Tragicomedy of Errors

March 17, 2019

by Jimmie Moglia for The Saker Blog

Tragicomedy of Errors

The sublime Plato said that the soul has a trinitarian composition – a very coarse soul in the belly, a loving one in the chest and a reasoning third in the head. The soul is immortal, though women have only two souls, for they are missing reason.

But a father attending the Council of Macon (585 AD), from across the banks and shoals of time, answered, “Plato you speak like an idolater.” And the very same council with a majority of votes, assigned to women a trinitarian and equally immortal soul.

Nevertheless neither Plato nor the Council addressed the issue of individuals who lost their souls, or maybe never had one. As an instance, those who plotted, organized and attempted to carry out the current coup in Venezuela are soul-less creatures – or if they have one, it’s a soul of shit.

Their spiritual fiber, if any, could be surmised from their background, antecedents, demeanor and physiognomy. For you have only to look at Trump’s special counsel for Venezuela and say to yourself, “Here comes the devil, in the likeness of Elliot Abrams.”

The bulk of Mike Pompeo suggests a lack of understanding that dainty bits make rich the ribs but bankrupt quite the wits. Bolton is the physical and verbal embodiment of obnoxiousness. With his ridiculous personal threats against the head of a foreign, noble and independent country, – almost as old as the United States – he has confirmed his credentials as an arrogant, vainglorious, diabolic and dangerous imbecil. And completely unaware that it will come to pass that every braggart shall be found an ass. As for Pence, and he is but an auxiliary and complementary purveyor of nonsense.

Looking at them from the outside and listening to their babble, an impartial observer must conclude that the nature of obsessive lies rests in the incomprehension of things. Otherwise, even a modest understanding would prompt them to lay aside their irksome mask of dissimulation.

And by assenting, consenting and authorizing the despicable charade, from a beacon of some kind of hope Trump has transformed himself into a prince of darkness. For it takes an almost immeasurable flexibility of conscience in pretending to make America great by stealing another nation’s oil, minerals and natural resources.

Maybe he was persuaded to believe that conscience is but a word that cowards use, devised by some to keep the strong in awe. Or he shrewdly realized that by promising no involvement in foreign wars or their equivalent, he could open the eyes of expectation. And in the scale of human feelings, emotions and excitement, delivery is definitely duller than hope, hence of lesser impact than promises.

Some may question my qualifications for so unflatteringly describing the Washington quadrumvirate of plotters. To them I’d respond that emperor Caligula made a senator out of his horse. But that did not change the nature of the horse, once he became a senator.

As a humble chronicler of events, I hesitate to tell my twenty-five readers what they already know about Venezuela. But in the instance, the information, or rather the confirmation, comes from a direct source. For I follow a European group, self-explainingly called NO-NATO. Considering the apocalyptic portrait of Venezuela given by NATO’s bosses and acolytes, and the dramatically conflicting information available from other unaffiliated parties, the group decided that the best way to solve the riddle was to listen to an unbiased envoy who traveled on site and reported accordingly.

This “special envoy” travelled to Venezuela as a tourist and visitor.

Even without her report we knew already of the small but vociferous comprador class of Venezuela and their progeny. Namely, those who commute from Venezuela to Miami for the weekend – the idle and sometimes-dangerous nonsense generators, who flourish wherever men and women are tired of the truth.

The chief profession of this class is to do nothing, followed by long periods of rest. Incidentally, when Trump, to berate Venezuela, proclaims that the US will never be a socialist state, he is mistaken. For what better definition of socialism can there be, than that applicable to a class whose only necessary requirement for living in idle luxury is to exist? In this respect, the US holds and cherishes one such class. Therefore the US is indeed a socialist state.

Here are some notes from our envoy’s report.

In Mid-February, she flew and arrived safely at Caracas airport, which – she says – looks no different from any other similar airport, and safely travelled to downtown. Life appeared normal with no war-fever in the air, though the people appear to be “permanently mobilized.” Two million of them have enrolled into the Bolivarian militia, ready to defend their country.

On Feb 23rd 2019 she joined a massive pro-Maduro demonstration. “A sea of red jerseys and red caps. Youth… of every age paraded in a mile long line under a scorching sun. Following and taking-in the length of the procession, it was easy to perceive the peaceful and cheerful firmness of the Bolivarian people. One woman said to me, “Here are the Chavez’ people. He did not die and now he has become millions.” An activist, wearing sun glasses made to resemble Chavez’ eyes, held a placard that said, “The UN must stop the aggression against Venezuela.”

In a long speech from the podium, without apparent or noticeable security measures, president Maduro announced the breaking of diplomatic relations with Colombia. And he added, “Against all this hatred, we want peace, but with independence. Does Trump want to use humanitarian aids to invade us? We are the ones who defend humanitarian rights and the international law, which prohibits interference to disrupt the life of other countries. Yes there is a crisis. But have we perhaps reduced the social missions, have we taken away pensions or eliminated food subsidies? – What if the puppet Guaidò and his ilk were to rule here? Can you imagine?””

“Later, at a conference called “Assembly of the Peoples” I spoke with Ramon, who lives here but is originally from Spain. He said, “The hatred against the poor, here in Venezuela, reminds me of what my grandparents in Spain told me about the civil war: when the Republic introduced a series of rights for the whole population: schools, voting, trade unions. The upper classes developed a deep hatred against the poor who, organized by the trade unions, began to obtain some rights. The middle class saw this as a loss of their standing in society. It’s the same here in Venezuela during the last years.

The hatred does not even come from the most powerful capitalists – they are in Miami. It comes from the middle class itself.
When Chavez became president, for the first time in the history of the country, he gave eight million Venezuelans an identity card. Before that move, those millions officially did not exist. They couldn’t have a bank account, nor the right to a state subsidy nor could they vote. Before Chavez only the rich and the middle class went to university. With Chavez, they had to share schools and universities with people whom they rated as their inferiors. They did not like it one bit.””

Along the streets, market stalls sell food-items, fruits and vegetables. Prices are on par with Europe. But it is not here that Venezuelans on minimum wage do their shopping. Their needs are addressed by a public system called CLAP (Comités Locales de Abastecimiento y Producción = Local Committees of Provisions and Production.) Monthly or bi-weekly, the system supplies packages of food to 6 million households, with distribution entrusted to the condos. The cost for each supply package is minimal though it may not be enough.

Conversation with woman met on a bus.

This is a short exchange with Eliana, who, getting off the enormous and very crowded (but always free) bus, directs herself towards the subway station ‘La Hoyada.’ “We will do everything not to end like Syria or Libya” – she says.

Outside the station, people are gathering. They wear the red Chavist shirt. Among them, Eliana recognizes and waves at one of the founders of the Bank for the Development of Women (Banco de Desarrollo de la Mujer), where Eliana works.

“Inside the metro station Mr. Andrade (of Portuguese family, who grows potatoes at Merida, in the Andean area,) explains to me why in this emergency period, the transport service is free, “to try to help the people, during this crisis.”

Inside the train, I notice the lack of avid smartphone readers. Few have one and exhibiting is considered tasteless.”

I only reported parts of the report. The reader can compare with the official output from the controlled US media and draw his conclusions.

The reader will be equally aware of the nation-wide electrical black-out of Venezuela, occurred on Mar 7, 2019. Mr. Jorge Rodriguez, Venezuelan Vice President for Communications, has given a pretty exhaustive explanation of the three-fold stages of the terrorist act in a video (link at the end of article for those interested).

That it was a CIA planned operation is beyond question. Particularly meaningful, I think, is the relative little care the CIA took, to hide its involvement. Indeed, two minutes and forty seconds after the attack, that cesspit of inhumanity, senator (!) Marco Rubio, – (in)famous for threatening Maduro to resign or ending up like Gheddafi shown dying in a picture – issued the following tweet,

“Alert. Information about a total electrical blackout affecting the whole of #Venezuela. 18 of the 23 (Venezuelan) states and the district of the capital are now affected by total black-out. The main airport has no energy and the reserve generators have failed. The #MaduroRegime is a complete disaster.” (ALERTA: Informes de un apagon completo en todo #Venezuela en este momento. 18 de los 23 estados y el distrito capital se enfrentan actualmente a apagones completos. Aeropuerto principal tambien sin energia y generatores de respaldo han fallado. #MaduroRegime Es un completo desastre.)
How could he know that the reserve generators had failed?

Almost simultaneously broadcast, here is Guaido’s, “Venezuela knows that the light will return with the cessation of the usurpation. Let’s move on. During my tour in the South, we sought support to address this crisis. We will defeat the blockade of progress with mobilization. See you next Saturday in the streets! (Venezuela tiene claro que la luz llega con el cese de la usurpacion. Sigamos adelante. Durante nuestra gira en el sur, buscamos apoyos para atender esta crisis. El bloqueo al progreso lo vencemos com movilizacion. Nos vemos el sabado en la calle!)

Mike Pompeo’s was more laconic, “No food, No medicine. Now no power. Next, no Maduro.”

The electrical “desastre” was to be the 9/11 of Venezuela. It failed. Perhaps we can say Maduro 2 – Abrams 0.

By the way and as we know, efforts at unseating Hugo Chavez while alive have a long history. For example, some may remember Pat Robertson, fundamentalist Christian guru and patron of the “Jews for Jesus” movement. He promoted on national TV the idea that the US military should directly “take out” (sic) Hugo Chavez.

And here is a document produced by an organization called Canvas (Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies), founded in 2004 in Belgrade (Serbia). Financed by the US government, CANVAS trains youth operatives to be deployed in countries where the US plans a regime change. Among CANVAS’ first ‘products’ was a movement called “Generation 2007.” Its objectives were to foment and create disorders against Hugo Chavez and his plans to relieve poverty by re-directing the oil profits to the needs of the nations. Guaido’ was a trainee in that movement. As you can see from the following document, recently released, even then the CIA sought the Venezuelan electrical grid as a target.

“Key to Chavez’s current weakness is the decline in the electricity sector. There is a grave possibility that some 70% of the country’s electricity grid go dark as soon as April 2010. Water levels at the Gurie dam are dropping, and the Chavez has been unable to reduce consumption sufficiently to compensate for the deteriorating industry. This could be the watershed event, as there is little that Chavez can do to protect the poor from the failure of that system. This would likely have the impact of galvanizing public unrest in a way that no opposition group could ever hope to generate. At this point in time, an opposition group would be best served to take advantage of the situation and spin it against Chavez and towards their needs. Alliances with the military could be critical because in such a situation of messy public unrest and rejection of the presidency, malcontent sections of the military will likely decided to intervene, but only if they believe they have sufficient support. This has been the pattern in the past three coup attempts. Where the military thought it had enough support, there was a failure in the public to respond positively (or the public responded in the negative), so the coup failed.”

An old Italian proverb that says “The devil builds the (black) pots, but forgets (to build) the lids.” It means that when someone decides to practice evil (like the devil), plans are made, lies are told, people and facts are manipulated. But something often happens to foil the plan. The truth comes out, or the wrongdoer is punished, or the plans fail.

That seems the case with an event occurred on Mar 14, 2019. When two Russian pranksters, Vladimir Kutznetsov and Alexei Stoliarov, set up a formidably comical telephone call, directly with Guaido’ (youtube link at end of article). In which the caller was supposed to be nonetheless than the president of Switzerland, Mr. Maurer. The call lasts about 13 minutes. A necessarily short summary does not do justice to the irresistibly comical charge of the whole episode.

In the video, the voice in English, speaking from the Switzerland of pretense, is supposed to belong to the Swiss president. But the accent is too Russian, and I do not think it could have deceived even the otherwise gullible Guaido’. In turn, Guaido’ replies and speaks in Spanish (transcribed in the video). That voice is definitely Guaido’s, as is his bare ass, immortalized by a picture taken during an earlier anti-Chavez demonstration (see article “In Praise of Shamelessness.”). I speculate that a Spanish interpreter was involved on the pranksters’ side to translate the words of the simulated Swiss president.

After congratulating Guaido’ on his assumption of the Venezuela presidency, ‘Mr. Maurer’ wants to discuss the Venezuela’s arrangements and forthcoming new relations with the Swiss banking systems. He says to have contacted Marshall Billingslea, US Treasury’s assistant secretary for Terrorist Financing. Mr. Maurer suggests that all Venezuelan accounts in Switzerland are terrorist-linked, hence illegal and should be frozen. Does Guaido’ agree? Yes, Guaido’ replies.

At minute 4.14 ‘Mr Maurer’ discloses that Maduro transfers his money to a company called ‘Tender First’, owned by a Kazak man called Nurlan Baidild. Does Guaido’ know him? No, says Guaido’.

Has Guaido’ appointed a Venezuelan ambassador to Switzerland? Yes, Guaido’ replies, Ms. Marta Alejandra Aristiguieta.

‘Mr. Maurer’ advises Guaido’ that various lengthy procedural steps are involved in freezing international accounts, but the situation is urgent. There is a risk that Maduro’s and Venezuelan funds may be transferred to Russia or China. Would Guaido’ agree to transfer these assets into a temporary personal account, to prevent the funds from disappearing?

Guaido’ agrees. And then comes the dessert of the interview. Does Guaido’ know that the Russian opposition leader is Alexei Navalni, who also studied at Yale? No, sais Guaido’. ‘Mr. Maurer’ probes further. Once officially installed as president, would Guaido’ recognize Navalni as interim president of the Russian Federation?

“We are going to evaluate all the options” – replies Guaido’ – but yours is an interesting proposal.”

Apparently, after the call, Guaido’ immediately made public the information about the freezing of Venezuelan funds in Switzerland. Which prompted the pranksters (always pretending to be Mr. Maurer,) to send an email to John Bolton, suggesting that it was unwise for Guaido’ to go public with this sensitive information. Bolton replies with an email agreeing it was an error and will talk with Guaido’ accordingly. Bolton’s email is shown in the video, but there is no way of confirming its authenticity.

Informed about the prank and asked for his opinion, Evo Morales, authentic president of Bolivia is said to have replied, “Guaido’ es un burrote.” (Guaido’ is an ass).

Apparently, Guaido’ is currently free to roam around in Venezuela. A naive observer may conclude that there is enough material and evidence to arrest him on a charge of treason and promoting terrorism.

Still, Machiavellianly speaking, Guaido’ is now the metaphorical representation of a “dead man walking.” For his killing could be the excuse for a US invasion. The CIA is known for having done worse. We must therefore assume that, by not arresting Guaido’, the Maduro administration knows best.

Time to wrap up and tie together the threads of the story.

The still pending attempt to rape Venezuela is historically meaningful and factually instructive. For the field of battle where the US is (or has been) most successful relies on the bi-dimensional representation of events. That is, a media stage featuring Good versus Bad, where their monopoly of images, and therefore of the imagination, is eminently successful. A splendid confirmation – American style – that nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. Where thinking is conducted on the people’s behalf by the media monopoly. Hence the miracle of converting victims into allies, however temporarily.

Nevertheless, while taking the above for granted, the quadroika of evil also assumed an impenetrable fog, spread by them and by the fake news generators. But the view is clearing, some new light illuminates palpable and cumbersome realities, which fear and the penumbra of reason have allowed for too long to remain unsaid, unthought, hidden and invisible.

Account of the terrorist act on the Venezuelan electrical system:

Pranksters Video:

Advertisements

CIA IS TURNING REFUGEE CAMPS IN EASTERN SYRIA INTO ISIS HOTBEDS

South Front

The CIA is conspiring with ISIS commanders in northeastern Syria supplying them with fake documents and then transferring them to Iraq, according to reports in Turkish pro-government media.

About 2,000 ISIS members were questioned in the areas of Kesra, Buseira, al-Omar and Suwayr in Deir Ezzor province and at least 140 of them then received fake documents. Some of the questioned terrorists were then moved to the camps of al-Hol, Hasakah and Rukban, which are controlled by US-backed forces. The CIA also reportedly created a special facility near Abu Khashab with the same purpose.

Israeli, French and British special services are reportedly involved.

An interesting observation is that the media of the country, which in the previous years of war, used to conspire with ISIS allowing its foreign recruits to enter Syria and buying smuggled oil from the terrorists, has now become one of the most active exposers of the alleged US ties with ISIS elements.

Another issue often raised in Turkish media is the poor humanitarian situation in the refugee camps controlled by US-backed forces. These reports come in the course of other revelations. According to the International Rescue Committee, about 100 people, mostly children, died in combat zones or in the al-Hol camp controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces just recently.

In its turn, the Russian Defense Ministry released a series of satellite images revealing the horrifying conditions in the al-Rukban camp. The imagery released on March 12 shows at least 670 graves, many of them fresh, close to the camp’s living area. The tents and light constructions used to settle refugees are also located in a close proximity to large waste deposits.

A joint statement by the Russian and Syrian Joint Coordination Committees for Repatriation of Syrian Refugees said that refugees in al-Rukban are suffering from a lack of water, food, medication and warm clothing, which is especially important during winter. According to the statement, members of the US-backed armed group Maghawir al-Thawra disrupt water deliveries to the camp, using this as a bargaining chip for blackmailing and profiteering purposes.

Tensions are once again growing between Syria and Israel. Earlier in March, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad submitted an official letter to the head of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) Kristin Lund that Damascus ”will not hesitate to confront Israel” if it continues refusing  to withdraw from the Golan Heights.

Israeli media and officials responded with a new round of allegations that Hezbollah is entrenching in southern Syria therefore justifying a further militarization of the Golan Heights.

What Can Modi’s Fanaticism Unleash and Why?

By Zara Ali

Two South Asian nuclear powers with 71 year history of high-strung relations seemingly stand at the brink of war.  The recent stand off now seems to point towards a strong possibility of an intensified conflict beyond the extent of routine skirmishes along the Line of Control (LOC) or the Working Boundary – unless and until back door diplomacy bears fruit and other deterrents such as a degree of political and public pressure within India come to check Modi’s fanatic drive for war.

Following the provocative one-sided military action taken by the Indian Air Force (IAF) on February 26 during which India claimed to have targeted a JeM training camp killing 300 terrorists near the city of Balakot in Pakistan, more action was witnessed on February 27.

As I indicated in an earlier op-ed on the current tension in the region, Pakistan’s official verbal response to India’s unlawful act seemed to indicate Pak may not sit quiet.  And that is exactly what transpired during the course of February 27 morning.  Pak decided to send a strong message to Delhi thereby categorically reminding Modi he no more enjoyed the clandestine support of a CIA puppet regime enthroned in Islamabad as was the case during the last ten years of dark democratic rule and he should therefore understand Pakistan will not sit put rather act unanimously and effectively if he did not hold his horses back.

Unlike what Ms. Ayres, a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations prefers to believe, the truth is perhaps there never has been a greater sense of coherence between the military command and the civilian government in the history of Pakistan than under Khan’s premiership – Khan shall not ‘feel the need to push back on the military’ whether or not he has ‘a political base of his own’ for one simple reason – and that is the civilian and military leadership is single-mindedly serving one agenda only – the security and national interest of Pakistan.  Looks like the ‘senior’ fellows at CFR will take much longer to realise they are no longer dealing with the treacherous soul-selling breed of politicians of the likes of Nawaz and Zardari and that the entire dynamics of a country, Washington thought it could successfully enslave, has more than significantly altered – a process that is on-going and shall not come to a halt.

Coming back to February 27, 2019 – the Pakistani nation witnessed its armed forces and its civilian leadership acting in unison – from the looks of it the decision had been made in principle on the same day as the IAF attempted attack on Balakot city i.e. February 26.  Hence with prior warning and in broad daylight Pakistan reportedly engaged six targets across the LOC to strike – the intention was singularly clear:  ‘We have the ability to strike, and the capability for self defence.  We do not wish to escalate the matter but if we are drawn into that paradigm, we will act accordingly’.  India as usual contested the claim and insisted “Pak attempt was foiled successfully, PAF presence was detected, and IAF responded instantly”.

Amidst a plethora of statements and counter statements, admissions and denials, that have continued to pour out since the one thing that is categorically clear is that Pak did shoot down one IAF MiG 21 and captured one pilot.  The Pak claim of having shot down another IAF aircraft that fell in Indian Occupied Kashmir has been denied by Indian officials – they insist one IAF Mi-17 helicopter did come down about 7 km from Srinagar airport but due to an ‘unrelated reason – a technical fault’.  The Indian claim of having shot down a PAF F-16 (that fell on the Pak side of LOC according to India) has been denied by Pak indicating the dog fight occurred between a Combat Air Partol (CAP) JF-17 Thunder Block 2 that hit down the MiG-21 – F-16s were not involved.

Quite evidently military information is never released as it is, one can only attempt to piece official and leaked information together to paint a picture that makes sense however at this point in time, judging from the reaction shaping within India, it does appear Modi has fallen into the trap he had set out for Pak – to a considerable extent.  From a strictly military point of view Pak has come out on top.  Yet war will only open all doors to hell in the region, hence not a sane option for either Pakistan or India.  Pak has categorically and repeatedly sent out message of peace inviting India to talk – albeit the likes of Ms. Ayres tend to doubt the sincerity of this intention in an evidently vile attempt to malign Pakistan after all!

On February 28, during the full tri-service press conference, India’s chiefs of armed forces failed to provide evidence of the ‘successful surgical strike on a JeM terrorist camp in Balakot city’ and evaded the question indicating ‘evidence’ will be made public upon the discretion of Modi’s administration.  May be that is the evidence contained in the dossier handed over to Pak on February 27, however sharing such a dossier after having invaded Pakistan’s sovereign air space for an attempted surgical strike, only tends to cast more doubts on Delhi’s intent.  During the press conference the Indian army chiefs also put on exhibit a piece of metal they claimed came off the AIM-120 AMRAM missile fired by the PAF F-16 which according to India’s claim was later downed by IAF.  It appears they were not aware the said missile can in fact be used by the JF-17 Thunder as well – it would have made them sound more credible if they had also pieced together any other available bits of information/evidence to substantiate their claim in this regard even if the F-16 had rather fallen on the Pak side of the LOC – a task that is not too difficult to achieve in this time and age.

The truth of the matter is with highly advanced strategic partners of the likes of the United States, if there had been any JeM training facility that was destroyed and 300 terrorists that were killed, both Delhi and Washington would have jubilantly pounced upon the proof and marketed it around the globe faster than the speed of light, not to forget threaten Pakistan of dire consequences with great conviction.  And as for the events of February 27, from the looks of it India continues to cook up patches to shape her own story around the obvious facts in order to mitigate the reaction upon IAF aircraft going down and a pilot in Pak custody (now handed back) – after all Indian mass public has been known to not forgive even its own cricket stars following a defeat at the hands of Pakistan.

As it later turned out instead of allowing the escalation to cool down Modi in fact resolved to continue with an exhibition of his insanity into the night of February 27 – he intended to target 6-7 Pak sites, however these missile attacks would have been carried out from Indian soil without endangering IAF.  On this side of the border a similar plan of action was in place based on the information that leaked out of Delhi, however with an understanding that nothing shall be fired unless and until India took the lead.  Fortunately, from the looks of it diplomatic intervention on part of China and America managed to convince Modi to suspend his plans for the night.  The hope is, combined with the recently voiced Russian offer of mediation, diplomatic efforts of various nations may in fact be able to defuse the current tension in the region – at least for some time to come.

Irrespective of Delhi’s proclaimed narrative, fact is this chain of events was anything but a spontaneous occurring – starting from February 13 attack on IRGC personnel in Sistan-Iran and ending on February 27 with Pak striking back as an act of self-assertion – it now seems hard to believe planning was not carried out mutually between Delhi and Washington – and the target was Pakistan.

Tehran’s imprudent outburst was essentially directed at reiterating to the world Pakistan permits mercenary terrorist groups to use its territory in order to conduct cross border terrorism.  The very next day it was Delhi’s turn.  And a similar narrative was religiously adopted – the world was apprised as to how Pakistan facilitates terrorism.  Perhaps if Tehran had not acted as unwisely as it did, the impact of Indian accusations would not have been as grave – however two neighbours crying wolf in chorus did tend to furnish the world community with more reason to trust what they heard.  Despite no evidence India received a pat on the back from Macron and Pompeo.  And as expected Pompeo asked Pakistan to exercise restraint while he and Macron both applauded the Indian resolve to fight cross-border terrorism.  It is also believed on February 26, Washington actually asked Pak to allow India ‘room for face-saving’ following the failed surgical strike carried out that involved a breach of Pak’s sovereignty – albeit this ‘request’ was quite categorically turned down by Islamabad unlike past times otherwise nothing would have transpired during the course of the morning on February 27.

Perhaps the ‘real exhaustion and fatigue with Pakistan’ that Ms. Ayres of CFR claims is ‘felt by India and other nations of the world’ vis-à-vis Pak’s alleged support of ‘Islamist terrorism’ required fresh ‘evidence’ – after all has not Pak been made a scapegoat for sins committed by Islamist terrorists anywhere since 9/11 whether or not there was any evidence to prove an affiliation?

Unquestionably the success of this anti-Pak campaign has much to do with the fact Pak has not been able to fight her case at the diplomatic level since 9/11 – especially so during the ten years of puppet regimes in Islamabad albeit by 2007-8 it had become clear Pak had in fact dug her own grave by siding with the United States in its fake ‘War on Terror’.  Had Pakistan been able to effectively explain to the world how her role in the Afghan war against the ex-USSR during the 1980s left it socio-politically vulnerable for decades to come; how Washington simply chose to walk away from war torn Afghanistan once Soviet Union was pushed out; why it was necessary for Pak to recognise the Taliban rule in Kabul; how the Af-Pak region remained exposed to the perils of geopolitical and economic instability thereafter until Americans’ opium supply almost dried out and CIA’s future plans necessitated a return only to make things worse; how the religious passion of the ‘freedom fighters’ of yesteryears, the key to the defeat of ex-USSR, was progressively recycled into the extremist Islamist mindset of today; and how her army has resiliently fought a very long and successful battle to root out the menace of religious extremism from its territory – if at all a narrative had been formed around facts and disseminated avidly perhaps the global community would not have been confined to a one-sided storyline whether it came from Delhi or Washington or any other power centre playing its dirty power game and Ms. Ayres would not have been able to refer to ‘other nations of the world’ as emphatically.

The bottom line is clear – very clear – Modi’s ardent desire for Hindutva to dominate South Asia will be employed by the American Empire to isolate and destabilise Pak in a desperate effort to Balkanize the country and denuclearize the only nuclear Muslim nation – the ‘mapped dream’ of Pentagon envisioned to have manifested in 2015.  There is no question the fault does not lie entirely with external powers that have held stakes in Pakistan’s geopolitics for decades and have tended to exploit Pak’s security concerns vis-à-vis the ever present Indian threat in a bid to achieve their own ulterior motives – Pak’s military and civilian institutions have also erred in gauging the long-term repercussions of difficult choices made since the fall of Dhaka in 1971 especially so during the long years of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan – and from one viewpoint Pak’s continued battle against extremism within her borders can be termed as an act of chastisement, however facts on the ground indicate America will not permit Pak to stabilise politically or economically and it shall not allow her armed forces any respite from active engagement – Khan’s rise to power has been a nightmare for Washington – Pak has quite obviously resolved to distance herself from Washington in a bid to align foreign policy goals with the emerging multipolar world order – hence the CIA mission that was hitherto accomplished through sellouts has to be completed one way or the other – what better than engaging Pakistan in a war like scenario at her Eastern and Western borders simultaneously, divert her focus from internal security, wreak havoc upon her through terrorism, and put an end to her dream of standing on her own feet?

That was why even after all the recent acts of madness, while speaking at a conference in India, Modi referred to the current military escalation as a ‘pilot project’ intended as ‘practice’ – may be this was just a political gimmick and may be he in fact intends to unleash darkness of war upon the people of South Asia more hastily than Washington may desire – but if that comes to pass, it would be a mistake to think it shall be contained between these two nations alone.  That scenario will have the potential to alter global geopolitics more significantly than many may presume.

“Killer Diplomacy”: The Kim-Trump Summit in Hanoi, Sabotaged by Mike Pompeo?

“If Kim Jong-un suddenly dies, don’t ask me about it”… Given the history of the CIA, I’m just not going to talk about it,” (Pompeo, October 2017). And you expect the DPRK to Trust Washington’s Chief Negotiator

Global Research, March 01, 2019

Polite diplomacy over the dinner table. Smiles on both sides. A nice private dinner. “Everybody is having a good time. Hope so”, says Trump.

Trump and Kim met before the formal dinner party for about half an hour. Kim smiled and said:

“We have exchanged in a very interesting dialogue with each other for about 30 minutes”.

Trump responds with a smile “yes it was good”.

“So we’re going to have a very busy day tomorrow, says Trump.

“And a lot of things are going to be solved. I hope. and I Think it will lead to a really wonderful situation long term… And our relationship is a very special relationship”.

Ultimately, however, there was no official statement or joint communique. What happened. What went wrong?

.Prior to the Hanoi encounter, Trump intimated that if a moratorium on nuclear missile testing by the DPRK was reached, he would be satisfied.  And that this commitment would then lead to subsequent negotiations.

But this stance was not shared by his top advisers:

“Senior Trump aides have privately expressed skepticism … Some fear that Trump could feel pressure to make a major concession to Kim during face-to-face talks, including a one-on-one session, in hopes of securing a reciprocal commitment he can herald as a political victory. (WPo, February 24, 2018, emphasis added)

Who are these “Senior Trump aides”? The WPo fails to mention the central role of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who was put in charge of the negotiations from the very outset in 2017 when he was head of the CIA.

While we are not privy to what was discussed behind closed doors (with the two leaders and their senior advisors), or what was discussed by Pompeo and Kim Yong-chol in meetings prior to the Hanoi venue, there is evidence that Pompeo was instrumental in the sabotage of peace negotiations both in Singapore and Hanoi.

Back in October 2017, a few months following the beginning of negotations with the DPRK, Pompeo while he was head of the CIA, had hinted in a public statement that Kim Jong-un was on the CIA assassination list:

“If Kim Jong-un suddenly dies, don’t ask me about it”, says CIA chief

“With respect, if Kim Jong-un should vanish, given the history of the CIA, I’m just not going to talk about it,”

“We are going to become a much more vicious agency …

… “The president’s made it very clear. He’s prepared to ensure that Kim Jong-un doesn’t have the capacity to hold America at risk. By military force if necessary.”

SCMP October 2017

SCMP, July 20, 2018

This was a deliberate act of provocation,

“Killer Diplomacy”

From the outset the DPRK does not trust Washington’s Peace Negotiator.

Pompeo should be removed from the peace negotiation process which eventually requires the repeal of the 1953 armistice agreement and the signing of a peace agreement with the DPRK and China.

In a bitter irony, the same Mike Pompeo who casually refers to the “CIA history” of political assassinations, had come to play a central role in “peace” negotiations together with his North Korea envoy, Stephen Biegun.

Pyongyang was fully aware of the assassination list. But Pompeo deliberately chose to make it public prior to the conduct of negotiations with a political leader who is on the CIA hit list. This is tantamount to saying to Kim: “Lets negotiate but I want to kill you”. 

Not surprisingly, in the followup US-DPRK negotiations with Pompeo held in Pyongyang in the wake of the Singapore Summit (June 12-14, 2018), the DPRK accused the Trump administration of pushing a “unilateral and gangster-like demand for denuclearization.”  The statement was directed against Pompeo who was in charge of the negotiations on behalf of president Trump.

“We still cherish our good faith in President Trump … But, the U.S. side [Pompeo] came up only with its unilateral and gangster-like demand for denuclearization…The U.S. side [Pompeo] never mentioned the issue of establishing a peace regime on the Korean peninsula which is essential for defusing tension and preventing a war.” (DPRK Statement, July 8, 2018, emphasis added)

Second Day of the Hanoi Summit

Flash Forward to Hanoi, February 27, 2019: Both leaders expressed their optimism “for continuing the great dialogue”.

“I am in no rush,” Trump said alongside Kim. “What is important is that we do the right deal.”

Acknowledged by Trump, the DPRK has not fired a single nuclear ballistic test missile since late 2017.

“To me, I very much appreciate no testing of nuclear rockets and missiles,” Trump added.

Both leaders were committed to achieving a positive outcome:

The decision to “permanently shut down” Yongbyon nuclear complex, one of the DPRK’s main nuclear research centers located in the west of the country, and Tongchang-ri missile engine test site, was made last September. Pyongyang also stated that the DPRK is willing to invite international experts to watch the dismantling or even take additional denuclearization steps if there are corresponding actions from the U.S. (CGTN, February 27, 2019)

Prior to the final wrap-up session, the two leaders had a fruitful “one-on-one meeting” of about 45 minutes. (“Senior political aides” feared the one-on-one session which provided leverage to Trump to strike a deal with Kim, as reported by the WaPo, see above).

About-Turn

And then there was an about-turn at the final session attended by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and DPRK’ vice chairman of the Workers Party of Korea (WPK) Central Committee Kim Yong-chol.  

On the US side, this outcome had been planned well ahead of the Hanoi venue in Washington in consultations with the CIA, State Department and Pentagon including National Security Advisor John Bolton.

Screenshot, scroll down for video

Nothing concrete emerged. Why did things go wrong?  The meeting behind closed doors with senior advisors (and translators) led to an impasse.

The US failed to provide anything in exchange for the DPRK’s commitment to denuclearization. Did Pompeo play a central role in deliberately sabotaging the peace process at the wrap up session behind closed doors?

No final communique. The US refused to lift the sanctions regime.

See Video below

Final wrap-up meeting at 1’38”

See press conference statement by Trump at 2′.15″

“Basically they wanted the sanctions removed in their entirety and we could not do that. They are willing to denuke a large part of the areas we wanted. But we could not give up all of the sanctions”, said Trump.

 “Sometimes you have to walk, and this was just one of those times.”

Trump’s statement regarding the removal of the sanctions is a lie.

The DPRK had requested the partial removal of sanctions and that request was turned down. See Foreign Minister’s statement below at DPRK press conference.

2’50” DPRK Foreign Minister Ri Yon-ho

“If the US removes the sanctions that hamper the civilian economy and the livelihood of our people in particular, we will permanently and completely dismantle the nuclear production facilities in the Yogbyon area, including plutonium and uranium in the presence of US experts by the joint force of technicians in bothe countries.”

….

“What we have asked for was partial lifting of sanctions, not entirely.

In detail, we asked to lift five sanctions that were imposed within 2016 and 2017, out of a total of 11 sanctions, which would affect ordinary people’s economy and life,”( Statement of the DPRK Foreign Minister Ri Yon-ho).

 

Final Press Conference and Statements (WaPo video)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/c8720ca1-5ace-4bc1-b910-aecdc5cdeb81

 

https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d774d3263544f32457a6333566d54/index.html

PHILIP GIRALDI: “ATTACKING IRAN”

Written by Philip Giraldi; Originally appeared at The Unz Review

Observers of developments in the Middle East have long taken it as a given that the United States and Israel are seeking for an excuse to attack Iran. The recently terminated conference in Warsaw had that objective, which was clearly expressed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but it failed to rally European and Middle Eastern states to support the cause. On the contrary, there was strong sentiment coming from Europe in particular that normalizing relations with Iran within the context of the 2015 multi party nuclear agreement is the preferred way to go both to avoid a major war and to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation.

Philip Giraldi: "Attacking Iran"

There are foundations in Washington, all closely linked to Israel and its lobby in the U.S., that are wholly dedicated to making the case for war against Iran. They seek pretexts in various dark corners, including claims that Iran is cheating on its nuclear program, that it is developing ballistic missiles that will enable it to deliver its secret nuclear warheads onto targets in Europe and even the United States, that it is an oppressive, dictatorial government that must be subjected to regime change to liberate the Iranian people and give them democracy, and, most stridently, that is provoking and supporting wars and threats against U.S. allies all throughout the Middle East.

Dissecting the claims about Iran, one might reasonably counter that rigorous inspections by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirm that Tehran has no nuclear weapons program, a view that is supported by the U.S. intelligence community in its recent Worldwide Threat Assessment. Beyond that, Iran’s limited missile program can be regarded as largely defensive given the constant threats from Israel and the U.S. and one might well accept that the removal of the Iranian government is a task best suited for the Iranian people, not delivered through military intervention by a foreign power that has been starving the country through economic warfare. And as for provoking wars in the Middle East, look to the United States and Israel, not Iran.

So the hawks in Washington, by which one means National Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and, apparently President Donald Trump himself when the subject is Iran, have been somewhat frustrated by the lack of a clear casus belli to hang their war on. No doubt prodded by Netanyahu, they have apparently revived an old story to give them what they want, even going so far as to develop an argument that would justify an attack on Iran without a declaration of war while also lacking any imminent threat from Tehran to justify a preemptive strike.

What may be the new Iran policy was recently outlined in a Washington Times article, which unfortunately has received relatively little attention from either the media, the punditry or from the few policymakers themselves who have intermittently been mildly critical of Washington’s propensity to strike first and think about it afterwards.

The article is entitled “Exclusive: Iran-al Qaeda alliance May Provide Legal Rationale for U.S. military strikes.” The article’s main points should be taken seriously by anyone concerned over what is about to unfold in the Persian Gulf because it is not just the usual fluff emanating from the hubris-induced meanderings of some think tank, though it does include some of that. It also cites government officials by name and others who are not named but are clearly in the administration.

As an ex-CIA case officer who worked on the Iran target for a number of years, I was shocked when I read the Times’ article, primarily because it sounded like a repeat of the fabricated intelligence that was used against both Iraq and Iran in 2001 through 2003. It is based on the premise that war with Iran is desirable for the United States and, acting behind the scenes, Israel, so it is therefore necessary to come up with an excuse to start it. As the threat of terrorism is always a good tactic to convince the American public that something must be done, that is what the article tries to do and it is particularly discouraging to read as it appears to reflect opinion in the White House.

As I have been writing quite critically about the CIA and the Middle East for a number of years, I am accustomed to considerable push-back from former colleagues. But in this case, the calls and emails I received from former intelligence officers who shared my experience of the Middle East and had read the article went strongly the other way, condemning the use of both fake and contrived intelligence to start another unnecessary war.

The article states that Iran is supporting al Qaeda by providing money, weapons and sanctuary across the Middle East to enable it to undertake new terrorist attacks. It is doing so in spite of ideological differences because of a common enemy: the United States. Per the article and its sources, this connivance has now “evolved into an unacceptable global security threat” with the White House intent on “establishing a potential legal justification for military strikes against Iran or its proxies.”

One might reasonably ask why the United States cares if Iran is helping al Qaeda as both are already enemies who are lying on the Made in U.S.A. chopping block waiting for the ax to fall. The reason lies in the Authorization to Use Military Force, originally drafted post 9/11 to provide a legal fig leaf to pursue al Qaeda worldwide, but since modified to permit also going after “associated groups.” If Iran is plausibly an associated group then President Trump and his band of self-righteous maniacs egged on by Netanyahu can declare “bombs away Mr. Ayatollah.” And if Israel is involved, there will be a full benediction coming from Congress and the media. So is this administration both capable and willing to start a major war based on bullshit? You betcha!

The Times suggests how it all works as follows: “Congressional and legal sources say the law may now provide a legal rationale for striking Iranian territory or proxies should President Trump decide that Tehran poses a looming threat to the U.S. or Israel and that economic sanctions are not strong enough to neutralize the threat.” The paper does not bother to explain what might constitute a “looming threat” to the United States from puny Iran but it is enough to note that Israel, as usual, is right in the middle of everything and, exercising its option of perpetual victim-hood, it is apparently threatened in spite of its nuclear arsenal and overwhelming regional military superiority guaranteed by act of the U.S. Congress.

Curiously, though several cited administration officials wedded to the hard-line against Iran because it is alleged to be the “world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” were willing to provide their opinions on the Iran-al Qaeda axis, the authors of the recent Worldwide Threat Assessment issued by the intelligence community apparently have never heard of it. The State Department meanwhile sees an Iranian pipeline moving al Qaeda’s men and money to targets in central and south Asia, though that assessment hardly jives with the fact that the only recent major attack attributed to al Qaeda was carried out on February 13th in southeastern Iran against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a bombing that killed 27 guardsmen.

The State annual threat assessment also particularly condemns Iran for funding groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are, not coincidentally, enemies of Israel who would care less about “threatening” the United States but for the fact that it is constantly meddling in the Middle East on behalf of the Jewish state.

And when in doubt, the authors of the article went to “old reliable,” the leading neocon think tank the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which, by the way, works closely with the Israeli government and never, ever has criticized the state of democracy in Israel. One of its spokesmen was quick off the mark: ““The Trump administration is right to focus on Tehran’s full range of malign activities, and that should include a focus on Tehran’s long-standing support for al Qaeda.”

Indeed, the one expert cited in the Times story who actually is an expert and examined original documents rather than reeling off approved government and think tank talking points contradicted the Iran-al Qaeda narrative. “Nelly Lahoud, a former terrorism analyst at the U.S. Military Academy and now a New America Foundation fellow, was one of the first to review documents seized from bin Laden’s hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan. She wrote in an analysis for the Atlantic Council this fall that the bin Laden files revealed a deep strain of skepticism and hostility toward the Iranian regime, mixed with a recognition by al Qaeda leaders of the need to avoid a complete break with Tehran. In none of the documents, which date from 2004 to just days before bin Laden’s death, ‘did I find references pointing to collaboration between al Qaeda and Iran to carry out terrorism,’ she concluded.”

So going after Iran is the name of the game even if the al Qaeda story is basically untrue. The stakes are high and whatever has to be produced, deduced or fabricated to justify a war is fair game. Iran and terrorism? Perfect. Let’s try that one out because, after all, invading Iran will be a cakewalk and the people will be in the streets cheering our tanks as they roll by. What could possibly go wrong?

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

The Planning of a Coup against Venezuela: Chile, September 11, 1973: The Ingredients of a Military Coup. The Imposition of a Neoliberal Agenda

Chicago Economics: Neoliberal Dress Rehearsal of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP)

Global Research, February 20, 2019
Global Research 11 September 2003

 

The main objective of the US-supported military coup in Chile was to impose the neoliberal economic agenda. “Regime change” was enforced through a covert military intelligence operation. Sweeping macro-economic reforms (including privatization, price liberalization and the freeze of wages) were implemented in early October 1973.

Barely a few weeks after the military takeover, the military Junta headed by General Augusto Pinochet ordered a hike in the price of bread from 11 to 40 escudos, a hefty overnight increase of 264%. This “economic shock treatment” had been designed by a group of economists called the “Chicago Boys.” “While food prices had skyrocketed, wages had been frozen.  From one day to the next, an entire country had been precipitated into abysmal poverty.

In 1973, I was teaching economics at the Catholic University of Chile. I lived through two of the most brutal US sponsored military coups in Latin America’s history: Chile, September 11, 1973 and less than three years later, Argentina, March 24, 1976 under Operation Condor, which initiated Argentina’s Dirty War: “La Guerra Sucia”.

And today, the Trump administration is threatening to invade Venezuela with a view to “restoring democracy”, replacing an elected president (casually described by the Western media as a “dictator”) by a US proxy, speaker of Venezuela’s National Assembly.

***

Author’s Introduction

More than forty-five years ago on September 11, 1973, the Chilean military led by General Augusto Pinochet, crushed the democratically elected Unidad Popular government of Salvador Allende.

The objective was to replace a progressive, democratically elected government by a brutal military dictatorship.

The military coup was supported by the CIA. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a direct role in the military plot.   

Is Washington’s ongoing initiative directed against Venezuela modelled on Chile?

In early 1970s, in a note to the CIA in relation to Chile, Henry Kissinger recommended “Make the economy scream.” Visibly the same concept has been applied to Venezuela, with advanced techniques of financial warfare, which were not available in the 1970s.

Today it’s Mike Pompeo and John Bolton who are calling the shots, in tandem with the CIA.

Bolton has gone far beyond the Nixon-Kissinger agenda formulated at the height of the Cold War. Bolton refers to “The Troika of Tyranny”. The US sponsored coup against Venezuela is also directed against Cuba. And from Washington’s standpoint “after Venezuela, Cuba is next”.

The troika of tyranny in this hemisphere—Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua—has finally met its match. In Venezuela, the United States is acting against the dictator Maduro, who uses the same oppressive tactics that have been employed in Cuba for decades.”  (John Bolton)

The model of US intervention against Venezuela nonetheless bears some striking similarities with Chile 1973:

  • A reshuffle within Chile’s Armed Forces occurred barely one month before the military coup followed by the resignation of General Carlos Prats
  • It should be emphasized that in 1973, the US did not have the support of its European allies. There was a firm and cohesive movement both in North America and Western Europe against the US sponsored coup d’Etat under the  helm of General Augusto Pinochet.
  • In contrast to Chile in the month preceding the September 1973 coup, the Venezuelan military is firmly committed to the Maduro government and the possibilities of coopting the top brass are “limited” in comparison to Chile in 1973. But this situation could evolve. Washington is currently involved in an ongoing process seeking to create divisions within Venezuela’s armed forces.
  • Linked to the Venezuelan Armed Forces, the National Bolivarian Militia, a civilian grassroots force created by Chavez in 2009 is slated to play a key role in the case of a Military Coup. In contrast, in Chile in 1973, the grassroots civilian militia linked to the cordones industriales were disarmed in August 1973.

The US sponsored Pinochet dictatorship prevailed during a period of 16 years. During this period, there was no initiative on the part of the US to call for the replacement of the dictatorship by a duly elected government.

In 1989, elections were held and parliamentary democracy was restored. Continuity prevails. Patricio Aylwin of the Christian Democratic Party (DC) who was elected president in 1989 had endorsed a “military solution” in 1973. He was largely instrumental in the breakdown of the “Dialogue” between the Unidad Popular government and the Christian Democrats (DC). In August 1973, Patricio Aylwin provided a Green Light to the Chilean Armed Forces led by Augusto Pinochet on behalf of the DC.

The following texts shed light on the Chilean Coup d’Etat. The first text first published in 2003 serves as an introduction to the text I wrote in Chile in the month following the September 11 1973 military coup, which describes the chronology of the 1973 military coup.

Chile, September 11, 1973: The Ingredients of a Military Coup. The Imposition of a Neoliberal Agenda, 

Global Research, Montreal, 20o3

The Ingredients of a Military Coup

Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, September 1973

Today our thoughts are with the people of Venezuela.

Michel Chossudovsky, February 11, 2019

****

Chile, September 11, 1973: The Ingredients of a Military Coup. The Imposition of a Neoliberal Agenda

Introduction

In the weeks leading up the 1973 coup, US Ambassador Nathaniel Davis and members of the CIA held meetings with Chile’s top military brass together with the leaders of the National Party and the ultra-right nationalist front Patria y Libertad.  While the undercover role of the Nixon administration is amply documented,  what is rarely mentioned in media reports is the fact that the military coup was also supported by a sector of the Christian Democratic Party.

(Nixon and Kissinger, image right)

For details see:

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KOR309A.html

and references below.

Patricio Aylwin, who became Chile’s president in 1989,  became head of the DC party in the months leading up to the September 1973 military coup (March through September 1973). Aylwin was largely instrumental in the break down of the “Dialogue” between the Unidad Popular government and the Christian Democrats. His predecessor Renan Fuentealba, who represented the moderate wing of the Christian Democratic (PDC), was firmly against military intervention. Fuentealba favored a dialogue with Allende (la salida democratica). He was displaced from the leadership of the Party in May 1973 in favor of Patricio Aylwin.

The DC Party was split down the middle, between those who favored “the salida democratica”, and the dominant Aylwin-Frei faction, which favored “a military solution”.

See Interview with Renan Fuentealba,

http://www.finisterrae.cl/cidoc/citahistoria/emol/emol_22092002.htm )

On 23 August 1973, the Chilean Camera de Diputados drafted a motion,  to the effect that the Allende government “sought to impose a totalitarian regime”. Patricio Aylwin was a member of the drafting team of this motion. Patricio Aylwin believed that a temporary military dictatorship was “the lesser of two evils.”

See http://www.fjguzman.cl/interiores/noticias/tema_se/2003/julio/Patricio%20Aylwin%20y%20la%20dictadura%20transitoria.pdf ,

See also: El acuerdo que anticipó el golpe, http://www.quepasa.cl/revista/2003/08/22/t-22.08.QP.NAC.ACUERDO.html

This motion was adopted almost unanimously by the opposition parties, including the DC, the Partido Nacional and the PIR (Radical Left).

The leadership of the Christian Democratic Party including former Chilean president Eduardo Frei,had given a green light to the Military.

And continuity in the “Chilean Model” heralded as “economic success story” was ensured when, 16 years later, Patricio Aylwin was elected president of Chile in the so-called transition to democracy in 1989.

At the time of the September 11, 1973 military coup, I was Visiting Professor of Economics at the Catholic University of Chile. In the hours following the bombing of the Presidential Palace of La Moneda, the new military rulers imposed a 72-hour curfew.

Salvador Allende in the defense of the Palacio de la Moneda, September 11, 1973 (left)

When the university reopened several days later, I started patching together the history of the coup from written notes. I had lived through the tragic events of September 11, 1973 as well as the failed June 29th coup. Several of my students at the Universidad Catolica had been arrested by the military Junta.

In the days following the military takeover,  I started going through piles of documents and newspaper clippings, which I had collected on a daily basis since my arrival in Chile in early 1973. Some of this material, however, was lost and destroyed in the days following the coup.

This unpublished article (below) was written forty-five years ago. It was drafted on an old typewriter in the weeks following the September 11, 1973.

This original draft article plus two carbon copies were circulated among a few close friends and colleagues at the Catholic University. It was never published. For 30 years it lay in a box of documents at the bottom of a filing cabinet.

I have transcribed the text from the yellowed carbon copy draft. Apart from minor editing, I have made no changes to the original article.

The history of this period has since then been amply documented including the role of the Nixon administration and of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the plot to assassinate Allende and install a military regime.

Chicago Economics: Neoliberal Dress Rehearsal of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP)

The main objective of the US-supported military coup in Chile was ultimately to  impose the neoliberal economic agenda.  The latter, in the case of Chile, was not imposed by external creditors under the guidance of IMF. “Regime change” was enforced  through a covert military intelligence operation, which laid the groundwork for the military coup. Sweeping macro-economic reforms (including privatization, price liberalization and the freeze of wages) were implemented in early October 1973.

Augusto Pinochet, 1973

Barely a few weeks after the military takeover, the military Junta headed by General Augusto Pinochet ordered a hike in the price of bread from 11 to 40 escudos, a hefty overnight increase of 264%. This “economic shock treatment” had been designed by a group of economists called the “Chicago Boys.”

While food prices had skyrocketed, wages had been frozen to ensure “economic stability and stave off inflationary pressures.” From one day to the next, an entire country had been precipitated into abysmal poverty; in less than a year the price of bread in Chile increased thirty-six fold (3700%). Eighty-five percent of the Chilean population had been driven below the poverty line.

I completed my work on the “unpublished paper’ entitled “The Ingredients of a Military Coup” (see text below) in late September.

In October and November, following the dramatic hikes in the price of food,  I drafted in Spanish an initial “technical” assessment of the Junta’s deadly macro-economic reforms. Fearing censorship, I limited my analysis to the collapse of living standards in the wake of the Junta’s reforms, resulting from the price hikes of food and fuel, without making any kind of political analysis.

The Economics Institute of the Catholic University was initially reluctant to publish the report. They sent it to the Military Junta prior to its release.

I left Chile for Peru  in December 1973. The report was released as a working paper (200 copies) by the Catholic University a few days before my departure. In Peru, where I joined the Economics Department of the Catholic University of Peru, I was able to write up a more detailed study of the Junta’s neoliberal reforms and its ideological underpinnings. This study was published in 1975 in English and Spanish.

Needless to say, the events of September 11 1973 also marked me profoundly in my work as an economist. Through the tampering of prices, wages and interest rates, people’s lives had been destroyed; an entire national economy had been destabilized. Macro-economic reform was neither “neutral” –as claimed by the academic mainstream– nor separate from the broader process of social and political transformation.

I also started to understand the role of military-intelligence operations in support of what is usually described as a process of “economic restructuring”. In my earlier writings on the Chilean military Junta, I looked upon the so-called “free market” reform as a well-organized instrument of “economic repression.”

Two years later, I returned to Latin America as a visiting professor at the National University of Cordoba in the northern industrial heartland of Argentina. My stay coincided with the 1976 military coup d’État. Tens of thousands of people were arrested; the “Desaparecidos” were assassinated. The military takeover in Argentina was “a carbon copy” of the CIA-led coup in Chile. And behind the massacres and human rights violations, “free market” reforms had also been prescribed, this time under the supervision of Argentina’s New York creditors.

original

Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order by Michel Chossudovsky (click image to order)

The IMF’s deadly economic prescriptions under the “structural adjustment program” had not yet been officially launched. The experience of Chile and Argentina under the “Chicago boys” was “a dress rehearsal” of things to come.

In due course, the economic bullets of the free market system were hitting country after country.

Since the onslaught of the debt crisis of the 1980s, the same IMF economic medicine has routinely been applied in more than 100 developing countries. From my earlier work in Chile, Argentina and Peru, I started to investigate the global impacts of these reforms. Relentlessly feeding on poverty and economic dislocation, a New World Order was taking shape.

(For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky,The Globalisation of Poverty and the New World Order, Second Edition, Global Research, Montreal, 2003.

I should mention that the ongoing US-led economic destabilization of Venezuela including the manipulation of the foreign exchange market, leading to the collapse of the national currency the Bolivar  and the dramatic hikes in the prices of essential consumer goods, bears a canny resemblance to the months preceding the September 1973 military coup in Chile.

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 11 September 2003, updated 11 September 2018

*        *         *

The Ingredients of a Military Coup

by Michel Chossudovsky

Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago

September 1973 

Original 1973 draft: click to enlarge

The transition to a right-wing military regime in Chile on September 11 [1973] has resulted after a lengthy and drawn-out process of economic boycott, subversion within the Armed Forces and political opposition to Allende’s Popular unity government.

In October 1970, General René Schneider was assassinated in a plot of the ultra-right together with seditious elements of the Armed Forces led by General Roberto Viaux. The assassination of General Schneider was part of a coordinated plan to prevent Parliament from ratifying Allende’s victory in the September 1970 presidential elections.

Last year’s [1972] October strike which paralyzed the economy for over a month, was organized by the gremios (employers’ organizations together with opposition labor and self employed organizations), the Partido Nacional and the ultra-right nationalist front Patria y Libertad. Some sectors of the Christian Democratic Party were also involved.

The October Strike had initially been planned for September 1972. “Plan Septiembre”  was apparently postponed due to the sudden dismissal of General Alfredo Canales from the Armed Forces. Canales together with Air Force General Herrera Latoja had earlier been in touch with Miguel Ubilla Torrealba of the nationalist front Patria y Libertad. Ubilla Torrealba was said to have been closely connected to the CIA. Despite General Canales premature retirement from the Armed Forces, Plan Septiembre was implemented in October beginning with a transport strike. The Right was hoping that those elements of the Armed forces, which had been inspired by General Canales would intervene against Allende. The October “Patronal” strike (employers and self-employed) failed due to the support of the Armed Forces headed by General Carlos Prats, who had integrated Allende’s cabinet as Minister of the Interior.

The June Failed Coup

On June 29, 1973, Coronal Roberto Souper led his tank division in an isolated attack on La Moneda, the Presidential Palace, in the hope that other units of the armed forces would join in. The June coup had initially been planned for the morning of September 27 by Patria y Libertad as well as by several high ranking military officers. The plans were found out by Military Intelligence and the coup was called off at 6pm on the 26th. A warrant for the arrest of Coronal Souper had been issued. Confronted with knowledge of his impending arrest, Colonel Souper in consultation with the officers under his command, decided to act in a most improvised fashion. At 9 am, amidst morning rush hour traffic, Tank Division Number Two drove down Bernardo O’Higgins, Santiago’s main down-town avenue towards the Presidential Palace.

While the aborted June Coup had the appearance of an insolated and uncoordinated initiative, there was evidence of considerable support in various sectors of the Navy as well as from Air Force General Gustovo Leigh, now [September 1973] member of the military junta [on 11 September General Leigh integrated the military Junta headed by General Pinochet]. According to well-informed sources, several high ranking officers in the aero-naval base of Quintero near Valparaiso had proposed the bombing of State enterprises controlled by militant left wing groups, as well as the setting up of an air corridor to transport navy troops. The latter were slated to join up with the forces of Colonel Souper in Santiago.

The June trial coup was «useful» indicating to the seditious elements within the Chilean Armed Forces that an isolated and uncoordinated effort would fail. After June 29, the right-wing elements in the Navy and the Air Force were involved in a process of consolidation aimed at gaining political support among officers and sub-officers. The Army, however, was still under the control of Commander in Chief General Carols Prats, who had previously integrated Allende’s cabinet and who was a firm supporter of constitutional government.

Meanwhile in the political arena, the Christian Democrats were pressuring Allende to bring in members of the Military into the Cabinet as well as significantly revise the programme and platform of the Unidad Popular. Party leaders of the government coalition considered this alternative [proposed by the Christian democrats] as a « legalized military coup» (golpe legal) and advised Allende to turn it down. Carlos Altamirano, leader of the Socialist Party had demanded that an endorsement of the programme of the Popular Unity coalition by the military be a sina qua non condition for their entry into the Cabinet. Upon the impossibility of bringing in the Military into the Cabinet on acceptable terms, Allende envisaged the formation of a so-called “Cabinet of Consolidation” composed of well known personalities. Fernando Castillo, rector of the Catholic University and a member of the Christian Democratic Party, Felipe Herrera, President of the Inter-|American Development Bank and other prominent personalities were approached but declined.

“The Dialogue”

Pressured by economic deadlock and the transport strike, inflation of more than 15 percent per month and mounting political opposition, Allende sought in the course of July [1973] to resume the political dialogue with the Christian Democratic Party.  After the March [1973] parliamentary elections, Patricio Aylwin had replaced Renan Fuentealba [May 1973] as leader of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC). Fuentealba, who represented the progressive wing of the Christian Democratic (PDC), was known to be in favor of a rapprochement with Allende. In other words, this rightward shift and hardening of the Christian Democrats in relation to the Unidad Popular, contributed to reinforcing their tacit alliance with the ring wing National Party. This alliance was initially intended as an electoral pact in the March [1973] parliamentary elections in which the Unidad Popular obtained 43 percent of the popular vote.

The Dialogue between Allende and Alwyin was a failure. Aylwin stated :

I have no trust in the democratic loyalty of the Marxist parties because they do not believe in Democracy. They have an inherent totalitarian conception. We are convinced that the democratic path will not solve the underlying economic problems…

The Communist Party Senator and prominent intellectual Volodia Teitelbaum response was:

The Christian Democrats are not that innocent. Basically they are in favor of a coup d’Etat because it constitutes a means to conveniently obtaining political power. The Christian Democrats have moved to the Right. They are not interested a Dialogue which implies a consolidation of revolutionary changes

While the Right was becoming more cohesive, a political split of the Left was imminent. The Communist Part sided with Allende’s constitutional strategy while a section of the Socialist Party (Allende’s own Party) led by Carlos Altamirano and the MAPU (Movimiento de Accion Popular Unitaria -initially a group of Christian Democrats which joined the Unidad Popular in 1969) led by Oscar Garreton, signified their distrust in “bourgeois legality” and the constitutional process and moved increasingly closer to the leftist revolutionary front Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR). MIR maintained ideological and strategic relations with Cuban revolutionary groups as well as with the Bolivian and Uruguayan Tupamaros. While endorsing many features the programme of the Unidad Popular, the MIR rejected Allende’s “Chilean Road to Socialism” :

We must create popular power (poder popular) based on the industrial belts (cordones industriales).

The cordones industriales were organized and politicized labor groups. Together with MAPU, MIR was in the process of developing the Grupos de Accion Urbana (Urban Action Groups), with the task of educating and preparing the masses for armed resistance in the case of a military coup.

Purges in the Armed Forces

In August [1973], the Armed forces initiated a series of violent search and arrests directed against the MIR and state enterprises integrated by the industrial belts (cordones industriales). These searches were conducted in accordance with the Fire Arms control Act, adopted by [the Chilean] Congress after the October [1992 employers] strike and which empowered the Armed Forces [bypassing the civilian police authorities] to implement (by Military Law) the control of fire arms. [The objective of this measure was to confiscate automatic weapons in the members of the industrial belts and curb armed resistance by civilians to a military coup]. Meanwhile, right-wing elements in the Navy and Air Force were involved in actively eliminating Allende supporters by a well organized operation of anti-government propaganda, purges and torture. On August 7 [1973], the Navy announced that a “subversive left wing group” integrated by MIR had been found out. Meanwhile, according to reliable sources, a seditious plan of the Right with the intent to bring down Allende’s government, using the Navy to control the entry of supplies into the country, had been discovered. Sailors and officers [within the Navy], who knew about these plans, were tortured and beaten.

The Role of the Political Right

[In August 1973], high ranking military officers and members of Patria y Libertad, met with Senator Bulnes Sanfuentes of the National Party. Admiral Merino now [September 1973] a member of the Junta participated in meetings with members of National Party, senators of the Christian Democratic Party and staff of the US embassy. In fact towards mid-August [1973], In FACT, towards mid-August, a motion declaring US ambassador Nathaniel Davis as persona non grata was drafted by a parliamentary committee of the Unidad Popular. Furthermore, the Armed Forces were colluding with the Ultra-Right by setting up a so-called Base operacional de Fuerzas especiales (BOFE) (Operational Base of Special Forces). BOFE units were integrated by member of the nationalist front Patria y Libertad.

BOFE units were paramilitary divisions receiving material and financial support from the Armed forces. They were intended to undertake subversive and terrorist activities, which the Armed Forces could not openly undertake. BOFE was responsible for the many bomb attacks on pipelines, bridges and electric installations in the months preceding the military coup of September 11 [1973].

General Prats’ Resignation from the Armed Forces

On August 9, Allende reorganized his cabinet and brought in the three joint chiefs of staff, Carlos Prats (Army), Cesar Ruis Danyau (Air force) and Raul Montero (Navy) into a so-called “National Security Cabinet”. Allende was only intent upon resolving the Transport Strike, which was paralyzing the country’s economy, he was anxious to gain whatever support was left within the Armed Forces.

The situation was not ripe for a military coup as long as General Carol Prats was member of the cabinet, commander in Chief of the Army and Chairman of the Council of Generals. Towards mid-August, the armed forces pressured Allende and demanded Prats’ resignation and retirement ” due to basic disagreements between Prats and the Council of Generals”. Allende made a final attempt to retain |Prats and invited General Prats, Pinochet (now [September 1973] head of the Military Junta), Bonilla now Minister of the Interior), and others for dinner at his private residence. Prats resigned officially on August 23, both from the Cabinet and from the Armed Forces: “I did not want to be a factor which would threaten institutional discipline.. or serve as a pretext to those who want to overthrow the constitutional government”

The Generals’ Secret Meeting

With General Carlos Prats out of the way, the road was clear for a consolidated action by the Army, Navy and Air Force. Prats successor General Augusto Pinochet convened the Council of 24 generals in a secret meeting on August 28. The purpose and discussion of this meeting were not made public. In all likelihood, it was instrumental in the planning of the September 11 military coup. The reshuffle of Allende’s National Security Cabinet took place on the same day (28 August). It resulted after drawn out discussions with party leaders of the Unidad Popular coalition, and in particular with Socialist Party leader Carlos Altamirano.

The following day, August 29, Altamirano in a major policy speech made the following statement:

We hope that our Armed Forces have not abandoned their historical tradition, the Schneider Doctrine … and that they could follow a course leading to the installation of a reactionary Brazilian style [military] dictatorship … We are convinced that our armed forces are not prepared to be instrumental in the restoration of the privileges of the financial and industrial elites and landed aristocracy. We are convinced that if the Right wing golpe (coup) were to succeed, Chile would become a new Vietnam.

On the weekend preceding the military coup, leaders of the National Party and Christian Democratic Party made major political statements, declaring Allende’s government illegal and unconstitutional. Sergio Onofre Jarpa of the National Party declared:

After the Marxist downfall, the rebirth of Chile! … We will continue our struggle until we see out of office those who failed to fulfill their obligations. From this struggle, a new solidarity and a new institutional framework (institucionalidad) will emerge.

A few days later, the Presidential Palace was bombed and Allende was assassinated. The “rebirth” of Chile, and a new institutional framework had emerged.

Michel Chossudovsky

Santiago de Chile, September 1973

Selected References on the Role of Henry Kissinger in the 1973 military coup

Articles

Christopher Hitchens, The Case against Henry Kissinger, Harpers Magazine, February 2001,  http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/1809_302/69839383/p1/article.jhtml?term=kissinger

Henry Kissinger, US Involved in 1970 Chilean Plot, AP, 9 Sept 2001,  http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2001/0909cbskiss.htm

Kissinger May Face Extradition to Chile, Guardian,  June 12, 2002, http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/wanted/2002/0614kiss.htm

Marcus Gee, Is Henry Kissinger a War Criminal? Globe and Mail, 11 June 2002,  http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0611-03.htm

Jonathan Franklin, Kissinger may face extradition to Chile, Guardian, 12 June 2002,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/pinochet/Story/0,11993,735920,00.html

Kissinger’s Back…As 9/11 Truth-Seeker, The Nation, 2003, http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=176

Chile and the United States: Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm

30th anniversary of Chile coup; Calls for justice, scrutiny of United States role, Santiago. 11 Sep 2003, http://www.newsahead.com/NewWNF/ChileCoup.htm

USA Regrets Role in Chile’s September 11 Tragedy: US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, admitted Washington’s participation in Chile coup of 1973, Pravda, 17 March 2003,http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/9766_chile.html     [this statement was made barely a week after the military occupation of Iraq by US and British troops.]

Larry Rohter, NYT, 13 Feb 2000, http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDallende.htm

Websites

ICAI, Kissinger Watch, http://www.icai-online.org/45365,45370.html

The Kissinger Page, Third World Traveler, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/HKissinger.html

Wanted for War Crimes, http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html

Remember Chile.org,  http://www.remember-chile.org.uk/

War Crimes Bio of Augusto Pinochet http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pinochet.htm

Chile Information Project — “Santiago Times” http://ssdc.ucsd.edu/news/chip/h98/chip.19981116.html

Salvador Allende and Patricio Aylwin

Carta de Salvador Allende al presidente del Partido Demócrata Cristiano, señor Patricio Aylwin, publicada el día 23 de agosto de 1973
en el diario La Nación de Santiago. http://www.salvador-allende.cl/Textos/Documentos/cartaAylwin.pdf

Andrés Zaldívar, presidente del Senado: “Allende no divide a la Concertación”, Mercurio, 13 August 2003 http://www.mercuriovalpo.cl/site/apg/reportajes/pags/20030831030907.html

Salvador Allende Archive http://www.salvador-allende.cl/

Authors Writings on the Chilean Military Junta’s Economic Reforms

Capital Accumulation in Chile and Latin America”, Yale University Lecture Series on Post-Allende Chile, North South, Canadian Journal of Latin American Studies, vol. IV, vol. XIII, no. 23, 1978, also published in Economic and Political Weekly.

“Acumulación de Capital en Chile”, Comercio Exterior, vol. 28, no. 2, 1978 (Spanish version of above article)

“Chicago Economics, Chilean Style”, Monthly Review, vol. 26, no. 11, 1975, in Spanish in a book published in Lima, Peru,

“Hacia el Nuevo Modelo Economico Chileno, Inflación y Redistribución del Ingreso, 1973-1974”, Cuadernos de CISEPA, no. 19, Catholic University of Peru, 1974, Trimestre Economico, no. 166, 1975, 311-347.

“The Neo-Liberal Model and the Mechanisms of Economic Repression: The Chilean Case”, Co-existence, vol. 12, no. 1, 1975, 34-57.

La Medición del Ingreso Minimo de Subsistencia y la Politica de Ingresos para 1974, documento de trabajo no. 19, Institute of Economics, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, 1973, p. 37. (Initial  text on the economic reforms of the Chilean Military Junta published in December 1973)

 

The CIA is using Turkey to pressure China

by Thierry Meyssan

Thierry MeyssanPolitical consultant, President-founder of the Réseau Voltaire (Voltaire Network). Latest work in French – Sous nos Yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump (Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump).

While Turkey has fostered economic links with China in order to solve its economic crisis, it has also publicly denounced the repression of the Uyghurs, basing its accusations on false information. Beijing sent a very cold reply. Everything is happening, now that Daesh has disappeared from Iraq and Syria, as if Ankara was once again running secret operations on behalf of the CIA, this time in Xinjiang.

JPEG - 49.7 kb
Chinese Uyghur jihadists in Syria.

For the last few weeks, the Turkish Press has been talking about the fate of the Uyghurs, the Turkish-speaking Muslim population of China. The political parties of the opposition, including the Kemalists, have been outdoing one another to condemn the Han repression of this minority and its religion.

This effervescence follows:
- The report by the Jamestown Foundation on the « 73 Chinese detention centres » [1] ;
- The Radio Free Asia campaign, which broadcast a number of interviews with ex-prisoners of the Chinese camps, and went so far as to pretend that China had outlawed the Coran (sic) [2] ;
- The campaign launched on 13 November 2018 by the United States and their allies of the Human Rights Council in Geneva against the repression of Islam in China [3] ;
- And the hearing, organised in Washington on 28 November 2018 by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ), before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, (CECC), on « the repression of religions by the Chinese Communist Party » [4]. Thus we learned that between one and three million Uyghurs are being submitted to electrical torture in the re-education camps. These accusations have been reprised by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

It was in this context that the spokesman for the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Hami Aksoy, published a communiqué on 9 February 2019 officially condemning the « Chinesation » … of « the ethnic, religious and cultural identities of the Turkish Uyghurs » and the death in prison of the famous poet Abdurehim Heyit, who was serving an « eight-year » sentence of confinement for « one of his songs » [5].

The following evening, China published a 26-second video by the spurious dead man. In it, he declared : « My name is Abdurehim Heyit. Today is the 10th of February 2019. I am the subject of investigations into the suspicion of violation of national laws. I am now in good health and have never been abused ».

On the following day,11 February, the spokesman for the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs, Hua Chunying, launched into a severe criticism of Turkey’s « errors » and « irresponsibility » [6].

While the imprisonment of at least 10,000 Uyghurs implicated in terrorist activities is attested, the number of between one and three million definitely is not.

Already by 1 June 2017 and on 13 December 2018, the Chinese had published two documents – one of them concerning Human Rights in Xinjiang, [7] and the other on The Protection of Culture and Development in Xinjiang [8].

JPEG - 40.5 kb
Islamist prisoners at the Deradicalisation Camp in Lop.

However, the Communist Party doesn’t really know how to manage political Islam. It analyses the question from the viewpoint of a particular past, that of the Cultural Revolution and the outlawing not only of Islam, but all religions. After having established freedom in this matter, it is now witnessing the rebirth of the divisions of the Civil War, and the multiplication of jihadist attacks [9]. On 1 February 2018, it launched a new religious policy aimed at assimilating Islam by suppressing certain identity practises [10]. The members of the Party are obliged to provide the example by refusing to eat halal. Nonetheless, 24,400 mosques are open in Xinjiang for the 13 million Muslims.

For twenty-five years, Uyghur organisations have been clamouring for the creation of an independent state, first of all secular and now « Islamic » (in the political sense, not religious according to the Muslim Brotherhood’s definition of the term), in Eastern Turkestan (according to medieval title of Xinjiang). They were immediately awarded CIA support against the Beijing authorities.

- In 1997, the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP) was created, and left the region to undergo training in Afghanistan with the Taliban and certain elements of Al-Qaïda. It quit political Islam and is directly funded by the CIA.
- In September 2004,a « government in exile for Eastern Turkestan » was founded in Washington by Anwar Yusuf Turani. It is a reconstruction of the alliance between the Kuomintang and Taïwan, in the prolongation of the Chinese Civil War (1927-1950).
- In November of the same year, in Munich, a world Congress of the Uyghurs was created, of which Rebiya Kadeer became President. It favours ethnic separatism.
The latter two entities are financed by the National Endowment for Democracy, an agency of the « Five Eyes » group [11].

Serious rioting broke out in Xinjiang, first of all in February 1997, then in July 2009. The demonstrators claimed that they belonged to the Uyghur separatist movement, Kuomintang Communism, and political Islam.

Beijing calmed the situation down by offering the Uyghurs certain privileges, for example, dispensing them from obeying the one-child policy (today abandoned) [12].

The US campaign against the repression of the Uyghurs seems to be compromised by the investment of Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, in the Xinjiang authorities [13]. Prince is not only the principal businessmen specialised in the creation of private armies, he is also the brother of Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s Secretary for Education. His security agents are apparently mercenaries working on behalf of Bingtuan, a Han militia in Xinjiang.

It so happens that during the 1990’s, when the present Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was the head of the Millî Görüs and Mayor of Istanbul, he supplied a rear base for various Islamist terrorist movements, whether they were Tatars, Chechens or Uyghurs [14].

The question must therefore be asked – is the Turkish declaration against the Han repression of the Uyghurs a simple interior stance in order to avoid being over-run by the opposition parties, or is it a new state policy which conforms to the former responsibilities of President Erdoğan in the CIA terrorist strategy ?

The East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) was very active during the war against Syria, with the support of the National Intelligence Organization (NİT). For many months, 18,000 Uyghurs (including at least 5,000 jihadist combatants) lived secretly in al-Zambari, a Syrian town on the Turkish frontier in the governorate of Idleb. They maintained their position with the help of the German and French special forces [15].

While President Donald Trump is preparing for a commercial struggle with Beijing, everything seems to be developing as if a reconciliation has occurred between the CIA and Turkey, aimed at planning further secret operations against China.

Translation
Pete Kimberley

%d bloggers like this: