argue that it was actually a US-backed post-modern coup carried out as punishment for his multipolar foreign policy, which readers can learn more about by reviewing the preceding pieces.

The details are beyond the scope of the present piece, however, which focuses on how the MSM’s narrative has abruptly shifted in light of the provocative op-ed published by top UK journalist Isabel Oakeshott for the Telegraph. In her article titled “Imran Khan isn’t a martyr for freedom. He’s a friend of the West’s worst enemies”, she breaks ranks with her peers after being triggered by a recent video about IK’s plight in prison that includes footage of his meeting with President Putin in February 2022.

Here’s her initial reaction to that from the article:

“But hang on a minute! Who’s that lurking in the video? Do I spy an image of Khan gladhanding Vladimir Putin, even as the Russian president rained bombs on Ukraine? Of all the many pictures his spin doctors could have selected of their man on the world stage, they chose this one, as well as an image of their leader meeting Xi Jinping, the Chinese president. What a blunder – and what a disturbing insight into Khan’s new allegiances, now he has left his colourful playboy past behind.”

She then gloated over the US’ role in his deposal:

“A sensational report by The Intercept claims that a leaked Pakistani government document shows his deposal was actively encouraged by the US State Department. No wonder! As the West united to support Ukraine, what was he doing gravitating towards the Kremlin? While his supporters wring their hands over his plight, others may be relieved that this complex character no longer has his finger on a nuclear button.”

Oakeshott is entitled to her opinion, but it surprised many that a leading UK journalist would break the MSM’s narrative on this ultra-sensitive issue in an op-ed for one of the West’s leading outlets. It’s also curious that the Telegraph didn’t include the typical disclaimer that their contributors’ views don’t necessarily reflect their own. Considering this, the message being conveyed is that they – and elements of the Western elite by extrapolation – are proud of the US’ most successful regime change in years.

The silver lining is that anyone who tries to gaslight by claiming that it’s a so-called “conspiracy theory” to allege US involvement in IK’s deposal is now discredited since those who they’re attacking can simply point to how top UK journalist Oakeshott gloated over this in the Telegraph. Without realizing it, she just dealt a powerful blow to Western soft power by exposing the hypocrisy of its “rules-based order”, which in this context lends credence to many Pakistanis’ claims that their government is illegitimate.

Persian Gulf leaders engage Taliban-ruled Afghanistan

AUG 22, 2023

While Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia engage with the Taliban-led government in Kabul to safeguard and promote their respective interests, they will stop short of full recognition.

Giorgio Cafiero

The Taliban has remained Afghanistan’s only de facto government since the US’s botched withdrawal from the country two years ago. Despite this, no country has to date officially recognized the Taliban government. But three prominent Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members—namely Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia—have taken a pragmatic approach to engaging with the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA). They have acknowledged the reality of the Taliban’s rise to power and cautiously engaged with the group, though formal recognition of the IEA has yet to occur.

The historical interactions of these Persian Gulf states with the Taliban deeply influence their current perspectives on post-US Afghanistan. During the late 1990s and early 2000s – before the US invasion and occupation – only Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Pakistan recognized the Taliban government. Qatar, although not formally engaged, fostered a “cordial” but unofficial relationship with the group during this time. 

More notably, in the 2010s, Doha emerged as a diplomatic intermediary between western powers and the group by hosting a Taliban diplomatic mission at the request of the Obama administration. This role further blossomed during Donald Trump’s tenure, as Doha facilitated talks with the Taliban that culminated in the pivotal 2020 Doha Agreement that outlined the terms for the US’s eventual withdrawal in 2021.

Qatar’s diplomatic gamble

When US/NATO forces were evacuating Afghanistan two years ago, Qatar and the UAE helped ensure a safe exit for western diplomats and media personnel from Afghanistan. This was a major factor behind the Biden administration’s decision to name Qatar a Major Non-NATO Ally in early 2022, which came shortly after US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced the institutionalization of Doha’s role as Washington’s “protecting power” in the IEA. 

Of all GCC states, Qatar appears most connected to the IEA. Taliban figures maintain a presence in Doha and have decent personal relationships with the Qatari leadership, although these more moderate Taliban representatives in Doha are not necessarily calling the shots in Kabul, which is a factor that places some limitations on Qatar’s influence in Afghanistan. 

In May, Qatar’s Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani became the first foreign official to publicly meet with the Taliban’s supreme leader, Haibatullah Akhunzada. Their meeting in Kandahar, known as the Taliban’s “spiritual birthplace,” underscored how the IEA views its relationship with Doha as crucial to efforts aimed at easing the Islamic Emirate’s international isolation.

Among Arab states in the Persian Gulf, Qatar “appears to be the most willing” to grant the IEA diplomatic recognition despite the challenges that would come with such a move, Javid Ahmad, a former Afghan ambassador to the UAE, tells The Cradle.


“While it’s difficult to determine whether Qatar perceives its current engagement as entirely risk-free, its significant material leverage over senior Taliban figures demonstrates its understanding of the potential opportunity costs and consequences of non-engagement or isolation. But taking the lead in formal recognition bears the weight of responsibility, ownership, and accountability. Being the first to act carries the risk of being the first to shouldering the consequences if it proves misguided, as seen in Pakistan, Saudi, and UAE’s recognition of the Taliban in [the 1990s].” 

This Qatari “leverage” over the IEA pertains to the monthly stipends which senior Taliban leaders have been receiving for years in Qatar, the resettlement of their families in Doha, facilitated business ventures in the Persian Gulf state for some IEA figures, as well as the allocation of plots of land for some of them to build new residences there.

The UAE’s pragmatic approach 

The Afghan diaspora community in the UAE stands at roughly 300,000. This sizeable presence across the seven emirates is the basis of many people-to-people and financial links between the UAE and Afghanistan. 

In the post-US Afghanistan era, Abu Dhabi has exhibited a nuanced and cautious stance with the new government in Kabul. After the Taliban displaced Afghanistan’s former president Ashraf Ghani from power in August 2021, the UAE provided refuge to Ghani and his associates. 

However, the UAE also imposed restrictions on the ability of these former officials to engage in political activities within the Gulf state. This move signaled to the Taliban that the UAE would not permit its territory to be exploited for anti-IEA activities. On the other hand, Emirati officials, while referring to the “brotherly people” of Afghanistan, have simultaneously criticized the IEA’s draconian laws curtailing women’s fundamental rights.

While hosting the IEA’s acting Defense Minister Mullah Yaqoob last December, UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed (MbZ) underscored his country’s determination to pragmatically engage the IEA – notwithstanding the Emirati leadership taking a hardline anti-Taliban stance during the US occupation of Afghanistan.

Given the UAE’s significant economic interests spanning various sectors in Central Asia, ranging from tourism and agriculture to energy and logistics, Abu Dhabi’s sustained involvement in the region hinges on cooperation with Afghanistan. 

This economic incentive has motivated the UAE to actively contribute to Afghanistan’s infrastructure and logistics development. An example of this commitment is the deal between GAAC Solutions and the Taliban to manage the airports in Herat, Kabul, and Kandahar.

Saudi-Taliban relations

Saudi Arabia’s unique role in the Islamic world makes Riyadh’s unofficial relationship with the Taliban significant. The kingdom has interest in monitoring the IEA’s complicated relationship with Iran and increasing Saudi soft power in post-US Afghanistan through charity and humanitarian assistance. 

Saudi relief efforts in Afghanistan have been geared toward food security, water, health, and education. Key entities such as the King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Center and the Saudi Fund have played pivotal roles in Saudi Arabia’s humanitarian initiatives in the economically beleaguered country.

Yet, as Umer Karim, an associate fellow at the King Faisal Centre for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, tells The Cradle, Saudi Arabia has mostly embraced a “wait-and-watch” approach to the Taliban. As Karim recently explained, Riyadh’s early engagement with the IEA went through Pakistan. However, rising tensions between the Taliban and Islamabad caused Saudi Arabia’s Pakistani channel to Kabul to become “virtually dysfunctional.” 

Ibraheem Bahiss, an analyst with the International Crisis Group, explains to The Cradle that “as Pakistan’s relations with the Taliban severed, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has also gotten cold feet in their engagement [with the Taliban].” 

Nonetheless, in light of security crises in Afghanistan, the Saudis have relocated the kingdom’s Afghan consular office to Pakistan, from where Saudi officials coordinate humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and process Afghan visas. Bahiss maintains that with Pakistan being Saudi Arabia’s most important strategic partner that borders Iran, Riyadh will probably mostly follow Islamabad’s lead on Afghanistan.

Poornima Balasubramanian, a research scholar at the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations at India’s Manipal Academy of Higher Education, tells The Cradle that:

“Given Pakistan’s historical ties with and role as a regional player alongside Taliban entities, this significantly influences how the GCC states position their foreign policies towards Pakistan…The GCC [members] will remain watchful of Pakistan’s involvement in providing support and exerting influence on the Taliban in Afghanistan.”

Despite approaching the situation more cautiously than their counterparts in Doha and Abu Dhabi, officials in Riyadh have indeed established limited contact with the Taliban since August 2021, and now pragmatically maintain unofficial communication with the de facto government in Kabul. 

In late June, Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) and other high-ranking Saudi officials met with Yaqoob at a reception in the kingdom while the Taliban’s acting defense minister was taking part in the annual Hajj. The IEA publicized images of this reception on social media, highlighting the de facto Saudi ruler’s interaction with Yaqoob.

Saudi Arabia’s historical association with the Taliban, particularly in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, has made Riyadh wary of engaging too deeply with the IEA. Additionally, as Saudi leadership actively promotes “moderate Islam” within its own borders, there’s a need to avoid any optics that could potentially undermine its efforts. 

Leveraging its Islamic credentials, Saudi Arabia has encouraged member-states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to increase humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. Ultimately, Riyadh’s approach seeks to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a breeding ground for international terrorism, illicit drug trade, and arms smuggling — all of which are potential threats to the broader region. 

Cautious distance from the Taliban 

In the pursuit of stability in Afghanistan and neighboring vulnerable countries, Saudi Arabia’s engagement with the IEA is expected to remain measured in the future.

Looking ahead, Doha, Abu Dhabi, and Riyadh are poised to continue their cautious involvement with the Taliban. By maintaining an embassy in Kabul, Qatar represents US interests and has urged the international community to formulate a “roadmap” outlining steps the IEA should take for formal recognition.

Qatar effectively argues that the current strategies of isolating the Taliban and Afghanistan will exacerbate security and humanitarian crises. But formal recognition of the IEA by any GCC member does not appear imminent. 

The Taliban’s repressive restrictions on the rights of women, its ban on music, and other extreme aspects of its governance, place Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia under pressure to maintain a safe distance from the IEA. With little reason to be optimistic about the IEA making fundamental changes to its policies, Gulf states’ outreach to the Taliban will continue, but will probably remain short of full-fledged recognition. 

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Pakistani Politics Is Just Not Cricket

August 18, 2023

Source

Declan Heyes

The Pakistani Army’s persecution of Imran Khan is not only one of the worst ever scandals in Pakistan’s scandal-ridden political history but one of the most shameful in global politics and global sport as well.

Khan was Pakistan’s Prime Minister when the Army, working on the explicit instructions of the CIA, overthrew him in a coup, jailed him on trumped up corruption charges, barred him from any political activity in the near future and replaced him with a group of London-based gangsters, all of whom came from the Shariff wing of the Army-controlled Bhutto/Shariff political divide.

Prior to his rise to political prominence, Khan captained Pakistan to their 1992 World Cricket Cup victory triumph, a feat that helped cement his role as one of cricket’s all time greats, on a par with even Australia’s great Sir Don Bradman, widely acknowledged as history’s greatest ever cricketer.

But whereas Bradman finished his career in 1948 when cricket was dominated largely by the English upper crust and harder-boiled Ossies, Khan came through in the modern era when the Indian sub continent had cricket gods rather than mere stars and few of those gods were bigger or worshipped more reverently than Khan, who quickly became a household name in the English-speaking world.

And quite a playboy as well, as his good looks, Midas-like bank balance and sporting prowess put him on a par with the biggest of Hollywood’s mega- stars. And on top of all that, there was his incredible philanthropy where he paid for two entire hospitals in Pakistan out of his own pocket.

Helped along by of all that, Khan’s party eventually shot to power in August 2018, whereupon Khan began navigating the very dangerous waters of Pakistan’s Army-controlled politics. Khan’s independence was a turn up for the books as Pakistan has traditionally been a playground for British and American deep state shenanigans working through their Bhutto/Shariff puppets, which the Pakistani Army control on their behalf. None of its prime ministers came to power without MI6’s backing (except for Zia who was a Yankee puppet). Whatever about Zia, Khan was nobody’s poodle. He was a Pakistani patriot and a thoroughly good guy through and through.

Which is probably what quickly landed him in the soup after Russia’s intervention in the Ukrainian civil war when Khan declared that Pakistan would not only stay neutral but would buy oil from Russia and also strive to maintain friendly relations with Russia, but with India and China as well.

To put this eminently sensible stance in perspective, Pakistan has been tottering on the brink of defaulting on its debt for years now and it simply does not have the money to buy oil, fertiliser, tea and other essentials. In such a scenario, it made eminent sense to cut a deal with Russia and everyone and anyone else who would help keep Pakistan afloat.

Pakistan has less than $4 billion of foreign exchange reserves, but has to pay back $25 billion to the IMF and other Western loan sharks over the next year. Pakistan’s total external debt is a whopping $120 billion. Although China has offered a comparatively modest $2 billion in help, China cannot be Pakistan’s permanent crutch. And Pakistan needs far more than a Chinese crutch to escape the economic abyss devouring it.

Pakistan owes China $27 billion, the IMF, World Bank and ADB consortium a further $45 billion, with tens of billions more owed to Wall Street, London bond holders and NATO’s other extortionists. Given that interest rates and rice prices are all going north, and that Pakistan is another NATO-induced basket case, Pakistan needs smart and patriotic leaders with the moral grit of their former cricket captain, who will bite the bullet and default on these unconscionable NATO loans so that Pakistan might start anew with a clean slate.

The Yanks and their British sidekicks, who are deeply embedded in the Pakistani military, its fearsome secret service in particular, will have none of that or anything remotely resembling it. Despite unprecedented crowds coming out in his support, Khan and thousands of his supporters were jailed and their families were given the kinds of threats that would lead elsewhere to very long custodial sentences.

Not in Pakistan where the thugs of the Pakistani High Command call the shots. This is the same British-trained military, remember, that raped the girls and women of East Pakistan, Bangladesh, from one end of the country to the other, when Bangladesh declared independence in 1971 and that has had a very sinister working relationship with Afghanistan’s Taliban for decades now. Because Pakistan’s top brass are dangerous thugs, their threats, many of which were carried out, have to be taken very seriously indeed.

Although the Pakistani military have repeatedly claimed that they are the upholders of the Pakistani constitution and sovereignty, the truth is that they and their CIA and MI6 playmates have been a cancer at the heart of Pakistani society for decades now.

Khan’s way, to maintain friendly relations with all players and to pull Pakistan out of the mire, was the obvious way to go. But not for the CIA, MI6 or their buddies in Pakistani military intelligence, who are as determined to freeze Khan out as are their American masters to freeze Trump out of their own excuses for elections.

Love him or loathe him but Imran Khan is a legend of Pakistani cricket who has now been erased by its officials who are not fit to breathe the same air as him. These sporting and moral pygmies have even made a video celebrating Pakistani cricket that does not include Khan, arguably their greatest ever player.

This is at a time, remember, when Sri Lankan test cricketers have been bombed in Pakistan as part of the ISIS/CIA plans to destabilise Pakistan, contain China and, with the help of the sewer rats of the BBC, libel Imran Khan, Taliban Khan, as those toffee nosed dogs call Khan, whose boots those BBC rats are not fit to lick.

Khan, as it happens, is an ethnic Pashtun, the same tribal confederation that fought the BBC’s British rapists in Afghanistan and who do all the heavy work in Pakistan in all kinds of weather. In sniggering that Khan was “bowled out” the BBC, after dutifully repeating all the CIA tropes about both him and Pakistan, snigger that Khan referred to former CIA agent Osama Bin Laden as a “martyr”. But, if one travels to the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, one sees that that is the precise word the Syrians use to describe martyred Turkish soldiers who formerly occupied Sham and whose guts the Syrians traditionally hated for very good reasons. Not only has the word, in other words, a different connotation east of Vienna than the one that fits the BBC/MI6 agenda but the BBC would know that to be the case as they have been interfering in other people’s affairs for well over a century now.

Scoff all they will or be as silently complicit on Pakistan’s tens of thousands of prisoners of conscience as the BBC, Amnesty International, the Nobel Institute and all of the other NATO bought and bribed mouthpieces are but, because of their criminal complicity in Pakistan’s agony, Pakistan, which has seen none worthier than Imran Khan before, will never now see his likes again unless the BBC and all lickspittles like them are booted aside. Fast bowler, effective batter, philanthropist, Prime Minister, a top candidate for the best-looking cricketer of all-time and perhaps the greatest and bravest Pakistani patriot of them all. The hope has to be that, just as his bowling and batting inspired millions of his young compatriots, so also will his living martyrdom inspire tens of millions to rise and put Pakistan’s corrupt military, Pakistan’s corrupt politicians and Pakistan’s corrupt judiciary as well as their British, Australian and American enablers in their place and pull Pakistan’s hundreds of millions out of the NATO inspired penury the great Imran Khan tried to save them from.

Analyzing The Newly Leaked Pakistani Cable From March 2022 Regarding US Pressure Over Russia

AUG 9, 2023

Source

The nearly quarter billion people who live in Pakistan are suffering due to a handful of corrupt military and political figures dutifully complying with the dog whistle blown by a leading US diplomat ordering them to depose their patriotic multipolar premier or risk losing perks from the West. None of this would have happened had former Chief Of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa not betrayed his oath, and it’ll be a tremendous struggle for the country to recover from his treachery, if ever.

Background Briefing

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan (IK) claimed that his Ambassador to the US’ cable from March 2022 proved that Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu signaled American approval for removing him through superficially “democratic” means. This multipolar patriot was then ousted a little over one month later through a vote of no confidence that was initiated one day after those two aforementioned diplomats met and replaced by a pro-US regime.

Speculation swirled since then about what exactly the cable said and whether it did indeed prove that Washington had a hand in Pakistan’s latest regime change like its former leader alleged. The Intercept finally obtained a copy of it from a source that they described as a disillusioned member of the military who wanted their compatriots and comrades to finally know the truth after all the regime’s gaslighting. According to them, their views reflect the rank and files’, who are unhappy with the past year’s events.

The Military’s Plummeting Morale

If that’s true, then it doesn’t mean that a multipolar-patriotic military coup is in the cards since Pakistan’s armed forces are disciplined and thus won’t act against the top brass, but it would still be significant if their morale has really plunged as a result of their institution’s “involvement in the political fight against Khan, the exploitation of the memory of dead service members for political purposes in recent military propaganda, and widespread public disenchantment with the armed forces amid the crackdown.”

This appears to be an accurate assessment due to the high regard that the armed forces have historically been held in Pakistani society as well as their self-awareness of this. The wanton human rights abuses that their institution was ordered to carry out against civil society since the pro-US regime’s imposition in April 2022 completely discredited them. It therefore makes sense that someone within the military finally leaked the cable to The Intercept, which became famous for publishing Snowden’s leaks.

NSC Concerns & Anger At The IK-Putin Meeting

About that document, it begins with the Ambassador informing Islamabad that “At the outset, Don referred to Pakistan’s position on the Ukraine crisis and said that ‘people here and in Europe are quite concerned about why Pakistan is taking such an aggressively neutral position (on Ukraine), if such a position is even possible. It does not seem such a neutral stand to us.’” He also shared the National Security Council’s (NSC) opinion that “it seems quite clear that this is the Prime Minister’s policy.”

The Ambassador then wrote that Lu claimed that IK’s position towards this conflict is “tied to the current political dramas in Islamabad that he (Prime Minister) needs and is trying to show a public face.” After Pakistan’s top representative in the US corrected this false perception, he then “asked Don if the reason for a strong U.S. reaction was Pakistan’s abstention in the voting in the UNGA. He categorically replied in the negative and said that it was due to the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow.”

The Carrot Of “Forgiveness” & The Stick Of “Isolation”

“He said that ‘I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, I think it will be tough going ahead.’ He paused and then said ‘I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar.’ He then said that ‘honestly I think isolation of the Prime Minister will become very strong from Europe and the United States.’”

US Opposition To Russian-Pakistani Economic Ties

The Ambassador told Lu that “The visit to Moscow had been in the works for at least few years and was the result of a deliberative institutional process. I stressed that when the Prime Minister was flying to Moscow, Russian invasion of Ukraine had not started and there was still hope for a peaceful resolution. I also pointed out that leaders of European countries were also traveling to Moscow around the same time.”

“Don interjected that ‘those visits were specifically for seeking resolution of the Ukraine standoff while the Prime Minister’s visit was for bilateral economic reasons.’ I drew his attention to the fact that the Prime Minister clearly regretted the situation while being in Moscow and had hoped for diplomacy to work. The Prime Minister’s visit, I stressed, was purely in the bilateral context and should not be seen either as a condonation or endorsement of Russia’s action against Ukraine.”

The US’ Double Standards Towards India & Pakistan                     

The next part involved the Ambassador conveying his concerns that the conflict will impede multilateral cooperation on Afghanistan, which Lu essentially confirmed was correct by informing him that the US was considering pulling out of related talks to protest Russia’s participation in them. The Ambassador was then admittedly forthright as he described his own words in telling Lu how disappointed Pakistan is with the US ignoring its support and taking it for granted without reciprocating.

He added that “We were surprised that if our position on the Ukraine crisis was so important for the U.S., why the U.S. had not engaged with us at the top leadership level prior to the Moscow visit and even when the UN was scheduled to vote… Don replied that the thinking in Washington was that given the current political turmoil in Pakistan, this was not the right time for such engagement and it could wait till the political situation in Pakistan settled down.”

The US’ Thinly Disguised Demand To Remove IK Or Else

After that, the Ambassador “reiterated our position that countries should not be made to choose sides in a complex situation like the Ukraine crisis and stressed the need for having active bilateral communications at the political leadership level.” He also claimed that “It seemed that the U.S. was applying different criteria for India and Pakistan…it appeared that the U.S. expected more from India than Pakistan, yet it appeared to be more concerned about Pakistan’s position.”

The cable concluded by quoting Lu’s confirmation that the IK-Putin meeting harmed Pakistani-US ties: “I would argue that it has already created a dent in the relationship from our perspective. Let us wait for a few days to see whether the political situation changes, which would mean that we would not have a big disagreement about this issue and the dent would go away very quickly. Otherwise, we will have to confront this issue head on and decide how to manage it.”

Biden Obviously Approved Lu’s Indirectly Conveyed Threats

The Ambassador’s professional assessment of his meeting with Lu then followed and was that “Don could not have conveyed such a strong demarche without the express approval of the White House, to which he referred repeatedly. Clearly, Don spoke out of turn on Pakistan’s internal political process. We need to seriously reflect on this and consider making an appropriate demarche to the U.S. Cd’ A a.i in Islamabad.”

Reading Between The Lines

Having summarized the cable’s contents, it’s now time to analyze them to determine whether they do indeed prove American meddling in Pakistan’s fledgling democracy like IK has consistently alleged. Without a doubt, he was right all along. His Ambassador was also correct in assessing that Biden gave Lu permission to say what he did, which indisputably signaled the US’ approval for removing IK through superficially “democratic” means via the vote of no confidence that was initiated literally the day later.

As he was infamously quoted saying, “All will be forgiven” in bilateral ties if IK is ousted, otherwise Pakistan risks “isolation” and the likely economic consequences that this could entail. While he didn’t say so directly, he very clearly hinted that the perks that the military and political elite receive from the West will be cut off, not to mention the socio-political unrest that could follow its economy’s possible collapse. This was sufficient for convincing the top military brass and the opposition to unite in removing IK.

America’s Geostrategic Imperatives

From the perspective of the NSC, which Lu confirmed took time out of its members’ extremely busy schedules shortly after the start of Russia’s special operation to discuss Pakistan of all topics, that South Asian state’s patriotic multipolar leadership was perceived as a threat to the US’ hegemonic interests. In particular, the US’ opposition to IK’s visionary cultivation of strategic economic ties with Russia was driven by its fear that this could unprecedentedly accelerate multipolar processes as explained here.

They accordingly prioritized the post-modern coup that was described here in order to sabotage joint Russian-Pakistani connectivity efforts in Eurasia, capsize their planned strategic energy deal, and thus retain the US’ neocolonial shackles on Pakistan’s sovereignty so that it forever remains a vassal. These imperatives were considered so important to American policy at the opening phase of the New Cold War that thinly veiled threats turned into tangible action less than 24 hours after they were first conveyed.

Pakistan’s Post-Modern Fascist Dictatorship

The ends justified the means from the perspective of American policymakers, which is why they turn a blind eye towards the post-modern fascist dictatorship that was imposed immediately after IK’s ouster despite it going against everything that the US claims to stand for. It’s jailed thousands of opposition members, aggressively censors the media, and has been accused of assassinating journalist Arshad Sharif as well as attempting to do the same to IK last November.

The former Prime Minister’s PTI has also been hit with a spree of high-level defections that are arguably attributable to military pressure upon its leaders, including torture, in order to divide the party ahead of the next elections so as to guarantee the victory of their PDM (particularly PMLN and PPP) puppets. Amidst these draconian moves and the slide towards dystopia, the economy collapsed, terrorist threats have metastasized, and there’s a risk that the East Pakistan tragedy might eventually be repeated.

Concluding Thoughts

The nearly quarter billion people who live in Pakistan are now suffering due to a handful of corrupt military and political figures dutifully complying with the dog whistle blown by a leading US diplomat ordering them to depose their patriotic multipolar premier or risk losing perks from the West. None of this would have happened had former Chief Of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa not betrayed his oath, and it’ll be a tremendous struggle for the country to recover from his treachery, if ever.

It’s all in ‘Cypher’: How US exerted pressure on Pakistan to oust Khan

Aug 10, 2023

Source: The Intercept

Former PM of Pakistan Imran Khan speaks during a news conference in Shaukat Khanum Hospital in Lahore, Pakistan, on November 4, 2022 (AP)

By Al Mayadeen English

A confidential Pakistani government document acquired by The Intercept shows how the US State Department pressured the Pakistani government in March 2022 to oust Imran Khan due to his neutral position on Russia.

According to a classified document obtained by The Intercept, the US State Department pressured the Pakistani government to oust Imran Khan as prime minister due to his neutral stance on Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The document, which details a meeting between Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States and two State Department officials, has been the subject of considerable scrutiny and discord in Pakistan over the last year and a half.

A court in Islamabad sentenced Khan to three years in jail, alongside disqualifying him from politics for “corrupt practices”.

Khan was escorted by police from his home in Lahore on Saturday, after a ruling in the Toshakaha case came out, in which he was accused of illegally selling gifts worth hundreds of millions of rupees originally intended for the state.

Khan’s supporters were enraged after his arrest in an alleged corruption case in May and protested for several days. The bloody violence that ensued amid the police crackdown did not subside until after Khan was released by order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

A no-confidence vote a month after the meeting with US officials led to Khan’s fall from power. The meeting included Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu and Asad Majeed Khan, then-ambassador to the US.

Known as “Cypher”, the never-seen-before Pakistani cable entails the itty-gritty tactics used by the US in its campaign against Khan, promising closer relations if Khan was removed. 

‘All to be forgiven’ in Washington

The paper was handed to The Intercept by an unnamed source in Pakistan’s military who claimed to have no links to Imran Khan or his party. The US organization published the contents with some minor corrections. 

The cable details how the meeting occurred two weeks after the war in Ukraine began, during which Khan was on his way to Moscow. The US rejected Khan’s position on the Ukraine war, a position that immediately changed after he was removed.

During a Senate hearing on March 2, days before the meeting, Lu was questioned regarding India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan’s neutrality over the Ukraine war. Lu responded to a question from Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., about Pakistan’s abstention from a UN resolution condemning Russia by stating that the US was “trying to figure out how to engage specifically with the Prime Minister following that decision.”

Van Hollen seemed unhappy that State officials were yet to contact Khan regarding his position on Russia.

A day before the meeting, Khan publicly questioned Europe’s demands that Pakistan should support Ukraine, stating, “Are we your slaves?”

“We are friends of Russia, and we are also friends of the United States. We are friends of China and Europe. We are not part of any alliance.”

According to the document, Lu was vocal about the US’ unhappiness about Pakistan’s position on Russia and revealed that if the no-confidence vote goes through “all will be forgiven in Washington,” adding that the Russia visit will be considered a decision by Khan himself alone.

He warned, however, that if the vote failed, Pakistan would be “isolated”.

Miller denies interfering in ‘internal matters’

When questioned about the cable, State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller refused to comment on “private diplomatic discussions.”

The Pakistani Ambassador expressed his frustration that while the US “expected Pakistan’s support on all issues that were important to the U.S., it did not reciprocate.”

The Ambassador hoped the country’s position on the Ukraine war would not impact “our bilateral ties,” while Lu assured him that if Khan was ousted, things would go back to normal.

Arif Rafiq, a non-resident scholar at the Middle East Institute and specialist on Pakistan expressed that after the meeting, Khan’s fate was expected, as the Biden administration had sent a message to the people that the situation would improve if Khan was removed. On March 8, opponents of Khan proceeded with the vote.

Miller also added that the US only “expressed concern” about Khan’s visit to Russia and that the claims that the US “interfered in internal decisions about the leadership of Pakistan are false.” 

The State Department repeatedly denied that Lu encouraged the Pakistani government to depose Khan. Previously, Khan said there was a cable corroborating his accusation of US intervention on April 8, 2022, which State Department Spokesperson Jalina Porter was questioned about its credibility. “Let me just say very bluntly, there is absolutely no truth to these allegations,” Porter claimed at the time. 

The bottom of the cable includes an assessment that details Don “could not have conveyed such a strong demarche without the express approval of the White House.”

Khan reiterated his claims in an interview for The Intercept in June.

Khan’s supporters and political party were met with a crackdown in recent months for their support, something that has been ignored by the US. In a recent visit in July, the head of US Central Command, Gen. Michael Kurilla, stated that his visit focused on “strengthening the military-to-military relations.”

This summer, Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, attempted to add a measure to the National Defense Authorization Act directing the State Department to examine democratic backsliding in Pakistan, but it was denied a vote on the House floor.

While the US has made itself a champion for democracy in other countries, Miller responded to a question on Monday regarding fairness in Khan’s trial by calling it “an internal matter for Pakistan.”

“Internal matters” have seldom ever stopped the US from interfering in other nations.

Press crackdown

Khan’s deposition triggered numerous protests amid an economic crisis and global energy inflation. To add to this, The Intercept previously reported that the Pakistani military has attempted to enforce extreme censorship, stopping news outlets from barely mentioning Khan’s name. 

The onslaught on Pakistan’s press took an especially sinister turn after Arshad Sharif, a famous journalist who fled Pakistan, was shot dead in Nairobi in October and Imran Riaz Khan, a renowned journalist, was taken by security authorities at an airport in May and unseen since. Both were allegedly reporting on the secret cable.

In November 2022, Khan survived an assassination attempt. Pakistani news channel Geo stated that he was injured in the leg after an anonymous attacker shot his convoy, leading to the injury of five other people from his party, Tehreek-e-Insaf. 

Read next: Khan says opponents likely to try assassinating him again: Der Spiegel

Rafiq, the Middle East Institute scholar, believes the “flimsy charges” brought against Khan, along with his attempted assassination, point to the fact that Pakistani forces are using “outside forces to preserve their hegemony over the country.”  He pointed to how the Biden administration is turning a blind eye to Pakistan becoming “a full-fledged military dictatorship.”

The Intercept’s source, who accessed the document as a military worker, expressed fear that the military is driving Pakistan into a crisis comparable to the one that led to Bangladesh’s separation in 1971. The source expressed hope that the leaked document would force a change within the military of Pakistan.

Since his removal, Pakistan has openly been more critical of Russia, reinforcing the document’s claims that the neutrality toward Russia was Khan’s position and not the military’s. Former Army Chief Qamar called Russia’s operation an “invasion” and a “huge tragedy”.

Pakistan has also contributed weapons to Ukraine, something confirmed by an EU official earlier.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister visited Pakistan in July, ostensibly for military cooperation but publicly presented as focused on commerce, education, and environmental problems.

The move has reportedly been compensated by the US, with a Pakistani publication detailing a pact between the two containing “joint exercises, operations, training, basing, and equipment.” 

Khan addressed the cable publicly on March 27, 2022, waving documents in the air during a protest. He also allegedly briefed the leaders of Pakistan’s major security agencies on its contents at a national security meeting. 

Shehbaz Sharif, the new Prime Minister, admitted to the existence of the cable and considered some of Lu’s statements “inappropriate”.

According to The Intercept, the revelation of its contents a year after Khan was removed will allow all claims to be properly investigated. At the most, the document shows the US practically warned of severe repercussions if Khan were to not be removed.

Lu explicitly states in the document that if Khan stays in office, he believes the “isolation…will become very strong from Europe and the United States.”

In July, Khan appeared before the country’s Federal Investigation Agency to face allegations of leaking a confidential document. Sharif’s administration vowed that it will punish Khan for “exposing an official secret document” last year when he displayed a sensitive diplomatic letter at a rally, saying it was “proof” that he was threatened.

In July, Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah revealed that Khan would be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act in connection with the cable, accusing him of “a hatched a conspiracy against the state’s interests.”

Related Posts

Khan receives maximum sentence, barred from politics for five years.

Aug 9, 2023

Source: Agencies

Former Prime Minister Imran Khan (AFP)

By Al Mayadeen English

The former Prime Minister receives the maximum sentence in terms of political practice.

The Pakistani government banned former Prime Minister Imran Khan from politics for five years, just days after announcing a three-year prison term against the popular leader over “corrupt practices”, Reuters reported on Tuesday, citing a senior official.

The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) issued an order to “disqualify” Khan for five years, which is the maximum period a convicted individual can receive under Pakistani law and as defined by the ECP.

“Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi is disqualified for a period of five years,” the ECP order said, as per the news site.

“We knew this was inevitable,” Khan’s aide Zulfikar Bukhari told Reuters, stressing that the party will challenge the decision in the high court.

“We’re highly confident it will be reversed,” Bukhari said.

Read more: Imran Khan request to halt his concealing assets trial rejected

An appeal filed by the former Prime Minister’s legal team will be looked into by the Islamabad High Court on Wednesday, his lawyer Naeem Panjutha said.

Khan, who has denied all allegations, was escorted by police from his home in Lahore last Saturday, after a ruling in the Toshakaha case came out, in which he was accused of illegally selling gifts worth hundreds of millions of rupees originally intended for the state.

Intezar Hussain Panjutha, another lawyer of Khan, argued that the ruling will be appealed against and called the case “political victimization”.

“Khan was not given an opportunity to defend himself and say his side of the story,” he said, adding, “We wanted to provide witnesses in his favor but he was not allowed this opportunity. Khan was not given a fair trial.”

According to Reuters, the petition described the conviction as “without lawful authority, tainted with bias.”

It said the court had rejected a list of witnesses for the defense a day before reaching its verdict, calling this a “gross travesty of justice, and a slap in the face of due process and fair trial.”

Fueling instability

As Pakistan country suffers an economic crisis, the ousting of the widely-popular Khan last year represented a major challenge to the Asian country’s political scene.

All eyes should be focused on the upcoming November elections after placing Khan out of the race for now, South Asia Institute director at the Washington-based Wilson Center, Michael Kugelman, told Reuters.

Any delay in the elections would lead to putting more fuel on the already-burning political environment and exacerbate public outrage, Kugelman warned.

“That volatility and uncertainty could have implications for political stability but also the economy if foreign investors and donors become reluctant to deploy more capital in such an environment,” he said.

Read more: Bulk resignations; Khan loses party leaders before Pakistani elections

Which path will Pakistan take in light of the escalating tensions? | 2023-08-08

Muslims Worldwide Commemorate Ashura amid Security Concerns

 July 29, 2023

Mourners in Karbala

Muslims around the world observed Ashura, a day of profound significance, commemorating the death of the Prophet Mohammed’s beloved grandson, Imam Hussein.

While some Shiites marked the day on Friday, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria held their remembrances on Saturday. In the suburbs of Beirut, a major shutdown took place, and crowds of faithful gathered at the gold-domed shrine in the Iraqi city of Karbala, where Imam Hussein is entombed.

In Yemen, millions poured into the streets, honoring the martyrdom anniversary of Imam Hussain and affirming his legacy by standing strong against contemporary tyrants.

Ashura 2023 in Yemen

However, in Nigeria, during the commemoration of the tenth day of Muharram, loyalists of Al-Bayt (pbuh) faced violence as local police fired upon participants during the Ashura march in Abuja.

Similar attacks were reported in the cities of Kaduna and Zaria, where security forces pursued the marchers, despite the widespread observance of Husseini mourning ceremonies in over 500 cities and villages nationwide.

In Afghanistan, mobile phone services were cut in key cities holding Ashura commemorations, owing to fears of militants targeting Shiites, whom some Sunni extremists consider heretics.

Neighboring Pakistan also remained on high alert, recalling past attacks during similar events.

Ashura marches also took place in memory of Imam Hussein in the state of Uttar Pradesh in India, in the presence of a large crowd of Husseini mourners.

The Russian capital, Moscow, commemorated the tenth of Muharram. Muslims gathered at the Islamic Center in Moscow, and listened to the Husayni mourning, which was followed by latmiyya and a theatrical embodiment of the sorrowful incident.

Across Iran and other countries, nationwide processions witnessed massive participation, paying tribute to the revered Imam. Iranian state television aired images of the solemn commemorations held throughout the Islamic Republic.

In Sydney, Australia, a significant Ashura march was held, drawing crowds of faithful followers.

Despite security concerns and potential threats, the global Muslim community demonstrated unwavering devotion to Imam Hussein’s memory and the profound legacy he left behind.

Source: Al-Manar

Sayyid Nasrallah’s messages on Ashura reverberate in “Israel”

Pakistan faces an uncertain future as the nation holds elections in November

July 22, 2023

Source: Al Mayadeen English

F.M. Shakil

It has to be seen whether Imran Khan’s support base follows the multiple breakaway factions of the erstwhile ruling party or chooses to abstain from voting altogether in the absence of Imran Khan.

Pakistan’s economic and political instability is expected to worsen after the upcoming general elections, which are scheduled for November this year. The military establishment, despite claiming neutrality, is busy attempting to form a political coalition with the support of like-minded politicians sans political forces inimical to last year’s parliamentary revolt against Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) party.

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), garnering significant backing from the populace, notably in the densely inhabited province of Punjab and the northwestern regions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, has experienced a division into three distinct factions after Khan’s loss of control over authority in April last year. Numerous confidants of Khan have proclaimed their resignation from the party, coinciding with his ongoing legal entanglements encompassing an extensive array of over one hundred criminal, treasonous, and corruptive allegations. According to political analysts, there is a prevailing belief that Imran Khan is poised to face disqualification before the forthcoming November elections within the country.

IMF bailout

At a time when the country is in an economic quagmire and requires drastic measures to bring the wealthy into the net, the unity government, which has the support of the powerful army, is happy that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released some more loans. They boasted of their success in convincing the IMF to provide a temporary breather to the resource-starved economy.

The IMF released last week the first tranche under a Stand-By arrangement (SBA) amounting to $1.2 billion out of a total of $3 billion over a 9-month arrangement, sparing the country from a potential default on the foreign debts.

This payment replaces the earlier Extended Financing Facility program, which former Prime Minister Imran Khan signed in 2019 and had a $6.5 billion value. Experts believe that Pakistan’s relief is only a temporary respite as a result of the nation’s failure to take significant economic action to avert a potential default on its foreign loans.

The economy has encountered significant challenges, primarily due to a balance of payments crisis resulting from efforts to manage substantial external debt and cope with severe inflationary pressures.

Preceding the implementation of the bailout, the nation’s foreign reserves were precariously situated at approximately $3 billion, a sum deemed insufficient to finance the imports of hardly a few weeks. The situation partially improved to some extent when the government imposed restrictions on certain imports as a measure to conserve foreign currency. However, the piles of foreign loans and projected repayments over the coming months left hardly any room for the government to get relief.

Economic analysts assess that the nation must secure a minimum of $20 billion within the upcoming biennial period to fulfill its obligations to repay foreign loans along with accrued interest. No doubt China, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia have contributed almost half of the debt burden; however, over $10 billion is still needed to stay clear of the impending default.

In the preceding year, the Pakistani rupee experienced a significant depreciation against the US dollar, reaching an unprecedented low. This depreciation occurred after the removal of an exchange cap, as the financially-constrained nation endeavored to access the crucial International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout.

Political forecast

In the realm of politics, the current unity government led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif is scheduled to step down in the coming month, thereby facilitating the establishment of a caretaker administration responsible for overseeing the upcoming elections in the country, which are expected to take place within 90 days. 

Nevertheless, due to the lack of equitable conditions for all political actors, including the PTI, the upcoming elections are likely to exacerbate political turmoil and hinder economic progress in the country. Following May 9 mayhem when hundreds of Khan supporters stormed the military installations in retaliation for his arrest, over a hundred PTI activists are currently undergoing trial in Pakistan’s military tribunals in connection with the violence that erupted in various cities following the detention of former Prime Minister Imran Khan.

Describing the events of May 9 as a significant and abhorrent plot targeting Pakistan, Major General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, the military spokesperson, informed the media early this month that a political party had incited and inflamed public sentiment against the armed forces. He further revealed that a total of 15 military personnel, comprising three major generals and seven brigadiers, have faced severe disciplinary measures for their ‘negligence.’

In the latter part of May, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif asserted that the government was considering the possibility of prohibiting the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party due to its perceived act of undermining the fundamental principles upon which the state is built. According to his statement, the occurrence of setting military and state assets ablaze is unprecedented and cannot be deemed acceptable.

Khan’s party fragmented

Khan’s popular Tehreek-e-Insaf party was divided into at least three groups before the country’s general elections, each of which claimed to have the support of the PTI workforce. Shah Mehmood Qureshi, vice chairman of the PTI, is in charge of one side of the party and announced shortly after being granted bail that he will take over for Imran Khan. If Khan was detained, Khan personally proposed Qureshi to represent the party. Insiders contend that he lacked the charismatic leadership qualities needed to maintain the PTI’s support base as well as the party chairman’s confidence.

The Istehkam-e-Pakistan party was created by sugar tycoon and former Imran Khan confidant Jehangir Tareen, who has recruited more than a hundred PTI MPs and former members of the ruling party. Ex-Sindh governor Imran Ismail, ex-shipping minister Ali Zaidi, ex-federal minister Amir Kayani, ex-information minister Fawad Chowdheri, and ex-information minister Firdous Ashiq Awan are among the PTI heavyweights who have defected to the new party.

On Monday, former PTI leader and defense minister and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief minister Pervez Khattak entered the fray by announcing the launch of a new political party under the name of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Parliamentarians (PTI-P), which was carved out of the PTI by cobbling together defectors.

The Khan party has suffered a setback with Pervez Khattak’s defection, as it was twice elected to power in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. At least 57 province and National Assembly members, including ex-K-P chief minister Mehmood Khan, have defected to the splinter group, potentially dealing a devastating blow to the erstwhile ruling party.

It has to be seen whether Imran Khan’s support base follows the multiple breakaway factions of the erstwhile ruling party or chooses to abstain from voting altogether in the absence of Imran Khan.

The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Imam Khamenei Calls for Severest Punishment for Quran Desecration

 July 22, 2023

By Staff, Agencies

Leader of the Islamic Revolution His Eminence Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei has called for the “severest punishment” for the perpetrator of the desecration of the Holy Quran in Sweden.

“Effrontery to the sacred realm of the Holy Quran in Sweden is a bitter, conspiratorial and dangerous incident. The severest punishment for the perpetrator of this crime is the consensus view of all Islamic scholars,” the Leader said in a message on Saturday.

“The Swedish government should also know that by supporting a criminal, it has taken a war stance against the Islamic world and attracted the hatred and enmity of the Muslim nations and many of their governments,” His Eminence said.

“The responsibility of that government is to hand over the perpetrator of the crime to the judicial systems of Islamic countries,” Imam Khamenei said.

“The conspirators behind the scenes should also know that the sanctity and grandeur of the Holy Qur’an will increase day by day and the lights of its guidance will become brighter,” the Leader said.

“The likes of this conspiracy and its perpetrators are too lowly to be able to prevent this ever-increasing brilliance,” His Eminence added.

The desecration of the Quran by a Christian extremist has triggered widespread protests and condemnation across the Muslim world.

The demonstrations come after Swedish police on Thursday permitted the man living in Stockholm for the second time to desecrate the Quran.

People in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon and other countries have staged massive rallies to condemn the blasphemous act.

Related Articles

Iran Says Respect for Countries’ Territorial Integrity ‘Undeniable’

 July 17, 2023

Nasser Kanaani, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman.

Iran has dismissed the idea of negotiating about its sovereignty over three Persian Gulf islands, saying respecting countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity is an internationally-recognized principle.

“Respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries is a recognized and undeniable principle in the world and based on the United Nations Charter, and of course, it is a binding principle for all parties,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani said at a weekly press conference on Monday.

The remarks came days after the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Russia issued a joint statement that challenged Iran’s sovereignty over the three islands of Abu Musa, the Greater Tunb, and the Lesser Tunb.

Kanaani said Iran responds firmly to any act of breaching that principle and regards its sovereignty over the three islands as non-negotiable, adding that Tehran does not accept the interference of any party in this regard.

He pointed out that Iran has officially protested to the Russian government over the joint statement.

“Imprecise and non-constructive positions will not cause any problems in Iran’s national sovereignty over the three islands,” the spokesman added.

‘European prisoners tried based on Iranian laws’

In another part of his press conference, Kanaani discussed the issue of negotiations between Iran and Europe regarding the exchange of Iranian prisoners.

“We believe that the people who are imprisoned in Iran have committed crimes and violated Iran’s national laws, and [therefore], they were interrogated and tried based on Iran’s laws,” he said.

He also emphasized that pardoning a prisoner who has committed a crime is not a duty, but Iran has acted based on humanitarian principles in a significant number of such cases.

Dipping into Iran’s assets ‘clear example of banditry’

Regarding US efforts to block Iranian assets in various countries, the spokesperson of the Iranian Foreign Ministry said, “Iran will not tolerate any illegal action by the US to dip into the assets and properties of the Iranian nation.”

He said the move is a “clear example of banditry,” adding that Iran expects all countries to ignore such demands and adhere to their international responsibility.

US responsible for current situation of JCPOA

Kanaani referred to the indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States, saying that the Islamic Republic will not neglect diplomatic opportunities to maintain the Iranians’ rights and that Tehran has proved its eagerness to accept and make use of the capacity of amicable states that are keen on assisting the Islamic System in achieving a constructive accord.

He went on to say that the US is responsible for the current situation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA); and of course, the US administration is the one who should be held accountable for ensuring a return of all signatories to the JCPOA.

Conclusion of the outstanding issues in the future is possible; however, it is up to the United States to make political decisions in this respect, Kanaani argued.

Hosting MKO example of supporting terrorism

Regarding Italy’s recent action to support Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) terrorist group, Kanaani said that Iran has taken official, serious, and urgent measures in this regard.

“Hosting MKO terrorists by any government cannot be defended or justified.”

He noted that hosting MKO members and leaders is a clear example of supporting terrorism and is in contrast with the international responsibility of governments to fight terrorism and the European countries’ human rights claims.

Iran has shown a serious reaction to this issue by summoning the Italian ambassador and expressing its position clearly, he stated.

We will continue the legal prosecution of the MKO members and leaders, he stressed.

Africa one of Iran’s priorities

Regarding President Ebrahim Raisi’s trip to three African countries, Kanaani said that the expansion of relations with Africa is among Iran’s priorities.

This was the first trip of an Iranian president to Africa after a decade, he added.

Iranian companies in the field of extraterritorial cultivation are interested in participating in African countries, he noted.

There are new plans to reinforce relations with Africa, he said, adding that Iran is on the verge of establishing a new relationship with Africa.

Iran calls for end of Russia-Ukraine conflict

The diplomat also emphasized that any measure that exacerbates the conflict in Ukraine is considered unconstructive and is against international peace and security, so Iran does not see any move by each side to fan the flame of war in Ukraine in favor of any party.

The Islamic Republic censures anti-Iran accusations because Tehran calls for the end of the war; thus, we underline the need for finding a political solution to the issue, Kanaani noted.

Those who play a role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and are shipping prohibited arms to Ukraine should not make accusations against Iran.

Oman FM visit to Tehran

Touching on Oman’s foreign minister’s visit to Tehran on Monday, he said that Oman is a friendly state when it comes to regional and national issues and that Muscat plays a constructive role in international issues of mutual interest.

Kanaani went on to say that Sayyid Badr Albusaidi’s visit is definitely an opportunity for constructive dialogue between the two countries, and hopefully, we can share more information after today’s talks with the Omani official.

Five-way meeting on Lebanon

On a five-way meeting on the political circumstances in Lebanon and what has been reported by media outlets about inviting Iran to the meeting, Kanaani said, the Islamic Republic considers foreign interference in the Arab country’s internal affairs as unconstructive and an obstacle in the way of the Lebanese people’s role in determining their fate; however, we are of the opinion that foreign parties’ assistance toward political stability based on the Lebanese people’s desires can be positive.

He also concluded that Iran has not yet received any information on being invited to the five-way meeting on Lebanese elections in the Qatari capital Doha.

Iran, Pakistan on good path to boost ties

Kanaani described a recent visit of the commander of the Pakistani army to Iran as a continuation of constructive cooperation between the two countries, including in the field of military and defense based on their mutual interests, as well as the establishment of security at the common borders and implementation of past agreements.

“Thanks to the strong political will of Iran and Pakistan, our impression is that we are on the good path to strengthen the relations between the two countries,” he said.

Presence of separatists threat to security of Iran, Iraq

The spokesman pointed to a security agreement between Iran and Iraq and criticized the shortcomings on the part of the Baghdad government to implement it.

“As the Iraqi government recently announced, it has reached an agreement with the authorities of the northern region of that country to ensure the security of the borders with Iran,” he said, referring to the Kurdistan region.

He said Iran welcomes any action toward implementation of the security agreement and expects Iraq to fulfill its obligations.

“The security of the common borders is in the interest of both sides, and we continue to emphasize that the continued presence of terrorist and separatist groups on the borders of both sides is a threat to the security of Iran and Iraq,” he added.

Source: Agencies

How the Taliban crushed the CIA’s heroin bonanza in Afghanistan

JUL 07, 2023

The Taliban has not once, but twice eradicated Afghanistan’s poppy cultivation, the world’s largest source of heroin. Despite western accusations, it has never been The Taliban behind the Afghan drug industry, but only ever the US and its allies, with billions in profits breezily laundered through the global financial system.

William Van Wagenen

In the aftermath of the chaotic US and UK withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir warned in the Washington Post of the dangers of “ignoring one important consequence of the Taliban takeover: the coming boom in Afghanistan’s narcotics trade.” 

Mir then boldly predicted that, “in the next few years, a flood of drugs from Afghanistan may become a bigger threat than terrorism.”

This projection of an international drug trade boom seemed plausible, considering the longstanding accusations that the Taliban funded their two-decade insurgency against the occupying forces by controlling opium production. In fact, it was believed that 95 percent of heroin used in Britain originated from Afghan opium.

It comes as a surprise then, that a June 2023 report published by Alcis, a British-based geographic information services firm, revealed that the Taliban government had all but eliminated opium cultivation in the country, wiping out the base ingredient needed to produce heroin. This outcome mirrored a similar move by the Taliban in 2000 when they were in power for the first time.

Ironically, instead of praising Kabul’s new leaders for quashing the source of illicit drugs, the international community responded to this development with criticism. Even the US Institute for Peace (USIP), which is funded by the US government, argued that “The Taliban’s successful opium ban is bad for Afghans and the world.”

Such western displeasure towards the Taliban’s efforts to dismantle the global heroin trade may seem perplexing at first glance.

However, a closer examination of events in Afghanistan reveals a different perspective. Under the guise of the “War on Terror,” the 2001 US and UK invasion was driven in part by the desire to restore the heroin trade, which the Taliban had abruptly terminated just a year earlier. 

The western powers sought to reestablish the lucrative flow of billions of dollars that the heroin trade provided to their financial systems. In fact, “For 20 years, America essentially ran a narco-state in Afghanistan.”

Dollar for Dollar’

To understand the origins of the Afghan heroin trade, a review of US involvement in the central Asian nation is necessary, beginning in 1979 when the CIA embarked on a covert program to undermine the pro-Soviet Afghan government in Kabul. 

The US covertly supported an umbrella of Muslim guerrilla fighters known as mujahideen, with the hope that provoking an insurgency would entice the Soviet Army to intervene. This calculated move would force the Soviets into occupying Afghanistan and engaging in a protracted and costly counter-insurgency campaign, thereby weakening the Soviet Union over time.

To accomplish this, the CIA turned to its close allies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, for help. Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan facilitated a meeting between CIA Director William Casey and Saudi King Fahd, in which the Saudis committed to matching “America dollar for dollar supporting the mujahedeen.”

The US and Saudi Arabia, with help from Pakistani’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), set up training camps for the mujahideen in Pakistan, and supplied them with advisors, weapons, and cash to fight the Soviets. 

Gulbaddin Hekmatyar, the founder of the Hizb-i-Islami militia, was among the most prominent mujahideen leaders, receiving some $600 million in aid from the CIA and its allies.

Journalist Steve Coll writes in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Ghost Wars that Hekymatyar recruited from the most radical, anti-western, transnational Islamist networks to fight with him, including Osama bin Laden and other Arab volunteers. CIA officers “embraced Hekmatyar as their most dependable and effective ally,” and “the most efficient at killing Soviets.”

Caravans of opium

Aid to Hekymatyar and other mujahideen leaders was not limited to cash and weapons. According to renowned historian Alfred McCoy:

“1979 and 1980, just as the CIA effort was beginning to ramp up, a network of heroin laboratories opened along the Afghan-Pakistan frontier. That region soon became the world’s largest heroin producer.”

The process involved smuggling raw opium gum to Pakistan, where it was processed into heroin in laboratories run by the ISI. The finished product was then discreetly transported via Pakistani airports, ports, or overland routes. 

By 1984, Afghan heroin supplied a staggering 60 percent of the US market and 80 percent of the European market, while devastatingly creating 1.3 million heroin addicts in Pakistan, a country previously untouched by the highly-addictive drug.

McCoy states further that, “caravans carrying CIA arms into that region for the resistance often returned to Pakistan loaded down with opium.” Reports from 2001 cited by the New York Times confirmed that this occurred “with the assent of Pakistani or American intelligence officers who supported the resistance.”

In May 1990, the Washington Post reported that the US government had for several years received, but declined to investigate, reports of heroin trafficking by its allies, including “firsthand accounts of heroin smuggling by commanders under Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.”

Rise of the Taliban

When the Soviets did finally withdraw in 1989, the country fell into civil war as the major CIA-backed factions began fighting among themselves for control of the country. Mujahideen leaders became warlords and committed terrible atrocities against the local population while fighting amongst themselves. 

It was during this anarchy that religious students from the madrassas (seminary schools), the Taliban, emerged with the help of Pakistani intelligence to take control of the country in 1996, subsequently inheriting the opium trade, which continued unhindered for several years. 

In July 2000, however, Taliban leader Mullah Omar ordered a ban on all opium cultivation. Remarkably, the Taliban successfully slashed the opium harvest by 94 percent, reducing yearly production to only 185 metric tons.

Five months later, in December 2000, the US and Russia used the UN Security Council to impose harsh new sanctions on Afghanistan, citing the Taliban’s refusal to hand over Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden following the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, in which 17 US sailors were killed. Bin Laden had taken refuge in the Islamic Emirate in 1996 after he was expelled from Sudan.

The New York Times reported that US officials sought to impose the new sanctions, despite warnings from the UN that “a million Afghans could face starvation in coming months because of a drought and continued civil war.”

Following the attacks on 11 September, 2001, Bush administration officials demanded the Taliban hand over Bin Laden once again. Mullah Omar insisted the US first provide evidence of Bin Laden’s guilt, but President Bush refused this request and ordered the US air force to begin bombing Afghanistan on 7 October.

In the wake of the bombing, Mullah Omar dropped the demand for evidence, and offered to hand over Bin Laden to US ally Pakistan for trial. Bush administration officials once again refused.

Journalist and author Scott Horton highlights in his book Fool’s Errand a peculiar aspect of the US campaign: the lack of a clear focus on capturing or eliminating Bin Laden. In fact, President Bush had already stated on 25 September that success or failure should not be defined solely by capturing Bin Laden. 

Horton notes further that US planners made no initial effort to hunt down Bin Laden and the foreign Arab fighters supporting him. Instead, head of US Central Command, General Tommy Franks prioritized partnering with Afghan warlord Rashid Dostum to take control of the north of the country, and establish a “land link” to Uzbekistan.

Turning to the warlords

To also capture the capital, Kabul, and other key cities in the south, Alfred McCoy notes the CIA:

“Turned to a group of rising Pashtun warlords along the Pakistan border who had been active as drug smugglers in the south-eastern part of the country. As a result, when the Taliban collapsed, the groundwork had already been laid for the resumption of opium cultivation and the drug trade on a major scale.”

Though US forces were too late to prevent Bin Laden’s escape to Pakistan, the US bombing campaign came just in time for the beginning of poppy planting season. Poppies are planted in the autumn so that the juice from the plant, from which opium is extracted, can be harvested in spring. 

McCoy clarified further that, “the Agency (CIA) and its local allies created ideal conditions for reversing the Taliban’s opium ban and reviving the drug traffic. Only weeks after the collapse of the Taliban, officials were reporting an outburst of poppy planting in the heroin-heartlands of Helmand and Nangarhar.”

In December, one of these rising Pashtun warlords, Hamid Karzai, was appointed Chairman of the Afghan Interim Administration and later president.

By the spring of 2002, large amounts of Afghan heroin were once again being transported to Britain via daily flights from Pakistani airports. The Guardian observed the case of a 13-year-old girl who was stopped after she stepped off a Pakistan International Airlines flight from Islamabad to London carrying 13kgs of heroin with a street value of £910,000.

Industrial scale

Thanks to the “land link” established by General Franks, heroin also immediately began flowing north from Mazar-e-Sharif, under CIA ally Rashid Dostum’s control, to Uzbekistan and then to to Russia and Europe.

The flow of heroin was witnessed by Craig Murray, the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who explained that Dostum, an ethnic Uzbek, facilitated the smuggling of heroin from Afghanistan to Uzbekistan, where it was then shipped up the railway line, in bales of cotton, to Moscow and then Riga. As Murray noted:

“Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker…The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government – the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect.”

‘A hands off approach’

In addition to Dostum, Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s younger brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, quickly secured a prominent role in the Afghan heroin trade.

Credible reports emerged that Wali Karzai was deeply involved in the heroin trade, however, according to the New York Times, the incidents were never investigated, “even though allegations that he has benefited from narcotics trafficking have circulated widely in Afghanistan.”

Senior officials at the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) complained that the Bush “White House favored a hands-off approach toward Ahmed Wali Karzai because of the political delicacy of the matter.”

The Times later reported that according to a top former Afghan Interior Ministry official, a major source of Wali Karzai’s influence was his control over key bridges crossing the Helmand River on the route between the opium-growing regions of Helmand Province and Kandahar. This allowed Karzai to charge huge fees to drug traffickers to allow their drug-laden trucks to cross the bridges.

Like Dostum and Hekmaytar, Wali Karzai built his heroin empire while on the CIA payroll. The agency began paying Karzai in 2001 to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operated at the agency’s direction in and around Kandahar and to rent a large compound for use as the base of the Kandahar Strike Force. The CIA also appreciated Karzai’s help in communicating and sometimes meeting with Afghans loyal to the Taliban.

Karzai also served as the head of Kandahar’s elected provincial council. According to a senior US military officer in Kabul quoted by the Times, “Hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money are flowing through the southern region, and nothing happens in southern Afghanistan without the regional leadership knowing about it.”

The blame game 

In late 2004, as reports of Karzai’s involvement in the heroin trade were emerging, Alfred McCoy writes that “the White House was suddenly confronted with troubling CIA intelligence suggesting that the escalating drug trade was fueling a revival of the Taliban.” 

A proposal from Secretary of State Colin Powell to fight the heroin trade was resisted by US ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, and then-Afghan finance minister Ashraf Ghani. As a compromise, the Bush administration used private contractors for poppy eradication, an effort that New York Times journalist Carlotta Gall later described as “something of a joke.”

Additionally, reports of a 2005 cable sent by the US embassy in Kabul to Powell’s successor, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, viewed Britain as being “substantially responsible” for the failure to eradicate poppy cultivation. British personnel chose where the eradication teams worked, but those areas were often not the main growing areas, and “the British had been unwilling to revise targets.”

The cable also faulted President Karzai, who “has been unwilling to assert strong leadership.” The State Department nevertheless defended him, saying, “President Karzai is a strong partner, and we have confidence in him,” despite reports of his brother’s key role in the heroin trade.

But the problem went beyond Wali Karzai. A UN report for the World Bank published in February 2006 concluded the Afghan heroin trade was operating with the assistance of many top Afghan government officials and under the protection of the Afghan Ministry of Interior.

As evidence of CIA and Afghan government involvement in the heroin trade grew, the focus of the western media shifted towards blaming the Taliban for using drug profits to fund their insurgency against foreign forces.

However, historian Peter Dale Scott challenged this narrative, citing UN estimates that the Taliban’s share of the Afghan opium economy was a fraction compared to that of supporters of the Karzai government. Scott emphasized that the largest share of the drug trade was controlled by those aligned with the Afghan government.

The surge

In early 2010, the Obama administration announced a “surge” of 33,000 US troops to help pacify the country, with a particular focus on key districts known for poppy cultivation. One such district was Marja in Helmand province, which McCoy referred to as “the world’s heroin capital.” 

Despite the surge’s mission, US commanders seemed unaware of Marja’s significance as a hub for heroin production, fueled by the surrounding opium fields that accounted for 40 percent of the world’s illicit opium supply.

In September 2010, eight months after the start of the surge, “unsubstantiated” reports emerged that British soldiers were involved in trafficking heroin out of Afghanistan using military aircraft at airports in Camp Bastion and Kandahar.

Camp Bastion, jointly operated by the UK and the US, was located near Lashkar Gah, another major center of poppy cultivation. In 2012, it was alleged that poppy cultivation was taking place just outside the base’s perimeter, with British soldiers providing protection to farmers against Afghan security forces.

By late 2014, British and US forces withdrew from Camp Bastion, handing it over to Afghan forces, who renamed it Camp Shorabak. However, according to a UN report, “the opium-growing area around Britain’s main base in Afghanistan nearly quadrupled between 2011 and 2013.” 

Despite the withdrawal, opium exports from Camp Shorabak apparently continued, and a small number of British military personnel returned in 2015 in what was described by the Ministry of Defense as an advisory role.

In 2016, Obaidullah Barakzai, a member of the National Assembly of Afghanistan, claimed, “It’s impossible for a few local drug smugglers to transfer opium in thousands of kilos. This is the work of the Americans and British. They transport it by air from Camp Shorabak.”

After US forces chaotically withdrew from Afghanistan in August 2021, the Taliban once again succeeded in eliminating poppy cultivation, showing it was far from a “dedicated drug cartel” after all.

Follow the money

In November 2021, an opium merchant claimed that “All the profits go to the foreign countries. Afghans are just supplying the labor.”

Peter Dale Scott noted that according to the UN, some $352 billion in drug profits had been absorbed into the western financial system, including through the US’ largest banks in 2009. As a result, Scott said the “United States involvement in the international drug traffic links the CIA, major financial interests, and criminal interests in this country and abroad.”

In 2012, the Daily Mail reported that HSBC, Britain’s biggest bank, faced up to £640million in penalties for allowing “rogue states and drugs cartels to launder billions of pounds through its branches,” and for becoming “a conduit for criminal enterprises.”

The billions in profits flowing from the Afghan heroin trade into western banks have now been eliminated by the Taliban not once, but twice in the past two decades. 

Taliban leader Mullah Omar’s pronouncement in July 2000 that poppy cultivation was “un-Islamic” was, therefore, a more likely cause of the US sanctions imposed in December of the same year, and of the US invasion of Afghanistan a year later, than was any US desire to apprehend Bin Laden and dismantle Al-Qaeda.  

In March 2002, just six months after the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, a journalist asked President Bush, “Where’s Osama bin Laden?” Bush replied, ‘I don’t know. I don’t really think about him very much. I’m not that concerned.”

The Afghan drug trade serves as a stark reminder of the intricate connections between geopolitics, illicit economies, and global finance, and the need for greater transparency and accountability in addressing these complex issues.

The historical evidence also challenges the simplistic narrative that the Taliban largely controlled the Afghan drug trade, highlighting the dominant role played by the US-backed Afghan government and its allies in the CIA.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Water Wars: Drought, disputes, and deadly skirmishes between Iran and the Taliban

June 01 2023

Photo Credit: The Cradle

Recent border clashes have escalated tensions to a critical point between the Islamic Republic and the Taliban over Iran’s unfulfilled water rights. Do the Taliban have a deeper motive, and what are their demands?

By F.M. Shakil

Long spells of drought in Afghanistan and southeastern Iran have reignited a decades-old dispute between the two countries over the equitable distribution of water from the Helmand River, which originates in the mountains north of Kabul, and flows through much of Afghanistan before emptying into the Sistan wetlands in Iran.

One factor contributing to the dispute is the incomplete Kajaki Dam on the Helmand River, a project initiated by the United States in 1950 that has remained inconclusive despite successive deadlines issued by Washington and aid agency USAID.

But the dam has been “successful” in depriving Iran of its water rights, with the reservoir’s significant water storage capacity leaving very little for Iran’s marshes. The situation worsened between 1998 and 2001, when Taliban officials, during one of the worst droughts in the area, cut off Iran’s access to water via the Kajaki Dam.

As a result, the Hamoun Lake area experienced severe dust storms, exacerbating Iran’s public health crisis. To make ends meet, thousands of people from the Hamoun Lake area were forced to leave for the cities.

Iranian agonies

As Afghanistan’s longest river, the Helmand stretches 1,150 km from the majestic Hindu Kush Mountains to the once-captivating Hamoun Wetlands in Iran’s Sistan Basin, and holds immense significance. It generously provides around 40 percent of the country’s surface water, shaping the livelihoods and ecosystems of the region throughout history.

Once upon a time, this area was a thriving habitat for a diverse array of flora and fauna. But sadly, the construction of numerous dams and canals in Helmand, Nimruz, and Kandahar has gradually dwindled the flow of water, resulting in the near disappearance of the Hamoun lakes and their unique vegetation and species.

Adding to the complexity of the situation, the inauguration of the Kamal Khan Dam by former pro-US Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in March 2021 has posed further challenges for Iran’s Sistan and Baluchistan Province. This dam has also caused harm to the lower Helmand River dam built in Nimruz. As per the provisions of their 1973 agreement, Kamal Khan marks the point where Iran and Afghanistan share the Helmand River’s resources.

Dubbed a diversion dam with a detour road, the Kamal Khan Dam redirects spilled water to Afghanistan’s Gowdzare salt marsh, leaving Iran with a mere trickle from the Helmand’s precious flow. Iran’s Kabul Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi has expressed concern about this water imbalance. Recent negotiations between Iranian officials and the foreign ministry of the Taliban government have revealed that technical issues with the Kamal Khan Dam have led to increased water wastage.

Border skirmishes

On 27 May, despite repeated assurances from Kabul and warnings from Tehran with regards to the latter’s water rights, tensions finally erupted between Iran and the Taliban. The two sides exchanged heavy gunfire on the border resulting in two or three casualties on both sides before matters de-escalated.

Indian-American political scientist and the University of Delaware professor Dr. Muhammad Abdul Muqtedar Khan tells The Cradle that some social media posts showed the Taliban making extensive use of weapons abandoned in Afghanistan by the former Soviet Union, NATO, and most recently, the US, who unceremoniously withdrew its military forces in August 2021.

“American tanks, machineguns, and an obsolete Soviet howitzer measuring in at 122 millimeters (mm) D-30 are among the weapons that the Taliban brought to the Iran-Afghan border. It was as if American and Soviet military hardware were facing off against Iranian troops.”

The border clashes came hours after Amir Khan Muttaqi, the Taliban’s acting foreign minister, met with an Iranian envoy to Afghanistan to discuss the Helmand River water-sharing agreement, according to an Afghan foreign ministry official. Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency confirmed the meeting and stated that “issues between the two countries will be resolved more effectively through dialogue.”

The source of the problem

The sudden and reckless reaction from Kabul regarding the water rights dispute with Iran can be attributed to several factors, says geopolitical analyst Andrew Korybko. He tells The Cradle that the Taliban’s motivation for engaging in a border clash with Iran can be understood through four key reasons.

First, he argues that the Taliban may believe that such a clash could pressure Iran into publicly recognizing its government as a precondition for negotiating the 1973 agreement. By demonstrating its military prowess, the Taliban aims to strengthen its position and set the stage for future political negotiations.

The second goal may be “to strengthen the Taliban’s grip on the country’s population and factions. A conflict with Iran was meant to appeal to nationalism and ultra-sectarianism.”

Third, “the Afghan-Pakistani border has calmed in recent weeks. This suggests an Afghani agreement or a secret accord may have been reached with Pakistani officials, which is damning for the Taliban’s image at home. Thus, the latest Iran problem may be intended to distract public opinion.”

Fourth, and last, the Taliban may anticipate that their skirmishes with Iran would garner the approval of the US. They hope that such actions would lead to the unfreezing of Afghanistan’s assets and a gradual rapprochement between the Taliban and Washington.

“Given these four goals, the Taliban started this crisis to consolidate control at home and gain international prominence. Iran can only defend itself until the Taliban gives up,” Korybko maintains.

Taliban’s negotiations with Iran

Interestingly, just a week prior to the border clash, the Taliban’s acting Foreign Minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi, assured Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian via phone that the Taliban government would meet its obligations under the 1973 treaty and reaffirmed its intention to resolve all issues through negotiation.

During the call, Amir-Abdollahian raised the issue of Iran’s water rights and warned that Iran’s water share of the Helmand River is a “serious demand” of Tehran that could undermine bilateral relations.

The top Iranian diplomat stressed the need for the full implementation of a 1973 water-sharing treaty between Iran and Afghanistan, under which Iran is annually entitled to receive 820 million cubic meters of water from the Helmand River.

He suggested that a joint technical committee analyze the state of Afghanistan’s water resources, given that due to decades of instability and conflicts in Afghanistan, the 1973 agreement has never been fully implemented.

Dr. Muqtedar Khan explains to The Cradle that drought conditions have persisted in both nations for the past decade:

“Ninety percent of Iran’s population and farmers may have experienced water scarcity. Afghanistan has the same problem. Iran and Afghanistan base their water distribution on the Helmand Water Sharing Agreement of 1973, which is similar to the Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan. According to Iran, Afghanistan is breaking the terms of its water sharing deal by not letting water flow to Iran.”

While negotiations between the two sides are ongoing, he says the question remains as to whether the Taliban will stand by the agreements signed by the previous Afghan government or renege on those promises.

“The war euphoria created with battle songs in Kabul and the fiery speeches made by hard-core Taliban militants is, of course, something to be worried about,” he adds.

‘We will conquer Tehran’

Tensions between Kabul and Tehran have reached such a height that Taliban officials have begun making aggressive statements in response to Tehran’s demand for a fair water distribution formula. General Mobeen, a member associated with the influential Haqqani network and spokesman for the Kabul security department, was quoted by local news outlet Afghanistan International, stating, “For every 10 liters of water, we need 20 liters of fuel from Iran. Iran owes us 75 billion US dollars for the water that flowed into Iran over the past 40 years.”

Online supporters of the Taliban have also contributed to the heated rhetoric on social media, recently sharing a song and video urging Mullah Mohammad Yaqoob – Afghanistan’s acting defense minister and son of the Taliban’s late founder, Mullah Mohammad Omar – to confront Iran.

The song emphasizes the necessity of standing up to the Islamic Republic, boldly proclaiming:

“We are a government; we have power … If we do not stand up to Iran, we will not be the government of the country, says our leader, Mullah Yaqoob. Our commander, Mullah Yaqoob, will stand up to Iran because we are not slaves.”

It is worth noting that even Taliban factions that had significant differences with the Taliban leadership have now emerged to issue threats against Iran. Abdul Hamid Khorasani, a former deputy police chief for central Panjsher province who faced allegations of murder, extortions, hostage-taking, and drug smuggling, released a video message that quickly went viral on social media.

In his message, Khorasani warned Iran not to underestimate the Taliban’s power, stating, “You are behind the curtain with the westerners; we are real Muslims; if the elders of the Islamic Emirates allow us, we will conquer Tehran.”

However, London-based Arabic daily Rai al-Youm warns of a sectarian agenda behind the new, escalatory rhetoric surrounding the water dispute. A 28 May editorial notes the dissatisfaction of certain external parties over the groundbreaking Iran-Saudi rapprochement, which has effectively sidelined negative Sunni-Shia narratives in the region, saying:

“The United States was defeated and lost more than two trillion dollars after twenty years of occupying Afghanistan. It now wants to retaliate by igniting a sectarian war between the Taliban Movement and its most dangerous enemy, Iran. Sadly, there are some Arab parties and even countries that support this blood-ridden scenario from behind the scene.”

Prioritizing water security

Water disputes between Iran and Afghanistan have a long history, dating back to the British rule of Afghanistan in the 1870s. During that time, a British officer demarcated the Iran-Afghanistan border at the main branch of the Helmand River.

Efforts to resolve the conflict began in 1939 when Reza Shah Pahlavi’s government in Iran and Mohammad Zahir Shah’s government in Afghanistan reached a convention on the distribution of the river’s waters. However, the Afghan government did not ratify this agreement.

In 1948, a new attempt to settle the water dispute took place in Washington. Iran and Afghanistan appointed a three-person commission to investigate the matter and provide recommendations, based on an American proposal. The Helmand River Delta Commission published its report on 28 February, 1951, proposing that Iran’s share of the Helmand waters should be twenty-two cubic meters per second.

A significant breakthrough was achieved in 1973 when Iranian Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveida and his Afghani counterpart Mohammad Musa Shafiq signed an agreement allowing for the transfer of 22 cubic meters of water per second from Afghanistan to Iran. It also offered the potential for Iran to receive an additional 4 cubic meters per second during “normal” water years. In return, Iran granted Afghanistan access to the ports of Bandar Abbas and Chabahar without further requirements.

However, various political and security circumstances in both countries hindered the ratification and full implementation of the agreement: The 1973 Afghanistan coup d’etat, the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, and the subsequent rise of the Taliban in 1995.

The water dispute between Iran and Afghanistan persists, driven by a combination of geopolitical, and internal factors. De-escalation and diplomacy should be prioritized, as they serve the interests of both countries in reaching a mutually beneficial solution.

Kabul should also acknowledge Tehran’s recent statement expressing non-recognition of the government of the Islamic Emirate as a warning of more serious consequences if Iran’s water security continues to be undermined and disregarded.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

More from this author

The Sultan 2.0 will heavily tilt east

May 31 2023

Photo Credit: The Cradle

It’s not that Erdogan has a scheme to head east at the west’s expense. It’s just that the world’s grandest infrastructure, development, and geopolitical projects are all in the east today.

By Pepe Escobar

The collective west was dying to bury him – yet another strategic mistake that did not take into account the mood of Turkish voters in deep Anatolia.

In the end, Recep Tayyip Erdogan did it – again. Against all his shortcomings, like an aging neo-Ottoman Sinatra, he did it “my way,” comfortably retaining Turkiye’s presidency after naysayers had all but buried him.

The first order of geopolitical priority is who will be named Minister of Foreign Affairs. The prime candidate is Ibrahim Kalin – the current all-powerful Erdogan press secretary cum top adviser.

Compared to incumbent Cavusoglu, Kalin, in theory, may be qualified as more pro-west. Yet it’s the Sultan who calls the shots. It will be fascinating to watch how Turkiye under Erdogan 2.0 will navigate the strengthening of ties with West Asia and the accelerating process of Eurasia integration.

The first immediate priority, from Erdogan’s point of view, is to get rid of the “terrorist corridor” in Syria. This means, in practice, reigning in the US-backed Kurdish YPG/PYD, who are effectively Syrian affiliates of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) – which is also the issue at the heart of a possible normalization of relations with Damascus.

Now that Syria has been enthusiastically welcomed back to the Arab League after a 12-year freeze, a Moscow-brokered entente between the Turkish and Syrian presidents, already in progress, may represent the ultimate win-win for Erdogan: allowing control of Kurds in north Syria while facilitating the repatriation of roughly 4 million refugees (tens of thousands will stay, as a source of cheap labor).

The Sultan is at his prime when it comes to hedging his bets between east and west. He knows well how to profit from Turkiye’s status as a key NATO member – complete with one of its largest armies, veto power, and control of the entry to the uber-strategic Black Sea.

And all that while exercising real foreign policy independence, from West Asia to the Eastern Mediterranean.

So expect Erdogan 2.0 to remain an inextinguishable source of irritation for the neocons and neoliberals in charge of US foreign policy, along with their EU vassals, who will never refrain from trying to subdue Ankara to fight the Russia-China-Iran Eurasia integration entente. The Sultan, though, knows how to play this game beautifully.

How to manage Russia and China

Whatever happens next, Erdogan will not hop on board the sanctions-against-Russia sinking ship. The Kremlin bought Turkish bonds tied to the development of the Russian-built Akkuyu nuclear power plant, Turkiye’s first nuclear reactor. Moscow allowed Ankara to postpone nearly $4 billion in energy payments until 2024. Best of all, Ankara pays for Russian gas in rubles.

So an array of deals related to the supply of Russian energy trump possible secondary sanctions that might target the steady rise in Turkiye’s exports. Still, it’s a given the US will revert to its one and only “diplomatic” policy – sanctions. The 2018 sanctions did push Turkiye into recession after all.

But Erdogan can easily count on popular support across the Turkish realm. Early this year, a Gezici poll revealed that 72.8 percent of Turkish citizens privilege good relations with Russia while nearly 90 percent rate the US as a “hostile” nation. That’s what allows Interior Minister Soylu to remark, bluntly, “we will wipe out whoever is causing trouble, including American troops.”

China-Turkiye strategic cooperation falls under what Erdogan defines as “turning to the East” – and is mostly about China’s multi-continent infrastructure behemoth, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The Turk Silk Road branch of the BRI focuses on what Beijing defines as the “Middle Corridor,” a prime cost-effective/secure trade route that connects Asia to Europe.

The driver is the China Railway Express, which turned the Middle Corridor arguably into BRI’s backbone. For instance, electronics parts and an array of household items routinely arriving via cargo planes from Osaka, Japan are loaded onto freight trains going to Duisburg and Hamburg in Germany, via the China Railway Express departing from Shenzhen, Wuhan, and Changsha – and crossing from Xinjiang to Kazakhstan and beyond via the Alataw Pass. Shipments from Chongqing to Germany take a maximum of 13 days.

It’s no wonder that nearly 10 years ago, when he first unveiled his ambitious, multi-trillion dollar BRI in Astana, Kazakhstan, Chinese President Xi Jinping placed the China Railway Express as a core BRI component.

Direct freight trains from Xian to Istanbul are plying the route since December 2020, using the Baku-Tblisi-Kars (BTK) railway with less than two weeks travel time – and plans afoot to increase their frequency. Beijing is well aware of Turkiye’s asset as a transportation hub and crossroads for markets in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, West Asia, and North Africa, not to mention a customs union with the EU that allows direct access to European markets.

Moreover, Baku’s victory in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war came with a ceasefire deal bonus: the Zangezur corridor, which will eventually facilitate Turkiye’s direct access to neighbors from the  Caucasus to Central Asia.

A pan-Turkic offensive?

And here we enter a fascinating territory: the possible incoming interpolations between the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the BRICS+ – and all that also linked to a boost in Saudi and Emirati investments in the Turkish economy.

Sultan 2.0 wants to become a full member of both the Chinese-led SCO and multipolar BRICS+. This means a much closer entente with the Russia-China strategic partnership as well as with the Arab powerhouses, which are also hopping on the BRICS+ high-speed train.

Erdogan 2.0 is already focusing on two key players in Central Asia and South Asia: Uzbekistan and Pakistan. Both happen to be SCO members.

Ankara and Islamabad are very much in sync. They express the same judgment on the extremely delicate Kashmir question, and both backed Azerbaijan against Armenia.

But the key developments may lie in Central Asia. Ankara and Tashkent have a strategic defense agreement – including intel sharing and logistics cooperation.

The Organization of Turkic States (OTS), with a HQ in Istanbul, is the prime energizer of pan-Turkism or pan-Turanism. Turkiye, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan are full members, with Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Hungary, and Ukraine cultivated as observers. The Turk-Azeri relationship is billed as “one nation, two states” in pan-Turkic terms.

The basic idea is a still hazy “cooperation platform” between Central Asia and the Southern Caucasus. Yet some serious proposals have already been floated. The OTS summit in Samarkand late last year advanced the idea of a TURANCEZ free trade bloc, comprising Turkiye, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and as observers, Hungary (representing the EU) and Northern Cyprus.

Meanwhile, hard business prevails. To fully profit from the status of the energy transit hub, Turkiye needs not only Russian gas but also gas from Turkmenistan feeding the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) as well as Kazakh oil coming via the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline.

The Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA) is heavy on economic cooperation, active in a series of projects in transportation, construction, mining, and oil and gas. Ankara has already invested a whopping $85 billion across Central Asia, with nearly 4,000 companies scattered across all the “stans.”

Of course, when compared to Russia and China, Turkiye is not a major player in Central Asia. Moreover, the bridge to Central Asia goes via Iran. So far, rivalry between Ankara and Tehran seems to be the norm, but everything may change, lightning fast, with the simultaneous development of the Russia-Iran-India-led International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), which will profit both – and the fact that the Iranians and Turks may soon become full BRICS+ members.

Sultan 2.0 is bound to boost investment in Central Asia as a new geoeconomic frontier. That in itself encapsulates the possibility of Turkiye soon joining the SCO.

We will then have a “turning to the East” in full effect, in parallel to closer ties with the Russia-China strategic partnership. Take note that Turkiye’s ties with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan are also strategic partnerships.

Not bad for a neo-Ottoman who, until a few days ago, was dismissed as a has-been.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Anger spreads in Pakistan as govt arrests nearly 1,000 Imran Khan supporters

May 10 2023

(Photo Credit: AFP)

ByNews Desk

Clashes between citizens and security forces broke out in several cities following the dramatic arrest of the former PM who was ousted in a US-backed coup

Pakistani police have detained at least 945 supporters of ousted prime minister Imran Khan in Punjab, the country’s most populous province, since protests erupted on 9 May following Khan’s arrest.

At least one protester was shot dead by security forces in the southwestern city of Quetta on Tuesday, according to a CNN reporter present at the scene.

“Police teams arrested 945 lawbreakers and miscreants from across the province,” officials said in a statement to the media, adding that 130 security officers were injured, 25 police and government vehicles were burnt, and 14 government buildings were attacked during the protests.

In the face of popular discontent, the interior ministry on 10 May requisitioned the help of the army to “maintain law and order” in Punjab.

On Tuesday, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) deployed dozens of paramilitary troops to dramatically detain Khan under alleged charges of “corruption and corrupt practices.”

The arrest of Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan. pic.twitter.com/2vElA4vPFP

— The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex) May 9, 2023

The former premier was presented in an Islamabad court on Wednesday morning to face the charges. During the hearing, the NAB requested the court approve Khan be kept under police custody for 14 days, a move his lawyers opposed.

Khan’s lawyers also insisted that the court investigate the irregular manner in which the 70-year old politician was arrested from the premises of the Islamabad High Court.

In a pre-recorded statement released on YouTube by Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party after his arrest, the former premier said he was “detained on incorrect charges” and told his supporters, “the time has come for all of you to come and struggle for your rights.”

“I have always followed the law. I am being apprehended so that I can’t follow my political path for this country’s fundamental rights and for me to obey this corrupt government of crooks which has been hoisted on us,” Khan added.

Following his arrest, his supporters broke into the military’s headquarters in the city of Rawalpindi, just outside the capital.

Protesters also blocked one of the main thoroughfares into Islamabad, throwing stones and pulling down street signs.

Authorities responded by deploying internet jammers and disrupting access to Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube in the nation of 270 million.

Khan’s arrest came just a few months before crucial elections in October, where many expect the ousted premier to win the largest democratic mandate ever secured by any politician in the 75-year history of Pakistan.

The former cricket star was ousted from government last year in a  that saw Shehbaz Sharif – a protégé of the Sharif business dynasty that has governed Pakistan for much of the last three decades – come to power.

Khan previously saw his relationship with the US sour after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban. They were also at odds over Afghan state assets frozen by Washington and about US flights over Pakistan.

More pressure started to build against Khan after he criticized western powers for pressuring Islamabad into condemning Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine.

“What do you think of us? Are we your slaves … that whatever you say, we will do?” Khan said at a political rally early last year.

Since his ousting, he has been arrested, charged with “terrorism,” banned from running for office, and even survived an assassination attempt.

Keywords

US HAS KILLED MORE THAN 20 MILLION IN 37 NATIONS SINCE WWII

November 27, 2015

By James A. Lucas, www.countercurrents.org

Educate!

Above Photo: Allen Burney of Des Moines waves a Veterans for Peace flag during a protest at the Iowa Air National Guard base Monday in Des Moines. The .protesters were rallying against the use of drones to carry out military strikes. Charlie Neibergall/Associated Press

After the catastrophic attacks of September 11 2001 monumental sorrow and a feeling of desperate and understandable anger began to permeate the American psyche. A few people at that time attempted to promote a balanced perspective by pointing out that the United States had also been responsible for causing those same feelings in people in other nations, but they produced hardly a ripple. Although Americans understand in the abstract the wisdom of people around the world empathizing with the suffering of one another, such a reminder of wrongs committed by our nation got little hearing and was soon overshadowed by an accelerated “war on terrorism.”

But we must continue our efforts to develop understanding and compassion in the world. Hopefully, this article will assist in doing that by addressing the question “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” This theme is developed in this report which contains an estimated numbers of such deaths in 37 nations as well as brief explanations of why the U.S. is considered culpable.

The causes of wars are complex. In some instances nations other than the U.S. may have been responsible for more deaths, but if the involvement of our nation appeared to have been a necessary cause of a war or conflict it was considered responsible for the deaths in it. In other words they probably would not have taken place if the U.S. had not used the heavy hand of its power. The military and economic power of the United States was crucial.

This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.

The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.

But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

To the families and friends of these victims it makes little difference whether the causes were U.S. military action, proxy military forces, the provision of U.S. military supplies or advisors, or other ways, such as economic pressures applied by our nation. They had to make decisions about other things such as finding lost loved ones, whether to become refugees, and how to survive.

And the pain and anger is spread even further. Some authorities estimate that there are as many as 10 wounded for each person who dies in wars. Their visible, continued suffering is a continuing reminder to their fellow countrymen.

It is essential that Americans learn more about this topic so that they can begin to understand the pain that others feel. Someone once observed that the Germans during WWII “chose not to know.” We cannot allow history to say this about our country. The question posed above was “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” The answer is: possibly 10,000.

Comments on Gathering These Numbers


Generally speaking, the much smaller number of Americans who have died is not included in this study, not because they are not important, but because this report focuses on the impact of U.S. actions on its adversaries.

An accurate count of the number of deaths is not easy to achieve, and this collection of data was undertaken with full realization of this fact. These estimates will probably be revised later either upward or downward by the reader and the author. But undoubtedly the total will remain in the millions.

The difficulty of gathering reliable information is shown by two estimates in this context. For several years I heard statements on radio that three million Cambodians had been killed under the rule of the Khmer Rouge. However, in recent years the figure I heard was one million. Another example is that the number of persons estimated to have died in Iraq due to sanctions after the first U.S. Iraq War was over 1 million, but in more recent years, based on a more recent study, a lower estimate of around a half a million has emerged.

Often information about wars is revealed only much later when someone decides to speak out, when more secret information is revealed due to persistent efforts of a few, or after special congressional committees make reports

Both victorious and defeated nations may have their own reasons for underreporting the number of deaths. Further, in recent wars involving the United States it was not uncommon to hear statements like “we do not do body counts” and references to “collateral damage” as a euphemism for dead and wounded. Life is cheap for some, especially those who manipulate people on the battlefield as if it were a chessboard.

To say that it is difficult to get exact figures is not to say that we should not try. Effort was needed to arrive at the figures of 6six million Jews killed during WWI, but knowledge of that number now is widespread and it has fueled the determination to prevent future holocausts. That struggle continues.

The author can be contacted at jlucas511@woh.rr.com

37 VICTIM NATIONS

Afghanistan

The U.S. is responsible for between 1 and 1.8 million deaths during the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, by luring the Soviet Union into invading that nation. (1,2,3,4)

The Soviet Union had friendly relations its neighbor, Afghanistan, which had a secular government. The Soviets feared that if that government became fundamentalist this change could spill over into the Soviet Union.

In 1998, in an interview with the Parisian publication Le Novel Observateur, Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to President Carter, admitted that he had been responsible for instigating aid to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan which caused the Soviets to invade. In his own words:

“According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.” (5,1,6)

Brzezinski justified laying this trap, since he said it gave the Soviet Union its Vietnam and caused the breakup of the Soviet Union. “Regret what?” he said. “That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?” (7)

The CIA spent 5 to 6 billion dollars on its operation in Afghanistan in order to bleed the Soviet Union. (1,2,3) When that 10-year war ended over a million people were dead and Afghan heroin had captured 60% of the U.S. market. (4)

The U.S. has been responsible directly for about 12,000 deaths in Afghanistan many of which resulted from bombing in retaliation for the attacks on U.S. property on September 11, 2001. Subsequently U.S. troops invaded that country. (4)

Angola

An indigenous armed struggle against Portuguese rule in Angola began in 1961. In 1977 an Angolan government was recognized by the U.N., although the U.S. was one of the few nations that opposed this action. In 1986 Uncle Sam approved material assistance to UNITA, a group that was trying to overthrow the government. Even today this struggle, which has involved many nations at times, continues.

U.S. intervention was justified to the U.S. public as a reaction to the intervention of 50,000 Cuban troops in Angola. However, according to Piero Gleijeses, a history professor at Johns Hopkins University the reverse was true. The Cuban intervention came as a result of a CIA – financed covert invasion via neighboring Zaire and a drive on the Angolan capital by the U.S. ally, South Africa1,2,3). (Three estimates of deaths range from 300,000 to 750,000 (4,5,6)

Argentina: See South America: Operation Condor

Bangladesh: See Pakistan

Bolivia

Hugo Banzer was the leader of a repressive regime in Bolivia in the 1970s. The U.S. had been disturbed when a previous leader nationalized the tin mines and distributed land to Indian peasants. Later that action to benefit the poor was reversed.

Banzer, who was trained at the U.S.-operated School of the Americas in Panama and later at Fort Hood, Texas, came back from exile frequently to confer with U.S. Air Force Major Robert Lundin. In 1971 he staged a successful coup with the help of the U.S. Air Force radio system. In the first years of his dictatorship he received twice as military assistance from the U.S. as in the previous dozen years together.

A few years later the Catholic Church denounced an army massacre of striking tin workers in 1975, Banzer, assisted by information provided by the CIA, was able to target and locate leftist priests and nuns. His anti-clergy strategy, known as the Banzer Plan, was adopted by nine other Latin American dictatorships in 1977. (2) He has been accused of being responsible for 400 deaths during his tenure. (1)

Also see: See South America: Operation Condor


Brazil: See South America: Operation Condor

Cambodia

U.S. bombing of Cambodia had already been underway for several years in secret under the Johnson and Nixon administrations, but when President Nixon openly began bombing in preparation for a land assault on Cambodia it caused major protests in the U.S. against the Vietnam War.

There is little awareness today of the scope of these bombings and the human suffering involved.

Immense damage was done to the villages and cities of Cambodia, causing refugees and internal displacement of the population. This unstable situation enabled the Khmer Rouge, a small political party led by Pol Pot, to assume power. Over the years we have repeatedly heard about the Khmer Rouge’s role in the deaths of millions in Cambodia without any acknowledgement being made this mass killing was made possible by the the U.S. bombing of that nation which destabilized it by death , injuries, hunger and dislocation of its people.

So the U.S. bears responsibility not only for the deaths from the bombings but also for those resulting from the activities of the Khmer Rouge – a total of about 2.5 million people. Even when Vietnam latrer invaded Cambodia in 1979 the CIA was still supporting the Khmer Rouge. (1,2,3)

Also see Vietnam

Chad

An estimated 40,000 people in Chad were killed and as many as 200,000 tortured by a government, headed by Hissen Habre who was brought to power in June, 1982 with the help of CIA money and arms. He remained in power for eight years. (1,2)

Human Rights Watch claimed that Habre was responsible for thousands of killings. In 2001, while living in Senegal, he was almost tried for crimes committed by him in Chad. However, a court there blocked these proceedings. Then human rights people decided to pursue the case in Belgium, because some of Habre’s torture victims lived there. The U.S., in June 2003, told Belgium that it risked losing its status as host to NATO’s headquarters if it allowed such a legal proceeding to happen. So the result was that the law that allowed victims to file complaints in Belgium for atrocities committed abroad was repealed. However, two months later a new law was passed which made special provision for the continuation of the case against Habre.

Chile

The CIA intervened in Chile’s 1958 and 1964 elections. In 1970 a socialist candidate, Salvador Allende, was elected president. The CIA wanted to incite a military coup to prevent his inauguration, but the Chilean army’s chief of staff, General Rene Schneider, opposed this action. The CIA then planned, along with some people in the Chilean military, to assassinate Schneider. This plot failed and Allende took office. President Nixon was not to be dissuaded and he ordered the CIA to create a coup climate: “Make the economy scream,” he said.
What followed were guerilla warfare, arson, bombing, sabotage and terror. ITT and other U.S. corporations with Chilean holdings sponsored demonstrations and strikes. Finally, on September 11, 1973 Allende died either by suicide or by assassination. At that time Henry Kissinger, U.S. Secretary of State, said the following regarding Chile: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.” (1)

During 17 years of terror under Allende’s successor, General Augusto Pinochet, an estimated 3,000 Chileans were killed and many others were tortured or “disappeared.” (2,3,4,5)

Also see South America: Operation Condor

China An estimated 900,000 Chinese died during the Korean War. For more information, See: Korea.


Colombia

One estimate is that 67,000 deaths have occurred from the 1960s to recent years due to support by the U.S. of Colombian state terrorism. (1)

According to a 1994 Amnesty International report, more than 20,000 people were killed for political reasons in Colombia since 1986, mainly by the military and its paramilitary allies. Amnesty alleged that “U.S.- supplied military equipment, ostensibly delivered for use against narcotics traffickers, was being used by the Colombian military to commit abuses in the name of “counter-insurgency.” (2) In 2002 another estimate was made that 3,500 people die each year in a U.S. funded civilian war in Colombia. (3)

In 1996 Human Rights Watch issued a report “Assassination Squads in Colombia” which revealed that CIA agents went to Colombia in 1991 to help the military to train undercover agents in anti-subversive activity. (4,5)

In recent years the U.S. government has provided assistance under Plan Colombia. The Colombian government has been charged with using most of the funds for destruction of crops and support of the paramilitary group.

Cuba

In the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba on April 18, 1961 which ended after 3 days, 114 of the invading force were killed, 1,189 were taken prisoners and a few escaped to waiting U.S. ships. (1) The captured exiles were quickly tried, a few executed and the rest sentenced to thirty years in prison for treason. These exiles were released after 20 months in exchange for $53 million in food and medicine.

Some people estimate that the number of Cuban forces killed range from 2,000, to 4,000. Another estimate is that 1,800 Cuban forces were killed on an open highway by napalm. This appears to have been a precursor of the Highway of Death in Iraq in 1991 when U.S. forces mercilessly annihilated large numbers of Iraqis on a highway. (2)

Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire)

The beginning of massive violence was instigated in this country in 1879 by its colonizer King Leopold of Belgium. The Congo’s population was reduced by 10 million people over a period of 20 years which some have referred to as “Leopold’s Genocide.” (1) The U.S. has been responsible for about a third of that many deaths in that nation in the more recent past. (2)

In 1960 the Congo became an independent state with Patrice Lumumba being its first prime minister. He was assassinated with the CIA being implicated, although some say that his murder was actually the responsibility of Belgium. (3) But nevertheless, the CIA was planning to kill him. (4) Before his assassination the CIA sent one of its scientists, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, to the Congo carrying “lethal biological material” intended for use in Lumumba’s assassination. This virus would have been able to produce a fatal disease indigenous to the Congo area of Africa and was transported in a diplomatic pouch.

Much of the time in recent years there has been a civil war within the Democratic Republic of Congo, fomented often by the U.S. and other nations, including neighboring nations. (5)

In April 1977, Newsday reported that the CIA was secretly supporting efforts to recruit several hundred mercenaries in the U.S. and Great Britain to serve alongside Zaire’s army. In that same year the U.S. provided $15 million of military supplies to the Zairian President Mobutu to fend off an invasion by a rival group operating in Angola. (6)

In May 1979, the U.S. sent several million dollars of aid to Mobutu who had been condemned 3 months earlier by the U.S. State Department for human rights violations. (7) During the Cold War the U.S. funneled over 300 million dollars in weapons into Zaire (8,9) $100 million in military training was provided to him. (2) In 2001 it was reported to a U.S. congressional committee that American companies, including one linked to former President George Bush Sr., were stoking the Congo for monetary gains. There is an international battle over resources in that country with over 125 companies and individuals being implicated. One of these substances is coltan, which is used in the manufacture of cell phones. (2)

Dominican Republic

In 1962, Juan Bosch became president of the Dominican Republic. He advocated such programs as land reform and public works programs. This did not bode well for his future relationship with the U.S., and after only 7 months in office, he was deposed by a CIA coup. In 1965 when a group was trying to reinstall him to his office President Johnson said, “This Bosch is no good.” Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Mann replied “He’s no good at all. If we don’t get a decent government in there, Mr. President, we get another Bosch. It’s just going to be another sinkhole.” Two days later a U.S. invasion started and 22,000 soldiers and marines entered the Dominican Republic and about 3,000 Dominicans died during the fighting. The cover excuse for doing this was that this was done to protect foreigners there. (1,2,3,4)


East Timor

In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor. This incursion was launched the day after U.S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia where they had given President Suharto permission to use American arms, which under U.S. law, could not be used for aggression. Daniel Moynihan, U.S. ambassador to the UN. said that the U.S. wanted “things to turn out as they did.” (1,2) The result was an estimated 200,000 dead out of a population of 700,000. (1,2)

Sixteen years later, on November 12, 1991, two hundred and seventeen East Timorese protesters in Dili, many of them children, marching from a memorial service, were gunned down by Indonesian Kopassus shock troops who were headed by U.S.- trained commanders Prabowo Subianto (son in law of General Suharto) and Kiki Syahnakri. Trucks were seen dumping bodies into the sea. (5)

El Salvador

The civil war from 1981 to1992 in El Salvador was financed by $6 billion in U.S. aid given to support the government in its efforts to crush a movement to bring social justice to the people in that nation of about 8 million people. (1)
During that time U.S. military advisers demonstrated methods of torture on teenage prisoners, according to an interview with a deserter from the Salvadoran army published in the New York Times. This former member of the Salvadoran National Guard testified that he was a member of a squad of twelve who found people who they were told were guerillas and tortured them. Part of the training he received was in torture at a U.S. location somewhere in Panama. (2)

About 900 villagers were massacred in the village of El Mozote in 1981. Ten of the twelve El Salvadoran government soldiers cited as participating in this act were graduates of the School of the Americas operated by the U.S. (2) They were only a small part of about 75,000 people killed during that civil war. (1)

According to a 1993 United Nations’ Truth Commission report, over 96 % of the human rights violations carried out during the war were committed by the Salvadoran army or the paramilitary deaths squads associated with the Salvadoran army. (3)

That commission linked graduates of the School of the Americas to many notorious killings. The New York Times and the Washington Post followed with scathing articles. In 1996, the White House Oversight Board issued a report that supported many of the charges against that school made by Rev. Roy Bourgeois, head of the School of the Americas Watch. That same year the Pentagon released formerly classified reports indicating that graduates were trained in killing, extortion, and physical abuse for interrogations, false imprisonment and other methods of control. (4)

Grenada

The CIA began to destabilize Grenada in 1979 after Maurice Bishop became president, partially because he refused to join the quarantine of Cuba. The campaign against him resulted in his overthrow and the invasion by the U.S. of Grenada on October 25, 1983, with about 277 people dying. (1,2) It was fallaciously charged that an airport was being built in Grenada that could be used to attack the U.S. and it was also erroneously claimed that the lives of American medical students on that island were in danger.

Guatemala

In 1951 Jacobo Arbenz was elected president of Guatemala. He appropriated some unused land operated by the United Fruit Company and compensated the company. (1,2) That company then started a campaign to paint Arbenz as a tool of an international conspiracy and hired about 300 mercenaries who sabotaged oil supplies and trains. (3) In 1954 a CIA-orchestrated coup put him out of office and he left the country. During the next 40 years various regimes killed thousands of people.

In 1999 the Washington Post reported that an Historical Clarification Commission concluded that over 200,000 people had been killed during the civil war and that there had been 42,000 individual human rights violations, 29,000 of them fatal, 92% of which were committed by the army. The commission further reported that the U.S. government and the CIA had pressured the Guatemalan government into suppressing the guerilla movement by ruthless means. (4,5)

According to the Commission between 1981 and 1983 the military government of Guatemala – financed and supported by the U.S. government – destroyed some four hundred Mayan villages in a campaign of genocide. (4)
One of the documents made available to the commission was a 1966 memo from a U.S. State Department official, which described how a “safe house” was set up in the palace for use by Guatemalan security agents and their U.S. contacts. This was the headquarters for the Guatemalan “dirty war” against leftist insurgents and suspected allies. (2)

Haiti

From 1957 to 1986 Haiti was ruled by Papa Doc Duvalier and later by his son. During that time their private terrorist force killed between 30,000 and 100,000 people. (1) Millions of dollars in CIA subsidies flowed into Haiti during that time, mainly to suppress popular movements, (2) although most American military aid to the country, according to William Blum, was covertly channeled through Israel.

Reportedly, governments after the second Duvalier reign were responsible for an even larger number of fatalities, and the influence on Haiti by the U.S., particularly through the CIA, has continued. The U.S. later forced out of the presidential office a black Catholic priest, Jean Bertrand Aristide, even though he was elected with 67% of the vote in the early 1990s. The wealthy white class in Haiti opposed him in this predominantly black nation, because of his social programs designed to help the poor and end corruption. (3) Later he returned to office, but that did not last long. He was forced by the U.S. to leave office and now lives in South Africa.

Honduras

In the 1980s the CIA supported Battalion 316 in Honduras, which kidnapped, tortured and killed hundreds of its citizens. Torture equipment and manuals were provided by CIA Argentinean personnel who worked with U.S. agents in the training of the Hondurans. Approximately 400 people lost their lives. (1,2) This is another instance of torture in the world sponsored by the U.S. (3)

Battalion 316 used shock and suffocation devices in interrogations in the 1980s. Prisoners often were kept naked and, when no longer useful, killed and buried in unmarked graves. Declassified documents and other sources show that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy knew of numerous crimes, including murder and torture, yet continued to support Battalion 316 and collaborate with its leaders.” (4)

Honduras was a staging ground in the early 1980s for the Contras who were trying to overthrow the socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. John D. Negroponte, currently Deputy Secretary of State, was our embassador when our military aid to Honduras rose from $4 million to $77.4 million per year. Negroponte denies having had any knowledge of these atrocities during his tenure. However, his predecessor in that position, Jack R. Binns, had reported in 1981 that he was deeply concerned at increasing evidence of officially sponsored/sanctioned assassinations. (5)

Hungary

In 1956 Hungary, a Soviet satellite nation, revolted against the Soviet Union. During the uprising broadcasts by the U.S. Radio Free Europe into Hungary sometimes took on an aggressive tone, encouraging the rebels to believe that Western support was imminent, and even giving tactical advice on how to fight the Soviets. Their hopes were raised then dashed by these broadcasts which cast an even darker shadow over the Hungarian tragedy.“ (1) The Hungarian and Soviet death toll was about 3,000 and the revolution was crushed. (2)

Indonesia

In 1965, in Indonesia, a coup replaced General Sukarno with General Suharto as leader. The U.S. played a role in that change of government. Robert Martens,a former officer in the U.S. embassy in Indonesia, described how U.S. diplomats and CIA officers provided up to 5,000 names to Indonesian Army death squads in 1965 and checked them off as they were killed or captured. Martens admitted that “I probably have a lot of blood on my hands, but that’s not all bad. There’s a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment.” (1,2,3) Estimates of the number of deaths range from 500,000 to 3 million. (4,5,6)
From 1993 to 1997 the U.S. provided Jakarta with almost $400 million in economic aid and sold tens of million of dollars of weaponry to that nation. U.S. Green Berets provided training for the Indonesia’s elite force which was responsible for many of atrocities in East Timor. (3)

Iran

Iran lost about 262,000 people in the war against Iraq from 1980 to 1988. (1) See Iraq for more information about that war.

On July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy ship, the Vincennes, was operating withing Iranian waters providing military support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. During a battle against Iranian gunboats it fired two missiles at an Iranian Airbus, which was on a routine civilian flight. All 290 civilian on board were killed. (2,3)

Iraq

A. The Iraq-Iran War lasted from 1980 to 1988 and during that time there were about 105,000 Iraqi deaths according to the Washington Post. (1,2)

According to Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, the U.S. provided the Iraqis with billions of dollars in credits and helped Iraq in other ways such as making sure that Iraq had military equipment including biological agents This surge of help for Iraq came as Iran seemed to be winning the war and was close to Basra. (1) The U.S. was not adverse to both countries weakening themselves as a result of the war, but it did not appear to want either side to win.

B: The U.S.-Iraq War and the Sanctions Against Iraq extended from 1990 to 2003.

Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990 and the U.S. responded by demanding that Iraq withdraw, and four days later the U.N. levied international sanctions.

Iraq had reason to believe that the U.S. would not object to its invasion of Kuwait, since U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had told Saddam Hussein that the U.S. had no position on the dispute that his country had with Kuwait. So the green light was given, but it seemed to be more of a trap.

As a part of the public relations strategy to energize the American public into supporting an attack against Iraq the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. falsely testified before Congress that Iraqi troops were pulling the plugs on incubators in Iraqi hospitals. (1) This contributed to a war frenzy in the U.S.

The U.S. air assault started on January 17, 1991 and it lasted for 42 days. On February 23 President H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. ground assault to begin. The invasion took place with much needless killing of Iraqi military personnel. Only about 150 American military personnel died compared to about 200,000 Iraqis. Some of the Iraqis were mercilessly killed on the Highway of Death and about 400 tons of depleted uranium were left in that nation by the U.S. (2,3)

Other deaths later were from delayed deaths due to wounds, civilians killed, those killed by effects of damage of the Iraqi water treatment facilities and other aspects of its damaged infrastructure and by the sanctions.

In 1995 the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. reported that U.N sanctions against on Iraq had been responsible for the deaths of more than 560,000 children since 1990. (5)

Leslie Stahl on the TV Program 60 Minutes in 1996 mentioned to Madeleine Albright, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?” Albright replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think is worth it.” (4)

In 1999 UNICEF reported that 5,000 children died each month as a result of the sanction and the War with the U.S. (6)

Richard Garfield later estimated that the more likely number of excess deaths among children under five years of age from 1990 through March 1998 to be 227,000 – double those of the previous decade. Garfield estimated that the numbers to be 350,000 through 2000 (based in part on result of another study). (7)

However, there are limitations to his study. His figures were not updated for the remaining three years of the sanctions. Also, two other somewhat vulnerable age groups were not studied: young children above the age of five and the elderly.

All of these reports were considerable indicators of massive numbers of deaths which the U.S. was aware of and which was a part of its strategy to cause enough pain and terror among Iraqis to cause them to revolt against their government.

C: Iraq-U.S. War started in 2003 and has not been concluded


Just as the end of the Cold War emboldened the U.S. to attack Iraq in 1991 so the attacks of September 11, 2001 laid the groundwork for the U.S. to launch the current war against Iraq. While in some other wars we learned much later about the lies that were used to deceive us, some of the deceptions that were used to get us into this war became known almost as soon as they were uttered. There were no weapons of mass destruction, we were not trying to promote democracy, we were not trying to save the Iraqi people from a dictator.

The total number of Iraqi deaths that are a result of our current Iraq against Iraq War is 654,000, of which 600,000 are attributed to acts of violence, according to Johns Hopkins researchers. (1,2)

Since these deaths are a result of the U.S. invasion, our leaders must accept responsibility for them.

Israeli-Palestinian War

About 100,000 to 200,000 Israelis and Palestinians, but mostly the latter, have been killed in the struggle between those two groups. The U.S. has been a strong supporter of Israel, providing billions of dollars in aid and supporting its possession of nuclear weapons. (1,2)

Korea, North and South

The Korean War started in 1950 when, according to the Truman administration, North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25th. However, since then another explanation has emerged which maintains that the attack by North Korea came during a time of many border incursions by both sides. South Korea initiated most of the border clashes with North Korea beginning in 1948. The North Korea government claimed that by 1949 the South Korean army committed 2,617 armed incursions. It was a myth that the Soviet Union ordered North Korea to attack South Korea. (1,2)

The U.S. started its attack before a U.N. resolution was passed supporting our nation’s intervention, and our military forces added to the mayhem in the war by introducing the use of napalm. (1)

During the war the bulk of the deaths were South Koreans, North Koreans and Chinese. Four sources give deaths counts ranging from 1.8 to 4.5 million. (3,4,5,6) Another source gives a total of 4 million but does not identify to which nation they belonged. (7)

John H. Kim, a U.S. Army veteran and the Chair of the Korea Committee of Veterans for Peace, stated in an article that during the Korean War “the U.S. Army, Air Force and Navy were directly involved in the killing of about three million civilians – both South and North Koreans – at many locations throughout Korea…It is reported that the U.S. dropped some 650,000 tons of bombs, including 43,000 tons of napalm bombs, during the Korean War.” It is presumed that this total does not include Chinese casualties.

Another source states a total of about 500,000 who were Koreans and presumably only military. (8,9)

Laos

From 1965 to 1973 during the Vietnam War the U.S. dropped over two million tons of bombs on Laos – more than was dropped in WWII by both sides. Over a quarter of the population became refugees. This was later called a “secret war,” since it occurred at the same time as the Vietnam War, but got little press. Hundreds of thousands were killed. Branfman make the only estimate that I am aware of , stating that hundreds of thousands died. This can be interpeted to mean that at least 200,000 died. (1,2,3)

U.S. military intervention in Laos actually began much earlier. A civil war started in the 1950s when the U.S. recruited a force of 40,000 Laotians to oppose the Pathet Lao, a leftist political party that ultimately took power in 1975.


Also See Vietnam


Nepal

Between 8,000 and 12,000 Nepalese have died since a civil war broke out in 1996. The death rate, according to Foreign Policy in Focus, sharply increased with the arrival of almost 8,400 American M-16 submachine guns (950 rpm) and U.S. advisers. Nepal is 85 percent rural and badly in need of land reform. Not surprisingly 42 % of its people live below the poverty level. (1,2)

In 2002, after another civil war erupted, President George W. Bush pushed a bill through Congress authorizing $20 million in military aid to the Nepalese government. (3)

Nicaragua

In 1981 the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza government in Nicaragua, (1) and until 1990 about 25,000 Nicaraguans were killed in an armed struggle between the Sandinista government and Contra rebels who were formed from the remnants of Somoza’s national government. The use of assassination manuals by the Contras surfaced in 1984. (2,3)

The U.S. supported the victorious government regime by providing covert military aid to the Contras (anti-communist guerillas) starting in November, 1981. But when Congress discovered that the CIA had supervised acts of sabotage in Nicaragua without notifying Congress, it passed the Boland Amendment in 1983 which prohibited the CIA, Defense Department and any other government agency from providing any further covert military assistance. (4)

But ways were found to get around this prohibition. The National Security Council, which was not explicitly covered by the law, raised private and foreign funds for the Contras. In addition, arms were sold to Iran and the proceeds were diverted from those sales to the Contras engaged in the insurgency against the Sandinista government. (5) Finally, the Sandinistas were voted out of office in 1990 by voters who thought that a change in leadership would placate the U.S., which was causing misery to Nicaragua’s citizenry by it support of the Contras.

Pakistan

In 1971 West Pakistan, an authoritarian state supported by the U.S., brutally invaded East Pakistan. The war ended after India, whose economy was staggering after admitting about 10 million refugees, invaded East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and defeated the West Pakistani forces. (1)

Millions of people died during that brutal struggle, referred to by some as genocide committed by West Pakistan. That country had long been an ally of the U.S., starting with $411 million provided to establish its armed forces which spent 80% of its budget on its military. $15 million in arms flowed into W. Pakistan during the war. (2,3,4)

Three sources estimate that 3 million people died and (5,2,6) one source estimates 1.5 million. (3)

Panama

In December, 1989 U.S. troops invaded Panama, ostensibly to arrest Manuel Noriega, that nation’s president. This was an example of the U.S. view that it is the master of the world and can arrest anyone it wants to. For a number of years before that he had worked for the CIA, but fell out of favor partially because he was not an opponent of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. (1) It has been estimated that between 500 and 4,000 people died. (2,3,4)

Paraguay: See South America: Operation Condor

Philippines

The Philippines were under the control of the U.S. for over a hundred years. In about the last 50 to 60 years the U.S. has funded and otherwise helped various Philippine governments which sought to suppress the activities of groups working for the welfare of its people. In 1969 the Symington Committee in the U.S. Congress revealed how war material was sent there for a counter-insurgency campaign. U.S. Special Forces and Marines were active in some combat operations. The estimated number of persons that were executed and disappeared under President Fernando Marcos was over 100,000. (1,2)

South America: Operation Condor

This was a joint operation of 6 despotic South American governments (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay) to share information about their political opponents. An estimated 13,000 people were killed under this plan. (1)

It was established on November 25, 1975 in Chile by an act of the Interamerican Reunion on Military Intelligence. According to U.S. embassy political officer, John Tipton, the CIA and the Chilean Secret Police were working together, although the CIA did not set up the operation to make this collaboration work. Reportedly, it ended in 1983. (2)

On March 6, 2001 the New York Times reported the existence of a recently declassified State Department document revealing that the United States facilitated communications for Operation Condor. (3)

Sudan

Since 1955, when it gained its independence, Sudan has been involved most of the time in a civil war. Until about 2003 approximately 2 million people had been killed. It not known if the death toll in Darfur is part of that total.

Human rights groups have complained that U.S. policies have helped to prolong the Sudanese civil war by supporting efforts to overthrow the central government in Khartoum. In 1999 U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met with the leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) who said that she offered him food supplies if he would reject a peace plan sponsored by Egypt and Libya.

In 1978 the vastness of Sudan’s oil reservers was discovered and within two years it became the sixth largest recipient of U.S, military aid. It’s reasonable to assume that if the U.S. aid a government to come to power it will feel obligated to give the U.S. part of the oil pie.

A British group, Christian Aid, has accused foreign oil companies of complicity in the depopulation of villages. These companies – not American – receive government protection and in turn allow the government use of its airstrips and roads.

In August 1998 the U.S. bombed Khartoum, Sudan with 75 cruise míssiles. Our government said that the target was a chemical weapons factory owned by Osama bin Laden. Actually, bin Laden was no longer the owner, and the plant had been the sole supplier of pharmaceutical supplies for that poor nation. As a result of the bombing tens of thousands may have died because of the lack of medicines to treat malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases. The U.S. settled a lawsuit filed by the factory’s owner. (1,2)

Uruguay: See South America: Operation Condor


Vietnam

In Vietnam, under an agreement several decades ago, there was supposed to be an election for a unified North and South Vietnam. The U.S. opposed this and supported the Diem government in South Vietnam. In August, 1964 the CIA and others helped fabricate a phony Vietnamese attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin and this was used as a pretext for greater U.S. involvement in Vietnam. (1)

During that war an American assassination operation,called Operation Phoenix, terrorized the South Vietnamese people, and during the war American troops were responsible in 1968 for the mass slaughter of the people in the village of My Lai.

According to a Vietnamese government statement in 1995 the number of deaths of civilians and military personnel during the Vietnam War was 5.1 million. (2)

Since deaths in Cambodia and Laos were about 2.7 million (See Cambodia and Laos) the estimated total for the Vietnam War is 7.8 million.

The Virtual Truth Commission provides a total for the war of 5 million, (3) and Robert McNamara, former Secretary Defense, according to the New York Times Magazine says that the number of Vietnamese dead is 3.4 million. (4,5)

Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia was a socialist federation of several republics. Since it refused to be closely tied to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, it gained some suport from the U.S. But when the Soviet Union dissolved, Yugoslavia’s usefulness to the U.S. ended, and the U.S and Germany worked to convert its socialist economy to a capitalist one by a process primarily of dividing and conquering. There were ethnic and religious differences between various parts of Yugoslavia which were manipulated by the U.S. to cause several wars which resulted in the dissolution of that country.

From the early 1990s until now Yugoslavia split into several independent nations whose lowered income, along with CIA connivance, has made it a pawn in the hands of capitalist countries. (1) The dissolution of Yugoslavia was caused primarily by the U.S. (2)

Here are estimates of some, if not all, of the internal wars in Yugoslavia. All wars: 107,000; (3,4)

Bosnia and Krajina: 250,000; (5) Bosnia: 20,000 to 30,000; (5) Croatia: 15,000; (6) and

Kosovo: 500 to 5,000. (7)


NOTES


Afghanistan

1.Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p.135.

2.Chronology of American State Terrorism
http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_
terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

3.Soviet War in Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

4.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.76

5.U.S Involvement in Afghanistan, Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in Afghanistan)

6.The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan, Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

7.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p.5

8.Unknown News, http://www.unknownnews.net/casualtiesw.html

Angola

1.Howard W. French “From Old Files, a New Story of the U.S. Role in the Angolan War” New York Times 3/31/02

2.Angolan Update, American Friends Service Committee FS, 11/1/99 flyer.

3.Norman Solomon, War Made Easy, (John Wiley & Sons, 2005) p. 82-83.

4.Lance Selfa, U.S. Imperialism, A Century of Slaughter, International Socialist Review Issue 7, Spring 1999 (as appears in Third world Traveler www. thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/Century_Imperialism.html)

5. Jeffress Ramsay, Africa , (Dushkin/McGraw Hill Guilford Connecticut), 1997, p. 144-145.

6.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.54.

Argentina : See South America: Operation Condor

Bolivia

1. Phil Gunson, Guardian, 5/6/02,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/archive /article/0,4273,41-07884,00.html

2.Jerry Meldon, Return of Bolilvia’s Drug – Stained Dictator, Consortium,www.consortiumnews.com/archives/story40.html.


Brazil See South America: Operation Condor

Cambodia

1.Virtual Truth Commissiion http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/ .

2.David Model, President Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and the Bombing of Cambodia excerpted from the book Lying for Empire How to Commit War Crimes With A Straight Face, Common Courage Press, 2005, paperhttp://thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/Nixon_Cambodia_LFE.html.

3.Noam Chomsky, Chomsky on Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc.,http//zmag.org/forums/chomcambodforum.htm.


Chad

1.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 151-152 .

2.Richard Keeble, Crimes Against Humanity in Chad, Znet/Activism 12/4/06http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=11560&sectionID=1).


Chile

1.Parenti, Michael, The Sword and the Dollar (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1989) p. 56.

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 142-143.

3.Moreorless: Heroes and Killers of the 20th Century, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte,

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pinochet.html

4.Associated Press,Pincohet on 91st Birthday, Takes Responsibility for Regimes’s Abuses, Dayton Daily News 11/26/06

5.Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2000), p. 18.


China: See Korea


Colombia

1.Chronology of American State Terrorism, p.2

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html).

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 163.

3.Millions Killed by Imperialism Washington Post May 6, 2002)http://www.etext.org./Politics/MIM/rail/impkills.html

4.Gabriella Gamini, CIA Set Up Death Squads in Colombia Times Newspapers Limited, Dec. 5, 1996,www.edu/CommunicationsStudies/ben/news/cia/961205.death.html).

5.Virtual Truth Commission, 1991

Human Rights Watch Report: Colombia’s Killer Networks–The Military-Paramilitary Partnership).


Cuba

1.St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture – on Bay of Pigs Invasionhttp://bookrags.com/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion.

2.Wikipedia http://bookrags.com/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion#Casualties.


Democratic Republic of Congo (Formerly Zaire)

1.F. Jeffress Ramsey, Africa (Guilford Connecticut, 1997), p. 85

2. Anup Shaw The Democratic Republic of Congo, 10/31/2003)http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/DRC.asp)

3.Kevin Whitelaw, A Killing in Congo, U. S. News and World Reporthttp://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/patrice.htm

4.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p 158-159.

5.Ibid.,p. 260

6.Ibid.,p. 259

7.Ibid.,p.262

8.David Pickering, “World War in Africa, 6/26/02,
www.9-11peace.org/bulletin.php3

9.William D. Hartung and Bridget Moix, Deadly Legacy; U.S. Arms to Africa and the Congo War, Arms Trade Resource Center, January , 2000www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/congo.htm

Dominican Republic

1.Norman Solomon, (untitled) Baltimore Sun April 26, 2005
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2005/0426spincycle.htm
Intervention Spin Cycle

2.Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Power_Pack

3.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 175.

4.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.26-27.

East Timor

1.Virtual Truth Commission, http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/date4.htm

2.Matthew Jardine, Unraveling Indonesia, Nonviolent Activist, 1997)

3.Chronology of American State Terrorismhttp://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

4.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 197.

5.US trained butchers of Timor, The Guardian, London. Cited by The Drudge Report, September 19, 1999. http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/indon.htm

El Salvador

1.Robert T. Buckman, Latin America 2003, (Stryker-Post Publications Baltimore 2003) p. 152-153.

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 54-55.

3.El Salvador, Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Salvador#The_20th_century_and_beyond)

4.Virtual Truth Commissiion http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/.

Grenada

1.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p. 66-67.

2.Stephen Zunes, The U.S. Invasion of Grenada,http://wwwfpif.org/papers/grenada2003.html .

Guatemala

1.Virtual Truth Commissiion http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/

2.Ibid.

3.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.2-13.

4.Robert T. Buckman, Latin America 2003 (Stryker-Post Publications Baltimore 2003) p. 162.

5.Douglas Farah, Papers Show U.S. Role in Guatemalan Abuses, Washington Post Foreign Service, March 11, 1999, A 26

Haiti

1.Francois Duvalier,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Duvalier#Reign_of_terror).

2.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p 87.

3.William Blum, Haiti 1986-1994: Who Will Rid Me of This Turbulent Priest,http://www.doublestandards.org/blum8.html

Honduras

1.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 55.

2.Reports by Country: Honduras, Virtual Truth Commissionhttp://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/honduras.htm

3.James A. Lucas, Torture Gets The Silence Treatment, Countercurrents, July 26, 2004.

4.Gary Cohn and Ginger Thompson, Unearthed: Fatal Secrets, Baltimore Sun, reprint of a series that appeared June 11-18, 1995 in Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, School of Assassins, p. 46 Orbis Books 2001.

5.Michael Dobbs, Negroponte’s Time in Honduras at Issue, Washington Post, March 21, 2005

Hungary

1.Edited by Malcolm Byrne, The 1956 Hungarian Revoluiton: A history in Documents November 4, 2002http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/index2.htm

2.Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia,
http://www.answers.com/topic/hungarian-revolution-of-1956

Indonesia

1.Virtual Truth Commission http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/.

2.Editorial, Indonesia’s Killers, The Nation, March 30, 1998.

3.Matthew Jardine, Indonesia Unraveling, Non Violent Activist Sept–Oct, 1997 (Amnesty) 2/7/07.

4.Sison, Jose Maria, Reflections on the 1965 Massacre in Indonesia, p. 5.http://qc.indymedia.org/mail.php?id=5602;

5.Annie Pohlman, Women and the Indonesian Killings of 1965-1966: Gender Variables and Possible Direction for Research, p.4,http://coombs.anu.edu.au/SpecialProj/ASAA/biennial-conference/2004/Pohlman-A-ASAA.pdf

6.Peter Dale Scott, The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno, 1965-1967, Pacific Affairs, 58, Summer 1985, pages 239-264.http://www.namebase.org/scott.

7.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.30.

Iran

1.Geoff Simons, Iraq from Sumer to Saddam, 1996, St. Martins Press, NY p. 317.

2.Chronology of American State Terrorismhttp://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html.

3.BBC 1988: US Warship Shoots Down Iranian Airlinerhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/default.stm )

Iraq

Iran-Iraq War

1.Michael Dobbs, U.S. Had Key role in Iraq Buildup, Washington Post December 30, 2002, p A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

2.Global Security.Org , Iran Iraq War (1980-1980)globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm.

U.S. Iraq War and Sanctions

1.Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time (New York, Thunder’s Mouth), 1994, p.31-32

2.Ibid., p. 52-54

3.Ibid., p. 43

4.Anthony Arnove, Iraq Under Siege, (South End Press Cambridge MA 2000). p. 175.

5.Food and Agricultural Organizaiton, The Children are Dying, 1995 World View Forum, Internationa Action Center, International Relief Association, p. 78

6.Anthony Arnove, Iraq Under Siege, South End Press Cambridge MA 2000. p. 61.

7.David Cortright, A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions December 3, 2001, The Nation.

U.S-Iraq War 2003-?

1.Jonathan Bor 654,000 Deaths Tied to Iraq War Baltimore Sun , October 11,2006

2.News http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

Israeli-Palestinian War

1.Post-1967 Palestinian & Israeli Deaths from Occupation & Violence May 16, 2006 http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2006/05/post-1967-palestinian-israeli-deaths.html)

2.Chronology of American State Terrorism

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

Korea

1.James I. Matray Revisiting Korea: Exposing Myths of the Forgotten War, Korean War Teachers Conference: The Korean War, February 9, 2001http://www.truman/library.org/Korea/matray1.htm

2.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 46

3.Kanako Tokuno, Chinese Winter Offensive in Korean War – the Debacle of American Strategy, ICE Case Studies Number 186, May, 2006http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/chosin.htm.

4.John G. Stroessinger, Why Nations go to War, (New York; St. Martin’s Press), p. 99)

5.Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, as reported in Answers.comhttp://www.answers.com/topic/Korean-war

6.Exploring the Environment: Korean Enigmawww.cet.edu/ete/modules/korea/kwar.html)

7.S. Brian Wilson, Who are the Real Terrorists? Virtual Truth Commissonhttp://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/

8.Korean War Casualty Statistics www.century china.com/history/krwarcost.html)

9.S. Brian Wilson, Documenting U.S. War Crimes in North Korea (Veterans for Peace Newsletter) Spring, 2002) http://www.veteransforpeace.org/

Laos

1.William Blum Rogue State (Maine, Common Cause Press) p. 136

2.Chronology of American State Terrorismhttp://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

3.Fred Branfman, War Crimes in Indochina and our Troubled National Soul

www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/08/00_branfman_us-warcrimes-indochina.htm).

Nepal

1.Conn Hallinan, Nepal & the Bush Administration: Into Thin Air, February 3, 2004

fpif.org/commentary/2004/0402nepal.html.

2.Human Rights Watch, Nepal’s Civil War: the Conflict Resumes, March 2006 )

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/28/nepal13078.htm.

3.Wayne Madsen, Possible CIA Hand in the Murder of the Nepal Royal Family, India Independent Media Center, September 25, 2001http://india.indymedia.org/en/2002/09/2190.shtml.

Nicaragua

1.Virtual Truth Commission
http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/.

2.Timeline Nicaragua
www.stanford.edu/group/arts/nicaragua/discovery_eng/timeline/).

3.Chronology of American State Terrorism,
http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html.

4.William Blum, Nicaragua 1981-1990 Destabilization in Slow Motion

www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Nicaragua_KH.html.

5.Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair.

Pakistan

1.John G. Stoessinger, Why Nations Go to War, (New York: St. Martin’s Press), 1974 pp 157-172.

2.Asad Ismi, A U.S. – Financed Military Dictatorship, The CCPA Monitor, June 2002, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives http://www.policyaltematives.ca)www.ckln.fm/~asadismi/pakistan.html

3.Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p.123, 124.

4.Arjum Niaz ,When America Look the Other Way by,

www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=2821&sectionID=1

5.Leo Kuper, Genocide (Yale University Press, 1981), p. 79.

6.Bangladesh Liberation War , Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War#USA_and_USSR)

Panama

1.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’s Greatest Hits, (Odonian Press 1998) p. 83.

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p.154.

3.U.S. Military Charged with Mass Murder, The Winds 9/96,www.apfn.org/thewinds/archive/war/a102896b.html

4.Mark Zepezauer, CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.83.

Paraguay See South America: Operation Condor

Philippines

1.Romeo T. Capulong, A Century of Crimes Against the Filipino People, Presentation, Public Interest Law Center, World Tribunal for Iraq Trial in New York City on August 25,2004.
http://www.peoplejudgebush.org/files/RomeoCapulong.pdf).

2.Roland B. Simbulan The CIA in Manila – Covert Operations and the CIA’s Hidden Hisotry in the Philippines Equipo Nizkor Information – Derechos, derechos.org/nizkor/filipinas/doc/cia.

South America: Operation Condor

1.John Dinges, Pulling Back the Veil on Condor, The Nation, July 24, 2000.

2.Virtual Truth Commission, Telling the Truth for a Better Americawww.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/condor.htm)

3.Operation Condorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor#US_involvement).

Sudan

1.Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang, (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p. 30, 32,34,36.

2.The Black Commentator, Africa Action The Tale of Two Genocides: The Failed US Response to Rwanda and Darfur, 11 August 2006http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091706X.shtml.

Uruguay See South America: Operation Condor

Vietnam

1.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine:Common Courage Press,1994), p 24

2.Casualties – US vs NVA/VC,
http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html.

3.Brian Wilson, Virtual Truth Commission
http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/

4.Fred Branfman, U.S. War Crimes in Indochiona and our Duty to Truth August 26, 2004

www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=6105&sectionID=1

5.David K Shipler, Robert McNamara and the Ghosts of Vietnamnytimes.com/library/world/asia/081097vietnam-mcnamara.html

Yugoslavia

1.Sara Flounders, Bosnia Tragedy:The Unknown Role of the Pentagon in NATO in the Balkans (New York: International Action Center) p. 47-75

2.James A. Lucas, Media Disinformation on the War in Yugoslavia: The Dayton Peace Accords Revisited, Global Research, September 7, 2005 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=
viewArticle&code=LUC20050907&articleId=899

3.Yugoslav Wars in 1990s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_wars.

4.George Kenney, The Bosnia Calculation: How Many Have Died? Not nearly as many as some would have you think., NY Times Magazine, April 23, 1995

http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/politics/
war_crimes/srebrenica/bosnia_numbers.html
)

5.Chronology of American State Terrorism

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/
ChronologyofTerror.html.

6.Croatian War of Independence, Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_War_of_Independence

7.Human Rights Watch, New Figures on Civilian Deaths in Kosovo War, (February 7, 2000) http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/nato207.htm.