17/06/2013

Latest News Syria - Bilderberg Group: Paul Wolfowitz

Bilderberg.davignonwolfowitz.jpg

Who is Paul Wolfowitz ?

Päul Wolfowitz is born in Brooklyn, New York, into a Polish Jewish immigrant family, and grew up mainly in Ithaca, New York, where his father was a professor of statistical theory at Cornell University.

In 1961 he entered Cornell University and graduated in 1965 with a bachelor's degree in mathematics and chemistry. Then he dicided to go to graduate school to study politics.

From 1970 to 1972, Wolfowitz taught in the Department of Political Science at Yale University. 

In the 1970s Wolfowitz served as an aide to Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson, who influenced several neoconservatives, including Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. Jackson was a Cold War liberal supporting higher military spending and a hard line against the Soviet Union.

In 1977, during the Carter administration, Wolfowitz moved to the Pentagon. He was U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs for the U.S. Defense Department, under U.S. Secretary of Defense Harold Brown.

Following the 1980 election of President Ronald Reagan, offered Wolfowitz the position of Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State.

Wolfowitz demonstrated himself to be one of the strongest supporters of Israel in the Reagan administration.”

In 1982, the new U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz appointed Wolfowitz as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

From 1986 to 1989, during the military-backed government of dictator Suharto, Wolfowitz was the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Indonesia.

From 1989 to 1993, Wolfowitz served in the administration of George H.W. Bush as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, under then U.S. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Wolfowitz’s team co-ordinated and reviewed military strategy, raising $50 billion in allied financial support for the operation.

After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Wolfowitz and his then-assistant Scooter Libby wrote the “Defense Planning Guidance of 1992,” which came to be known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine, to “set the nation’s direction for the next century .

Wolfowitz: “ With an eye toward deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role, the United States would maintain unquestioned military superiority and, if necessary, employ force unilaterally .

Many of the ideas in the Wolfowitz Doctrine later became part of the Bush Doctrine. He left the government after the 1992 election.

Wolfowitz was associated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

In September 2000 the PNAC produced a 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century, advocating the redeployment of U.S. troops in permanent bases in strategic locations throughout the world where they can be ready to act to protect U.S. interests abroad.

From 2001 to 2005, during the George W. Bush administration, Wolfowitz served as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense reporting to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Wolfowitz was "a major architect of President Bush's Iraq policy. In the first emergency meeting of the National Security Council on the day of the September 11 attacks in 2001, Rumsfeld asked, “Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaeda?” with Wolfowitz adding that Iraq was a “brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily—it was doable.”  

On April 16, 2002 the National Solidarity Rally for Israel was called in Washington to promote US support and collaboration with Israel. Wolfowitz was the sole representative of the Bush administration to attend, speaking alongside Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. As reported by the BBC, Wolfowitz told the crowd that US President George W. Bush “wants you to know that he stands in solidarity with you”.

Following the declaration of 'victory' in Afghanistan the Bush administration had started to plan for the next stage of the so called War on Terror. According to John Kampfner, “Emboldened by their experience in Afghanistan, they saw the opportunity to root out hostile regimes in the Middle East and to implant very American interpretations of democracy and free markets, from Iraq to Iran and Saudi Arabia. Wolfowitz epitomised this view.” Wolfowitz “saw a liberated Iraq as both paradigm and linchpin for future interventions.” The 2003 invasion of Iraq began on March 19.

Prior to the invasion, Wolfowitz actively championed it, as he later stated: “For reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason”.

The job of finding WMD and providing justification for the attack would fall to the intelligence services.

Kampfner and Wolfowitz, they set up what came to be known as the ‘cabal’, a cell of eight or nine analysts in a new Office of Special Plans (OSP) based in the U.S. Defense Department.” According to an unnamed Pentagon source quoted by Hersh, the OSP “was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States.”

Within months of being set up, the OSP “rivaled both the CIA and the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda.” 

The actions of the OSP have led to accusation of the Bush administration “fixing intelligence to support policy” with the aim of influencing Congress in its use of the War Powers Act.

Kampfner outlined Wolfowitz’s strategy for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which “envisaged the use of air support and the occupation of southern Iraq with ground troops, to install a new government run by Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress.” Wolfowitz believed that the operation would require minimal troop deployment, Hersh explains, because “any show of force would immediately trigger a revolt against Saddam within Iraq, and that it would quickly expand.” The financial expenditure would be kept low, Kampfner observes, if “under the plan American troops would seize the oil fields around Basra, in the South, and sell the oil to finance the opposition.”

During Wolfowitz’s pre-war testimony before Congress, he dismissed General Eric K. Shinseki’s estimates of the size of the post war occupation force and estimated that fewer than 100,000 troops would be necessary in the war.

In March 2005, Wolfowitz was nominated to be president of the World Bank by U.S. In the U.S. there was some praise for the nomination. An editorial in The Wall Street Journal states: “Mr. Wolfowitz is willing to speak the truth to power … he saw earlier than most, and spoke publicly about, the need for dictators to plan democratic transitions

World Bank Group’s board of executive directors and staffers complained that Wolfowitz was imposing Bush Administration policies to eliminate family planning from World Bank programs.

On May 17, 2007 the World Bank Group’s board of Executive Directors announced that Paul Wolfowitz would resign as World Bank Group president at the end of June 2007.

Wolfowitz is a former steering committee member of the Bilderberg group.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz

Photo: Etienne Davignon, former president of the Bilderberg Group, and Wolfowitz - Germany 2005 

===

Verhofstadt.Guy.davignon.Sofina

Idris.Verhofstadt2

Photos:

1. Guy Verhofstadt, MEP and President of ALDE Group; Mr Jacques Delors, Founding President of 'Notre Europe' and Etienne Davignon, former President of the Bilderberg Group

2. Chief of Staff of the so called ‘Free Syrian Army’ Gen. Salim Idris addresses the media after he discussed the situation in Syria with Guy Verhofstadt, right, at the European Parliament in Brussels, March 6, 2013. Idris said that his army needed the West to supply “weapons and ammunition” so that his forces can “defend themselves.” Verhofstadt: “The time for peace talks is over, we need action now. If the UN doesn’t react, then NATO should.”
The so called ‘Free Syrian Army’ always has rejected any proposal for peace talks and since 2 years, the U.S. and its satellite states provide Idris and all kind of terrorist groups continuously with weapons wich are also used for terrorist attacks on Syrian civilians.

Bilderberg Group:
Official Bilderberg Attendee List and Agenda Released
Bilderberg 2013 (video)
Bilderberg 2013 – Your guide to ‘The Bilderberg Group’ (video)
Why don’t the mainstream media report on Bilderberg meetings? – Gerard Batten MEP (video)
Italian Supreme Court President Blames Bilderberg For Terrorist Attacks
Bilderberg Feast (video + update)
Bilderberg Conference (video)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/05/bilderberg-2013-goldman-sachs-watford
http://www.bilderberg.org/2005.htm
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/100407_wolfowitz_istanbul_bilderberg.html

28/05/2013

Latest News Syria: Europe's 'political solution'

European.Union.U.S.cartoon.jpg

The European Union decided to expand the economic siege against the Syrian people for an extra 12-month and to lift the siege on exporting weapons to the Syrian insurgents...

===

European Council on Foreign Affairs

'Syria: towards a political solution'...

... 'The prospect of arming the opposition raises concerns inside and outside the country. Channelling weapons into the country would likely set the scene for an even deeper and long-lasting civil conflict with very uncertain regional consequences (particularly given the indeterminate nature of many of the country’s armed groups). Though unarmed civilians continue to bear the devastating brunt of the crackdown, expanding and supporting armed resistance would invite even wider violence. Moreover, unless foreign backers were prepared to provide artillery and air capabilities, arming the opposition is unlikely to change the balance of power. It is more likely that arming the opposition may further empower the regime by discrediting the opposition among Syrians still on the fence, while also providing justification to the regime (and its international backers) to continue using violence. Finally, air strikes remain deeply problematic because of both Syria’s strong Russian-supplied air defence systems and the complexity of a battle that is largely unfolding in urban environments.
All of these options, though opening the possibility of an eventual rebel victory, do so by enabling a wider militarisation of the conflict that is likely to be long and painful for much of the country’s population...'


http://ecfr.eu/page/-/ECFR_Syria_political_solution.pdf

26/04/2013

NATO: “territorial defence of Europe” and “peace-making” ?

Syria.Vrije Syrische Leger.Guy Verhofstadt .jpg

The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union

The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) is the organised, agreed foreign policy of the European Union (EU) for mainly security and defence diplomacy and actions. CFSP deals only with a specific part of the EU’s external relations, which domains include mainly Trade and Commercial Policy and other areas such as funding to third countries, etc. Decisions require unanimity among member states in the Council of the European Union, but once agreed, certain aspects can be further decided by qualified majority voting. Foreign policy is chaired and represented by the EU’s High Representative.

The CFSP sees the NATO responsible for the territorial defence of Europe and “peace-making”. However, since 1999, the European Union is responsible for implementing missions, such as “peace-keeping” and policing of treaties, etc. A phrase that is often used to describe the relationship between the EU forces and NATO is “separable, but not separate”: The same forces and capabilities form the basis of both EU and NATO efforts, but portions can be allocated to the European Union if necessary. Concerning missions, the right of first refusal exists: the EU may only act if NATO first decides not to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy

Photo: Chief of Staff of the so called ‘Free Syrian Army’ Gen. Salim Idris addresses the media after he discussed the situation in Syria with Guy Verhofstadt, right, at the European Parliament in Brussels, March 6, 2013. Verhofstadt pleads for supply of heavy weapons to Idris but a number of reports indicate that Verhofstadt lies and that  the weapons were already delivered…

====

“Territorial defence of Europe” and “peace-making”...

Verhofstadt.Guy.davignon.Sofina.jpg

Brussels, April 26th, 2013

Verhofstadt about Syria: ‘The weak position of the European Union makes me sick. The European Commission knows what needs to be done, so they should go ahead and use every means possible, including less orthodox ways if needed. The time for peace talks is over, we need action now. If the UN doesn’t react, then NATO should.’

Guy Verhofstadt

Verhofstadt became president of the Flemish Liberal Student's Union (1972–1974) while studying law at the University of Ghent. He quickly became the secretary of Willy De Clercq, who was at that time the president of the Flemish liberal party (Party for 'Freedom and Progress', PVV). In 1982, at age 29, he became president of the party. In 1985 he was elected into the Chamber of Deputies, and became Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Budget under Prime Minister Wilfried Martens. Because of his economic views and his young age, he became known as "Baby Thatcher". Another nickname from that era is "da joenk", a Brabantian dialect expression meaning "that kid" (in a pejorative sense, referring to his rather iconoclastic and immature style).
After a failed attempt to form a government in November 1991, he resigned and disappeared from the political scene, only to return to the party's presidency in 1997 with a 'less radical image'.

Partly because of a food scandal that broke out just before the elections, his party became the largest party in the country, and he was appointed Prime Minister on July 12, 1999, the first liberal to hold that office since 1938.

Following the 2003 general elections, Verhofstadt formed his second cabinet.
In the regional elections of June 13, 2004, his party lost votes.
Since then, Verhofstadt has been faced with internal crisis after crisis.

In 2004, Verhofstadt was suggested as a candidate to replace Romano Prodi as the next President of the European Commission. He was the choice of the former French president, Jacques Chirac, and Germany's
ex-chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, but his candidacy was opposed and rejected by a coalition led by Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi.

After his premiership he took up the seat of Senator to which he had been elected in 2007.
In the 2009 European Parliament election, he was elected a member of the European Parliament for the term 2009–2014 and has been put forward as the possible candidate for replacing José Manuel Barroso as the president of the European Commission by a coalition of greens, socialists and liberals.
On July 1, 2009 he was elected President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe group in the European Parliament.
Verhofstadt is also a member of the Club de Madrid, an organization of more than 80 former statesmen. The group works to promote ‘democratic governance and leadership worldwide’.
On April 2, 2012 Verhofstadt Verhofstadt replaced Etienne Davignon who was for many years chairman of the audit committee of Sofina and a member of the remuneration and nomination committee.

Etienne Davignon

Davignon joined the Belgian Foreign Ministry, in 1959, and within two years had become an attaché under Paul-Henri Spaak, then-Minister of Foreign Affairs. He remained in Belgian government until 1965. In 1970, he chaired the committee of experts which produced the Davignon report on foreign policy for Europe. On 27 October 1970, in Luxembourg, the Foreign Ministers of the Six adopted the Report, which 'seeks progress in the area of political unification through cooperation in foreign policy matters'.

Davignon later became the first head of the International Energy Agency, from 1974 to 1977, before becoming a member of the European Commission, of which he was vice-president from 1981 till 1985. From 1989 to 2001, he was chairman of the Belgian bank Société Générale de Belgique, which is now part of the French supplier Suez and was not an arm of the French bank Société Générale, but a Belgian institution. He is now Vice Chairman of Suez subsidiary, Suez-Tractebel.

As chairman of Société Générale de Belgique, he was a member of the European Round Table of Industrialists. He is the current co-chairman of the EU-Japan Business Dialogue Round Table, chairman of the Paul-Henri Spaak Foundation, president of the EGMONT - Royal Institute for International Relations, chairman of CSR Europe, chairman of the European Academy of Business in Society and was chairman of the annual Bilderberg conference from 1998 to 2001.

Davignon is the chairman of the board of directors of Brussels Airlines, which he co-founded after the bankruptcy of Sabena. He is also a member of the board of numerous Belgian companies, and is the chairman of the board of directors and of the General Assembly of the ICHEC Brussels Management School.

On 26 January 2004, Davignon was given the honorary title of Minister of State, giving him a seat on the Crown Council.

On April 2, 2012, when Guy Verhofstadt became a Board Member of the Brussels-based, Brussels-quoted Sofina holding, Etienne Davignon leaved the governing body of Sofina after 27 years. Sofina's Board of Directors decided him to grant the title of Honorary Director.

Davignon is a crucial member of the Strategic Advisory Panel of The European Business Awards. He is a member of the Cercle Gaulois and a member of the Advisory Board of the Itinera Institute think tank. He is also President of the Brussels-based think tank Friends of Europe.

Photo: Guy Verhofstadt, MEP and President of ALDE Group; Mr Jacques Delors, Founding President of ‘Notre Europe’ and Etienne Davignon.

====

June 15 2012 – US holds high-level talks with Syrian rebels seeking weapons in Washington:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9334707/US-holds-high-level-talks-with-Syrian-rebels-seeking-weapons-in-Washington.html

February 23, 2013 – In Syria, new influx of weapons to rebels tilts the battle against Assad:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-23/world/37257669_1_free-syrian-army-rebel-forces-assad

February 24, 2013 – Syria. Saudis supply heavy weapons to so-called ‘moderate rebels’:
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2013/02/24/17389.shtml

March 28, 2013 – Saudi heavy weapons supply to Syrian rebels breaks up Arab summit in uproar:
http://www.debka.com/article/22857/

 

17/12/2012

Palestine: European Union support for Israeli crimes

121015- Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman at an EU press.conference.jpg

EU support for Israeli crimes makes it unworthy of Nobel Peace Prize

15 October 2012

The European Union is not “merely hypocritical” in its relationship with Israel, it is “complicit in crimes against the Palestinian people.” This is one of the main conclusions of David Cronin’s compellingly-argued book Europe’s Alliance With Israel: Aiding the Occupation.

In fact, the European Union is steadily upgrading its relations with Israel while overwhelming, and growing, public majorities across Europe’s largest nations view Israel “mostly negatively.” According to a recent BBC GlobeScan poll, Israel is on a par with North Korea as the third worst perceived country in the world (“Views of Europe slide sharply in global poll, while views of China improve,” GlobeScan, 10 May).

With the entrenchment of its occupation, colonization and apartheid against the Palestinians, its fanatic-right government’s hubristic and bellicose policies, and the impressive growth of the non-violent Palestinian-led, global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights, Israel is gradually losing hearts and minds across the world and becoming the world pariah, as South Africa once was, during apartheid.

Desmond Tutu, the South African archbishop, is particularly eloquent in accusing Israel of the crime of apartheid (“Tutu condemns Israeli ‘apartheid’,” BBC News, 29 April 2002). The Russell Tribunal on Palestine — at its 2011 Cape Town session — determined that Israel is practicing apartheid against the entire Palestinian people, according to the definition of apartheid adopted by the UN in 1973 (“Findings of the South African session,” Russell Tribunal on Palestine, 5-7 November 2011 [PDF]).

Worse than South Africa

South African Christian leaders who played a decisive role in fighting apartheid have condemned Israel’s apartheid as “even worse than South African apartheid” (“An Easter message from South Africa to Palestine,” Oikumene, 31 March 2010). And the publisher of Haaretz, an influential Israeli daily, has recently described a fanatic Israeli ideology of “territorial seizure and apartheid” (“The necessary elimination of Israeli democracy,” 25 November 2011).

Increasingly, international jurists, human rights organizations and activists, as well as international public opinion are recognizing Israel’s unique regime of oppression against the Palestinians as encompassing the crime of apartheid, in addition to occupation, ethnic cleansing and settler colonialism.

With its continued siege of Gaza; its untamed construction of illegal colonies and an apartheid wall in the occupied West Bank, especially in and around Jerusalem; its “strategy of Judaization” in Jerusalem, the Galilee, the Jordan Valley and the Naqab (Negev); its adoption of new racist laws and its denial of the UN-stipulated right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes from which they were ethnically cleansed during the Nakba, Israel has embarked on a more belligerent and violent phase in its attempt to extinguish the question of Palestine through literally “disappearing” the Palestinians, as Edward Said would say.

Prison camp

The most criminal and pressing aspect of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians is without doubt its Western and Egyptian-backed hermetic siege of the occupied Gaza Strip, which even British Prime Minister David Cameron has described as a “prison camp” (“David Cameron: Israeli blockade has turned Gaza Strip into a ‘prison camp’,” The Guardian, 27 July 2010). The systematic Israeli targeting of Gaza’s water and sanitation facilities has compounded an already “severe and protracted denial of human dignity,” according to Maxwell Gaylard, the UN humanitarian coordinator for the occupied Palestinian territory, causing “a steep decline in standards of living for the [Palestinians] of Gaza, characterized by erosion of livelihoods, destruction and degradation of basic structure, and a marked downturn in the delivery and quality of vital services in health, water and sanitation” (“Humanitarian organizations deeply concerned about the ongoing water and sanitation crisis in Gaza,” Association of International Development Agencies, 3 September 2009).

A 2009 report by Amnesty International affirmed that, “90–95 percent of the water supply [in Gaza] is contaminated and unfit for human consumption” (“Troubled waters: Palestinians denied fair access to water,” October 2009 [PDF]).

The report cites an earlier study by the UN Environmental Programme which correlates the widespread contamination of Gaza’s water resources to the rise in nitrate levels in the groundwater “far above the WHO [World Health Organization] accepted guideline,” inducing a potentially lethal blood disorder in young children and newborns called methemoglobinaemia, or the “blue babies” phenomenon.

Some of the detected symptoms of this disease in Gaza infants include “blueness around the mouth, hands and feet,” “episodes of diarrhea and vomiting,” and “loss of consciousness.” “Convulsions and death can occur” at higher levels of nitrate contamination, the report concludes (“Environmental assessment of the Gaza Strip following the escalation of hostilities in December 2008-January 2009,” September 2009 [PDF].)

At the conclusion of Israel’s war of aggression on Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009, which led to more than 1,400 deaths, mostly civilians, EU leaders dashed to occupied Jerusalem to celebrate with Israel’s then prime minister Ehud Olmert, promising to support Israel in fighting “terror” (“World leaders push for lasting truce in Gaza,” The New York Times, 18 January 2009).

So, when the European Union, which is still actively colluding to maintain the Gaza siege, launches a relatively expensive public relations campaign all over Gaza — and the West Bank — with its main slogan, “Your Priorities are ours,” without a hint of sarcasm, it seems to be sending the Palestinians under occupation two blunt messages: first, we could not care less about your loss of human lives, freedoms and dignity, and second, “We set the priorities, you adopt them as yours, or else we cut funding” (“The priorities of the European Union are not ours,” MWC News, 18 July 2011).

Photo: Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman at an press conference of the European Union

http://electronicintifada.net/content/eu-support-israeli-crimes-makes-it-unworthy-nobel-peace-prize/11771

European Union: ‘all options’ to aid Syrians

Belgrade, River Sava, man fighting with fire on house-boat.jpg

European Union's aid to Serbs

During the NATO-bombings of Yugoslavia (24.3.1999- 19.4.1999), refineries and warehouses storing liquid raw materials and chemicals intended for the oil and chemical industry, were hit in Pancevo, Novi Sad, Sombor and elsewhere, causing large contamination of soil and the air:

1.Fuel storage in Lipovica, which caused a great fire in the Lipovica forest (on 26 March 1999); 2.Oil Refinery in Pancevo - totally demolished (4-16 April 1999); 3."Jugopetrol" installations in Smederevo (on 4-13 April 1999); 4."Jugopetrol" storage in Sombor (on 7 April 1999); 5."Beopetrol" storages in Belgrade and Bogutovac (on 4 April 1999); 6."Beopetrol" fuel storage in Pristina (on 7 April 1999); 7.Fuel storage of the boiler plant in Novi Beograd (on 4 April 1999); 8.Thermo electric power station/boiler plant in Novi Sad (on 5 April 1999); 9.Oil Refinery in Novi Sad, storage of bitumen (5 and 6 April 1999); 10.Fuel storage "Naftagas promet" which is located 10 km from Sombor (5 April 1999); 11.Naftagas warehouse between Conoplje and Kljaicevo (Sombor); 12.Jugopetrol warehouse in Pristina (on 12 April 1999); 13.Jugopetrol petrol station in Pristina ( on 13 April 1999); 14.Petrochemical industry "DP HIP PETROHEMIJA" in Pancevo - totally demolished (14-15 April 1999); 15.Fertilizer plant "DP HIP AZOTARA" in Pancevo - totally destroyed (14-15 April 1999); 16.Chemical plant "Prva Iskra" in Baric - destruction of the production line (19 April 1999);

Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of FR Yugoslavia