TOPICS

Globalization of Terror and War

Globalization of Terror and War

By John Saxe-Fernández

The Bush administration, heavily influenced by the short-term interests of the powerful US oil and gas industry in the Caspian, is alienating entire generations of Mohammedans, reaping enmity and retaliation, on a colossal scale.
Fernando Carmona, in memoriam.

1. Preamble and historical background.

The events of September 11, 2001 and the spiral of violence that has followed with the equally brutal and unilateral bombing carried out by the United States and England against Afghanistan, with the complicity of Europe and politically and legally irresponsible regimes such as that of Vicente Fox in Mexico, are of a high human, historical and strategic order of magnitude. Human because what happened from that day left thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of innocent civilians, dead and wounded. There are no adequate words to express our feelings. The images of the destruction of the Twin Towers are as overwhelming as those of the corpses of children, women and men massacred by the cluster bombs used by the US Air Force in its unspeakable war against Afghanistan, a poor and already devastated people. 20 years of war; images that are an instantaneous and shocking record of the great human tragedy that unfolds before our eyes. International organizations estimate that this war is on the verge of causing 100,000 victims of hunger and that the humanitarian catastrophe derived from the unusual and useless punishment of the Bush administration to Afghanistan could inflict more damage, even death, on millions of people.

English complicity in this campaign and the sad performance of Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of that nation, in the role of Bush's runner-up in the Middle East and Europe, is inexcusable: the UK's experience after a three-decade struggle against terrorism, shows, in a forceful way, that in the face of this phenomenon there is no military solution, being the political route the only way out.

The United Nations (UN) formally denounced on October 24, 2001 that Washington dropped cluster bombs in its attacks on the population of Herat, where it bombed a military hospital, a mosque, a neighboring town and a nursing home. () Abdullah Abdullah, a leader of the opposition to the Afghan regime, acknowledged that the bombings have caused a lot of pain and deaths among the civilian population, which is why he urged the US to avoid such deaths at all costs, "because the Afghan people have already suffered the terror of other wars ". Washingon, however, intensified its attacks throughout that country, raising the death toll to more than 1,500 and the Department of Defense (DoD) announced that the bombings would continue even during the holy month of Ramadan, at the same time that Osama bin Laden, the alleged organizer of the terrorist attacks against the USA, made an appeal to the Islamic world about what he described as a historic aggression by Christians against Islam. Although this assertion is false, since the US military operations are motivated more by geostrategic interests to lead to the domain of the third most important oil and gas basin in the world, than by religious aspects, the ferocious and bloody attack, with its sequel of innocent victims, it is perceived as a brutal slap against the one billion human beings who identify with Islam. This is perhaps one of the most historic errors ever perpetrated by US post-World War II (WWII) "force diplomacy."

Our proximity in time and space makes it difficult for us to apprehend, in all their significance, the historical ramifications and the strategic, political-constitutional, geopolitical and geoeconomic consequences of these events. But the truth is that the Bush administration, heavily influenced by the short-term interests of the powerful US oil and gas industry in the Caspian, is alienating entire generations of Mohammedans, reaping enmity and retaliation, on a colossal scale. Geostrategic-business background that drives Bush's policy in Central Asia, is synthesized by Brisard and Dasquié in these terms:

? Moscow and Beijing multiply the agreements to build pipelines that could monopolize the transportation of Central Asian reserves. In addition, in the summer of 2000, the Russian pipeline through which the Caspian Sea oil passes began to operate, while its competitor, the US pipeline that will lead to Ceyhan (Turkey), remains a project. If the situation continues like this, soon the oil and gas fields of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, which are owned by US companies, will be exclusively connected to oil and gas pipelines controlled by Russia and China.

In psychology the word "subliminal" is used to refer to stimuli that are so small that we cannot perceive them. The chain of events unleashed since September 11 is so immense and shocking that we cannot perceive it either. Its components belong to the category of the "supra-liminal". As Günther Anders indicates, ... it might be possible to imagine or repent for the murder of a fellow man or even share responsibility; But to figure the elimination of thousands of human beings "? definitely exceeds our imaginative power. The greater the possible effect of our actions, the less capable we are of representing it, of repenting or of feeling responsibility for it; the wider the abyss, both the weaker the braking mechanism. Eliminating a hundred thousand people at the push of a button is incomparably easier than cutting an individual to pieces. "

Unilaterally, regardless of any international judicial instance and without further substantiation of facts, the United States turned the fight against terrorism into a war against Afghanistan, continuously increasing the number of people killed and injured while running serious risks that the conflict becomes general in a context in which the Bush administration, deepening its contempt for the rule of law, observed with great concern since it assumed the presidency, attributes the right to attack other countries under the pretext of persecuting terrorism no face or precise location. Whether in the Twin Towers or Afghanistan, or because of attacks using high-tech anthrax, the barbarism and cowardice of the indiscriminate attack against a defenseless population is palpable. There is nothing in this world that justifies such actions: there is no good or bad terrorism. Terrorism in any of its manifestations, that is, including terrorism organized by the State, must be categorized as a crime against humanity.

The events that occurred in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania and Afghanistan have taken the phenomenon, in terms of public awareness, to shocking and dramatic levels, giving the causal links between "state terrorism" and "international terrorism" , greater visibility. This makes necessary the effort to elucidate its antecedents, structural characteristics and dynamics. After September 11, 2001, the word terrorism and the experience of terror acquired an existential-phenomenological presence and an impressive impact: the moral significance and the weight of personal, family and communal tragedy, does not know, ethically, any valuation whatsoever. , in terms of a comparative reflection. But the historical, political and military order of magnitude of that event, and the spiral of violence that has followed, does merit careful scrutiny in order to assess its significance, which can only be done in a comparative-historical context. Without this historical, analytical and explanatory effort, it will be difficult to achieve an approach that conceptually and operationally allows the delimitation of the order of magnitude of what happens. History provides an indispensable framework to calibrate and begin to understand the greater meaning of what is happening. It offers space for reflection, comparison, serenity and a healthy distancing from Iguazú from events to which we are subjected.

In this direction, some analysts have already compared the attack on New York and Washington with that of Pearl Harbor (December 1941), which marked the formal entry of the US into the war. The similarities and differences between these events merit attention. First of all, the differences center on the fact that the origin of the attacker was immediately known at Pearl Harbor and it did not involve the national-continental territory, much less the seat of the economic and military power of the United States. On the other hand, there is documentary evidence indicating that at least Winston Churchill had prior knowledge of the attack. Likewise, a great controversy was unleashed as to whether the same US Navy was also aware of the operation prior to the Japanese attack. Even leaving aside the conspiracy hypotheses, the recently released top-secret documents amply illustrate inexplicable military and intelligence errors, strange mistakes and manipulations in the handling of encrypted messages, an abnormal apathy in the decision-making process. and the existence of a secret pact between Roosevelt and Churchill, in August 1941, in which the president of the United States undertook, regardless of the legislation in force at that time, to defend the British Empire in the Far East. It was a pact without constitutional foundation that, in the opinion of important analysts, represented an erroneous deterrence strategy that stimulated, together with a total embargo on oil shipments to Japan by the Anglo-American companies that monopolized its commercialization, the Japanese surprise attack. During that secret meeting on August 8, Churchill strove to defend the commercial interests of the British Empire, threatened by Roosevelt's proposals, and further made it clear to the President that he wanted the US to declare war on the Axis immediately. According to the minutes of the British War Cabinet, -a document that was kept secret, "? the President said he would make war but could not declare it"because of the isolationist opposition that prevailed in Congress, but"? who would adopt an increasingly provocative stanceAnd that "if the Germans don't like it, then let them attack US forces." Roosevelt went on to say that, "? Everything possible should be done to create an 'incident' leading to war. "(Textual: "Everything was to be done to force an 'incident' that could lead to war." Commenting on these extraordinary documentary findings, historian Walter LaFeber points out, first that Roosevelt's words were kept secret and the public learned of them thirty years later. The stealth is understandable, given the brutal sacrifice of thousands of American soldiers. He also recalls that the events that followed fully guarantee their authenticity. Roosevelt, in effect, approved the deployment of operations aimed at provoking attacks against the United States. For example, in early September 1941 a US destroyer, the Greer, harassed a German war submarine for three hours, indicating its location to British forces, until it changed course and attacked. The Greer escaped without damage, but Roosevelt used the incident to denounce Germany for an unprovoked attack, never telling the public that the Greer had provoked the submarine attack.

The President later stated that in the face of such unexpected attacks, it was best to destroy the German submarines "before they attacked." In October the provocations continued and when three US warships were torpedoed and one sunk, Roosevelt took the opportunity to persuade Congress to rescind what remained of the Neutrality Act restrictions for the President to act. without any legal impediment.

The interest of both Churchill and later Roosevelt in the US formally entering the war as a belligerent was clearly established, and Pearl Harbor was the "event" that materialized this aspiration. Congress immediately proceeded to the formal declaration of war with overwhelming support from public opinion. Broad war powers were granted to the President and the country entered a state of emergency. The Pearl Harbor affair is a watershed in the history of the United States and the world, as the attack of September 11 is also now, so, as mentioned, it is convenient to establish the similarities and differences with respect to these recent events.

What has attracted the most attention has been the spectacular inability of US intelligence and security agencies to detect and prevent the catastrophe in New York and Washington, which cost thousands of lives. It is necessary, from now on, to take note, in the words of Baltasar Garzón, magistrate of the National High Court of Spain, on "the possible responsibilities for guilty omission of all the security, intelligence and police services of the United States in the non-prevention of the slaughter". Such incompetence is striking, both because Senators Gary Hary and Warren Rudman of the Hart-Rudman Commission had specifically warned since January that "terrorism was such a great threat that it required much more than just the attention of the Federal Agency for Management of Human Rights. Emergencies ", making proposals to neutralize them, which were incomprehensibly despised by the White House, the Secretary of Defense, the State Secretary and the National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, as because there are indications that various political and investor groups had knowledge previous about the attack. The intelligence services, after tracking the information available in recent months, admit that since June they had clues that a major attack was being prepared. In the first months of the summer, the CIA began to receive reports about preparations to carry out "some spectacular terrorist activity", and more specifically "the CIA learned in June that Islamic fundamentalists were preparing a major attack" as reported to Time, sources from that agency. According to a press report issued from London, in the 72 hours before the attacks on the Twin Towers, several Italian politicians learned from an absolutely reliable source of the dark intentions of terrorist groups to use commercial suicide planes against buildings in the USA. . The source identified is the French priest, Jean Marie Benjamin, who warned that an "Islamic" terrorist network had such intentions. With a budget of more than thirty billion and with a long and close connection and monitoring of the Italian political community practically Since 1948, it is astonishing that neither the CIA station in Rome nor Berlusconi, whose political apparatus, in addition to having an extensive infrastructure for electronic and telephone espionage, boasts of having the best personal information on what happens every day in Italy, they have not noticed Benjamin's warnings, especially that he is one of the main authorities on the subject.

It is also widely known that, according to transaction analysts on various exchanges, stock trades were recorded that during the days prior to the attacks, speculated on the shares of various aviation companies, brokerages and insurance companies, which would be seriously affected by the use of airplanes. commercial, with passengers, as instruments of war. This suspicious framework strengthens the hypothesis - and the suspicion - that political and investor groups from various Western countries, including the US itself, had advance knowledge of the terrorist plans. On September 12 it was found that six days before the attacks, stock market maneuvers had been carried out with United Airlines shares (one of whose planes crashed in the south tower of the World Trade Center -WTC- and another collapsed in Pennsylvania), and those of American Airlines, (one of his planes crashed in the Pentagon and another in the north tower). Reliable sources indicate that these manipulations, characteristic of the crime of "illegal use of privileged information" were not carried out with any other airline in the world, except KLM. Similar transactions were recorded with the put options of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co -company occupying 22 floors in the WTC as well as with those of the world's first stockbroker, Merril Lynch & Co -whose offices were located in a nearby building to the Towers, about to collapse. Other equally surprising operations were carried out with the shares of insurance groups: Munich Re, Swiss Re and Axa.

Political scientist James Petras recalled that several of the Arab suicide pilots were trained by the US armed forces, so he does not rule out that some of them have been double agents. Which points to the existence of disturbing links between the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon, the Al Qaeda network, the interests managed by the Bush family and Osama bin Laden. It is a close relationship throughout the years in which Washington encouraged, trained, financed and equipped the fundamentalist groups fighting the USSR in Afghanistan.

For example, in 1979, at the request of Prince Turki al-Faisal al Saud, director of the Saudi intelligence services, Bin Laden was commissioned "to financially manage the secret operations of the CIA in Afghanistan." It is about 2 billion dollars, "the most expensive operation ever undertaken by that Agency."

It is virtually impossible that the US National Security Agency (NSA) was not aware of the movements and financial manipulations that preceded the brutal attack on civilians in New York. The NSA has for years monitored the activities of criminal groups as well as large European companies and banks through "Echelon", a super-secret spy device, established in 1947 and operating from Fort Meade, Md, in which England participates. Australia, New Zealand and Canada Its existence became known in 1988 and in 1997 the European Parliament carried out an investigation into the use of Echelon to deactivate contracts of companies from continental Europe and Japan, rivals of the United States, especially in the area of ​​high technology such as aerospace and biotechnology.

It is also known as "the most powerful ear on the underworld". It was used to locate the terrorist Carlos (the Jackal) in 1994 and Pablo Escobar, accused of drug trafficking, in 1993. According to Forbes, both were discovered "through phone calls." The NSA reports directly to the White House and has its own satellites capable of intercepting any communication in the world. This is a labyrinthine system, with artificial intelligence equipment that intercepts satellite, microwave, cell phone, submarine cable and fiber optic signals, anywhere in the world, allowing the recognition of information that is of commercial and investment interest, of a political-military nature. or related to criminal transactions. According to a recent analysis, "Terrorists like Osama bin Laden know that calls and emails are vulnerable to monitoring, such that they often only communicate personally and use friends or family as messengers." But, as Steven points out Aftergood, an intelligence policy analyst at the Federation of American Scientists: "At the end of the day we are talking about tracking down a terrorist network. A network cannot fully function without resorting to technology." "They have to be capable to transfer funds, they have to be able to travel. And they have to be able to communicate. "

Considering the above, after several attacks on US embassies in Africa, with dozens of deaths and injuries, the security forces and anti-terrorist detection instruments were in a continuous state of alert, so the "generalized crack of security "of the police and intelligence services at all levels, which opened a time-space window of opportunity for terrorist groups to gain access and control of the planes and direct them with precision towards their targets, especially since it is officially recognized that the NSA had intercepted two messages that linked several terrorists who had entered the US from Canada, with Bin Laden. Official government sources informed Time magazine that " those first indications seemed to be true in a 90% of possibilitiesEqually inexplicable, is that no authority of the Executive or Legislative of the USA has initiated a thorough investigation and as a previous step to a formal trial of those responsible, of which, prima facie, and in the opinion of the deputy Dana Rohrabacher is "a catastrophic failure." After all, $ 11 billion is spent annually on counterterrorism.

The situation is delicate as it is not yet known, with certainty, from where the attack was carried out. As in 1941, the event marks the transition between a period in the history of the American Union -and of the world-, and the beginning of another "era", especially with regard to the greater concentration of powers of "the Presidency Imperial "- as described by Arthur Schlesinger - and of the impacts on the constitutional order, civil liberties, the right to information, civil-military relations and an extraordinary stimulus and increase to the budgets and personnel of the intelligence community, the arms race and therefore the power derived from the conjunction of US military and industrial interests.

I am referring to the immediate events of the attacks, when President Bush received - with a vote against - broad powers of war. Subsequently, on October 24, the US Chamber of Deputies approved a package of measures to increase the power and budgets of the military, intelligence and internal security agencies. The package gives the intelligence apparatus the right to tap phones and emails, (Echelon) to arrest suspects and suspend the right to habeas corpus and other elementary procedures for the protection of suspects against police arbitrariness. Subsequently, and at the request of the White House, public access has been restricted to the official files that had been opened under the Freedom of Information Act, precisely in which there are details about the "links" between the interests of the Bush family. with groups and characters from the Middle East mentioned above. The approval of the anti-terrorist bill, known as the "Patriot Law" had been delayed due to the concern of deputies and senators regarding civil liberties and respect for private life. The bioterrorism with anthrax perpetrated against leaders and legislative buildings and the media, created a climate of fear and indignation that helped, in one way or another, to "legitimize" before the domestic public opinion the bombings against Afghanistan and to impact the physical environment. -social and political in which finally the "Patriot Law" was approved. It arose from a compromise negotiated with the Senate, adopted by 357 votes in favor to 66 The law gives the police and intelligence agencies broad powers to combat terrorism, including powers to secretly search the homes of suspects and their business documents , as well as to listen to your phone conversations and read your email. The legislators, concerned about the possibility that the authorities will be absent from the powers that grant the new law, gave it a validity of only four years ("sunset clause"), which, according to Senator Dianne Feinstein, "gives us time to investigate whether there were egregious abuses "In fact, this law passed in the middle of episodes of terrorism with anthrax, with minimal legislative hearings and debate. It significantly eliminates the differences between overseas intelligence activities and those aimed at domestic maintenance of law and order. For example, the Department of Justice is allowed to expedite proceedings, further investigate and attack those suspected of terrorist activities. With this, in parallel, there is concern about whether these changes will really "reduce the terrorist threat or increase the level of fear of the citizen regarding his own government." Attorney John Ashcroft directed the Assistant Deputy in Charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, Michael Chertof, to handle the legal proceedings of nearly nine hundred detainees since the events of September 11. All the charges have been made in secret sessions, making it difficult to determine whether abuses of authority occur. Fears of constitutional and civil rights abuses have been voiced by Republicans and Democrats. Conservative Republican Senator Bob Goodlatte expressed concern about abuses of these powers while Democratic Senator Russell Feingold said that "the law allows regular criminal investigations to be conducted in this secret court, which frankly is not really any" court. "." It is the playground of the Attorney General. "These anxieties were certainly strengthened by the presidential decree signed by Bush empowering Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to establish" Secret Military Courts ", with powers of prosecution, prosecution. and secret execution of individuals of foreign origin, migrants, residents in the United States, or in any other country, such as Afghanistan or Pakistan, who are suspected of acts of terrorism. The civil-military balance appears to be seriously affected, although the process of militarization of political dynamics are not new. Warnings and remarks have come from such dissimilar as General David M. Shoup, who several decades ago had warned that "the United States has become a militaristic and aggressive nation": or Senator H. Ellender of Louisiana, with a conservative stance, who warned, in the midst of the Vietnam War, that "for almost twenty years many of us in Congress have blindly followed the directions of military spokesmen. Some representatives are captives of the military. We are about to become a military nation. "And Senator J. W. Fullbright, continually lamented about the domestic impacts of the militarization of foreign policy.

The privatization of the security services of important research centers of the government and the DdD, presents, together with its equivalent in airport services, one of the most serious problems, having registered over the last two years incidents of extraction of oil. highly dangerous materials from laboratories dedicated to the design and manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. At the end of October the security agencies did not rule out that the origin of the anthrax attacks was domestic. In an official document, regarding biological weapons, it is established that one of its advantages in relation to chemical or nuclear weapons is that it is difficult to detect due to the period between its use and the appearance of symptoms, which makes it difficult to determine the time and place of attack. Furthermore, a biological attack "can easily be attributed to natural causes, providing the attacking country with broad bases for ‘Deny plausibly’ their involvement. "Therefore, its use has been attractive for the apparatus in charge of conducting clandestine operations, inside or outside the US.

It is suggestive that, according to an expert interviewed on the BBC's Hard Talk program, one of the strains of anthrax used in at least one of the incidents reported by the media so far came from a sample from the 1950s, contained in an official repository, and only capable of being generated with proper equipment in a laboratory, impossible to have been produced by novices. The experts later recognized that the attacks that followed also had these characteristics. The first findings were inexplicably thrown into the vault of oblivion by both Attorney General John Ashcroft and White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and former Russian security adviser Alexei Yablokov. Days later Genady Onishchenko, Russia's Deputy Minister of Health, along with senior defense officials, categorically denied that the anthrax spores found in the US could have originated in Russia. Genady said to be sure "That they were prepared on US soil." Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI agreed with Russian spokesmen admitting the possibility that bioterrorist attacks " originate in the USA", although he specified that no hypothesis is ruled out. According to Mueller, "There may be someone in the United States that produces the bacillus.". In other words, there is no doubt that the FBI is open to the range of possibilities and is not restricted to the hypothesis that anthrax comes from Islamic fundamentalism, but accepts that it may come from racist, white and far-right groups or individuals or someone like, the "unabomber". In the midst of these reports, the rush of some major US weeklies to link Taiban with anthrax as well as the statements of White House spokesmen in the sense that, in response to this bioterrorism, the use of weapons was contemplated. nuclear tactics in Afghanistan while Bush claimed that " anthrax attacks"they represented "the second phase" of terrorist attacks. Which leaves us perplexed and logically leads us to ask several questions about the supposed links between external and internal actors, starting with whether there really is an articulating axis of that connection between the two phases, that is, between the terrorist attacks. against New York and Washington, presumably carried out by outside forces and the subsequent bioterrorist attacks, which the FBI hypothesizes are being perpetrated by domestic individuals or groups. Furthermore, what is the function of "phase two"? of public shock and sharp patriotism through attacks on key figures in the media? Is that why the anthrax attack against Senate leaders that has continued until now, with small amounts of spores found in the offices of Senators Edward Kennedy and Chris Dodd? These selective attacks on the Legislative Branch have created a favorable or unfavorable climate in favor of the new anti-terrorist legislation? The answers are crucial although, until now, the assumption that it is a "technical coup" would only be based on hypotheses that are supported by real evidence.

History continues to be an important guide, to determine the form of action and the internal political dynamics, especially in the relations of the civil-military powers and the impact of the powerful communities of the oil and gas industry and intelligence, or of sectors within it, which affect decision-making processes in the US. The last time a US President was granted war powers was during the Vietnam War, conferred in favor of Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) as a result of torpedo attacks on US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin. , presumably by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on August 2, 1964. Two days later, another attack was supposed to have occurred, at least so the public was officially informed. LBJ's response was sudden: he issued instructions for the bombardment of North Vietnamese bases and ships and asked Congress to approve the "Resolution of the Gulf of Tonkin", which gave him war powers, in order to "take all the necessary measures to avoid another attack ". The resolution was approved unanimously in the Lower House by 416 votes in favor and 0 against. In the Senate, he faced objections from Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening, both Democrats, who warned that the measure "? Gave a blank check to the president to use force at will in Southeast Asia." The Senate approved the measure on August 7, with 88 votes in favor and 2 against, in the midst of a strong media campaign, with the outburst, ignorance, and misinformation of the public as primary components in the face of what was presented as an unprovoked attack. against US ships.

Over the four years that followed, documentary information appeared showing that the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin had been provoked by the US Navy itself carrying out sabotage operations and attacks against North Vietnam and that the second attack probably never occurred. The Pentagon documents, a huge mass of highly secret reports and communications released to the public by Daniel Ellsberg, a former analyst with ties to the Air Force intelligence service and published by The New York Times, finally showed that everything had been a clever setup, aimed at manipulating Congress in order to grant LBJ powers of exception and justify before national and international public opinion the intensification of the war as well as a surprising increase in troops, equipment and military budgets for the three weapons and intelligence services. A kind of "technical coup" carried out by teams of "operators" of the vast intelligence system of that nation. According to Lieutenant Fletcher Prouty, the problem becomes more complex and the situation more dangerous since what he identifies as the Directorate of Operations, or "The Secret Team", and authors such as David Wise and Thomas Ross call "the invisible government" It also uses these methods to manipulate "internal" American political dynamics. According to Prouty, one of the greatest strengths of the Intelligence Operations Directorate has been its ability to activate various elements within the government - usually the Defense Department, with small stimuli designed to create a reaction. To take the situation to a higher level, Prouty reveals, "the CIA uses its clandestine infrastructure to stimulate actions that interest it in order to generate reactions within the US governmental structure. Although such actions and reactions usually begin in a On a smaller scale, they soon escalate as in Indonesia, Tibet, and Greece. They got totally out of control in Southeast Asia. " The "game plan" consists of first defining the scene, with statements that the enemy is about to attack, then the team of operators launches a very secret and provocative attack, "- the kind that will generate an open response." According to this expert in military intelligence, "these secret attacks, which may well have been carried out by third parties or mercenaries without any state ties, whose materials were secretly supplied by the CIA, will undoubtedly create a reaction that is in turn observed in the United States. The next step is to categorize the enemy's act as 'an aggression' or a 'subversive insurgency', and the next stage is activated by the CIA, which brings these events to the National Security Council, so that appropriate response measures can be adopted. " . This technique, widely confirmed by The Pentagon Papers, was carried out by Walt Rostow and McGeorge Bundy, against North Vietnam, setting the frame of reference for the attacks in the Gulf of Tonkin. All the mystery generated around these events was dispersed in those documents, in their reference to the covert scheme known as OPLAN-34. The memory of this operational scheme is far from representing an inert historical fact. It is not a museum piece or a relic, if one keeps in mind how immensely relevant it is to answer, now, the question about the relationship between the Directorate of Operations with Osama bin Laden, the Al Qeda organization and the Islamic guerrillas, a Natural question, if one takes into account that agents of that governmental instance supervised operations of great political-military impact, such as the handling of several billions of dollars -in charge of bin Laden-, the delivery of rockets Stinger to the Afghan Jumahidin during the war against the USSR, and the development of vast clandestine operations aimed at accelerating the deterioration of the Soviet position in Central Europe - with the official participation of the Vatican - and in Central Asia.

The historical record also indicates that since the so-called "War of 1812," the continental United States had not been attacked. Indeed, the last time that an event of this nature was recorded occurred on August 3, 1814 when a force of five thousand British soldiers and sailors left Bermuda for the Atlantic coast of the United States. Among them were 3,800 veterans of the campaign against Napoleon, known as "the invincibles of Wellington." The operation was directed against the city of Washington, whose main buildings and public symbols were subjected to torch fire. Without leaving aside its importance, what happened in September 2001 makes the events of 1814 and that of Pearl Harbor pale. One of the most relevant aspects is that the US is formally and operationally in a state of war and that, for the first time since 1814, its continental territory and its population are part and parcel of the "battlefield", -as will be seen later, This has profound consequences for international political / strategic relations, and in particular represents a historical challenge and a potential threat to the territorial sovereignty of Mexico and Canada.

2 State Terrorism and International Terrorism.

The causal relationship between State terrorism and International Terrorism is fully established. Since 1997, the Defense Science Board informed the Undersecretariat of Defense for Acquisitions and Technology that, "? Historical information shows the existence of a strong correlation between the intervention of the US overseas and the increase in terrorist attacks against it." The document continues to warn that, "? In addition, the military asymmetry that denies other States the ability to carry out open attacks against the US, induces them to use transnational actors, that is, terrorists from one country attacking another." The recognition that the practice of State terrorism as part of the instruments of foreign policy can cause a generalized state of anarchy and war, was recognized in the Security Act of 1947, through which the US secret services were re-founded. , for intelligence work and the practice of questionable operations that, by their nature are clandestine and must be kept secret because they violate international, criminal, commercial and constitutional law as well as the regulations of the Nuremberg Trials. In that Act, it was established that those State terror operations, which included political assassination, attacks, destabilization and the induction of coups d'état, among other activities, should be carried out "clandestinely" and with the ability "to plausible denial ", which led to the maintenance of secrecy regarding the participation of the US government in its planning, financing and execution. For 50 years, this type of force diplomacy, based on secret operations, to later justify military or overt political actions, was strongly applied in Latin America, but also in Asia and the Middle East.

The feeling of loss, anger and mourning in relation to a collective event of massacre that we felt on Tuesday, September 11, had been experienced twenty-eight years before, on the same day but in 1973, when a frightening operation of State terrorism began. in Chile that overthrew a constitutional president generating a bloodbath that would take the lives of thousands of men and women and would subject many others to cruel torture, inflicting moral, physical and emotional damage to thousands of families, marking an entire generation.

That was not just an endogenous operation. There is abundant documentation that indicates it was initiated and promoted by Nixon, with Henry Kissinger as the main coordinator, from the offices of the White House national security advisory, of the secret operations of economic, political and military war that affect internal polarization . It is worth remembering now this Latin American case, one among many, because there are other operations such as the participation of the US in the establishment of a brutal dictatorship in Brazil since 1964, in the 1970s in Argentina and Uruguay and in the 1980s the establishment of regimes of State terror in Central America, protagonists of horrendous massacres in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, with special viciousness, infamy and ignominy against the Mayan population.

The historical reminder is necessary to exemplify the concept of "State terrorism", essential to launch more accurate views on the causal processes that may be at the base of the tragedy that has been taking place since September. It is about the relationship between "State terrorism" and the promotion of the objective conditions that induce "international terrorism".

In the case of the operation deployed by the US government in Chile, it is convenient to take up the documentary evidence offered by Peter Cornbluth and the National Security archive, as well as the synthesis offered by the journalist Jon Lee Anderson: "the game plan, in accordance With declassified US government documents, he aimed to create ungovernability in a Chile governed by an elected socialist president, Salvador Allende, causing social chaos in order to induce a coup d'état? A CIA cable synthesized the objectives clearly to the Chief of his station in Santiago in these terms "? It is our firm and persistent intention that Allende be overthrown by means of a coup? We are going to continue generating maximum pressure towards achieving this end, using all available means. It is imperative that these actions be applied clandestinely and safely in such a way that the hand of the US government remains well hidden ".

The average US citizen knew little about such operations and atrocities committed by their government. I am not going to describe or enumerate the massacres, the disappeared and the tortured and the persecuted, or their international coordination through Operation Condor. Stella Calloni already did it on time. I just want to remind the reader that this kind of force diplomacy was projected with equal fury and barbarism in Asia and particularly intensely in the Middle East. Clandestine operations and state terrorism are virtually registered throughout the world. For example, as a result of the escalation of warfare that followed the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incidents, hundreds of thousands of people were killed during the Johnson and Nixon administrations. Nixon and Kissinger dropped more bombs on Cambodia's rural population than the total dropped on Japan throughout World War II, killing at least three-quarters of a million Cambodian peasants and helping to legitimize Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge movement, whose revenge and The quest for ideological purity meant the death of a million and a half Cambodians, both rural and urban.

From then until today, force diplomacy has increased considerably, expressed in open interventionist violence. (Remember the bombing against the popular neighborhoods of Panama City, perpetrated by the father of the current US president in December 1989). Thus, as force diplomacy expanded and intensified, the mass of those attacked also increased, ready to face this diplomacy, observing the inability of the United States to control the unexpected effects: the short-medium or long-term responses of the victims, which in the US national security jargon is known as "blowback" (a kind of boomerang effect). According to Chalmers Johnson, "? The term 'blowback'" was "? Invented by officials of the Central Intelligence Agency, for internal use, and began to circulate among international relations scholars. It refers to the unexpected consequences of operations that were kept secret and unknown to the Americans. What the daily press describes as evil acts, of 'terrorism' or 'drug lords' or 'rogue states', or 'illegal arms dealers' often turn out to be the 'blowback' of previously conducted US operations. " The most notable examples of "blowback" offered by Johnson come from Washington-deployed operations in the Middle East, such as the 1988 terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 256 passengers and 11 people on the ground. according to Johnson, of Reagan's 1986 air strike against Libya that killed Gaddafi's daughter-in-law.

The "blowback" tends to generate more "blowback" in a spiral of violence. A good illustration of this characteristic is provided precisely by the reaction of the US government to the August 7, 1998 attacks on various embassy buildings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam: "? The government soon blamed Osama bin Laden, a Saudi that for years he had denounced the rulers of his country and his US allies. On August 20, the United States responded by launching about 80 cruise rockets (at a cost of $ 750,000 each) against a pharmaceutical plant in Cartun, Sudan, and against an old mujahideen camp in Afghanistan? Both targets had been identified by the US intelligence apparatus as areas linked to Osama Bin Laden or his followers. It soon became known, that the information on both sites was wrong and that neither target Was it related to those suspected of attacking embassies? Government spokespersons continue to justify these attacks as ways to deter terrorism even n if the targets have been proven irrelevant to any damage to US buildings? In this way, are the possibilities planted in the world for more 'blowback' in the future? The same spokesmen are unaware that in fact, Bin Laden, the alleged person responsible for the plotting of the attacks against the embassies, is a former ‘protegé’ of the United States. When the US organized Afghan rebels against the USSR in the 1980s, he played an important role in driving the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan and only became anti-American in 1991 because he considered that the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War it was a violation of their religious beliefs. "Therefore, Osama Bin Laden was vetoed by Washington from accessing the post of Saudi Arabia's oil minister.

The analysis of the effects and dangers of force diplomacy, with its policies of infiltration, penetration, wear and tear of internal structures of internal legitimacy applied by the CIA, from the US embassies in the world, made me warn in 1977 that The use of this type of force diplomacy could have repercussions within the United States, with increasing risks, that has been my fear since then, that it "would lead to a generalized human tragedy, but in a vastly greater proportion in the United States itself. ". In that book I considered that a Hitler-style diplomacy, such as the one we had observed in Chile and later in Argentina and Uruguay, "? Means the beginning of a Hobbesian era"; and I put on record my opinion that before continuing to apply political and urban warfare abroad, "? the American executive would do well to warn that its international aggressiveness makes its own political system a target of immediate attack by of internal or external actors, who have been attacked and / or provoked; after all, is it a cheap war (which does not exclude chemical-bacteriological urban sabotage) capable of being efficiently carried out by any nation? As Brian has recognized Jenkins, an expert at the Rand Corporation's Laboratory of Ideas, '? Governments could summon terrorist groups or prepare groups of their own, as the prospect is a cheap form of limited warfare.'

The 1977 text continues: "This would mean that the North American political system would have to make explicit all the elements of the state-garrison that it already contains, both at the legal and operational levels, but not a police-military state without precedent in American history would be capable of guaranteeing the functioning of its large - and vulnerable - metropolitan centers. The complexity of North American society and the remarkable interdependence of the entire system place the US before unhappy alternatives for the exercise of political and urban warfare abroad. "

My criticism of force diplomacy was based on several studies by US specialists indicating the structural vulnerabilities of the US. They mentioned the exploitation of these vulnerabilities by revolutionary movements. Today I would apply to terrorism or to the probable responses of the great accumulation of groups and States attacked by force diplomacy. In one of these investigations, carried out by I. Horowitz, structural vulnerability is described as a result of accessibility to an immense number of defenseless and strategically important targets, mentioning the "complexity of the social, political and economic structure" as a source of a wide range of vulnerable targets: "? transport and communication system, energy sources and entertainment centers". Horowitz warned that, "? The interdependence of the system makes it possible to create significant damage by destroying relatively insignificant targets. For example, the failure that caused a blackout in the electrical systems of the entire East Coast in 1968, was caused by a small error of the electrical component. If a subunit of a complex and interdependent system can be destroyed, the whole system is affected. A decrease in the activities of one part of the mass production system can create bottlenecks in the entire production system The very complexity of the US makes it impossible to defend all possible targets of attack - the list knows no limits. There is no absence of targets. To defend them would require a garrison state: even so, many vulnerable points would remain. "

In the midst of this fragility and structural vulnerability, it seemed to us then, and with much more reason it seems to us today, after the tragedy of September 11 and the spiral of violence that has followed, that it is imperative to immediately stop the brutal attack on Afghanistan. It is irrational and irresponsible to continue with a diplomacy that uses state terror on a frequent basis, generating thousands or millions of victims and therefore reaping enemies everywhere. Furthermore, in the era of intercontinental ballistic weaponry and thermonuclear and biochemical devices of mass destruction, the " globalization of ‘blowback’ ", it is presented as one of the most serious threats to the security and stability and survival of humanity.

3. State Terror as a world condition

Today the situation is more complex and dangerous than at the beginning of the 19th century. It is a world in which state terror has been its main characteristic. Throughout the last centuries, the State has been the fundamental and formidable political instrument both for organizing the global expansion of capitalism and for projecting the police-military and intelligence forces capable of protecting its commercial and investment interests overseas. The slightest historical auscultation of globalization shows the close relationship between the process of internationalization of the flows of goods, capital and technology and the instruments of financial, monetary, naval air and land projection, also organized and systematized by the metropolitan State with the essential participation of peripheral state instruments, equally hegemonized by social classes with similar interests and clientelistic relationships with their counterparts from the "north". This interpretative line, which recognizes that globalization occurs in a context of power marked by asymmetry, domination and exploitation, also emphasizes class analysis and contrasts with the position of Samuel Huntington, in the sense that although civilizations, like Islamic or Christian, they may share important cultural traditions and belief systems, they do not constitute a new frame of reference for strategic and security international relations. The center of modernization in the world has been the State hegemonized by class interests and not civilization. There is no basis for proposing, as Huntington does in Clash of Civilizations -and local parrots repeat it, always psychologically willing to adopt the latest fashion in metropolitan thought-, that after the Cold War civilizations are the new forms of organization of world politics, displacing the national state as the basic unit of the international system. It is the State and not civilization that organizes and equips the military forces with tanks, airplanes, bombs, equipment for biological, chemical and nuclear attacks and it does so through military-industrial mobilization, research funding and development and appropriation of vast public resources, through tax systems, in favor of these conglomerates of business and military power. It is the state leaders, and not the representatives of civilizations, who have their fingers on the nuclear buttons. If the discourse of "pop" globalism endeavored to launch the idea that the State was an obsolete phenomenon and, against all evidence, argued that it was on the way to extinction, now, with Washington in a formal and operational state of war, the disappointment is greater and embarrassing.

Huntington simplifies and blurs a reality rich in contradictions. The heterogeneity is palpable in the Muslim or Christian world. Iran does not feel more secure that Iraq can put biological weapons on a rocket, even though both countries are part of Islamic civilization. South Korea is concerned about Chinese military development, and takes action on it, despite the fact that the population of both nations belongs to the same culture.

It is the State that has organized the foundations for the global projection of Terror.

The presence of State terror and the responses to it, also through terrorism, has not been alien to us throughout our lives, during the 20th century and so on in the 21st: the National Socialist terror regime in Germany, or the terror of the Stalinist state in the USSR, or the Pinochet, among many others.

The globalization of terror came to typify the experience of modernity since the advent of weapons of mass destruction -nuclear and chemical-biological-, and the ability to be transported and launched anywhere on the planet with a range between 8 and 25 minutes, by means of intercontinental ballistic rocketry. Globalization as a multisecular experience generated throughout the post-Renaissance period, always occurred in the context of a growing modernization of the productive forces and of war linked to specific forms of imperial and colonial domination, and above all, of appropriation of wealth and geographic space. War has been an organizing principle of modern civilization. The phases and evolutions of globalization are not restricted to strictly economic matters. The operations of multinational corporations in these processes have acted as a magnet that has reduced the perception and therefore the interest of analysts in the political-strategic and sociocultural dimensions of globalization. The use of the term world or global in the broadest and most generalized sense was linked to the experience of war and the generalized terror experienced by broad sectors of the planet's population, first from 1914 and again in 1939, culminating in the international terror regime gestated since the use of the atomic bomb against the population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, which makes the exclusion of the aforementioned political-strategic and socio-cultural aspects paradoxical.


Video: John le Carré 1931-2020 on the Iraq War, Corporate Power, the Exploitation of Africa u0026 More (August 2021).