Nel 1973 la fragile democrazia cilena guidata da Salvador Allende, un onesto socialista cileno di cui si parla sempre troppo poco perchè a mio avviso uno dei pochi uomini per bene del secolo passato, fu spazzata nel sangue dai militari dell’assassino Pinochet grazie agli aiuti, alle trame della CIA sotto l’egida dell’accoppiata Nixon-Kissinger.

Oggi, a distanza di 35 anni, si hanno le conferme  delle gravi responsabilità degli  States in  quello storico golpe.

Ecco alcuni passi degli archivi segreti  della NSA (National Security Archive di Washington) oggi finalmente resi pubblici.

Kissinger  convoca il direttore della CIA Richard Helms e gli dice: “ Noi non permetteremo che il Cile diventi una fogna” ed Helms risponde: “Io sto con voi”

Donald Kendall, direttore esecutivo della Pepsi Cola nonchè amico e socio in affari di Augustin Edwards, banchiere ed imprenditore cileno, proprietario del quotidiano El Mercurio e acerrimo nemico dell’Unidad Popolar che ha vinto le elezioni, esercita grosse pressioni per un intervento americano contro Allende.

Edwards incontrerà sia Nixon che Kissinger.

Nixon,  di fronte  ad ipotesi    attendiste ,   afferma   arrabbiato   : “ Vogliamo ripetere ciò che è successo con Castro ? “

Dopo il golpe Nixon chiede a Kissinger : “ La nostra mano è rimasta nascosta?”  e Kissinger risponde :    “ Abbiamo creato le migliori condizioni possibili affinchè il golpe riuscisse. Fossimo ai tempi di Eisenhower saremmo considerati due eroi”

Questi erano gli USA nel 1973 e oggi, a 35 anni, non è cambiato molto. Sempre in prima linea nel destabilizzare, colonizzare e assoggettare economicamente e culturalmente, sempre in prima linea con  pesanti ingerenze assolutamente indifferenti alle sovranità di vari stati e popoli. Ora poi anche nell’inventare il terrorismo internazionale per giustificare ulteriori interventi, guerre e pressioni e controlli territoriali.

☼ 15 settembre 2008

We may be smug about the EU in the west, but for the troubled Balkans it offers a vision of hope…

Where on earth, would 88% of a nation’s citizenry want to join us (and Herman Van Rompuy) in the world’s least welcoming club? Steam straight past Brussels and head south. We’re going to Albania, because it tells us something slightly shaming about ourselves – and our smug insularity.

Albania? Economy up this year (by 2%) while most of the world slumped back. Political system on turbulent hold since a June general election so tight that the Socialist losers are still boycotting parliament, filling the streets of Tirana with protests last weekend. But it finally got formal permission to negotiate EU entry last week. The final reward for years of effort may only be a couple of years away (with that 88% support driving on).

When you hear Albania’s president, Bamir Topi, outline his “vision”, it lies at the end of the yellow brick road to Brussels. And when you visit Tirana after a few years away, there’s a new airport, a new motorway into town, streets lined with shops, cafes on every corner, monster blocks of flats obliterating the skyline. Only the potholes remain the same.

There’s an energy and a sense of progress here that catches you by the throat. A small, impoverished country with an improbable Stalinist history is turning its 17 years of freedom into something remarkable. Graft, and assorted deadly sins? Of course. The car parks are stuffed with Mercedes Benz. But that’s only part of a saga that includes resilience, kindness and great good humour, too. If this is the 28th or 29th state of the union, then there’ll be something to celebrate: the continuing power of an idea that we, immured too deep in tabloid ignorance, have lost the imagination to embrace.

What do the 88% see when they look around? A Greece anxious to get Albania in. A succession of visits and speeches from Foreign Office dignitaries – David Miliband, Glenys Kinnock – that look forward to an expanded union. And trouble, north, south, east and west.

Croatia and Slovenia have endured a damaging spat over coastline rights. Bosnia is back at the top of the Balkan instability league as its bureaucratic balances begins to unravel. Serbia, under a more sentient president, is still threatened by that old, black-hearted nationalism from within – and Kosovo is an ethnic disaster waiting to happen. Chuck in two fractious toddlers – Macedonia, Montenegro – and everyone fears a region sinking back into distrust and retribution.

Talk to witnesses from round the Balkans and the EU is the first answer on their lips. Make us more secure. Give us a settled fabric for trade and aid. Help us to feel something more than an agglomeration of spare parts stuck on the end of a continent. And let us feel that if we make the progress you require, it will be rewarded.

And that’s a reason to look across the 1,200 miles from Tirana to London and quake. You’d suppose, from all the dismal dumping on an “unelected” Cathy Ashton, that EU foreign policy is meaningless vacuity. (Whoever elected Henry Kissinger or Condoleezza Rice?) But the foreign policy that matters most to all of us involves stability close to home and relations around our borders.

Can that stop at Calais? A bad joke in a month when the first world war that started in Sarajevo is remembered at a Cenotaph strewn with poppies. An insult to the British troops who help keep fragile peace in Kosovo and Bosnia. An illusion that blanks out the amazing lessons of European life since the Berlin Wall came down. It’s a shrug and a snub to a world that wants to draw closer.

A union of 34 countries or more? It’s coming, through a veil of sneers. And if you still need a battered vision to cherish, come to Skanderbeg Square, Tirana, and find a little hope among the potholes.

/The Guardian/

Prémices d’une marche annoncée

Treize jours avant l’annonce de l’annexion du Sahara par Hassan II, le directeur de la CIA avait écrit une lettre à Henry Kissinger, secrétaire d’Etat américain, pour le prévenir des intentions de l’ancien monarque. Un document qui éclaire sur les informations dont disposaient les USA dans cette affaire.

par Hicham Bennani

Henry Kissinger, secrétaire d'Etat américain aux Affaires étrangères, s'entretient avec le roi Hassan II du Maroc en novembre 1973 à Casablanca.

«Si l’armée espagnole reste au Sahara, un grave conflit pourrait éclater», prévient William Colby, directeur de la CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) le 3 octobre 1975, dans un memorandum envoyé à Henry Kissinger, secrétaire d’Etat américain. Le document parle d’un pari risqué du Maroc qui joue à «quitte ou double». Selon Colby, cela pourrait conduire soit à la chute du gouvernement de Rabat, soit à une crise politique du côté de Madrid. Le rôle éventuel que pourrait avoir l’Algérie et la Mauritanie est également signalé. Le rapport laisse à penser que la CIA a poussé l’administration américaine à jouer un rôle de médiateur entre le roi du Maroc et les autorités espagnoles. Le médiateur en question n’était autre que le Directeur-adjoint de la CIA à l’époque : le Général Vernon Walters, un proche de Hassan II. Les documents d’histoire attestent du fait que Walters et le défunt monarque se connaissaient depuis l’enfance. En 1973, lorsque l’OLP avait exécuté deux diplomates américains au Soudan, une rencontre entre les Etats-Unis et l’OLP avait été organisée au palais royal grâce aux liens solides qu’entretenaient Walters et Hassan II.

Coup d’Etat ?
Ceci pourrait expliquer en partie que lorsqu’il s’agit d’évoquer Hassan II, le directeur de la CIA semble extrêmement bien informé. Pour Colby, le roi use d’une politique à «haut risque» concernant le Sahara espagnol depuis longtemps. A ce propos, il rappelle qu’en août 1974, Hassan II avait déclaré qu’il était prêt à acquérir le Sahara espagnol «avec force si nécessaire avant la fin de l’année». Dans sa lettre, Colby pense que le roi du Maroc «peut prendre une décision à tout instant» concernant le Sahara. Et ce, même s’il avait promis qu’il attendrait le verdict de la Cour pénale internationale sur les revendications marocaines et mauritaniennes.
Le directeur de la CIA avance que Rabat craignait d’une part que la décision de la Cour internationale ne soit pas favorable au Maroc et d’autre part, que le rapport d’une délégation d’enquête de l’ONU favorise l’indépendance du territoire. Pour rappel, en 1974, l’Espagne avait annoncé qu’elle mettrait en place un référendum. Ce qui a poussé Hassan II à saisir La Haye. Il pouvait donc décider «d’annexer le Sahara, à un moment où l’Espagne était jugée faible» par le Maroc. «Pour Hassan II, une intervention armée provoquerait à coup sûr une médiation internationale favorable», précise le document qui ajoute que : «jusqu’à ce jour, la majorité des Marocains ont approuvé la position de
Hassan II sur le Sahara espagnol, mais si un pari militaire échouait, un coup d’Etat pourrait bien menacer le roi». Autres éléments apportés par le memorandum : «Rabat estime une possible résistance de la part d’environ 5000 hommes seulement». Il s’agirait de légionnaires espagnols basés au Sahara, d’unités des forces de l’air espagnoles provenant des Iles Canaries et dans une moindre mesure de l’armée algérienne. Les autorités marocaines sont «sceptiques» quant à toute intervention militaire de l’Algérie et Rabat se serait arrangé pour que les forces militaires de la Syrie, de l’Egypte, de l’OLP et peut-être de l’Arabie Saoudite soient symboliquement présentes pour intimider l’Algérie. Mais une implication physique des pays arabes est écartée par les Etats-Unis.

Des Espagnols sous-estimés
La CIA était également bien informée concernant l’armement dont disposait le Maroc. Le rapport indique que le Royaume détenait 55 000 soldats dans le Sud du territoire et que le moral de ses troupes n’était pas au beau fixe étant donné les conditions dans lesquelles elles vivaient. Seulement
12 000 à 15 000 de ces troupes disposaient d’une artillerie puissante, capable de contrer l’Espagne et l’Algérie. Le rapport avance que l’Espagne possède une armée mieux entrainée et que si Hassan II s’engageait dans une guerre, il aurait sous-estimé la réponse des Espagnols.
Colby pense tout de même qu’en cas de conflit, Madrid demanderait d’abord de l’aide à l’ONU et un appui des Etats-Unis. «En se référant à la coopération entre les Etats-Unis et l’Espagne, les Espagnols compteront sur un soutien diplomatique des Américains, surtout si les Marocains utilisent des armes américaines», peut-on lire dans le rapport. De plus, les Marocains réagiraient avec virulence, en cas d’appui américain en faveur des Espagnols. «Une position de neutralité stricte est probablement la chose la plus envisageable  qu’accepterait Hassan II sans que les relations entre les deux pays (USA et Maroc) soient affectées», déduit donc Colby.
Les Américains savaient également que l’Algérie soutiendrait le Front Polisario. Le document se termine ainsi : «Les forces de l’air algériennes, avec leurs 200 avions de combat, pourraient faire boire la tasse aux 40 avions de combat marocains et jouer un rôle décisif pour aider les soldats de l’armée algérienne, qui sont au même nombre que les Marocains, mais mieux entraînés et équipés».
Dans un article publié dans Le Monde diplomatique en janvier 2006, le journaliste et écrivain Jacob Mundy précise qu’après cette lettre, Kissinger a rapidement envoyé un message à Hassan II, lui demandant de patienter. La réponse du roi est venue le 14 octobre. «Dans celle-ci, Hassan assurait le gouvernement des USA qu’il n’attaquerait pas l’Espagne, mais qu’il ne ferait pas cette promesse à quiconque s’opposerait à ses ambitions», écrit Mundy.
Le journaliste précise que juste après l’annonce de la Marche verte, Kissinger a déclaré à son président que le Maroc menaçait d’entreprendre une «marche monstre» sur le Sahara espagnol et que la Cour internationale de justice avait donné un avis qui attribuait la souveraineté au Maroc et à la Mauritanie. «C’est absolument ce que Hassan II voulait !»

«Les plans du Maroc pour envahir le Sahara espagnol»

Ce document exclusif daté du 3 octobre 1975 a été «déclassifié» le 14 novembre 2000 par l’administration américaine. Il précède de treize jours le discours de Hassan II qui annonce un projet de marche pacifique destinée à annexer le Sahara, alors occupé par l’Espagne. Le feuillet de quatre pages, classé «secret», a pour objet principal «Les plans du Maroc pour envahir le Sahara espagnol». Les termes «Intelligence Alert Memorandum» mentionnés sur cette lettre de William Colby, directeur de la CIA, attestent de l’importance du document. En effet, ils sont fréquemment utilisés par la CIA pour signaler un danger imminent pouvant avoir un impact direct sur le monde et en particulier sur les intérêts américains. William Colby précise qu’avant ce mémorandum, la CIA s’est entretenue avec la DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), la NSA (National Security Agency) et le DOS (Department of State). Deux paragraphes ont été censurés (par une bande noire), un élément qui apparaît dans tous les documents confidentiels de la CIA. Il est fort probable que le nom du Général Vernon Walters, Directeur-adjoint de la CIA à l’époque, ait été masqué, étant donné qu’il était très proche de Hassan II…

Le Journal Hebdomadaire, novembre 2009

To supplement my previous post on Henry Kissinger, here is a telling little clip from the famous “Nixon Tapes” which were declassified earlier this decade.

Courtesy of Lapham’s Quarterly:

Nixon: See, the attack in the North that we have in mind… power plants, whatever’s left—POL (petroleum), the docks…. And I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?

Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.

Nixon: No, no, no… I’d rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?

Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.

Nixon: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you? I just want you to think big, Henry, for chrissakes. The only place where you and I disagree is with regard to the bombing. You’re so goddamned concerned about civilians, and I don’t give a damn. I don’t care.

Kissinger: I’m concerned about the civilians because I don’t want the world to be mobilized against you as a butcher.

Done with Kissinger. Great read.

From early 90s – but highly relevant. Valuable commentary to the current white house and presidency – choices and changing landscapes.

la tête de l'Europe (ou pas)

Herman Van Rompuy (à gauche) et Catherine Ashton (à droite) pose pour une photo de famille avec Jose Manuel Barroso, président de la Commission européenne, et le premier ministre suédois Fredrik Reinfeldt.

voilà, c’est officiel: le Président de l’Europe, c’est lui!

(dans la  série: “tu m’as traité de Lisbonne (désolé))

comment Président “du Conseil Européen” que personne ne sait à quoi diable ça peut servir?

comment lequel?

comment ça “mais qui sont ces gens”?

non, ce n’est pas une pub pour un contrat de placement pour retraités de la Finance!!!

relisez:

le Président: Herman Van Rompuy (à gauche)

la Haute Représentante etc. etc.: Catherine Ashton (à droite)

z’êtes content de l’apprendre hein!

c’est beau la démocratie!

en tout cas, au moins, l’Europe a maintenant un “numéro de téléphone” comme disait Kissinger… ou deux… ou pas!!!

leur programme, en exclusivité:

LIBERALISME de chez ULTRA LIBERALISME!!!

ça c’est de l’exclu “le colporteur”!!!

y’a des jours, comme ça, on, ferait mieux de rester couché!!!

ou pas.

bien @ vous,

nicogé

November 19th

A Lot to Talk About

No doubt avidly following this blog, Obama too has become intrigued by China and followed our footsteps here, though he stayed on the eastern coast without venturing inland. He did the usual novice tourist trip to the Great Wall, and while one would have thought that the president has better uses for his time, a visit to the great wall is practically forced upon foreign dignitaries by Chinese hosts, who I can attest can be very insistent on an agenda related to the glories of China. Kissinger, paranoid as he was, believed that the visit to the Great Wall was a ploy to wear him down and wring out more concessions.

Barry is a thoughtful lad, though. Stuffing his hands in his pockets against the cold, he got away from his entourage and did part of the walk along the Great Wall alone, presumably contemplating Ozymandius, wondering which side of the Pacific he lives on. Afterwards he said reflectively, “It reminds you of the sweep of history. It gives you a good perspective on a lot of the day to day things. They don’t amount to much in the scope of history. Our time here on earth is not that long, and we better make the best of it.” A serious young man. Impressive.

However, there is the report that the solitary walk was in fact choreographed for photographers, and that White House aides were exultant at the snaps, even though it is thirty years since Nixon used this hackneyed photo op and symbol of China’s fear of the outside world to make polite statements about the great history of China. These Americans seem to manipulate views of reality; can they really be trusted in what they say?

Part of the matter is that there are two broad views of China in America. Basically Americans agree that China is an oppressive dictatorship as well as an economic and therefore ultimately political and military super power in the making. The difference is what to do about: Liberals vs. Cold Warriors

Thoughtful liberals, like Barry, use the broad historical analogy of the inability of the international system to absorb the rise of Germany leading up to WWI and then its even more unsatisfactory sequel, WWII. Better than go through that sort of catastrophe is to accommodate, be friendly and polite; welcome the Chinese to the world market place, making a buck while you are at it; give them a feeling of respect as if they had a say in world affairs; and gradually let materialism and internet porn corrupt their willingness to work so hard. The Chinese will end up all driving Buicks and listening to Britney Spears on their i-pods, not realizing that they have been fobbed off with outdated brands, and we all live happily ever after in a multi-polar world.

Thoughtful Cold Warriors use the broad historical analogy of the breakup of the Soviet Union. Through the pressures of ongoing containment and full spectrum military dominance by the USA, eventually the internal contradictions of an oppressive regime will tear it apart, and a Chinese Gorbachov will give up the game, let Tibet go, let Taiwan go, let Xinjiang go (if you can keep a lid on Islamic extremism there), maybe even, more psychedelically,  give Hong Kong back to the British and split China into southern Cantonese and northern Mandarin states. America remains the sole super  power guaranteeing world peace and justice, and we all live happily ever after. One small detail, the Chinese call this hegemony and they really don’t like it at all.

Reality being always cruel, there are chinks in the plausibility of both the happy tales, Liberal and Cold Warrior. However, Barry is in the driver’s seat right now, so it is the accomodationist view that prevails. The Chinese do not gloat publicly, its always better to keep your thoughts as secret as possible. Moreover, with their own long history of bureaucracies the Chinese realize that the Pentagon and the cowboys in Langley still carry on. Presidents come and go, but the pros stay on the job. Likewise the Chinese know that in a few years the Americans might vote in a sequel to the Cheney-Rumsfield show, even if it can not be re-run for a third time.

The joint US-China communique issued in the names of Hu and Obama through all its boiler plate, trivia and bland details, deserves more analysis than can be given in this post. But listen to Obama accepting language for which the Chinese were no doubt desperate; Obama walking the talk of Brookings liberal think-tank building strategic trust, soothing words for those fearful of outside enemies who once vainly sought shelter behind a great wall:

“The two countries reiterated that the fundamental principle of respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is at the core of the three U.S.-China joint communiqués which guide U.S.-China relations.  Neither side supports any attempts by any force to undermine this principle.”

If this seems like it hardly needs saying and sounds more paranoid than even Kissinger at the Great Wall, the Chinese do not easily forget that the Americans supported guerillas in southern Yunnan as well as Tibet through much of the 1950s while its military commander in chief in Asia publicly urged nuking them. Further back, America opposed the rise of the current ruling regime in the 1940’s  and to this day provides high tech weaponry to the breakaway province of Taiwan. Strange how some folks just won’t let go of their pain.

The mantra of building strategic thrust is now being chanted throughout Washington. As for its prospects, listen, a China Daily reporter presents the views of the man in the Chinese street, “Those I spoke with are not in awe of Obama and fully know that China is once again one of the leading world powers. Many said that they doubt the US will cooperate with China. Some asked if he really wants peace with their nation. Or as Fu put it: “China’s power is rising. Obama showed that the US is worried about the rise.”

High Stakes Mah Jong

A Long History

Global Warfare USA: The World is the Pentagon’s Oyster

US military operations in all major regions of the World

“Not only does one country account for the overwhelming plurality of world military expenditures, but that nation also has troops and bases on all six habitable continents (as well as a 54-year military mission in Antarctica, Operation Deep Freeze) and eleven aircraft carrier strike groups and six navy fleets that roam the world’s oceans and seas at will. It is also expanding a global interceptor missile system on land, on sea, in the air and into space that will leave it invulnerable to retaliation.” Read more >>

Soldier mom refuses deployment to care for baby

An Army cook and single mom may face criminal charges after she skipped her deployment flight to Afghanistan because, she said, no one was available to care for her infant son while she was overseas.

Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, 21, claims she had no choice but to refuse deployment orders because the only family she had to care for her 10-month-old son — her mother — was overwhelmed by the task, already caring for three other relatives with health problems.

Her civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, said Monday that one of Hutchinson’s superiors told her she would have to deploy anyway and place the child in foster care.

“For her it was like, ‘I couldn’t abandon my child,’” Sussman said. “She was really afraid of what would happen, that if she showed up they would send her to Afghanistan anyway and put her son with child protective services.” Read more >>

James Corbett
El informe Corbett
11 de noviembre 2009

En una entrevista exclusiva a The Corbett Report el día de hoy, Daniel Estulin reveló entre bastidores los detalles de la reunión del G20 de los Ministros de Hacienda  la semana pasada en St. Andrews, Escocia. Muchos de estos datos provienen de documentos reales de las reuniones  del G-20 que sus fuentes eran capaces de sacar de las reuniones, a pesar de que las medidas de seguridad, que según Estulin, no tenían precedentes “, incluso para los estándares Bilderberg”. Estos documentos, contienen valiosa información sobre la conferencia, están disponibles en BilderbergBook.com y se han reflejado en la página principal del informe Corbett. Los docuemtnos fueron sacados de contrabando a gran riesgo personal y deben ser ampliamente difundidos.

La cuestión clave discutida en la reunión, según Estulin, era “el siguiente paso en la globalización, que es la creación de la Unión Africana”. Esto es parte de un programa de desarrollo de la cesión de la soberanía nacional de los gobiernos regionales, para que sea más fácil de administrar y aplicar los objetivos de la oligarquía financiera. Uno de estos objetivos  de la elite exhaustivamente documentado hace mención a la reducción de la población, que incluyen atar a la ayuda al desarrollo a los problemas de control de la población. “La creación de fronteras en el continente africano será encabezada por el FMI.”

Uno de los documentos de contrabando que un asistente tenía era el  Convenio Constitutivo del FMI en la reunión y destacó el hecho de que los fondos se pusieron a disposición “con las garantías adecuadas” a las naciones miembros. Este es el código de hablar en nombre de la imposición de medidas draconianas diseñadas para precipitar a los países a la esclavitud virtual, con el resultado de que en África, los países gastan cinco veces más ingresos para la revisión de sus deudas con el Fondo Monetario Internacional que  en la asistencia médica para sus propios ciudadanos.

Ver un extracto de la entrevista en el vídeo a continuación:

Los asistentes de la reunión, también identificados en los documentos de contrabando, se puede leer quién es quién en la élite de la oligarquía financiera, incluido los lideres Bilderberger como el Secretario del Tesoro de EE.UU., Timothy Geithner, el presidente de la Reserva Federal, Ben Bernanke, el presidente del Banco Mundial, Bob Zoellick, el ministro de Finanzas turco Ali Babacan y el ministro de Finanzas británico Alistair Darling, y muchos otros. La Comisión Trilateral también estuvo representada en la conferencia de los miembros japoneses Yoshihiko Noda y Masaaki Shirakawa.

En la entrevista, Estulin discute el debate del G-20 sobre el dumping del dólar de EE.UU. que reveló por primera vez que estaría en la agenda de la reunión en un comunicado de prensa la semana pasada. Se señala que el asunto, aunque discutido, fue rechazado. “Los Estados Unidos y la delegacion británica trató de persuadir a los rusos y los delegados de China a devaluar el dólar y crear una canasta de monedas o en otra moneda del mundo para tomar el lugar del dólar,” dijo. “Afortunadamente, tanto los rusos y los chinos dijeron a los americanos y los británicos que ellos no estaban dispuestos a hacer esto”.

La idea de que los oligarcas financieros occidentales de devaluar el dólar de EE.UU.  está en consonancia con los recientes informes de que Goldman Sachs (cuyos miembros están sospechosamente bien conectados con  la cúpula del Tesoro de los EE.UU.), en realidad tomaron posiciones a corto en el mercado de la vivienda antes de el accidente. A pesar de un pre-meditado intento de provocar un colapso financiero no parece ser en sí mismo de interés para los oligarcas financieros, tiene perfecto sentido cuando se considera esto como un problema-reacción-operación de la solución de crear un problema a fin de obtener del público un apoyo para una determinada solución. En este caso, el final ha sido siempre el de utilizar un colapso financiero para lograr  el Nuevo Orden Mundial. Ahora, exactamente como predicen, todo el mundo desde Kissinger hasta Soros está usando la crisis económica para pedir un nuevo orden financiero de mayor proyección internacional (léase: no electos, no democrático e inexplicable) el control de los mercados financieros mundiales. De hecho, al igual que el G20 fue envolviendo, Damon Vickers estaba empezando a introducir temas de debate acerca de una nueva moneda mundial y un “Nuevo Orden Mundial” en la cadena CNBC. Aunque es una buena noticia que el dumping de el dólar no se consolidara en esta reunión, de ninguna manera asegura que este movimiento  no seguirá siendo perseguidos por los financistas globalista influyentes.

En una nota positiva, el ministro de Finanzas canadiense, Jim Flaherty, hizo alarde de defender los pueblos del planeta, señalando que “la política pública reciente de la privatización de las ganancias y socializar las pérdidas es inaceptable para los contribuyentes”, donde  alguien respondió: “¿Cree usted que se han dado cuenta? ” La respuesta provocó la risa de los oligarcas reunidos. El Sr. Estulin tiene un mensaje para los oligarcas del G-20: “Señores del G-20, en caso de que se esté preguntando: Sí, definitivamente se han dado cuenta”.

A continuación podéis ver algunos documentos filtrados por confidentes  a Daniel Estulin  en la reunión del G20.  HACED CLICK EN LA IMAGEN PARA AMPLIAR.

]]> http://scatattack.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/top-candidate-debates-eu-tax-at-elite-dinner/ Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:49:24 +0000 Scat http://scatattack.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/top-candidate-debates-eu-tax-at-elite-dinner/

Top candidate debates EU tax at elite dinner

ANDREW RETTMAN

16.11.2009 @ 08:52 CET

Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, a top candidate for the new European Union president job, laid out his views on future EU financing at a dinner of the secretive Bilderberg group last week.

The event took place at Val Duchesse, a former priory on the outskirts of Brussels, on Thursday (12 November), with guests including Belgian industrialist and Bilderberg chairman Etienne Davignon, former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger and luminaries from the worlds of international politics and business, according to Belgian broadsheet De Tijd.

Mr Van Rompuy: The leak could harm his chances of a top EU appointment (Photo: Luc Van Braekel)

The Belgian leader is reported to have said in a speech that: “New resources will be necessary for the financing of the welfare state. Green tax instruments are a possibility, but they are ambiguous: This type of tax will eventually be extinguished. But the possibilities of financial levies at European level must be seriously examined and for the first time the large countries in the union are open to that.”

Mr Van Rompuy’s official spokesman later told the Belga news agency that: “The Prime Minister … indicated that it is necessary to carry on thinking about structural financing at the European level.”

The leak to De Tijd, coming just days before the EU aims to choose its first permanent president, could damage Mr Van Rompuy’s chances.

Proposals about imposing fees on environmentally-damaging behaviour or skimming small levies off financial transactions have been mooted before. But the suggestion that the new EU president might interfere in national taxation policy is anathema to anti-federalists in EU countries such as the UK or Denmark.

Mr Van Rompuy’s participation at the Bilderberg dinner will also give ammunition to critics of the EU top job selection process, which takes place via confidential consultations between EU leaders and informal social events.

The Bilderberg group is an elite club of aristocrats, politicians and businessmen dating back to 1954, which likes to meet away from the public eye and which is widely disliked by pro-transparency campaigners.

EU parliament chief shows his cards

Meanwhile in a related development, European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek over the weekend backed former Spanish leader Jose Maria Aznar to take the EU president post.

“As far as I know, Aznar is not currently interested in this kind of position. But I think it would be good for the EU if he changed his mind and submitted his candidature,” Mr Buzek told Spanish daily ABC in an interview published on Saturday.

Mr Buzek met Mr Aznar along with the current Spanish government on a trip to Madrid ahead of Spain taking up the rotating EU presidency in January.

The conservative Spanish politician is from the correct political family according to the prevailing wisdom that the centre-right will take the EU president job while the centre-left will take the EU foreign minister position. But he was a firm advocate of the Iraq war, which remains a highly-divisive topic in the EU.

The speculation is set to see an end on Thursday (19 November) when EU leaders gather in Brussels to decide the top appointments. Other names in line for the presidency post include Dutch leader Jan Peter Balkenende and his Luxembourg counterpart, Jean-Claude Juncker.

 

SOURCE: http://euobserver.com/9/28993

por Renato Garcia

“A semana que mudaria o mundo”. Essa foi a frase que o então presidente dos EUA, Richard Nixon usou para definir a importância de sua viagem à China em fevereiro de 1972. Com a Guerra Fria e a Guerra do Vietnã ocorrendo simultaneamente, era uma tacada de mestre reaproximar-se do governo de Mao Tsé-Tung  quando Nixon pleiteava uma campanha à reeleição baseada na paz entre os povos.

Primeiro presidente norte-americano a pisar em solo chinês, Nixon afirmou na época que a “tentativa de estabelecer um novo relacionamento com a República Popular da China não será feita às custas dos nossos amigos. Nossa política não se dirige contra nenhuma nação específica. Queremos manter relações amistosas com todas as nações. Qualquer país pode ser nosso amigo, sem se tornar inimigo de outro.”

Realmente os EUA estavam ensaiando uma reproximação com a China, mas o que poucos sabem é que as conversas entre Nixon, seu amigo e secretário de Estado, Henry Kissinger, Mao e o primeiro-ministro chinês Zhou Enlai não se concentraram apenas em restabelecer relações amigáveis. Alguns assuntos ficaram em segredo até pouco tempo atrás, quando finalmente todos os documentos da viagem foram revelados pelo National Security Archive.

Enquanto seu discurso era aparentemente pacífico, o presidente dos EUA  estava era preocupado com a expansão industrial japonesa. Desde o final dos anos 60 o sucesso das exportações nipônicas incomodavam e muito as indústrias americanas e a China temia que essa expansão não ficasse apenas no nível econômico, mas se espalhasse política e militarmente, como um revival do imperialismo japonês.

Outro assunto que incomodava Mao e seus seguidores era a iminente independência de Taiwan. As insurreições na época ainda eram poucas, mas ele sabia que tudo era questão de tempo. Mesmo assim, Nixon afirmou que não iria ajudar nenhum movimento que fosse inconsistente com o conceito da “China única”, e que iria trabalhar contra qualquer um desses que surgisse em Taiwan.

Nenhum presidente havia declarado que não ajudaria Taiwan até a visita de Bill Clinton à China em 1998. Os outros, assim como Nixon, preferiram esconder a verdade.

(exercício #2 – aula de 07/11)

Het is een groep die de wereldbevolking zou willen decimeren: afstammelingen van een in 740 na Christus tot het jodendom bekeerd volk dat in Zuid-Rusland en Georgie woonde, de Ashkenazi Joden, die zich later over Centraal- en Oost-Europa verspreidden, waar ze de handel en het bankwezen gaan dicteren .

Hun nazaten heten Rockefeller, Rotschild, Brezinski en Kissinger. Zij zouden volgens de complottheorie achter deze groep zitten die ‘het vaccin” inzet om haar dodelijke doelstellingen te bewerkstelligen.

AMERICANS HARBOR A QUAINT BELIEF THAT a new president takes charge of a government eagerly awaiting his orders. But there are huge power centers that have their own agendas.

The first anniversary of Barack Obama’s historic election finds many of his supporters already grousing. Fair enough: Obama has been more vigorous in some areas than others. But one essential question goes unasked: How much can any president accomplish against the wishes of recalcitrant power centers within his own government?

We Americans harbor a quaint belief that a new president takes charge of a government that eagerly awaits his next command. Like an orchestra conductor or perhaps a football coach, he can inspire or bludgeon and get what he wants. But that’s not how things work at the top, especially where “national security” is concerned. The Pentagon and CIA are powerful and independent fiefdoms characterized by entrenched agendas and constant intrigue. They are full of lifers, who see an elected president largely as an annoyance, and have ways of dealing with those who won’t come to heel.

Compound that with the Bush-Cheney administration’s aggressive seeding of its staunch loyalists throughout the bureaucracy, and you have a pretty tough situation. Obama, then, has to contend not only with the big donors and corporate lobbies. His biggest problem resides right inside his “team.”

The internal battles between American presidents and their national security establishments are not much reported. But if it is an invisible game; it is also a devious and even deadly one. Our civilian leaders end up mirroring the chronically nervous chiefs of state of the fragile democracies to our south.

Those who do not kowtow to the spies and generals have had a bumpy ride. FDR and Truman both faced insubordination. Dwight Eisenhower, who had served as chief of staff of the US Army, left the White House warning darkly about the “military industrial complex.” (He of all presidents had reasons to know.) John Kennedy was repeatedly countermanded and double-crossed by his own supposed subordinates. The Joint Chiefs baited him; Allen Dulles despised him (more so after JFK fired him over the Bay of Pigs fiasco), and Henry Cabot Lodge, his ambassador to South Vietnam, deliberately undermined Kennedy’s agenda. Kennedy called the trigger-happy generals “mad” and spoke angrily to aides of “scattering the CIA to the wind.” The evidence is growing that he suffered the consequences.

In the 1950s, the late Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, a high-ranking Pentagon official, was assigned by CIA Director Allen Dulles to help place Dulles’s officers under military cover throughout the federal government. As a result, Dulles not only knew what was happening before the president did, but had essentially infiltrated every corner of the president’s domain. One Nixon-era Republican Party official told me that in the early 1970s, there were intelligence officers everywhere, including the White House. Nixon was unaware of the true background of many of his trusted aides, particularly those who helped drive him from office. Remember Alexander Butterfield, the so-called “military liaison,” who told Congress about the White House taping system? Years later, Butterfield admitted to CIA connections.

In December 1971, Nixon learned of a military spy ring, the so-called Moorer-Radford operation, that was piping White House documents back to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Chiefs were wary of secret negotiations the president and Henry Kissinger were conducting with America’s enemies, including North Vietnam, China and the USSR, and decided to keep tabs on this intrusion upon their domain. Jimmy Carter came into office as revelations of CIA abuses made headlines. He tried to dismantle the agency’s dirty tricks office, but wound up instead a victim of it – and a one-term president.

Those who avoided problems – Johnson, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Jr. – were chief executives that made no problems for the Pentagon and intelligence chiefs. All embraced military and covert operations, expanded wars or launched their own. The agile Bill Clinton was a special case – no babe in the woods, he focused on domestic gains and pretty much steered clear of the hornets’ nest.

As for the Bushes, their ascension represented a seizure of power by the national security state itself. Their family had profited from arms manufacturing for decades. The patriarch, Prescott Bush, monitored US assassination plots against foreign leaders as a senator; and records indicate that the elder George Bush had been a secret agency operative for decades before he became CIA director – and then, 12 years later, president.

Obama seems to understand his narrow range of movement, and to be carefully picking his fights. He retained many of Bush’s top military brass, and even Bush’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who himself had served as a CIA director for Bush’s father. He has trod very carefully with the spy agency, and has declined to aggressively investigate Bush administration wrongdoing on torture and wiretapping. Obama’s campaign rhetoric about disengaging from Iraq seems a long time ago, and the war in Afghanistan is taking on the hues of permanency.

The old boys’ network is very much in place, and it is hard at work to force Obama’s hand, a la Vietnam. Witness the leaking of Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s supposedly “confidential report” calling for escalation in Afghanistan. The leak was, not surprisingly, to the reliable Bob Woodward. The reporter was himself in Naval Intelligence shortly before he went to work at the Washington Post, where he soon built a career around leaks from the military and spy establishment. The White House was furious at the McChrystal release. But what could it do? Presidents come and go, and the security folks have ways to hasten the latter.

Covert alliances and payments to corrupt foreign allies continue, making creative diplomacy more difficult. In late October came a front-page story that the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, suspected of being a major figure in that country’s opium trade, has been on the CIA’s payroll for eight years. Anyone who finds this shocking should go back and read about the CIA and the drug trade in Southeast Asia.

Throughout its six-decade history, the CIA has resisted accountability, with even some of its own nonspook directors kept in the dark about the agency’s most troubling activities. As for the public’s elected representatives, Nancy Pelosi is the most recent in a long line of legislators to accuse the CIA of deliberately misleading Congressional overseers.

None of this is likely to change soon, and not without a huge fight. Half a century after Ike’s famous admonition, conflict and intrigue remain the engine of our economy, and everyone from private equity firms to missile makers to car and truck manufacturers count on that to continue. The homeland security industry, the most recent head to grow on this hydra, is now seeking permanency.

So Barack Obama is boxed in. But so are the American people, and so, really, is democracy itself. Bringing this inconvenient truth out in the open is the essential first step toward taking back control of our government – and our future. For all the reasons laid out here, Obama will need help. He may, in the rote formulation, hold “the most powerful office in the world.” However, the extent to which he controls the government he heads, is another matter.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Russ Baker is an investigative journalist and founder of the nonprofit reporting web site whowhatwhy.com. His latest book, “Family of Secrets: the Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years,” now available in hardcover, will be published in paperback November 10. Gore Vidal calls it “one of the most important books of the past ten years.”

The American Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton has just announced that America will not recognize the legitimacy of settlements put up in the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank. She made the announcement in Cairo in the presence of top Arab officials. I doubt if any body takes her seriously any more. How can the Americans be honest brokers in the Arab-Israeli conflict when they do not back their words with action?

Israel has refused to stop building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza strip and a Kangaroo civil court in Israel recently evicted an Arab couple from their apartment building in East Jerusalem on the spurious ground that the building was an illegal structure and had no planning permission. The eviction of Arabs from their homes in the Eastern part of Jerusalem has become a way of dispossessing them of their lands and heritage and cementing the occupation of Jerusalem by the Zionist state in defiance of UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

When Barack Obama visited Israel before he became President, he declared that Jerusalem was the indivisible capital of the Jewish state. When he made that ill judged statement, he took sides with Israel against the Palestinians Can he be an impartial umpire in negotiating peace between the Arabs and the Palestinians in the Middle East when he has taken such an unequivocal stance?

Obama has little or no clout with the Israeli government. Netanyahu treats him with disdain and scant respect. He could not even persuade the Prime Minister to freeze the building of settlements in the occupied territories during the mini summit at the UN recently. I almost bust a gut laughing when I heard on the news that he had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.

What peace has Obama negotiated or achieved? This is a fellow who is engaged in the twin conflicts of Iraq and Afghanistan. I would have thought that he was more of a warmonger than a peacemaker. The award is an affront to eminent personalities like Henry Kissinger (for his efforts in negotiating a comprehensive peace deal between Israel and Egypt in the late 70’s) and Nelson Mandela (for ending Apartheid in South Africa).

I am a great fan of Obama and I will continue to admire his great tenacity in tackling urban under development and Health care reforms in America, but I suspect that the chap has bitten more than he can chew and has lost his way on the Palestinian – Israeli matter.

This week I had the opportunity to hear Henry Kissinger speak at a conference in honor of the famous Soviet diplomat Andrei Gromyko in Washington, DC. Kissinger along with Anatoliy Gromyko, the son of the late Andrei Gromyko, revisited many important meetings and events that took place during the Cold War. Kissinger explained that people often mistake the Cold War era as a time when foreign affairs were simple and predictable since the world was divided into two camps. However, he stressed that it was not simple but a very complex relationship that managed to avoid direct military confrontation between the two super powers.

It is no secret that Kissinger was a strong critic of U.S. policy from the 1990’s to the present. Most notably was his opposition to the recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a sovereign state, which he described as a “foolish act.” Regarding the Balkans, he made additional public statements that the Serbs and Croats should be allowed to join their respective countries and that the Rambouillet Agreement which would have forced the Serbs to give all its territory access to NATO ground forces, “was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form.”

Regarding the current US president, Kissinger joked, “Obama was my second choice.” Although he stressed he disagrees with most of Obama’s policies, he did compliment recent actions of the Administration for getting U.S.-Russian relations back on track. He also noted that the current policies Obama has taken towards Russia were the same as what he advocated to both candidates prior to the 2008 presidential elections.

As for Afganistan, it was noted that Andrei Gromyko was initially opposed to sending Soviet troops to Afganistan. Kissinger also made a point that he disagrees with the current policies in Afganistan regarding the US policy to create a centralized government. Although he supports the goal of eliminating the threat of terrorists using Afganistan as a launch pad of attacks against the US, he said outside forces can never unite the various tribal regions.

Several questions were put to Kissinger during the conference regarding Russia’s recent disapproval of much of U.S. policies with Iraq, Iran, etc. Kissinger explained that it is not that they disapprove, but that the Russians are concerned that the United States does not know what it is doing in these areas. Kissinger believes that what the Russians really worry is that the Americans will come in and leave the place worse than when they arrived. When one sees the resulting chaos in Kosovo, Iraq and other places where the US intervenes, the Russians may have a point.