NavigationAnnouncementsUpcoming eventsEvents
Recent blog posts
|
Bill Weinberg's World War III Report, #14World War III, Report, #14 SPECIAL HOLIDAY NUCLEAR PARANOIA ISSUE!
THE AFGHANISTAN FRONT THE AFGHANISTAN FRONT A Dec. 28 New York Times story, "Afghan Warlords and Bandits Are Back in Business," illustrated the degree to which Karzai's regime is a fiction--with real power on the ground held by the rival ethnic militias. The US has "doled out enough money to stanch the rivalries. But the money has apparently not trickled down." Local "police" are not getting paid by the central government, and are frequently indistinguishable from the outlaws they are ostensibly "policing." Bus drivers refuse to go on particularly dangerous roads. "The situation is worse than it was before the Taliban came to power," said a ticket collector for the Kandahar-Herat line. "Before they were taking cars and money. But now they are also killing people." Said one traveler at the Kandahar bus station searching for his father who had disappeared on the road: "We don't know what happened. There are so many checkpoints now, and people don't know if the men at the checkpoints will protect you or kill you." World Food Program trucks delivering aid to starving villages are being held up by militiamen demanding $100 per truck to pass near Kandahar. A map that ran with the story shows the patchwork of control zones in Afghanistan: Tajik forces loyal to former President Burhanuddin Rabbani hold Kabul and the northeast. Dostum's Uzbek forces hold Mazar-i-Sharif and the northwest. Tajik warlord Ismail Khan holds the Herat district in the west. Pashtun warlord Gul Agha Shirzai holds Kandahar in the south. The Pashtun Eastern Shura militias control Jalalabad and the area southeast of Kabul, along the Pakistan border. Hazara warlord Karim Khalili holds Bamiyan in the Central Highlands. Fighting between rival warlords for control of these districts seems to be settling down, but getting them to submit to central authority is another question. The Taliban came to power in 1996 by pledging to restore order after years of entropic warfare created a climate ripe for totalitarianism. Karzai has managed to broker peace between Gul Agha and his rivals in Kandahar, giving effective control of the district to this former local "governor" and drug lord. WW3 REPORT #12, quoting the Dec. 10 Newsday, described Gul Agha as a "veteran dog racer," but the Nov. 30 Washington Post called him a "one-time organizer of lucrative dog fights," which is certainly more befitting of a warlord.
This is what the UK Guardian had to say about Agha on Dec. 6: "Police sources in Pakistan believe he is heavily involved in the lucrative opium trade. His followers are
NEW REGIME PLEDGES KINDER, GENTLER FUNDAMENTALISM Judge Ahamat Ullha Zarif of the interim government told AFP that public executions and amputations would continue, but with greater benevolence. "There will be some changes from the time of the Taliban," he said. "For example, the Taliban used to hang the victim's body in public for four days. We will only hang the body for a short time, say 15 minutes." Kabul's sports stadium, where the Taliban used to carry out public executions and amputations every Friday, would no longer be used. "The stadium is for sports. We will find a new place for public executions." Adulterers, both male and female, would still be stoned to death, Zarif said, "but we will use only small stones." AFP, Dec. 27
MEET THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS--LITERALLY! RAWA PROTESTS NEW REGIME None of the New York dailies covered the RAWA protest, but a Dec. 24 Newsday headline on the interim regime taking power read: "An Upbeat Day 1: Pro-government rallies as Afghans begin reconstruction." It noted that some 60 people marched in the streets of Kabul to support the new regime.
PENTAGON USES AFGHANS FOR CANNON FODDER
SMART BOMBS NOT SO SMART But a smaller p. B-2 story on Dec. 26 headlined: "Even Precision Bombing Kills Some Civilians, Tour of City Shows" This story, filed by reporter Norimitsu Onishi in Kandahar, noted numerous buildings--and their residents--"with no evident connection to the Taliban or al-Qaeda," destroyed by US bombs.
NEW OPIUM WAR IN MAKING? "Afghans leaving the country have reported that farmers are going back to poppy cultivation," said Mohammed Amirkhizi of the UN Office of Drug Control and Crime Prevention in Vienna. "Our expectation is that production will go back up to [the level of] previous years. The international community is extremely concerned." Two years ago, Afghanistan produced more than 70% of the world's opium. But the Taliban banned cultivation last year--and this spring's crop dropped by more than 90%. Before 9-11, this was universally portrayed in the US media as a concession to the West. Now the Washington Post writes, "whether the goal was to halt the business in response to international pressure or to drive up prices remains unclear." Assistant Secretary of State Rand Beers added that the Taliban did not ban opium farming "out of kindness, but because they wanted to regulate the market: They simply produced too much opium." (This was not the stance of US officials before 9-11--see WW3 REPORT #2.) In any case, reads the report, "the expectation that poppy production will skyrocket has set off an international battle over how to respond. While some experts advocate a buyback of the spring crop, others want to rely primarily on law enforcement. The new regime is committed under the Bonn accords to eliminate opium--Afghanistan's largest cash crop, and virtually the only profitable one. Many farmers rely on loans from drug traffickers to pay for their fall planting and survive through the winter. Farmers have already taken the loans and will have no way to repay them if they don't harvest their poppies. Some Bush administration officials have proposed a one-time buyback of opium as an emergency measure. In the late 1990s, Afghanistan produced over 2,000 tons of raw opium annually, according to UN estimates. After the Taliban ban, the figure dropped to about 185 tons this year. The UN reports that before the ban, about half of all Afghan opium came from the irrigated fields of Helmand province in the south--not a remote or hidden area, but some of the country's best and most accessible farmland. (The Post does not report that Helmand province is in the control zone of legendary Mujahedeen opium lord Gul Agha.) Much of the rest came from the provinces of Kandahar (Agha's seat), and from Nangahar (now under Eastern Shura warlords). Since the opium ban, "a small but increasing amount has been grown in the northeastern province of Badakhshan, under the control of the Northern Alliance." International drug control officials worry that Helmand has once again become a center for poppy growing. The new government "does not have complete control of the area," and top Taliban officials are still reported to be hiding out there.
DID US USE THE NUKE IN AFGHANISTAN? Ervin sees this as part of an intentional strategy of military ecocide. "If the Pentagon is deploying such a weapon, they really do intend to destroy Afghanistan and make parts of it uninhabitable. No crops could be planted and reaped in such soil, and no one could live in such areas.... This is clearly in line with President Bush's desire to partition the country... and also in line with the Bush/Cheney/Powell military doctrine of using tactical nuclear weapons in a conventional war in the third world." Ervin calls on the International Atomic Energy Agency to launch an investigation. Press accounts vary on the readiness of nuclear "bunker-busters." A Dec. 19 AP report states the Afghanistan campaign has made the Pentagon reconsider the nuclear option: "Defense officials are considering the possibility of developing a low-yield nuclear device that would be able to destroy deeply buried stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. Such a move would require Congress to lift a 1994 ban on designing new nuclear warheads. In a report to Congress, the Defense Department argues that conventional weapons...would be unable to destroy the most deeply protected facilities... In the report sent to Congress in October, the Defense Department said a low-yield, less than five-kiloton nuclear warhead coupled with new technology that allows bombs to penetrate deep underground before exploding could prove effective in destroying biological and chemical agents..." The report said scientists "have completed initial studies on how existing nuclear weapons can be modified" for use to destroy deeply buried targets. Submitted in response to a congressional directive, the report shows the Bush administration views a nuclear strike as "an intrinsic part" of strategy for deeply entombed targets, and is in "preparation" for a full-scale mini-nuke research and development program, said Martin Butcher of Physicians for Social Responsibility. But Newsday reported 3 years ago that one such weapon was ready for deployment--and being considered for use. In Nov. 1997, President Bill Clinton signed Presidential Policy Directive 60, allowing use of nuclear "bunker-busters" against Iraq. Newsday said the Pentagon's two such weapons are the B-61-7, which explodes in the air like the Daisy Cutter, and the B-61-11 (then "not fully developed"), which penetrates the ground before detonating. (Newsday, Feb. 1, 1998) Sources in the region also claim the US used nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. Writes the pro-jihad website Azzam.com: "Highly informed Islam News sources from Tora Bora have claimed that American warplanes have continued bombing Tora Bora and the Melwa mountains, and destruction which is occurring indicates that the Americans are using restricted amounts of Chemical and Nuclear weapons." (James Ridgeway, Village Voice, Dec. 25)
NUCLEAR FLASHPOINT: KASHMIR Indian and Pakistani troops--just 100 yards apart in some places--traded fire over the 'Line of Control' dividing the disputed Kashmir region, as civilians on both sides of the border were evacuated. India says 20,000 residents are being moved from homes near the frontier. India's Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee insisted that "no means shall be spared" in putting a stop to "Pakistan-sponsored terrorism." (AP Dec. 29) India refused Pakistan's offer of a joint investigation into the Dec. 13 attack on India's parliament building, which left 12 dead on both sides. New Delhi is sticking to unconditional demands for the arrest of leaders from the two organizations accused in the raid: Lashkar-i-Taiba (Urdu for "Army of the Pious") Jaish-i-Muhammad ("Soldiers of Muhammad"). Both groups use Pakistan as a base of operations for armed activities in the Indian province of Jammu and Kashmir. (Newsday, Dec. 27) Vajpayee is emulating Bush in his refusal to share his evidence with Pakistan's government (CNN.com Dec. 24). Bush's reply to Taliban offers to send Osama bin Laden to a third country to stand trial if the US showed its evidence was: "Turn him over... There is no need to negotiate... And there is no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty. Turn him over." (New Hampshire Union Leader, Oct. 21, 2001) But Pakistan is Bush's key ally in the region, and the White House is unhappy that Pakistani troops are being moved from the Afghan border, where they were intercepting al-Qaeda fugitives, to the Indian border (Newsday, Dec. 29). On Dec. 28, Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf--doubtless under heavy US pressure--announced the arrest of 50 leaders from both groups. But India was silent on the move, likely waiting to see if the detainees include Lashkar founder Hafez Saeed. Bush, however, was not silent, telling the press: "I'm pleased to note that President Musharraf has announced the arrest of 50 extremists or terrorists. And I hope that India takes note of that, that the president is responding forcefully and actively to bring those who would harm others to justice." (New York Times, Dec. 29) Note the strategically slippery "extremists or terrorists" construction, allowing equivocation on whether these clients of a US ally fall into the latter category. Pakistan was one of the world's top US aid recipients until Washington imposed sanctions on both Pakistan and India after the 1998 nuclear tests. Those sanctions were both lifted immediately after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as the US prepared for war in the region. (AP, Sept. 23) NEW YORK CITY CITY BRACES FOR NEW YEARS EVE NUKE TERROR A spokesman for Sensor Technology Engineering of Santa Barbara, CA, makers of the device, refused to give any info on the product, saying it was designed for "governments, countries, municipalities and security concerns. If you're not one of those, you have no purpose purchasing it." He refused to give his name. US Energy Department undersecretary John A. Gordon told the Senate May 9 that a year earlier Uzbekistan customs officers using a similar device seized 10 containers of highly radioactive material suspected of being intended for use in a terrorist "radiation-dispersal bomb." Customs spokesman James Michie acknowledged that the service had trained officials from post-Soviet republics in use of the devices.
INDIAN POINT NUKE PLANT GIVES LOCALS JITTERS When Rockland County, just across the Hudson River, pulled out of the evacuation plan after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, state officials simply created a "substitute plan" for the county, which the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) accepted. The NRC soon thereafter adopted the "realism rule," under which the agency can approve emergency plans without county approval. But Indian Point opponents pledged to press the issue. "The NRC may be the only agency with final authority over the plant, but what it would do in a changed political climate is not clear," said Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, who convened the Dec. 20 hearings. The Indian Point 2 reactor was shut down Dec. 26 after an electrical connection to the plant's turbine unexpectedly shut off. A similar accident in Aug. 1999 was more serious, as safety systems did not respond properly and some alarms in the control room stopped working. Feb. 2000 saw a radiation release from the plant when a tube ruptured, spewing steam from the reactor into the open air. Authorities predictably dismissed the release as "too small to be a threat to the public." Claims by the pro-nuke Independent Power Producers of New York that shutting Indian Point would mean monthly rate hikes of $7 over the summer average of $100 are disputed by economist Ashok Gupta of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who says they fail to take into account conservation improvements and new generators coming on line. But Indian Point opponents in suburban Westchester and Rockland face some skepticism from urban environmentalists down the river in Gotham. Communities in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx are already fighting new gas-burning generators planned for their neighborhoods by the state Power Authority. Timothy Logan of the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance says: "We believe that any closure must first deal with alternative generation of electricity that will be needed to make up for a shutdown, and until those concerns are dealt with in an equitable manner, we could not fully support a shutdown." (New York Times, Dec. 27) THE WAR AT HOME
NOW: BAREFOOT AT NEWARK Of course any society which is serious about freedom would choose the third option without equivocation. (Recommended reading: The Wisdom of Insecurity by Alan Watts)
ASHCROFT DISSES FREEDOM-NOSTALGISTS AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CRITICIZES TERROR LAWS
FBI UNVEILS "MAGIC LANTERN" CYBER-SNOOP TECH
NYPD GETS MORE FIREPOWER
JERRY FALWELL: MAD MAGAZINE'S "DUMBEST OF THE YEAR" WATCHING THE SHADOWS DOES OSAMA HAVE THE NUKE? In a New York Times op-ed Nov. 28, "How Secure is Pakistan's Plutonium?", ex-CIA director James Woosley urged extending the "cooperative threat reduction program" the US has with Russia--in which the US funds and oversees security of ex-Soviet nuclear materials--to Pakistan. Woosley acknowledged that "moderate general" Khalid Kidwai was put in charge of Pakistan's nuclear forces following an Oct. 7 shake-up in the military. Nonetheless: "There is a real risk that Pakistan's fanatics might collaborate with al-Qaeda..." Things don't look too good in Russia itself. A Nov. 12 New York Times story warned: "Lax Nuclear Security in Russia Is Cited as Way for bin Laden to Get Arms." It cited dozens of violations of "nuclear security rules" in Russia, as well as actual losses of fissile material. Russian nuclear security chief Col. Igor Volynkin, said his forces discovered terrorist stake-outs of a secret nuclear weapons storage facility twice this year. Russian Security Council official Raisa Vdovichenko said Taliban emissaries asked an employee at "an institution related to nuclear technologies to go to their country to work there in this field." Twice in 2000, police in Georgia seized small quantities of enriched uranium and plutonium. The worst cases were in 1993, when 3 kilograms of enriched uranium were seized in St. Petersburg, and 1994, when 360 grams of Russian plutonium were seized in Munich. Osama bin Laden told Time magazine in 1999: "Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims." (Newsday, Nov. 7) In a Nov. exclusive interview with Hamid Mir of Pakistan's Dawn newspaper at a secret location in Afghanistan, bin Laden reportedly said: "We have chemical and nuclear weapons as a deterrent and if the Americans used them against us, we reserve the right to use them." (New York Times, Nov. 10). He also said: "If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism then history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents." (UK Guardian, Nov. 12) Responded President Bush to the boast: "I believe we need to take him seriously. We will do everything we can to make sure he does not acquire the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction. If he doesn't have them, we will work hard to make sure he doesn't; if he does, we'll make sure he doesn't deploy them." (Newsday, Nov. 7)
GERMANS AT IT AGAIN Israel is the obvious immediate target for any of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Hussein sent missiles to Israel during 1991's Operation Desert Storm, and would doubtless strike Israel again if the US attacks, as White House officials now threaten. (For more on Iraq bio-war capacity, see WW3 REPORT #4)
NUCLEAR FLASHPOINT: JERUSALEM Israel's nuclear program was briefly back in the news this week as California electronics manufacturer Richard Kelly Smyth pleaded guilty to selling hundreds of nuclear-weapons triggers to Israel. Smyth had spent 16 years on the lam from charges of illegally exporting $60,000 worth of the krytrons, which carries life imprisonment. (BBC World Service, Dec. 28). NEXT WEEK: ANTHRAX PARANOIA! Subscribe to WORLD WAR III REPORT E-mail: ww3report-subscribe@topica.com REPRINTING PERMISSIBLE WITH ATTRIBUTION
DONATIONS NEEDED!!! EXIT POLL: Are you anticipating a New Year's Eve nuclear terrorist attack on New York City? (Answer the question!)
Send feedback to: |
SearchAnalysisNewsReviews |
