The Poison From Afghanistan 88


Foreign policy is a nexus of issues and relationships.. Once you get an important issue seriously wrong, it has ramifications across the whole. A seriously misguided enterprise like the occupation of Afghanistan spreads its poison across whole areas of foreign policy.

Only one such consequence, but a very bad one, is British support for the Karimov regime in Uzbekistan, and other Central Asian dictatorships. This is based on our “need” for Uzbekistan as a transit route for supplies to Afghanistan.

I had already noted the extraordinary enthusiasm of the current British Ambassador for promoting the Uzbek regime and apologising for past “misunderstandings” over Uzbekistan’s political system.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/04/britain_boosts.html

Now Joy is actively promoting Gulnara Karimova’s activities in the world of Fashion TV. That Chopard and Prado are shallow enough to be gulled by Gulnara’s billions is par for the course. For the British Ambassador to flank her at a press conference for her fashion show is unforgivable.

http://inteltrends.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/british-diplomats-toadying-to-uzbek-dictators-daughter/

Note that the headline “British Diplomats Toadying to Uzbek Dictator’s Daughter” was written by Uzbeks, not by me.

The policy of backing dictators is in my view wrong in principle. But even in terms of realpolitik, it depends on a judgement of whether you believe extreme repression in Uzbekistan stops or increases the prospect of Islamic extremist violence. I think extreme regimes spawn violence and instability. The British government now has its money firmly on the dictator.

The real motivation is short term support for military occupation of Afghanistan. The Northern supply route, or “Northern Distribution Network” as the Pentagon calls it, is all important. I highly commend to you this extremely revealing report for the Center for Security and International Studies in the US.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4RNWN_enGB325GB325&q=CSIS+Center+for+Security

Now the CSIS are bought and paid for cheerleaders for the Karimov regime and unquestioning supporters of the war in Afghanistan. They are extremely well connected in Washington and have excellent sources. This paper is a fairly definitive guide to the State Department view of Central Asia – and nowadays the FCO view of Central Asia is what the State Department tells them it is.

The CSIS position is reflected, for example, in the characterisation of the Andijan massacre as an “uprising”. Human rights and democracy are never mentioned as factors in the discussion of US relations with Uzbekistan. But nonetheless the paper does make some highly revealing statements:

The NDN was designed to provide redundancy to this critical Pakistan supply line and to help handle the surge of supplies associated with an increase of 21,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2009 and, with the recent announcement by the Obama administration, an additional 30,000 troops in 2010. This obvious need and vulnerability has placed the United States’ Afghanistan war resupply squarely in the hands of other nations….

The first misunderstanding concerned priorities and expectations. In the authoritarian regimes of Central Asia, the elite’s top national priority?”its overriding policy consideration?”is to maintain its hold on power. Additional considerations can and do exist, but they are necessarily secondary in the absence of democratic mechanisms for the orderly transfer of power. An attendant expectation is that international cooperation should strengthen the regime’s hold on power. At the very least, it cannot under any circumstances weaken it….

Crony capitalism and the enmeshment of ruling dynasties in moneymaking schemes mean that commercial shippers servicing the NDN are almost certain to be woven into the dense nexus of personal and state interests that characterize post-Soviet business.

This last is a very interesting admission. I have reported previously that Gulnara Karimova is making hundreds of millions of dollars from Pentagon supply contracts. Here you see it admitted, with a slight cover of academic coyness.

The core funding for the CSIS project is from Carnegie, and one of the authors, Andrew Kuchins, is a former director of the Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The CEIP this summer published a paper on much the same subject “written” by a certain “Professor” Gulnara Islamovna Karimova. Strangely Carnegie did not mention that she was the dictator’s daughter. The article in Gulnara’s name discusses supply to Afghanistan without mentioning her personal commercial interest in it. Yet again an example of the respectability the Washington establishment is trying to confer upon the Karimovs.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=41422&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+carnegie/afghanistan+%28DC+-+Region+-+Afghanistan%29

I gather that a visit by Hillary to visit Karimov is planned before the end of the year.


88 thoughts on “The Poison From Afghanistan

1 2 3
  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    Angrysober,

    You are in correct arena necessary to understand the ‘war on terror’ and understand the power of deception, although to me you are stuck on a periphery of naivety.

    You are correct in saying, ‘the US was most worried about at this time was the possibility that the Soviet Empire would expand through Afghanistan and Iran down to the Persian Gulf,’ – at the time British intelligence *was* worried about

    the Soviet Union’s empowerment and penetration, the UK were more worried about a disruption in Iran’s oil supply to the west and it was Khomeini in Paris, just before the Revolution, who gave the necessary guarantees before returning to Iran with the blessing of Jimmy Carter.

    Brzezinski, Kissinger, McCloy and others had already formulated a secret plan where the Shah was condemned in public for human rights abuses and the Muslim brotherhood of Islamic fundamentalist under Khomeini would be used to push Iran into revolution keeping Russia on the sidelines. The shrewd Khomeini however was quick to try and consolidate Iranian oil by taking steps to market independently; he also attempted to bring Iranian assets in America back into Iranian banks.

    Even though Britain helped Khomeini into power there was always a fall-back to be used if the deal went bad and money or energy supplies to the West were threatened. This ‘backup’ took the form of a plot in much the same ‘modus operandi’ as in recent times, to infiltrate the enemy and convince them to bomb or attack the American embassy (terror is a convincing weapon) in Iran. Included in this sinister ploy was the desire to cement a relationship with bad man Saddam (keen to land grab) to attack Iran. This event forced up the price of oil so that third world countries were forced to borrow heavily from British and US banks at increased interest rates which in turn led to the 1980’s debt crisis and ensured Western control over the developing worlds. Easy! Bullets, bombs, deception and money equals POWER – GETIT?

    It was the old imperial tactic of divide and conquer: pit the people against each other so that they cannot join forces against the imperial power. This violence and radical Islamism would further provide the pretext for which the US and its imperial allies could then engage in war and occupation within the region, all the while securing its vast economic and strategic interests.

    We must of course realise the situation today is really an extension of the original Kissinger et al. plan, through 1986 when the CIA backed the Pakistani ISI to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad.

    Subsequently more than 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by MI6, with the SAS training future al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. Interestingly, Robert Gates, who previously served as assistant to Brzezinski in the National Security Council, stayed on in the Reagan-Bush administration as executive assistant to CIA director Casey, and who is now currently the anchor man in the Obama administration.

    The greatest enemy of the truth is not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest but the myth persistent, pervasive, and unrealistic.

    JF Kennedy

    With enormous thanks to Robin Cook (PBUH) for enlightening me.

  • technicolour

    “Still, that’s scary enough, if you’re any kind of activist”

    and

    “It is just as scary for those who aren’t activists”

    So scaremongering’s generally working, then?

    PS (from another thread) Loved the fact that Alfred’s reasons for the UK remaining armed to the teeth included those dastardly Irish, notorious for their invading of other nations and the seizure of their assets.*

    * sarcasm

  • Alfred

    “Loved the fact that Alfred’s reasons for the UK remaining armed to the teeth”

    Techie, are you are incorrigibly prejudiced, engaging in smear tactics or just the victim of a reading disability?

    If you having difficulty in reading accurately take a look for the quote that you think would justify your derisive comment and check it out carefully.

    If you still have difficulty with it, quote it explicitly and I will point out how you have confused a sequence of questions, each followed by a question mark, for a set of assertions.

    However, if you think that national defense policy can be wisely determined merely off the top of your head, then there is no point in saying anything. That is to say, no point in you saying anything.

    Suhayl, I understand that there is nothing useful to note in the remarks of trolls. However, it is sometimes a little discouraging to be repeatedly called a moron or a loser (not to mention a militarist, fascist, etc.) and it seems worth noting that those who do this never seem to have an argument (That I suppose is what chiefly identifies a troll). So although I no doubt appear at times to be a moron and a loser, it is good to remember that one is not such a moron and a loser as the trolls.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Alfred, wrt trolls, I know. They provoke people into responding with a view to diverting and toxifying the discourse. Definitely, it is good to remember that. That is partly why I – and I’m sure others – try, where appropriate, to say often to fellow-bloggers: “Good post: Well said!” Even if I might disagree with other aspects of what they might say at various times. It exemplifies the good faith in which most people post/argue/live.

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    CYBER ATTACKS – Now a tier ONE threat

    No cyber-attack would ‘take down’ an aircraft carrier’s computer systems such as the Integrated Communications System or Missile Control Systems.

    The government’s (Agent Cameron’s) propaganda relates to and obfuscates the use of an ‘Internet kill switch’ to be used under emergency powers.

    Your Internet *will* be blocked if you allow the law to be changed (i.e. sit on your butt and do nothing).

    —————-

    7/7 inquiry as I predicted here, has now focused on the extended time taken for emergency services to reach survivors.

    DO NOT BLAME the emergency services for like NORAD they assumed an *exercise* was taking place – which it was…

    wasn’t it? or maybe a fall-back.

    btw – a reliable witness noted the bomb-squad were in position at 7:45 am – on the morning of 7th July 2005 – most peculiar, oh sorry part of ‘the exercise’ I guess.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Mark, re. the FEAR-THREAT-MONSTER phenomenon, yes indeed. And also what they imagine will be an excellent diversion from the fact that a large proportion of population are about to lose their jobs and homes.

    The Militarised-Piratised City, the Cameron-Clegg-Milliband ‘worm’, the metastatic cancer of transnational corporate capitalism and the constant engendering of fear are the first, second, third and fourth major threats to the security of the people of Britain.

    I propose that the British people set up a National Security Agency to deal directly with these four threats.

  • Ruth

    Mark,

    Do you believe it was Reed Elsevier who commissioned the practice drill?

    It seems quite strange that it has taken so long to come out

  • Courtenay Barnett

    @ All

    Consider a family, minus Dad, who is rushing home late on a London train. A boyhood friend, named Alfred, has just flown in from Canada, and all have started dinner without Dad, knowing that soon he will be joining them. There is a drone overhead, it is being remotely controlled. It sights the home, the target is fixed as it is believed that it is a sanctuary for terrorists. The strike is made and the entire family is killed as well as Alfred.

    Dad arrives about 20 minutes too late, to see his dead family and the remains of his good friend, Alfred.

    Hypothetical? Yes. Except for the operative human feelings that would fill the heart and mind of any human subjected to such an experience of loss by way of “collateral damage”.**

    Realistic? Consider drone attacks in Afghanistan and the intensified strikes in Western Pakistan.

    Some are working monocausal models emanating from a terrorist attack of 9/11 or 7/7 giving just cause to promote these so-called “wars on terror”. Yet there is this schema for war which continues to deploy large numbers of soldiers into invaded countries, and there is assumed to be some rationality and functionality for the deployments. When the specific target can’t be found, there is no definition of what will constitute victory, there is no trajectory for withdrawal with a popular government enjoying the people’s support being left in place, then the victims of 9/11 and 7/7 increasingly appear not as revenging victims, but progenitors of the very “terror” they are professing to be fighting.

    “PS (from another thread) Loved the fact that Alfred’s reasons for the UK remaining armed to the teeth included those dastardly Irish, notorious for their invading of other nations and the seizure of their assets.*”

    * sarcasm

    ** attempted double sarcasm ?” as the US General said to the Afghans “The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it’s still on the list.”

  • angrysoba

    Mark Golding,

    “You are in correct arena necessary to understand the ‘war on terror’ and understand the power of deception, although to me you are stuck on a periphery of naivety.”

    Well, you’re entitled to your opinion of course and I am mine and in my opinion you’re stuck in the capital city of Absurdistan, Conspiraville.

    I find these analyses of yours to be to be attempts to explain history as if everything had been ordained in some smoke-filled backroom. Just because Khomeini took over Iran doesn’t mean it was the plan all along.

    This is completely crazy. No one is this omnipotent. If they were they wouldn’t resort to such incoherent tactics the rest of the time:

    “Even though Britain helped Khomeini into power there was always a fall-back to be used if the deal went bad and money or energy supplies to the West were threatened. This ‘backup’ took the form of a plot in much the same ‘modus operandi’ as in recent times, to infiltrate the enemy and convince them to bomb or attack the American embassy (terror is a convincing weapon) in Iran. Included in this sinister ploy was the desire to cement a relationship with bad man Saddam (keen to land grab) to attack Iran. This event forced up the price of oil so that third world countries were forced to borrow heavily from British and US banks at increased interest rates which in turn led to the 1980’s debt crisis and ensured Western control over the developing worlds. Easy! Bullets, bombs, deception and money equals POWER – GETIT?”

    The Iranian Revolution, particularly its Islamic side of it set in motion competely unforeseen events. But you think that was all part of the plan too.

    “It was the old imperial tactic of divide and conquer: pit the people against each other so that they cannot join forces against the imperial power. This violence and radical Islamism would further provide the pretext for which the US and its imperial allies could then engage in war and occupation within the region, all the while securing its vast economic and strategic interests.”

    No way! It wasn’t just the US embassy in Teheran that was captured (although the hostage crisis helped lead to the downfall of the Carter administration suggesting it was a dumb own goal by Brzezinski and Gates if you are implying they forced it to happen), the US embassies in Pakistan and Lybia were also seiged and burnt down, the US ambassador in Afghanistan was killed and a radical group of Islamists believing they were following the Mahdi took over the Grand Mosque at Mecca.

    Events are not always caused by a single actor controlling the world as you seem to suggest in your posts. Most of the time, the US doesn’t have as much control as you think it does.

    Besides, how was the US supposed to be controlling Great Teacher Taraki’s heavy-handed suppression of Islam in Afghanistan (Oh I know, Amin was the controlling force there and he was a CIA plant!)

    “We must of course realise the situation today is really an extension of the original Kissinger et al. plan, through 1986 when the CIA backed the Pakistani ISI to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad.”

    Well, I don’t see the benefit of this “plan”.

    Besides, as much as Kissinger has been behind some pretty bad stuff I don’t know what he has to do with Afghanistan.

  • glenn

    Hey Angry,

    While not replying for Mark, I’d like to make a reply. Just because all these fairly grim circumstances we happen to find ourselves in didn’t work out precisely (given the complications, added events etc. etc.) the way originally intended, doesn’t mean they were not initiated as a deliberate action.

    After all, anyone who (say) might have invaded Iraq on a total and well understood false pretext is not going to say, “Oh my! The game is up! It did work out at all… we’d better just come clean.”

    No, they’re going to say those dastardly, slippery Muslim terrorists are even worse than we’d thought, and we’re in even more danger, and we’ve got to do even more of what we wanted to do in the first place (such as hand taxpayer money to private contractors and other interests from which we and our paymasters benefit).

    In the meantime, as the pot is stirred (as it always is), there is much cash to be picked up by private arms suppliers, private military contractors, a confused public to frighten and draw to the right, and corrupt governments to install that ensure contracts that we favour are signed.

    *

    Thought you’d mentioned “Three cups of tea”, a most excellent book (and author) above, but actually you were mentioning Ghost Wars. That is highly worth reading too.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    It was I who mentioned ‘Three Cups of Tea’, by Greg Mortenson. It is a good read – I enjoyed it, too. However, the article critiques Mortenson’s work, and book, as in the end being supportive of the current dynamic wrt ‘Af-Pak’. Indeed, it points-out distortions in his presentation of the situation and also suggests that his very sincerity makes his role in this all the more effective.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/barker08102010.html

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    Angrysober,

    Did you watch BBC 4 last night on the plight of beaten and abused young girls trying to leave North Korea. The Durihana mission has managed to save 700 girls many with young disabled children.

    http://www.durihana.net/

    Billions of dollars of American aid go to North Korea and America remains reticent in supporting South Korean President Kim Dae Jung’s “sunshine policy” of engaging North Korea.

    America regards North Korea as a useful ‘demon’ – The North Korean “threat” is a key justification for U.S. military spending, the presence of U.S. troops in Asia, and a new theater missile defense system – or is that “capital city of Absurdistan, Conspiraville thinking?

    I don’t think so – but consider devoting some time in recognising the mission’s work instead of assuming I’m a ‘fruitcake’ eh?

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    Ruth,

    It was Reed and certain elements exist which when clearer I will post here.

    At the moment I can tell you there is a connection between Reed, Peter Power, John Major and Tom King.

    King left the House of Commons at the 2001 general election, and was made a life peer as Baron King of Bridgwater. He now sits in the House of Lords. He serves as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party’s Policy Group on National and International Security, which was set up by *David Cameron* in 2006.

    That is the back-drop for my 7/7 research which must be right or I too will be threatened with libel action.

  • angrysoba

    Mark: “Did you watch BBC 4 last night on the plight of beaten and abused young girls trying to leave North Korea. The Durihana mission has managed to save 700 girls many with young disabled children.”

    No, I hadn’t seen it but thanks for bringing it to my attention. A similar South Korean Christian mission that takes North Koreans out of China via Mongolia is mentioned in Barbara Demick’s book, Nothing To Envy. Definitely worth reading if you’re interested in the subject.

    “Billions of dollars of American aid go to North Korea and America remains reticent in supporting South Korean President Kim Dae Jung’s “sunshine policy” of engaging North Korea.”

    The “sunshine policy” is no longer the policy of South Korea. The Kims can’t maintain any legitimate rule by opening up to the South because it is in fact the North Korean regime which needs an external enemy to justify its Songun policy.

    “America regards North Korea as a useful ‘demon’ – The North Korean “threat” is a key justification for U.S. military spending, the presence of U.S. troops in Asia, and a new theater missile defense system – or is that “capital city of Absurdistan, Conspiraville thinking?”

    I believe the US have actually reduced the number of troops in South Korea by about 10,000 or more in the last few years.

    But it probably isn’t North Korea that could pose a threat in East Asia. Most countries in the region are getting a little worried about China these days.

    Even Vietnam now goes on naval maneuvres with the US.

  • ingo

    The soviet union would have fallen apart anyway, regardless of brezinskis input. Afghanistan was a catalyst of sort, speeding up the process.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Perhaps he’ll join the jolly boys at the Qulliam Institute – some of these types of people make shedloads of dosh (one way or another) from being Islamists and then make shedloads of money from renouncing it and becoming high profile terrorism experts. Myabe if a joiner were to renounce joinery as being the handiwork of the Devil… no, I don’t anyone would buy it! Or maybe Boy Jason will get a sweeties and a reduced prison sentence for agreeing to cooperate with the authorities in this way.

    Of course, it’s good that anyone abandons a pointless, ridiculous and violent ideology/ cult.

    Is that him with the ski-specs? Tosser.

    But I am suspicious of such Damascene conversions, for a number of reasons. All the more so, when the ‘recanter’ is in jail.

    Now I’m the cynical one, eh!

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Also, having read the statement a couple of times,it does seem very much like the sort of piece that the authorities would write (and get someone to sign) if they were trying to compile a set of arguments directed at the target audience against Islamism (not difficult, granted).

    It just seems too generalised, coherent and impersonal. To be frank, if someone presented one with this, saying that they actually composed it (as opposed to that they simply agreed with its contents), one would have difficulty believing that they were sincere. It’s too ‘textbook’, too low-key. It’s almost (in mood) third-person. Not a very good propaganda exercise, then. It’s not quite ‘Hanoi Hannah’; it’s as though it were penned by someone with the verve of John Major.

    Perhaps he’s trying to convince them that he’s reformed. He wouldn’t convince a fly with this document!

    They need to get some proper writers on-board, people who can inhabit and give voice to character, not functionaries who are able to produce the sort of bland mission statement one sees emanating from every orifice of corporatism, eg. think-tanks, etc.. No, I’m not offering my services!

  • Ruth

    Well I think now they don’t need so much of ‘Islamic terrorism’ anymore. It’s served its purpose. Iraq’s oil supplies have been secured guarded now by mercenaries and no doubt the oil flowing through covert pipelines into the pockets of the elite. Afghanistan is exactly where they want it – in turmoil. And here in the UK they’ve just left us with a facade of democracy.

    In France they seem to have better insight. “The vote is of no importance,” said Didier Caron, a 51-year-old Renault employee. “It’s the street. If the street works well, it could still win.”

    Perhaps, we could restore democracy through the streets.

  • dreoilin

    “they don’t take any BS in France”

    I wish we could import some of their passion. The Irish (almost all of them anyway) are sitting around grumbling about what’s been done to us by bankers/developers/policians — the latter a load of yobs, who might even get back into power, because of Civil War voting patterns that’ve been going on here for generations.

    Hi Tech! Greetings from Dublin.

  • Ishmael

    Afghanistan! Are we still there? We are all mad, we elect stupid people and expect good things.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.