|
Origins
of the Russian-American Anti-Taliban Alliance
On
June 26, the following story appeared on India's Web news site,
Indiareacts.
India
in anti-Taliban military plan
India
and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia hostilities against
the Taliban.
By
Our Correspondent
26
June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian
plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban if the
contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's
fundamentalist regime.
The
Taliban controls 90 per cent of Afghanistan and is advancing northward
along the Salang highway and preparing for a rear attack on the
opposition Northern Alliance from Tajikistan-Afghanistan border
positions.
Indian
foreign secretary Chokila Iyer attended a crucial session of the
second Indo-Russian joint working group on Afghanistan in Moscow
amidst increase of Taliban's military activity near the Tajikistan
border. And, Russia's Federal Security Bureau (the former KGB)
chief Nicolai Patroshev is visiting Teheran this week in connection
with Taliban's military build-up.
Indian
officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator"
while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front
with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan,
to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from
Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.
Military
action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable
with the UN banned from Taliban-controlled areas. The UN which
adopted various means in the last four years to resolve the Afghan
problem is now being suspected by the Taliban and refused entry
into Taliban areas of the war-ravaged nation through a decree
issued by Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar last month.
Diplomats
say that the anti-Taliban move followed a meeting between US Secretary
of State Collin Powel and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov
and later between Powell and Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh
in Washington. Russia, Iran and India have also held a series
of discussions and more diplomatic activity is expected. . . .
http://www.indiareacts.com/Story33.htm
Three
months later, on September 27, Reuters released the following story:
WASHINGTON
(Reuters) - The United States is not now contemplating joint military
operations with Russia in the war on terrorism but such cooperation
remains an option for the future, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz said.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010927/ts/attack_nato_usa_dc_2.html
How
can both of these reports be true?
I
believe the June 26 report. It explains why the formation of the
Russian-U.S. alliance has taken place so smoothly during the last
two weeks, despite protests on both sides that such an alliance
was unlikely.
I
believe that this story will not get out to the general public.
If some enterprising reporter in a mainline newspaper works on it
on his own authority, the story will be spiked by his editor.
Nevertheless,
let's assume hypothetically that some reporter, anxious to become
the next Woodward/Bernstein, were to present the following proposal
on his editor's desk. "Sir, there is a disconnect between these
two news stories. I want to pursue the matter. I want to get the
following questions answered."
How
long before June 26 did top-level strategists for Russia and the
United States come to agreement regarding a joint anti-Taliban
military alliance?
Why
was this information made available to an obscure Web publication
in India, but not to the news media in the United States?
What
were the underlying strategic motivations on both sides of this
alliance prior to September 11?
When
did the high-level strategists on both sides plan to reveal the
existence of this alliance to the legislatures of both nations?
Then
there is the question that an experienced reporter would not dare
place in front of his editor:
What
kind of public event was deemed necessary by the strategists on
both sides of this alliance to justify it to the legislatures
of both nations?
I
predict that no one in the news media will pursue this story. It
will be dismissed as not being newsworthy.
In
the good old days, it might have been possible for a reporter at
a Presidential press conference to ask a question about this. But
when was the last time any President held a press conference?
The
reason why I came across this story is because of a tip from a reader.
Because of the World Wide Web, and because of search engines such
as Google, inquiring people can find information like this. Because
of Websites like www.freerepublic.com
and www.lewrockwell.com,
stories like these can get in front of a limited number of people.
Finally, because of the Forward and File/Send buttons,
these stories do reach a wider audience. But they never reach the
general public.
There
are perhaps a few hundred thousand Americans who would regard this
story as newsworthy. But I suspect that most Americans, now caught
up in the war against terrorism, would shrug it off. That's why
it is possible for the government and the media to bury stories
like this one.
There
was a brief report from Jane's on
March 15 that India had joined an anti-Taliban
alliance that included Russia and the United States. But it did
not indicate that the United States would supply anything more than
information and logistical support.
If
you think this story is worth pursuing, please send a link to this
page to anyone you think might understand its significance.
To
every reader, I say, if you find additional material on the Web
that deals with this story, send the link to me: gnorth@bigfoot.com
When
I think of the Internet's effect on politicians, I think of Joe
Louis's comment to a reporter regarding Billy Conn's quickness:
"He can run, but he can't hide." Well, they can still hide, but
it's getting a lot harder.
To
subscribe to Gary North's free e-mail letter, click here.
©
2001 LewRockwell.com
Gary
North Archives
|
