The Pakistan Connection, by Michael Meacher

What you are allowed to think and what you do think are two different things, aren't they? That's another way of saying that this forum may be NSFW, if your boss is a Republican. A liberal won't fire you for it, but they'll laugh at you in the break room and you may not get promoted. Unless you're an engineer, of course, in which your obsession with facing reality is not actually a career-disabling disability.

The Pakistan Connection, by Michael Meacher

Postby admin » Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:18 am

The Pakistan Connection
by Michael Meacher
July 21, 2004

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


There is evidence of foreign intelligence backing for the 9/11 hijackers. Why is the US government so keen to cover it up?

Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist militant, is waiting to be hanged in Pakistan for a murder he almost certainly didn't commit - of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002. Both the US government and Pearl's wife have since acknowledged that Sheikh was not responsible. Yet the Pakistani government is refusing to try other suspects newly implicated in Pearl's kidnap and murder for fear the evidence they produce in court might acquit Sheikh and reveal too much.

Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?

Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the U.S. demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?

Another person who must know a great deal about what led up to 9/11 is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, allegedly arrested in Rawalpindi on March 1, 2003. A joint Senate-House intelligence select committee inquiry in July 2003 stated: "KSM appears to be one of Bin Laden's most trusted lieutenants and was active in recruiting people to travel outside Afghanistan, including to the U.S., on behalf of Bin Laden." According to the report, the clear implication was that they would be engaged in planning terrorist-related activities.

The report was sent from the CIA to the FBI, but neither agency apparently recognised the significance of a Bin Laden lieutenant sending terrorists to the U.S. and asking them to establish contacts with colleagues already there. Yet the New York Times has since noted that "American officials said that KSM, once al-Qaida's top operational commander, personally executed Daniel Pearl ... but he was unlikely to be accused of the crime in an American criminal court because of the risk of divulging classified information". Indeed, he may never be brought to trial.

A fourth witness is Sibel Edmonds. She is a 33-year-old Turkish-American former FBI translator of intelligence, fluent in Farsi, the language spoken mainly in Iran and Afghanistan, who had top-secret security clearance. She tried to blow the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, but is now under two gagging orders that forbid her from testifying in court or mentioning the names of the people or the countries involved. She has been quoted as saying: "My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information ... if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] ... and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up".

Furthermore, the trial in the US of Zacharias Moussaoui (allegedly the 20th hijacker) is in danger of collapse apparently because of "the CIA's reluctance to allow key lieutenants of Osama bin Laden to testify at the trial". Two of the alleged conspirators have already been set free in Germany for the same reason.

The FBI, illegally, continues to refuse the release of their agent Robert Wright's 500-page manuscript Fatal Betrayals of the Intelligence Mission, and has even refused to turn the manuscript over to Senator Shelby, vice-chairman of the joint intelligence committee charged with investigating America's 9/11 intelligence failures. And the US government still refuses to declassify 28 secret pages of a recent report on 9/11.

It has been rumoured that Pearl was especially interested in any role played by the U.S. in training or backing the ISI. Daniel Ellsberg, the former US defence department whistleblower who has accompanied Edmonds in court, has stated: "It seems to me quite plausible that Pakistan was quite involved in this ... To say Pakistan is, to me, to say CIA because ... it's hard to say that the ISI knew something that the CIA had no knowledge of." Ahmed's close relations with the CIA would seem to confirm this. For years the CIA used the ISI as a conduit to pump billions of dollars into militant Islamist groups in Afghanistan, both before and after the Soviet invasion of 1979.

With CIA backing, the ISI has developed, since the early 1980s, into a parallel structure, a state within a state, with staff and informers estimated by some at 150,000. It wields enormous power over all aspects of government. The case of Ahmed confirms that parts of the ISI directly supported and financed al-Qaida, and it has long been established that the ISI has acted as go-between in intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA.

Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate select committee on intelligence, has said: "I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted, not just in financing ... by a sovereign foreign government." In that context, Horst Ehmke, former coordinator of the West German secret services, observed: "Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with four hijacked planes without the support of a secret service."

That might give meaning to the reaction on 9/11 of Richard Clarke, the White House counter-terrorism chief, when he saw the passenger lists later on the day itself: "I was stunned ... that there were al-Qaida operatives on board using names that the FBI knew were al-Qaida." It was just that, as Dale Watson, head of counter-terrorism at the FBI told him, the "CIA forgot to tell us about them".

· Michael Meacher is Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton. He was environment minister 1997-2003

massonm@parliament.uk
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Pakistan Connection , by Michael Meacher

Postby admin » Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:26 am

Al-Qaeda-Bilderberg Connection? FBI Linking Al-Qaeda Funds, Insider Trading Amongst Global Finance Elites and a Soured Texas Asset Buyout as Pakistani Prime Minister Under Investigation
by Aaron Dykes
June 2, 2007

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


As we reported yesterday, an FBI investigation led to charges for two high level Pakistani financiers on multiple counts of conspiracy and fraud. The FBI has announced it is now investigating further links to Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz , as well as Salman Shah, the Prime Minister's financial advisor, Ali Raza , the president of the National Bank of Pakistan and a significant list of other Pakistani financial heads.

The Times of India reported that FBI investigators believe the criminal operation may also be tied to allegations of money-laundering operations for Al Qaeda.

Image
Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, also former Chairman of Citigroup

Image
Pakistani Financial Advisor Salman Shah, also governor of World Bank of Pakistan

Image
Ali Raza, president of the National Bank of Pakistan

The alleged insider trading took place on knowledge of the TxU buyout , a largest-ever $45 billion leverage deal brokered by Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR) and Goldman Sachs, two key firms inside the Bilderberg group, who dominate the investment banking world, and are shown to be very closely linked.

Credit Suisse First Boston, who served as advisors on the TxU buyout and are also represented annually at Bilderberg, are named in the FBI insider trading case that has so far charged Hafiz Naseem, a Credit Suisse FB investment banker , with criminal counts of conspiracy and fraud.

Is there a link between elite Pakistani bankers who brokered the TxU leveraged buyout with Bilderberg firms KKR, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse and the alleged Pakistani role in a laundering scheme for Al-Qaeda?

Civil charges have been filed against Ajaz Rahim , the head of investment banking at Faysal Bank in Pakistan, on conspiracy and 25 counts of securities fraud.

The high levels of investigation are interesting-- given the close relationship with Western banking, as well as the pivotal role Pakistan plays in the intelligence community and the so-called War on Terror . Pakistan is well known for harboring Al Qaeda, though the government does not officially support the terrorist group.

It was from Pakistan that former ISI chief General Mahmud Ahmad wired $100,000 to supposed lead-hijacker Mohammad Atta , a known CIA-asset, to fund the 9/11 attacks. Of course, the ISI is largely an extension of the CIA and other western intelligence agencies, and works as base of operations for intelligence in the Middle East.

Image
Fmr. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski with Osama bin Laden, circa 1979.

Just north of Pakistan, Zbigniew Brzezinski funded, armed and created the Taliban-- headed by bin Laden-- to offset expected aggression by Soviet forces into Afghanistan in 1979 while Brzezinski was National Security Adviser to President Carter-- proving directly the U.S. link to bin Laden.

"I told the President, about six months before the Soviets entered Afghanistan, that in my judgment I thought they would be going into Afghanistan. And I decided then, and I recommended to the President, that we shouldn't be passive...We weren't passive," Brzezinski told CNN during a 1997 interview.

Brzezinski, of course, helped David Rockefeller found the Trilateral Commission, and is also involved in the Council on Foreign Relations, both of which bleed over into the Bilderberg group, all of which serve an agenda working towards world government.

When Osama bin Laden and his Taliban became a red herring in the War on Terror, they simply moved south to Pakistan, leaving American forces to seize control of Afghanistan (as well as its land, oil, Caspian trade route, and opium crop) while fighting a non-existent enemy. Despite the fact that the phony War on Terror is supposedly fought globally, neither American, Pakistani or U.N. troops have gone after the Taliban forces residing in Pakistan. The reason for this is not Pakistan's duplicity, but that the terrorist group was simply a pretense to control Afghanistan, as its governing forces were perhaps not as accessible as Rick Perry has been in selling out Texas.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has also been accessible to the globalists-- he is basically a controlled asset, after all. While he is currently under investigation in the related cases of insider trading over Texas asset deals and Al Qaeda money laundering operations, he was Citigroup's Chairman-- a New York-based investment group operating in the top echelon of the financial world. Aziz spent approximately 30 years with the company.

Citigroup, obviously well established in the banking web, has several Bilderberg ties, including notorious former chair Walter Bigelow Wriston (who transformed Citigroup into one of the biggest conglomerates in the world and also wrote a book called The Twilight of Sovereignty [1992]). Former Citigroup Chairman and CEO John S. Reed was a Bilderberg member as well and also Chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. A number of other top Citigroup executives are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, including CEO Charles Prince, former president & CEO Richard A. Freytag and Vice Chairman William R. Rhodes.

Citigroup grew out of the National City Bank of New York, which was built up by William Rockefeller , brother of John D. Rockefeller. William's grandson James Stillman Rockefeller also headed the bank and worked closely with Walter B. Wriston.

Dr. Salman Shah, financial advisor to the Prime Minister in Pakistan with Paul Wolfowitz in 2005. He also serves as the governor of the World Bank for Pakistan.

Prime Minister Aziz also publicized his relationship with the Carlyle Group and plans for Pakistani investment while attending the 2007 Davos meeting. According to this report:

On the second day of Davos, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told the group that the United States' very own Carlyle Group, which "manages $46.9 billion worldwide," is planning to invest several billion dollars in the Middle East.

Image
Salman Shah, financial advisor to the Prime Minister in Pakistan with Paul Wolfowitz in 2005. He also serves as the governor of the World Bank for Pakistan.

Aziz's attachments to Western banking go too deep for him to have any real separation from it; on the contrary, it surely those ties launched him into to the top of the Pakistani government.

The Prime Minister's financial advisor, Salman Shah, who is also under investigation, serves as the Governor of the World Bank for Pakistan , which he spoke to in 2004 , 2005 , 2006 (PDF links). He was educated in the United States and taught for many years at a number of Western institutions. He has also spoken at Credit Suisse First Boston conferences , the Bilderberg firm which advised the TxU merger. Haseem, who has been criminally charged in the case, worked for Credit Suisse FB.

Former Pakistani Prime Minister, Moin Qureshi, was Vice President at the World Bank prior to becoming PM and obtained permanent residence in the United States after his term where he established the Emerging Markets Company.

Image

Investigations probing top positions in Pakistani finance and government have implications for the world finance community at large, particularly as the investigations relate to trading on the TxU buyout-- which was nothing more than the leveraging of Texas assets by Bilderberg brokers, particularly Henry R. Kravis, founding partner of KKR who led the TxU deal. Kravis also holds the previous record for largest buyout-- the leveraging of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company at approximately $26 billion in 1988-- a price that came after a bidding war, which was dramatized in the film Barbarians at the Gate.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Pakistan Connection , by Michael Meacher

Postby admin » Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:30 am

Gov. Perry Summoned to Bilderberg While Insider Trading Charges Mount in Related Texas Buyout
Ron Paul: Bilderberg "a sign that he's very much involved in the international conspiracy" as Texas Governor off to Global Government Think Tank's Secret Meeting

by Aaron Dykes
May 31, 2007

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

Texas Governor Rick Perry's attendance at this year's Bilderberg meeting was reported today by the Dallas Morning News and confirmed by the Governor's Press Office as he left Austin for Istanbul-- where the exclusive and private meeting of elites from throughout the Western world will take place. The trip could be in violation of the Logan Act which prevents U.S. citizens from unauthorized negotiations with foreign entities.

While the agenda of the meeting is kept secret, the overlap in interests between Governor Perry and Bilderberg are clear, as Texas becomes increasingly overrun by international firms taking control over land, roads and newly privatized utilities-- seizing Texas in a manner similar to IMF takeover of third world nations.

Rick Perry has not only been instrumental in the contentious development of the Trans-Texas Corridor-- often argued to be necessary infrastructure for regional government under C.F.R. plans for a North American Community and the Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP.gov) signed by President Bush-- Rick Perry has also privatized TxU (Texas Utilities), handing it off to global investment firms and private control who are heavily involved in the Bilderberg group.

The $45 billion dollar TxU buyout is no less than the largest buyout ever, and involves at least three firms represented annually at Bilderberg, each characteristic of global investment-- Goldman Sachs, represented by its Chairman Peter D. Sutherland (also Chairman of British Petroleum [BP]), Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. (KKR) represented by Henry R. Kravis, founder and partner, and Credit Suisse First Boston represented by Chairman and CEO Ronald S. Lloyd.

Now, the biggest ever buyout is unfolding in scandal-- as Ajaz Rahim, head of investment banking at Saudi owned Faysal Bank in Pakistan, is criminally charged with conspiracy and securities fraud for insider trading based on information he received from Credit Suisse, who advised on the TxU deal.

Hafiz Muhammad Zubair Naseem, an investment banker with Credit Suisse Securities USA was also charged criminally with conspiracy and securities fraud earlier in the month.

Whether further charges could be forthcoming in the TxU insider trading scandal remains to be seen.



Governor Perry was involved in facilitating the TxU buyout, including the issuance of an executive order to instigate fast-track approval for TxU plant deals:

"Last year, after private meetings with TXU executives, Perry fast-tracked the permitting process for TXU's 11-plant expansion through an executive order, slashing the time frame in half, to six months...."

"The bottom line: Only Governor Perry and TXU, which stands to make a lot of money, are championing these plants."


While his executive order was challenged by politicians, his accessibility to globalist firms is clear-- he is willing to take part in the total and literal looting of Texas land and other resources-- as public interests and private property are seized then sold off to business partners and exploited for profit.

The unprecedented leveraging of Texas to foreign entities follows closely the blueprint for control used by the IMF in the buyout and seizure of third world nations-- which the IMF takes over after impossible loans are not paid back. The IMF loans themselves are specifically designed so that default is certain-- matched against stringent conditions that give leverage and control to the bank and its interests.

Texas' pivotal role in plans for regional government in North America through the Trans-Texas Corridor, as well as its close relationship with Mexico, has made it a central target for globalist development operations-- thus, insuring total access to figureheads like Perry is critical for Bilderberg and its web of global influence. Furthermore, Texas has been relatively free from federal control in terms of land ownership up to this point, and has been partly targeted for seizure of family-owned private land.

Indexed by a 1996 government resource, Texas ranks 9th lowest in federal land ownership by percentage (with only 1.194% Federally owned in 1996), but second lowest by total acreage, with over 166,209,769 acres NOT owned by the federal government. Only Alaska has more un-owned land, though 47% of its land is federally owned, and much of Alaska may not be useful property anyway. No other state comes anywhere near the 100 million acre mark for land available for federal control (that is, currently not federally owned)-- thus Texas has become a target for expanded control.

However, much of this Texas land not currently under federal control is now being acquired through eminent domain and other means for use in the TTC project and many other deals benefiting private foreign corporations.

Rick Perry has not only been accused of hatching the entire Trans-Texas Corridor plan, and handing it over to foreign corporations like Cintra-Zachry, who will toll existing roads for private profit in many cases, he also lobbied to allow these corporations to keep the details of the arrangement secret, in the face of opposition and outcry by Texas Congress and the public, respectively.

Gov. Perry also vetoed a bill that would place some limitation on the profit potential for foreign companies running tolls, and more recently decried the two-year moratorium on toll road contracts to foreign companies, which he is seeking to overturn.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) stated today on the Alex Jones Show regarding Perry's announced attendance at the Bilderberg meeting that it "sure is a sign that he's very much involved in the international conspiracy and, of course, he's been the promoter of the highway, but wasn't it pretty neat how the people in Texas spoke out and the Legislature also, all of a sudden, backed away with a moratorium."

Ron Paul also added that he was "impressed" that Bilderberg was covered by the "regular media," calling it 'hopeful.'

Image
Governor Perry with former Mexican President Vicente Fox

Governor Perry has also been cozy with Mexico's kleptocracy in the past, meeting in 2003 with then President of Mexico Vicente Fox, who awarded local police for giving sanctuary to illegal immigrants while the two heads discussed other business and cooperation, including a water deal. Fox was a signing member of the 2005 SPP.gov agreement (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America). Alex Jones protested the occasion.

Perry has other interesting overlap with the Bilderberg agenda, including his shameless promotion of the dangerously untested Gardasil vaccine which is supposed to protect against HPV, which can lead to cervical cancer. Governor Perry went so far as to mandate the HPV vaccine, which-- by mandating-- conveniently protects Merck, the manufacturer of the vaccine, from all liability.

Meanwhile, the Rockefeller Foundation announced a campaign pushing HPV vaccines worldwide, calling for "immediate action to ensure rapid global access to new cervical cancer vaccines"-- a vaccine that only prevents 4 of approximately 100 mutating strains of the human pappilomavirus and has already caused 1,637 adverse reactions reports and killed three girls. David Rockefeller has a vested interest in the pharma-industrial complex and is also one of the cornerstones of the Bilderberg group, who still attends every year, even at age 92.

Typically, the agenda of Bilderberg is kept secret, though this year has garnered unprecedented media coverage of the bashful consortium of international elites who would prefer to remain in the shadows. In the recent past, rumors have circulated that Perry could be a potential candidate for president or vice-president in the future.

That, too, fits in with Bilderberg's legacy as a kingmaker-- both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton attended Bilderberg before winning the presidency. The mainstream media reported that John Edward's nomination as vice president was due to Bilderberg.

Perry's rise in Texas politics was largely due to his close association with President Bush, who pushed him into his position as Lieutenant Governor while governor of Texas; Bush's advisor Karl Rove reportedly persuaded Perry to switch to the Republican party in the 80s during massive Republican realignment throughout the state.

Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones contributed to this report.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Pakistan Connection , by Michael Meacher

Postby admin » Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:33 am

Pakistani Prime Minister Under FBI Lens in Stock Scam
by Times of India
May 29, 2007

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


KARACHI: Pakistan's who's who are being investigated for committing white-collar crimes under the US intra-trading legislation. According to sources, an FBI probe into a multi-million dollar insider-trading case involving a Pakistani banker may be looking at the involvement of some top Pakistani decision makers, including prime minister Shaukat Aziz, in the scandal.

The probe is also looking at some top bankers and government officials who are allegedly involved in money-laundering operations for Al Qaida, sources say.

The scam came to light recently when Hafiz Naseem, a Pakistani banker, was arrested in New York in the first week of May and charged with 26 counts of conspiracy and securities fraud. He is accused of leaking details about nine deals, including the record $32 billion leveraged buyout of Texas energy giant TXU.

A FBI team arrived in Pakistan recently to probe the case and interviewed many top Pakistani bankers, say sources. Among those the FBI wanted to talk to, according to sources, were the financial adviser to the Prime Minister, Salman Shah; president of National Bank of Pakistan, Ali Raza; Chief of House Building Finance Corporation, Zaigham Mehmood; chairman of Arif Habib Brokerage Houses, Arif Habib; chairman of Karachi Stock Exchange, Shaukat Tareen; and chairman of Pakistan International Airlines, Zafar Ali Khan.

The prime minister, formerly a senior official in Citi Group, has also been linked to the probe, sources claim.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Pakistan Connection , by Michael Meacher

Postby admin » Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:36 am

Salman Shah
by Wikipedia
4/11/16

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Salman Shah (Urdu: سلمان شاہ) was the former caretaker Finance Minister of Pakistan.[1] He has also served as an advisor to the Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz on finance, economic affairs, statistics and revenues. He is the son-in-law of former Chief of Army Staff General Asif Nawaz Janjua. He has two sons and three daughters.

Shah, a Lahore based Economist, holds a PhD in Finance and Economics from Indiana University, Bloomington's Kelley School of Business. He has 16 years of teaching experience at institutions such as University of Michigan, Indiana University, University of Toronto, and Lahore University of Management Sciences. He is one of the most highly educated and competent members of Shaukat Aziz's team. During his time as in charge of Pakistan's finance ministry (2004–2008), Pakistan's economy registered an average of 7% GDP growth per annum, one of the highest in the world. Prior to his current appointment as Finance Minister, he has served on following positions:

• Economic consultant, to different Pakistani governments including that of Nawaz Sharif.
• Chairman of Privatization Commission during the tenure of caretaker government of Prime Minister Malik Meraj Khalid.
• Member, Board of Governors - Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).
• Member, Board of Directors - Pakistan International Airlines.
• Member, Central Board of Directors - State Bank of Pakistan (2002–2003)
• Member, of various government's task forces.

Shah was also appointed as a member of the task force on investment by Abdul Hafeez Sheikh which gave recommendations to the Board of Investment to increase investments in the country. Shah headed the regional task forces of Karachi and Lahore regions for the BOI under Hafeez Sheikh.
Dr. Salman Shah has also founded Bridge Asia Financial Services in 2009 by Dr. Salman Shah (former Finance Minister and Advisor to the Prime Minister on Finance, 2004–08) with the primary aim to establish a world class financial advisory firm in Pakistan and the South Asian region.

References

1. Relations with Iran in Pak interest: Salman". Pakistan Observer. 4 March 2012. Retrieved 23 May 2012.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Pakistan Connection , by Michael Meacher

Postby admin » Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:37 am

Prominent Pakistan banker Rahim charged for conspiracy, insider trading
by Chad Bray
May 30, 2007

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- A prominent investment banker from Pakistan has been charged criminally in an alleged insider-trading scheme using leaked information about pending mergers, including TXU Corp.'s proposed buyout by a private-equity group, according to court documents.

According to a criminal complaint, Ajaz Rahim, country head of investment banking at Faysal Bank, has been charged with conspiracy and 25 counts of securities fraud. Rahim allegedly netted more than $7.5 million in improper profits in the scheme, including more than $5.1 million from trading prior to the TXU announcement.

Prosecutors have alleged that Rahim was tipped off about proposed acquisitions involving nine publicly traded companies between April 2006 and February 2007 by Hafiz Muhammad Zubair Naseem, a Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC (CS 42.31, -2.41, -5.39%) investment banker.

Naseem, a member of Credit Suisse's Global Energy Group in New York, was charged criminally with conspiracy and securities fraud earlier this month.

The transactions included Express Scripts Inc.'s (ESRX) failed bid for Caremark RX Inc. and the proposed buyout of TXU by a group led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and TPG Inc. Caremark was eventually sold to CVS Corp.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brought civil insider-trading charges against Rahim.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Pakistan Connection , by Michael Meacher

Postby admin » Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:38 am

Feds Charge Prominent Pakistani Banker In CSFB-TXU Insider Trading Case
by John Carney
May 30, 2007

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

Federal prosecutors yesterday brought criminal charges against Pakistani banker Ajaz Rahim, who they allege traded on inside information leaked to him by a junior Credit Suisse banker. Rahim is a prominent figure in Pakistani investment banking, and until quite recently worked as the country head of investment banking of the Faysal Bank in Karachi.

The picture to the left appears to be of Rahim and Farook Bengali, the chief executive of Faysal. It was prominently placed on the bank's website until recently but has been removed. DealBreaker was not able to confirm that the picture is Rahim.

Earlier this month, federal prosecutors arrested Hafiz Mohammed Zubair Naseem, a junior associate in the energy group at Credit Suisse, on charges that he had leaked information on nine deals which his employer was involved with, including the buyout of Texas energy giant TXU. At the time of the arrest, prosecutors said that Naseem had leaked the information to a banker in Pakistan but did not name him. A little more than a week later, the SEC amended its civil complaint against Naseem and named Rahim as a defendant. The complaint alleges that in at least twenty-five instance, Rahim made trades several minutes after concluding phone calls with Naseem.

An arrest warrant has been issued for Rahim but his whereabouts are currently unknown. After the SEC named him as a defendant, Rahim’s lawyer, Spencer Barasch, had said that his client would not come to the US for a deposition in the suit unless he received guarantees that he would not be arrested. Naseem had also said he planned to call Rahim as a witness for the defense in his own trial.

Through his lawyer, Rahim is denying any wrong doing. “Mr. Rahim looks forward to vigorously defending himself against the charges,” Barasch told DealBook yesterday.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Pakistan Connection , by Michael Meacher

Postby admin » Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:39 am

9/11 funds came from Pakistan, says FBI
by Mamoj Joshi
TNN
The Times of India
August 1, 2003

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


NEW DELHI: India played a key role in providing US authorities the information that funding for the September 11 attacks came from Pakistan. A top FBI counter-terrorism official told the US Senate governmental affairs committee on Thursday that investigators have “traced the origin of the funding of 9/11 back to financial accounts in Pakistan.’’

John S. Pistole, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s counter-terrorism division, however, did not specify how those accounts in Pakistan were funded, or the role of Pakistani elements. The Times of India first reported on October 10, 2001 that India told the US that some $100,000 had been wired to the leader of the hijackers, Mahmud Atta, by British-born terrorist Ahmad Saeed Umar Sheikh.

Indian authorities also told the US that the trail led back from Sheikh to the then chief of ISI, Lt Gen Mahmud Ahmad who was subsequently forced to retire by Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf. The FBI had been provided with the details, including Sheikh’s mobile numbers. But Pistole’s testimony is silent on these issues. The FBI has estimated the September 11 attacks cost between $175,000 and $250,000. That money — which paid for flight training, travel and other expenses — flowed to the hijackers through associates in Germany and the United Arab Emirates.

Those associates reported to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who managed much of the planning for the attacks from Pakistan, US officials have said. The Bush Administration is being cagey about declassifying 28 secret pages in a recent report on the 9/11 incident which officials say outline connections between Saudi charities, royal family members and terrorism.

US authorities are silent about the role some Pakistanis may have played in the conspiracy. The role of Sheikh and Lt Gen Ahmad has yet to see the light of the day. Sheikh, wanted for kidnapping and terrorist conspiracy in India, has since been sentenced to death in Pakistan for the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Pakistan Connection , by Michael Meacher

Postby admin » Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:42 am

Zbigniew Brzezinski
by Sourcewatch.org

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Zbigniew Brzezinski, born in Warsaw, Poland, in 1928, the son of a diplomat posted to Canada in 1938, serves as Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and is Professor of American Foreign Policy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D.C. Brzezinski is said to be a protege of both Nelson A. Rockefeller and Paul H. Nitze, his CSIS profile states. [1]

In the private sector, Brzezinski serves as an "international advisor of several major US/global corporations." He is a "frequent participant in annual business/trade conventions" and is President of Z.B. Inc. "(an advisory firm on international issues to corporations and financial institutions). Also a frequent public speaker and commentator on major domestic and foreign TV programs, and contributor to domestic and foreign newspapers and journals."[2]

Brzezinski's career with the U.S. Government spans several presidents: advisor to John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson; policy advisor to James Earl Carter, Jr.; and George Herbert Walker Bush's co-chair on the National Security Advisory Task Force (1988).[3]

He earned his B.A. (1949) and M.A. (1950) at McGill University and his Ph.D. at Harvard University (1953). He holds honorary degrees from several universities.[4]

• Honorary Trustee, Institute of International Education
• International Advisory Board, Journal of Democracy [1]
• Honorary Member, Academy of Political Science [2]
• Former Director (1992), National Endowment for Democracy [3]

Taliban-al Qaeda Machinator?

In a 1997 interview for CNN's Cold War Series, Brzezinski hinted about the Carter Administration's proactive Afghanistan policy before the Soviet invasion in 1979, that he had conceived.

Interviewer: How did you interpret Soviet behavior in Afghanistan, such as the April revolution, the rise of... I mean, what did you think their long-term plans were, and what did you think should be done about it?

Brzezinski: I told the President, about six months before the Soviets entered Afghanistan, that in my judgment I thought they would be going into Afghanistan. And I decided then, and I recommended to the President, that we shouldn't be passive.

Interviewer: What happened?

Brzezinski: We weren't passive.

-- The National Security Archive, Interview with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, for CNN's Coldwar Series, June 13, 1997


7 months after the interview for the CNN series, Brzezinski, in a interview for the French publication, Le Nouvel Observateur, was more forthright, and unapologetically claimed to be the mastermind of a feint which caused the Soviet Union to embark upon a military intervention to support their client government in Kabul, as well as training and arming extremists, which later became the Taliban government.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Le Nouvel Observateur, Interview with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Paris, January 15-21, 1998, translated by Bill Blum - [5]


Higher Educational Institution Affiliations

• 1949-50 - McGill University; B.A. and M.A.
• 1953 - Harvard University; Ph.D.
• 1953-60 - Harvard University, faculty
• 1960-89 - Columbia University, faculty

Public/Political Positions Held

• 1966-68 - Member of the Policy Planning Council of the Department of State
• 1968 - Hubert H. Humphrey presidential campaign, chairman of the Foreign Policy Task Force
• 1973-76 - Trilateral Commission, Director
• 1976 - James Earl Carter, Jr. presidential campaign, foreign policy advisor
• 1977-80 - James Earl Carter's NSA
• 1985 - Ronald Reagan's Chemical Warfare Commission, member
• 1987-88 - NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy, member
• 1988 - George H. W. Bush National Security Advisory Task Force, member
• 1987-89 - President Reagan's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, member
Source for Timelines: Jeri Charles Associates, a speaker's booking agency; Brzezinski webpage

Published Works

• The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives
• The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the 20th Century
• Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 20th Century
• Power and Principal: The Memoirs of the National Security Advisor

Affiliations

• Advisory Board, America Abroad Media
• Advisory Board, Partnership for a Secure America
• Chair, American Committee for Peace in Chechnya
• Honorary Chairman, AmeriCares Foundation (also used by CIA to finance Solidarity in Poland in the eighties)
• Former Director, Amnesty International
• Honorary Council of Advisors, American Turkish Council
• Chairman, American-Ukranian Advisory Committee (organized by Brzezinski)[6]
• Former Director, Atlantic Council
• Center for Strategic and International Studies
• Director, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (1972 to 1977)[7]
• Trustee, Freedom House
• Chairman, International Advisory Board for the Yale Project on The Future Culture & Civilization of China
• Vice Chair, International Crisis Group
• Director, Jamestown Foundation
• Director, Polish-American Enterprise Fund, reputed CIA front
• Director, Polish-American Freedom Foundation, reputed CIA front
• Former Director, National Endowment for Democracy (Congressionally-funded organization)
• Governor, Smith Richardson Foundation
• Trustee, Trilateral Commission; Director (1973-1976)
• Advisory Board, US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce
• Advisory Committee, AmeriCares (at least in 2004)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Pakistan Connection , by Michael Meacher

Postby admin » Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:44 am

Interview with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski
for CNN's Coldwar Series
June 13, 1997

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


(Preliminary talk)

INTERVIEWER: Thank you very much for being willing to do an interview. I'll start by asking about arms control: what were the Administration's arms control objectives when they came into office?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: It was essentially to limit, first of all, the arms race, and then, if possible, to scale it down. I remember vividly how committed the newly elected President was to the idea of a significant cut in the nuclear weapons on both sides. That was kind of a central goal of his.

INT: How were these ambitions received by the Soviets?

ZB: Hah, with some ambiguity. They, I suspect in retros...

INT: Can you say "the Soviets" in your answer, because you'll never hear my question?

ZB: All right. And the Soviets received these proposals with some ambiguity and indeed suspicion. I suspect myself that they felt that Carter was not sincere, that he was merely trying to put them on the defensive, and that he was trying to back out of the earlier Vladivostok agreement that had been concluded between President Ford and Mr. Brezhnev. This, incidentally, was not Carter's intention) - he really was very sincere; if anything, he was over-ambitious.

INT: Can you describe Brezhnev's response to the proposals, the letter that he sent in February of 1977, what your own reaction was to that?

ZB: I thought Brezhnev's letter was excessively negative, close to hostile, somewhat patronizing.

INT: The next thing I want to ask you about is SS-20s, and how much of a threat to the security of Europe was the Soviet deployment of SS-20s.

ZB: The Soviet deployment of the SS-20s worried the Europeans - frankly, initially more than us. I remember being somewhat startled when Chancellor Schmidt started making a big issue out of the SS-20s, but then I came to realize that in a sense he was right: namely that the SS-20, while perhaps not a decisive military weapon, posed the risk of de-coupling Europe's security from America's; namely, of posing before us the dilemma that maybe Europe was threatened by nuclear devastation, but that we were not, and therefore, should we risk the devastation of our own people and our own cities in order to protect Europe? That was the element of potential de-coupling involved in the Soviet deployment, and in that sense it posed a serious challenge to NATO, to which we had to respond, and to which we did respond.

INT: How?

ZB: By deploying the Pershings and the ground-launch cruise missiles, which put the Soviets very much on the defensive, and the Pershings particularly gave us the capacity to devastate the Soviet command and control centers in the very first few minutes of any conflict.

INT: What was your response to Chancellor Schmidt when he accused the Americans of not taking sufficient account of the Europeans' fears?

ZB: I think it's an exaggeration to say he accused us. I think he posed the dilemma, the possibility of a de-coupling of American and European security. And as I said earlier, after initially thinking that perhaps this was not a real issue, we came to the conclusion that indeed it was and that we should respond to it seriously. So we did. The President sent me to Europe; I talked to Chancellor Schmidt at length, and we came up with a formula: namely, that we would deploy the Pershings, which were theatre missiles, shorter range but very fast, very accurate, and the ground-launch cruise missiles - slower, but extraordinarily accurate: we could put one right through a window in the Kremlin, and if it had a nuclear tip on it, it would make a bit of a bang.

(Request in b/g re: next question)

INT: Yes. Could you reflect on the dual-track policy of NATO for us?

ZB: Well, essentially our position was that if the Russians want to discuss it, we will discuss; if not, we'll deploy.

INT: The neutron bomb - why did President Carter decide to cancel the project of the neutron bomb?

ZB: The President decided to cancel the neutron bomb, I think for two reasons, though one was emphasized. First, there wasn't sufficient support in Europe for it, and there was a great deal of reluctance in Europe to it. But secondly, I think the President personally found it morally abhorrent.

INT: SALT II - there was a lot of opposition to SALT II. Can you explain why opposition built up to SALT II?

ZB: The opposition in the United States to SALT II was the result both of serious concerns over some of the technicalities, specifics of the agreement - it was a very complicated agreement - and therefore some feeling that perhaps we weren't getting as good a bargain as we should; and maybe also of a more pervasive suspicion within some quarters that President Carter wasn't tough enough with the Russians. So these two things kind of coalesced and built up a degree of opposition to SALT II that shouldn't have been there. Now, in addition to that, before too long there was a third factor at play: namely, the Soviets started acting in a way that made movement forward on SALT II very difficult, culminating eventually in the occupation, invasion of Afghanistan.

INT: That leads on to the Soviet expansionism. How far did you believe the Soviets were becoming an expansionist threat and were undermining American influence, really from '77 onwards?

ZB: The Soviets at that time were proclaiming over and over again that the scales of history were tipping in the favor of the Soviet Union: the Soviet Union would outstrip us in economic performance, the Soviet Union was getting a strategic edge, the Soviet Union was riding the crest of the so-called national liberation struggles. The Soviet Union was moving into Africa, it had a foothold in Latin America; it was using that foothold, and particularly Castro himself, to see if something couldn't be done on the mainland of [the] Southern hemisphere. So all of that made it quite essential, in my view, to demonstrably show that these analyses were false: that the scales of history were not tipping, that Soviet assertiveness will not pay, that we can compete effectively, eventually put the Soviets on the defensive, if necessary.

INT: What was your view, particularly in Africa...? I'm thinking of the arc of crisis and your response to that.

ZB: My view of Soviet activities in the arc of crisis in Africa, so to speak, was that it was incompatible with the notion of détente to which we were subscribing, to which we thought the Soviets had subscribed in the course of their negotiations with Presidents Nixon and Ford; that you can't have your cake and eat it too. And that if that's what they were going to be doing, then clearly we are entitled to play the same game, wherever we can, to their disadvantage. But then we'll not have détente: we'll have competition across the board. So there is a real choice: either détente across the board, or competition across the board, but not détente in some areas and competition in those areas in which we were vulnerable.

INT: Moving on to Poland, what support you could give to Solidarity from 1980 onwards?

ZB: We gave them a great deal of political support. We encouraged Solidarity as much as we could. We made it very clear as to where our sympathies are. We of course had certain instruments for reaching Poland, such as Radio Free Europe; we had a very comprehensive publication program; we had other means also of encouraging and supporting dissent. And when the critical moment came in December of 1980, when the Soviets were poised to intervene in Poland, we did everything we could to mobilize international opinion, to galvanize maximum international pressure on the Soviets, to convince the Soviets that we will not be passive. And by then we had some credibility, because the Soviets knew that already for a year we were doing something that we had never before been done in the entire history of the Cold War: we were actively and directly supporting the resistance movement in Afghanistan, the purpose of which was to fight the Soviet army. So the notion that we wouldn't be passive, I think had somcredibility by then.

INT: How important was the Iran hostage crisis to Carter's prestige?

ZB: I think it was devastating. I think the Iran hostage crisis was one of the two central regions for Carter's political defeat in 1980, the other reason being domestic inflation. Iran and inflation - both were politically devastating.

INT: The downfall of the Shah and the Iranian hostage crisis - how much did they influence Americans' reaction to Soviet policy in Afghanistan?

ZB: I think the crisis in Iran heightened our sense of vulnerability in so far as that part of the world is concerned. After all, Iran was one of the two pillars on which both stability and our political preeminence in the Persian Gulf rested. Once the Iranian pillar had collapsed, we were faced with the possibility that one way or another, before too long, we may have either a hostile Iran on the northern shore of the Persian Gulf facing us, or we might even have the Soviets there; and that possibility arose very sharply when the Soviets marched into Afghanistan. If they succeed in occupying it, Iran would be even more vulnerable to the Soviet Union, and in any case, the Persian Gulf would be accessible even to Soviet tactical air force from bases in Afghanistan. Therefore, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was viewed by us as of serious strategic consequence, irrespective of whatever may have been the Soviet motives for it. Our view was the objective consequences would be very serious, irrespective of what may or may not have been the subjective motives for the Soviet action.

INT: Before the actual invasion, how much do you think the exit of the Shah affected Soviet plans for that area of the world?

ZB: The collapse of the American position in Iran had to have a rather strikingly reinforcing impact on Soviet expectations. This was a major setback for the United States. There's no doubt that from the standpoint of the Soviet analysis of the situation, the collapse of the regime in Iran meant that the position of the United States north of the Persian Gulf was disintegrating.

INT: How did you interpret Soviet behavior in Afghanistan, such as the April revolution, the rise of... I mean, what did you think their long-term plans were, and what did you think should be done about it?

ZB: I told the President, about six months before the Soviets entered Afghanistan, that in my judgment I thought they would be going into Afghanistan. And I decided then, and I recommended to the President, that we shouldn't be passive.

INT: What happened?

ZB: We weren't passive.

INT: But at the time...

(Interruption)

INT: Right, describe your reaction when you heard that your suspicions had been fully justified: an invasion had happened.

ZB: We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again - for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.

INT: How united or divergent were the views in the Carter Administration, responding to the invasion of Afghanistan?

ZB: They were surprisingly uniform. That is to say, I remember that the State Department, which earlier had opposed taking a very tough stand on Afghanistan, and certainly didn't want us to be issuing any public warnings directed to the Soviet Union, came in with a long list of something like 26 or 28 proposed sanctions against Soviet Union, including the most severe ones that subsequently were adopted by the United States. So once the Soviets had acted, some of the hesitations and reticence regarding how we should respond to the Soviet challenge, dissipated almost instantly.

INT: But you managed to increase the powers of the National Security Council?

ZB: Well, I didn't increase the powers of the National Security Council, but obviously what the Soviets did confirmed what we were arguing for some time: namely, that if we don't draw the line clearly enough, we're going to get an escalation in Soviet misconduct, that simply acquiescence was not good enough. And in that sense, yes, I suppose one could say the political scales within the US Government were somewhat tipped in the favor of the NSC.

(B/g talk)

INT: How tough was President Carter's approach to the Cold War?

ZB: I think, on balance, it was much tougher than most people realize. Not only did he take some historic decisions which no other president had before - such as the decision to aid directly the Mujaheddin against the Soviet army - but he took a very tough position in December 1980, when the Soviet Union was poised to invade Poland. He took that decision, and it was a very tough decision, and we did all sorts of things to convince the Soviets that we wouldn't be passive. In addition to it, he took the decision to engage in a strategic relationship with the Chinese, and it was again directed at Soviet expansionism. But what is even less known is that even in the early years, when he was generally perceived as being soft and overly accommodationist, he took some very tough-minded decisions which were simply not known publicly. Robert Gates, the subsequently director of the CIA, and at that time a member of my staff, reveals in his book that as early as 1978, President Carter approved proposals prepared by my staff to undertake, for example, a comprehensive, covert action program designed to help the non-Russian nations in the Soviet Union pursue more actively their desire for independence - a program in effect to destabilize the Soviet Union. We called it, more delicately, a program for the "delegitimization of the Soviet Union". But that was a rather unusual decision. He took some others along these lines, too. So his public image to some extent was the product of his great emphasis on arms reductions and a desire to reach an agreement on that score with the Russians. But it didn't quite correspond to the reality, and it certainly didn't correspond even to the public reality in the second half of the Carter Administration.

INT: Could you summarize the reasons for the shift that seems apparent from the 1977 détente and co-operation, inordinate fear of communism, through to the Carter doctrine in 1980?

ZB: Well, that question was prepared before my answer to the previous question. (Laughs)

INT: Can you give me a summary?

IN BACKGROUND

The reasons for it.

ZB: I don't think there was a shift. As I said, I think even prior to the public realization that he was much tougher than most people had assumed, he was taking some decisions privately in the first two years of his presidency which were quite tough-minded. The reason he was perceived by a lot of people as not being tough enough, was rooted largely in his passion for arms control, for arms reductions, and that I think created an image that was somewhat one-dimensional and not entirely accurate.

INT: Well, following on that, how successful was Carter at laying the foundations for increased defense and security which the next administration inherited?

ZB: Any answer by me in that respect is inevitably self-serving. But I think you would find a good answer tothat question in the book written by the Republican head of the CIA, Robert Gates, who says that Carter deserves enormous credit in responding assertively, energetically and in an historically significant fashion, to the kind ochallenge that the Soviets -erroneously - thought they were ready to pose before us, when they assumed in the mid-Seventies that the scales of history were really tipping in their favor and they could now act assertively in keeping with that shift. It was our response in those years which provided the basis for what subsequently was done by Reagan, and this is what is being said by Robert Gates and not by me.

INT: But in your own book, you do stress that Carter laid good foundations for strengthening ...

ZB: Well, as I think is evident from my answer, I don't disagree with Robert Gates, but I think...

INT: Tell me (Overlap) from your own point of view...

ZB: ... but I think Robert Gates may be a better judge and more dispassionate judge of that than I, because obviously I would be accused of engaging in a self-serving diagnosis.

INT: OK.

(Request in b/g re: next question)

INT: Why was the Horn of Africa so important to America?

ZB: The Horn of Africa was not important to America as of itself, but it was important as a measure and a test of how the Soviets were interpreting détente; and it seemed to us, given the strategic location of the Horn of Africa, that the Soviets were engaged in activities which they should know would be a sensitive concern to us. And if they were, notwithstanding that, doing precisely that, then obviously they were exploiting détente to try to attain some significant geopolitical gains, and that we simply could not tolerate.

INT: Did America underreact to start with to the activities of the Soviets in Africa?

ZB: Absolutely, I think we underreacted, and that's why they gradually escalated, and eventually, as I have said earlier, SALT was buried in the sands of Ogaden, the sands that divide Somalia from Ethiopia, and eventually led to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which then precipitated a very strong, overtly so, American response. I would have preferred us to draw the line sooner, and perhaps some of the things that subsequently happened wouldn't have happened.

INT: Just to follow on to that, is how events in Afghanistan affected the US relationship with Pakistan.

ZB: There was a certain coolness and distance in the American-Pakistan relationship prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. After that invasion, we collaborated very closely. And I have to pay tribute to the guts of the Pakistanis: they acted with remarkable courage, and they just weren't intimidated and they did things which one would have thought a vulnerable country might not have the courage to undertake. We, I am pleased to say, supported them very actively and they had our backing, but they were there, they were the ones who were endangered, not we.

INT: Reflecting on that whole situation in Afghanistan, do you think it was worth all the suffering that was involved?

ZB: I think the Soviets made a tragic mistake, and therefore it wasn't worth their while to go in. I think it would have been a tragedy if we had allowed them to overrun the Afghans.

INT: Well, I would like to ask about détente. ... By 1980, the principle of détente was dead. Can you explain why détente died, how it died, and for what reasons?

ZB: Détente of the kind that existed in the mid-Seventies was really undermined by the Soviets, who thought that they could have détente and a fundamental shift in the balance of power at the same time. Instead of accepting détente as a relationship designed to stabilize the relationship between the two major countries, they viewed détente essentially as an umbrella under which a fundamental shift in the correlationship of power could be effected, and they thought they could do so both on the strategic level and on the geopolitical level, via their activities in the Third World. This is what contributed to the collapse of détente. I fail to see how anyone can argue that it was up to us to maintain détente at a time when the Soviets were very reluctant to accept any reductions in strategic arms, and felt themselves free to engage in military activities in the Third World, ranging from Africa through to Central America, and eventually culminating in Afghanistan. That is not the definition of détente in my book.

INT: The Vance mission in March 1977 - was that a turning point in any way on that route that you've just been describing?

ZB: The Vance mission in 1977, the March mission to the Soviet Union in order to conclude an arms control agreement, was a big disappointment to us, and it's not well understood, because most people assume that Vance went to Moscow all of a sudden confronting the Russians with a proposal for deep cuts in the strategic arms relationship, and that the Russians, annoyed by this sudden development, turned him down. The fact of the matter is, he went there with that proposal, but also with another one: namely, "If you're not prepared to have deep cuts, then let's have essentially the kind of deeps cuts - but less deep, much less deep - that were agreed to in Vladivostok," with two issues yet to be resolved, which in our view had not been resolved: the question of the cruise missiles and of the long-range new Soviet bomber called the Backfire, and these two issues we had to resolve. And the Russians took the position: "We don't accept deep cuts, but we also don't accept your fall-back position, unless you accept our definition of what the agreement ought to be regarding the cruise missiles and the Backfire." And of course, we couldn't do that, because that would have placed in jeopardy our own strategic position, and I doubt very much that Congress would have approved any such agreement. So the Russians adopted a very intransigent attitude, and that was a disappointment to those who thought that perhaps we could start a new administration, the Carter Administration, with some wide-ranging agreement with the Russians. It became clear that this would be much more difficult, and that in fact perhaps the Russians have a very one-sided, distorted, self-serving definition of what détente really ought to be.

INT: One side only.

(A bit of discussion)

INT: Why did President Carter take up the issue of human rights, especially on the Soviet Union, and what effect did this have on Soviet-American relations?

ZB: The President should really speak for himself on that, but President Carter, in my view, was deeply committed to human rights as a matter of principle, as a matter of moral conviction, and he was committed to human rights across the board. I mean, he felt very strongly about human rights in Argentina, as well as in the Soviet Union. I was deeply committed to human rights; I felt this was important, but I will not hide the fact that I also thought that there was some instrumental utility in our pursuit of human rights vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, because at the time the Soviet Union was putting us ideologically on the defensive. They saw themselves as representing the progressive forces of mankind, marching toward some ideologically defined future; and raising the issue of human rights pointed to one of the fundamental weaknesses of the Soviet system: namely, that it was a system based on oppression, on mass terror, on extraordinary killings of one's own people. Focusing on human rights was in a way focusing on a major Soviet vulnerability. So, while I was committed to human rights - and I am committed to human rights - I do not deny that in pushing it vis-à-vis the Soviets, I saw in this also an opportunity to put them ideologically on the defensive at a time when they saw themselves rightfully on the offensive.

INT: Thank you very much.

(End)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Next

Return to Another View on 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest