CIA “Manages” Drug Trade, Mexican Official Says

By ALEX NEWMAN | THE NEW AMERICAN | JULY 29, 2012

The Central Intelligence Agency’s involvement in drug trafficking is back in the media spotlight after a spokesman for the violence-plagued Mexican state of Chihuahua became the latest high-profile individual to accuse the CIA, which has been linked to narcotics trafficking for decades, of ongoing efforts to “manage the drug trade.” The infamous American spy agency refused to comment.

In a recent interview, Chihuahua state spokesman Guillermo Terrazas Villanueva told Al Jazeera that the CIA and other international “security” outfits “don’t fight drug traffickers.” Instead, Villanueva argued, they try to control and manage the illegal drug market for their own benefit.

“It’s like pest control companies, they only control,” Villanueva told the Qatar-based media outlet last month at his office in Juarez. “If you finish off the pests, you are out of a job. If they finish the drug business, they finish their jobs.”

Another Mexican official, apparently a mid-level officer with Mexico’s equivalent of the U.S. Department of “Homeland Security,” echoed those remarks, saying he knew that the allegations against the CIA were correct based on talks with American agents in Mexico. “It’s true, they want to control it,” the official told Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity.

Credibility issues with employees of the notoriously corrupt Mexican government aside, the latest accusations were hardly earth shattering — the American espionage agency has been implicated in drug trafficking from Afghanistan to Vietnam to Latin America and everywhere in between. Similar allegations of drug running have been made against the CIA for decades by former agents, American officials, lawmakers, investigators, and even drug traffickers themselves.

Some of the most prominent officials to level charges of CIA drug trafficking include the former head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Robert Bonner. During an interview with CBS, Bonner accused the American “intelligence” outfit of unlawfully importing a ton of cocaine into the U.S. in collaboration with the Venezuelan government.

Even the New York Times eventually covered part of the scandal in a piece entitled “Anti-Drug Unit of C.I.A. Sent Ton of Cocaine to U.S. in 1990.” And the agency’s Inspector General, Frederick Hitz, was eventually forced to concede to a congressional committee that the CIA has indeed worked with drug traffickers and obtained a waiver from the Department of Justice in the 1980s allowing it to conceal its contractors’ illicit dealings.

An explosive investigation by reporter Gary Webb dubbed the “Dark Alliance” also uncovered a vast CIA machine to ship illegal drugs into the U.S. to fund clandestine and unconstitutional activities abroad, including the financing of armed groups. Webb eventually died under highly suspicious circumstances — two gunshots to the head, officially ruled a “suicide.”

Responding to Webb’s discoveries, top officials and even lawmakers eventually acknowledged that the CIA almost certainly had a role in illegal drug trafficking. “There is no question in my mind that people affiliated with, or on the payroll of, the CIA were involved in drug trafficking,” explained U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) after the Dark Alliance series.

Top-level Mexican officials have suggested complicity by U.S. officials in drug trafficking as well — even recently. “It is impossible to pass tons of drugs or cocaine to U.S. without some grade of complicity of some American authorities,” observed Mexican President Felipe Calderon in a 2009 interview with the BBC.

Last year, an explosive report in the Washington Times, citing a CIA source, speculated that the agency may be deliberately helping certain Mexican cartels to beat out others for geopolitical purposes. According to the sources, the intelligence outfit might have also played a key role in the now-infamous Fast and Furious scandal, which saw the federal government providing thousands of high-powered weapons to Mexican cartels.

Shortly before that, The New American reported on federal court filings by a top Sinaloa Cartel operative that shed even more insight on the U.S. government’s role in drug trafficking. The accused “logistical coordinator” for the cartel, Jesus Vicente “El Vicentillo” Zambada-Niebla, claimed that he had an agreement with top American officials: In exchange for information on rival cartels, the deal supposedly gave him and his associates immunity to import multi-ton quantities of drugs across the border.

“Indeed, United States government agents aided the leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel,” the court filing states. Zambada-Niebla is currently being held in federal prison, but he argues that he is innocent because he had approval from — and collaborated with — U.S. agencies in his illegal drug-trafficking operations.

Another expert who spoke with Al Jazeera, a university professor, also indicated that the American federal government was deeply involved in the drug trafficking business. He said the drug war was an “illusion” aimed at justifying control of populations and intervention in Latin America. As evidence, he pointed to the fact that one of the top drug kingpins in the world — billionaire “El Chapo” of the Sinaloa cartel — operates openly and with impunity.

Numerous drug bosses and American officials have made similar claims, alleging that the U.S. government in essence controls at least some of the cartels. According to former DEA operative and whistleblower Celerino Castillo, American federal authorities have even been training members of the brutal Los Zetas cartel in Texas.

CIA and DEA insider Phil Jordan, meanwhile, publicly claimed last year that the Obama administration was selling military-grade weaponry to the deadly organization through a front company in Mexico. And with the Fast and Furious scandal, it emerged that the Obama administration was using tax money to arm Mexican cartels, then exploiting the ensuing violence to attack the Second Amendment.

The President and his Department of Justice have been engaged in a cover-up since whistleblowers first exposed the scheme more than a year ago, leading Congress to hold disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. Another congressional investigation being obstructed by the Justice Department surrounds DEA drug-money laundering operations revealed in an explosive New York Times article late last year.

“While the quality of the involvement of the CIA and other security agencies may be debatable, it is impossible to excise the blame from America,” noted an analysis about the latest allegations published by Catholic Online. “If the CIA is part of the problem, then it will only be one more sign of the corruption and evil that pervades American and Mexican politics and holds hostage millions of innocents.”

Some 50,000 people have died just in recent years as part of Mexico’s U.S. government-backed “war on drugs,” and anger south of the border continues to build. But even as Latin American leaders openly debate legalization and threaten to defect from the controversial “war,” the Obama administration has promised to continue showering taxpayer money on regimes that expand the battle.

Meanwhile, as the bloodshed continues to spiral out of control, the U.S. border remains virtually wide open on purpose, according to experts. And despite tens of billions spent on the endless “war,” numerous analyses indicate that the flow of illegal drugs into America is actually growing — not to mention consumption. By contrast, Portugal, which legalized all drugs about a decade ago, has seen declining rates of addiction, drug abuse, and crime.

In the United States, pressure is still growing on both sides of the aisle to reform or end the unconstitutional federal drug war once and for all, with polls showing rapidly declining support among voters. Over a dozen states have already nullified some unconstitutional federal statutes on marijuana as well. How long the “war” will go on, however, may depend on the federal government’s ability to continue borrowing funds to wage it.

Latin America Infiltrated by Statists, Socialists and Fake Free Marketeers

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JUNE 13, 2012

The numbers and types of Statist, Socialist and Corporate Capitalists in power around Latin America have grown exponentially in the last two decades, and with them so have the masses of well-meaning people who believe their lies about social justice, the goodness of big government and the advantages of service economies sponsored by the most powerful corporations in the planet. Some of these corporations, by the way, have bigger revenues than many nations from that region and the world. As if the emergence of those movements was not bad enough, lately, the heads of socialist, statist and false free market groups have united to form more easily controllable commercial and political alliances, which they say, will bring real development to their countries and their people.

The most recent of those alliances is the one formed by Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico, called the Pacific Alliance. According to the front men who act as the creators, — the presidents of the four countries — the alliance is an effort to unite and to seek the realization of common goals. Chile, Mexico, Peru and Colombia are a handful of Latin American states with the least damaged economies in the region. In fact, Chile has become a story of success in the last decade or so, given its application of policies which have allowed for decent growth based on the country’s appetite for saving. However, Peru, Colombia and Mexico are a different story, which begs the question, why would Chile go into business with well-known corporate controlled failed states?

Mexico has for many years worked under the auspices of the United States, partnering on the infamous North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has been charged with eliminating the industrial production of the US by design, permitting the free movement of people — illegal aliens — from the south to the north, while rewarding companies that move their operations outside American soil and avoiding corporate taxes, among others. Peru is a different story. Its past has always been highlighted by poverty, government corruption, and statist rule. This last aspect has not changed a bit. The country went from Alberto Fujimori to the current Peruvian leader Ollanta Humala, who rose to power in 2011. He is recognized as a anti-market extremist.

Meanwhile, Colombia is perhaps the strangest ally in a group that supposedly seeks development and free trade. Colombia, just as Mexico has been a close friend of the United States in the failed war on drugs, which has proven an insufficient and poorly managed effort to curb drug trade and the violence that stems from the existence of armed groups and governments controlling the flow of narcotics. In reality, the so-called war on drug trade is a facade to hide the worldwide campaign for the control of illegal drugs, their markets and the billions of dollars in profits that are laundered  every year by the largest banks on the face of the planet.

Groups such as the Pacific Alliance are not more than controlled dissidence, easily manageable by their sponsors. In Latin America, the creation of economic or political blocs to “further development” is not new. Before the Pacific Alliance, nations formed UNASUR, ALBA, MERCOSUR, Caricom, CELAC, the Andean Community and many others. The results of these unions both in the political and economic realms have been largely the same: Nothing.

When asked about the impact of MERCOSUR in their purchases of raw materials or sales of finished products, companies in Latin America privately say that the MERCOSUR is just a window dressing initiative that has done little or nothing to improve commerce among its members. In fact, as we speak, both Brazil and Argentina are engaged in a trade war that threatens to bring down important business deals between commercial partners in both countries. Argentina adopted a strong protectionist policy while Brazil refuses to allow the flow of Argentinian goods to its importers.

The leaders of countries like Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador have failed miserably to bring development to their people. They arrived to power promising better living conditions to supporters to only turn into tyrants with socialist leaning ideas. Despite this record, the members of the Pacific Alliance seem to believe that a new group of countries supported by China, will bring about the riches and improved living conditions that past presidents and community leaders failed to provide. All members of the Alliance intend to attract even more Chinese aid to their countries, trying to emulate Brazil’s efforts to open the door to the communist regime. Their official statements allege that they seek to expand trade with Asia.

By bringing China into the equation, the Pacific Alliance seeks to attract other business partners from the region, but only those who can show historical compromise with free trade and economic development. Under this premise, other smaller nations such as Costa Rica and Panama are attempting to jump on the bandwagon. Ironically, both Costa Rica and Panama have been American allies in the war on drugs and have implemented policies designed to slowly and quietly crack down on citizens’ rights.

For example, Costa Rica permitted the arrival of US military men into its territory under the excuse that it would help fight the war on drugs. As if that wasn’t enough of a violation to the country’s sovereignty, the US has now been allowed to set up a naval base in the Atlantic coast. During the early years of the construction of the Panama Canal, this country basically surrendered its sovereignty to the Americans, who later yielded possession of the Canal to China in 2000. This is one of the biggest concerns that critics have expressed about the newest integration. Some of these nations have associated with communist, statist or marxist groups in the past, but now fashion themselves as sponsors of free markets, free trade and social justice.

The official announcement of the Pacific Alliance was made just days ago by Chilean president Sebastián Piñera, who got all poetic about the new bloc. “From the heights of Paranal, in the most arid desert in the world and under the clearest of skies, we have signed a pact officially giving birth to the Pacific Alliance,” he said. “There are no incompatibilities or exclusion vis-a-vis other integration efforts. We are against nobody but rather in favor of even greater integration.” Meanwhile, his new partner, Mexican president Felipe Calderon said that “The Pacific Alliance’s economic potential is significant.” His counterpart from Colombia echoed the same kind of prospects for the new association by adding that the Pacific Alliance is the “most important integration process in Latin America.”

Although the existence of completely opposing groups was not cited as a reason to form the Pacific Alliance, behind the scenes governments like the Chilean and the Colombian have shown their concern about the creation of secretive partnerships like the São Paulo Forum, an organization composed by followers of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Luiz Inacio Da Silva, one of the founders of the group. These leaders subscribe to ideologies also shared by Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Argentina, although these last three nations do not express their adherence publicly. The lack of public recognition however, hasn’t prevented the citizenry of those countries from suffering from poverty, crime, insecurity and abusive, repressive governments, which are exactly what their leaders promised to eradicate. The São Paulo Forum is also linked to narco-traffickers and armed Marxist revolutionaries, of the likes of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas as well as the Russian and the Chinese governments.

The above mentioned scenarios are the ones critics of these alliances often warn against. The integration of countries that agree to surrender their independence without previously consulting their citizens in order to open the door to fascist, socialist or communist ideologues, who supposedly have the best of intentions in mind has been the common result of previous attempts to create strategic commercial and political groups. It happened in Europe, Asia, North America and definitely in Latin America. Most if not all of the unions assembled in the name of development and progress were just shams hidden behind charismatic men and women who preached the gospel that the people wanted to hear.

While military agreements have served the interests of those who traffic arms in exchange for cash or drugs, commercial accords rendered many nations poorer and more dependent on powerful corporate interests. The question that must be asked is why do political leaders continue to surrender sovereignty in order to have trade when they are not mutually exclusive? In fact, the world was never a more stable place, economically and financially, than when countries traded in a bilateral and multilateral ways, without surrendering the ownership of their resources and laws to unelected technocrats who are now in total control of everyone’s destiny.

Russian President: New World Order with new Global Currency

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
June 19, 2010

As many other puppet presidents have done it before, Russia’s Dmitri Medvedev is taking his opportunity to call for a new world

Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev

order and to push the Russian currency up, as the new reserve paper.  “What had seemed untouchable has collapsed. The bubbles that created the illusion of flourishing economies have burst,” said the Russian president in St Petersburg.  As he opened Russia’s annual economic forum, Medvedev said the times when western corporations dominated the economy had ended and the new interest in Russia was a sign that the world was changing.

“For Russia this situation is a challenge and an opportunity.  And we should use it to build a modern, flourishing and strong Russia … which will be a co-founder of the new world economic order.” he added.  Talking in front of many businessmen from around the world, the Russia leader followed the steps of other governments and presidents as well as of non-governmental institutions.  In the past, George H.W. Bush, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Barack Obama, among others, have called for the formation of a new world order.  In fact, all those leaders have cited the creation of a centralized global entity as the only way to cure the many illnesses the world suffers from today.

Together with governments, there are supranational institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and their respective leaders, who have echoed the same calls for the creation of a new global order.  This order would have the power, will amass the resources of the planet and will decide how to use them.  The plan also includes the creation of a single monetary policy to which all countries will have to submit to.  The adherence to such policy will enable the countries to receive loans and aid packages that will make them more dependent on the foreign centralized organization, and less dependent on their own Constitutions and laws.  In fact, in the world seen through the eyes of people like Medvedev and the other power men, there is no need for nationality, sovereignty or identity.

Russia has already taken significant steps to aid the lifeline of the new world order -which has existed for many years now-.  The country will introduce a policy of zero taxation on capital gains which will indeed allow the free flow of monies in and out of, much like it happens in corrupt countries where this policy aides and enables money laundering through the banking system.  This would transform Russia into the new United States when it comes to moving large amounts of money coming from all places -drug trade, arms trade, slave trade- to circulate and make its way across the world.  Of course Medvedev did not present it like that.  Instead, he said his policy would allow companies working on long-term investments.  Russia, he said, “was improving the legal system to offer better protection for businesses against the long arm of bureaucracy.”  In other words, crime, of the kind recently experienced through Wall Street banks around the world will have a safe heaven in Russia.  What Mr. Medvedev’s words mean is that all the policies that allowed the bankers to suck countries dry of their resources will also exist in the world order he dreams about, where Russia is the new leader and he’s the new Al Capone.  Limits to bureaucracy means zero regulation or a perfect environment for the corporations to run their shady Ponzi schemes.

The Russian president also talked about something that would make any corporate businessman smile, even in the rainiest day.  Russia has completed the process of simplifying migration procedures, so that workers can go in the country; or better, Russia just like China will allow corporations to pay some of the lowest wages to its citizens in exchange for long working days with no benefits and no rights.  Again, it’s clear he did not present it this way.  He said Russia had changed to attract “highly-qualified specialists” from the financial and technology sectors.  “The state should not tear down the apples from the tree of economics,” he said.

Medvedev complemented his speech on a new world order by forcefully attacking the dollar and claiming that it was time for a new reserve currency.  “Only three, five years ago it seemed like a fantasy” to create a new reserve currency. Now we are seriously discussing it.”  He does not seem to be alone in that ride.  It seems China is up to the challenge as well.  In the meantime, Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer added his voice to the Russian’s, but from a very different point of view, one that is rarely heard.  He said: “New reserve currencies don’t emerge by fiat. They emerge as countries change.”  A fiat currency is paper or electronic  money that is not backed up by a nation’s industry or production, but by an inflated system of blind trust on what a piece of paper says it is worth.

Apparently, both Russia and China think it is time for the East to drive the world and its markets.  “We really live at a unique time, and we should use it to build a modern, prosperous and strong Russia, a Russia that will be a co-founder of the new world economic order,” he said.  The problem with Medvedev’s vision is that his plan will not work, at least not for as long as he wants.  Although he intends to build something new, better and different, he plans on using the same old policies that brought us to the disaster he so clearly criticizes.  He wants prosperity, a modern economy and a strong Russia, but he wants zero regulation, a centralized dictatorial government and no sovereignty.  Maybe he forgets that Capitalism, the real Capitalism, was born from free independent nations that based their development on the use of their resources to produce quality goods that benefited the world.  Instead, he wants a global economy filled with cheap, slave-made products that need to be changed every few months.  He wants the best workers, but will follow the same old low-paying policies that maintains Asia’s and Latin America’s people in a continuous feudal model of development.

“If the world depended completely on the dollar, the situation would have been more difficult,” Medvedev reminded the audience.  So why does he want a single global currency, then?