They were not going forth to
prove the might of the United States. They were going forth to prove the might
of justice and right, and all the world accepted them as crusaders, and their
transcendent achievement has made all the world believe in America as it
believes in no other nation… The moral obligation that rests upon us… [is] …
make good their redemption of the world.
President
Woodrow Wilson. September 25, 1919.
Het waren Amerikaanse
presidenten, Wilson en Roosevelt, die de aanzet gaven tot… een begin van orde…
in de mondiale politiek en economie.'
Geert Mak.
Pagina 463 van Reizen zonder John.
They… think America is just an
ordinary nation and so America should act like just an ordinary nation. They
don’t believe we have a special message for the world or a special mission to
preserve our greatness for the betterment of not only ourselves but all of
humanity.
Sarah
Palin, ‘Republican Party
nominee for Vice President
in the 2008 presidential election.’
December 9, 2010.
Afghanistan has been the
greatest illicit opium producer
in the entire world, ahead of Burma (Myanmar),
the ‘Golden
Triangle’,
and Latin America since 1992, excluding
the year 2001. [1] Afghanistan
is the main producer of opium in the ‘Golden
Crescent’.
Opium production in Afghanistan has
been on the rise since U.S. occupation started in 2001. Based on UNODC data, there
has been more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons
(2004–2007) than in any one year during Taliban rule. Also, more land is now
used for opium in Afghanistan than for coca cultivation in Latin America. In
2007, 92% of the non-pharmaceutical-grade opiates
on the world market originated in Afghanistan. [2] This
amounts to an export value of about $4 billion, with a quarter being earned by
opium farmers and the rest going to district officials, insurgents, warlords,
and drug traffickers. [3] In
the seven years (1994–2000) prior to a Taliban opium ban, the Afghan farmers'
share of gross income from opium was divided among 200,000 families. [4] In
addition to opiates,
Afghanistan is also the largest producer of cannabis (mostly
as hashish) in the world.[5][6]
Hoe is
het te verklaren dat de westerse mainstream journalistiek, de ‘Europa-deskundigen,’
de ‘Amerika-deskundigen,’
de westerse opiniemakers en de westerse politici hier geen serieus onderzoek
naar doen? Hoe komt het dat een land met ‘voortreffelijke
informatiesystemen’ en ‘briljante strategen en politieke analisten’ hun
vijanden bewapenen? En vanwaar de ‘conspiracy of silence’?
UN: Afghan opium poppy cultivation up
18 percent
By HEIDI VOGT | Associated
Press – Tue, Nov 20, 2012 10:18 AM EST
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) —
Afghan efforts to stamp out opium poppy cultivation are failing because of high
prices for the illicit crop, pushing farmers to grow 18 percent more in 2012
than last year, the U.N. said in a report released Tuesday.
Afghanistan is the world's
largest producer of opium, the raw ingredient in heroin, providing about 80
percent of the global crop. Crop sales fund insurgents and criminal gangs in
Afghanistan, making it difficult for the Afghan government to establish control
in areas where the economy is driven by black-market opium sales.
Farmers planted 154,000
hectares of opium poppy in 2011, up from the 131,000 in 2011.
‘An increase of 18 percent is a
serious alarm signal. It is a wakeup call,’
said Jean-Luc Lemahieu, head of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime in
Afghanistan, which prepared the report along with the Afghan Counternarcotics
Ministry.
Het mag
dan wel een ‘serious alarm signal’ zijn voor drugsbestrijders, maar geenszins
voor de NAVO die de uitgestrekte papavervelden niet bombardeert met het brandbare napalm of met een ontbladeringsmiddel
zoals de Amerikanen in Vietnam op grote schaal deden, of met herbiciden zoals ze nu nog steeds doen met de
coca-velden in Zuid Amerika. Waarom treedt men niet op? Sinds de illegale
Amerikaanse en Britse inval in 2001 is volgens de United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) de productie van
opium in Afghanistan van 185 ton omhoog geschoten naar 5800 ton in 2011, een
bijna verdertigvoudiging, terwijl het land doorkruist wordt door westerse
militairen en Nederlandse instructeurs er de politie opleiden. Ondertussen bericht
het UNODC al jarenlang dat:
the
Taliban and other anti-government forces are making massive amounts of money
from the drug business. In Afghanistan, authorities impose a charge (called
ushr) on economic activity, traditionally set at 10% of income. Opium farming
may have generated $50-$70 million of such income in 2008. Furthermore, levies
imposed on opium processing and trafficking may have raised an additional
$200-$400 million. 'With so much drug-related revenue, it is not
surprising that the insurgents' war machine has proven so resilient, despite
the heavy pounding by Afghan and allied forces', said the Executive
Director of UNODC, Antonio Maria Costa.
Dit feit is onomstreden en wordt door zowel
Amerikaanse generals, de CIA, de DEA als Amerikaanse Congresleden keer op keer
gemeld. Desondanks ondernemen de NAVO onder leiding van de Amerikaanse
strijdkrachten niets hiertegen. Sterker nog:
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army
has investigated 56 soldiers in Afghanistan on suspicion of using or
distributing heroin, morphine or other opiates during 2010 and 2011, newly
obtained data shows. Eight soldiers died of drug overdoses during that time.
While the cases represent
just a slice of possible drug use by U.S. troops in Afghanistan, they provide a
somber snapshot of the illicit trade in the war zone, including young Afghans
peddling heroin, soldiers dying after mixing cocktails of opiates, troops
stealing from medical bags and Afghan soldiers and police dealing drugs to
their U.S. comrades.
In a country awash with poppy
fields that provide up to 90 percent of the world’s opium, the U.S. military
struggles to keep an eye on its far-flung troops and monitor for substance
abuse. Photos of U.S. and Afghan Troops Patrolling Poppy Fields June 2012 http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=104886
Hier
herhaalt de geschiedenis zich. Vietnam
revisited.
The
Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia
From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
The
Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia is a major,
nonfiction book on heroin
trafficking—specifically in Southeast Asia from
before World War II up to (and including)
the Vietnam War. Published in 1972, the
book was the product of eighteen months of research and at least one trip
to Laos by Alfred W. McCoy [1] who
was the principal author and who wrote Politics of Heroin while seeking a PhD in
Southeast Asian history at Yale University.
Cathleen B. Read, co-author and graduate student, also spent time there during
the war…
Thesis
Its most groundbreaking
feature was its documentation of CIA complicity and aid to the Southeast Asian opium/heroin
trade; along with McCoy's Congressional
testimony, its initially controversial thesis has gained a degree of mainstream
acceptance. The central idea is that at the time, the vast majority of heroin produced was produced
in the Golden Triangle, from
which: ‘It is transported in the
planes, vehicles, and other conveyances supplied by the United
States. The
profit from the trade has been going into the pockets of some of our best
friends in Southeast Asia. The charge concludes with the statement that
the traffic is being carried on with the indifference if not the closed-eye
compliance of some American officials and there is no likelihood of its being
shut down in the foreseeable future.’ [2] Air America,
which was covertly owned and operated by the CIA, was used for this transport,
in particular. At the same time, the heroin supply was partly responsible
for the parlous state of US Army morale in Vietnam: ‘By mid 1971 Army medical officers
were estimating that about 10 to 15 per cent... of the lower ranking enlisted
men serving in Vietnam were heroin users.’
[3]
Having interviewed Maurice Belleux,
former head of the French SDECE intelligence
agency, Mc Coy also uncovered parts of the French Connection scheme,
as the French military agency had financed all of its covert operations, during
the First Indochina War, from
its control of the Indochina drug trade. [4]
De Amerikaanse regeringen worden al langere
tijd door betrouwbare bronnen ervan beschuldigd betrokken te zijn (geweest) bij handel in drugs.
Manuel Antonio Noriega Moreno [2] […] born
February 11, 1934) is a former Panamanian
politician and soldier. He was military governor of Panama from 1983 to 1989. [3] In
the 1989 invasion of Panama by
the United States he was removed from power, captured, detained as a prisoner of war, and
flown to the United States. Noriega was tried on eight counts of drug
trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering in
April 1992. […]
Although
the relationship did not become contractual until 1967, Noriega worked with the
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
from the late 1950s until the 1980s. [9] In
1988 grand juries in Tampa and Miami indicted him on U.S. federal drug charges.
[10][11]
The
1988 Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations
concluded: ‘The
saga of Panama's General Manuel Antonio Noriega represents one of the most
serious foreign policy failures for the United States. Throughout the 1970s and
the 1980s, Noriega was able to manipulate U.S. policy toward his country, while
skillfully accumulating near-absolute power in Panama. It is clear that each
U.S. government agency which had a relationship with Noriega turned a blind eye
to his corruption and drug dealing, even as he was emerging as a key player on
behalf of the Medellín Cartel (a member of which was notorious Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar).’ Noriega was allowed to establish ‘the hemisphere's first "narcokleptocracy’’.’ [12] One
of the large financial institutions that he was able to use to launder money
was the Bank of Credit and Commerce
International (BCCI), which was shut down at the
end of the Cold War by the FBI. Noriega shared his cell
with ex-BCCI executives
in the facility known as ‘Club
Fed’.
In the
1988 U.S. presidential election, Democratic
candidate Michael Dukakis
highlighted this history in a campaign commercial attacking his opponent, Vice
President (and former CIA
Director) George H. W. Bush, for
his close relationship with ‘Panamanian
drug lord Noriega.’ [13]
Vanaf het begin heeft de CIA, met
medeweten van Amerikaanse presidenten,
overal ter wereld illegale activiteiten ondernomen, zoals gedocumenteerd
wordt aangetoond in onder andere het vuistdikke boek van New York Times-
journalist Tim Weiner, getiteld: Een Spoor van Vernieling. De Geschiedenis
van de CIA, en William Blum's Rogue State. De Amerikaanse interventies varieerden van het ten val brengen van democratisch
gekozen regeringen in Afrika, Azie en het Amerikaanse continent tot het
verkopen van wapens aan het fundamentalistische bewind in Iran om met de
opbrengsten ervan terroristische aanslagen van de Nicaraguaanse Contra’s financieel
te steunen, dit laatste in strijd met het expliciete verbod van het Amerikaanse
Congres, maar met goedkeuring van president Reagan. Gezien deze achtergrond kan
het niet verbazingwekkend zijn dat Washington de Afghaanse papavervelden met
rust laat en daarmee de wapenaankopen van de Taliban laat financieren, en wel omdat het
militair industrieel complex daar baat bij heeft. Deze zinloze oorlog moet op
de een of andere manier worden gelegitimeerd tegenover de bevolking
die dan ook niet massaal protesteert tegen de gigantische geldverspilling van het militair industrieel complex, dat 58 procent van de ‘discretionary federal budget’ krijgt in verband met de zogeheten ‘National
Security.’ Niet alleen spelen er grote financiele belangen,
maar ook de carrierebelangen van beroeps militairen, en hoge ambtenaren die
al zovele jaren de touwtjes in handen hebben. En zolang de commerciele media
direct of indirect betrokken zijn bij het behartigen van de belangen van de rijken spelen die de
propagandistische rol die hen is toebedeeld. Na een dipje in het begin van de
jaren negentig toen de Russen geen vijand meer wensten te zijn van het Westen
zijn desondanks de Amerikaanse militaire uitgaven sterk gestegen, het afgelopen decennium
zijn ze bijna verdubbeld. Daarnaast is de VS veruit de grootste wapenverkoper
ter wereld.
Global military expenditure stands at
over $1.7 trillion in annual expenditure at current prices for 2011
(or $1.63 trillion dollars at constant 2010 prices), and has been rising in
recent years.
Voor het
machtige militair industrieel complex is oorlog en de dreiging ermee uiterst
lucratief. Daarentegen verdient het niets aan vrede, zoals de cijfers duidelijk
maken:
Spending For Peace Vs Spending For War
In a similar report from 2004, the SIPRI
authors also noted that, ‘There
is a large gap between what countries are prepared to allocate for military
means to provide security and maintain their global and regional power status,
on the one hand, and to alleviate poverty and promote economic development, on
the other.’
Indeed,
compare the military spending with the entire budget of the United Nations:
The
United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $30 billion each
year, or about $4 for each of the world’s inhabitants. This is a very small sum
compared to most government budgets and it is less than three percent of the
world’s military spending. Yet for nearly two decades, the UN has faced
financial difficulties and it has been forced to cut back on important programs
in all areas, even as new mandates have arisen. Many member states have not
paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN’s voluntary funds.
As of December 31, 2010, members’ arrears to the Regular Budget topped $348
million, of which the US owed 80%.
The UN
was created after World War II with leading efforts by the United States and
key allies.
The UN was set up to be committed to preserving peace through international
cooperation and collective security.
Yet, the UN’s entire budget is just a tiny fraction of the world’s military
expenditure, approximately 1.8%
While the UN is not perfect and has many
internal issues that need addressing, it is
revealing that the world can spend so much on their military but contribute so
little to the goals of global
security, international cooperation and peace.
As well as the above links, for more
about the United Nations, see the following:
This web
site’s section on the United Nations and Development looks
at its role in fighting poverty and other issues, plus some of the problems it
faces.
Maar ondanks al dit Amerikaans geweld blijkt het
imperium niet in staat te zijn de hegemonie te handhaven. De Amerikaanse Emily
S. Rosenberg, hoogleraar Geschiedenis aan de University of California, schrijft
in haar essay Consuming the American Century daarover:
Rather
than creating an ‘immense
American internationalism,’ however, the American Century radiated into a
globalized culture of consumption, in which an alluring variety of consumer
products and entertainments served ultimately to undermine the hallmark of the
American Century and ultimately became its undoing.
Om te begrijpen waarom dit zo is dient men
allereerst beschrijven hoe dit systeem tot stand is gekomen. Professor
Rosenberg:
U.S.
productive capacity became so vast by the 1890s that, when a global economic
contraction sent the domestic economy into a decline, business groups,
politricans, and journalists all agreed that overproduction (not a scarcity of
goods) was emerging as the major problem of the age. Abundance had become a
burden of sorts; easing that burden required the opening of new markets. U.S.
exporters and politicians became preoccupied with finding new buyers abroad, so
much so that the allure of potential foreign markets shaped U.S. foreign policy
at the turn of the twentieth century.
Meer daarover morgen.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten