• Categories

  • Archives

  • Join Bangladesh Army

    "Ever High Is My Head" Please click on the image

  • Join Bangladesh Navy

    "In War & Peace Invincible At Sea" Please click on the image

  • Join Bangladesh Air Force

    "The Sky of Bangladesh Will Be Kept Free" Please click on the image

  • Blog Stats

    • 315,721 hits
  • Get Email Updates

  • Like Our Facebook Page

  • Visitors Location

    Map
  • Hot Categories

সিমলা চুক্তি ও যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচার

॥ এবনে গোলাম সামাদ ॥

https://i1.wp.com/www.pppusa.org/images/B-29.jpg

ভারত ও পাকিস্তানের মধ্যে সিমলা চুক্তি সম্পাদিত হয় ১৯৭২ সালের ৩ জুলাই। ১৯৭১ সালে ডিসেম্বর মাসের ১৭ দিনজুড়ে হয় ভারত-পাকিস্তান যুদ্ধ। এতে তদানীন-ন পূর্ব পাকিস্তানে জয়ী হয় ভারত। হারে পাকিস্তান। সিমলা চুক্তি অনুসারে যুদ্ধ বন্দীদের (POW) পাকিস্তানের হাতে ছেড়ে দেয়া হয়। এদের কাউকেই যুদ্ধাপরাধী হিসেবে বিচার করা হয় না। এ ছাড়া সিমলা চুক্তিতে ভারত ও পাকিস্তান উভয়ই রাজি হয় যে, ভবিষ্যতে তাদের মধ্যে কোনো বিরোধ দেখা দিলে তার নিষ্পত্তি করতে হবে আলোচনার মাধ্যমে, কোনো যুদ্ধের মাধ্যমে নয়। চুক্তিটির নাম হয় সিমলা চুক্তি। কারণ এটি সম্পাদিত হয় ভারতের হিমাচল প্রদেশের রাজধানী সিমলা শহরে। সিমলায় ভারত ও পাকিস্তান এই দুই দেশের প্রতিনিধিরা চুক্তির আগে দিয়ে করেন আলোচনা সভা, যা ইতিহাসে খ্যাত হয়ে আছে সিমলা সম্মেলন হিসেবে। এই সম্মেলনে ভারতীয় পক্ষের নেতৃত্ব দেন ভারতের তদানীন-ন প্রধানমন্ত্রী শ্রীমতী ইন্দিরা গান্ধী। আর পাকিস্তানের পক্ষের নেতৃত্ব করেন তদানীন-ন প্রেসিডেন্ট মোহাম্মদ জুলফিকার আলী ভুট্টো। এই সম্মেলনে বাংলাদেশকে ডাকাই হয়নি। বাংলাদেশকে ডাকা হয়নি এর একটা কারণ ছিল, জুলফিকার আলী ভুট্টোর আপত্তির কারণে। ভুট্টো আপত্তি তোলেন, ১৯৭১-এর যুদ্ধ হয়েছে ভারত-পাকিস্তানের মধ্যে। বাংলাদেশ নামে তখন কোনো রাষ্ট্র ছিল না।
পাকিস্তান বাংলাদেশের সাথে কোনো যুদ্ধ করেনি। যুদ্ধ করেছে ভারতের সাথে। ঢাকায় রমনার মাঠে পাকিস্তানের পূর্বাঞ্চলের সেনাপতি লেফটেন্যান্ট জেনারেল এ এ কে নিয়াজী ১৬ ডিসেম্বর আত্মসমর্পণ করেন কেবল ভারতীয় সেনাবাহিনীর পূর্বাঞ্চলীয় প্রধান লেফটেন্যান্ট জেনারেল জগজিৎ সিং অরোরার কাছে। তিনি মুক্তিযুদ্ধের কোনো সেনানায়কের কাছে পৃথকভাবে আত্মসমর্পণ করেননি। তাই সিমলা সম্মেলনে বাংলাদেশের কোনো প্রতিনিধি থাকতে পারে না। যুদ্ধ বাংলাদেশ-পাকিস্তানের মধ্যে হয়নি। হয়েছে কেবল ভারত-পাকিস্তানের মধ্যে। জুলফিকার আলী ভুট্টোর কথায় যুক্তি ছিল। প্রথম বিশ্বযুদ্ধের সময় পরাজিত হয়েছিল জার্মানি। জার্মান সৈন্য পৃথকভাবে আত্মসমর্পণ করেছিল সোভিয়েত ইউনিয়ন, মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র, গ্রেট ব্রিটেন ও ফ্রান্সের সেনাপতিদের কাছে। অন্য দিকে দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধে জাপান পরাজিত হয়ে আত্মসমর্পণ করেছিল সোভিয়েত ইউনিয়ন, মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র, গ্রেট ব্রিটেন, চীন, নেদারল্যান্ডস, আস্ট্রেলিয়া ও নিউজিল্যান্ডের কাছে পৃথক পৃথকভাবে। অন্য দিকে ১৯৭১-এ পাক বাহিনী কেবলই তদানীন-ন পূর্ব পাকিস্তানে আত্মসমর্পণ করেছিল এককভাবে ভারতীয় বাহিনীর কাছে। ভারত সে দিন বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিবাহিনীর সেনাপতি জেনারেল মোহাম্মদ আতাউল গনি ওসমানীকে আসতে দেয়নি রমনার মাঠে। যে কারণেই হোক, তাকে আটকে রাখা হয়েছিল কুমিল্লার ক্যান্টনমেন্টে। ভারত কেন এটা করেছিল তার কোনো ব্যাখ্যা এখন পর্যন্ত পাওয়া যায়নি। আর এর ফলে ১৯৭১ সালে যুদ্ধ খাতাপত্রে পরিচিত হয়ে আছে কেবল ভারত-পাকিস্তান যুদ্ধ হিসেবে। যদিও ১৯৭১ সালের যুদ্ধে বাংলাদেশের মানুষের সাহায্য-সহযোগিতা ছাড়া পাকিস্তানের সাথে যুদ্ধে কখনই ভারতের পক্ষে জেতা সম্ভব হতো না।

১৯৭১ সালের ডিসেম্বরে যে যুদ্ধ হয়, তা শেষ হয় ১৬ ডিসেম্বরে। ভারত একপক্ষীয়ভাবে ১৭ ডিসেম্বর ঘোষণা করে পশ্চিম পাকিস্তানের যুদ্ধবিরতি। ভারতের ব্রিগেডিয়ার আর এন মিশ্র যুদ্ধশেষে সাংবাদিকদের বলেন, মুক্তিবাহিনীর সহযোগিতা ছাড়া বাংলাদেশে যুদ্ধে জেতা সহজ হতো না। বাংলাদেশের মানুষ আমাদের নানাভাবে সহযোগিতা করেছেন। তাই আমরা যুদ্ধে বিজয়ী হতে পেরেছি। বাংলাদেশের মানুষ আমাদের বলেছে কোথায় কিভাবে পাক বাহিনী যুদ্ধে অবস্থান নিয়েছে। তারা দিয়েছেন আমাদের গোপন সংবাদ। এসব সংবাদ যুদ্ধে ভারতীয় সৈন্যকে বিশেষভাবে সাহাষ্য করেছে। বাংলাদেশের মানুষ ভারতীয় সৈন্যকে করেছে খাদ্য সরবরাহ। নৌকা দিয়ে সাহায্য করেছে নদী পার হতে। তাদের সাহায্য-সহযোগিতা ভারতের সেনাবাহিনীকে দিয়েছে মনোবল, দিয়েছে গতি। আর তাই ভারতীয় সৈন্য মরেছে কম। অনেক সহজেই যুদ্ধ করতে পেরেছে পাক বাহিনীর সাথে। মিশ্রর এই বিবৃতি থেকে সুস্পষ্ট হয়ে ওঠে ১৯৭১ সালের লড়াইয়ের চেহারা। কিন্তু পাক বাহিনী যেহেতু আত্মসমর্পণ করেছিল কেবল ভারতীয় সেনাদের হাতে, তাই যুদ্ধটা বিশ্ববাসীর কাছে এ সময় খ্যাত হয় কেবল পাক-ভারত যুদ্ধ হিসেবে। আর সিমলা চুক্তি সম্পন্ন হয় কেবল ভারত ও পাকিস্তানের মধ্যে। এতে বাংলাদেশ কোনো অংশ নিতে পারে না। কেন ১৯৭১-এর যুদ্ধে ভারত মুক্তিযুদ্ধের অধিনায়ককে রমনার ময়দানে আসতে দেয়নি সেটা আমরা বলেছি, এখনো আছে রহস্যময় হয়ে। তবে এর একটা কারণ হতে পারে মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের চাপ। মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র ১৩ ডিসেম্বর তাদের বিমানবাহী যুদ্ধজাহাজ এন্টারপ্রাইজকে বাহরাইন থেকে পাঠায় বঙ্গোপসাগরে। অন্য দিকে ভিয়েতনাম থেকে পাঠায় তাদের সপ্তম নৌবহরের একাধিক জাহাজ। এ সময় আমি ছিলাম কলকাতায়। কলকাতায় মানুষকে বলতে শুনেছি, মার্কিন প্রেসিডেন্ট নিক্সন নাকি বলেছেন তদানীন-ন পূর্ব পাকিস্তানে যুদ্ধ থামাতে। না হলে মার্কিন সৈন্য অবতরণ করবে তদানীন-ন পূর্ব পাকিস্তানে। তারা ধরে নেবে পূর্ব পাকিস্তান হচ্ছে পাকিস্তানের অংশ। পাকিস্তানের সাথে আছে মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের গোপন সামরিক চুক্তি। যাতে মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রে পাকিস্তানকে প্রতিরক্ষার ব্যাপারে সাহায্য করতে বাধ্য। মার্কিন চাপ ১৯৭১- এর ডিসেম্বরের যুদ্ধকে প্রশমিত করেছিল। মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র অবশ্য বাধা হয়ে দাঁড়ায়নি পৃথক বাংলাদেশ রাষ্ট্র গঠনে। তার ছিল ভিন্ন রকম পরিকল্পনা। সে ভেবেছিল বাংলাদেশে অনেক সহজে সে তার প্রভাব বিস্তার করতে পারবে। আর বাংলাদেশ হবে পাকিস্তানের চেয়ে তার অনুগত রাষ্ট্র। শেখ মুজিবুর রহমান রাজনীতি করেছেন মার্কিন সমর্থনে। মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র তাই ধরেই নিয়েছিল একটা পৃথক বাংলাদেশ হবে তার জন্য বিশেষ সহায়ক রাষ্ট্র; বৈরী রাষ্ট্র নয়। ১৯৭২ সালের ১৫ মার্চ বাংলাদেশ থেকে ভারতীয় সেনাবাহিনী স্বদেশে প্রত্যাবর্তন করে। এর মূলেও ছিল মার্কিন চাপ। ভারত স্বেচ্ছায় বাংলাদেশ থেকে তার সৈন্য সরায়নি। মার্কিন চাপেই সে বাধ্য হয় সৈন্য সরিয়ে নিতে। এসব কথা শুনেছি, একাধিক লোকের মুখে, কলকাতা থেকে দেশে ফেরার পর।

https://i1.wp.com/www.instablogsimages.com/images/2008/12/03/indo-pakistani_war_1971_submarine_syVe7_16298.jpg

সোভিয়েত জাহাজ থেকে টর্পেডো ছুড়ে ডুবিয়ে দেয়া হয় পাকিস্তানের ডুবোজাহাজ গাজীকে

আমি চাকরি করতাম রাজশাহী বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ে। সেখানে অনেক অধ্যাপকের কাছে অনেক কথা শুনেছি। বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ে ছিলেন পাকিস্তানের সমর্থক অধ্যাপক। বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ে ছিলেন মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের সমর্থক অধ্যাপক। আর ছিলেন ভারতের সমর্থক অধ্যাপকও। নানা রকম আলোচনা শুনেছি বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় মহলে। এ থেকে যে ধারণা আমার মনে গড়ে উঠেছে, তা হলো ১৯৭১-এর যুদ্ধে শেষ পর্যন্ত থেকেছে মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের চাপ খুবই প্রবলভাবে। ১৯৭১-এর যুদ্ধের গতি প্রকৃতিকে বিশ্লেষণ করতে হলে মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রকে বাদ দিয়ে করা যায় না। অন্য দিকে ১৯৭১-এ হয় সোভিয়েত ইউনিয়ন ও ভারতের মধ্যে বিশেষ মৈত্রী চুক্তি। এই যুদ্ধে তদানীন-ন সোভিয়েত ইউনিয়নেরও ছিল বিশেষ ভূমিকা। সোভিয়েত ইউনিয়ন ভারতকে যুদ্ধে সাহায্য করেছিল নেপথ্যে। প্রবাসী বাংলাদেশ সরকার সোভিয়েত ইউনিয়নকে কথা দেয় যে, বাংলাদেশ প্রতিষ্ঠিত হলে চট্টগ্রাম বন্দরে সোভিয়েত ইউনিয়ন পেতে পারবে নৌঘাঁটি গড়ার অধিকার; যদি সে সেটা চায়। চট্টগ্রাম বন্দর থাকবে সোভিয়েত নিয়ন্ত্রণে। সোভিয়েত নৌবাহিনীর জাহাজ ছিল দক্ষিণ ভারতের বিশাখাপত্তম বন্দরে। সোভিয়েত জাহাজ থেকে টর্পেডো ছুড়ে ডুবিয়ে দেয়া হয় পাকিস্তানের ডুবোজাহাজ গাজীকে। গাজী আসলে পাকিস্তানের জাহাজ ছিল না। মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র এটা পাকিস্তানকে ধার দিয়েছিল ১৯৬৪ সালে। নৌযুদ্ধে সোভিয়েত ইউনিয়ন অংশ নিয়েছিল। রুশ সেনাপতিরা ১৯৭১-এ ভারতকে রণকৌশল গঠনে দিয়েছিল বিশেষ সাহায্য-সহযোগিতা। পাকিস্তানের যুদ্ধ কেবল হয়ে থাকেনি ভারত-পাকিস্তানের মধ্যে যুদ্ধ। ১৯৭১-এর যুদ্ধ পরোক্ষভাবে হয়েছিল পাকিস্তান-সোভিয়েত যুদ্ধ। রণনীতিতে ভারতীয় সৈন্য উন্নত কৌশল প্রদর্শন করতে পেরেছিল সোভিয়েত ইউনিয়ন থেকে আসা বিশেষজ্ঞদের কারণে। অর্থাৎ ১৯৭১-এর পাক- ভারত যুদ্ধ কেবল ভারত-পাকিস্তানের মধ্যকার যুদ্ধ ছিল না। এতে জড়িয়ে পড়েছিল সোভিয়েত ইউনিয়ন ও মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রও। ইন্দিরা গান্ধী চাননি যুদ্ধ একটা বৃহত্তর আন্তর্জাতিক রূপ পরিগ্রহ করুক। ভারত তাই যুদ্ধকে সংক্ষিপ্ত করে। আর চায় না পাকিস্তানকে পুরোপুরি ধ্বংস করে দিতে। সে খুশি হয় সাবেক পাকিস্তানকে দ্বিখণ্ডিত করতে পেরেই। আজ যখন আমি ’৭১-এর যুদ্ধকে ফিরে দেখি, তখন এ রকমই মনে হয় আমার কাছে।
সিমলা চুক্তি নিয়ে বেশ কিছু আলোচনা করেছেন ভারতের একজন বিশিষ্ট রাজনৈতিক ব্যক্তিত্ব পিলু মোদি (Piloo Mody)। পিলু মোদি একটা বই লেখেন ১৯৭৩ সালে। বইটির নাম Zulfi my Friend|। পিলু মোদি ছিলেন জুলফিকার আলী ভুট্টোর বাল্যবন্ধু। তিনি তার বইয়ে জুলফিকার আলী ভুট্টো সম্পর্কে অনেক কিছু লিখেছেন। অনেক কিছু লিখেছেন সিমলা সম্মেলন সম্পর্কে। যা থেকে পাওয়া সম্ভব ইতিহাস লেখার বেশ কিছু উপকরণ। পিলু মোদি হিন্দু সমপ্রদায়ভুক্ত ব্যক্তি নন। তিনি হলেন ভারতীয় পারসি (Parsi) ধর্ম সমপ্রদায়ভুক্ত ব্যক্তি। ভারতে পারসি সমপ্রদায় জনসংখ্যার দিক খেকে খুবই নগণ্য। কিন্তু অর্থনীতি ও রাজনীতির ক্ষেত্রে এরা হলেন খুবই প্রতিপত্তিশালী। ভারতের সবচেয়ে বড় শিল্পপতি ছিলেন জমসেদজী টাটা (তাতা)। যিনি প্রতিষ্ঠা করে গেছেন টাটা কোম্পানি। ভারতের রাজনীতিতে পারসিরা রেখেছেন বিশেষ প্রভাব। ভারতের বিখ্যাত রাজনৈতিক দাদাভাই নৌরজি ছিলেন পারসি। নৌরজি প্রথম ভারতীয়দের মধ্যে ব্রিটিশ পার্লামেন্টে নির্বাচিত হন। এটা ছিল সে সময় একটা বিরাট ঘটনা। মিনুমাসানি ছিলেন ভারতের একজন বিশিষ্ট সমাজতান্ত্রিক নেতা। তিনি তার লেখার মাধ্যমে ভারতীয় রাজনীতিতে রেখেছেন বিশেষ প্রভাব। ভারতের বিখ্যাত বৈজ্ঞানিক হোমি জাহাঙ্গীর ভবা হলেন পারসি সমপ্রদায়ভুক্ত। মহাজাগতিক রশ্মি নিয়ে এর গবেষণা হয়ে আছে খুবই খ্যাত। ১৯৭১-এর যুদ্ধের সর্বাধিনায়ক এস এইচ এফ জে মানেক শ (পরে মার্শাল) ছিলেন পারসিক সমাজভুক্ত। পিলু মোদি ছিলেন ভারতীয় পার্লামেন্টের সদস্য এবং ভারতীয় স্বতন্ত্র দলের একজন খুবই নামকরা নেতা। ১৯৭২ সালে যখন সিমলা সম্মেলন হচ্ছিল তখন তিনি যান সিমলায়। দেখা করেন ভুট্টোর সাথে। তিনি তাকে দেন বহুবিধ পরামর্শ। এ রকম করাটা তার পক্ষে সম্ভব হয়েছিল তার বিশিষ্ট ব্যক্তিত্বের কারণেই। ইন্দিরা গান্ধী তাকে বিরত রাখতে পারেননি ভুট্টোর সাথে দেখা ও উপদেশ প্রদান করা থেকে। অন্য কোনো ব্যক্তি হলে তাকে চিহ্নিত হতে হতো ভারতীয় আইনানুসারে দেশদ্রোহী হিসেবে। কিন্তু পিলু মোদিকে তা হতে হয়নি। পিলু মোদি তার বইয়ে বলেছেন- ইন্দিরা গান্ধী সিমলা সম্মেলনে ওঠান যুদ্ধবন্দীদের মধ্যে কিছুসংখ্যক ব্যক্তিকে যুদ্ধাপরাধী হিসেবে বিচার করার প্রসঙ্গটি। জুলফিকার আলী ভুট্টো বলেন, এতে তার আপত্তি নেই। কিন্তু বিচার হতে হবে জেনেভা কনভেনশন অনুসারে। জেনেভা কনভেনশন অনুসারে যুদ্ধবন্দী হত্যা হলো অন্যতম যুদ্ধাপরাধ। জেনেভা কনভেনশনানুসারে যুদ্ধবন্দীকে হত্যা করা যায় না। কিন্তু পূর্ব পাকিস্তানে ইপিআর তাদের হাতে ধরা পড়া পাক বাহিনী সৈন্যকে বন্দী অবস্থায় হত্যা করেছে। জেনেভা কনভেনশনানুসারে হতে হবে তাদের বিচার। পিলু মোদি তার বইয়ে বলেছেন, যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচারের কথা উঠতে পারত কাদেরিয়া বাহিনী সম্পর্কে। কাদেরিয়া বাহিনীর নেতা কাদের সিদ্দিকী অমানবিকভাবে নির্বিচারে বিহারি হত্যা করেছেন। সেটাও পড়তে পারে যুদ্ধাপরাধেরই মধ্যে। ইন্দিরা গান্ধী তাই যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচার সম্পর্কে আর বেশি দূর অগ্রসর হতে চাননি। কারণ যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচার করতে গেলে দেখা দিত সমূহ জটিলতা। যুদ্ধাপরাধ ঘটেছে দুই পক্ষ থেকেই। এক পক্ষ থেকে নয়।
আন্তর্জাতিক নিয়মে করতে হতো যুদ্ধাপরাধের বিচার। আর আন্তর্জাতিক নিয়মে বিচার হলে, বিচারে পাকিস্তান পেতে পারত অধিক সুবিধা। এ কথা বলেছেন, পিলু মোদি তার লেখা Zulfi my Friend বইয়ে। পিলু মোদির মতে, জুলফিকার আলী ভুট্টো ও শেখ মুজিবের মধ্যে রাজনৈতিক বিরোধ ছিল যথেষ্ট গভীর। জুলফিকার আলী ভুট্টো ছিলেন বিশেষভাবেই দ্বিজাতিতত্ত্বে বিশ্বাসী। জুলফিকার আলী ভুট্টো ছিলেন সিন্ধি। কিন্তু তিনি কখনোই তোলেননি সিন্ধি জাতীয়তাবাদের ধ্বনি। কিন্তু শেখ মুজিব চেয়েছেন পাকিস্তানের মধ্যে থেকে বাঙালি জাতীয়তাবাদের ধ্বনি তুলে পাকিস্তানের প্রধানমন্ত্রী হতে। জনাব ভুট্টো মেনে নিতে পারেননি পাকিস্তানে বাঙালি জাতীয়তাবাদকে। তিনি মনে করেন বাঙালি জাতীয়তাবাদ দেবে সাবেক পাকিস্তানকে দ্বিখণ্ডিত করে। পরবর্তী ঘটনা ভুট্টোর ধারণাকে, পিলু মোদির মতে, যথার্থ প্রমাণ করেছে।
সিমলা চুক্তি অনুসারে যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচার প্রসঙ্গ আর ওঠা উচিত ছিল না। কিন্তু এখন নতুন করে উঠছে যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচার প্রসঙ্গ। এর একটি কারণ, বিশ্বরাজনীতির ধারা বিশেষভাবেই বদলে গেছে। মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র এক সময় তার পররাষ্ট্রনীতি নির্ধারণ করেছে কমিউনিজম রোধের লক্ষ্য সামনে রেখে। এখন তাকে পেয়ে বসেছে জঙ্গি ইসলাম আতঙ্কে। বর্তমানে বাংলাদেশে যাদের যুদ্ধাপরাধী হিসেবে বিচার করা হচ্ছে তাদের প্রায় সবাই সাধারণভাবে পরিচিত ইসলামপন্থী হিসেবে। ১৯৭১ সালে এরা সবাই ছিলেন অত্যন্ত তরুণ। এরা কতটা যুদ্ধাপরাধের সাথে জড়িত ছিলেন সেটা তর্কের বিষয়। শেখ মুজিব চাননি এদের বিচার করতে।কিন্তু এখন এদের উঠতে হচ্ছে বিচারের কাঠগড়ায়। মনে হচ্ছে, সারা দেশে অনেক যুদ্ধাপরাধী আছে। আর তারা হয়ে উঠেছে বাংলাদেশের রাজনীতির প্রধান সমস্যা। কয়েক মাস আগে বাংলাদেশে এসেছিলেন ভারতের প্রধানমন্ত্রী মনমোহন সিং। মনমোহন সিং বাংলাদেশে সফরে আসার ঠিক আগে দিয়ে বলেন যে, বাংলাদেশ ভরে উঠেছে মুসলিম মৌলবাদে। মুসলিম মৌলবাদী দল জামায়াতে ইসলামীকে সমর্থন করে বাংলাদেশের শতকরা ২৫ ভাগ মানুষ। পরে তিনি তার এই বক্তব্যকে প্রত্যাহার করে নেন। মনে হচ্ছে জামায়াতকে ধ্বংস করার লক্ষ্যে বিশেষ করে উঠানো হচ্ছে যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচারের প্রসঙ্গটি। এ ক্ষেত্রে আছে ভারতেরও একটি ভূমিকা। বর্তমান আওয়ামী লীগ সরকার ভারত ও মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের সমর্থন লাভের আশায় উদ্যোগ নিয়েছে যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচারের। অথচ ১৯৭২-এর সিমলা চুক্তি অনুসারে এ রকম বিচার অনুষ্ঠান হওয়া উচিত ছিল না। সিমলা চুক্তির কোনো মূল্য এখন আর নেই।

লেখক : প্রবীণ শিক্ষাবিদ ও কলামিস্ট

সূত্রঃ https://i2.wp.com/www.dailynayadiganta.com/images/logo.gif

 

Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”: Divide, Conquer and Rule the “New Middle East”

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The name “Arab Spring” is a catch phrase concocted in distant offices in Washington, London, Paris, and Brussels by individuals and groups who, other than having some superficial knowledge of the region, know very little about the Arabs. What is unfolding amongst the Arab peoples is naturally a mixed package. Insurgency is part of this package as is opportunism. Where there is revolution, there is always counter-revolution.

http://ssclinguafranca.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/arab_world.gif

The upheavals in the Arab World are not an Arab “awakening” either; such a term implies that the Arabs have always been sleeping while dictatorship and injustice has been surrounding them. In reality the Arab World, which is part of the broader Turko-Arabo-Iranic World, has been filled with frequent revolts that have been put down by the Arab dictators in coordination with countries like the United States, Britain, and France. It has been the interference of these powers that has always acted as a counter-balance to democracy and it will continue to do so.

Divide and Conquer: How the First “Arab Spring” was Manipulated

The plans for reconfiguring the Middle East started several years before the First World War. It was during the First World War, however, that the manifestation of these colonial designs could visibly be seen with the “Great Arab Revolt” against the Ottoman Empire.

Despite the fact that the British, French, and Italians were colonial powers which had prevented the Arabs from enjoying any freedom in countries like Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan, these colonial powers managed to portray themselves as the friends and allies of Arab liberation.

During the “Great Arab Revolt” the British and the French actually used the Arabs as foot soldiers against the Ottomans to further their own geo-political schemes. The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement between London and Paris is a case in point. France and Britain merely managed to use and manipulate the Arabs by selling them the idea of Arab liberation from the so-called “repression” of the Ottomans.

https://i1.wp.com/ancienttimetraveler.pbworks.com/f/1274993759/Ottoman%20Empire%20Pic%202.gif

The Ottoman Empire at its greatest extent


In reality, the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic empire. It gave local and cultural autonomy to all its peoples, but was manipulated into the direction of becoming a Turkish entity. Even the Armenian Genocide that would ensue in Ottoman Anatolia has to be analyzed in the same context as the contemporary targeting of Christians in Iraq as part of a sectarian scheme unleashed by external actors to divide the Ottoman Empire, Anatolia, and the citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it was London and Paris which denied freedom to the Arabs, while sowing the seeds of discord amongst the Arab peoples. Local corrupt Arab leaders were also partners in the project and many of them were all too happy to become clients of Britain and France. In the same sense, the “Arab Spring” is being manipulated today. The U.S., Britain, France, and others are now working with the help of corrupt Arab leaders and figures to restructure the Arab World and Africa.

The Yinon Plan: Order from Chaos…

http://winteryknight.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/map_of_middle_east.png

The Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem in the Middle East, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

https://i0.wp.com/www.voltairenet.org/IMG/jpg/MAP.jpg

The above Yinon Plan map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

Securing the Realm: Redefining the Arab World…

https://i1.wp.com/www.persiancarpetguide.com/sw-asia/People/images/Bio995a.jpg

Richard Perle

Although tweaked, the Yinon Plan is in motion and coming to life under the “Clean Break.” This is through a policy document written in 1996 by Richard Perle and the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000” for Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel at the time. Perle was a former Pentagon under-secretary for Roland Reagan at the time and later a U.S. military advisor to George W. Bush Jr. and the White House. Aside from Perle, the rest of the members of the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000” consisted of James Colbert (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), Charles Fairbanks Jr. (Johns Hopkins University), Douglas Feith (Feith and Zell Associates), Robert Loewenberg (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), Jonathan Torop (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), David Wurmser (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), and Meyrav Wurmser (Johns Hopkins University). A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is the full name of this 1996 Israel policy paper.

In many regards, the U.S. is executing the objectives outlined in Tel Aviv’s 1996 policy paper to secure the “realm.” Moreover, the term “realm” implies the strategic mentality of the authors. A realm refers to either the territory ruled by a monarch or the territories that fall under a monarch’s reign, but are not physically under their control and have vassals running them. In this context, the word realm is being used to denote the Middle East as the kingdom of Tel Aviv. The fact that Perle, someone who has essentially been a career Pentagon official, helped author the Israeli paper also makes one ask if the conceptualized sovereign of the realm is either Israel, the United States, or both?

Securing the Realm: The Israeli Blueprints to Destabilize Damascus

The 1996 Israeli document calls for “rolling back Syria” sometime around the year 2000 or afterward by pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon and destabilizing the Syrian Arab Republic with the help of Jordan and Turkey. This has respectively taken place in 2005 and 2011.

The 1996 document states:

“Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” [1]

As a first step towards creating an Israeli-dominated “New Middle East” and encircling Syria, the 1996 document calls for removing President Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad and even alludes to the balkanization of Iraq and forging a strategic regional alliance against Damascus that includes a Sunni Muslim “Central Iraq.”

The authors write:

“But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the ‘natural axis’ with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria’s territorial integrity.” [2]

Perle and the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000” also call for driving the Syrians out of Lebanon and destabilizing Syria by using Lebanese opposition figures.

The document states:

“[Israel must divert] Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.” [3]

This is what would happen in 2005 after the Hariri Assassination that helped launch the so-called “Cedar Revolution” and create the vehemently anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance controlled by the corrupt Said Hariri.

The document also calls for Tel Aviv to “take [the] opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime.” [4] This clearly falls into the Israeli strategy of demonizing its opponents through using public relations (PR) campaigns. In 2009, Israeli news media openly admitted that Tel Aviv through its embassies and diplomatic missions had launched a global campaign to discredit the Iranian presidential elections before they even took place through a media campaign and organizing protests in front of Iranian embassies. [5]

The document also mentions something that resembles what is currently going on in Syria.

It states:

“Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.” [6]

With the 2011 upheaval in Syria, the movement of insurgents and the smuggling of weapons through the Jordanian and Turkish borders has become a major problem for Damascus.

”]https://i1.wp.com/www.popular-pics.com/PPImages/Redrawing-New-Middle-East-Map.jpg

In this context, it is no surprise that Arial Sharon and Israel told Washington to attack Syria, Libya, and Iran after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. [7] Finally, it is worth knowing that the Israeli document also advocated for pre-emptive war to shape Israel’s geo-strategic environment and to carve out the “New Middle East.” [8] This is a policy that the U.S. would also adopt in 2001.

The Eradication of the Christian Communities of the Middle East

It is no coincidence that Egyptian Christians were attacked at the same time as the South Sudan Referendum and before the crisis in Libya. Nor is it a coincidence that Iraqi Christians, one of the world’s oldest Christian communities, have been forced into exile, leaving their ancestral homelands in Iraq. Coinciding with the exodus of Iraqi Christians, which occurred under the watchful eyes of U.S. and British military forces, the neighbourhoods in Baghdad became sectarian as Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims were forced by violence and death squads to form sectarian enclaves. This is all tied to the Yinon Plan and the reconfiguration of the region as part of a broader objective.

In Iran, the Israelis have been trying in vain to get the Iranian Jewish community to leave. Iran’s Jewish population is actually the second largest in the Middle East and arguably the oldest undisturbed Jewish community in the world. Iranian Jews view themselves as Iranians who are tied to Iran as their homeland, just like Muslim and Christian Iranians, and for them the concept that they need to relocate to Israel because they are Jewish is ridiculous.

In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exacerbate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. Lebanon is a springboard into Syria and the division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means for balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan are to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze. There could also be objectives for a Christian exodus in Syria too.

The new head of the Maronite Catholic Syriac Church of Antioch, the largest of the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches, has expressed his fears about a purging of Arab Christians in the Levant and Middle East. Patriarch Mar Beshara Boutros Al-Rahi and many other Christian leaders in Lebanon and Syria are afraid of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Syria. Like Iraq, mysterious groups are now attacking the Christian communities in Syria. The leaders of the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church, including the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, have also all publicly expressed their grave concerns. Aside from the Christian Arabs, these fears are also shared by the Assyrian and Armenian communities, which are mostly Christian.

https://i0.wp.com/www.dailystar.com.lb/dailystar/Pictures/2011/09/23/raii_634508972778665956_634523992067237801_main.jpg

The Maronite Patriarch and President Nicolas Sarkozy

Sheikh Al-Rahi was recently in Paris where he met President Nicolas Sarkozy. It is reported that the Maronite Patriarch and Sarkozy had disagreements about Syria, which prompted Sarkozy to say that the Syrian regime will collapse. Patriarch Al-Rahi’s position was that Syria should be left alone and allowed to reform. The Maronite Patriarch also told Sarkozy that Israel needed to be dealt with as a threat if France legitimately wanted Hezbollah to disarm.

Because of his position in France, Al-Rahi was instantly thanked by the Christian and Muslim religious leaders of the Syrian Arab Republic who visited him in Lebanon. Hezbollah and its political allies in Lebanon, which includes most the Christian parliamentarians in the Lebanese Parliament, also lauded the Maronite Patriarch who later went on a tour to South Lebanon.

Sheikh Al-Rahi is now being politically attacked by the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance, because of his stance on Hezbollah and his refusal to support the toppling of the Syrian regime. A conference of Christian figures is actually being planned by Hariri to oppose Patriarch Al-Rahi and the stance of the Maronite Church. Since Al-Rahi announced his position, the Tahrir Party, which is active in both Lebanon and Syria, has also started targeting him with criticism. It has also been reported that high-ranking U.S. officials have also cancelled their meetings with the Maronite Patriarch as a sign of their displeasure about his positions on Hezbollah and Syria.

The Hariri-led March 14 Alliance in Lebanon, which has always been a popular minority (even when it was a parliamentary majority), has been working hand-in-hand with the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the groups using violence and terrorism in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood and other so-called Salafist groups from Syria have been coordinating and holding secret talks with Hariri and the Christian political parties in the March 14 Alliance. This is why Hariri and his allies have turned on Cardinal Al-Rahi. It was also Hariri and the March 14 Alliance that brought Fatah Al-Islam into Lebanon and have now helped some of its members escape to go and fight in Syria.

There are unknown snippers who are targeting Syrian civilians and the Syrian Army with a view of causing chaos and internal fighting. The Christian communities in Syria are also being targeted by unknown groups. It is very likely that the attackers are a coalition of U.S., French, Jordanian, Israeli, Turkish, Saudi, and Khalij (Gulf) Arab forces working with some Syrians on the inside.

A Christian exodus is being planned for the Middle East by Washington, Tel Aviv, and Brussels. It has been reported that Sheikh Al-Rahi was told in Paris by President Nicolas Sarkozy that the Christian communities of the Levant and Middle East can resettle in the European Union. This is no gracious offer. It is a slap in the face by the same powers that have deliberately created the conditions to eradicate the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. The aim appears to be either the resettling of the Christian communities outside of the region or demarcate them into enclaves. Both could be objectives.

This project is meant to delineate the Arab nations along the lines of being exclusively Muslim nations and falls into accordance with both the Yinon Plan and the geo-political objectives of the U.S. to control Eurasia. A major war may be its outcome. Arab Christians now have a lot in common with black-skinned Arabs.

Re-Dividing Africa: The Yinon Plan is very Much Alive and at Work…

In regards to Africa, Tel Aviv sees securing Africa as part of its broader periphery. This broader or so-called “new periphery” became a basis of geo-strategy for Tel Aviv after 1979 when the “old periphery” against the Arabs that included Iran, which was one of Israel’s closest allies during the Pahlavi period, buckled and collapsed with the 1979 Iranian Revolution. In this context, Israel’s “new periphery” was conceptualized with the inclusion of countries like Ethiopia, Uganda, and Kenya against the Arab states and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is why Israel has been so deeply involved in the balkanization of Sudan.

In the same context as the sectarian divisions in the Middle East, the Israelis have outlined plans to reconfigure Africa. The Yinon Plan seeks to delineate Africa on the basis of three facets: (1) ethno-linguistics; (2) skin-colour; and, finally, (3) religion. To secure the realm, it also so happens that the the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), the Israeli think-tank that included Perle, also pushed for the creating of the Pentagon’s U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway. It seeks to draw dividing lines in Africa between a so-called “Black Africa” and a supposedly “non-Black” North Africa. This is part of a scheme to create a schism in Africa between what are assumed to be “Arabs” and so-called “Blacks.”

This objective is why the ridiculous identity of an “African South Sudan” and an “Arab North Sudan” have been nurtured and promoted. This is also why black-skinned Libyans have been targeted in a campaign to “colour cleanse” Libya. The Arab identity in North Africa is being de-linked from its African identity. Simultaneously there is an attempt to eradicate the large populations of “black-skinned Arabs” so that there is a clear delineation between “Black Africa” and a new “non-Black” North Africa, which will be turned into a fighting ground between the remaining “non-Black” Berbers and Arabs.

In the same context, tensions are being fomented between Muslims and Christians in Africa, in such places as Sudan and Nigeria, to further create lines and fracture points. The fuelling of these divisions on the basis of skin-colour, religion, ethnicity, and language is intended to fuel disassociation and disunity in Africa. This is all part of a broader African strategy of cutting North Africa off from the rest of the African continent.

Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”

https://wakeupbd.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/clashofcivilizationscrop.jpg?w=200

 

It is at this point that all the pieces have to be put together and the dots have to be connected.


The chessboard is being staged for a “Clash of Civilizations” and all the chess pieces are being put into place.  The Arab World is in the process of being cordoned off and sharp delineation lines are being created. These lines of delineation are replacing the seamless lines of transition between different ethno-linguistic, skin-colour, and religious groups.

Under this scheme, there can no longer be a melding transition between societies and countries. This is why the Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, such as the Copts, are being targeted. This is also why black-skinned Arabs and black-skinned Berbers, as well as other North African population groups which are black-skinned, are facing genocide in North Africa.

After Iraq and Egypt, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic are both important points of regional destabilization in North Africa and Southeast Asia respectively. What happens in Libya will have rippling effects on Africa, as what happens in Syria will have rippling effects on Southeast Asia and beyond. Both Iraq and Egypt, in connection with what the Yinon Plan states, have acted as primers for the destabilization of both these Arab states.

What is being staged is the creation of an exclusively “Muslim Middle East” area (excluding Israel) that will be in turmoil over Shiite-Sunni fighting. A similar scenario is being staged for a “non-Black North Africa” area which will be characterized by a confrontation between Arabs and Berber. At the same time, under the “Clash of Civilizations” model, the Middle East and North Africa are slated to simultaneously be in conflict with the so-called “West” and “Black Africa.”

This is why both Nicolas Sarzoky, in France, and David Cameron, in Britain, made back-to-back declarations during the start of the conflict in Libya that multiculturalism is dead in their respective Western European societies. [9] Real multiculturalism threatens the legitimacy of the NATO war agenda. It also constitutes an obstacle to the implementation of the “Clash of Civilizations” which constitutes the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.

In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor, explains why multiculturalism is a threat to Washington and its allies: “[A]s America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [e.g., war with the Arab World, China, Iran, or Russia and the former Soviet Union], except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War [and exists now because of the ‘Global War on Terror’].” [10] Brzezinski’s next sentence is the qualifier of why populations would oppose or support wars: “[The consensus] was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms.” [11]

Risking being redundant, it has to be mentioned again that it is precisely with the intention of breaking these cultural affinities between the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region and the so-called “Western World” and sub-Saharan Africa that Christians and black-skinned peoples are being targeted.

Ethnocentrism and Ideology: Justifying Today’s “Just Wars”

In the past, the colonial powers of Western Europe would indoctrinate their people. Their objective was to acquire popular support for colonial conquest. This took the form of spreading Christianity and promoting Christian values with the support of armed merchants and colonial armies.

At the same time, racist ideologies were put forth. The people whose lands were colonized were portrayed as “sub-human,” inferior, or soulless. Finally, the “White Man’s burden” of taking on a mission of civilizing the so-called “uncivilized peoples of the world” was used. This cohesive ideological framework was used to portray colonialism as a “just cause.” The latter in turn was used to provide legitimacy to the waging of “just wars” as a means to conquering and “civilizing” foreign lands.

Today, the imperialist designs of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany have not changed. What has changed is the pretext and justification for waging their neo-colonial wars of conquest. During the colonial period, the narratives and justifications for waging war were accepted by public opinion in the colonizing countries, such as Britain and France. Today’s “just wars” and “just causes” are now being conducted under the banners of women’s rights, human rights, humanitarianism, and democracy.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an award-winning writer from Ottawa, Canada. He is a Sociologist and Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He was a witness to the “Arab Spring” in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign he was Special Correspondent for the syndicated investigative KPFA program Flashpoints, which is aired from Berkeley, California.

NOTES

[1] Richard Perle et al., A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (Washington, D.C. and Tel Aviv: Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), 1996.
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Ibid.
 [5] Barak Ravid, “Israeli diplomats told to take offensive in PR war against Iran,” Haaretz, June 1, 2009.
[6] Perle et al., Clean Break, op. cit.
[7] Aluf Benn, “Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria,” Haaretz, September 30, 2009.
[8] Richard Perle et al., Clean Break, op. cit.
[9] Robert Marquand,”Why Europe is turning away from multiculturalism,” Christian Science Monitor, March 4, 2011.
[10] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books October 1997), p.211
[11]
Ibid.

Source:

https://i0.wp.com/www.globalresearch.ca/site_images/topbanner.jpg

 

U.S. Invented Soviet Threat

Kurt Nimmo

photo

According to former CIA agents and historians participating in a forum held at the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston, in the early 1960s the U.S. government invented the so-called “Missile Gap” and wildly over-estimated the number of ICBMs the Soviet Union had.

https://i0.wp.com/blog.kievukraine.info/uploaded_images/5565-788557.jpg

A Russian SS-27 Topol-M mobile ICBM

How many ICBMs did the Soviets actually have? Four, according to declassified documents.

The Eisenhower administration used aerial reconnaissance and imaging satellites like the Corona Satellite to discover that the Soviets did not have the advanced technology to threaten the U.S.

As a growing number of historians have realized for years, the so-called Cold War was largely an illusion – known as “policy by press release” – invented by the military industrial complex, the same folks who are selling us new wars and conjured-up threats from the likes of al-Qaeda and now the so-called Haqqani network.

“The study of the Missile Gap period is especially relevant because it relates to today’s situation in Iraq, North Korea, and Iran, said historian and author Fred Kaplan and Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum and a former Harvard student,” writes Laya Anasu for The Crimson.

The invented Missile Gap – an extension of the supposed Bomber Gap – is part of a larger reality that we never hear about and is not revealed in most history books: the entire Soviet threat was invented by Wall Street and the international bankers.

In Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1945 to 1965 written by the late Antony Sutton, we discover that if not for a massive transfer of technology and money to the Bolsheviks in the 1920s and later, Russia would have remained an isolated and backwards rural society. Sutton drew his conclusions after reviewing State Department documents.

 

Antony Sutton: The Best Enemies Money Can Buy.

 

“Soviet exports in the late sixties were still those of a backward, underdeveloped country. They consisted chiefly of raw materials and semi-manufactured goods,” Sutton writes in the conclusion of his trilogy. “When manufactured goods were exported they were simple machine tools and vehicles based on Western designs, and they were exported to underdeveloped areas,” he writes.

And yet we were expected to believe at the time that the Soviet Union had developed and manufactured a burgeoning arsenal of sophisticated nuclear weapons.

“In the Bolshevik Revolution we see many of the same old faces that were responsible for creating the Federal Reserve System, initiating the graduated income tax, setting up the tax-free foundations and pushing us into WWI,” writes Gary Allen.

It was “a tiny oligarchical clique at the top” that created the Soviet Union, not because the elite are communists, but because communism is “a method to consolidate and control the wealth” and ultimately build ”an all-powerful world, socialist super-state,” a state we are now beginning to see as the bankers take down the global economy.

We need to keep this in mind as the elite, through their academics and corporate media, try to sell us new threats, for instance the Haqqani terror network recently pushed by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Mike Mullen, as he lectured the Senate Armed Services Committee last week.

 

 

The corporate media reports that Haqqani is a veritable arm of Pakistan’s ISI, but what they don’t tell you is that the ISI is a creation of British intelligence – shepherded by Major General Walter Joseph Cawthorn, working for MI-6 – and the terror organizations now supposedly threatening the United States (and subsequently replacing the facile threat of the Soviet Union) were created through a collaboration between the ISI and the CIA, beginning in the early 1980s, a fact admitted by none other than the New York Times.

The elite invent scary threats and push them off on us, knowing that we will usually take the bait, as the mass hysteria – and curtailment of our liberties – demonstrated after we were sold the fairy tale that a gaggle of Muslim cave dwellers made NORAD stand down and waved a magic wand that suspended the laws of physics of September 11, 2011.

Source:

https://i2.wp.com/static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/header4.jpg

Britain’s Biggest Ever Traitor

Red Sonia, Christine Keeler And The Final, Damning Evidence

By Chapman Pincher

Spy: Chapman Pincher is convinced that Roger Hollis had connections with the Soviet secret services

Espionage never ceases, and that applies with particular force to the Russians, whose activities are now almost back to Cold War levels.

While MI5 concentrates on countering terrorism, the Russian intelligence services have increased the number of officers posing as diplomats and trade officials in London, with others in hidden roles.

191: Russia's SVR/FSB/GRU Intelligence: An Introduction to Today's Russian Intelligence and Counterintelligence Operations and Methodologies

Russia's SVR/FSB/GRU Intelligence

Russian bombers are once again probing UK air space. Russian nuclear submarines are testing our sonar defences. The murder of the dissident Russian Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006 suggests that the FSB, the successor to the KGB, is still prepared to indulge in assassination.

In this context, the long decades of betrayal by otherwise respectable Britons, and the appalling penetration by Soviet ‘moles’ of our security services before, during and after the Second World War, expose lessons that must be learnt and applied in the immediate future.

https://i2.wp.com/www.covertspyshop.com/The_Cold_War.jpg

Their treachery not only threatened British and American forces but placed the whole free world in jeopardy during the Cold War that followed.

https://i0.wp.com/www.animationmagazine.net/images/spy_vs_spy_2.gif

Could ineptitude on such a scale by the British security service be due entirely to incompetence? Or was there at least one longserving penetration agent  –  a ‘supermole’  –  inside MI5, not only supplying the Kremlin with British and American defence and intelligence secrets but also protecting its other spies and agents, whenever practicable, by preventing effective action against them?

https://i0.wp.com/www.photos4travel.com/russia/moscow/photos/Kremlin.jpg

Kremlin

The responsible authorities have consistently ensured that the full truth is withheld. But if one imagines a magic compass that could be placed over any suspicious set of circumstances affecting MI5’s counter-measures to the Soviet intelligence assault, the needle almost invariably points to the man who served in the agency for 27 years and became its chief.

The serial culpability of Roger Hollis for security disasters can no longer be in doubt.

There was little attention paid in this country when, late in September 2000, Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, awarded the posthumous title ‘Super-agent of Military Intelligence’ to Ursula Beurton, a former British housewife. But the tribute from Putin drew attention to a dark corner of British espionage history that is still the cause of dispute and controversy today.

It was an unprecedented honour for a woman who had already held two Orders of the Red Banner for her activities in several countries, especially in Britain. Here, she is better known by her Soviet code name, Sonia.

Sixties scandal: Hollis learnt of the affair between John Profumo - pictured with his wife Valerie - and Christina Keeler many months before it became public - yet he chose not to warn ministers

Sixties scandal: Hollis learnt of the affair between John Profumo – pictured with his wife Valerie – and Christina Keeler many months before it became public – yet he chose not to warn ministers

For some reason, neither Sonia’s name nor her deeds are mentioned in the recently published The Defence Of The Realm: The Authorised History Of MI5. Yet between 1941 and 1950, Ursula Beurton, who had posed as a German refugee, had been a prime mover in the theft of British and American atomic bomb secrets, passing them directly to her handlers in the Red Army intelligence service, the GRU.

https://wakeupbd.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/redsquare_parade_1941.jpg?w=300

The Red Army

Late one September night in 1943, she pulled off her most astonishing coup of all from a simple cottage in Oxford. Having taken her miniature high-tech radio transmitter from a cavity in the stone wall of the garden, Sonia, then 36, sat at a kitchen table downstairs. She had laboriously converted the document she had acquired, letter by letter, into code. Then, having rechecked it, she began to tap out her signal in Morse.

The tall aerial she had strung up with the permission of the owner of the house next door  –  ostensibly to serve her large conventional radio set  –  ensured that her efforts reached the Kremlin, where Stalin himself quickly rated her intelligence as of the greatest value.

For the first time, the Russian leadership knew that the US and Great Britain were creating an atomic military alliance  –  and that they were going to hide it from the Soviets, their wartime ally.

The document she transmitted was the top-secret Quebec Agreement between Churchill and Roosevelt, confirming their intention to go into nuclear partnership. It had been signed only 16 days beforehand, with circulation restricted to the very highest chiefs of staff.

Red Sonia: Christine Keeler was also seeing Russian spy Eugene Ivanov at the same time as she was seeing British MP John Profumo

Red Sonia: Christine Keeler was also seeing Russian spy Eugene Ivanov at the same time as she was seeing British MP John Profumo

It is almost inconceivable that Sonia could have achieved this and other spying triumphs without the aid of a senior figure within MI5 itself: tantalising proof that she had a high-level British protector whose name has been withheld to this day by the Russian authorities.

The strangely intertwined careers of Ursula Beurton and Roger Hollis, the failed student who rose to become head of British counter-intelligence, merit more than mere suspicion.

Even by conventional standards, Hollis had a far from unblemished record. From the Forties to the Sixties, the security services were hit with a series of disasters, from the case of the atomic traitor Klaus Fuchs, to the security catastrophe that was the Profumo scandal, and the defections of Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess and Kim Philby, all of whom escaped to the Eastern Bloc with ease.

Throughout this period, the methods used by Hollis and his curious unwillingness to take action were the cause of consternation among many of his colleagues. The serial failings seemed to indicate that deep within the service there was an active Soviet mole who was aiding Russia and hindering Britain.

Even today, thanks to the help of the Russian historian Dr Svetlana Chervonnaya, I am unearthing fresh revelations. We can now prove, for example, that such a double agent did indeed exist. Intelligence messages and a crucial Russian document provided by the former KGB officer Alexander Vassiliev showed that a GRU agent codenamed Elli worked inside British intelligence.

https://i2.wp.com/images.wikia.com/cybernations/images/1/17/Kgb.jpg

We can demonstrate that, despite claims to the contrary, Hollis was in charge of Soviet counter-espionage during the Second World War, while the steady release of material from secret Soviet archives is revealing a staggering scale of wartime penetration by Soviet agents. It was thanks in part to a level of competition between the KGB and GUR  –  each running its own spy network  –  that has not until now been understood.

[GRU+emblem.png]

GRU

All of these new findings accord with the guilt of Roger Hollis.

The first clue to the existence of a highly placed Soviet agent was provided in 1945 by a 26-year-old Red Army cipher clerk called Igor Gouzenko who was posted to Canada.

https://i1.wp.com/www.campxhistoricalsociety.ca/igouzenko/Web%20Gouzenko%20%20Web.jpg

Red Army cipher clerk Igor Gouzenko

Hating the thought of returning to Moscow, he defected. Under questioning, and in the course of exposing many Canadians, he also revealed he had seen evidence that Moscow ‘had an inside track in MI5’.

He also knew that the code-name of that mole was Elli.

During the course of the wartime period in which Gouzenko was party to Elli messages, there was only one member of MI5 who had access to the relevant files.

This was Roger Hollis, the officer in charge of Soviet counter-espionage, then based at MI5’s wartime HQ in the requisitioned Blenheim Palace.

https://i1.wp.com/www.fas.org/irp/world/uk/mi5/mi5_2.gif

MI5

The possibility of Hollis being ‘Elli’ was truly frightening, because he remained in MI5 for 27 years, heading it for nine. An MI5 chief who was a Soviet agent would have been privy to almost every state secret, including details of preparations for war.

Many find it hard to believe that Hollis, who was the son of a bishop, could have become a Soviet agent. Born in Wells in 1905, as a teenager Hollis was an assiduous worker. But he led a rumbustious life at Oxford, drinking heavily, and he left the university before taking his degree. Later, he would say he left Oxford of his own choice, but he never gave a satisfactory explanation of why his next move was to seek his fortune in China.

He travelled to Shanghai in 1927 and got a job with the British American Tobacco company. The city was teeming with agents, including many working for the Soviets.

Spy master: Roger Hollis, pictured with his second wife Val after he retired, is Britain's biggest ever traitor, according to Pincher

Spy master: Roger Hollis, pictured with his second wife Val after he retired, is Britain’s biggest ever traitor, according to Pincher

A couple of years later, a 23-yearold slim, dark-haired German girl called Ursula Hamburger arrived in Shanghai, where she was drafted into the network of the local GUR recruiter and given the code name Sonia. She underwent six months of training in wireless telegraphy, including the construction of clandestine transmitters and micro-photography. When qualified, this exceptionally able young woman was told that she was now with the Red Army and had been awarded the rank of captain. She was told that ‘much lay ahead for her’.

It seems likely that Hollis and Sonia met. Hollis became friends with a German man, Arthur Ewert, who was in turn a close friend of Sonia. According to a document seen by a Moscow intelligence source, Sonia later alerted her superiors about the ‘ripeness of Hollis for recruitment’.

Hollis returned to England in 1934 without a job. He failed to get a post with The Times  –  traditionally a recruiting ground for the British security services  –  but through his new wife, Eve Swayne, he met contacts who introduced him to recruiters for MI5.

Hollis remained silent about his past associations with communist friends. Positive vetting did not exist at that time; a ‘good background’ was considered sufficient. He swiftly rose through the ranks and, during the Second World War, found himself in charge of countering Soviet espionage.

Sonia, too, was prospering. Stationed in Switzerland in the late Thirties, she received instructions to secure British nationality by divorcing her husband and marrying one of her English recruits. She did not demur. She applied for a British passport on March 11, 1940, and posed as a Jewish German refugee, stating that she was fearful that Switzerland would be invaded.

Her orders were to establish herself in Oxford. This was just weeks after MI5 had been moved out of London to Blenheim, nine miles away from Oxford.

Official documents have since revealed that certain MI5 officers realised at the time that Sonia’s marriage had been one of convenience to secure nationality and that there was further cause for suspicion as her new husband was himself suspected of espionage. Despite this, Hollis’s supporters have claimed that he could not be blamed for failing to detect her activities, virtually under his nose at Blenheim, because he did not know that she was there.

During the years of her eventual safe retirement in East Germany  –  she slipped out of Britain in 1950  –  Sonia claimed that she came to believe that someone in MI5 had been protecting her.

https://i2.wp.com/www.nndb.com/people/565/000088301/fuchs-sm.jpg

Dr Klaus Fuchs

Another memorable figure in the troubled history of the intelligence service was Dr Klaus Fuchs, head of the Department of Theoretical Physics at the atomic energy research establishment based in the village of Harwell, again near Oxford.

Fuchs, another German refugee, had been cleared to work by Hollis and a colleague in 1941, despite warnings from another MI5 officer that Fuchs was ‘very well known in communist circles’. The officer declared: ‘Perhaps, it would be as well to warn the Ministry of Atomic Production of this man’s connections.’

Nothing was done by Hollis, whose inaction in such circumstances was to become his trademark.
Fuchs went on to establish contact with Sonia. It was to her that he passed details of the atomic bomb, on the platform at Banbury station. He gave her more than 100 pages of drawings and formulae.

In one respect, at least, it is a surprise that she could get the information out of Britain. The Radio Security Service had been established to ‘intercept illicit transmissions’ by enemy agents. Illegal transmissions were indeed detected in the Oxford area. MI5 was alerted. But no action was taken.

The day that Sonia transmitted the information  –  September 4  –  was a day when it was highly likely that Hollis was in the Blenheim and Oxford area, vetting scientists for dispatch to America. Indeed, Hollis was in charge of vetting Klaus Fuchs for such a transfer across the Atlantic.

Calamitously, he reported that the scientist was politically inactive and there were no security objections to him.

Not what it seems: 'Buster' Crabb vanished during a reconnaissance mission around a Soviet cruiser in 1956 - fuelling suspicion that the Soviet naval ranks had been tipped off

Not what it seems: ‘Buster’ Crabb vanished during a reconnaissance mission around a Soviet cruiser in 1956 – fuelling suspicion that the Soviet naval ranks had been tipped off

Hollis’s strangely passive understanding of his role in counterespionage was summed up by fellow officer Guy Lidell, who wrote: ‘Roger’s view is that the country is full of evilly intentioned persons but there is no necessity to drag them out of their holes. They had much better be left to rot in obscurity.’

This might explain the level of Soviet penetration. Fresh examples continue to emerge. I can reveal that the combined researches of Dr Chervonnaya and myself have identified James MacGibbon, a well-known figure in the publishing world, as a ‘super agent’ known as Milord, who supplied the Russian Embassy with copious material garnered from the MI6 interception centre at Bletchley Park, Buckinghamshire.

Milord, who worked in the War Office, stole so much information derived from secret German radio messages that at one point it was proposed that he fill a diplomatic bag with the transcripts. MacGibbon was given the Order of Lenin, one of the highest Soviet honours. But he died in respectability aged 88, his neighbours none the wiser.

Despite a confession, released after his death, the MacGibbon case was entirely ignored in The Authorised History Of MI5.

By 1956, Roger Hollis had risen to become head of MI5. These were difficult years for the service.

The war had seen great intelligence successes against the Nazis, the years after were disastrous.

The ‘Buster’ Crabb case was yet another cause of embarrassment
and suspicion. In 1956, Russian ships arrived in Portsmouth for a diplomatic conference. Both MI5 and MI6 felt that a diver should investigate the underside of the vessels to see how they might be detected by submarines.

Prime Minister Anthony Eden specifically forbade any such action but the agency chiefs  –  and Hollis was among them  –  sent in a trained frogman, Commander Lionel Crabb, known as ‘Buster’, who died in circumstances that remain a matter of claim and counterclaim.

Many speculated he was killed by Russian divers. A still-secret report of an Admiralty Board of Inquiry concluded that due to strong tides and being weighted, he became trapped in the underwater timbers of a jetty and had run out of air.

A shabby cover-up followed, placing full responsibility on the dead man’s shoulders. But the possibility that Crabb’s underwater mission had been betrayed in advance was strengthened in the early Sixties when the KGB defector Anatoli Golitsin volunteered information that Soviet naval intelligence had been warned.

Hollis’s baffling oversights reached an especially curious point during the Profumo scandal, which led to the fall of the Conservative Government and the installation of a Labour administration more acceptable to the Soviet Union.

Defence Minister John Profumo, then 48, met 19-year-old Christine Keeler at Cliveden in 1961 and began an affair. But she was also seeing Soviet attache Eugene Ivanov  –  a spy. The US was then planning to supply West Germany with a new medium-range missile. Ivanov wanted details.

https://i1.wp.com/www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPYivanov.jpg

Russian spy Eugene Ivanov

Christine Keeler later stated that Ivanov had asked her directly to ‘obtain from Profumo the date of delivery of nuclear warheads to Germany’.

Hollis was apprised of her long sexual affair with Profumo and of her association with Ivanov. He could not have failed to appreciate the threat to the Government. But for five months he failed to warn the Prime Minister.

Treachery: Ursula Beurton, one half of the husband and wife team who were key figures in the Soviet ROTE DREI spy ring

Treachery: Ursula Beurton, one half of the husband and wife team who were key figures in the Soviet ROTE DREI spy ring

One MI5 officer warned Hollis in writing: ‘If, in any subsequent inquiries, we were found to have been in possession of this information about Profumo and taken no action on it, we would, I am sure, be subject to much criticism for failing to bring it to light. I suggest that this information be passed to the Prime Minister.’ Hollis responded to this advice by repeating his order that no further action was to be taken. He particularly forbade any attempt to interview Keeler.

Profumo finally made a statement to Parliament, claiming  –  fatally  –  that there had been ‘no impropriety whatsoever’ and his resignation followed. For months Hollis had kept Ivanov’s interest in the atomic matter from the eyes of all Ministers, including the Home Secretary.

In Parliament, Macmillan declared MI5 had kept him ignorant about the relationship between Profumo and Keeler and of her being asked to discover the nuclear weapons date. He threw himself on the sympathy of the House, but left the Chamber crestfallen and dispirited. In 1963, stricken with health problems, he resigned. Both he and Harold Wilson were later convinced the Profumo affair had decided the following year’s election.

Retirement came for Hollis in 1965, at a point when many colleagues as well as senior figures in the CIA were questioning  –  at the very least  –  his competence. He died in 1973, aged 68.

There is an intriguing postscript. A few years ago, I received a brief note from a Michael J. Butt: ‘If you should require further information relating to Roger Hollis, you can contact me.’

Born in 1936, Butt joined the Communist Party in 1960. A fellow member asked if Butt would like to take over his bedsit in North London. It was in a house of a dedicated communist known as Comrade Bridget. Butt moved in and found, as his room was at the front of the house, that he was required to answer the door to callers.

As many of the visitors were well-known communists, he was proud to answer that door. He came to feel he was rubbing shoulders with luminaries. He told me that  –  with one exception  –  all the callers whom he did not know tended to give their names before he let them in. The exception was a slim, round-shouldered, clean-shaven tallish man who wore dark clothes and a large black hat on his rare visits.

Whenever this man visited, Bridget had warned him saying: ‘Someone will be calling tonight.’ The visitor was always alone. The mystery man would say nothing other than ‘good evening’ before proceeding to Bridget’s room.

Butt did not discover the identity of the man until he found my book Too Secret Too Long, which contained rare pictures of Sir Roger Hollis. Photographs of Hollis had not previously been published, as befitted his position as head of MI5. Butt, however, insisted that he was ‘very recognisable’ from the book. I was also astonished to learn that Comrade Bridget was in fact Sonia’s sister. Bridget, too, remained unquestioned by MI5.

Hollis would have been at virtually no risk of being spotted. In those days, the MI5 chief did not have a bodyguard. He also knew that his identity was so secret that no ordinary citizen would recognise him.

Butt had a souvenir too: in 1961, Bridget, in a state of some panic, gave him a compact case containing a Russian-made device that he thought might be a photographic enlarger. She wanted it out of the house.

This was at the time when Ruislip-based Russian spies Peter and Helen Kroger were unmasked, trapped by a Russian-made transmitter. I subsequently found that Butt’s souvenir was indeed a portable enlarger for a darkroom, adapted to enlarge the tiny photographs taken by a Minox espionage camera.

Of course, you will not read about this in The Authorised History Of MI5, which comes illustrated on the front with MI5’s official badge and its motto Regnum Defende  –  The Defence Of The Realm. It has long been said that ‘Rectum Defende’ would be a more effective motto

Treachery, by Chapman Pincher, is published by Mainstream, priced £25. To order a copy at the special price of £18.99 with free p&p, call the Review Bookstore on 08 5 155 0713 or visit MailLife.co.uk/books

Source :

https://i0.wp.com/i.dailymail.co.uk/i/sitelogos/logo_mol.gif

 

Sad Cold War Movies

https://i2.wp.com/www.covertspyshop.com/The_Cold_War.jpg

The list below will consist of sad cold war movies featuring the U.S. and U.S.S.R.. The cold war (1947-1991) involved political conflict, military tension and economic competition between Soviet  Russia and its satellite states and primarily the United States and its allies. The cold war never became a military conflict but it did produce proxy wars, the nuclear arms races and espionage. here is a list of must-see sad cold war movies.

https://i2.wp.com/worldofweirdthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/soviet_style_poster.jpg

https://i1.wp.com/www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1020/144104.1020.A.jpg

Fail-Safe” (1964). Set at Strategic Air Command headquarters, this cold war movie turns sad when a squadron of bombers is mistakenly sent to Russia with orders to drop atomic bombs on Moscow. Without radio contact, and the bombers having passed the “fail safe” point, the world is now on the brink of a nuclear war. The U.S. President (Henry Fonda) phones the Russian Premier to inform him of the coming disaster. All but one of the American bombers crashes after running out of fuel, and the Russian government has sent fighter pilots to shoot the remaining bomber down. Now the U.S. President must figure a way to prevent World War III from happening.
https://wakeupbd.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/colossus_poster.jpg?w=235
“Collossus: The Forbin Project” (1970). This “computer gone rouge” film is about an electronic brain that controls America’s missile defense system. Collossus’ technicians never conceived of the computer developing intelligence on its own, but it does, and then teams up with its Russian counterpart to take over the world. Although it is sad, this movie reflects the state of world affairs in 1970.
https://i0.wp.com/images.moviepostershop.com/the-hunt-for-red-october-movie-poster-1990-1020196499.jpg

“The Hunt For Red October” (1990). This is one of the last cold war movies that was produced during the cold war era. Marko Ramius (Sean Connery) is a Soviet submarine commander who kills his political advisor, burns his orders and steers his undetectable nuclear submarine towards America. Makos’ plan is to defect, but U.S. intelligence officials believe he is insane and on a mission to start World War III by launching nuclear warheads upon U.S. installations.
https://i2.wp.com/images.moviepostershop.com/hostile-waters-movie-poster-1997-1020211029.jpg
“Hostile Waters” (1997). This movie stars Martin Sheen, Rutger Hauer and Max Von Sydow, it was based on an actual 1980s event. After a Russian nuclear submarine collides with an American nuclear submarine off the coast of Bermuda, both crews work very carefully to avoid a nuclear accident while Presidents Reagan an Gorbachev holds sensitive peace talks.
https://i1.wp.com/www.iranian.com/main/files/blogimages/ThirteenDays-MoviePoster.jpg
“Thirteen Days” (2000). This sad film was based on actual events surrounding the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. For thirteen days, the U.S and Russia came close to a full scale nuclear war under the administration of President John F. Kennedy. Russian nuclear missiles with the capability of destroying large areas of the U.S. are on Cuba soil. General Lemay (Kevin Conway) wants to invade Cuba, but Kennedy (Bruce Greenwood) after informing the American people, wants to find a peaceful way to reduce the tension between the U.S. and Russia.
https://i0.wp.com/www.impawards.com/2002/posters/sum_of_all_fears.jpg
“The Sum of All Fears” (2002). Geopolitical warfare is the plot of this cold war movie after Russia gets a new questionable President, Nemerov (Ciaran Hinds). At the same time, a neo-fascist group plots the detonation of a nuclear device that was stolen from a downed Israeli fighter jet at the Super Bowl game in Baltimore, in order to spark a conflict between the U.S. and Russian.

Note: You can find each one of these sad cold war movies on DVD.

 

%d bloggers like this: