eine von vielen Seiten:
Madeleine Albright, ethically challenged
1)"Asked if it is not hypocritical to punish Burma for human rights
violations while refraining from sanctions on China for similar
actions, Albright replied, 'We have consistent principles and
flexible tactics'."{1)
The same"flexible tactics" (English translation: hypocrisy) are
evident in the policies embraced by Albright toward Cuba, Libya,
Iraq, et al, as opposed to the policies toward Turkey, Indonesia,
Mexico, Peru, and Colombia.
2) Television interview,"60 Minutes", May 12, 1996:
Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions against Iraq:
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean,
that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is
the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright:"I think this is a very hard choice,
but the price -- we think the price is worth it."{2}
At the Town Hall in Columbus, Ohio, Feb. 18, 1998, Ms. Albright
was moved to declare:"I am willing to make a bet to anyone here that
we care more about the Iraqi people than Saddam Hussein does."
Though her logic may escape us, she may yet have some DNA
molecules for compassion. On May 21 she signed an agreement between
the U.S. and six Latin American countries to protect dolphins,
declaring:"This is one of the strongest agreements ever negotiated
to conserve marine life."
3) Albright in Guatemala, talking to a group of impoverished
children:"Why would [I] and the United States care about what is
happening here? The reason is we are all one family and when one
part of our family is not happy or suffers, we all suffer."{3}
Thus speaketh the leading foreign policy officer of the country
directly responsible for bringing more than 40 years of poverty,
torture, death squads, massacres and disappeared people to Guatemala,
without even a hint of apology or restitution, ever.
4)"To a student who asked [Albright] whether the United States was
not spending too much of its resources on being the world's policeman
and too little on more pressing domestic concerns, Albright asked him
in return to estimate what share of the federal budget goes to
foreign policy. When he guessed 15 or 20 percent, Albright pounced.
'It's 1 percent, 1 percent of the entire budget,' Albright said."{4}
Her reply was conspicuously disingenuous. At best, she was
referring to the budget of only the State Department, concealing what
everyone knows, even the teenage student she browbeat -- US foreign
policy expenditures must include the Defense Department, the CIA, the
National Security Agency, and a host of other government agencies.
Together they consume more than 50 percent of the budget.
5) In February 1996, as UN ambassador, Albright reacted with
righteous indignation against the Cuban pilots who expressed
satisfaction after shooting down two planes of Cubans from Florida
which were headed toward Cuba."This one won't mess around any
more," one of the pilots is reported to have exclaimed.
"I was struck by the joy of these pilots in committing
cold-blooded murder," Albright said, accusing the Cuban pilots of
"cowardice".{5}
What, one may ask, does she think of the American pilots who,
while bombing and strafing helpless retreating Iraqis in 1991,
exclaimed:"we toasted him"..."we hit the jackpot"..."a turkey
shoot"..."shooting fish in a barrel"..."basically just sitting
ducks"..."There's just nothing like it. It's the biggest Fourth of
July show you've ever seen, and to see those tanks just `boom', and
more stuff just keeps spewing out of them... they just become white
hot. It's wonderful."{6}
6) On October 8, 1997, in announcing the designation of 18 additional
foreign political organizations as terrorist-supporting groups,
Secretary of State Albright declared that she wanted to help make the
United States a"no support for terrorism zone". It could be
suggested that if the Secretary were truly committed to this goal,
instead of offering her usual lip service, she should begin at home
-- the anti-Castro community in Miami, collectively, is one of the
longest-lasting and most prolific terrorist organizations in the
world. Over the years they've carried out hundreds of bombings,
shootings, and murders, blown up an airplane, killing 73 people,
fired a bazooka at the United Nations, and much, much more. But
Madame Albright will not lift a finger against them.
The State Department designates Cuba as one of the states which
harbors terrorists. The United States can well be added to that
list.
7) At the fabricated"Town Hall" meeting (in which the officials came
not to listen, but to tell) held in Columbus, Ohio, February 18,
1998, concerning Iraq, Albright was heckled and asked critical, and
perhaps uncomfortable, questions. At one point, her mind and her
integrity could come up with no better response than to make
something up:"I am really surprised," she declared,"that people
feel that it is necessary to defend the rights of Saddam Hussein."
At another point, a besieged Albright was moved to yell:"We are
the greatest country in the world!" Patriotism is indeed the last refuge of a scoundrel, though her words didn't quite have the ring of"Deutschland über alles" or"Rule Britannia".
Finally, unable to provide answers that satisfied or quieted the
questioners, she stated that she would meet with them after the
meeting to answer their questions. But as soon as the meeting ended,
the Secretary of State was out of their, posthaste. Her offer, it
would seem, had just been a tactic to try and pacify the hostile
crowd.
8) And here is Madame Albright at her jingoist best, on TV the day
after the Town Hall meeting, again in the context of Iraq:
"If we have to use force, it is because we are
America! We are the indispensable nation. We
stand tall, and we see further into the future."{7}
9) Madeleine Albright, then UN Ambassador, informed the UN Security
Council during a 1994 discussion about Iraq:"We recognize this area
as vital to US national interests and we will behave, with others,
multilaterally when we can and unilaterally when we must."{8}
Ms. Albright is thus stating that the United States recognizes no
external constraints on its behavior, when it decides that a
particular area of the world is"vital to US national interests". It
would of course be difficult to locate a spot on the globe that
Albright and the United States do not regard as"vital to US national
interests.
10) On more than one occasion while U.N. ambassador, Albright yelled
at U.N. Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali that he must not publish the
report about Israel's bombing of the U.N.-run refugee camp in Qana,
Lebanon, in April 1996, which killed more than 100 refugees. The
U.N. report said that the attack was not a mistake, as Israel
claimed. Albright -- who has surrounded herself with alumni of
Israeli and Jewish lobbies -- warned the Secretary-General that if
the report came out, the U.S. would veto him for his second term.
The report came out, and so did Boutros Boutros-Ghali.{9}
11) Madeleine the humanitarian: It is"not a good idea" to link
human rights and trade issues.{10} A philosophy that could have been used to justify trade with Nazi Germany... or anyone else... or anything.
12) To Colin Powell, who felt that the U.S. should not commit
military forces to Bosnia until there was a clear political
objective:"What's the point of having this superb military
that you're always talking about if we can't use it?""I thought I would have an aneurysm," Powell later wrote."American GIs were not toy soldiers to be moved around on somesort of global game board."{11}
Notes
{1) Washington Post, April 23, 1997, p.4
{2}"60 Minutes", May 12, 1996
{3} Washington Post, May 5, 1997, p.20
{4} Washington Post, May 14, 1997
{5} Washington Post Feb. 28, 1996
{6} Los Angeles Times and Washington Post, both Feb. 27, 1991, page 1
{7} NBC"Today" show, February 19, 1998
{8} Middle East International (London), Oct. 21, 1994, p. 4
{9} New York Times, Jan. 1, 1997
{10} Washington Post, March 1, 1999, p. 13
{11} Colin Powell with Joseph Persico, My American Journey (NY, 1995), p. 576
Written by William Blum, author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II
email: bblum6@aol.com
<center>
<HR>
</center> |
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski about how the US provoked the Soviet Union into invadingAfghanistan and starting the whole mess
Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his
memoirs [From the Shadows], that American intelligence services
began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan six months before the
Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national
security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a
role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history,
CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say,
after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the
reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise:
Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the
first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet
regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the
president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid
was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action.
But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and
looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to
intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they
would.
Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting
that they intended to fight against secret involvement of the
United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them.
However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything
today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and
you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially
crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We
now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.
Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war
unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about
the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic
fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future
terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The
Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up
Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the
cold war?**
Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated:
Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in
regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam.
Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or
emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5
billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi
Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism,
Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more
than what unites the Christian countries.
* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the
perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version
sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and
the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.** It should be noted that there is no demonstrable connection between the Afghanistan war and the breakup of the Soviet Union
and its satellites.
This interview was translated from the French by William Blum,
Author of"Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions
Since World War II" and"Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only
Superpower". Portions of the books can be read at:
http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm (with a link to
Killing Hope)
<center>
<HR>
</center> |
Thread-Ansicht
Mix-Ansicht
Reihenfolge
Thread gesperrt
