Anas al-Liby
The al Qaeda terrorist funded and sheltered by Britain
'Fight Smart' Update - 8 February 2004
'OUR WAY OF LIFE, OUR
TERRORISTS'
Hutton And The Libyan Black Gold Rush
Why Colonel Gaddafi is not being personally pursued
for the Lockerbie bombing
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/WATgaddafideal.htm
Anas al-Liby
The al Qaeda terrorist funded and sheltered by Britain
"With the Financial Times reporting for the
first time on 26 January 2004 that the reserves of the world's top ten oil companies
are already depleting faster than they can replenish them no one should be under any
illusions about the cynical and ruthless nature of this dirty game."
Hutton And The Libyan Black Gold Rush
'Fight Smart', 8
February 2004
Our Islamic Terrorists In The Balkans
"The official Dutch inquiry
into the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, released last week, contains one of the most
sensational reports on western intelligence ever published. Officials have been staggered
by its findings .... Now we have the full story of the secret alliance between the
Pentagon and radical Islamist groups from the Middle East designed to assist the Bosnian
Muslims... in flagrant violation of the UN security council arms embargo against all
combatants in the former Yugoslavia. The result was a vast secret conduit of weapons
smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine agencies of the US, Turkey
and Iran, together with a range of radical Islamist groups, including Afghan
mojahedin and the pro-Iranian Hizbullah.... Initially
aircraft from Iran Air were used, but as the volume increased they were joined by a mysterious fleet of black C-130 Hercules aircraft. The
report stresses that the US was 'very closely involved' in the airlift. Mojahedin fighters were also flown in... the Pentagon's own secret service was the
hidden force behind these operations."
America used Islamists to arm the Bosnian Muslims
Guardian, 22 April
2002
"America took it upon itself to
deliver arms directly to the Bosnian Muslim Army - the ABiH. These covert air drops began
at the start of 1995. The most well-documented were the drops at Tuzla in the north
of Bosnia, where they were observed by members of the UN Nordic Battalion stationed close
to the dropping zone.... these air drops took place in the face of Operation Deny Flight,
the UN-imposed and Nato-policed no-fly zone over Bosnia.... The air drops were only the
tip of the iceberg. A team of retired US officers planned the bloody Croatian 'liberation'
of the Kraijina [which resulted in the ethnic
cleansing of up to 200,000 Serbs] and the subsequent invasion of western Bosnia by the
Croatian Army in the summer of 1995.... The scope of these activities included bugging UN
Commanders and diplomats.... Senior European negotiators believe that with US backing the
war could have ended two years earlier, but US desire to see the Serbs punished meant that
they instead encouraged the Bosnian Government to continue fighting. The price in human
terms? Over 15,000 dead and nearly 600,000 refugees."
Allies and lies
BBC
Correspondent, 22 June 2001
HOT - READ FULL TRANSCRIPT OF 'ALLIES AND LIES' - CLICK HERE - HOT
"During the 1999 Balkans war, some of the critics of Nato's intervention alleged that the western powers were seeking to secure a passage for oil from the Caspian sea. This claim was widely mocked.... [However] For the past few weeks, a freelance researcher called Keith Fisher has been doggedly documenting a project which has, as far as I can discover, has been little-reported in any British, European or American newspaper. It is called the Trans-Balkan pipeline, and it's due for approval at the end of next month. Its purpose is to secure a passage for oil from the Caspian sea. The line will run from the Black sea port of Burgas to the Adriatic at Vlore, passing through Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania. It is likely to become the main route to the west for the oil and gas now being extracted in central Asia. It will carry 750,000 barrels a day: a throughput, at current prices, of some $600m a month. The project is necessary, according to a paper published by the US Trade and Development Agency last May, because the oil coming from the Caspian sea 'will quickly surpass the safe capacity of the Bosphorus as a shipping lane'. The scheme, the agency notes, will 'provide a consistent source of crude oil to American refineries', 'provide American companies with a key role in developing the vital east-west corridor', 'advance the privatisation aspirations of the US government in the region' and 'facilitate rapid integration' of the Balkans 'with western Europe'....""The [northern Yugoslav pipeline]
project envisages construction of a new spur from Delnice to Trieste, 100 kilometers long,
and conversion of the Omisalj port into
the leading spot-market for resale of oil in the Mediterranean [Adriatic]..... The
territory of Yugoslavia (both former and present federation) is significant, therefore,
because of its geographic position. Influential American analysts insist on the claim that
Yugoslavia is in the immediate neighborhood of a zone of vital US interests - Black
Sea/Caspian Sea region. And wherever there are vital US interests, there are NATO troops
to protect them. European interests, claim our interlocutors, are even greater, because it
is definitely not in the interest of the European Union countries that the key to their
supplies is held by someone else... One should recall that Milosevic did not end up in the
Hague only as a war criminal, but above all because with his policies he stood in the way of a
new network of Euro-Asian oil pipelines. His
political fate was sealed in Zagreb, where two years ago a large ministerial-business
conference of the EU INOGATE program was held. A hundred days later, Milosevic was not in power
anymore, and at the time of the signing of a new oil pipeline from Constanta to Trieste he
was already on the way to the Hague, supposedly by chance."
Mega Pipeline Becomes Reality
Novi List
(Croatian Newspaper), 23 July 2002
"The project SEEL (South East
European Line), initiated by the Italian company ENI is actually the corridor for
transportation of Caspian oil from Constanta to Trieste, which passes through Serbia and
uses the existing system of the Adriatic oil pipeline, all the way to Omisalj... Because
of the political situation in Serbia this project was delayed for some better times... Until the fall of Slobodan
Milosevic's regime Croatia insisted that the connection with Constanta bypass Serbia by
going through Hungary [a less economic route]. However, after October 5 and the political changes in
Yugoslavia, the meeting of this same group held in Brussels on October 26 and 27, 2000,
expressed support for the transport of Caspian oil following the route from Black Sea,
Romania, Yugoslavia and Croatia, respectively from Romanian port Constanta, through
Pitesti, and Pancevo to Delnice in Croatia, from where the new pipeline would go towards
Trieste and the old one continue to Omisalj on the island of Krk."
Underground Games in Kosovo
Reporter
(Bosnian Newspaper), Banja Luka, Srpska, B-H, 27 February, 2001
| US Backed
Islamic Terrorism in the Balkans Press Reports Click here for access to these categories |
| 1. Oil and US Geopolitical Objectives in the Balkans |
| 2. US backed terrorism in Croatia |
| 3. US backed terrorism in Bosnia |
| 4. US backed terrorism in Kosovo |
| 5. US backed terrorism in Macedonia |
| 6. The human cost of US backed terrorism in the Balkans |
Our Islamic Terrorists In Africa
"Anas
Al-Liby is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998,
bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. The Rewards For Justice
Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25
million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Anas Al-Liby."
FBI web site, United States of
America
"In a dramatic interview with ABCNEWS,
FBI special agents and partners Robert Wright and John Vincent say they were called off
criminal investigations of suspected terrorists tied to the deadly bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. U.S. officials say al
Qaeda was responsible for the embassy attacks and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.... The
suspected terrorist cell in Chicago was the basis of the investigation, yet Wright, who
remains with the FBI, says he soon discovered that all the FBI intelligence division
wanted him to do was to follow suspected terrorists and file reports — but make no
arrests.... 'The supervisor who was there from headquarters was right straight across from
me and started yelling at me: 'You will not open criminal investigations. I forbid any of
you. You will not open criminal investigations against any of these intelligence subjects,'
' Wright said. Even though they were on a
terrorism task force and said they had proof of criminal activity, Wright said he was told
not to pursue the matter.... even after the bombings, Wright said FBI headquarters wanted
no arrests. 'Two months after the embassies are hit in Africa, they wanted to shut down the criminal investigation,'
said Wright. 'They wanted to kill it.' ... The move outraged Chicago federal prosecutor
Mark Flessner, who was assigned to the case despite efforts Wright and Vincent say were
made by superiors to block the probe....'There were powers bigger than I was in the
Justice Department and within the FBI that simply were not going to let it [the building
of a criminal case] happen. And it didn't happen,' Flessner said. He said he still
couldn't figure out why Washington stopped the case... On Sept. 11, 2001, the two agents
watched the terror attacks in horror, worried that men they could have stopped years
earlier may have been involved.'"
Called Off the Trail?
ABCNews, 19 Dec 2002
"....two French intelligence experts
.... reveal that the first Interpol arrest warrant for bin Laden was issued by Libya
in March 1998. According to journalist Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard, an
adviser to French President Jacques Chirac, British and US intelligence agencies buried
the fact that the arrest warrant had come from Libya ....... Five months after the warrant
was issued, al-Qaeda killed more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.... The
Libyan al-Qaeda cell included Anas
al-Liby, who remains on the US government's most wanted list
with a reward of $25 million for his capture. He is wanted for his involvement in the
African embassy bombings. Al-Liby was with bin Laden in Sudan before
the al-Qaeda leader returned to Afghanistan in 1996. Astonishingly, despite suspicions
that he was a high-level al-Qaeda operative, al-Liby was given political asylum in Britain
and lived in Manchester until May of 2000....."
MI6 'halted bid to arrest bin Laden'
Observer, 10 November 2002
"There's so much more. God, there's so
much more. A lot more."
FBI agent, Robert Wright, who is being officially prevented from telling the public about how his
efforts to investigate al-Qaeda pre-911 were blocked by his supervisors
'Called off the trail?' - ABC News, 19 Dec 2002
So Much More
"British
intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to
assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden
to justice....The Libyan al-Qaeda cell included Anas
al-Liby.... The Observer can today reveal that the MI6
officers involved in the alleged plot were Richard Bartlett, who has previously only been
known under the codename PT16 and had overall responsibility for the operation; and David
Watson, codename PT16B. As Shayler's opposite number in MI6, Watson was responsible for
running a Libyan agent, 'Tunworth', who was providing information from within the cell.
According to Shayler, MI6 passed £100,000 to the al-Qaeda plotters.... "
MI6 'halted bid to arrest bin Laden'
Observer, 10 November 2002
"The London Times 1
August comments on Lord Hutton's own closeness to the British intelligence services
stating that 'Lord Hutton's long involvement with the secret services make him well
placed to probe the world of intelligence and political intrigue surrounding David
Kelly’s death.... His time in Northern Ireland gave him considerable insight into the
workings of the Secret Intelligence Service and attuned him to the political sensitivities
of cases involving state security....' We will only know if
this proves to have been an advantage or a disadvantage when Lord Hutton provides his
final report. Will he be bold enough to recommend, for example, a separate investigation
of the intelligence services where his existing terms of reference do not give him
sufficient latitude? Lord Hutton has protected the intelligence services in the past. The
Times points out that 'The Oxford-educated judge, aged 72, was one of the law lords who decided that a
public interest defence was not available to David Shayler,
the former MI5 agent who disclosed secrets alleging incompetence in the security
services'. Shayler's concerns have in fact been much more than simply about professional
incompetence, however. Last
November the Observer reported on Shayler's follow-on trial. At that time Shayler was
claiming that MI6 had 'paid large sums of money to
an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel
Gaddafi in 1996' and that one of the members of the
cell [Anas al-Liby] had been
granted political asylum in Britain, living in Manchester until 2000. Shayler named
the MI6 officer involved in the British payments to al Qaeda. The Observer pointed out
that 'During the Shayler trial, Home Secretary David Blunkett
and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw signed Public Interest Immunity certificates to
protect national security. [As a result] Reporters were not able to report allegations
about the Gaddafi plot during the course of the trial.... These restrictions have led to a
row between the Attorney General and the so-called D-Notice Committee, which advises the
press on national security issues..... Members of the committee, who include senior
national newspaper executives, are said to be horrified at the unprecedented attempt to
censor the media during the trial.' Once again 'national security' excuses appear to have
been used as a fig leaf for covering up illicit activity by the British government - in
that case the actuality was no less than British sponsorship of international
terrorism."
Iraqgate 2003
'Fight Smart' Special Report, October 2004
"Shayler will be
defending himself during the trial. He is expected to claim that British secret service
agents paid up to £100,000 to al Qaeda terrorists for an assassination attempt on Libyan
leader Colonel Gadaffy in 1996."
Calls for secret Shayler trial
London Evening Standard, 7
October 2002
"The ruins
of the World Trade Centre were still burning when Tony Blair and David Blunkett appeared
before the cameras to pledge that they would speed up the extradition of terrorist
suspects sheltering in Britain. However, not one has since been extradited from Britain,
despite the repeated requests of more than a dozen friendly governments.... countries
complain that the British authorities have refused even to arrest some men whom they have
identified as having terrorist links.... Three people on the wanted list are accused of
playing pivotal roles in the lorry bomb attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 in which 231 people were killed.... New
[faster] British extradition laws that come into force on January 1... do not affect
al-Qaeda suspects seized after the September 11 attacks."
Blair 'broke promise' on terrorist suspects
London
Times, 29 December 2003
"Over the years, some dissidents
suspected by foreign governments of involvement in terrorist acts have been protected by
the British government for one reason or another from deportation or extradition.... In
the past, terrorism experts say, Britain benefited significantly from its willingness to
extend at least conditional hospitality to a wide range of Arab dissidents and opposition
figures.... Mustafa Alani, a terrorism expert at the Royal United Services Institute for
Defense Studies, a London think tank, said al-Liby was probably left in legal limbo by the
British government, allowing him to be used or discarded as circumstances permitted....
According to a renegade officer for the British intelligence service MI5, David Shayler,
British intelligence plotted with Islamic extremists to assassinate Gaddafi in early
1996..."
Britain a Refuge for Mideast Dissidents - Some
With Suspected Ties to Bin Laden Resist Extradition
Washington Post, 7
October 2001
Shaylergate - Click here
"We believe no more in Bonaparte's
fighting
merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for
the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the
power, the wealth and the resources of other nations."
Thomas Jefferson
President of the
United States of America, 1801 - 1809
There have been two particularly notable developments in British politics in the last couple of months. The first was the surprise announcement of Britain's rapprochement with Colonel Gaddafi of Libya. The second was the near complete exoneration of the government by Lord Hutton following his 'Investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly', the former Ministry of Defence biological and chemical weapons scientist.
Both stories have been prominent in the news. Less prominent has been reporting of Lord Hutton's earlier subsidiary role in developments influencing the evolution of Britain's relations with Libya.
On 29 January, the morning after the publication of the Hutton Report, the London Times ran a story on its front page entitled 'Judge fails to turn acerbic eye on Downing St'.
The article described some of the events of the previous day as follows: "With the gravity, logic and forensic analysis for which he is celebrated, Lord Hutton yesterday cleared the Government of bad behaviour in the David Kelly affair, and used the summary of his report to castigate the BBC in merciless detail..... It was left to the ill-concealed grin on the face of Tony Blair responding to the statement later in the House of Commons to say it all. As Michael Howard, the Tory leader, struggled to put the case against the Government that Lord Hutton had so conspicuously rejected, Mr Blair could afford to wrap himself in prime ministerial dignity.....The real drama, however, had begun an hour and a half earlier, as Lord Hutton entered Court 76, gave his usual courteous bow, and began delivering his report summary in a rapid-fire monotone. It was clear in a few minutes which direction he was moving in. It was not, he said, within his brief to determine whether the intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was sufficiently strong to justify the UKs military action; nor was it part of his remit to assess its reliability".
The Times concluded that "At a stroke, he had eliminated what was, perhaps, the most contentious issue at the heart of the whole affair".
However, this is not the first time that Lord Hutton has played an important role in connection with government efforts to head off public discussion of the more dubious aspects of British foreign policy in relation to oil rich Islamic countries.
It has been known for some time, thanks to information leaked by former MI5 officer David Shayler, that MI6 had sponsored a failed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi in 1996. Having fled to France Shayler was pursued by the British authorities for what they regarded as his breach of the Official Secrets Act on this and other matters. Eventually Shayler returned to Britain and sought to protect himself by seeking a 'public interest' defence through the courts.
The legality of such a defence was considered by the House of Lords in March 2002, but Shayler lost the case. The judgement meant that Shayler was not free to speak out about what he considered to be the illegal activities of the British intelligence services. It also meant that he would have to face prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. Lord Hutton was one of the presiding judges who ruled against Shayler.
By the summer of 2003 Lord Hutton was back in the public eye again, but this time much more prominently having been appointed to preside over the Kelly inquiry.
In an article entitled 'Judge is no stranger to the intelligence world' the London Times 1 August commented on Hutton's appointment stating that "Lord Hutton's long involvement with the secret services make him well placed to probe the world of intelligence and political intrigue surrounding David Kelly’s death.... His time in Northern Ireland gave him considerable insight into the workings of the Secret Intelligence Service and attuned him to the political sensitivities of cases involving state security.... The Oxford-educated judge, aged 72, was one of the law lords who decided that a public interest defence was not available to David Shayler, the former MI5 agent who disclosed secrets alleging incompetence in the security services".
However, Shayler was alleging much more than incompetence when it came to British sponsored terrorist activities in Libya, even if the Times chose not to refer to this. It was therefore very necessary to shut Shayler up.
Shayler was eventually convicted and sentenced in November 2002, his trial having been subjected to an official news black out.
On 10 November 2002 the Observer reported that it had "been restrained from printing details of the allegations during the course of the trial of David Shayler, who was last week sentenced to six months in prison for disclosing documents obtained during his time as an MI5 officer. He was not allowed to argue that he made the revelations in the public interest. During his closing speech last week, Shayler repeated claims that he was gagged from talking about 'a crime so heinous' that he had no choice but to go to the press with his story. The 'crime' was the alleged MI6 involvement in the plot to assassinate Gadaffi, hatched in late 1995. During the Shayler trial, Home Secretary David Blunkett and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw signed Public Interest Immunity certificates to protect national security. Reporters were not able to report allegations about the Gadaffi plot during the course of the trial. These restrictions have led to a row between the Attorney General and the so-called D-Notice Committee, which advises the press on national security issues".
Within weeks of his conviction Shayler was released from prison under an electronic tagging scheme for non-violent offenders, but during this time momentum had been building for another act of aggression by Britain against an Islamic country. The invasion of Iraq began in March.
The failure to quickly find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq following the invasion and the ensuing death of government weapons scientist Dr David Kelly lead to national uproar and a formal investigation into to the latter, but not the former, in the second half of 2003. The investigation was led by Lord Hutton.
Amongst other evidence produced during the investigation's hearings was a tape recording provided by BBC reporter Susan Watts. The recording was of a conversation she had had with Dr Kelly in which he confirmed that at the time of its preparation he had expressed concern about the contents of the British Government dossier published in September 2002. The dossier had been presented as an official assessment of the threat from Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Apart from his now much discussed unofficial briefing given to another BBC journalist, Andrew Gilligan, Dr Kelly had also briefed Susan Watts without authorisation. Watts produced her recording of their conversation of 30 May 2003 at the Hutton inquiry. Dr Kelly told her "I think that was the real concern that everyone had, it was not so much what they [the Iraqis] have now but what they would have in the future. But that unfortunately wasn't expressed strongly in the dossier because that takes away the case for war to a certain extent."
At almost the same time Gilligan had caused a stir by reporting (based on discussion with his source later disclosed as also Dr Kelly) that the Prime Minister's Director of Communications, Alastair Campbell, was responsible for adding to the September dossier an unreliable claim that, in the words of the dossier, Saddam's "military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them".
Although he did not refer specifically to Campbell until his article in the Mail on Sunday 1 June, Gilligan reported 29 May 2003 on the BBC's Today Programme that the September dossier "didn't say very much more than was public knowledge already and Downing Street, our source says, ordered a week before publication, ordered it to be 'sexed up', to be made more exciting and ordered more facts to be, to be discovered.... our source says that the dossier, as it was finally published, made the intelligence services unhappy.... because it didn't reflect the considered view they were putting forward - that's a quote from our source - and essentially, the 45 minute point was, was probably the most important thing that was added.... And the reason it hadn't been in the original draft was that it was, it only came from one source and most of the other claims were from two.... the 45 minutes isn't just a detail, it did go to the heart of the government's case that Saddam was an imminent threat and it was repeated four times in the dossier, including by the prime minister himself in the foreword."
Watts appears to have picked up on this report because, referring to an earlier conversation of theirs, she says to Dr Kelly "what intrigued me and which made, prompted me to ring you... was the quotes yesterday on the Today programme about the 45 minutes part of the dossier.... I've looked back at my notes and you were actually quite specific at that time.... you were more specific than the source on the Today programme - not that that necessarily means that it's not one and the same person [i.e. Susan Watts recognises the possibility that Dr Kelly may have been the source for the Today Programme report] in fact you actually referred to Alastair Campbell in that conversation". To which Dr Kelly replies "err yep yep with you?"
When asked by Watts if he could confirm the role of Campbell in relation to the claim Dr Kelly replied "No I can't.... All I can say is the Number Ten press office.... But I think Campbell is synonymous with that press office because he's responsible for it".
Earlier in the conversation Dr Kelly confirmed his knowledge of the concern in the intelligence community (later to be confirmed by Dr Brian Jones of the MoD's Defence Intelligence Staff during the Hutton Inquiry and in more detail after the publication of Lord Hutton's report) that the 45 minute claim had been derived only from a single intelligence source. He also stated that "[the 45 minute claim] was a statement that was made and it just got out of all proportion... They were desperate for information. They were pushing hard for information which could be released. That was one which popped up and it was seized on and it was unfortunate that it was, which is why there is the argument between the intelligence services and cabinet office/number ten".
It was therefore clear from this recorded conversation that whatever may or may not have been said to Andrew Gilligan, Dr Kelly considered that the problem of the misleading representation of the alleged threat lay with No 10 Downing St.
Hutton's investigation closed in the autumn of 2003, whilst Libya returned to the news in dramatic style just before Christmas.
With the clear aim of getting US sanctions lifted against it, Libya's decision to open up its weapons of mass destruction programme to international inspection came as an apparently sudden international development on 19 December. However, negotiations for a rehabilitated public image for Colonel Gaddafi, linked to improved western access to Libyan oil, had in fact been surfacing in press reports since at least the summer of 2002.
The BBC reported on 8 August 2002 that "After three hours of talks at Sirte, a coastal town about 320km (200 miles) east of Tripoli, [UK foreign office minister] Mr O'Brien was cautiously optimistic.... Libya is keen to re-enter the world economy and the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts".
Anyone who claims that British and American foreign policy towards Iraq, Iran and Libya is not underpinned by their interest in those countries' oil and gas reserves is simply not paying attention.
Indeed the Bush administration, via Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force, considered the lifting of sanctions against Libya, along with Iraq and Iran, as long ago as April 2001 in order to gain greater access to its oil. A report submitted to the Task Force at the time by the Baker Institute for Public Policy also raised the possibility of lifting sanctions for these countries, but in the case of Iraq recommended 'military intervention'.
This was well before the start of the so called 'war against terrorism'.
America has been desperate to access more oil from Islamic countries, specifically including Libya, Iran, and Iraq, for some time as press reports in relation to the 2001 Energy Task Force demonstrate. But more recently, on 17 December 2003, the Financial Times reported that "The US Energy Department on Tuesday said that US dependence on foreign oil would increase at a faster pace than the government had previously forecast..... Net oil imports are expected to rise to 70 per cent of total US petroleum demand by 2025, according to the department. The new Annual Energy Outlook 2004 report says the US is being forced to increase oil imports to accommodate growing demand amid declining domestic supply. In 2002, net imports of oil were 54 per cent."
Behind the scenes Gaddafi's oil had clearly been looking more and more attractive by the minute.
There were two problems, however, if a deal over the lifting of sanctions was to be done with Libya:
So the eventual deal appears to have been as follows: "We let you off Lockerbie, you admit to WMD programmes, and both of us can start benefiting from trading your oil again.".
Be in no doubt that the Libyan move is part of an orchestrated Anglo-American joint strategy for greater access to African oil.
In an article entitled 'UK and US in joint effort to secure African oil' the Guardian 14 November reported that "The government is helping the US to secure a guaranteed supply of oil from new sources in Africa and elsewhere, official documents obtained by the Guardian reveal. According to an internal memo to George Bush and Tony Blair, cooperation between the two governments has already delivered 'immediate... substantial benefits'. The decision to act was taken at a private summit at the president's Texas ranch in April last year. The joint initiative may be formally announced by Mr Bush and Mr Blair at their summit in London, which starts next Wednesday. The report to the president and prime minister was written in July by Don Evans, the American commerce secretary, and Spencer Abraham, the American energy secretary. It outlines how the American and British governments have woven together the 'separate strands' of their countries' energy and foreign policies in a 'frank sharing of strategic analysis and assessments'. The countries have agreed 'a set of coordinated actions to help achieve our objectives' across the world. The big British and American energy companies have been given favoured access to the discussions between the governments, taking part in meetings with officials. Both governments are keenly aware that, while the demand for oil is likely to rise, they cannot depend on the volatile and hostile Middle East as a safe source."
Libya is especially important to Britain and America in this respect. Not only does it have important oil and gas reserves of its own, it is also in a position to provide access to those of other African states.
According to the London Times 14 September 2002 "With a flick of his pen, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has taken another step to becoming the richest and most powerful leader in Africa. The Libyan dictator is reported to have signed a lucrative deal with the Central African Republic giving him the sole right to exploit oil and mineral resources for 99 years.... Revelations of the colonel’s latest monopoly deal came as the Libyan regime renewed its $360 million (£230 million) contract to supply Zimbabwe with oil in exchange for a massive stake in the nation’s main assets..... The West is monitoring the acquisitions closely ... The Colonel has [also] reportedly taken a stake in Mozambique's oil infrastructure...."
The principal reason for an attack on Iraq in 2003, rather than the full pursuit of international inspections as now appears to be agreed in the case of Libya, was the need for America to establish a major military platform in the Middle East in place of Saudi Arabia in order to protect a continuing supply of Gulf oil to the industrialised world. The Gulf contains the world's largest oil reserves by far.
Following the first Gulf war the inflammatory stationing of American troops in the land of Islam's two most holy shrines, Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia, had lead to the issuing of Osama Bin Laden's 1996 fatwa against the US. And indeed US troops have largely been withdrawn from Saudi Arabia into Iraq following the 2003 invasion. In the process this has resulted in America quietly conceding to Bin Laden's original and most important demand in his war against America - namely the withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia. This is despite constant claims from the White House that is it making progress in the so called 'war against terrorism'.
However, adopting a military 'solution' for access to Libyan oil was more problematical than in the case of Iraq for three reasons in particular:
a) Until recently little hard information was available about Libya's progress with WMDs. Convincing the public of a "current and serious" threat as had been falsely achieved with Iraq would be much harder. It became even more so after the failure to quickly find WMDs in Iraq and the exposure of the falsehoods presented as justification for attacking it. Indeed, how many people would be willing to believe the US and UK governments any more on such matters, even when speaking the truth?
b) It was not possible to link Libya with al Qaeda (a tactic which has become a useful post-911 justification for threatening US intervention in oil and gas critical Islamic countries) as the two were well established enemies of each other. According to the Irish Times 19 November 2001"[two French intelligence experts] Brisard and Dasquié discovered that the first country to issue an international arrest warrant against bin Laden was not the US, but Moamar Gadafy's Libya, in March 1998.... "
c) Moreover, to attempt to propagandise a linkage between Gaddafi and al Qaeda would risk drawing fresh attention to the fact that Britain's MI6 had paid £100,000 to al Qaeda to assassinate Gaddafi in 1996 (the attempt failed due to the setting off of a bomb in the wrong car, killing bystanders instead of Gaddafi).
As a result of the allegations made by David Shayler news of the MI6 sponsored plot against Gaddafi first reached public prominence in August 1998 when the BBC's Panorama programme ran coverage of Shayler's claims. But it was not until November 2001 that Shayler disclosed that the attempt had been made via an MI6 alliance with a branch of the al Qaeda terrorist network.
In the post-911 world view of 'Western military might good, al Qaeda bad' this was a potential disaster for the British government. Despite government measures to block media coverage of Shayler's allegations during his ensuing trial in the autumn of 2002 the al Qaeda claim was still put out by the London Evening Standard and Observer newspapers outside the period of the trial.
Even though press coverage during the course of the trial was banned, the cat was out of the bag. The Observer had even published the names of the MI6 officers involved.
Inevitably the arrival of such sensitive information in the public domain, even if not seized on by a wider media too easily distracted by the claimed "current and serious" threat from Iraq, had provided Gaddafi with a major trump card in the evolution of his relations with the US and UK. This was particularly so following the strident vilification of al Qaeda that the Anglo-American alliance had engaged in with such self-righteous hypocrisy post-911.
Western covert backing of militant Muslim groups for the furtherance of geo-political objectives, ranging from Afghanistan in the 1980s to the Balkans in the 1990s and beyond, has been a major influence encouraging the rise and spread of global Islamic terrorist networks - nowhere more so than in Bosnia. Those who believe that the Bush administration has a monopoly on despicable foreign policy initiatives emanating from the United States had better take a closer look at the Clinton administration. These two governments are most closely linked through the person of CIA Director George Tenet who served in the same post under Clinton and is continuing in office to this day under George Bush.
Previously describing himself as having the "best job in government" Tenet became Deputy Director of the CIA in 1995 and its acting Director in 1996, formally graduating to the top job in 1997. Previously Tenet had served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs at the National Security Council. While at the NSC, he coordinated (amongst other matters) Presidential Decision Directives on 'Intelligence Priorities' and interagency activities concerning covert action.
It would seem, therefore, that his influence throughout the 1990s was considerable and across multiple intelligence agencies. At the time of his appointment as Director of the CIA it was pointed out by former Republican Senator Warren Rudman on PBS television that that Tenet "will not only be the head of the CIA. He is essentially the director of Central Intelligence with broad jurisdiction over a number of agencies". In the same programme former CIA director James Woolsey suggested that Tenet's character "shows a certain deft capacity for deception which really suits him very well for the job".
Allegations of the CIA's role in fuelling ethnic conflict in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s are of especial interest when it comes to considering matters of US deception in global affairs.
A letter to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague submitted by the Croatian World Congress in July 2002 claims US involvement in the Croatian led 'Operation Storm' which resulted in the ethnic cleansing of up to 200,000 Serbs from Croatia in 1995. Although in practice the purpose of the letter was to protect the extradition of Croatian General Ante Gotovina to the Hague for his role in the operation, the letter reports CIA involvement in the exercise and specifically cites George Tenet as one of the US officials against which it is potentially seeking redress.
According to the Congress' press
release of 4 July 2002 "The complaint filed today alleges that the
According to Airforce Magazine Online October 2002 the Hague prosecutor's office simply filed the complaint without comment.
More recently the London Times of 14 June 2003 reported that "President Mesic of Croatia is promising that his Government will co-operate fully in trials of Croatians accused of atrocities during its independence war.... The country’s relations with Europe have also become stronger in recent years, as evidence of alleged American involvement in the ruthless campaign to drive Serbs from the region has begun to emerge.... 200,000 Serbs [were] driven from the Krajina region during the 1995 Croatian offensive.... Croatia, however, cannot arrest the most wanted Croatian, General Ante Gotovina, because he is hiding in neighbouring Bosnia.... Another major obstacle is American concern that if General Gotovina is arrested he may carry out a threat to disclose the previously unknown extent of US covert involvement in the Krajina offensive...."
These allegations are, however, just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to US fuelling of ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia. Similar accusations apply to other US covert operations in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia (see 'US Backed Islamic Terrorism in the Balkans' on this web site for more details).
A congressional press release of 16 January 1997 confirms that the US covert policy of arming Islamic militants in Bosnia was approved by Clinton in April 1994 on the recommendation of a man called Anthony Lake. The press release also states that "the Clinton Administration's policy of facilitating the delivery of arms to the Bosnian Muslims made it the de facto partner of an ongoing international network of governments and organizations pursuing their own agenda in Bosnia: the promotion of Islamic revolution in Europe. That network involves not only Iran but Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan (a key ally of Iran), and Turkey, together with front groups supposedly pursuing humanitarian and cultural activities.... [one group] is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Binladen, a wealthy Saudi emigre believed to bankroll numerous militant groups."
In 1995 Lake was head of the US National Security Council and by 1997 he had become CIA Director designate. However, by that stage Congress had become aware of the US-Islamic partnership scandal in Bosnia and Lake was forced to relinquish his candidacy for the post at the top of the CIA. Tenet was brought in to replace him.
According to an Associated Press report 19 February 1997 "During Clinton's first term, Tenet served on Lake's National Security Council staff as principal intelligence adviser. Lake, a close friend of Tenet, recommended him for the job in a Monday night conversation with Clinton..."
Prior to the adverse change in Lake's fortunes the Washington Post reported that "One advantage Lake will have is the help of CIA deputy director George J. Tenet, a former NSC assistant of Lake's who is expected to remain in the job and has spent most of his time at the CIA with the clandestine operatives." Tenet therefore was no stranger to covert operations.
After Tenet was put forward to replace Lake the Centre for Security Policy commented that "the trouble with nominating George Tenet ..... is that such individuals may well be implicated in the sorts of controversies that proved to be show-stoppers for Tony Lake."
With his role in the 'intelligence failures' relating to 911 and Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction yet to be fathomed, Tenet and his British partners are now gladly taking the credit for intelligence discoveries said to be related to the recent deal with Libya. But it was a deal where the Anglo-American alliance was far from being firmly in the driving seat.
Sweeping MI6 sponsorship of al-Qaeda in Libya under the carpet is likely to have been an important lubricating factor influencing the reaching of a deal with Gaddafi over access to his oil. It is a deal now rosily described in official circles as a triumph for 'diplomacy', whereas in reality the British government had a big skeleton in a closet whose door had creaked open. Britain wanted that closet door firmly closed shut.
Both Gaddafi and Shayler had to be kept quiet, because the full extent of the MI6-al Qaeda story had major implications concerning the integrity of the British government in general and its intelligence services in particular. Moreover the incriminating story did not stop simply with the assassination attempt in 1996.
Following the failed attack on Gaddafi one of the members of the Libyan al Qaeda cell, Anas al-Liby, was given asylum in Britain.
Also understood to be implicated in the 1998 al-Qaeda embassy bombings in Africa in respect of which the FBI has since offered a $25 million reward for information leading to his apprehension or detention, al-Liby lived in Manchester until 2000 when he successfully eluded a police raid. But was his escape down to good judgement on his part or did he elude the police as a result of receiving an MI6 facilitated tip-off?
This is not the first time the British intelligence services have been suspected of protecting members of al Qaeda.
According to the London Times 19 December 2003 "David Blunkett clashed last night with a powerful committee of parliamentarians after they demanded that he scrap a key part of the Government’s anti-terrorism laws.... Members of the committee were surprised at the speed and tone of Mr Blunkett’s reaction to their 121-page report.... The committee of Privy Councillors called for the abolition of the power to allow the indefinite detention without charge or trial of foreign nationals who cannot be deported ...The attack on a key element in the anti terror law comes as foreign governments are also criticising the Government. Their complaint is that they have been given no access to the detainees. Investigators from Spain, Germany and Italy are desperate to question Abu Qatada, who they claim is a pivotal figure in cells they have under arrest in their own countries. Their requests to question him and some of the other suspects directly have been rejected by the Government. Investigators in Spain who named Abu Qatada as 'the spiritual leader of al-Qaeda in Europe', say their own terror trials are hindered by Britain's refusal to let them interrogate the cleric. The Jordanian Government has sentenced him to life imprisonment for his role in planning a bombing campaign to coincide with the the millenium celebrations and cannot understand why Abu Qatada is not extradited. In spite of holding most of the terror suspects for many months, the men are providing the security services and police with little intelligence on terrorist activity in the United Kingdom."
In an article entitled 'Sheltering A Puppet Master?' Time Magazine 7 July 2002 had earlier reported that "Described by some justice officials as the spiritual leader and possible puppet master of al-Qaeda's European networks, Abu Qatada has been missing since mid-December after British authorities confiscated his passport, froze his assets and ordered him confined to his London home. With Jordan seeking his return to serve a life sentence for terror-related crimes, some observers figured Abu Qatada went underground—and perhaps left Britain—to avoid extradition. But senior European intelligence officials tell TIME that Abu Qatada is tucked away in a safe house in the north of England, where he and his family are being lodged, fed and clothed by British intelligence services".
Such people, it would seem, are 'our terrorists'.
In the end Qatada appears only to have been detained following pressure from European intelligence agencies and the efforts of Labour MP, Andrew Dismore.
According to the London Times 26 October 2002 "For months Britain’s most wanted man was able to live openly in a modern London flat, allegedly drawing benefit payments and entertaining a procession of Islamic militants while the security services were hunting him. Abu Qatada, who is accused by police in Europe of being a pivotal figure in al-Qaeda, had regular visits from his wife and five children, who often stayed for several days at a time.... The militant cleric has been the subject of speculation and conspiracy theories since he slipped away from his West London home with his family last December, just before new terror laws were introduced. A French security official has alleged that the cleric, whose real name is Sheikh Omar Mahmood Abu Omar, was a spy for British Intelligence, who were protecting him at a safe house. That allegation was strongly denied. The authorities were, however, embarrassed by questions from police in Italy, Spain and Germany as to why such a figure could not be found. They say he is closely linked to terror cells plotting bomb attacks in Europe and recruiting terrorists for al-Qaeda... the cleric ... is 6ft 3in and weighs more than 20st... The flat where he was found, which belongs to a Housing Association in Southwark, is only a short walk from Parliament, the Home Office and MI6’s headquarters. Abu Qatada is thought to have spent several months in this housing estate, which is close to London’s South Bank University. One of the men he allegedly recruited to al-Qaeda, Zacharias Moussaoui, the [911] '20th hijacker', was a student at this university.... Southwark council said it was paying benefits to the occupant of the flat and that it was investigating the incident.... His arrest was welcomed as 'extremely good news' by the Labour MP for Hendon, Andrew Dismore, who was instrumental in having him investigated."
The refusal by British authorities to let other European intelligence agencies have access to Qatada is disturbing. To date only one person anywhere in the world has been convicted for involvement in 911 despite the passage of more than two years since the attacks. Even that case, involving Mounir el-Moutassadeq and his conviction by the German courts, has been allowed to proceed to appeal because of problems that have arisen with the evidence against him.
Similar circumstances, this time involving the US intelligence services, have resulted in the acquital of another man accused of being involved in 911. According to the New York Times 6 February "Citing a refusal by the United States to allow testimony from a suspected member of Al Qaeda in its custody, a German court on Thursday acquitted a former roommate of Mohamed Atta who was accused of providing support to suicide pilots in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks ...... Prosecutors blamed the acquittal on the Bush administration's reluctance to make captured terrorists available for testimony and to allow prosecutors to make use of intelligence information on the terrorist network. 'They must have their reasons, which they did not communicate to us,' said the chief federal prosecutor, Kay Nehm, The Associated Press reported. 'I find this conduct by the United States incomprehensible.'
The New York Times concludes that "The Bush administration's stance could also imperil the criminal prosecution of the only person facing trial in the United States on charges of involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen, is accused of repeated contacts with the same Hamburg terrorist cell that Mr. Mzoudi was accused of supporting."
If these trends continue it is possible that by the third anniversary of 911 there will be no successful convictions anywhere in the world for those attacks.
The London Times of 29 December 2003 continued to be scathing about the Blair government's 'war against terrorism' stating "The ruins of the World Trade Centre were still burning when Tony Blair and David Blunkett appeared before the cameras to pledge that they would speed up the extradition of terrorist suspects sheltering in Britain. However, not one has since been extradited from Britain, despite the repeated requests of more than a dozen friendly governments.... countries complain that the British authorities have refused even to arrest some men whom they have identified as having terrorist links.... Three people on the wanted list are accused of playing pivotal roles in the lorry bomb attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 in which 231 people were killed.... New [faster] British extradition laws that come into force on January 1... do not affect al-Qaeda suspects seized after the September 11 attacks."
So what is it that the British government appears to have to hide in all of this? We may never know.
Thanks to his detention under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 nobody can access Qatada and he can be held indefinitely without charge - a situation against which he has recently lost his appeal according to the London Times 28 January (such detention only applies to foreign nationals held under the Act. What to do with terrorists holding British nationality is more problematical. However, the latest proposals for changes to the law may provide a solution. According to the BBC 2 February new plans from Home Secretary David Blunkett for dealing with British terrorism suspects include "keeping sensitive evidence from defendants and secret trials before vetted judges.... Evidence in the new trials would be kept secret from the defendants to protect MI5, MI6 and GCHQ intelligence sources, he said." You bet.).
This, of course, is to say nothing of the extraordinary case of Omar Sheikh, the British citizen detained in Pakistan. Despite already being held in custody on other charges the British Government has shown no sign of any interest in having Sheikh indicted for his reported role in directly funding Mohammed Atta the lead hijacker in the 911 attacks (see 'Fight Smart' 2 Jan 2003 - 'The Omar Sheikh Files'). Why isn't the British government pursuing the case?
The Washington Post 7 October 2001 gave something of a cutting, if only partial, insight into the way international terrorism is manipulated by the British authorities in order to achieve foreign policy goals.
The article states "Over the years, some dissidents suspected by foreign governments of involvement in terrorist acts have been protected by the British government for one reason or another from deportation or extradition.... In the past, terrorism experts say, Britain benefited significantly from its willingness to extend at least conditional hospitality to a wide range of Arab dissidents and opposition figures. The dissidents were a valuable source of intelligence and could be used as a subtle means of political pressure against authoritarian regimes, from Libya to Saudi Arabia to Yemen. By hosting the dissidents, the theory went, Britain was also buying itself immunity from acts of terrorism on its soil. 'Britain has been playing this game in the Middle East for a very long time,' said Yosri Fouda, London bureau chief for the Arab TV channel al-Jazeera, who has made a detailed study of Islamic groups in Britain. 'It's a political game that can be effective as long as you know how to play it, but it can also come back to haunt you.'... Egypt, in particular, has repeatedly accused Britain of 'harboring terrorists' -- an accusation repeated last week during a visit to Cairo by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. The al-Liby affair appears to illustrate the sometimes complicated calculations that lie behind the British government's decision to grant or withhold asylum requests.... Mustafa Alani, a terrorism expert at the Royal United Services Institute for Defense Studies, a London think tank, said al-Liby was probably left in legal limbo by the British government, allowing him to be used or discarded as circumstances permitted.... Alani noted that Britain had an interest in tolerating Libyan exiles as a pressure point against Gaddafi, who was suspected by Britain of being behind a string of terrorist acts, including the downing of a Pan Am airliner over Scotland in December 1988. According to a renegade officer for the British intelligence service MI5, David Shayler, British intelligence plotted with Islamic extremists to assassinate Gaddafi in early 1996..."
Revealing as it is in some areas the Washington Post's analysis is, however, too generous. We now know that it was al-Liby who was one of those funded by MI6 to carry out the 1996 terrorist attack in Libya. How many other such terrorist attacks have been instigated by MI6 overseas for geo-strategic purposes? Shayler was only in a position to talk about the attack on Gaddafi because he served on MI5's Libyan desk. What has been the situation in other countries where Britain would like to cause trouble in furtherance of its foreign policy objectives?
It should not be assumed, of course, that the discrete fostering of international terrorism when it suits is limited to the British government.
Despite al-Liby's alleged involvement in the attacks and the $25 million dollar reward placed on his head by the FBI, the American authorities also seem to have been faking their pursuit of al Qaeda terrorists involved in the 1998 African Embassy bombings. According to an ABC News report entitled 'Called Off the Trail?' there have been some very dubious activities going on behind the scenes in this area.
ABC reported 19 December 2002 that "In a dramatic interview with ABCNEWS, FBI special agents and partners Robert Wright and John Vincent say they were called off criminal investigations of suspected terrorists tied to the deadly bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. U.S. officials say al Qaeda was responsible for the embassy attacks and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.... The suspected terrorist cell in Chicago was the basis of the investigation, yet Wright, who remains with the FBI, says he soon discovered that all the FBI intelligence division wanted him to do was to follow suspected terrorists and file reports — but make no arrests.... 'The supervisor who was there from headquarters was right straight across from me and started yelling at me: 'You will not open criminal investigations. I forbid any of you. You will not open criminal investigations against any of these intelligence subjects,' ' Wright said. Even though they were on a terrorism task force and said they had proof of criminal activity, Wright said he was told not to pursue the matter.... even after the bombings, Wright said FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. 'Two months after the embassies are hit in Africa, they wanted to shut down the criminal investigation,' said Wright. 'They wanted to kill it.' ... The move outraged Chicago federal prosecutor Mark Flessner, who was assigned to the case despite efforts Wright and Vincent say were made by superiors to block the probe....'There were powers bigger than I was in the Justice Department and within the FBI that simply were not going to let it [the building of a criminal case] happen. And it didn't happen,' Flessner said. He said he still couldn't figure out why Washington stopped the case... On Sept. 11, 2001, the two agents watched the terror attacks in horror, worried that men they could have stopped years earlier may have been involved.'"
The FBI has refused to permit the release of Wright's 500 page manuscript, 'Fatal Betrayals of the Intelligence Mission', that he submitted for prepublication review in October 2001. In fact, the FBI even refused to turn the manuscript over to Senator Shelby, Vice Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee charged with investigating America's 911 intelligence failures. Wright has launched a lawsuit against the FBI.
In short, there would appear to be a large gap between what the FBI says in public it is doing in the so called 'war against terrorism' and what is really happening in practice.
Even though the exact tactics can change almost overnight according to the layout of the geo-political chess board at any given time (as the Washington Post put it in relation to al-Liby, such terrorists can "be used or discarded" as circumstances permit), in one form or other oil and gas are never far away from the play of such hidden agendas.
On 15 November 2001 the news agency Inter Press Service reported that the head of counter-terrorism at the FBI, John O'Neill had resigned in July 2001 because he was being obstructed by the Bush administration from investigating al Qaeda.
Six months later, on 31 May 2002, a press release issued by the office of the former federal prosecutor John Loftus elaborated on this situation stating that "Loftus recently received an FBI translation of a highly classified and encrypted Al Qaida document, circa 1997-1998, which was retrieved and decrypted from a computer laptop following the Embassy bombing in Africa. The document was written by Osama Bin Laden’s military commander, Mohammed Atef, under his nom de guerre, Abu Haf, and reveals extensive knowledge of the supposedly secret pipeline negotiations [in Afghanistan], and their potential economic worth to the Taliban, Pakistan and the U.S.... in January 2001, Vice President Cheney allegedly reinstated the intelligence block and expanded it to effectively preclude any investigations whatsoever of Saudi-Taliban-Afghan oil connections. Former FBI counter-terrorism chief John O’Neil resigned from the FBI in disgust, stating that he was ordered not to investigate Saudi-Al Qaida connections because of the Enron pipeline deal. Loftus has confirmed that it was O’Neill who originally discovered the AL Qaida pipeline memo after the Embassy bombings in Africa. O’Neill gave an overview of the Enron block to two French authors who will soon be publishing in the United States. The FBI is currently investigating Loftus’ links to John O’Neill, and is also refusing FBI agent Robert Wright permission to publish his own findings about the Enron block. Loftus asserts that the Enron block, which remained in force from January 2001 until August 2001 when the pipeline deal collapsed, is the reason that none of FBI agent Rowley’s requests for investigations were ever approved. As numerous British and French authors have concluded, the information provided by European intelligence sources prior to 9/11 was so extensive, that it is no longer possible for either CIA or the FBI to assert a defense of incompetence. It is time for Congress to face the truth: In order to give Enron one last desperate chance to complete the Taliban pipeline and save itself from bankruptcy, senior levels of US intelligence were ordered to keep their eyes shut and their subordinates ignorant. The Enron cover-up confirms that 9/11 was not an intelligence failure or a law enforcement failure (at least not entirely). Instead, it was a foreign policy failure of the highest order. If Congress ever combines its Enron investigation with 9/11, Cheney’s whole house of cards will collapse".
With the Financial Times reporting for the first time on 26 January 2004 that the reserves of the world's top ten oil companies are already depleting faster than they can replenish them no one should be under any illusions about the cynical and ruthless nature of this dirty game.
In short, whether as big a threat as made out or not (the British transport secretary claimed on 4 January that "I fear that for many years to come we are going to be living in an age where there is going to be a heightened state of alert" following security delays to international flights based on intelligence reports which not everyone found credible), post-911 Britain and America need to keep the concept of the enemy of al Qaeda alive in order to provide political cover for their military incursions into those parts of the globe where the most of the oil and gas resides - namely the Islamic world.
Frustratingly for them, however, manipulating public fear of al Qaeda was not a card they could play in Gaddafi's case. An alternative solution had to be found.
The surprise WMD announcement arising from Libya's negotiations with Britain and America was finalised in a London Club on 16 December 2003. It was agreed with a by-now-uncomfortably-compromised MI6. Thanks to details of the al-Liby affair having independently reached the public domain (and with more details having been submitted by Shayler to both Foreign Secretary Straw and to the Special Branch of the British police) Gaddafi no longer had to rely on making his own accusations, which otherwise few would be likely to believe.
Gaddafi will have known very well that if wider awareness of it were to spread, news of the al-Liby affair could have significant repercussions for political leaders in the 'civilised world' given the new climate of post-911 hysteria about al Qaeda.
The December deal followed on from the earlier agreement between Libya and Britain on a compensation package for the families of the victims of the Lockerbie and the lifting of UN sanctions. Reference to any possible involvement in the bombing by Colonel Gaddafi himself was avoided.
To the dismay of uncompensated relatives of those killed or maimed by Libyan arms supplied to the IRA in the 1980s and 1990s (Libya has stated that its backing for the IRA was in response to Britain's harbouring of opponents of Gaddafi's regime in the UK - opponents who we now know were to include Anas al-Liby), the lifting of the UN sanctions against Libya took place in September.
In an piece it ran on 22 December entitled 'Is The Libya Agreement To Abandon Arms Programs For Security Or For Oil?' Democracy Now (a New York-based alternative radio and television program) interviewed a member of the family of one of those killed on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988. Susan Cohen complained with considerable personal anguish that "Jack Straw said that Gaddafi is a great statesman. You know, my only child has been murdered. My life has been shattered. The blowing up of Pan Am 103 was a terrible, terrible war crime. And I’m afraid I don't see Muammar Gaddafi, dictator, tyrant, mass murderer, and terrorist as a great statesman. So, I think the smear that will be put on this is oh, look, this is wonderful with the WMD. Look, he's going to give it up. There are two possibilities here. One, is he doesn't have really very much. Let’s look at what happened with Iraq. Two, whatever he gives up, he can get again at any time once he has the wealth and technology that will flow to him when the commercial sanctions are lifted and diplomatic relations are restored....That Gaddafi should be there and that the very people who helped to plan the bombing were involved in the planning are working out of this deal to bring everyone together really does show what a farce and fraud our whole war on terrorism is."
Despite the apparent rapprochement over Lockerbie in August, less than a year earlier the ever unpredictable Colonel had raised the issue of Libya leaving the Arab League in protest at "official Arab cowardice" in confronting Israel and the United States according to a BBC report 25 October 2002.
In the meantime it seems Gaddafi has suddenly become a reliable partner.
According to the London Times 6 February it was in March 2003 "when Colonel Gaddafi decided to surrender all his weapons of mass destruction programmes in return for being readmitted into the international community" whilst "American and British intelligence officers were allowed into the country to inspect the nuclear equipment and records of how they were smuggled into the country". CNN confirmed 20 December that "CIA officials also visited key sites in Libya during a nine-month period of negotiations that started with meetings in various European capitals".
Yet with the CIA, and presumably MI6, already having gained open access within the country the London Times 6 February reminds its readers that Libya was caught trying to import nuclear technology from Malaysia in October, only a short while before the pact with Gaddafi was cemented. How convincing is it that Libya would continue importing centrifuges when it was on the verge of a WMD related deal critical to its economic future, and having opened up the country to the intelligence services of Britain and America for the past seven months?
And why was the deal with Gaddafi not scotched at that point on the grounds of his unreliability and bad faith? It is only possible to speculate what was really happening, but the official line does not ring completely true.
A more plausible explanation would be that part of the deal with Gaddafi was that he had to disclose details of his suppliers. The same report in the London Times indicates that the alleged Malaysian centrifuges concerned appear to have been supplied through a black market network established by Pakistani government scientist Adbul Qadeer Khan, whose case CIA director George Tenet claims to have been pursuing for several years. The Times states that "the fourth consignment of centrifuges manufactured in Malaysia was shipped from Dubai to Libya via Italy, where it was seized by American and British intelligence officers. Mr Khan had been caught red-handed".
But for Gaddafi to openly 'turn in' Pakistan would be a very dangerous move for him. Khan has become a hero in the Muslim world for making Pakistan the first and only Islamic nuclear power. Equally there are few countries where support for al Qaeda - already an enemy of Gaddafi - is greater (if al Qaeda were to obtain nuclear material the most likely source would be Pakistan, not Iraq). It would be hard to imagine a better way to make Libya a focus for future attacks by al Qaeda than by Gaddafi blowing the whistle on Pakistan.
No. Much more likely would be a preference, aided by Gaddafi's hidden assistance in the background, for the shipments linked to Khan to be independently 'discovered' by British and American intelligence. Libya would then be merely mildly castigated, but with the original deal being allowed to continue.
What is the truth will probably never be known. However, if the official story is accepted the leniency shown to Libya following a blatant demonstration of bad faith during the negotiations - in the words of the Times "right under the noses of the Western intelligence agencies" - makes an interesting comparison with the treatment of Iraq which was never caught red-handed like that by the Bush administration.
Also referring to the fact that "secret talks on Libya's programs for producing weapons of mass destruction had begun about six months earlier" the Washington Post 1 January threw further light on the Bush administration line given to the public. The Post reported that "Officials said the interception of the cargo [in October 2003], worth tens of millions of dollars, was a factor in pressuring Libya to give up its deadliest weapons programs...". Yet, why did the discovery not become a factor in deciding that we could not do business with Gaddafi? Indeed, such apparent duplicity did not disqualify Gaddafi from 'statesmanlike' status in the eyes of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
The official line is clearly suspect. It appears that the Washington Post
was itself also discretely sceptical and that the Bush administration had had trouble
answering some of its more awkward questions. The paper reports that "
It sounds like the Post got an "er, um..." answer to its questioning. But no matter, Gaddafi is 'statesmanlike' now.
In the meantime bilateral US sanctions against Libya have remained, but it can be expected that the Bush administration will try to lift these following the December announcement, and the initial 'warm up' over the Lockerbie settlement in August and September. Various congressmen are now trekking to Libya as part of the rehabilitation process for Gaddafi.
According to the Scotsman 24 January "A delegation of United States politicians arrived in Tripoli to meet Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, yesterday and said they were confident the US would eventually restore relations and end economic sanctions. The delegates arrived on a US navy plane, the first US military aircraft to land in Tripoli since Col Gaddafi overthrew the Libyan monarchy in 1969. 'We’re very excited and pleased about the direction your leader has taken. We want to be friends,' the head of the delegation, Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania’s Republican senator, told Libyan officials at Tripoli airport."
Given that it was Britain which introduced the sanctions-lifting resolution to the UN Security Council in September, it is hardly conceivable that it would have done so without the collusion of the US. Indeed come the day America declined to use its veto against the resolution. Moreover the September deal with Gaddafi restricted the amount of compensation paid to families of the Lockerbie bombing unless the US removes it own sanctions within 6 months of the lifting of those of the UN. As the Lockerbie case involves a large number of American families it was not difficult to see how the dominoes were being lined up in order to sell the idea to Congress.
According to the Observer 17 September "There is a strong suspicion among British relatives [of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing] that the deal was brokered to allow Libya back into the international community and open its markets to Western companies".
Libya's main exports are crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas. Britain faces gas shortages, according to the DTI, as soon as 2005.
According to the US Energy Administration September 2003 "Libya is a major oil exporter, particularly to Europe. With the suspension of U. N. sanctions against Libya following its extradition of two men suspected in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, oil companies are eager to resume and/or expand operations in Libya... Overall, Libya would like foreign company help to increase the country's oil production capacity from 1.4 million bbl/d at present to 2 million bbl/d over the next five years, at a cost of perhaps $6 billion. This would restore Libya's oil production capacity to the level of the early 1970s.... Libya produces high-quality, low-sulphur ('sweet') crude oil at very low cost (as low as $1 per barrel at some fields)... Libya's oilfields are connected to Mediterranean terminals by an extensive network of pipelines... Libya has vast natural gas reserves and is looking to increase its gas exports, particularly to Europe. Libya's proven natural gas reserves in 2003 are estimated at 46.4 Tcf [trillion cubic feet], but the country's actual gas reserves are largely unexploited (and unexplored), and thought by Libyan experts to be considerably larger, possibly 50-70 Tcf... Potential exists for a large increase in Libyan gas exports to Europe... Agip-ENI is set to develop huge Libyan gas reserves in offshore Block NC-41 in the Gulf of Gabes, as well as in the Wafa onshore gas (and oil) field on the Algerian border. Feasibility studies have been completed on Wafa and NC-41, and gas is expected to begin flowing by mid-2004...".
The lifting of sanctions was the only realistic way of gaining greater access to Libyan hydrocarbons and a fudged deal with Gaddafi over compensation for families of the victims of the 1988 bombing has been part of the process in achieving that.
And a fudge it was. According to the BBC 12 September Libya had to make an acknowledgement of guilt in relation to Flight 103 as part of the deal, but "it did so by 'accepting responsibility for the actions of its officials,' which is not quite same thing but near enough and importantly it did not mention the colonel himself".
In effect it was a cheap deal for Gaddafi in return for the prospect of a huge increase in Libya's hydrocarbon exports. According to a BBC report 12 September "Colonel Gaddafi claimed recently that Libya had in effect bought off the US and Britain".
The BBC also reported 21 December that "Although President George W Bush has sought to portray Libya's willingness to admit inspectors to examine its programmes of weapons of mass destruction as a success for American policy, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi may well feel that the success is really his.... Although Libya's idiosyncratic leader had not bothered overmuch when the US broke relations in 1980, the departure of the oil companies also meant the loss of American oil technology upon which Libya relied... [The US] insisted on political and economic change in Libya as well as renunciation of the weapons programmes that Washington insisted Tripoli was continuing - although Britain believed such programmes were merely 'aspirational'.... Over the alleged weapons programmes, Libya had, nine months ago, proposed inspections. So the American acceptance of its offer probably says more about President Bush's success in countering his many domestic critics than about overcoming Libyan resistance to inspections of its WMD programmes".
In an piece entitled "Why no-one's reading the Libya dossier" the BBC reported 11 September that "the [UK's] Joint Intelligence Committee has no intention of compiling a dossier documenting the Libyan [terrorism] threat.... Instead of preparing for retribution, the UK's diplomats at the UN are championing the lifting of sanctions against Libya. The matter will go to a vote on Friday.... Instead of holding out for compensation for the IRA victims, on Friday Britain's UN ambassador will push ahead with the move to lift sanctions [against Libya]".
According to the Daily Telegraph 28 December "Libya was not close to building a nuclear weapon, said Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) yesterday".
How advanced Gaddafi's WMD programmes really were should eventually become apparent now that Libya has volunteered open inspections (although it will be interesting to see whether inspections take place in Gaddafi's palaces as required of Saddam Hussein).
The London Times 22 December reported that initial inspections had revealed stocks of mustard gas weapons which appear to be at least ten years old. If so they would be unusable.
The Observer of the 28 December was less than impressed with the concessions made to Gaddafi stating that "Our Foreign Secretary, Mr Straw, called Gadaffi's decision 'statesmanlike and courageous', while others such as Mr Hoon described the whole thing as a great personal triumph for our wonderful Prime Minister. It looked, however, as if Gadaffi was not so much statesmanlike and courageous as crafty and cynical, by announcing that he was going to abandon his nuclear weapons when he hadn't got any in the first place".
Nonetheless, it has become clear that Libya had been receiving technical assistance from Pakistan for some time. The BBC 5 February quotes IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky as saying "We think Libya received uranium conversion devices and nuclear designs, but its nuclear programme is still in its early stages and its unclear how much know-how and equipment came from Pakistan".
The WMD issue, is however, not the principle driver behind the recent developments in Libya's relations with Britain and the US, and Colonel Gaddafi is not the only cynic on the block.
The current situation has come about primarily because America desperately needs access to more and more foreign oil. Nevertheless, it takes two to tango and just as important is Gaddafi's own need for access to western capital and markets, particularly following Libya's failure to make more economic progress in Africa after straining its relations with Arab League nations.
The BBC reported 14 June 2003 following the sacking of Gaddafi's minister of the economy that "analysts say that [economic] reform appears to be needed. Unemployment is running at 30%, and some international sanctions - predominantly from the US - remain in place".
In essence the new relationship with Libya is essentially an economic deal which suits both sides, and is most likely opportunist on Gaddafi's part. The BBC commented 25 January that "[US] sanctions are estimated to have cost Libya hundreds of millions of dollars. But they have also cost American businesses a huge lost opportunity - with Libya's oil reserves among the highest in the world. There is now growing pressure from US oil companies and other corporations eager to do business in Libya for the Bush administration to drop sanctions at the earliest opportunity."
Were it not for America's increasingly desperate need for imported oil it is likely that Gaddafi would still be being personally investigated for any role of his in the downing of Flight 103 at Lockerbie. That line of inquiry now appears to have been dropped, despite the claimed post-911 interest of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair in bringing international terrorists to justice.
Unlike Saddam, it seems that Gaddafi will not now be facing any murder trial. However, it is Gaddafi, not Saddam, who has been involved in the sponsorship of terrorist activities against America and the UK.
Neither does Britain appear to have shown much interest in pursuing major al Qaeda operatives Anas al-Liby and Omar Sheikh. In the case of al-Liby the Sudanese appear to have been more effective in dealing with al Qaeda than Britain.
Reports by Fox News and the Washington Post in March 2002 indicated that following his departure from Britain al-Liby had been captured by the Sudanese authorities in February 2002. Al-Liby had been a previous associate of Bin Laden in Sudan. Before Bin Laden's move to Afghanistan in 1996 Sudan had offered to extradite al Qaeda operatives, but for reasons best known to itself this offer was turned down by America, apparently preferring to allow Bin Laden and his associates to move freely to Afghanistan. According to Fox News "from 1995 onwards [Sudan] has consistently offered to provide access to intelligence files and to hand over suspects — offers which were declined by Clinton's government".
Moreover Britain continues to hold Abu Qatada out of reach of other European intelligence agencies despite his alleged pivotal role for the al Qaeda network across Europe.
It needs to be understood that Britain's concerns over its future oil and gas supplies are not far behind those of the US as it moves towards becoming a net importer of these commodities stemming from the rapid depletion of North Sea reserves.
Britain has already been negotiating large gas supply arrangements with Algeria, Libya's neighbour. However, even though like Libya Algeria is governed by a repressive dictatorship, there appear to be no proposals to opt for 'regime change' in either country. After all their oil and gas taps are now open, or soon will be.
Saddam by contrast had not been so co-operative. As early as April 2001 the Baker Institute for Public Policy in Washington had advised Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Group of the need for military action against Iraq because "... [Iraq is the] key swing producer ... turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest... [there is a] possibility that Saddam may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time.."
The current Gaddafi deal, along with the vast bulk of the so called 'war against terrorism', is primarily driven by economic considerations, not moral principles. Such an approach is a direct consequence of a situation where one civilisation is critically dependent for its sustenance on the natural resources of those held by another - in this case the oil and gas reserves held by the Islamic world.
Depending on the circumstances in each case the result of this dependence is Anglo-American foreign policy relationships with Islamic countries typically based on the use of bribery or threats, either military or economic (witness the massive amounts of money, albeit boldly rejected, that were offered to Turkey in an effort to gain access to its territory as one of the launching pads for the US led war in Iraq in 2003).
Alternatively, the result may be the state sponsorship of terrorism. Britain's use of al Qaeda in Libya has recently been matched, for example, by a similar proposal from the US aimed at toppling the government in Iran.
Confirming an earlier report by ABC News, the London Times reported 16 June 2003 that "The People’s Mujahidin is seen by Washington as a possible instrument for 'regime change' in Tehran....The Marxist movement, which initially supported the Islamic revolution and then broke with the fundamentalist regime, was formally designated last year as 'terrorist' by the State Department and the EU but it is known to have links with the CIA and other US agencies."
Failure to develop alternative sources of energy for life in the 21st century is the primary factor behind much of this trouble. As the global energy situation deteriorates this failure is expected to lead to conflict on a much greater scale than we have seen to date.
Within a day or so of the announcement of the Bush-Blair-Gaddafi deal, families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing renewed their calls for a fresh independent inquiry into the 1988 terrorist incident. Unfortunately for them access to Libyan oil and gas is likely to be a higher priority for the British and American governments than getting to the truth about what lies behind international terrorism.
The British Prime Minister, when announcing the deal with Libya on 19 December, stated that "This courageous decision by Colonel Gaddafi is an historic one. I applaud it. It will make the region and the world more secure. It shows that problems of proliferation can, with good will, be tackled through discussion and engagement, to be followed up by the responsible international agencies. It demonstrates that countries can abandon programmes voluntarily and peacefully... WMD are the means by which it could destroy our world's security, and with it our way of life".
As yet there appear to be no proposals for Israel, Britain, and the US to follow the example of this 'courageous decision'.
Indeed without a strategy for alternative energy it would seem that the dominant Anglo-American alliance will wish to remain in a position where it can threaten other nations with pre-emptive nuclear strikes should any of them dare to become an impediment to the literal fuelling of 'our way of life'.
In the words of the April 2001 Baker report to Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force "the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma.... the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience... [with the] energy sector in critical condition, a crisis could erupt at any time...".
NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@btinternet.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex
"We must not be prisoners of our own
time. The horrific terrorist attack in Bali, the attack on the French tanker off Yemen the
other week - these threats are coming at the world from all directions....And you can't
continue.... to just keep erecting security and defence barriers all around you..... We
have a way of life, a set of [energy] consumption patterns, that are going to have to
change - all of us. We have to recognise that without a major shift in the whole way we
organise ourselves, our pattern of life is simply not sustainable."
Peter Hain, UK Minister for Europe
Mid-East oil 'too costly' for Europe
BBC
Online, 17 Oct 2002
"Nothing is going to happen until the
crisis of oil demand outstripping oil supply is clear, unmistakable and urgent. And by
then it may be too late. Too late, that is, to avoid what former British [environment]
minister Michael Meacher forecasts will be, 'the sharpest and perhaps the most violent dislocation (of
society) in recent history.'"
Demand for
oil outstripping supply
Toronto
Star, 28 January 2004
"Our industry can certainly be proud
of its past achievements. Yet the challenges we will face in the coming years will be
every bit as great as those encountered in the past, due in part to ever-increasing global
energy use. For example, we estimate that world oil and gas production from existing
fields is declining at an average rate of about 4 to 6 percent a year. To meet projected
demand in 2015, the industry will have to add about 100 million oil-equivalent barrels a
day of new production. That's equal to about 80 percent of today's production level. In other words, by 2015, we will need to find, develop and
produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal to eight out of every 10 barrels being
produced today."
John Thompson, President of ExonnMobil, the world's largest oil
company
The Lamp (published for ExonnMobil shareholders), 2003, Vol. 85 No.1
GLOBAL ENERGY CRISIS LOOMING - Click here
"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in
April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to
international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
the US 'military intervention' is necessary. Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs
the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report [on which this
policy was built] from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James
Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Snr...."
Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis
Sunday Herald, 6
October 2002
"The United
States is entering a period of relative shortages of energy that will require an overhaul
of U.S. foreign policy, including possibly revamping sanctions against Iraq, an
independent task force of energy and foreign policy experts told the White House in a
report released Thursday. The report, drafted by a panel assembled by the James A. Baker
III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University and the Council on Foreign Relations,
was submitted this week to the White House energy task force headed by Vice President Dick
Cheney. In its comprehensive look at the United States' energy situation, the panel warned
that increasing domestic energy supplies and reducing consumption would not be enough to
insulate the United States from the ups and downs of world oil markets... 'Tight markets
have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue
potential influence over the price of oil,' the report said. 'Iraq has become a key
'swing' producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government.' Political turmoil
in the Middle East, including the Arab-Israeli conflict and potential internal unrest in
the Persian Gulf states, gives Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein greater leverage in using his
vast oil reserves as an economic and diplomatic weapon. 'Like it or not, Iraqi reserves
represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a
more competitive tenor to oil trade,' the report said."
Oil-Hungry U.S. Reconsiders Iraq
UPI Newswire, 13 April 2001
"An
influential energy task force headed by Vice President Cheney has broached the possibility
of lifting some economic sanctions against Iran,
Libya and Iraq as part of a plan to increase
America's oil supply. According to a draft of the task force report, the United States
should review the sanctions against the three countries because of the importance of their
oil production to meeting domestic and global energy needs. The April 10 draft
acknowledges that sanctions can 'advance' important national security and diplomatic
goals. But it adds that United Nations sanctions on Iraq and U.S. restrictions on energy
investments in Libya and Iran 'affect some of the most important existing and prospective
petroleum producing countries in the world.'.... A cross-section of the energy industry,
including oil companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and production services companies such
as Halliburton, have been pressing Congress and administration policy-makers under Bush
and former president Bill Clinton to give them
access to Libya, Iran and Iraq. Cheney was chief
executive of Halliburton before Bush tapped him to be his running mate last year... a key
conclusion of the energy task force will be the need to diversify the nation's sources of
energy supplies as widely as possible, administration officials have said. 'Growing levels
of conventional and heavy oil production and exports from the western hemisphere, the Caspian and Africa are important factors that can lessen the
impact of a supply disruption on the U.S. and world economies,' the task force draft
said."
Cheney Panel Seeks Review Of Sanctions
Iraq, Iran and Libya Loom Large in Boosting Oil Supply