ALLIANCE
44: October 3rd 2001
DOWN WITH USA IMPERIAL ATTEMPTS
TO CREATE A NEW WORLD WAR!
As we write this, war in some shape or form seems
very imminent now, to be directed against the peoples of Afghanistan:
"More than 50,000 troops and 400 aircraft have been assembled by the
US and Britain in countries within striking distance of Afghanistan, but
the likely shape and timing of any military action in the region remains
unclear. The Bush administration said the US had 29,000 troops and 349
military aircraft "in theatre". ….. More assets are on the way. The aircraft
carrier Kitty Hawk left Japan this week with a battle group to join the
operation code-named Enduring Freedom.. . . .Meanwhile, the US has built
up a considerable presence in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and elsewhere in the
Gulf. It has been deploying military assets to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan,
and long-range bombers to Diego Garcia, a British-owned US air base on
an Indian Ocean atoll……The UK build-up of 24,000 troops in Oman is virtually
complete. . . . US officials have also said US and British special forces
have been operating within Afghanistan. Defence experts think they would
have been conducting reconnaissance missions or "pathfinding" for future
possible landing of troops. Defence officials say the gathering of intelligence,
mostly by surveillance aircraft and satellites, is central to the operation,
given that a principal aim is to locate and destroy terrorist hideouts."
"US and UK amass 50,000 troops and 400 aircraft"; By Alexander Nicoll,
Defence Correspondent; "Financial Times"; October 2 2001. http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT30P2G2CSC&live=true&tagid=ZZZU2IUKJ0C&Collid=Any
What are Marxist-Leninists to do in the wake of these
events that mark a dangerous and new world situation? What do they mean?
1) The Events of September 11th
By now all conscious members of society will know of
the extraordinary events of September 11 2001. We briefly reprise them,
emphasising the timing of events. These events of the day began for the
world to see, when at:
"8.55 am local time a jet airliner crashes into the North Tower of
the World Trade Centre as thousands were arriving for work. The initial
blast opens a huge hole near the top of the 110 storey office block".
The Guardian Special report on Terrorism on the web at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,551275,00.html
The flight 767 from Boston had 92 people on board. Next:
"A second airliner crashes into the South Tower, causing a huge explosion.
People are trapped above the fires in both towers";
The Guardian Special report on Terrorism on the web at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,551275,00.html
That Boeing plane also from Boston, had 58 passenger
and 6 crew members. It was seen in video footing, to directly aim for the
tower – thereby refuting hopes that the first collision had been an ‘accident’.
By 0943 am, a third plane had:
"Crashed near to the Pentagon… A portion of one side of the five-sided
structure had collapsed."
The Guardian Special report on Terrorism on the web at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,551275,00.html
At 09.45 the White House was evacuated;
At 0945 am airspace was shut down in the USA; and all airports closed;
At 10.07 the South Tower of the WTC collapsed.
(The Guardian Special report on Terrorism on the web at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,551275,00.html
At 10.27 the North Tower collapsed.
The Guardian Special report on Terrorism on the web at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,551275,00.html
At 10.30 am:
"A Boeing 757 from New Jersey to San Francisco crashes about 120 km
South of Pittsburgh. There is concern about another plane en route from
Boston to Los Angeles"; The Guardian Special report on Terrorism on the
web at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,551275,00.html
Based upon transcripts of telephone calls on mobiles,
from individuals including air-crew to individuals on staff, it is known
that each of the planes appeared to be under the control of men brandishing
small pen knives and box-cutters. They mainly appeared to be of Middle
Eastern or eastern extract. It is currently estimated (3 October 2001)
that the death toll stands at between 3000 to 4000.
The attacks must be considered as ‘Individual
terrorism’, by Marxists-Leninists. Alliance has previously condemned
individual terrorism, and this follows the analysis of Lenin.
This was reviewed by the Communist League in 1975, and holds true to now.
The analysis can be found at: http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/CommunistLeague/CL-TERROR-1975.html
See also:
http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/ALL36-MARXONRUSSIA.HTM
It remains uncertain to this point, as to who was
responsible for this attack.
So far, no one has claimed responsibility for these
acts of individual terrorism that targeted in essence, ordinary men and
women who can be termed "innocent". Indeed the man who has been labeled
as the ‘prime suspect’ by the USA – Osama bin Laden - has
expressly denied responsibility for these attacks.
Osama bin Laden is well known to have been a creature
of the CIA.
Canadian Class Struggle has previously
condemned his brand of "Muslim Fundamentalism" [See:
http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/CCS/Ccs4-98.htm
]. Indeed there can be no support of "Fundamentalism" of any sort – whether
Muslim or Christian or Jewish [See:
http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/CommunistLeague/CL-Fundamentalism.htm]
In fact, even Muslim clerics condemn the attacks
on the WTC as having no Muslim religious foundations:
"Most of the Muslim Ulama have condemned these terror attacks. The
leaders of the Islamic Movements have also issued a statement which says,
"We have un-equivocally condemned the dastardly terrorist attack on establishments
in New York and Washington, whose victims belong to some forty countries
and major religions of the world. Islam upholds sanctity of human life
as the Qur'an declares that killing one innocent human being is like killing
the entire human race. The tragedy of the 11th September is a crime against
humanity and the Muslims all over the world mourn all victims of this aggression
as a common loss of America and the whole world." Cited in "Attack On World
Trade Centre And Its Implications"; by Asghar Ali Engineer; (Secular Perspective
October 1-15, 2001); Communalism Watch and Governance Monitor October 3,
2001; at: http://www.saccer.org
Osama bin Laden’s denials of involvement have not been
believed. During today’s current war fever being promulgated, jingoist
and racist attacks are being launched on individuals of colour and their
institutions in the West already. Irrespective of Osama bin Laden’s denials,
from the day of the attack the USA Government claimed these attacks emanate
from Osama Bin Laden and his organisation - the Al-Qa’edah. Even
the identities of the hijackers are still not fully known, though it appears
that 19 were involved. Early claims of their identity by the FBI, have
been discredited, since some of these individuals themselves are still
physically alive.
"Soon after the planes crashed, the public was told, all 19 hijackers
had been identified; many of them were linked; …. Within hours of the suicide
attacks, the FBI said it had made impressive progress… The FBI said it
had identified all 19 hijackers. The claims of the FBI to have firmly identified
each of them has been decisively refuted by men who have come forward to
state that they have been wrongly identified as "hijackers".
"The Investigation, by Chris Blackhurst; In "Independent on Sunday";
p. 13.
"Proof" of the assertions of George W. Bush,
is still not apparently convincing enough to share with the world. But
as long as 12 days after Bush alleged that Bin laden was to blame, the
UK newspaper, the Sunday Independent said in its editorial:
"Bush Has Not Yet Earned The Right To Lead Us To War": … The Independent
on Sunday seeks answers too, before the offensive begins. We await conclusive
evidence that Osama bin Laden was the architect of the appalling attacks
in new York and Washington, President Bush has described Bin Laden as :the
prime suspect", but he also promised to make public the evidence. … Where
is the evidence Mr. Bush?"
Editorial Comment; the Independent on Sunday; 23 September 2001; p.20.
It is true that by October 2nd, the USA government has
briefed heads of European states and other prominent officials including
NATO leaders of "evidence", but this "evidence" is shrouded
in secrecy:
"The US took a decisive step closer to an assault on Afghanistan on
Tuesday when it presented its NATO allies with evidence of Osama bin Laden's
involvement in the September 11 terror attacks, guaranteeing the alliance's
support.
For the first time in its 52-year history, NATO invoked article
5 of its treaty, obliging the alliance to give the US assistance
"for such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force".
The article states that an armed attack on one or more of the allies in
Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.
Each of the allies will assist the parties attacked.
The decision to invoke the article was made after the US had presented
to alliance members what they regarded as "incontrovertible" evidence that
the al-Qaeda network, headed by Mr bin Laden, was behind the terror attacks..
. . By producing evidence - still classified - US diplomats hoped to dispel
any lingering doubts over Mr bin Laden's involvement. "The facts are clear
and compelling," said Lord Robertson, NATO secretary-general."
Financial Times; "NATO sees evidence of bin Laden's involvement" By
Judy Dempsey in Brussels, Stephen Fidler in Washington and David White
in Brighton. Published: October 2 2001. http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT36S0U3CSC&live=true&tagid=ZZZU2IUKJ0C&Collid=Any
-
To repeated threats of invasion and being "bombed into
the stone age", the current leaders of Afghanistan have asked
for evidence of bin Laden’s involvement but this has been contemptuously
denied:
"The Taliban on Tuesday called for "peaceful negotiations" to end
the crisis and said it needed evidence against Mr bin Laden before it would
consider handing him over. But President George W. Bush and British prime
minister Tony Blair, Washington's closest ally, dismissed the move. Mr
Bush said there was no timetable for the Taliban to turn over Mr bin Laden
and destroy terrorist camps. "They must do so, otherwise there will be
a consequence. There are no negotiations. There's no calendar."
Financial Times; "NATO sees evidence of bin Laden's involvement" By
Judy Dempsey in Brussels, Stephen Fidler in Washington and David White
in Brighton. Published: October 2 2001. http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT36S0U3CSC&live=true&tagid=ZZZU2IUKJ0C&Collid=Any
Who really performed or allowed the WTC
bombings to happen, appears to be irrelevant as far as NATO is concerned
- at least as regards the current moves to war. But an inevitable question
arises for the world’s progressives:
3) Is There Any USA Complicity?
Even writers who wish to launch a military attack Bin
Laden and Afghanistan, such as Lord Ashdown of Norton-Sub-Hamdon
- the prospective High Representative to Bosnia - concede that the attack
was ill-conceived from the point of view of Al-Qu’edah:
"Al-Qu’edah has weaknesses. First they miscalculated. To put it brutally
they over did it. A lower level strike less carnage, above all else international
outrage would not have alienated even their natural supporters and avoided
the world-wide coalition of revulsion against them….. They acted prematurely.
Their own base Afghanistan is not yet secured. There are tensions between
them and the Taliban. And outright armed resistance in some parts of the
country. Above all they have not secured a fundamentalist state in Pakistan."P.Ashdown;
"To Win This War, America Must go beyond Frontlines and Headlines"; ; Independent
on Sunday; p. 21.
There are other somewhat strange features, that make
the standard "USA Today" and "Sun" explanations of the events as purely
due to ‘crazed Islamicists’ untenable.
Firstly it is remarkable that the third
plane – the one that later hit the Pentagon - was still air-borne one hour
after the other two planes that had been hi-jacked had actually hit the
WTC. The writer Jared Israel puts it this way:
"How could the so-called third airplane stay in the air, hijacked,
for almost an hour after two other hijacked planes had struck the WTC Towers,
and not be seen and intercepted but US air defence forces? How could it
fly to the Midwest, turn around and fly back to Washington, to the Pentagon
undisturbed";
Jared Israel: "Criminal Negligence or Treason?" Commentary on a New
York Times article posted on 15September 2001; at: http://www.emperors-clothes.com
As Jared Israel points out, the New York Times article
makes it quite clear that for a full hour after the WTC airliner collisions,
the police, the military and the air traffic control were quite aware that
the plane had been taken over and anticipated the worst. (Original article
by Matthew L.Ward September 15th; 2001; New York Times.
Secondly: It is remarkable that in
the midst of the conflagration that the WTC became, an intact "passport"
should be "found" - a Middle Eastern suspect, with supposed links to bin
Laden. This has not by the way, been releases.
Thirdly: There are remarkable claims,
that the suspects have left letters from Osama bin Laden invoking them
to have faith in their missions – to be found by the police after the attack.
This makes little sense. If Osama bin Laden did not wish to remain un-detected,
why should he not claim responsibility and explain
their attacks? In previous attacks they accepted responsibiity.
-
Fourthly: there has been no concrete evidences
released for public consumption. Today, October 4th the Globe
and Mail reports further on the ‘secret’ evidence linking
bin Laden with the attacks. But these are somewhat sparse and flimsy "evidences".
Which is why perhaps that they are not being made widely and fully available.
Finally: In any case, a larger issue
is raised for those familiar with the machinations of USA imperialism.
For those who are not familiar, we suggest they follow some of the articles
and evidences provided herein.
It must be asked, "Who gains by the attacks?"(Apart
from Israel):
and "Did the CIA know what was taking place"?
Whether or not the members of the bin Ladin organisation
were indeed the hijackers, and carried out the attacks, it is certainly
far from certain that the USA authorities were unaware of what was liable
to be happening shortly. A clear instance in recent times of how terrorist
acts have been sanctioned by arms of the USA government lies in the "Lockerbie"
PanAm air disaster. [See http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/MLRB/MLRB6-Lockerbie.htm]
It will be argued by some that it is "impossible"
that the USA government would have placed its’ own population at risk.
We argue to these honest and well meaning persons
that they should wake up. Lockerbie is just one instance where they were
prepared to do just that. Perhaps more relevant and telling in the current
climate that is moving to a new world war, are even larger events – Pearl
Harbour and Nagasaki – the beginning and the
end of the Second World War.
Here much more seriously than in the NYC WTC disaster,
ruling class American interests dictated the slaughter of thousands if
not millions of "innocents".
4) The Previous (Second) World War – Two
Key Deceptions of USA Imperialism
Pearl Harbour – December 7, 1941:
It is interesting that several commentators have described
the events of September 11th as a "Pearl Harbour":
"This week everyone has been comparing Tuesday's events to Pearl Harbour":
"Wake-up call to a daydreaming country"; Commentary from The New York Times;
Special report: Terrorism in the US; Frank Rich; Guardian; Monday September
17, 2001. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4258457,00.html
In general these commentators mean to say that there
is a clear reason and adequate grounds, for the ‘peace-loving’ USA to go
to war. But the reality is that the debacle of Pearl Harbour was planned
by a calculating President Franklin D. Roosevelt in order
to ‘jolt’ the American people into an acceptance of war. For Roosevelt
had promised during the campaign for his third term that: "Your boys are
not going to be sent into any foreign wars".
The evidence for this interpretation of events,
is overwhelming and has been recently further compiled by Robert
D.Sinnett – who served in the US Navy from 1942-1946, winning ‘ten
battle stars and a ‘Presidential Unit Citation’. Hardly a pinko-Pacifist
it seems. [See "Day of Deceit – The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbour";
2000; New York]. It appears that:
"a plan to provoke Japan into an overt act of war against the United
States … was written by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of
the Far east desk of the office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)":
Ibid; p. 6.
The eight component steps of this plan, as drawn up
by McCollum, would ensure:
Provoking of Japan into attack;
ensure that the Pacific Fleet would be left in a
vulnerable position in Hawaiian waters;
and obstruction of an adequate defence.
These steps could be accomplished by using very
good USA counter-Intelligence against Japan, which ensured that all Japanese
diplomatic traffic (under the rubric ‘purple’) and military intelligence
(under the rubric ‘Kaigun Ango’) [Ibid; p. 21].was decoded by the USA.
What were these steps?
"McCollum advocated eight actions that he predicted would
lead to a Japanese attack on the United States……. McCollum’s eight-action
memo was dated October 7th, 1940.. beginning the next day, with
FDR’s involvement, McCollum’s proposals were systematically put into effect.
Throughout 1941, it seems, provoking Japan into an overt act of war was
the principal policy that guided FDR’s actions toward Japan.";
Ibid; pp. 8; 9.
ii) Leaving a vulnerable force in Hawaiian waters.
Roosevelt first obstructed the Pacific Fleet’s evacuation
from the Hawaii Islands over the advice of Admiral Richardson in April
1940. This would in conjunction with other military build-up close to Japan
serve as a provocation. But it was essential to retard the transfer of
the main Pacific Fleet away from Hawaii, so that it could serve as "bait":
"Admiral Richardson planned to send the fleet back to the
West Coast. The fleet never returned. Washington slowly put the brakes
on and issued specious explanations for keeping the fleet in Hawaii. Under-secretary
of State Sumner Welles answered Richardson’s objections by
predicting a ‘diplomatic disaster’…. Richardson quoted the President as
saying:
‘Sooner or later the Japanese would commit an overt act against
the United States and that nation would be willing to enter the war"…
Admiral Richardson saw a disaster in the making. He was responsible for
69,000 sailors under his Pacific command";
p. 17; 11; 18; Ibid;
To make further sure that Richardson would not further
obstruct him, President Roosevelt relived him of his command. In his stead,
Roosevelt put Rear Admiral Husband Kimmel to head the Pacific Fleet, and
put Admiral Harold Stark as chief of Naval Operations. Richardson had called
them:
‘professionally negligent’ for kow-towing to FDR."
Ibid; p. 12.
iii) Refusing to Divulge Intelligence Reports of the Japanese Fleet’s
Impending Attack
The Japanese Consulate in Hawaii had a spy Ensign Yoshikawa,
code-named Morimura. All his actions were known both
to the FBI and the Naval Intelligence, who refused to divulge details to
the Naval Commanders of the Pacific Fleet:
"For over 50 years top FBI official have denied knowledge of Moimura/Yoshika's
activities prior to December 7 1941. Their denials are another major Pearl
harbor cover-up. Two dozen FBI and Navy documents dated before the attack
link Morimaru with espionage in Hawaii. According to these documents, senior
American Intelligence officials including the President, knew of Morimaru’s
espionage at the Honolulu consulate. His reports clearly pointed to Pearl
harbor as a prime target of Japanese military planners…………
Twenty-three days remained before the attack. Toward the end of the
period, Morimaru disclosed that Pearl Harbor was the target. Each report
leading to his final disclosure was flagged for American intelligence…
Five of America’s cryptographic stations in the Pacific region intercepted
the spy reports………
Washington intelligence officials.. intercepted the Japanese messages
but kept the information from Admirals Kimmel and General Short ….
Twice during the week of December 1-6, Morimoru indicated that Pearl
Harbour would be attacked. On Tuesday December 2nd, he stated
that the naval base was operating in a normal fashion and not on the alert.
His Saturday report was even more specific. Yet these fatal messages sat
un-examined by the men who need them – Admiral Kimmel and General Short";
p.95; p.109-110; 115.
Even as the Japanese fleet was sailing, naval intelligence
knew exactly what was happening since radio silence was not
being followed by the Japanese fleet. Yet it – and President Roosevelt
- did not alert the Pacific Fleet, or order any counter-action.
The Body Count?
2,400 – both military and "innocent" civilians.
Who pulled the trigger?
Japanese navy personnel.
Who allowed the USA citizens to be killed?
The USA President and his cronies of the ruling
class.
The tragedy of the atomic bomb drops on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki has been usually "excused" – with the words of President Truman:
"The dropping of the bomb stopped the war, saved millions of lives.";
Cited by Gar Alperowitz: "Atomic Diplomacy – Hiroshima and Potsdam.
The Use of the Atomic bomb and the American Confrontation with Soviet Power";
1985; New York; p.64; citing H.Truman "Year of Decisions"; p. 70-72; New
York; 1955;
This tragedy is much better understood by people. Most
understand that the pictures of children, and adults burning – are obscene
and that somehow a ‘blame’ attaches to the USA leaders for precipitating
these events. But the real truth is even more bitter than what most people
understand. As Eisenhower said:
"It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing";
General D.D.Eisenhower; Cited by Alperowitz; Ibid; p. 1.
As Churchill said:
"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled
by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell";
Cited Alperowitz; Ibid; p. 18.
Why did Eisenhower and Churchill say these things? Again
, is it necessary to point out that neither were exactly bleeding liberal
pink-o-s?
i) The imminence of Japanese Surrender
The USA had well understood already that the Japanese
militarists were searching actively for a way to surrender. The Official
US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that:
"certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability
prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic
bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and
even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."; Cited Alperowitz;
Ibid; p. 11.
Many sections of the military were in agreement and
found Truman’s insistence on the use of the bomb repugnant and military
nonsense – such as Admiral Leahy, and General Curtis
LeMay.
Messages from Japanese Foreign Minster Togo,
to the Soviet Union, asking to "terminate the war if possible by September"
– had been received by the USA.
Indeed, Secretary of the Navy Forrestal
described intercepted cable as:
"real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war… Forrestal
notes: "That Togo said further that the unconditional terms of the Allies
was about the only thing in the way of termination of war";
Cited Alperowitz; Ibid; p. 12.
Japanese officials had also approached the USA directly – via Allen
Dulles head of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).
Laterthe USA intercepted messages from Japan to Moscow, which showed that
the Emperor was urgently trying to arrange a cease-fire. (Alperowitz; Ibid;
pages 12-13).
ii) The Real USA Reason for the bomb- Warn off the USSR – Keep the
Far East ‘Theirs".
After the USA entered the war, they persistently sought
the USSR’s declaration of war on Japan. The USSR, was of course the victim
of the German aggression which was aided an abetted by the deliberate policy
of Western "appeasement" – intended to destroy the Soviet state. Nonetheless,
after the final Allied agreement against the German fascists, the USSR
was bearing the brunt. It could then ill afford to start a far eastern
front.
But by 1944, the USSR had steadily won its determined
fight on home ground against the fascist invasion. By May 21, 1945, Secretary
of State Stinson feared that a Russian drive through Manchuria
with:
"Russian entry would have a profound military effect";
Cited Alperowitz’ Ibid; p. 22.
The record of Truman's own diaries shows
that he wanted the USSR declaration of war against Japan even as late as
July 17th 1945. After his meeting with Stalin
– Truman wrote gleefully:
"Fini Japs when that comes about";
Cited Alperowitz; Ibid; p.24.
But by a few weeks alter, the morale of the Japanese
had so deteriorated that the "ally" USA, insisted that the Russians be
cut out of the Potsdam Proclamation – without Stalin’s signature.
As Churchill observed now:
"It is quite clear that the US does not at the present time desire
Russian participation in the war against Japan";
Cited Alperowitz; Ibid; p. 25.
By the agreement between the Allies, Russia was
due to enter the Far eastern war theatre by August 15th.
Hiroshima was bombed on August 6th
and Nagasaki on August 9th – pre-empting any USSR participation
in the liberation of the Far East. Instead of a liberation, the USA prepared
an annihilation totally of their own.
The body Count?
In Hiroshima within seconds – 40,000 people died;
In Nagasaki 70,000 people died.
The later deaths from famine, cancers etc are not included.
(See: Richard Overy: "Why the Allies Won"; New York; 1995; p.127.)
Some may say – this is old history.
However it vividly illustrates that the USA leadership
has been cynical enough to play with even its own citizens’ lives.
Thus whether the WTC tragedy has been another such
cynical card of the USA ruling class is not ruled out on the grounds of
impossibility.
But what of recent history – what has driven the
WTC tragedy? Even – if we are to assume that it has been committed by the
followers of bin Laden?
5) The More Recent Background To the WTC
Tragedy
Long Standing Terrorist state- The USA
Even some liberal journalists have pointed out – with
considerable opprobrium being directed against them for doing so - that
there are American roots in the tragedy at
the WTC:
"What a terrible person I am….. I am according to Janet Daley in the
Daily Telegraph a ‘salon terrorist; who is ‘excited’ by the attacks on
New York and Washington…… I hold two ideas simultaneously in my head, namely
that the recent terrorist attacks are horrifying, but that the double standard
of American governments may have inflamed the fanatical hatred that inspired
them";
Joan Smith: "Exposed! My Shameful Life as a ‘salon terrorist’; Independent
on Sunday; 23.09.2001.
But this view of the USA, is hardly any surprise
to those who have in any way followed the real news.
Here is a short break-down –
of the individual assassinations - sponsored by the USA and
its secret services, of heads of state or leaders of states around the
world.
This does not even list the wars sponsored
or initiated or continued by the USA. That is in a separate chapter of
a superb compendium of the USA recent "rogueries". This distillation of
the worst crimes of the USA imperialist warriors, is by William Blum
and is entitled "Rogue State – A Guide To the World’s Only Superpower",
Monroe Maine; ‘Common Courage Press’; 2000; ISBN 1-56751-195-5.
"The following is a list of prominent foreign individuals whose assassination
(or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since the
end of the Second World War. (CIA humorists have at times referred to this
type of operation as "suicide involuntarily administered", to be carried
out by the Agency's Health Alteration Committee.)
1949 Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950s CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of more than 200 political figures in West
Germany to be "put out of the way" in the event of a Soviet invasion 1950s
Zhou Enlai, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life
1950s,1963 Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1951 Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea
1950s (mid) Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1959 Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1960 Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
1950s-70s Jose Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his
life
1961 Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo
1961 Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960’s Fidel Castro, President Of Cuba, many attempts and plots on
his life
1960s Raul Castro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 Francisco Caamafio, Dominican Republic opposition leader
1965-6 Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 Salvador Allende, President of Chile
1970 Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s, 1981 General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1980-1986 Moammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts
upon his life
1982 Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran
1983 Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander
1983 Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate
1985 Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Leban Shiite leader
1991 Saddarn Hussein, leader of Iraq
1998 Osama bin Laden, leading Islamic militant
1999 Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia";
William Blum; "Rogue State"; 2000; p. 39-40.
It is farcical that the USA continues to deny these
events as State policy, even at senate committee level:
"The senate committee known as the Church Committee,
in its Assassination Report in 1975, said:
"The committee does not belive, that the acts [Of assassination] which
it has examined represented real American character. They do not reflect
the ideals which have given the people of this country and the world hope
for a better, fullf fairer life. We regard the assassination plots as aberrations.";
At the time the committee wrote this, it knew of about a dozen CIA assassination
plots and still could call them all aberrations."
Blum Ibid; p.40-41.
In fact the leaders of the USA state have long considered
themselves at war:
"I think we are already at war,: CIA director George Tenet told the
Senate in 1997. "We have already been on a war footing for a number f years
now";
Cited Blum Ibid; p.20. Washington Post; 9 Sep 1998; p.17.
There is a very real sense in which the USA aggressive
chickens are coming home to roost. We here mention just one – Palestine.
Callous Trading of Palestine National and Human Rights For
Imperialist Base in Israel:
A further much larger space would be required
to adequately document the travesty of USA world and UN injustice perpetuated
against the Palestinian peoples – as the agents of Western imperialism
the Israeli ruling class, simply terrorized and expropriated the Arabs.
Jewish colonial terror against the Arab dwellers was clear witted in its
goals – drive the Arab out. This lay behind the aims of the Irgun
(IZL- Irgun Zvai Leumi National Military Organisation) in its attacks on
Arabs including the massacre of 345 villagers in Deir Yassin on
10 April 1948.
That the blatant support for Israeli Terror – including
the facetious post-Oslo process of turning a ‘blind eye’ to continued Israeli
settlement of Arab lands in the West Bank and Gaza – fuels Arab resentment,
seems to have even become obvious to President Bush.
He recently voiced his most explicit support for
the creation of an independent Palestinian state, suggesting a shift in
the administration's approach towards the Middle East peace process. (Financial
Times; "Bush speaks up for a Palestinian state"; By Richard Wolffe in Washington
and Ralph Atkins in Jerusalem; October 2 2001. http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3B9IH1CSC&live=true&tagid=ZZZU2IUKJ0C&Collid=Any
We will not even here discuss the deaths of approximately
1 million Iraqi children caused by the callous sanctions
of the USA. Madeline Albright’s chilling comment:
"It was a difficult decision" – is put into perspective
by the eloquent Arundhati Roy in her article, "The algebra
of infinite justice". [Guardian September 29 2001; Saturday review page
1. Or at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4266289,00.html]
6) Why Is there Such a War Frenzy Now?
The fact is that under imperialist capital, the war
for markets spills over into physical war. This current situation is an
extension of the war of words for market shares that have been going on
for some time now between the USA led NAFTA and the EEC and the – now struggling
ASEAN blocks. Undoubtedly the current capitalist recession has been exacerbated
by the shock following September 11th. But also undoubtedly,
there were objective economic factors PRIOR to September
11th, that were pushing to economic recession. The collapse
of share prices is indicative of a huge over capacity in, especially, the
electronics and information technology industries.
It must be said that a world wide war has historically
been very convenient to ‘mop up’ excess capacity and to ward off recessions.
Anticipate big profits for the war related industries – once more. And
as Martin Wolf of the Financial Times points out:
Interestingly he also points out that the previous times
when the capitalist ideals were exposed so vividly, the forces of communism
were prepared. He rightly points out that today’s anti-globalization movement
is bereft of a correct leadership, it is "infantile":
"As Stephen Roach, the respected chief economist of Morgan Stanley,
noted in the FT last week, the global economic integration of the late
19th and early 20th centuries ended in the chaos of two wars
and an intervening great depression. But even before that, the rise of
an array of collectivist ideas - nationalism, imperialism, socialism, communism,
fascism and racism – had undermined belief in a liberal world economy.
. . (Today) anti-globalisation protesters supply the anti-liberal fervour;
financial markets provide the economic instability; and terrorists provide
the conflict. Add these three forces together and history is, conclude
the prophets of doom, set to repeat itself. The world is, some argue, waking
from a liberal dream of global harmony to the reality of chaos and conflict.
Yet this historical parallel is unpersuasive. The opposition movements
of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were rigorously thought out,
embodied in well organised political movements and supplied with apparently
coherent alternatives to liberalism, in protectionism, planning and state
ownership. By these standards the anti-globalisation movement of today
is infantile. It knows what it is against but offers no intellectually
coherent or politically organised alternative. Similarly, the financial
instability of the past decade bears no comparison with the great depression.
Nor is it likely to do so."
"How trade can help the world’ - The tragic events in America should
not be allowed to halt the development of a more integrated global economy’,
Martin Wolf.; Financial Times; October 2 2001. http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3065K1CSC&live=true&tagid=ZZZU2IUKJ0C&Collid=Any
It is very legitimate to ask, "If we really are in the
early throes of a new world war, who really are the forces ranged against
the USA and the UK?"
At this stage it is not fully clear to us at any
rate, but we hazard a guess that China is one of the USA
antagonists. Furthermore, it is clear that the UK – especially under Tony
Blair – is the Cheer-leader of the USA within the EEC. It is unlikely that
the other parts of the EEC will tolerate this situation for
evermore.
Whether or not the USA leadership is complicit in
the WTC tragedy, the actions of the September 11th are to be
condemned.
But furthermore, the USA drive to extract benefit
for its own super-power agenda of world domination – including a drive
for war - is to be condemned and vigorously opposed.
CONCLUSIONS:
One of those who assisted the Pearl Harbor debacle, justified his actions
later as follows:
"In his Oral History… (Rochefort) told a US Navy interviewer that the
carnage at Pearl Harbour on December 7th was a cheap price to
pay for the unification of America"; Stinnett R.B; "Day of
Deceit"; Ibid; p. 117.
A similar situation appears to hold today as we see
the Jingoist imperialist chauvinist Coalition being prepared by Bush in
a ‘crusade’.
A ‘Crusade’ against what?
Against anyone who dares to stand up against USA
imperialism is the answer.
DOWN WITH USA IMPERIALISM!
NOT TO IMPERIALIST WAR!
NO TO FURTHER SLAUGHTERS OF THE WORKERS AND PEASANTS OF
THE WORLD!
FOR UNITY AGAINST WAR!
Alliance Marxist-Leninist (North America); October 3rd 2001.