The Nation (5/21/2001) - "Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban" - Prescient? Ironic?

[TomCADem]

I know the current media facination has been to attack Democrats on National Security, as well as give Dick Cheney a soap box to say I told you so President Obama while ignoring the unprecedented failures of the Bush administration. The odd thing is that everyone ignores the stance of the Bush administration prior to 9/11 in reference to the Taliban. Here is one of those secrets that hide in plain sight, yet is repeatedly ignored by the corporate media, as Republicans are given a free pass to attack Democrats on National Security.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010604/20010522

Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
Column Left
By Robert Scheer
May 22, 2001

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-US terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush Administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush Administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at US insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women?

The grand hilarity of all this is that President Bush campaigned in the 2004 election on his National Security credentials and the corporate media went along with the joke, as they are now as they spread Republican talking points.

[timeforpeace]

1. Was this a new initiative or a renewing of something already in place?

[mmonk]

3. From my evaluations, a continuance of a policy concerning

the Taliban government.

[TomCADem]

4. A Continuance Of Whose Policy?

Obama continuing Bush's policy of supporting the Taliban? Not sure I follow. The article is from May 2001, so it has nothing to do with President Obama.

[mmonk]

7. A continuance of policy in dealing with the Taliban

from the Clinton administration. Richardson was in diplomatic contact and US aims at trying to get the pipeline was policy.

[malaise]

2. What war on drugs

Men were getting rich off heroin.

[Make7]

5. A major problem with that article is that the $43 million was not a gift to the Taliban.

The $43 million was humanitarian aid given to the Afghan people through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations. I somehow doubt the UN was imposing sanctions on humanitarian aid distributed by their own agencies.

The Clinton administration gave similar amounts of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan in the years prior to the Bush administration. Perhaps Clinton was "cozying up to the Taliban regime" as well. :eyes:
?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2235310&mesg_id=2238095

[TomCADem]

6. Link? Three Posts Defending Dubya Saying He Was Continuing Clinton's Policy?

I have now seen three posts defending Bush, yet no links supporting this assertion that this $43 million in aid was something planned under the Clinton administration, thus constituting a continuation in policy. According to this article, the $43 million was not humanitarian aid, but a direct grant to the Taliban run government of Afganistan:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556

The United States has made common cause with an assortment of dubious regimes around the world to wage the war on drugs. Perhaps the most shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies.

When the Taliban implemented a ban on opium cultivation in early 2001, U.S. officials were most complimentary. James P. Callahan, director of Asian Affairs for the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, uncritically relayed the alleged accounts of Afghan farmers that "the Taliban used a system of consensus-building" to develop and carry out the edict. That characterization was more than a little suspect because the Taliban was not known for pursuing consensus in other aspects of its rule. Columnist Robert Scheer was justifiably scathing in his criticism of the U.S. response. "That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising," Sheer noted, but he considered it "grotesque" for a U.S. official to describe the drug-crop crackdown in such benign terms.

Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.

[mmonk]

9. Not exactly. A continuance of state department efforts

and the US foreign policy objectives. Big difference.

[Make7]

10. Well, it was in Colin Powell's press announcement reported in the article from the OP.

Humanitarian Assistance to Afghans

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Statement at Press Briefing on New U.S. Humanitarian Assistance for Afghans
Washington, DC
May 17, 2001

SECRETARY POWELL: Good morning, everyone. Afghanistan is in crisis. After more than 20 years of war, and now the third year of a devastating draught, the country is on the verge of a widespread famine. Nearly 4 million Afghans are at risk. If the international community does not take immediate action, countless deaths and terrible tragedy are certain to follow.

At the direction of President Bush, I am today announcing a package of $43 million in new humanitarian assistance for the people of Afghanistan, including 65,000 tons of wheat, $5 million in complementary food commodities, and $10 million in other livelihood and food security programs within Afghanistan. We also expect to soon announce additional assistance to Afghan refugees.

Even before this latest commitment, the United States was by far the largest provider of humanitarian assistance for Afghans. Last year, we provided about $114 million in aid. With this new package, our humanitarian assistance to date this year will reach $124 million. This includes over 200,000 tons of wheat.

We will continue to look for ways to provide more assistance for Afghans, including those farmers who have felt the impact of the ban on poppy cultivation, a decision by the Taliban that we welcome.

We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations. We provide our aid to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's warring factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it. We hope the Taliban will act on a number of fundamental issues that separate us: their support for terrorism; their violation of internationally recognized human rights standards, especially their treatment of women and girls; and their refusal to resolve Afghanistan's civil war through a negotiated settlement.

UN sanctions against the Taliban are smart sanctions and do not hurt the Afghan people, nor do these sanctions affect the flow of humanitarian assistance for Afghans. America seeks to help the neediest, wherever they may be. I call upon the international community to mobilize and respond generously to help avert this looming humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan.

Secretary General Annan and I have discussed this situation before, and I will ask for his further assistance to raise the international community's awareness about this crisis and to impress upon the international community the necessity to respond with energy and with dispatch.

Colleagues of mine from different parts of the government, as well as including the United States Agency for International Development, will be available to provide more detailed information, should you have questions.

Thank you very much.


Released on May 17, 2001

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/2928.htm">http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/2928.htm   (archive.org)

Here is some more information regarding U.S. aid to Afghanistan for the end of the Clinton Administration and the beginning of the Bush administration:

   FY1999 = $76.6 million
   FY2000 = $113.2 million

   http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7654.pdf

Enjoy!

[TomCADem]

14. Both The Nation and Cato Institute Article Describe the $43 Million As Direct Aid

To the Taliban, and reference a Bush official speaking approvingly of the Taliban. In contrast, the numbers you reference appear to reference aid to international agencies like the Red Cross, which strikes me as a big difference. Why would the Nation suggest then that the Bush administration is aiding the Taliban in order to appease the anti-drug lobby?

[Make7]

15. Perhaps the description of this as direct aid to the Taliban was incorrect.

Quoting from the Nation article in your OP:

"All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan... The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban..."

And quoting from the announcement by Colin Powell just referenced:

"I am today announcing a package of $43 million in new humanitarian assistance for the people of Afghanistan, including 65,000 tons of wheat, $5 million in complementary food commodities, and $10 million in other livelihood and food security programs within Afghanistan."

"We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations. We provide our aid to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's warring factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban ..."

Perhaps there is another announcement made by Colin Powell on that date concerning $43 million dollars earmarked for Afghanistan with an explanation of how the money was going directly to the Taliban for efforts in fighting the "War on Drugs."

I'm not even sure what the proper avenue is for giving overt aid directly to the government of a country that the United States didn't formally recognize at the time nor have official diplomatic relations with, but I would be more than willing to examine any actual evidence that the Bush Administration was directly sending money to the Taliban through official State Department channels. I can't seem to find any, but you might have better luck tracking some down. I'll look forward to seeing what you uncover.
 

[Luminous Animal]

8. That 43 million allowed the Taliban to divert funds

for the citizenry of Afghanistan towards weaponry. And, yes, the Clinton admin did curry favor with the Taliban regime.

[Make7]

11. How would Executive Order 13129 curry favor with the Taliban? ( n/t )

[cbdo2007]

13. It doesn't matter who/why the gift was given - the problem here is similar

to the problem in Iraq. We were best friends with Iraq and Saddam in the early 80's and were giving him millions of dollars and tons of money and support...then during the first Gulf War we are their enemy all of a sudden and they are fighting us with the same weapons we sold them.

It doesn't matter if it was Bush or Clinton or whoever came up with this bright idea to give the Taliban all this money. What DOES matter and should be recognized is that something is definitely "up" with the U.S. propping up these groups/countries with millions of dollars and weapons and then going in soon afterward and waging war on them. This odd behavior should raise some serious red flags with everyone, as there is much going on behind the scenes here that us shmoe's here typing about it on the internet don't know about.

[seafan]

12. *War on Drugs*: Great cover story for Bush's oil pipeline deal with Taliban in early 2001

The so-called drug war in Afghanistan was certainly a convenient reason for Bush's plying the Taliban with $43 Million in the spring of 2001.


Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban, Robert Scheer, May 22, 2001





*A carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs?* <<smirk smirk>>







January 8, 2002
CNN


(Partial transcript)

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Time to check in with ambassador-in- residence, Richard Butler, this morning. An explosive new book published in France alleges that the United States was in negotiations to do a deal with the Taliban for an oil pipeline in Afghanistan.

Joining us right now is Richard Butler to shed some light on this new book. He is the former chief U.N. weapons inspector. He is now on the Council on Foreign Relations and our own ambassador-in- residence -- good morning.

RICHARD BUTLER, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good morning, Paula.

ZAHN: Boy, if any of these charges are true...

BUTLER: If...

ZAHN: ... this...

BUTLER: Yes.

ZAHN: ... is really big news.

BUTLER: I agree.

ZAHN: Start off with what your understanding is of what is in this book -- the most explosive charge.

BUTLER: The most explosive charge, Paula, is that the Bush administration -- the present one, just shortly after assuming office slowed down FBI investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a deal with the Taliban on oil -- an oil pipeline across Afghanistan.

ZAHN: And this book points out that the FBI's deputy director, John O'Neill, actually resigned because he felt the U.S. administration was obstructing...

BUTLER: A proper...

ZAHN: ... the prosecution of terrorism.

BUTLER: Yes, yes, a proper intelligence investigation of terrorism. Now, you said if, and I affirmed that in responding to you. We have to be careful here. These are allegations. They're worth airing and talking about, because of their gravity. We don't know if they are correct. But I believe they should be investigated, because Central Asian oil, as we were discussing yesterday, is potentially so important. And all prior attempts to have a pipeline had to be done through Russia. It had to be negotiated with Russia.

Now, if there is to be a pipeline through Afghanistan, obviating the need to deal with Russia, it would also cost less than half of what a pipeline through Russia would cost. So financially and politically, there's a big prize to be had. A pipeline through Afghanistan down to the Pakistan coast would bring out that Central Asian oil easier and more cheaply.

ZAHN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) as you spoke about this yesterday, we almost immediately got a call from "The New York Times."

BUTLER: Right.

ZAHN: They want you to write an op-ed piece on this over the weekend.

BUTLER: Right, and which I will do.

ZAHN: But let's come back to this whole issue of what John O'Neill, this FBI agent...

BUTLER: Right.

ZAHN: ... apparently told the authors of this book. He is alleging that -- what -- the U.S. government was trying to protect U.S. oil interests? And at the same time, shut off the investigation of terrorism to allow for that to happen?

BUTLER: That's the allegation that instead of prosecuting properly an investigation of terrorism, which has its home in Afghanistan as we now know, or one of its main homes, that was shut down or slowed down in order to pursue oil interests with the Taliban. The people who we have now bombed out of existence, and this not many months ago. The book says that the negotiators said to the Taliban, you have a choice. You have a carpet of gold, meaning an oil deal, or a carpet of bombs. That's what the book alleges.

..... (more)

Pertinent fact: John O'Neill quit the FBI in August, 2001, then becoming the security chief at the World Trade Center. He was killed in the WTC attacks on September 11, 2001.




A New Oil Game, With New Winners, Richard Butler, January 18, 2002

In "The Great Game," published just as the Cold War ended, Peter Hopkirk chronicled the struggle, throughout the 19th century and into the 20th, between Britain and Russia for influence, control and profit in Central Asia. The jewel in the crown was the Indian subcontinent; but the pathway to it ran through Afghanistan. Now the prize is oil — getting it and transporting it — and Afghanistan is again contested territory. The difference is that, this time around, it is the United States that will be playing the game with Russia.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, it lost its southern provinces — Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan. These states have oil and gas deposits that, taken together, are thought to be equal to the remaining reserves of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, America's two leading Middle Eastern suppliers of oil.

The main feature of post-Soviet transition was the immediate establishment of oligarchies and criminality. When Vladimir Putin assumed the presidency two years ago, he moved quickly to break up the oligarchies and political fiefdoms within Russia.

Crucially, he also addressed the other deep loss felt by ordinary Russians — that of their seat at the top table as an equal with the United States. Mr. Putin courted the Germans and the French. He signed a friendship pact with China. But just as important, if less spectacular, was his decision to market Russian oil outside the dictates of the Arab-dominated Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Sept. 11 was a godsend to Mr. Putin. By deciding to join the United States in the war on terror, he could achieve at least two major objectives: Russia returned to the top table with the United States; and American criticism of Russian actions in Chechnya evaporated.

.....

The war in Afghanistan is most relevant in two respects. First, it has made the construction of a pipeline across Afghanistan and Pakistan politically possible for the first time since Unocal and the Argentinian company Bridas competed for the Afghan rights in the mid-1990's.

Second, the war has led many Americans to feel that Saudi Arabia is not the best of allies. The Saudi regime — undemocratic, an exporter of fundamentalism that is also hated by some of its own fundmentalists, like Osama bin Laden — is important to the West because of its oil. Accordingly, to lessen Western dependence on Saudi (not to mention Iraqi) oil can only be to the good. The route to greater independence may well lead through Afghanistan.

.....

But, we are not supposed to look back.