Click here to submit Tips... contact me... information or news articles you wrote that pertain to this site!
Welcome to The Truth News.Info
Mexican agents headed for U.S.?
Federal drill to focus on response to terror
July 18, 2009
By Bob Unruh
Agents for Mexico soon could be roaming the roads of several southern states – along with representatives of Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom – under a Federal Emergency Management Agency exercise that is going to focus "exclusively on terrorism prevention and protection."
The event is called National Level Exercise 2009 and is part of an annual series of exercises formerly called TOPOFF, for Top Officials, under the National Exercise Program that "serves as the nation's overarching exercise program for planning, organizing, conducting and evaluating national level exercises."
The idea has some bloggers stunned.
"Imagine, armed Mexican troops protecting us from 'terrorism' in the United States! Don't you feel safer already? żDónde están sus documentos?" wrote an alarmed blogger at TargetFreedom.
"Rumors of foreign troops on our soil have been circulated for a long time. BUT this is not a rumor. It is a blatant fact as stated by FEMA on their government website. THIS IS AN INVASION," the blogger wrote.
Proclaim your beliefs loudly. Get your "Legalize the Constitution" bumper sticker!
Not quite, the government said. In an announcement on the FEMA website, officials described it as a "White House directed, congressionally-mandated exercise that includes the participation of all appropriate federal department and agency senior officials, their deputies, staff and key operational elements."
Oh, yes, various "state, tribal, local, and private sector" interests will participate and "this year the United States welcomes the participation of Australia, Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom in NLE 09."
The government's announcement said the exercise will focus on "intelligence and information sharing among intelligence and law enforcement communities."
The scenario "will begin in the aftermath of a national terrorist event outside of the United States, and exercise play will center on preventing subsequent efforts by the terrorists to enter the United States and carry out additional attacks. This scenario enables participating senior officials to focus on issues related to preventing terrorist events domestically and protecting U.S. critical infrastructure."
The exercise will "allow terrorism prevention efforts to proceed to a logical end (successful or not), with no requirement for response or recovery activities," the government said.
FEMA Region VI, including the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico and Texas, will be the field of operations for the exercise starting July 27 to test intelligence collection and sharing, counterterrorism investigation, security, infrastructure protection and other facets.
During a previous similar exercise, WND reported that Gen. Victor E. Renuart, the commander of USNORTHCOM, confirmed he would deploy U.S. troops on American soil if the president declared a domestic emergency.
USNORTHCOM, which was established in 2002 with a responsibility for "homeland defense" of an area including U.S. Canada, Mexico and parts of the Caribbean, would be ready to come to the aid of law enforcement agencies or National Guard units if needed, officials confirmed.
When another terror drill, involving the detonation of a "nuclear" device, was conducted, media outlets funded by billionaire George Soros were warning it may be a "false flag" operation that would involve the detonation of a real bomb to set the stage for martial law.
The 2007 drill was in Portland, Ore., and brought together federal, state and local efforts.
At the time, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, suggested then, "Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right."
But many have not yet forgotten that the same government running the exercise only weeks ago described ordinary protesters in the U.S. as "low-level" terror suspects.
The U.S. Department of Defense had included in a training course a question that defined protesters as terrorists.
According to the letter from the Northern California ACLU, the DoD's "Annual Level 1 Antiterrorism (AT) Awareness Training for 2009" tells department personnel "that certain First Amendment-protected activity may amount to 'low-level terrorism.'"
Specifically the training "Knowledge Check 1" asks, "Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism activity?"
The multiple choices are: Attacking the Pentagon, IEDs, Hate crimes against racial groups and Protests.
The correct answer in the training course is "Protests."
"They should have made it clearer," Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk told Fox. He declined to specify when the line would be crossed from one into the other.
But he said all of the 1,546 people who took the exam and saw the question will be notified of the "error" and told that there is a difference between lawful objections and violent unrest.
The whole episode developed just weeks after a scandal erupted over a Department of Homeland Security report that described as "right-wing extremists" those who oppose abortion and support secure national borders.
Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, said his organization sued over the DHS "extremism" report.
The DHS report was "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." WND has posted the report online for readers to see.
The report linked returning veterans with the possibility of terrorism, and when it was released it created such a furor for Napolitano she has given several explanations for it, including that she would have reworded the report and that it was issued by a rogue employee.
She later apologized to veterans for having linked them to terror.
But Thompson noted that the report also targeted as "potential terrorists" Americans who:
Oppose same-sex marriage
Oppose restrictions on firearms
Oppose lax immigration laws
Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
Oppose continuation of free trade agreements
Are suspect of foreign regimes
Fear Communist regimes
Oppose a "one world" government
Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world
Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India, and more
Thompson told WND no apology has been offered to the members of any of those classes of citizens.
Thompson said the original "extremism" report was "the tip of the iceberg. … Conservative Americans should be very outraged."
Obama Helps Banksters Loot American Economy By Paul Craig Roberts
There is no economy left to recover. The US manufacturing economy was lost to offshoring and free trade ideology. It was replaced by a mythical "New Economy."
The "New Economy" was based on services. Its artificial life was fed by the Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates, which produced a real estate bubble, and by "free market" financial deregulation, which unleashed financial gangsters to new heights of debt leverage and fraudulent financial products.
The real economy was traded away for a make-believe economy. When the make-believe economy collapsed, Americans’ wealth in their real estate, pensions, and savings collapsed dramatically while their jobs disappeared.
The debt economy caused Americans to leverage their assets. They refinanced their homes and spent the equity. They maxed out numerous credit cards. They worked as many jobs as they could find. Debt expansion and multiple family incomes kept the economy going.
And now suddenly Americans can’t borrow in order to spend. They are over their heads in debt. Jobs are disappearing. America’s consumer economy, approximately 70% of GDP, is dead. Those Americans who still have jobs are saving against the prospect of job loss. Millions are homeless. Some have moved in with family and friends; others are living in tent cities.
Meanwhile the US government’s budget deficit has jumped from $455 billion in 2008 to $2,000 billion this year, with another $2,000 billion on the books for 2010. And President Obama has intensified America’s expensive war of aggression in Afghanistan and initiated a new war in Pakistan.
There is no way for these deficits to be financed except by printing money or by further collapse in stock markets that would drive people out of equity into bonds.
The US government’s budget is 50% in the red. That means half of every dollar the federal government spends must be borrowed or printed. Because of the worldwide debacle caused by Wall Street’s financial gangsterism, the world needs its own money and hasn’t $2 trillion annually to lend to Washington.
As dollars are printed, the growing supply adds to the pressure on the dollar’s role as reserve currency. Already America’s largest creditor, China, is admonishing Washington to protect China’s investment in US debt and lobbying for a new reserve currency to replace the dollar before it collapses. According to various reports, China is spending down its holdings of US dollars by acquiring gold and stocks of raw materials and energy.
The price of one ounce gold coins is $1,000 despite efforts of the US government to hold down the gold price. How high will this price jump when the rest of the world decides that the bankruptcy of "the world’s only superpower" is at hand?
And what will happen to America’s ability to import not only oil, but also the manufactured goods on which it is import-dependent?
When the over-supplied US dollar loses the reserve currency role, the US will no longer be able to pay for its massive imports of real goods and services with pieces of paper. Overnight, shortages will appear and Americans will be poorer.
Nothing in Presidents Bush and Obama’s economic policy addresses the real issues.
Instead, Goldman Sachs was bailed out, more than once. As Eliot Spitzer said, the banks made a "bloody fortune" with US aid.
It was not the millions of now homeless homeowners who were bailed out. It was not the scant remains of American manufacturing—General Motors and Chrysler—that were bailed out. It was the Wall Street Banks.
According to Bloomberg.com, Goldman Sachs’ current record earnings from their free or low cost capital supplied by broke American taxpayers has led the firm to decide to boost compensation and benefits by 33 percent. On an annual basis, this comes to compensation of $773,000 per employee.
This should tell even the most dimwitted patriot who "their" government represents.
The worst of the economic crisis has not yet hit. I don’t mean the rest of the real estate crisis that is waiting in the wings. Home prices will fall further when the foreclosed properties currently held off the market are dumped. Store and office closings are adversely impacting the ability of owners of shopping malls and office buildings to make their mortgage payments. Commercial real estate loans were also securitized and turned into derivatives.
The real crisis awaits us. It is the crisis of high unemployment, of stagnant and declining real wages confronted with rising prices from the printing of money to pay the government’s bills and from the dollar’s loss of exchange value. Suddenly, Wal-Mart prices will look like Nieman Marcus prices.
Retirees dependent on state pension systems, which cannot print money, might not be paid, or might be paid with IOUs. They will not even have depreciating money with which to try to pay their bills. Desperate tax authorities will squeeze the remaining life out of the middle class.
Nothing in Obama’s economic policy is directed at saving the US dollar as reserve currency or the livelihoods of the American people. Obama’s policy, like Bush’s before him, is keyed to the enrichment of Goldman Sachs and the armament industries.
Matt Taibbi describes Goldman Sachs as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentless jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." [Rolling Stone, July 13, 2009] Look at the Goldman Sachs representatives in the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. This bankster firm controls the economic policy of the United States.
Little wonder that Goldman Sachs has record earnings while the rest of us grow poorer by the day.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice.
Germany Returns To World Military Stage, Part 1 Rick Rozoff
When the post-World War II German states the Federal Republic of Germany and the
German Democratic Republic, West and East Germany, respectively, were united in
1990, it was for many in Europe and the world as a whole a heady time, fraught
with hopes of a continent at peace and perhaps disarmed.
Despite US pledges to the last president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev,
that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would not move "one inch"
eastward, what German reunification achieved was that the former German
Democratic Republic joined not only the Federal Republic but NATO and the
military bloc moved hundreds of kilometers nearer the Russian border, over the
intervening years to be joined by twelve Eastern European nations. Five of those
twelve new NATO members were republics of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union
itself, neither of which any longer exists.
Far from issuing in an era of disarmament and a Europe free of military blocs -
or even of war - the merging of the two German states and the simultaneous
fragmentation of the Eastern Bloc and, a year later, the USSR was instead
followed by a Europe almost entirely dominated by a US-controlled global
Within mere months of reunification Germany, then governed by the Christian
Democratic Union/Christian Social Union-led government of Chancellor Helmut
Kohl, set to work to insure the fragmentation of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia would parallel that of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, with
each broken down into all of its constituent republics.
The Kohl government and its Free Democrat Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich
Genscher immediately pushed for recognition of the Yugoslav republics of Croatia
and Slovenia. Croatia was the site of the Nazi-administered Independent State of
Croatia during World War II and Slovenia had been parceled out among Germany and
its Italian and Hungarian fascist allies.
What the rulers of newly unified Germany accomplished is best expressed in a
line from Victor Hugo's poetic drama Cromwell: Strike while the iron is hot and
in striking make it hot.
By the end of 1991 Germany had browbeaten the other members of the European
Community, now the European Union, into recognizing the secession of both
As the above pressure was being applied by Berlin the Deputy Foreign Minister of
Serbia Dobrosav Vezovic warned "This is a direct attack on Yugoslavia," one
which "erases Yugoslavia from the map of the world." 
Germany was now back on the road to redrawing the map of Europe and would
shortly embark on the use of military force outside its borders for the first
time since the Third Reich.
Berlin later deployed 4,000 troops to Bosnia in 1995, its largest mission abroad
since World War II, but its return to direct military aggression after an almost
55-year hiatus would occur with NATO's war against Yugoslavia in 1999.
The standard Western rationale for that war, Operation Allied Force, is that it
was an intervention to prevent alleged genocide in the Serbian province of
Kosovo, a crisis that had flared up almost instantaneously, and the 78-day
bombing war was then justified by what the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard
once termed the teleological suspension of ethics.
It was no such thing. The separation of Kosovo from Serbia and the further
dissolution of the former Yugoslavia to the sub-federal republic level was the
final act of a decade-long drama, but one envisioned before the lifting of the
curtain on the first one.
In January of 1991 former US Congressman Joseph DioGuardi in his capacity of the
President of the Albanian American Civic League wrote to German Chancellor Kohl
demanding the following:
"The European Community, hopefully led by the Federal Republic of Germany,
recognizes the Republic of Kosova as a sovereign and independent state as the
only logical and effective solution to protect the Albanian people in Kosova
from their Serbian communist oppressors." 
Five months earlier, in August of 1990, DioGuardi had escorted six US Senators,
including Robert Dole, on a tour to Kosovo.
A year before the war began German newspapers ran headlines on the order of
â€śMr. Kinkel threatens a NATO intervention in Kosovo,â€ť referring to then
German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel, who is also quoted in 1998 as saying "Of
course you have to consider whether you are permitted from a moral and ethical
point of view to prevent the Kosovo-Albanians from buying weapons for their
Canadian professor and political analyst Michel Chossudovsky has written
extensively and trenchantly on the role of the German BND
(Bundesnachrichtendienst/Federal Intelligence Service) in arming and training
the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army before and in preparation for the NATO
onslaught against Yugoslavia on his Web site Global Research at
It was in Kosovo that Germany, which had deployed troops to Bosnia and run a
military hospital in Croatia earlier in the 1990s, crossed the post-World War II
red line when the Luftwaffe (with its Tornado multirole combat fighters) engaged
in combat operations for the first time since 1945.
The precedent was exacerbated when Germany followed up the bombing by military
occupation as over a thousand of its troops accompanied their NATO allies into
Kosovo in June of 1999. A German general assumed command of the 50,000-troop
NATO Kosovo Force (KFOR).
Quoting from memory an account by an American reporter of the words of an older
ethnic Albanian witnessing the arrival of the first German troops in Kosovo:
"Where have you been? We missed you. The last time you were here you drew the
borders the right way."
The Rubicon had been crossed, Germany had been declared by its Western allies
cleansed of its Nazi past and was free to dispatch troops and wage war again,
this time on the world stage.
As a Der Spiegel feature put it this past February, "The phase of German
military intervention that began 10 years ago during the Kosovo war is in no way
coming to an end, despite the fact the majority of Germans wish it would. On the
contrary: The era of foreign deployments for Germans and their military forces
has just begun." 
The lid of Pandora's chest had been thrown open and by 2007 "According to
Germany`s Defense Ministry, roughly 8,200 soldiers are serving in missions in
Afghanistan, Lebanon, Bosnia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Georgia, Kosovo and Sudan,
making Germany one of the top contributors to international missions." 
How post-Cold War unified Germany and the German public were being prepared for
the new international military role was insightfully analyzed a year before the
Kosovo War by Diana Johnstone. The following is an excerpt from her article
"Seeing Yugoslavia through a dark glass" which is far more penetrating than it
may be comparatively lengthy:
"In the Bundestag, German Green leader Joschka Fisher [to become foreign
minister later in the same year, 1998] pressed for disavowal of 'pacifism' in
order to 'combat Auschwitz,' thereby equating Serbs with Nazis. In a heady mood
of self-righteous indignation, German politicians across the board joined in
using Germany's past guilt as a reason, not for restraint, as had been the logic
up until reunification, but on the contrary, for 'bearing their share of the
"In the name of human rights, the Federal Republic of Germany abolished its ban
on military operations outside the NATO defensive area. Germany could once again
be a 'normal' military powerâ€”thanks to the 'Serb threat.'
"On the contrary, what occurred in Germany was a strange sort of mass transfer
of Nazi identity, and guilt, to the Serbs. In the case of the Germans, this can
be seen as a comforting psychological projection which served to give Germans a
fresh and welcome sense of innocence in the face of the new 'criminal' people,
the Serbs, But the hate campaign against Serbs, started in Germany, did not stop
"If somebody had announced in 1989 that, well, the Berlin Wall has come down,
now Germany can unite and send military forces back into Yugoslavia â€” and what
is more in order to enforce a partition of the country along similar lines to
those it imposed when it occupied the country in 1941 â€” well, quite a number
of people might have raised objections. However, that is what has happened, and
many of the very people might who have been expected to object most strongly to
what amounts to the most significant act of historical revisionism since World
War II have provided the ideological cover and excuse." 
The campaign was not without effect in Germany as subsequent events have proved
and has been accompanied by the rehabilitation, honoring and even granting of
veteran benefits to Nazi collaborators, including former Waffen SS members, in
Croatia, Estonia, Latvia and Ukraine in recent years.
Following its military interventions in Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia, Germany sent
troops to Macedonia in 2001 after armed continents of the Kosovo-based National
Liberation Army (NLA), an offshoot of the Kosovo Liberation Army led by Ali
Ahmeti, also a founder of the KLA, invaded the country in the summer of 2001. In
connivance with the 50,000 NATO troops in Kosovo, Ahmeti's brigands brought
fighters, arms and even artillery past American checkpoints on the
Kosovo-Macedonia border to launch deadly raids against government and civilian
In one incident 600 Bundeswehr soldiers were caught in the crossfire between the
NLA marauders and government security forces (7)
Years later Benjamin Schreer, military expert at the German Institute for
International and Security Affairs in Berlin, reflected on the consequences of
what Johnstone had described: "The decision of the SPD [Social Democratic Party]
and Greens to send German troops into Kosovo in 1999 has transformed the
Bundeswehr....The Bundeswehr is now operating on a global scale." 
The press wire report from which the quote was taken provides these details:
"The mission in Afghanistan had German troops, roughly 100 special forces who,
for the first time since World War II, took part in ground combat.
"The Kommando Spezialkraefte, known by its acronym KSK, is a highly trained and
well-equipped special unit that has successfully been assigned to Kosovo and
Afghanistan. Most of their operations, however, are classified." 
After September 11, 2001 German military missions and deployments were expanded
exponentially and in addition to Germany deploying AWACS to the US in Operation
Eagle Assist it also "took part in [Operation Active Endeavor] which has German
units monitor the Mediterranean waters....In Afghanistan and East Africa, German
troops battle...with sea units, ground troops and special forces.
"The Bundeswehr, once restricted by the German constitution to exclusively
domestic protection, can now send armed troops to foreign countries." 
Having exploited as well as in an integral way engineered the breakup of
Yugoslavia, with Kosovo as the altar and Serbia as the paschal lamb whose
slaying wiped clean decades of German guilt, Berlin was now free to play the
role assigned to it by NATO: That of an international military power operating
on four continents, a far wider range of deployment and engagement than had been
achieved by either Bismarck or Hitler.
In a feature called "Preparing Germany's Military for War," it was reported in
2005 that then German Defense Minister Peter Struck was "proposing that...his
department considers missions other than peace-keeping and stabilization for the
Bundeswehr" and that "the Bundeswehr could be asked to play a stronger role in
Africa in the future." 
While visiting German troops in Uzbekistan on his way to Afghanistan, Struck was
quoted as saying "For those of us who were born after the war this is an
unfavorable idea but we must be realistic. It is possible that we will consider
going to other countries and separate warring parties by military means" and
that the Bundeswehr must be prepared to "carry out peace enforcement missions
anywhere in the world." 
In late 2006 Struck's successor, Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung, released a
133-page White Paper which stated "The Bundeswehr is to be thoroughly
restructured into an intervention force." 
In an article entitled "Germany plans to remake its Army into a rapid-reaction,
humanitarian-intervention force," Newsweek commented: "The pace of change has
indeed been unsettling. It took a constitutional-court ruling in 1994 to permit
German soldiers to be deployed abroad at all. Today, close to 10,000 Bundeswehr
troops find themselves stationed in places as far-flung as Bosnia, Djibouti and
southern Sudan...." 
Germany has become so comfortable with its current global military status that
last week Chancellor Angela Merkel conferred the first combat medals on German
soldiers since World War II.
"The new Cross of Honour for Bravery, is the military's first such medal since
the end of World War II when it stopped awarding the Iron Cross tarnished by its
use in Nazi Germany. Some see this as another sign of Germany emerging from its
post-World War II diplomatic and military shell since the country's
reunification in 1990." 
A column in the Times of London embraced this further reemergence of a
militarized Germany, and one moreover of an expeditionary and aggressive nature
- the soldiers awarded by Merkel were veterans of the Afghan war - with this
"When Germany once again has the confidence proudly to parade its military
heroes, its journey from the darkness of diplomatic and military purdah - via
reunification in 1990 - is surely complete.
"Germany's new medal, the Honour Cross, stands as a bold response to the
growing role played in the world by German military.
"The presentation by Chancellor Angela Merkel marks a potent moment in Germany's
return to the heart of the community of nations." 
Last November German Defense Minister Jung laid the foundation stone for "the
first national memorial to soldiers killed serving in the country's post-World
War II military."
Combat deaths and their commemoration, for decades considered matters of a dark
and distant past, are now commonplace as "Germany...has emerged gradually from
its postwar diplomatic and military shell, increasingly
puts soldiers in the line of fire in places such as Afghanistan." 
The process of German reunification, the first effect of which was to place the
entire territory of the nation in NATO, had been consummated with the rebirth of
a major military power thought by many to have reached its final quietus in
The mainstream weekly Der Spiegel wrote in 2005 in a feature aptly named
"Germany's Bundeswehr Steps out on the Global Stage" that "With reunification,
the nation had not just regained full sovereignty: it also became subject to
rules that had effectively been put on ice during the Cold War. On the new
international stage, political influence was reserved for those who were willing
and able to assert their interests in concert with their partners. If need be,
by force. If need be, by military means."
The celebratory piece went on to say:
"Today the Bundeswehr has become one of the most powerful tools available to
German foreign-policy makers.
"[T]he German government is in the process of fostering a totally different
breed of soldier. The elite members of the Kommando Spezialkrafte (Special
Forces Command), or KSK...are highly trained professionals who can hold their
own with their colleagues from the British SAS or American Delta Force....
"Germany has 'finally reached a state of normality,' and its democracy will now
be 'defended directly' wherever threats arise. That could be anywhere, soon even
in Africa." 
In the culmination of almost twenty years of German and allied efforts to
subvert and tear apart the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, its
truncated successor the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and finally Serbia,
almost on the first anniversary of the Western-supported secession of Kosovo in
February of 2008 Berlin announced that it was donating 200 vehicles to the newly
formed Kosovo Security Force, a revamped Kosovo Liberation Army headed up by a
KLA commander who has already proclaimed his intention to join NATO.
The German offering is "a substantial contribution to the build up" of the
fledgling army of an illegal entity not recognized by over two-thirds of the
world including Russia, China and India. 
In an interview with Radio Kosova this February Colonel Dieter Jensch, senior
official of the German Defense Ministry, boasted that "The Bundeswehr is helping
the Kosovo Security Force through material assistance, which includes the
donation of 204 vehicles and other technical equipment, and we have assigned a
team of 15 professional military officers to help in building the KSF
The account from which the above emanates added "The assistance is valued at 2.6
million Euros. Germany will also send 15 military personnel to help build KSF
structures and to train the members of this force.
"The building of the Kosovo Security Force and its professional training is
expected to cost 43 million Euros. Germany is among the first countries to help
in building this force. It has already sent 15 military officers to help in
building the structures of this force and to train its members." 
Yesterday the Balkans and today the world.
1) New York Times, December 18, 1991
2) Albanian American Civic League, January 6, 1991
3) Suddeutsche Zeitung, July 30, 1998
4) Der Spiegel, February 9, 2009
5) United Press International, March 20, 2007
6) CovertAction Quarterly, Fall 1998
7) Michel Chossudovsky, Washington Behind Terrorist Assaults In Macedonia
Global Research, September 10, 2001
Michel Chossudovsky, America at War in Macedonia
Rick Rozoff, Human Rights Watch: Dear Mr. Ahmeti
August 1, 1009
8) United Press International, August 30, 2005
11) Deutsche Welle, June 6, 2005
13) Newsweek, November 13, 2006
15) Deutsche Welle, July 6, 2009
16) The Times, July 7, 2009
17) Associated Press, November 28, 2008
18) Der Spiegel, June 17, 2005
19) Associated Press, February 13, 2009
20) Kosova Information Center, February 9, 2009
Sotomayor Evasive, Disingenuous During Confirmation Hearings From Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
The eagerly anticipated confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor got underway this week. And how did she do?
Let’s start with Sotomayor’s rambling and constantly shifting explanation for one of her most controversial statements – that she “would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” This racist remark was made during a speech Sotomayor delivered to students at Cal Berkeley in 2001. The reason it is getting so much attention is that it calls into question Judge Sotomayor’s impartiality – and she made the remark repeatedly through the years. (Judicial Watch addressed this comment and many other troublesome statements and activities by Sotomayor in a letter to Senators Patrick Leahy, D-VT, and Jeff Sessions, R-AL, last week. You can read it by clicking here.)
During the hearing, at first, Sotomayor dismissed the statement as a “rhetorical flourish” that “fell flat.” However, under subsequent questioning Sotomayor attempted to defend her remarks, indicating that it was an attempt to “inspire” her audience. Of course Sotomayor quickly added that the comment has nothing to do with her attitude towards dispensing justice, which she claims is firmly rooted in the rule of law. (Action by the Supreme Court might argue this point, given that the High Court just overturned the decision she helped make in the Ricci racial discrimination matter. Click here for more.)
Sotomayor also tried to justify the comment by comparing it to allegedly similar ones made by Justice Alito and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. And in another explanation she said her words shouldn’t be taken literally.
“I think she just made it more muddled,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In sum, Judge Sotomayor tried to deny the plain meaning of her “wise Latina” statements. This disingenuous approach may pass muster in Washington, but most people would be troubled by her lawyerly evasions.
Can you recall a Supreme Court nominee in recent years that has had to spend so much time defending their impartiality as a judge? I can’t.
On the issue of abortion Sotomayor said that she feels Roe v Wade is “settled law.” According to The Associated Press: “Supreme Court aspirant Sonia Sotomayor said Tuesday that she considers the question of abortion rights is settled precedent and says there is a constitutional right to privacy...Answering a question later from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Sotomayor said that “all precedents of the Supreme Court I consider settled law…” This doesn’t mean much, as the Supreme Court regularly overturns its precedents.
Judge Sotomayor said she had no idea why one of her former colleagues at the New York law firm Pavia & Harcourt would say, "I can guarantee she'll be for abortion rights." Maybe he knew of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund’s radical pro-abortion agenda when she helped run the organization? But Judge Sotomayor professed to have no clue about the legal positions of her former group, despite the fact that she set the group’s litigation agenda.
Senator Lindsey Graham also initiated a tough, dramatic line of questioning with respect to Sotomayor’s temperament. In fact, Senator Graham flat out asked her: “Do you have a temperament problem?” (Sotomayor has been described as a “bully” on the bench.) Sotomayor attempted to defend herself against the charge but the issue was still left hanging in the hearing room.
Sotomayor’s problem for this hearing was a big one. She has had to defend the indefensible. She did this by reversing course, professing fidelity to the law, disavowing her radical judicial philosophy as described in her many speeches and writings, and by misleading the committee on one some of her more controversial decisions.
The judge went so far as to disavow President Obama’s lawless “empathy” standard for picking judges. Judge Sotomayor said that she would apply the law to the facts. She said, “Judges can’t rely on what is in their heart.”
In the end, she sounded like the most conservative nominee to the Supreme Court by a Democratic president in thirty years. (It is interesting that, even in the age of Obama, liberal jurists must pretend to be conservatives to gain Senate approval. It confirms the victory of conservatives in framing the public policy debate over liberal judicial activism. Even Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court must pretend to reject judicial activism.)
There is no question, given all of her “wise Latina” and other radical statements and her long-term connection to groups such as the far-left Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, that Judge Sotomayor is the wrong judge for a seat on the Supreme Court. I don’t believe her confirmation conversion to “fidelity to the law.”
Unfortunately, Republicans seem resigned to the fact that Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed with little debate, but it’s not too late to change the situation. You must make your voices heard! Even liberal Senator Feinstein (D-CA) admitted this week that she had received calls of concern on the Sotomayor nomination. These calls matter. Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard today at 202-224-3121, and let your senators know your thoughts.
Some in the press have characterized the Sotomayor hearings as “grueling.” I attended them for a bit and I found them interesting – in how a nominee can evade questions, deny her record, and largely control the room in the face of questioning by hapless senators. A well-prepared lawyer like Judge Sotomayor can do these types of hearings in their sleep.
There have been some tough questions for sure, but without an underlying commitment to carefully making the case against this nomination too many of the questions amounted to nothing more than “rhetorical flourishes” that “fall flat.” As a result, Americans may end up with a biased, activist justice on the Supreme Court.
( Update) PASS ACT/S1261 TESTIMONY
Info from Adrienne ...thanks for the update!
I receive a lot of updates from Mark Lerner of the Stop REAL ID Coalition that have a lot of good information in them; however, sometimes it is easier for you guys if I just summarize it for you.
Mark did attend the hearing on the PASS ACT today, in which he was not allowed to testify.
There was no opposition to the PASS ACT except for those that thought it was not strong enough or they gave lip service concern over privacy.
In the past week and a half lies have been coming out of Washington D.C. to callers over this issue.
Lie 1: It repeals REAL ID.
Lie2: It does not contain biometrics
Lie3: There will be testimony allowed in opposition of it
Lie4: Never heard of Mark Lerner or the Stop REAL ID Coalition…Their have already been previous meeting between staffers, aids, senators and Mark.
All these lies have been refuted.
So Mark took the opportunity to have dissuasions with as many people as possible on this matter.
Other opposed organizations in attendance were EPIC and 5-11…also not allowed testifying.
This hearing was billed as a revaluation of REAL ID but it was more of an affirmation and the further agreement that the Federal Government should interfere in State Sovereignty and set standards for driver’s license AKA your ID…because that’s what it is really all about, who are you and everything about you right down to your body.
L-1 Identity Solutions, the Corporation that stands to gain from this acted as if they owned the place. But the Coalition is hopeful this will change as things said to be impossible in the past have happened in regard to this issue like the ACLU and ACLJ coming together and people from both sides of the aisle once they see all the facts coming to the conclusion that this is a bad idea…if they have any patriotic, liberty minded sense left in them. More people are becoming aware of REAL ID.
Mark was informed a written testimony would be accepted; however, that is viewed as a waste of precious time, it will not be read and it will garner little to most likely no attention by the media unlike an actual testimony in a hearing.
There was NOT A VOTE TODAY there are to be more hearings. So, there is still a chance Mark could testify.
We need to make calls to Sen. Lieberman at 202-224-4041and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs line at 202-224-2627
Ask that Mark Lerner from the Stop REAL ID Coalition be allowed to testify in opposing to S 1261 the PASS ACT.
REAL ID/PASS ID IS A VIOLATION OF STATE SOVERIGNTY
AN UNFUNDED MANDATE
A VIOLATION OF THE 1ST, & 4TH AMENDMENTS
WILL LEAD TO A SURVIELANCE SOCIETY
IS INTERNATIONAL AS A UN AGENCY WILL REGULATE THIS.
We must do everything we can to support Ron Paul's bill in the House HR 1207 and Bernie Sanders' bill in the Senate S 604 to audit the Federal Reserve. These bills are our only hope to help expose the Federal Reserve and prevent hyperinflation from destroying our country.
Thanks to Ron Paul's tireless efforts, HR 1207 now has 261 bipartisan co-sponsors in the House, yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to bring it up for vote.
In the Senate, Jim DeMint attempted to add S 604 as Senate Amendment 1367 to HR 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska raised a "point of order" to prevent the amendment from being voted on, citing Rule 16 which doesn't allow legislative policy to be added to spending bills.
In the same bill that Jim DeMint made a heroic effort to amend, numerous GAO audits were added for the National Transportation Safety Board, local educational spending agencies, etc., and those amendments were allowed to proceed despite the Senate speaker admitting they were also in violation of Rule 16. The hypocrisy is astounding and clearly shows the Senate is going to do everything in their power to block an audit of the Federal Reserve.
While almost all NIA members know the U.S. dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, most American people have yet to wake up because the mainstream media fails to properly cover this issue. They place the blame for our current financial crisis on free enterprise, when it's the Federal Reserve that created the booms and busts of the past decade.
The Federal Reserve's current position is that they do reveal plenty of information, but need to have exceptions in certain areas in order to maintain their independence. NIA believes when the Federal Reserve speaks of independence, they are really speaking of their quest to remain secretive and clandestine in order to serve special interests.
It appears as though the Federal Reserve only wants the American public to know the unimportant things, while maintaining secrecy about the things that matter, like their deals with international bankers, other central banks and foreign governments. Who knows, they could be paying off foreign central banks to hold on to their U.S. dollars as the world's reserve currency. We really have no idea what is going on until an audit takes places.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke believes that oversight of the Federal Reserve would risk the stability of the U.S. dollar. In reality, it is Bernanke's policy of rapidly expanding the money supply that could cause the destruction of the U.S. dollar. An audit of the Federal Reserve will bring much needed transparency and maybe wake the American people up. Once Americans realize what is taking place behind closed doors at the Federal Reserve, it is possible the entire country will be outraged and want to return to a sound currency that is backed by gold and silver.
The Federal Reserve was created to maintain the stability of the U.S. dollar, but instead they have become counterfeiters of dollars while operating in secrecy. We know more about the CIA than we do the Federal Reserve, yet it is the Federal Reserve that controls the economic destiny of our country. No single unelected agency should be given this much power, yet Obama wants to give the Federal Reserve even more power. Obama wants the Federal Reserve to regulate all financial institutions, banks and insurance companies in the nation.
As clearly seen in our documentary Hyperinflation Nation, Bernanke denied there was a Real Estate bubble in July of 2005 and said there had never been a nationwide decline in housing prices. Then in November of 2006, Bernanke said the automobile sector was showing signs of strengthening; today GM and Chrysler are bankrupt.
Do we really want this man, who has been wrong about everything in the past, to control the value of our currency and operate in secrecy without any transparency whatsoever? It took the U.S. dollar 95 years to lose 95% of its purchasing power, maybe it will lose the next 95% of its purchasing power in the next few years.
India Joins Russia, China in Questioning U.S. Dollar Dominance By Mark Deen and Isabelle Mas
Suresh Tendulkar, an economic adviser to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, said he is urging the government to diversify its $264.6 billion foreign-exchange reserves and hold fewer dollars.
“The major part of Indian reserves is in dollars -- that is something that’s a problem for us,” Tendulkar, chairman of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, said in an interview yesterday in Aix-en-Provence, France, where he was attending an economic conference.
Singh is preparing to join leaders from the Group of Eight industrialized nations -- the U.S., Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia -- at a summit in Italy next week which is due to tackle the global economy. China and Brazil will also send representatives to the summit.
As the talks have neared, China and Russia have stepped up calls for a rethink of how global currency reserves are composed and managed, underlining a power shift to emerging markets from the developed nations that spawned the financial crisis.
“There should be a system to maintain the stability of the major reserve currencies,” Former Chinese Vice Premier Zeng Peiyan said in a speech in Beijing yesterday, highlighting China’s concerns about a global financial system dominated by the dollar.
Fiscal and current-account deficits must be supervised as “your currency is likely to become my problem,” said Zeng, who is now the head of a research center under the government’s top economic planning agency. The People’s Bank of China said June 26 that the International Monetary Fund should manage more of members’ reserves.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has repeatedly called for creating a mix of regional reserve currencies as part of the drive to address the global financial crisis, while questioning the dollar’s future as a global reserve currency. Russia’s proposals for the Group of 20 major developed and developing nations summit in London in April included the creation of a supranational currency.
“We will resume” talks on the supranational currency proposal at the G-8 summit in L’Aquila on July 8-10, Medvedev aide Sergei Prikhodko told reporters in Moscow yesterday.
Singh adviser Tendulkar said that big dollar holders face a “prisoner’s dilemma” in terms of managing their holdings. “That’s why I’m telling them to do this,” he said.
He also said that world currencies need to adjust to help unwind trade imbalances that have contributed to the global financial crisis.
“The major imbalances which led to the current situation, the current account surpluses and deficits, have to be addressed,” he said. “Currency adjustment is one thing that suggests itself.”
For all the complaints about the dollar, emerging markets such as India remain dependent on the currency of the U.S., the world’s largest economy and a $2.5 trillion export market. The IMF said June 30 that the share of dollars in global foreign- exchange reserves increased to 65 percent in the first three months of this year, the highest since 2007.
Tendulkar said that the matter needs to be taken up in international talks, and that it emphasizes the need for those talks to go beyond the traditional G-8.
“They can meet if they want to,” he said. “The G-20 has a wider role, has representation of the countries that are likely to lead the recovery process.”
Washington is Playing a Deeper Game with China By F. William Engdahl
After the tragic events of July 5 in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China, it would be useful to look more closely into the actual role of the US Government's ”independent“ NGO, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). All indications are that the US Government, once more acting through its “private” Non-Governmental Organization, the NED, is massively intervening into the internal politics of China.
The reasons for Washington's intervention into Xinjiang affairs seems to have little to do with concerns over alleged human rights abuses by Beijing authorities against Uyghur people. It seems rather to have very much to do with the strategic geopolitical location of Xinjiang on the Eurasian landmass and its strategic importance for China's future economic and energy cooperation with Russia, Kazakhastan and other Central Asia states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
The major organization internationally calling for protests in front of Chinese embassies around the world is the Washington, D.C.-based World Uyghur Congress (WUC).
The WUC manages to finance a staff, a very fancy website in English, and has a very close relation to the US Congress-funded NED. According to published reports by the NED itself, the World Uyghur Congress receives $215,000.00 annually from the National Endowment for Democracy for “human rights research and advocacy projects.” The president of the WUC is an exile Uyghur who describes herself as a “laundress turned millionaire,” Rebiya Kadeer, who also serves as president of the Washington D.C.-based Uyghur American Association, another Uyghur human rights organization which receives significant funding from the US Government via the National Endowment for Democracy.
The NED was intimately involved in financial support to various organizations behind the Lhasa ”Crimson Revolution“ in March 2008, as well as the Saffron Revolution in Burma/Myanmar and virtually every regime change destabilization in eastern Europe over the past years from Serbia to Georgia to Ukraine to Kyrgystan to Teheran in the aftermath of the recent elections.
Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, was quite candid when he said in a published interview in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA."
The NED is supposedly a private, non-government, non-profit foundation, but it receives a yearly appropriation for its international work from the US Congress. The NED money is channelled through four “core foundations”. These are the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, linked to Obama's Democratic Party; the International Republican Institute tied to the Republican Party; the American Center for International Labor Solidarity linked to the AFL-CIO US labor federation as well as the US State Department; and the Center for International Private Enterprise linked to the US Chamber of Commerce.
The salient question is what has the NED been actively doing that might have encouraged the unrest in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and what is the Obama Administration policy in terms of supporting or denouncing such NED-financed intervention into sovereign politics of states which Washington deems a target for pressure? The answers must be found soon, but one major step to help clarify Washington policy under the new Obama Administration would be for a full disclosure by the NED, the US State Department and NGO's linked to the US Government, of their involvement, if at all, in encouraging Uyghur separatism or unrest. Is it mere coincidence that the Uyghur riots take place only days following the historic meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization?
Uyghur exile organizations, China and Geopolitics
On May 18 this year, the US-government's in-house “private” NGO, the NED, according to the official WUC website, hosted a seminal human rights conference entitled East Turkestan: 60 Years under Communist Chinese Rule, along with a curious NGO with the name, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO).
The Honorary President and founder of the UNPO is one Erkin Alptekin, an exile Uyghur who founded UNPO while working for the US Information Agency's official propaganda organization, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as Director of their Uygur Division and Assistant Director of the Nationalities Services.
Alptekin also founded the World Uyghur Congress at the same time, in 1991, while he was with the US Information Agency. The official mission of the USIA when Alptekin founded the World Uyghur Congress in 1991 was “to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics in promotion of the [USA] national interest...” Alptekin was the first president of WUC, and, according to the official WUC website, is a “close friend of the Dalai Lama.”
Closer examination reveals that UNPO in turn to be an American geopolitical strategist's dream organization. It was formed, as noted, in 1991 as the Soviet Union was collapsing and most of the land area of Eurasia was in political and economic chaos. Since 2002 its Director General has been Archduke Karl von Habsburg of Austria who lists his (unrecognized by Austria or Hungary) title as “Prince Imperial of Austria and Royal Prince of Hungary.”
Among the UNPO principles is the right to ‘self-determination' for the 57 diverse population groups who, by some opaque process not made public, have been admitted as official UNPO members with their own distinct flags, with a total population of some 150 million peoples and headquarters in the Hague, Netherlands.
UNPO members range from Kosovo which “joined” when it was fully part of then Yugoslavia in 1991. It includes the “Aboriginals of Australia” who were listed as founding members along with Kosovo. It includes the Buffalo River Dene Nation indians of northern Canada.
The select UNPO members also include Tibet which is listed as a founding member. It also includes other explosive geopolitical areas as the Crimean Tartars, the Greek Minority in Romania, the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (in Russia), the Democratic Movement of Burma, and the gulf enclave adjacent to Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and which just happens to hold rights to some of the world's largest offshore oil fields leased to Condi Rice's old firm, Chevron Oil. Further geopolitical hotspots which have been granted elite recognition by the UNPO membership include the large section of northern Iran which designates itself as Southern Azerbaijan, as well as something that calls itself Iranian Kurdistan.
In April 2008 according to the website of the UNPO, the US Congress' NED sponsored a “leadership training” seminar for the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) together with the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. Over 50 Uyghurs from around the world together with prominent academics, government representatives and members of the civil society gathered in Berlin Germany to discuss “Self-Determination under International Law.” What they discussed privately is not known. Rebiya Kadeer gave the keynote address.
The suspicious timing of the Xinjiang riots
The current outbreak of riots and unrest in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang in the northwest part of China, exploded on July 5 local time.
According to the website of the World Uyghur Congress, the “trigger” for the riots was an alleged violent attack on June 26 in China's southern Guangdong Province at a toy factory where the WUC alleges that Han Chinese workers attacked and beat to death two Uyghur workers for allegedly raping or sexually molesting two Han Chinese women workers in the factory. On July 1, the Munich arm of the WUC issued a worldwide call for protest demonstrations against Chinese embassies and consulates for the alleged Guangdong attack, despite the fact they admitted the details of the incident were unsubstantiated and filled with allegations and dubious reports.
According to a press release they issued, it was that June 26 alleged attack that gave the WUC the grounds to issue their worldwide call to action.
On July 5, a Sunday in Xinjiang but still the USA Independence Day, July 4, in Washington, the WUC in Washington claimed that Han Chinese armed soldiers seized any Uyghur they found on the streets and according to official Chinese news reports, widespread riots and burning of cars along the streets of Urumqi broke out resulting over the following three days in over 140 deaths.
China's official Xinhua News Agency said that protesters from the Uighur Muslim ethnic minority group began attacking ethnic Han pedestrians, burning vehicles and attacking buses with batons and rocks. "They took to the street...carrying knives, wooden batons, bricks and stones," they cited an eyewitness as saying. The French AFP news agency quoted Alim Seytoff, general secretary of the Uighur American Association in Washington, that according to his information, police had begun shooting "indiscriminately" at protesting crowds.
Two different versions of the same events: The Chinese government and pictures of the riots indicate it was Uyghur riot and attacks on Han Chinese residents that resulted in deaths and destruction. French official reports put the blame on Chinese police “shooting indiscriminately.” Significantly, the French AFP report relies on the NED-funded Uyghur American Association of Rebiya Kadeer for its information. The reader should judge if the AFP account might be motivated by a US geopolitical agenda, a deeper game from the Obama Administration towards China's economic future.
Is it merely coincidence that the riots in Xinjiang by Uyghur organizations broke out only days after the meeting took place in Yakaterinburg, Russia of the member nations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as Iran as official observer guest, represented by President Ahmadinejad?
Over the past few years, in the face of what is seen as an increasingly hostile and incalculable United States foreign policy, the major nations of Eurasia—China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan have increasingly sought ways of direct and more effective cooperation in economic as well as security areas. In addition, formal Observer status within SCO has been given to Iran, Pakistan, India and Mongolia. The SCO defense ministers are in regular and growing consultation on mutual defense needs, as NATO and the US military command continue provocatively to expand across the region wherever it can.
The Strategic Importance of Xinjiang for Eurasian Energy Infrastructure
There is another reason for the nations of the SCO, a vital national security element, to having peace and stability in China's Xinjiang region. Some of China's most important oil and gas pipeline routes pass directly through Xinjiang province. Energy relations between Kazkhstan and China are of enormous strategic importance for both countries, and allow China to become less dependent on oil supply sources that can be cut off by possible US interdiction should relations deteriorate to such a point.
Kazak President Nursultan Nazarbayev paid a State visit in April 2009 to Beijing. The talks concerned deepening economic cooperation, above all in the energy area, where Kazkhastan holds huge reserves of oil and likely as well of natural gas. After the talks in Beijing, Chinese media carried articles with such titles as “"Kazakhstani oil to fill in the Great Chinese pipe."
The Atasu-Alashankou pipeline to be completed in 2009 will provide transportation of transit gas to China via Xinjiang. As well Chinese energy companies are involved in construction of a Zhanazholskiy gas processing plant, Pavlodar electrolyze plant and Moynakskaya hydro electric station in Kazakhstan.
According to the US Government's Energy Information Administration, Kazakhstan's Kashagan field is the largest oil field outside the Middle East and the fifth largest in the world in terms of reserves, located off the northern shore of the Caspian Sea, near the city of Atyrau. China has built a 613-mile-long pipeline from Atasu, in northwestern Kazakhstan, to Alashankou at the border of China's Xinjiang region which is exporting Caspian oil to China. PetroChina's ChinaOil is the exclusive buyer of the crude oil on the Chinese side. The pipeline is a joint venture of CNPC and Kaztransoil of Kazkhstan. Some 85,000 bbl/d of Kazakh crude oil flowed through the pipeline during 2007. China's CNPC is also involved in other major energy projects with Kazkhstan. They all traverse China's Xinjiang region.
In 2007 CNPC signed an agreement to invest more than $2 billion to construct a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to China. That pipeline would start at Gedaim on the border of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan and extend 1,100 miles through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to Khorgos in China's Xinjiang region. Turkmenistan and China have signed a 30-year supply agreement for the gas that would fill the pipeline. CNPC has set up two entities to oversee the Turkmen upstream project and the development of a second pipeline that will cross China from the Xinjiang region to southeast China at a cost of some $7 billion.
As well, Russia and China are discussing major natural gas pipelines from eastern Siberia through Xinjiang into China. Eastern Siberia contains around 135 Trillion cubic feet of proven plus probable natural gas reserves. The Kovykta natural gas field could give China with natural gas in the next decade via a proposed pipeline.
During the current global economic crisis, Kazakhstan received a major credit from China of $10 billion, half of which is for oil and gas sector. The oil pipeline Atasu-Alashankou and the gas pipeline China-Central Asia, are an instrument of strategic 'linkage' of central Asian countries to the economy China. That Eurasian cohesion from Russia to China across Central Asian countries is the geopolitical cohesion Washington most fears. While they would never say so, growing instability in Xinjiang would be an ideal way for Washington to weaken that growing cohesion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization nations.
William Engdahl is the author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order.