26 Jan 2018

Meet the CIA: Guns, Drugs and Money

Jeffrey St. Clair & Alexander Cockburn

On November 22, 1996, the US Justice Department indicted General Ramón Guillén Davila of Venezuela on charges of importing cocaine into the United States. The federal prosecutors alleged that while heading Venezuela’s anti-drug unit, General Guillén smuggled more than 22 tons of cocaine into the US and Europe for the Calí and Bogotá cartels. Guillén responded to the indictment from the sanctuary of Caracas, whence his government refused to extradict him to Miami, while honoring him with a pardon for any possible crimes committed in the line of duty. He maintained that the cocaine shipments to the US had been approved by the CIA, and went on to say that “some drugs were lost and neither the CIA nor the DEA want to accept any responsibility for it.”
The CIA had hired Guillén in 1988 to help it find out something about the Colombian drug cartels. The Agency and Guillén set up a drug-smuggling operation using agents of Guillén’s in the Venezuelan National Guard to buy cocaine from the Calí cartel and ship it to Venezuela, where it was stored in warehouses maintained by the Narcotics Intelligence Center, Caracas, which was run by Guillén and entirely funded by the CIA.
To avoid the Calí cartel asking inconvenient questions about the growing inventory of cocaine in the Narcotics Intelligence Center’s warehouses and, as one CIA agent put it, “to keep our credibility with the traffickers,” the CIA decided it was politic to let some of the cocaine proceed on to the cartel’s network of dealers in the US. As another CIA agent put it, they wanted “to let the dope walk” – in other words, to allow it to be sold on the streets of Miami, New York and Los Angeles.
When it comes to what are called “controlled shipments” of drugs into the US, federal law requires that such imports have DEA approval, which the CIA duly sought. This was, however, denied by the DEA attaché in Caracas. The CIA then went to  DEA headquarters in Washington, only to be met with a similar refusal, whereupon the CIA went ahead with the shipment anyway. One of the CIA men working with Guillén was Mark McFarlin. In 1989 McFarlin, so he later testified in federal court in Miami, told his CIA station chief in Caracas that the Guillén operation, already under way, had just seen 3,000 pounds of cocaine shipped to the US. When the station chief asked McFarlin if the DEA was aware of this, McFarlin answered no. “Let’s keep it that way,” the station chief instructed him.
Over the next three years, more than 22 tons of cocaine made its way through this pipeline into the US, with the shipments coming into Miami either in hollowed-out shipping pallets or in boxes of blue jeans. In 1990 DEA agents in Caracas learned what was going on, but security was lax since one female DEA agent in Venezuela was sleeping with a CIA man there, and another, reportedly with General Guillén himself. The CIA  and Guillén duly changed their modes of operation, and the cocaine shipments from Caracas to Miami continued for another two years. Eventually, the US Customs Service brought down the curtain on the operation, and in 1992 seized an 800-pound shipment of cocaine in Miami.
One of Guillén’s subordinates, Adolfo Romero, was arrested and ultimately convicted on drug conspiracy charges. None of the Colombian drug lords was ever inconvenienced by this project, despite the CIA’s claim that it was after the Calí cartel. Guillén was indicted but remained safe in Caracas. McFarlin and his boss were ultimately edged out of the Agency. No other heads rolled after an operation that yielded nothing but the arrival, under CIA supervision, of 22 tons of cocaine in the United States. The CIA conducted an internal review of this debacle and asserted that there was “no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.”
A DEA investigation reached a rather different conclusion, charging that the spy agency had engaged in “unauthorized controlled shipments” of narcotics into the US and that the CIA withheld “vital information” on the Calí cartel from the DEA and federal prosecutors.
Disingenuous denial has long been a specialty of the Central Intelligence Agency. Back in 1971, one of John Deutch’s better known predecessors as director of intelligence, Richard Helms, addressed the American Newspaper Editors Association at a moment when the Agency had been accused of infiltrating new organizations and of running a domestic spying operation for President Richard Nixon. The nation, Helms told the assembled editors, “should take on faith that we too are honorable men, devoted to her service.” Helms was scarcely in hostile territory, any more than was John Deutch in the New York Times, the venue for his article asserting the innocence of the CIA. More than any other director, Helms was part of the Georgetown circuit, on close terms with such journalists as Joseph Alsop, James Reston, Joseph Kraft, Chalmers Roberts and C. L. Sulzberger. Helms would often boast of his days as a reporter for United Press, during which he had gotten exclusive interviews with Adolf Hitler and the ice-skater Sonja Henie.
Less than two years after his denials to the Newspaper Editors Association, Helms went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was grilled about the Agency’s involvement in Watergate. In response, he lied brazenly about Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy’s ties to the CIA. Though the chairman of the committee, Sen. William Fulbright, was rightly incredulous, Helms was not formally put on the spot.
This wasn’t the first time Helms, who led the Agency from 1966 through 1972, had lied, nor was it his most devious statement. Throughout the Vietnam War, Helms had withheld from Congress crucial information on the troop strength of the Vietnamese National Liberation Front (NLF, aka Viet Cong) developed by a young CIA analyst named Sam Adams. Adams’s numbers showed that support for the NLF in South Vietnam was much greater than the military’s estimates, so strong, indeed, that the war seemed to be unwinnable. Helms, however, sided with the military and sought unrelentingly to hound Adams out of the agency.
Later in 1973 the dapper spook again gave false testimony to Congress, this time about the CIA’s part in overthrowing Salvador Allende’s government in Chile. Of course, support for the coup against Allende was undertaken at the insistence of American corporations such as ITT and Anaconda Copper. The Agency is reported to have sent a drug smuggler to Santiago with a cash payment for a Chilean hitman endeavoring to assassinate Allende. In 1977 the Justice Department, headed by Carter appointee Griffin Bell, reluctantly charged Helms with perjury. The former CIA director took the advice of Washington superlawyer Edwin Bennett Williams and entered a plea of no contest. He was fined $2,000 and received a suspended sentence.
There were other historical counterpoints to Deutch’s protestations. In 1976, at one of the most fraught moments in the Agency’s relationship to Congress since its inception, Director William Colby (who had earlier blown the whistle on Helms’s lies about Chile) went before the Select Committee on Intelligence being run by Senator Frank Church of Idaho. This time the mood of Congress was sharper, prompted by Seymour Hersh’s exposés in the New York Times of domestic spying and also by charges that the CIA had been running an assassination program overseas.
Yes, Colby said, the possibility of using assassination had been entertained at the  Agency, but at no time had it ever reached the level of successful practical application. As for domestic spying, there had been programs of mail surveillance and the like, but they were far from the “massive” operations alleged by Hersh, and they had long since been discontinued.
Colby was being typically modest. The CIA, through Operation CHAOS and similar programs, had compiled files on more than 10,000 Americans and kept a database with more than 300,000 names in it. It had wiretapped the phones of American reporters, infiltrated dissident groups and tried to disrupt anti-war protests. It spent $33,000 in support of a letter-writing campaign in support of the invasion of Cambodia.
As with the charges of complicity in drug running, the CIA’s role in assassination is one of those topics gingerly handled by the press or Congress from time to time and then hastily put aside, with the habitual claim that the CIA may have dreamed of it, thought about it and maybe even dabbled in it, but had never actually gone successfully all the way. But, in fact, the Agency has gone all the way many times, and we should look at this history in some detail since the pattern of denial in these cases strongly parallels the CIA’s relationship with the drug business.
There’s no dispute that the CIA has used assassination as a weapon lower down the political and social pecking order, as no one knew better than William Colby. He had, by his own admission, supervised the Phoenix Program and other so-called “counter-terror” operations in Vietnam. Phoenix was aimed at “neutralizing” NLF political leaders and organizers in rural South Vietnam. In congressional testimony Colby boasted that 20,587 NLF activists had been killed between 1967 and 1971 alone. The South Vietnamese published a much higher estimate, declaring that nearly 41,000 had been killed. Barton Osborn, an intelligence officer  in the Phoenix Program, spelled out in chilling terms the bureaucratic attitude of many of the agents toward their murderous assignments. “Quite often it was a matter of expediency just to eliminate a person in the field rather than deal with the paperwork.”
Those killed outright in Phoenix operations may have been more fortunate than the 29,000 suspected NLF members arrested and interrogated with techniques that were horrible even by the standards of Pol Pot and Mobutu. In 1972 a parade of witnesses before Congress testified about the techniques of the Phoenix interrogators: how they interviewed suspects and then pushed them out of planes, how they cut off fingers, ears and testicles, how they used electro-shock, shoved wooden dowels into the brains of some prisoners, and rammed electric probes into the rectums of others.
For many of the Phoenix raids the agency employed the services of bandit tribes and ethnic groups, such as the Khmer Kampuchean Kram, the KKK. The KKK was comprised of anti-communist Cambodians and drug smugglers who, as one Phoenix veteran put it, “would kill anyone as long as there was something in it for them.” The KKK even offered to knock off Prince Sihanouk for the Americans and frame the NLF for the killing.
These American death squads were a particular favorite of Richard Nixon. After the My Lai massacre, an operation with all the earmarks of a Phoenix-style extermination, there was a move to reduce the funding for these civilian killing programs. Nixon, according to an account by Seymour Hersh, objected vociferously. “No,” Nixon demanded. “We’ve got to have more of this. Assassinations. Killings.” The funds were promptly restored, and the death toll mounted.
Even at the senior level of executive action Colby was being bashful about the CIA’s ambitions and achievements. In 1955 the CIA had very nearly managed to assassinate the Chinese Communist leader Chou En-lai. Bombs were put aboard Chou’s plane as he flew from Hong Kong to Indonesia for the Bandung conference. At the last moment Chou changed planes, thus avoiding a terminal descent into the South China Sea, since the plane duly blew up. The role of the CIA was later described in detail by a British intelligence agent who defected to the Soviet Union, and evidence recovered by divers from portions of the plane, including the timing mechanisms for two bombs, confirmed his statements. The Hong Kong police called the crash a case of “carefully planned mass murder.”
By 1960 Rafael Trujillo, president of the Dominican Republic, had become irksome to US foreign policy makers. His blatant corruption looked as though it might prompt a revolt akin to the upsurge that had brought Fidel Castro to power. The best way to head off this unwelcome contingency was to ensure that Trujillo’s political career cease forthwith, which in early 1961 it did. Trujillo was gunned down in his car outside his own mansion in Ciudad Trujillo. It emerged that the CIA had provided guns and training to the assassins, though the Agency took care to point out that it was not absolutely 100 percent sure that these were the same weapons that ultimately deposed the tyrant (who had been originally installed in power by the CIA).
At about the same time, CIA director Allen Dulles decided that the leader of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba, was an unacceptable threat to the Free World and his removal was “an urgent and prime objective.” For assistance in the task of banishing this threat the CIA turned to its own Technical Services Division (TSD), headed by that man of darkness, Sidney Gottlieb. Gottlieb’s division housed a horror chamber of labs whose researches included brain-washing, chemical and biological warfare, the use of drugs and electro-shock as modes of interrogation, and the development of lethal toxins, along with the most efficient means of applying these to the victim, such as the notorious poison dart gun later displayed before the cameras by Senator Frank Church.
In Lumumba’s case Gottlieb developed a bio-poison that would mime a disease endemic to the Congo. He personally delivered the deadly germs along with a special hypodermic syringe, gauze masks and rubber gloves to Lawrence Devlin, the CIA chief of station in the Congo. The lethal implements were carried into the country in a diplomatic pouch. Gottlieb instructed Devlin and his agents how to apply the toxin to Lumumba’s toothpaste and food. However, the CIA’s bio-assassins couldn’t get close enough to Lumumba, so the “executive action” proceeded by a more traditional route. Lumumba was seized, tortured and murdered by soldiers of the CIA’s selected replacement, Mobutu Sese Seko, and Lumumba’s body ended up in the trunk of a CIA officer who drove around Lumumbashi trying to decide how to dispose of it.
When it came to Fidel Castro, the Agency has spared no effort across a quarter of a century. Colby admitted to the Church committee that the agency had tried and failed to kill Castro several times, but not nearly as often as its critics alleged. “It wasn’t for lack of trying,” Colby observed. “Castro gave McGovern in 1975 a list of the attempts made on his life – there were about thirty by that time – as he said, by the CIA. McGovern gave it to me and I looked through it and checked it off against our records and said we could account for about five or six. The others – I can understand Castro’s feeling about them because they were all ex-Bay of Pigs people or something like that, so he thinks they’re all CIA. Once you get into one of them, then bingo! – you get blamed for all the rest. We didn’t have any connections with the rest of them, but we’d never convince Castro of that.”
Five or six assassination plots is a sobering number, especially if you happen to be the intended target of these “executive actions.” But even here Colby was dissembling. He certainly had the opportunity to consult a secret 1967 report on the plots against Castro by the CIA’s Inspector General John S. Earman, and approved by Richard Helms. The CIA had in fact hatched attempts on the Cuban leader even prior to the revolution. One of the first occurred in 1958, when Eutimio Rojas, a member of the Cuban guerrillas, was hired to kill Castro as he slept at a camp in the Sierra Maestra.
On February 2, 1959, Cuban security guards arrested Allan Robert Nye, an American, in a hotel room facing the presidential palace. Nye had in his possession a high-powered rifle equipped with a telescopic scope, and had been contracted to shoot Castro as he arrived at the palace. A month later Rolando Masferrer, a former leader of Batista’s death squads, turned up at a Miami meeting with American mobsters and a CIA officer. There this deadly conglomerate planned another scenario to kill Castro outside the presidential palace.
The agency tried to devise a way to saturate the radio studio where Castro broadcast his speeches with an aerosol form of LSD and other “psychic energizers.” Another plan called for dousing Castro’s favorite kind of cigars with psychoactive drugs. The doped cigars were kept in the safe of Jake Easterline, who headed the anti-Cuba task force in the pre–Bay of Pigs days, while he tried to find a way to deliver them to Castro without risking “serious blowback” to the Agency. The ingredients for both of these schemes were developed in the labs of Sydney Gottlieb. In 1967, Gottlieb told Inspector General Earman of another scheme in which he was asked to impregnate some cigars for Castro with lethal poisons.

During Castro’s trip to New York for an appearance at the United Nations in 1960, CIA agents attempted to pull off what is referred to as the “depilatory action.” The plan was to place thallium salts in Castro’s shoes and on his night table in the hope that the poisons would make the leader’s beard fall off. In high doses, thallium can cause paralysis or death. This scheme collapsed at the last minute.
By August 1960, the elimination of Castro had become a top priority for the leadership of the CIA. Allen Dulles and his deputy Richard Bissell paid Johnny Roselli, a Hollywood mobster and buddy of Frank Sinatra, $150,000 to arrange a hit on Castro. Roselli swiftly brought two more Mafia dons in on the plot: Sam Giancana, the Chicago gangster; and Santos Trafficante, the overseer of the Lansky/Luciano operations in Havana. Initially, the CIA recommended a gangland style hit in which Castro would be gunned down in a hail of machine-gun fire. But Giancana suggested a more subtle approach, a poison pill that could be slipped into Castro’s food or drink. Six deadly botulinum pills – “the size of saccharin tablets” – were cooked up in the CIA’s TSD labs, concealed in a hollow pencil and delivered to Roselli. On February 13, 1961, only a month after JFK’s inauguration, Trafficante took the botulinum pills to Havana and gave them to his man inside the Cuban government, Jorgé Orta, who worked on Castro’s executive staff and owed the mobsters large gambling debts.
Along with the pills, Trafficante also delivered a box of cigars soaked in botulinum toxin, which kills within hours. The cigars were prepared by Dr. Edward Gunn, chief of the CIA’s medical division. Gunn kept one of the cigars in his safe as a souvenir. He tested it for the Inspector General in 1967 and found it to have retained 94 percent of its original level of toxicity. The cigar was so deadly, Gunn said, that it need  only be touched, not smoked, in order to kill its victim.
Trafficante later reported back that the pills and cigars weren’t given to Castro because “Orta got cold feet.”
In April, Roselli approached his CIA handlers with a new plan, demands for $50,000, and a new batch of pills. This time the operation would be carried out by Trafficante’s friend Dr. Manuel Antonio de Varona, leader of the anti-Castro Democratic Revolutionary Front. Verona and Trafficante had met through Edward K. Moss, the Washington, D.C. political fundraiser and influence peddler. Moss was pushing the cause of the Cuban exiles on the Hill, and he was sleeping with Julia Cellini, sister of the notorious Cellini brothers, Eddie and Dino, who were executives in Meyer Lansky’s gambling operations in the Caribbean. Varona smuggled the botulinum pills to a waitress at a restaurant frequented by Castro. But, according to CIA man Sheffield Edwards, the scheme failed when the Cuban leader suddenly “ceased to visit that particular restaurant.”
These mobsters are often referred to in CIA documents as the Havana gambling syndicate, after the casino hotels they ran there during the Batista regime. But the Mafia dons were also involved in a much more lucrative venture – drugs. Havana had become the key transfer point into the United States for much of the heroin produced by Lucky Luciano and by the Corsican syndicates in Marseilles. Lansky, who was Luciano’s money man in the States, offered to put out a $1 million contract on Castro’s head shortly after the revolution.
Over the next year, in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs disaster, the CIA targeted Castro through its Executive Action Capability program, code-named ZR/RIFLE. This operation was headed by William “the Pear” Harvey, a former FBI man whom some suspected of being J. Edgar Hoover’s mole inside the CIA. Harvey, one of the real characters of the Agency’s formative years, was known for wearing his pistols to work at the office, slumbering through staff meetings and for his special animus toward Robert Kennedy, who he called “that little fucker.”
It was in late 1961 that Sam Giancana approached his CIA contact, a D.C.-based private detective named Robert Maheu, with a personal problem – he suspected his girlfriend, Phyllis McGuire, one of the McGuire Sisters singing group, of having an affair in Las Vegas with comedian Dan Rowan, of Rowan and Martin. In return for his assistance in the Castro assassination plots, Giancana wanted the Agency to bug Rowan’s Vegas hotel room. Rowan’s phone was duly wiretapped, but the recording device was discovered by a hotel maid, who informed the police. The Vegas police turned the matter over to the FBI, which wanted to prosecute Giancana for wiretapping. Ultimately, Robert Kennedy had to be told of the affair in order to call off the FBI.

Years later, Richard Bissell, the CIA’s deputy director for plans and architect of the Bay of Pigs disaster, said he regretted some of the Cuban ventures. Bissell told Bill Moyers, “I think we should not have involved ourselves with the Mafia. I think an organization that does so is losing control of its information. I think we should have been afraid that we would open ourselves to blackmail.” Moyers asked Bissell if it was only the association with the mobsters that troubled him, not the capability of the CIA to assassinate foreign leaders. Bissell replied: “Correct.”
Robert Kennedy, for one, didn’t share Bissell’s squeamishness. Kennedy, who was obsessed with the elimination of Castro, told Allen Dulles that he didn’t care if the Agency employed the Mob for the hit as long as they kept him fully briefed. Robert Kennedy would go to his grave defending the Agency. “What you’re not aware of is what role the CIA plays in the government,” RFK told Jack Newfield of the Village Voice shortly before his assassination. “During the 1950s, for example, many of the liberals who were forced out of other departments found a sanctuary, an enclave, in the CIA. So some of the best people in Washington, and around the country, began to collect there. One result of that was the CIA developed a very healthy view of Communism, especially compared to State and some other departments. They were very sympathetic, for example, to nationalist, and even socialist governments and movements. And I think now the CIA is becoming much more realistic, and critical, about the war, than other departments, or even the people in the White House. So it is not so black and white as you make.”
By 1963, Robert Kennedy’s friend Desmond Fitzgerald had taken over the Cuba operations from Harvey. Fitzgerald wasted little time in going after Castro. One of Fitzgerald’s first schemes was to have James Donovan, then negotiating the release of the Bay of Pigs prisoners, unwittingly deliver as a gift to Castro expensive scuba-diving gear. Sid Gottlieb treated the lining of the suit with a Madura fungus and implanted tubercle bacilli – a lethal concoction. At the same time Fitzgerald had been reading up on deep sea clams and had asked Gottlieb’s lab to rig some exceptionally attractive specimens with high explosives. The clams would then be dropped in an area were Castro frequently dived and rigged to explode when lifted.
In November 1963, the CIA’s Desmond Fitzgerald was in Paris to meet Rolando Cubela, an anti-Castro Cuban who is referred to in CIA documents as AM-LASH. Fitzgerald portrayed himself as an emissary of Robert Kennedy and asked Cubela for help in killing Castro. On November 22, Cubela was given a ballpoint pen rigged as a syringe filled with deadly Blackleaf-40, a high-powered insecticide composed of 40 percent nicotine sulfate. As the Inspector General’s report dryly notes, “It is likely that at the very moment President Kennedy was shot a CIA agent was meeting with a Cuban agent in Paris and giving him an assassination device for use against Castro.”
Fidel Castro was not the only target. There were also repeated attempts to assassinate his brother Raúl and Che Guevara. The CIA’s J. C. King pleaded with Allen Dulles to adopt a plan that would kill Fidel, Raúl and Che at the same time, “as a package.” Ultimately, Che, whom the Agency chased around the globe, was tracked down in the jungles of Bolivia. Present at his execution in 1967 was the CIA’s Fé1ix Rodríguez, an old Cuba hand who would later become a central figure in the Contras’ drugs-and-weapons operations at Ilopango air base in El Salvador.
Jimmy Carter’s CIA director, Admiral Stansfield Turner, was reviled by many inside the Agency for purging some of the old guard. But Turner wasn’t really much of a reformer, and he had his own problems with truth-telling. In 1977, as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by investigative journalist John Marks, the CIA was forced to disclose the existence of seven boxes of information on the Agency’s twenty-year research program into psycho-active drugs and behavior modification, known as MK/ULTRA.
The discovery of the records by the Agency’s archivist came as a something of surprise to the CIA’s leadership, since Richard Helms in his last days as director had ordered the destruction of all of the MK/ULTRA documents. When Turner briefed congressional committees and the press, he insisted that the program had been phased out in 1963 and had only involved drug experimentation. In fact, MK/ULTRA and a host of similar projects persisted until at least 1973 and involved a quest to develop techniques for mind control, including electro-shock and psychosurgery. The CIA wanted to create a kind of “Manchurian candidate,” a roster of chemically and psychologically programmed assassins and spies.
Turner, who talked of bringing about a new openness at the Agency, quickly proved he was no friend of free speech when he attempted to suppress the publication of Decent Interval, a book by former CIA officer Frank Snepp. The CIA claimed Snepp had violated his employment agreement by not submitting the book to the Agency for approval prior to the publication. The CIA’s lawyers subsequently won a suit requiring Snepp to hand over all of his royalties to the government.
For pure thuggishness and criminality, it’s hard to find a better specimen than William Casey, the CIA’s director during most of the Reagan years. Casey went straight from the management of Reagan’s campaign into CIA headquarters at Langley, where he brought in some of the top public relations firms in the nation to advise him on how to sell his two pet projects, the Contras and the Afghani mujahedin, to a dubious American public. Casey called this work “perception management,” but it was really a domestic propaganda campaign, a psy-ops for the home folks.
On December 4, 1981, Reagan signed Executive Order 12333 on assassinations. It reads, “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the U.S. government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassinations.” This legal restriction didn’t deter the new CIA leader, who at that very moment was busy advocating the elimination of Desi Bouterse, the leader of Suriname, a South American country that had entered in “the Cuban orbit.”
Likewise, Casey and his underlings were superintending the production of an assassination manual for the Nicaraguan Contras called Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare. The manual, which reads like an update of the Phoenix Program, called for the use of violence “to neutralize carefully selected and planned targets such as court judges, police and state security officials, etc.” It advised the Contras to develop “shock troops” to infiltrate Sandinista rallies. “These men should be equipped with weapons (knives, razors, chains, clubs, bludgeons) and should march slightly behind the innocent and gullible participants.” In an echo of the Mafia operations against Castro, the manual also called for the Contras to hire organized crime figures to carry out many of these delicate operations. “If possible,” the manual advised, “professional criminals will be hired to carry out selective ‘jobs.’” Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare wasn’t just an academic exercise: it was put into action. Twice the agency sent teams to assassinate Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Miguel d’Escoto, a Catholic priest. On one occasion the would-be assassins tried to poison him with a bottle of Benedictine liqueur spiked with thallium, a favorite toxin of the agency. CIA agent Michael Tock was arrested by the Sandinistas for his role in one of the plots. When the New York Times finally got around to running a story on the murder manual, Reagan himself came to his old friend Casey’s defense, dismissing the matter as “much ado about nothing.”
Casey also put a $3 million bounty on the head of Sheikh Fadlallah, a Lebanese Shi’ite. Casey paid for the Saudis and a British arms technician to put a bomb in a car outside the mosque where Fadlallah was overseeing religious observances. They detonated it on March 8, 1985, at a moment when the bombers assumed that the shiekh had emerged. In fact he had dallied to talk with some of his congregation inside the mosque. The bomb killed 80 people, many of them schoolchildren, and wounded 200. The CIA and Saudis later paid Fadlallah a $2 million bribe not to retaliate.
The following year Casey took personal
control of an effort to kill Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi, an obsession of the Reagan men. Casey’s deputy, Robert Gates, developed a plan for a US/Egyptian military takeover of Libya, a bold move that would “redraw the map of North Africa.” In the end, Casey went after Qaddafi himself. The Libyan leader’s movements were closely tracked in early April 1986 with the assistance of the Israeli Mossad. A pretext for a move against Qaddafi was confected in alleging Libyan responsibility for a bomb set off in the La Belle nightclub in Berlin that killed an American soldier, Sergeant Kenneth Ford. On April 14, nine F-111s were sent to attack Qaddafi’s compound with a payload of thirty-six laser-guided 2,000-pound bombs. The raid was timed to narrowly precede the evening news and a news release had been prepared to announce that Qaddafi’s death had been an accidental byproduct of this “act of self-defense.”
But the Libyan leader escaped, though two of his sons were maimed and his daughter and a hundred nearby residents were killed by the strikes. There were immediate denials that the Libyan ruler had been personally targeted. “There was no decision to kill Qaddafi,” Casey mumbled. “There are dissident elements inside Libya. They might have seen their chances to rise and launch a coup. I’m sorry that didn’t happen.” Casey later said that the raid on Libya was meant to send a message. “Like Castro and Ortega got the message when we hit Grenada, this attack will scare the hell out of Qaddafi.”
In subsequent years no CIA director has quite matched the appalling Casey. After Casey the job went to William Webster, who promptly certified Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega as an ally in the drug war. Webster, who spent much of his time on the tennis court, looked on as the collapse of the Soviet Union confounded half a century of CIA intelligence analysis. Bush’s choice to head the Agency was Casey’s deputy Robert Gates, who barely survived a contentious confirmation hearing after senators were told by Iran/Contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh’s investigators that Gates probably lied to Congress about his knowledge of the Iran/Contra arms deals. Gates stood by as CIA-trained thugs overthrew the government of Haitian president Jean Baptiste Aristide and replaced him with a gang of military officers headed by Gen. Raoul Cédras. Gates’s CIA called Cédras one of the most promising “Haitian leaders to emerge since the Duvalier family dictatorship was overthrown in 1986.” Cédras and his colleagues proceeded to slaughter their political enemies and make millions from the drug trade.
With Clinton eventually came MIT academic and defense contractor John Deutch and his passionate defense of the Agency as the redoubt of honorable folk. Deutch was in more or less permanent denial during his tour at the Agency. Not only did he disclaim CIA involvement in the drug trade, but with  equal heat he denied any Agency role in the murders in Guatemala of American Michael DeVine and rebel leader Efraín Bámaca. DeVine was kidnapped and beheaded in 1990. Bamaca was captured, tortured and killed in 1992. Both assassinations were ordered by Col. Julio Roberto Alpírez, who was on the CIA payroll. When State Department official Richard Nuccio attempted to investigate the matter, Deutch revoked his security clearance. Deutch also helped conceal information collected by his own analysts that more than 100,000 soldiers had been exposed to chemical weapons during the Gulf War and instead helped concoct the ruse that the Gulf War illnesses were merely the result of psychological stress.
In 1997 George Tenet assumed the helm of the Agency after Anthony Lake was forced to withdraw after failure to fully disclose his stock holdings in oil companies with a financial interest in Agency actions. Tenet is best known for his efforts to secure the assassination of Saddam Hussein. For this task Tenet employed a group known as the Iraqi National Accord. Failing to get anywhere near Saddam himself, this group took the easier road of leaving bombs in cinemas in Baghdad, killing a large number of people.
As such vignettes remind us, the Central Intelligence Agency is exactly what one would expect of an organization with a mandate stretching from the collection and analysis of intelligence data to the undertaking of subversion, manipulation of elections, assassination and the running of secret wars. Lying is part of the job description at the CIA, where falsehoods are regularly peddled to allies, the press, other federal agencies and Congress. “We’d go down and lie to them consistently,” says former CIA officer Ralph McGehee. “In my 25 years, I have never seen the agency tell the truth to a congressional committee.”
Agency officials have scant fear of being slapped on the wrist over their prevarications à la Helms. Joseph Fernández, CIA station chief in Costa Rica during the secret war against Nicaragua, lied about his role in channeling money and weapons to the Contras in violation of US law. So did Deputy CIA Director Clair George. Neither did time. “We’ve created a class of intelligence officers who can’t be prosecuted,” concluded Iran/Contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh.
Organizations such as the CIA require immersion in criminal milieus, virtually unlimited supplies of “black” or laundered money and a long-term cadre of entirely ruthless executives (some of them not averse to making personal fortunes from their covert activities). The drug trade is an integral part of such a world. The zones of primary production of opium and coca have fallen in contested zones of the Cold War: Southeast Asia, Central Asia and the Andean countries. The drug distribution networks again passed through such contested territories as Afghanistan, Vietnam and Central America. The drug traders – from rural warlords in Laos to the Thai police and Honduran generals – were similarly of enormous interest to any intelligence agency. The drug money involved is both profuse and off the books.
The drug milieu is also, in its various stages of production and transmission, inevitably associated with organized violence, from enforcers to paramilitaries to guerrilla supervisors to military detachments to generals commanding their slice of the trade. All of these areas are once again central to the concerns of an organization such as the CIA. And the drug traders (unless they operate as an arm of government, as in Mexico) are often in opposition to the ruling power, a situation that is of paramount interest to a body such as the CIA.
From the perspective of the drug lords, an alliance with or employment by the CIA is equally fruitful. They can use CIA services to suppress their rivals and protect their turf. CIA proprietaries, such as Air America, can be used to provide access to international markets. And, despite Deutch’s protestations to the contrary, the CIA has repeatedly suppressed criminal investigations of its operatives by the US Customs Service, the Drug Enforcement Agency and the FBI.
Given these areas of mutual interest it is not surprising that since its inception the Central Intelligence Agency has been in permanent collusion with narco-traffickers, assisting their safe passage, protecting their activities, rewarding drug lords, hiring them for covert missions and using money derived from these operations for other activities. The fact that these drugs end up in American veins has never deterred the Agency and, given the hue of the skin often covering those veins, has perhaps even been seen as a positive outcome.

25 Jan 2018

Smartphone, Smartness And Stupidity

Farooque Chowdhury


A new research by scientists at the San Diego State University finds, to put it briefly, a correlation between over-use of Smartphone and teens’ increased unhappiness. All major news providers have prominently presented the news of the study. Overall finding of the study annoys all parents, guardians and responsible citizens.
It’s not the only study that finds such annoying facts related to the young and misuse of one type of technology. Over the last few years many such studies have been conducted in a number of countries, and findings from those are basically and broadly the same: over- and misuse of online so-called social media, staying glued to electronic screen for longer hours, and harmful effect of these on development of the young. A number of prominent electronic-tech maestros have also divulged a few facts, which also speak about the harms brought home by the misuse. At least one of them has renounced his practice with that tech-tact. Many scientists including educationists, psychologists and physicians have expressed serious concern on the issue: over-/misuse of the tech by the young. Moreover, discussions are going on on regulating the tech’s over-/misuse by the young. Movements are being initiated to spread awareness about the problem, to encourage people to be careful about the ill-effect of over-/misuse of the tech, and its persistent use by the minors. Tech-free schools are being organized as a way to free the young learners from this tech-curse. A portion of the rich are taking advantage of these new initiatives.
But, the information is conveyed least to the under-developed societies, to the societies gripped by plunder-“development”. Rather, all out efforts are being made to spellbind these societies with the tech-gospel as if that’s the mantra for uplifting of human life, as if all karma should move around that tiny machine, as if the path to be great scientists and poets and philosophers is learning the tech at the earliest possible age, as if nirvana to material life lies in making teen-aged experts with the tech. Suggestions are being made in a style that carries the following message: practice the tech-yoga from cradle, if possible, from the womb-days, inspire all babies to learn the world-winning tech, because, that’s the “path” to prosperity.
Consequently, what’s happening? Millions of young eyes are glued to the few inches by few inches screens, young brains are bonded to those, length of concentration of young minds is determined by those powerful machines, imagination is determined by that technology, creativity is “created” by that machine, speed of young minds are determined by the tech. As a result, free flying young mind forgets to find something funny and interesting around the life the young mind dwells, the mind’s horizon of imagination narrows down to the machine, fails to find out problems other than those designed by the machine, physical activity and social interaction get lost – condition of a slave full with nothing but stupidity. To the society, a reign of rascals appears near horizon.
Innumerable flocks of such tech-controlled minds are not helpful to the status quo, even if someone throws away the dream of building up a new society, which is rational, humane, decent and free from indignities. Status quo cannot survive with childish game-efficient minds. It needs minds capable of confronting real life games: equations in economy and politics, games in geopolitics, geostrategy, geotactics and geography, problems in physics, philosophy, chemistry and propaganda. These are needed for operating its killing kilns – armament and punishment industries, for maintaining its façade of fear, essentials for its rule. Cogwheels of exploitation that status quo needs for its survival cannot be run and governed by minds made sterile by tiny, or, even by big, screens. Slaves and sheep cannot secure status quo. Worshippers of status quo cannot find any argument to differ with the assertions made above.
And, for a new society, new human is required. With a slavish attitude, with short span of concentration of mind, with attention unknowingly handed over to a machine designer, with soul sold to machine, with shallow ideas generated by profiteers marketing mind-control machines, no new society can be build up; not even march for the cherished society can be organized. The march requires social interaction within a social reality. The march demands identifying contradictions within a reality, constituents of which are economy, society, politics. The march requires an inquisitive brain: question all, question everything, question all the time, never fear questioning. The march requires vision, a vision for a humane society, a vision to transform brutality into love, a vision to transform appropriation into sharing. The march requires the knowledge and sense, which teach importance of history and heritage, which teach not to wipe out history and not to demolish heritage. The march requires tolerance: give space to others, respect others’ opinions. The march requires love, love not reserved for any particular faction but for the entire humanity. The march requires a dream without limit and with its foundation on reality. Gluing to machines with set rules, thousands those might be, don’t create that required mind, elements and conditions. And, machines have no power to flower love. And, machines have no power to identify contradictions within society and between classes. And, machines have no power to generate arguments in the plane of philosophy. And, machines have no power to generate ideas and concepts. Machines facilitate and help accelerate, sometimes with unimaginable speed, these functions, activities, exercises, and help dissect and analyze. Thence, gluing to these machines, flirting with these tiny lifeless things, don’t create creativity, an essential requirement for building up a new society.
But, the reality is funny: a group of policy makers are hell-bent to introduce these machines. Companies are continuously alluring consumers with the machines. A group of parents and guardians are over-enthusiastic to make their children smart – these machines-savvy. Many educational institutions are not making their students aware of killing kisses of these machines and practices. It will be hard to find any news of discussion meetings on the issue organized by students or youth or cultural organizations. Probably, students and youth organizations don’t consider the issue touching and influencing life and activities of students and youths, and cultural organizations fail to find out any culture in the profiteer-induced game. One group is motivated while another is stupid.
Aren’t these two groups aware of child psychology, learning process, requirements for development of young minds, the science of education? Both are aware. Their level and extent of knowledge and awareness of these issues are according to their requirement and capacity to access. One group is smart enough to market their product while the other is happy with their stupidity. Both the groups are content with their smartness. This is the reality requiring a challenge.

Fiji airport workers return after month-long lockout

John Braddock 

About 200 service and maintenance workers returned to their jobs at Fiji’s main airport in Nadi on Monday after a judge ordered an end to their month-long lockout. The workers had been suspended without pay since December 16, when they attended a meeting called by the Federated Airlines Staff Association (FASA) to discuss a range of grievances, including an 11-year pay freeze and allegations of sexual harassment.
The employer, Air Terminal Services (ATS), declared the meeting an “illegal strike” and would only allow the workers, a third of the workforce, to return if they signed a letter admitting guilt. Airport operations were maintained with 150 scab workers employed on three-month contracts. Up to 300 workers picketed the company headquarters throughout the Christmas period calling for an end to the lockout.
The court said on Saturday that ATS did not follow due process, giving the company 48 hours to allow the workers to return to their jobs. The judge also ordered that all pay and entitlements owed be restored. The highly unusual order no doubt reflects fears in ruling circles, including in the trade unions, that the dispute was threatening to provoke a broader rebellion among working people, over low wages and dire social conditions.
Thousands of Fijians turned out on January 13 to demonstrate their support for the locked-out workers. Local media reported that about 3,000 people marched through Nadi, but Radio New Zealand added that another 5,000 joined the rally at the end of the march. RNZ Pacific correspondent Sally Round said it was the biggest demonstration she had seen in Fiji, with crowds of workers in uniform, families with children, elderly people and human rights groups carrying banners, singing and chanting.
Addressing the rally, Felix Anthony, national secretary of Fiji’s Trades Union Congress (TUC), issued a demagogic threat that the TUC would “shut this country down if we have to,” and foreshadowed another march in the capital, Suva, on February 24. The unions were, however, more than ready to enter the Employment Relations Tribunal following a move initiated by the ATS, to negotiate a return to work.
The court’s findings are highly conditional. Magistrate Andrew See warned that the actions of both parties had not been “completely exemplary.” He said the workers’ actions in walking off the job suggested that prima facie unlawful industrial action had been taken, but management made the situation worse by suspending workers without pay and without following established procedures.
In response, ATS issued a statement declaring “the decision does not prevent any disciplinary measures from being taken against the workers for abandoning their positions and engaging in an unlawful walkout.” The management is considering “additional legal steps.” It also said it would be making other changes to security “to prevent any further economic sabotage from taking place.”
The unions will be deeply complicit in any measures taken against the workforce. Following the court’s ruling, FASA national secretary Vilikesa Naulumatua immediately declared that no decision could now be made by management “without the workers’ participation.”
ATS was established in 1980 with a 51 percent shareholding by the government, and 49 percent held by the workforce in the Air Terminal Services Employee Trust (ATSET), which workers can join on payment of $F2,500 ($US1,250).
FASA facilitated the charade of workers’ involvement in the company. The ATS Board of Directors consists of seven members: four government representatives and three so-called “workers’ directors” elected via ATSET. The company boasts extensive “worker participation,” with “worker representatives” elected onto nine separate management committees.
Given the complete integration of the union with the company’s ownership and management structure, it is simply not credible that it represents the interests of the workers, any more than unions elsewhere in the world. FASA is directly responsible for the oppressive conditions facing the airport workers.
TUC chief Anthony earlier told the Fiji Times the December 16 meeting was not a work stoppage or strike but a “shareholders’ meeting,” called because the union was frustrated with the way the company was being run and costing them money. Anthony claimed the workers don’t have a say at board level despite owning 49 percent of shares.
Whatever FASA’s reasons for initiating the stoppage, the response of the workers and their supporters is another indication of the growing determination of the working class internationally to defend their jobs, wages and conditions as the New Year begins.
Workers were willing to defy the authoritarian and repressive Fijian government. Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama denounced the workers, saying the law was clear on industrial disputes and workers did not “follow the process”, which requires a secret ballot, when they walked off the job. Ominously the Chief of Staff of Fiji’s Military Forces, Colonel Ratu Jone Kalouniwai, demanded the workers return to work.
The Fijian regime has its roots in the 2006 coup led by the former military strongman Bainimarama. The election in September 2014, closely monitored by the military and carried out with anti-democratic intimidation of political opponents, was won by Bainimarama’s Fiji First Party. The military dominate the government and state apparatus.
Conditions of strict press censorship, military provocations and severe restrictions on opposition political parties remain in place. Entrenched anti-democratic measures, including suppression of the media, are directed against the working class and rural poor, and aimed at intimidating and silencing any opposition.
The gulf between rich and poor is widening. Since the first military coup in 1987, poverty and inequality have continued to increase. In 2016, 45 percent of Fiji’s 900,000 population was estimated to be living below the national poverty line. According to recent economic surveys, over 50 percent live on less than $F25 a week and cannot meet their basic needs. In July last year, the government raised the minimum wage by 36 cents an hour to $2.68. According to the TUC, it would need to be $4 an hour to reach the poverty line.
More than 140,000 people live in more than 200 shanty towns, many of which exist on the outskirts of Fiji’s luxurious tourist resorts. Approximately 40 percent of Fijian children experience malnourishment. A study published in 2015 revealed that diabetes-related limb amputations were being conducted by the public health system at the rate of more than 700 a year.

UK Independence Party on brink of collapse

Julie Hyland

The UK Independence Party (UKIP) is in a meltdown after its leader Henry Bolton refused to stand down. On Sunday, UKIP’s National Executive Committee (NEC) unanimously passed a vote of no confidence in Bolton, who has been leader for just four months.
The vote came after it was disclosed that Bolton’s 25-year-old glamour model girlfriend Jo Marney had made racist remarks about Prince Harry’s fiancée, Meghan Markle. The tweets led to an exposure of various right-wing diatribes by Marney, including over the Grenfell Tower inferno.
The relationship was already under fire after Bolton left his wife and children for Marney, who has been suspended from UKIP membership. By Wednesday, fully 15 senior UKIP figures, including Bolton’s deputy and assistant deputy, had quit their posts to force him to stand down. The party has also reportedly stopped paying his salary in a bid to “starve” him out.
Bolton has rejected the NEC vote and insists he will remain in place until an emergency meeting of UKIP members next month. Claiming that he is the victim of an “organised coup and insurgency against my leadership,” Bolton attacked the NEC as “not fit for purpose” and vowed to reform it, saying it is “time to drain the swamp.”
Bolton, a former Liberal Democrat and ex-captain in the British Army, was elected on just 30 percent of the vote last September. His victory was largely the result of his claim to be the “moderate” and “steady” leader required for a party already in an advanced state of political disintegration.
UKIP reached its high-water mark in the 2015 general election when it won nearly four million votes, 12.6 percent of those cast. Under the former City broker and Member of the European Parliament Nigel Farage, it cast its free market opposition to the European Union (EU) as “anti-establishment,” heavily buttressed by anti-immigrant rhetoric.
With UKIP gaining ground, especially amongst the Tory grassroots, then-Prime Minister David Cameron called the 2016 referendum on British membership of the EU. The aim was to finally resolve the bitter faction fight on the right over EU membership with a decisive vote in favour of Remain. Instead, the vote went narrowly in favour of Leave.
Despite UKIP’s apparent success with Brexit, the party has been in free-fall ever since. After Farage resigned following the referendum, the party has seen four leaders in 16 months, with Diane James quitting after 18 days and Paul Nuttall standing down after lying on his CV.
Bitter in-fighting has been fuelled by UKIP’s collapse at the polls. In 2017, it recorded just 1.8 percent of the vote and lost all but one of the 145 English council seats it was defending. Its sole Westminster MP, Conservative renegade Douglas Carswell, also quit. Party membership has halved from 47,000 in 2015—the highest recorded—to less than 25,000 now, and is losing members at the rate of 1,000 each month.
Bolton’s leadership was always tenuous. His victory was possible only because he was regarded by some as the best means of stopping the most popular grassroots candidate, Anne Marie Waters.
Waters, a former Labour Party member, made several attempts to stand for the Labour Party before she quit to join UKIP in 2015. A leading figure in the anti-Muslim Pegida UK, alongside former English Defence League activist Tommy Robinson, and the director of Sharia Watch UK, she was allied with UKIP’s far-right, including former members of the British National Party. Waters came second to Bolton in September’s contest, with 21.3 percent of the vote, and split off with supporters to found For Britain.
Publicly, Farage has backed Bolton’s efforts to impose a new constitution on UKIP and bypass the NEC, saying it is the only way to establish if “UKIP is fit for purpose.”
“It’s very difficult to start new political parties in Britain and UKIP has an established brand,” he said, but cast doubt on Bolton’s ability to carry through the necessary reforms.
Notwithstanding concerns for the “brand,” the Sunday Times reported that Farage has been in talks with multi-millionaire Arron Banks, who formerly bankrolled UKIP and the Leave.EU campaign group, over the formation of a new movement. The Times said that Farage is being lined up as president, Banks as chairman and “Richard Tice, a property developer and co-chairman of the Leave Means Leave campaign group, is also expected to be offered a role.”
“The plan is that the movement will eventually morph into a new party with candidates, who have been properly vetted, able to contest seats at the next general election and really hold Theresa May’s feet to the fire on Brexit,” the newspaper reported, citing a “source close to Banks.”
Banks and Farage were said to have considered launching the “movement” last September in the eventuality that Waters won the leadership of UKIP. The basis of their opposition to her is unclear. Certainly no issues of political principles are involved: While Farage was denouncing Waters in the UK, he was addressing a rally of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Berlin, alongside its deputy leader Beatrix von Storch, the granddaughter of Hitler’s finance minister, Lutz von Krosigk.
Discussions on the formation of a new pro-Brexit “movement” are a response to the deepening crisis of British capitalism. Prime Minister Theresa May heads a minority government, led by a party that is even more bitterly divided over Brexit than before the referendum. In addition to the opposition of a substantial section of the ruling elite to her declared “hard Brexit” rhetoric, she faces significant and growing social opposition to her agenda of austerity and militarism.
Achieving a “real Brexit” has become the by-word amongst the Alt-Right for the launch of an explicitly nationalist, anti-immigrant party based on the charge that May is “betraying” Brexit, or is at least too weak to see it through.
Earlier this month, Farage and Banks said they were minded to back a second referendum to settle the issue for once and for all. Farage demanded, and got, a meeting with Michael Barnier, the EU’s Brexit negotiator, in which he positioned himself as the representative of the “17.5 million” people who voted for Brexit.
Raheem Kassam, Farage’s former aide and editor-in-chief at Breitbart NewsLondon, has opposed a second referendum but is said to be considering the launch of a new party, should UKIP fail to get itself in order.
Most notable is the support of former Labour MP and anti-war activist George Galloway for this project. Writing on Banks’ Westmonster web site, Galloway opined that “Brexit won’t happen unless someone holds the government’s feet to the fire.”
During the 2016 referendum, Galloway notoriously lined up alongside Farage and representatives of the arch-Thatcherite wing of the Tory Party at their launch of the Grassroots Out campaign, issuing the call: “Left, right, left, right, forward march together.”
In his blog, “UKIP is dead Long Live the NEWKIP,” Galloway praises Farage and UKIP as a “patriotic front of left, right and centre.” Now what is needed, he says, is an “economically radical” party, able to tap into “the winter of discontent over the way our country is run.” It should eschew the “culture wars of identity politics” and fight for a “real Brexit” against the Tories, who had thrown away their “parliamentary majority in an unnecessary general election.”
Significantly, Galloway holds out the possibility that such a movement could work in solidarity with Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party. He claims it would enable Corbyn to resist the “enormous pressure” of the pro-Remain Blairites seeking to shape Labour as a means of stopping Brexit. He welcomes in this regard Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell’s acknowledgement that “free movement” had “driven wages down,” a statement that he complains had earned himself “all kinds of foul names over the last years.”

Syriza mounts savage assault on living standards and democratic rights in Greece

John Vassilopoulos

Thursday marked three years to the day since Syriza, led by Alexis Tsipras, was swept into power on an anti-austerity ticket.
By August 2015, after just eight months in power, Tsipras and his government repudiated its mandate and capitulated to the European Union (EU) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by agreeing to a new austerity package. This was only weeks after Greek workers and youth voted decisively against austerity in the referendum called by the Syriza-led government.
Since then, Syriza and its right-nationalist governing partners, the Independent Greeks, have presided over the implementation of successive brutal attacks on the living standards of an already impoverished Greek working class. Pensions and benefits have been slashed and taxes hiked, while every few months additional state-owned companies have been lined up for sale.
The measures contained in the multi- bill passed January 15 by Greece’s parliament are among the most savage yet imposed—befitting a right-wing government whose “radical left” credentials are in tatters.
The bill was passed just in time for this week’s assessment by the EU and financial institutions of Greece’s adherence to the previously agreed austerity programme. Syriza’s total compliance with their diktats—with around 100 of a total of 113 austerity measures requiring adoption carried out—ensured the release of a further €6.7 billion tranche to be paid to Greece over the next four months. Or, more properly, to be loaned to Greece so that it can pay the money back to its creditors, the European powers.
Among the measures enacted were historic curtailments on the right to strike. The threshold for a strike vote to be legal will be raised from one-third to at least 50 percent of all paying union members, not simply those who take part in the vote.
The bill drastically cuts the level of child benefits, with almost 70,000 families to suffer massive cuts. Approximately 15,000 families, mainly those with three children, with an income of more than €33,000, will be deprived of their annual child benefit payments entirely. A further 54,550 families with an income of more than €13,500 who have three or more children—a pittance for such a family—will suffer benefit cuts of between 1.66 percent and 32.12 percent.
Another measure is the establishment of an electronic foreclosures portal next month that will enable the banks to easily offload properties of citizens that have mortgage arrears. This is to facilitate a smoother running of the process, given that in recent months foreclosures taking place at the district court have been met with fierce resistance by protesters, who were attacked by riot police. This measure marks an explicit repudiation of one Syriza’s key anti-austerity slogans before coming into power—“No house in the hands of the bankers.”
From May, electronic foreclosures will also come into force to settle the debts of members of the public to the state, starting at just €500. Citizens will be given just two weeks to settle debts, otherwise their property will be auctioned.
The bill earmarks a further 14 Public Services and Utilities (DEKOs), employing approximately 40,000 workers, for privatisation. Among them are the Postal Service; the Athens Mass Transit System; over half of the Athens and Thessaloniki Water Supply Companies; 34 percent of the Public Power Corporation and 25 percent of Athens airport, Athens Central Market and Fishery Organisations and 25 percent of Thessaloniki Central Market. Thessaloniki International Fair-HELEXPO, the Hellenic Salt Works, Etva Industrial Zones, Corinth Canal and Athens Olympic Centre are also being sold off.
Within the context of privatisation, the bill establishes an Energy Exchange, which will enable “the reorganisation of the Greek energy market in accordance with [European] legislation for establishing a unified European electricity market.” This allows for the financialisation of the energy market, which will encourage speculation at the expense of working-class households.
The bill contains attacks on education, with “specific criteria, procedures and timetables” set “for the mergers of primary and secondary schools, with the aim of rationalizing school units.”
These are attacks first pioneered by the previous social democratic PASOK government. Teachers must also increase their hours of work and be on school premises for 30 hours each week.
The bill establishes a committee tasked with overhauling the current legal framework regarding “hazardous and unhealthy” occupations. Under Greek law, workers in these occupations have historically enjoyed certain privileges, such as additional wage top-ups and being able to retire earlier. The committee will redefine the criteria of health-related risks, the level and the different categories of wage packet top-ups, as well as the occupations, workplaces and industry branches eligible by May this year.
The multi-bill imposes further deregulation on pharmacies by stipulating a minimum of 40 hours a week that a pharmacy must stay open—8 a.m. to 9 p.m. in the daytime and 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. at night.
Extended working hours had already been imposed by previous legislation, as well as allowing other stores, such as supermarkets, to provide pharmacy services. Imposing a minimum on the hours a pharmacy must keep open will make it impossible for small neighbourhood pharmacies to keep up with larger pharmacies. Local pharmacies will close, impacting sick and vulnerable patients unable to travel far to obtain their medicines.
Syriza makes explicit overtures to one of the most parasitic layers of the bourgeoisie by introducing a new framework on casino licensing, to come into force at the start of 2020. This includes lowering taxation to between 8 percent and 20 percent from the present range of 22 percent to 35 percent.
The statutory entry charge, in place to discourage gambling, has been scrapped. The aim of the new licenses is to increase the number of casinos from nine to 13—including one on the site of the former Athens airport at Hellenikon undertaken by Lamda Development, owned by shipping magnate Spiros Latsis.
Greece’s austerity programme is due to officially end in August, with Tsipras boasting that “the prescribed exit from the memorandums cannot be stopped by anyone.” In reality, even if the current programme is completed, supervision of the country’s finances and unviable €323 billion sovereign debt—a staggering 180 percent of GDP—by the EU and banks, will continue.
In the Greek daily Kathimerini, outgoing Eurogroup Working Group chief Thomas Wieser referred to the “enhanced supervision” regime that Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus and Spain will remain under until their debts are fully paid. In Greece’s case, this is not likely to be until 2060, if ever. According to Wieser, “enhanced supervision” must take into account a worsening economic and financial situation: “If the risks are predominantly in the financial sector or fiscal, you have a more frequent and intensive monitoring by the institutions with a more structured and extensive discussion.”
Extending the regime of supervision is strongly advocated by the Greek ruling elite, with a recent poll revealing that 64 percent of Greek CEOs advocate additional supervision post-August.

Amid state censorship campaign, French media denounce “conspiracy theories”

Anthony Torres

After French President Emmanuel Macron announced a bill targeting “fake news” on the Internet and social media, the French press has launched a campaign against “conspiracy theories” that it complains are popular in France. The daily Libération devoted its entire front page to the issue. In an article titled “French people believe in conspiracy theories but this is not a conspiracy,” it writes that according to an Ifop poll for the Jean Jaurès Foundation and the Conspiracy Watch group, 79 percent of the French people believe in at least one popular conspiracy theory.
This denunciation of the population—which tends to support reactionary arguments that the mainstream media should help censor “fake news” that gullible readers might find online—is anything but politically innocent. It takes place amid an escalating campaign, led by Washington and the major technology corporations including Facebook and Google, to censor the Internet. For months, Google has been cutting down the visibility of socialist and antiwar web sites, including the World Socialist Web Site. It has openly proclaimed that it is censoring Russian state media.
As for Facebook, its CEO Mark Zuckerberg has announced an initiative to limit the number of news articles published on Facebook in order to promote “personal moments” on social media.
An examination of the press campaign against the French people’s alleged “conspiracy mania” proves one key point: what drives this campaign is not the desire to better inform the public, but to muzzle the Internet in order to strangle rising social and political opposition.
Libération focuses to a very large extent on the population’s views about Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (IS), and terror attacks in France. It denounces as conspiracy theories the idea that IS and Al Qaeda are “in fact manipulated by Western intelligence agencies,” or the fact that “somewhat more than a fifth of the French population has doubts about the official account” of the 2015 terror attack against Charlie Hebdo magazine.
The questionnaire cited by Libération pours scorn on these ideas, comparing them with the fact that, supposedly, 9 percent of French people believe the Earth is flat. However, such views are not absurd ideas, but contentions confirmed by a wide array of supporting evidence reported in official media.
The historic ties between the CIA and Al Qaeda are well known. Al Qaeda emerged during the CIA’s secret war in Afghanistan—first against the pro-Soviet regime in 1979 and then the Soviet army after the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. It was Zbigniew Brzezinski, the US National Security Advisor at the time, who confirmed it subsequently in 1997, in an interview in France with Le Nouvel Observateur (since renamed L  Obs ).
In the 2010s, the CIA helped mobilize and arm the descendants of Al Qaeda, like IS and Al Nusra, which were initially promoted as democratic “rebels” fighting the Syrian regime. In its 2013 article “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From CIA,” the New York Times wrote, “With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.”
In France, the Islamist networks used by NATO to organize its proxy war in Syria—from which came the Kouachi brothers and Amédy Coulibaly, who carried out the attacks against Charlie Hebdo— benefited from the tacit support of the police and intelligence agencies. They were allowed to freely travel across Europe to recruit networks of fighters, arm themselves, and prepare terror attacks against the Assad regime.
Libération angrily adds that concerning the Charlie Hebdo attack on “7 January 2015, shortly after the Kouachi brothers’ attack against the satirical weekly’s editorial board, an incalculable number of conspiracy theories challenging the information provided by the police and media spread online, as average Internet users tried to act as investigators or self-styled journalists.”
Again, however, reports drawn from the most established bourgeois media refute the official account that the Charlie Hebdo attack was an unpredictable event carried out by a few “lone wolves” who had totally escaped the attention of the intelligence services.
A year and half after the Charlie Hebdo attack, Le Monde published a report based on notes from the General Directorate of Internal Security (DGSI) that the Kouachi brothers were members of Al Qaeda in Yemen and linked to Coulibaly. The Kouachi brothers had been followed intensely by the intelligence services, who considered them extremely dangerous, for several years before the surveillance was suddenly called off for no apparent reason.
The links between this attack, the state machine, and neo-fascist circles are also well documented. La Voix du Nord and Libération itself reported the arrest in July 2016 of arms dealer Claude Hermant, a former National Front (FN) operative and police informant, whose company provided the weapons that were used in the Charlie Hebdo attack.
Médiapart has reported that as early as 14 January 2015, Slovak intelligence and Europol apparently informed French authorities that Coulibaly’s weapons had passed through the hands of Hermant’s company.
These revelations are not “fake news” concocted by obscure web sites. What is taking place is this: the media are now falsifying events and cover up their previous reporting, in order to avoid discrediting political lies which the ruling elites across Europe used to justify carrying out reactionary and unpopular police-state measures based on false pretenses.
Terror attacks by Al Qaeda and IS in France and across Europe provided a pretext for the ruling class to impose stepped-up police-state measures like the French state of emergency.
As states across Europe oversaw a broad media campaign to incite suspicion and paranoia towards Muslims, the French government was able to use the state of emergency to violently repress protests against its deeply unpopular labor law. In this, it had the support of an entire series of reactionary, petty bourgeois pseudo left parties, like the New Anticapitalist Party. These forces had previously created even more confusion by promoting the CIA-backed militias fighting for regime change in Libya and Syria as tools of a democratic revolution.
Now employers across France are using the labor law, completed by Macron’s labor decrees, to prepare job and wage cuts in numerous industries.
This entire policy was based on political lies concocted by the ruling class about Islamism and IS, claiming that the only way to fight the supposedly unprecedented and incomprehensible terror threat was to give vast police powers to the state.
Now, the French media and ruling elite fear that growing awareness of the links between the intelligence services and the Islamist terror groups could bring down the entire edifice of lies on which they built their reactionary policies.
In its article, Libération underscores the danger, from its standpoint, that popular mistrust of the “war on terror” and of NATO imperialist wars will provoke even deeper hatred of the traditional ruling parties. It writes, “Effectively, conspiracy theories can be a powerful tool for indoctrination carried out by radical far-left or far-right organizations.”
Social opposition cannot, however, find any progressive expression in the rise of petty-bourgeois parties like the NPA, nor of more explicitly right-wing parties. The critical task is the building of an international movement of the working class against war, austerity and censorship.

Far-right Alternative for Germany receives cross-party support

Christoph Vandreier

On Tuesday, all of the political parties represented in the German parliament (Bundestag) agreed that a deputy from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) can chair the most important parliamentary committee, the Budget Committee. The AfD will also head the committees on legal affairs and tourism.
The leadership of the Budget Committee is traditionally assigned to the main opposition party, which will be the AfD in the event of a renewal of a grand coalition between the conservative parties (Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union—CDU/CSU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD). This accepted practice is, however, not binding. The distribution of committees is determined by the heads of the various parliamentary groupings, and they could have decided otherwise.
Instead, the right-wing extremists are being allowed by the other parties to occupy central positions on Bundestag committees that are crucial for the work of the parliament. The Budget Committee is responsible for forging agreement on budgetary resources and has a decisive influence on all other government departments. Outlays from the Euro Rescue Fund, for example, must be approved by the committee.
In recent years, the Legal Affairs Committee has prepared laws curtailing fundamental democratic rights. It has jurisdiction over the NetzDG law, which obliges social networks to censor Internet content. The law has already been used extensively to censor left-wing web sites, a practice that is bound to intensify with the AfD chairing the committee.
Allowing right-wing extremists to head such important committees is supported not only by those parties negotiating a renewal of the grand coalition, but also by the opposition parties. “Completely in order,” was the comment by the parliamentary manager of the Greens, Britta Haßelmann. Gesine Lötzsch of the Left Party told the media that it was quite natural for the AfD to assume leadership positions.
The AfD has evidently been encouraged by such statements and has appointed three of its most notorious right-wingers for the three committees. According to the AfD, Peter Boehringer is to head the Budget Committee. Shortly after joining the AfD in 2015, Boehringer criticised the party’s leader at the time, Bernd Lucke, and called for a campaign against the “over-exploitation of Germany by millions of illegal economic refugees and Muslims seeking to convert our culture.”
Boehringer is notorious for his fascistic remarks. In October of the same year, he ranted about the “threat to the right of ownership of autochthonous Europeans who have cultivated European land as their property and are now unwilling to surrender it to millions of invaders through brutal, supranational or even supra-state violence.” He accuses the central banks of “money socialism” and in the manner of right-wing conspiracy theorists, speaks of a “supranational elite” that operates to “disempower nation-states.”
The German public broadcasters WDR and NDR have published excerpts from Boehringer’s letters, which display his contempt for humanity and his vulgarity, and make clear how such social scum is being elevated into the highest government offices.
The same applies to Stephan Brandner, whom the AfD wants to install as chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee. Brandner is a confidante of the neo-Nazi AfD leader Björn Höcke. He has described a typical Syrian family as “father, mother and two goats” and slandered antifascists as the product of inbreeding and sodomy.
The Tourism Committee is to be headed by an AfD thug. Last October, 28-year-old Sebastian Münzenmaier was sentenced to six months in prison and placed on probation with a fine of 10,000 euros. In 2012, he assisted hooligans attached to a football club in Kaiserslautern in assaulting and beating up fans of a rival club.
This ultra-right cabal will now be involved in key parliamentary work with the support of all the parliamentary parties. In its editorial on Tuesday, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung celebrated the way in which the Bundestag had finally been constituted as a “central authority” and was going about its work “in a collegial way,” as distinct from the situation that prevails in the coalition negotiations. The AfD should not be “marginalized” or “curtailed in their parliamentary rights,” declared Reinhard Müller in the comment.
The fact that right-wing extremists are being courted and integrated into parliamentary work highlights the character of the government currently being negotiated by the conservative Union parties and the SPD.
The grand coalition exploratory paper, which was adopted by an SPD party congress last weekend as the basis for coalition negotiations, reveals that the three parties are essentially implementing the program of the AfD. The CDU, CSU and SPD are planning the most right-wing government since the downfall of the Nazi regime.
The paper includes extremely restrictive refugee policies, an aggressive foreign policy, massive attacks on workers’ social rights and the build-up of the state apparatus. Leading representatives such as Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) and Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) have made it clear that the grand coalition will be committed to massive rearmament and German great power politics.
This reactionary program is embodied in the AfD and the scum it mobilises. The party was deliberately built up by the ruling class to enforce policies of militarism and social cuts against popular opposition. Now it is being employed for precisely these ends.
The broad support for the AfD’s involvement in parliamentary work underlines the fact that there is no force in the Bundestag willing to fight against the right-wing policies of the grand coalition and the AfD. The only way to prevent the installation of a new right-wing government is to mobilize the working class on the basis of a socialist program. To this end, the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party) demands and fights for new elections to expose the ruling class conspiracy against the working class and raise the necessity for a socialist alternative.