Om_Mohammed
04-07-2001, 04:34
CIA- tool of American colonialism, past and present
George Tenet, the CIA Director, recently returned from the Middle East after
reviving peace negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The
visit marked the return to the high profile negotiating role the CIA had
previously played in the Middle East conflict under the Clinton
administration.
The CIA has played an intermediary role in the region since 1997; with Mr
Tenet personally mediating between top officials to ensure the peace process
did not collapse. The agency's role was formalised by the 1998 Wye River
agreement, which called for a high-level committee including representatives
from Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the US to meet regularly to
discuss security issues.
Tasks previously undertaken believed to have included passing messages
between the two sides, arbitrating in disputes, and handing on Israeli
intelligence to the Palestinian authorities about the activities of Islamic
militants.
The CIA was also involved in training Palestinians to help them develop a
more professional security operation. And its Director, George Tenet, who
made many visits to the Middle East, attended last October's emergency
summit in Sharm el-Sheikh. The Palestinians are known to value the
relationship highly as a channel of communication with Washington and a
counterweight to Israeli influence. They are reported to have pressed for
the CIA's role to be revived after it had been put on hold by the new Bush
administration.
It seems ironic that Arab leaders today call for the involvement of the CIA
in their affairs. In years gone by, the CIA was the scourge of Middle-East
governments that dared to hold anti-American policies. To understand the
role it has played and continues to play, one must understand the change in
reality that took place in the Middle East after the Second World War, as
well as the nature of U.S. foreign policy.
The foreign policy applied by countries such as Britain and America is
derived from their ideology, Capitalism, named after the most prominent
aspect of the secular ideology- that of freedom of ownership. In reality
this translates to freedom of possession, consumption and exploitation. Thus
Colonialism, the political, cultural, and economic control over the weak
nations in order to exploit them is the method employed by American Foreign
policy. Various styles can be used to implement this method, depending upon
current international realities. In the modern era of ‘freedom and democracy
’, the western powers have abandoned resorting to military occupation and
have replaced it by other means. Current styles include the backing of agent
rulers, suspicious aid deals and inciting civil wars/ regional tension.
This article aims to expose the CIA as a tool of the leading capitalist
nation- America- and a means of maintaining her hegemony on the affairs of
the Muslim world. This tool has been used effectively for the last 50 years
to remove governments and control loyal agents, who ran the affairs of the
Ummah according to American interests, and continues to be used for this
purpose.
Post war Middle East situation.
Britain's efforts in World War 2 had exhausted her. The cost of maintaining
its presence in the Middle East was one that it could no longer afford.
Furthermore, Russia was making major efforts to re-establish its standing as
a major power in the area. The Soviet threat in Iran, Turkey and Greece in
particular forced Britain into inviting America into the area. The United
States overwhelming economic and military power provided Britain with the
resources it needed to keep Russia out of the area.
However once in, America was not willing to play the role of passive
partner. In 1944 the State Department described the Arabian Peninsula as
constituting "A stupendous source of strategic power and the greatest
material prize in the world's history.” The United States was aware that the
control of the region's oil supplies was a lever to control the world. As
George Kennan, the influential planner put it in 1949, if the U.S controlled
the oil it would have "veto power" over the potential actions in the future
of rivals like Germany and Japan.
The Americans realised that the British brought them to the region to
strengthen themselves, and would fight to the last American soldier, as they
did during the past in other regions of the world when they fought to the
last French soldier. Eventually the U.S. began taking over the British
colonies, and one of these colonies was Iran. The words of Roger Davis, the
Deputy Under Secretary of State for the Middle East and Southern Asia,
reveal the American hatred towards the British who prevented the U.S. from
exploiting the countries around the Persian Gulf. Davis said in 1971, during
the celebration of Bahrain's independence:
"It was not Bahrain alone or the Gulf States who regain their economic
freedom, but additionally the U.S. feels that it regained its economic,
political, and military freedom in the Gulf after Britain prevented her from
access to it for almost a century. The British Blockade in and around the
Persian Gulf excluded the U.S. as much as it did the Soviet Union and China”
.
The United States however had to develop its Middle East policy within the
framework of alliance politics and thus it was important to the U.S that
alliance solidarity be maintained. The United States embarked on a policy of
easing the British out of its dominant role by using its vast economic and
military power without an open confrontation with Britain.
To achieve its aims the United States sought to maneuver its supports into
power, using the CIA as its primary tool. The Central Intelligence Agency
was founded in 1947 with assistance from ex-Nazi Gestapo agents, and was led
by Alan Dulles, then Secretary of State John Dulles’ brother.
What followed was a series of CIA engineered coups and counter-coups in
Egypt, Syria, Iran and Iraq, amongst others. Democratically elected heads of
state were removed simply because of their lack of compatibility with US
foreign policy. This made a mockery of America’s claim to be champions of
democracy around the globe.
The activities of the CIA in the region at this time are well documented in
Miles Copeland's books "The Game of Nations" and "The Game Player".
Nasser And Egypt
America wanted British influence over Egypt to come to an end. But an openly
pro-American client government would be met with antipathy and
anti-imperialist feelings that were dominant at the time.
The CIA supported coup d'etat that ousted the British puppet King Faruk and
brought the Free Officers to power is particularly important because from
1952 to 1970 Gamal Abdel Nasser dominated Arab politics.
Miles Copeland, former CIA operative specialising in the Middle East, writes
in his autobiography entitled “The Game Player”, that in 1951 and 1952 the
CIA worked on a project known in the secret annals of the CIA as “The Search
for a Moslem Billy Graham.”
According to Copeland, who activated the project in 1953, the CIA needed a
charismatic leader who would be able to divert the growing anti-American
hostility that was building up in the area. The CIA task was to create
'something' more menacing than Israel, to be a substitute for the US and the
Jewish state.
Copeland recollects that in the first secret meeting he had with three army
officers one of whom was Major Abdel Moneim Ra’ouf (a member of Gamal Abdel
Nasser’s inner circle). In March 1952, four months before the coup d’etat
that ousted King Faruk, Kim Roosevelt (head of the CIA Near East Operations)
and Nasser began a series of meetings that led to the coup. After much
discussion it was agreed that no support from the Islamic groups was
required, and that the army would take control and gain the support of the
urban populace.
It was also agreed that future relations between the US and Egypt would
publicly eschew phrases such as “re-establishing democratic processes”, but
privately there would be an understanding that the pre-conditions for
democratic government did not exist.
Both the CIA and Nasser were in agreement on Israel. For Nasser talk of war
with Israel was irrelevant. Much more of a priority was British occupation
of the Suez Canal Zone. Nasser’s enemy was Britain.
The US could assist Nasser by not opposing the coup. Right up to the day of
the coup (23rd July 1952), the CIA station operatives stayed in very close
contact with the members of the Free Officers. According to Copeland the
coup took place without a hitch, with General Mohammed Naguib nominally at
its head. For the next six months the only contacts with Nasser and the
Revolutionary Command Council were maintained by the embassy, not the CIA.
After the coup in 1953, the CIA assisted in the reorganization of the
Mukhabarat (intelligence service). Key courses were set up designed to
acquaint members of the Revolutionary Command Council with what they could
reasonably expect from the USA. Nasser agreed to all of this. In addition,
Zakaria Mohieddin, head of the Mukharabat, agreed to send an
English-speaking Free Officer, Captain Hassan Touhami, to Washington. There
Touuhami was shown the whole range of services the CIA, FBI and police
agencies could offer the government.
The CIA’s relationship with the Egyptian government was kept secret and to
assist this Copeland’s employers, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, and the CIA joined
forces advising on the organization of the Interior Ministry. This entailed
making improvements in the immigration and customs services, tackling the
system of identity cards and vehicle registrations. All this was a cover for
the CIA’s real agenda.
The CIA helped him with his anti-American propaganda by sending an agent,
Paul Linebarger, to Egypt to coach the Egyptian-American team that turned
out the anti-American propaganda that poured out of Radio Cairo. Linebarger
advised both the Minister of Information and Nasser on how the Egyptian
press and Radio Cairo could issue stories and editorials which were
seemingly pro-Soviet but did the Soviets and Communism more harm than good.
Despite differences, Secretary of State Dulles and the CIA fundamentally
agreed that Nasser must be kept in power. Nasser’s response to the
withdrawal of the loan to finance the Aswan Dam was to nationalise the Suez
Canal Company. This brought the Anglo-French-Israeli attack on Egypt,
resulting in the US government under Eisenhower to support Nasser and
forcing the coalition forces to cease hostilities. Perhaps this incident was
one of the more explicit examples of the true relationship between America
and Egypt.
Through agents such as Nasser the United States was successfully challenging
and undermining Britain's position in the region. At the same time the US
was duping the Muslims and Arabs into thinking that its puppet and Arab
nationalism was their saviour.
Syria
The first few years after the 2nd World War saw the U.S. challenge a
war-weakened Britain for political influence, oil supremacy and markets in
the Middle East. In respect of the newly independent Syria, a tremendous
increase in Middle East oil production enhanced Syria’s importance as an oil
transit state; America wanted a trans-Syrian pipeline to carry their Saudi
Arabian oil to the Mediterranean.
Britain, who still occupied militarily Iraq, Transjordan, Egypt and
Palestine, was decisively in control of Syria and resisted America’s
efforts. This pushed America into thinking that the only way to change the
situation of the region was for the U.S. to apply the same policies she had
carried out in South America, namely, bringing military leaders to power
through military coups. The first fruit of the new U.S. policy was to be the
Za’im coup of 1949, by the time Hafiz Assad took power in 1970 a further 15
coups had taken place - not all inspired by America, but it was America that
started this chain of coups in the Middle East.
Tabitha Petran in her book ‘Syria’ published in 1972 writes “on 29 March
1949, Colonel Husni Za’im seized power, ousted and exiled President Quwatly,
dissolved parliament, and established military rule. This first overturn in
the Arab world after the Palestine war was engineered by the American
embassy in Damascus” (p96).
The CIA engineered coup to bring Husni Za’im to power became a standard case
history for study in CIA training classes and is discussed by Miles Copeland
in his books “The Game Player” and “The Game of Nations”. In brief, Copeland
maintains that a ‘political action team’ systematically developed a
friendship with Za’im, then Chief-of-Staff of the Syrian army, suggested to
him the idea of a coup d’etat, advised him how to go about it, and guided
him through the intricate preparations in laying the groundwork for it.
Once in power Za’im agreed to allow construction of the Aramco oil pipeline
and endorsed a U.S. project for a Middle East military pact. The Za’im coup,
however, was short lived. In August 1949 Colonel Sami Hinnawi overthrew him
in a British supported coup.
Iran
Britain before the war had complete control over the Iranian oil fields.
This lucrative state of affairs continued until the Musadeq government of
the early fifties nationalised the oil industry and kicked out the British.
In response to losing a major resource asset, Prime Minister Winston
Churchill began to think of the replacement of Musadeq with a friendlier
government. This came after he was denied support by the Truman
administration in 1951 for an invasion of South Western Iran, in order to
capture the oilfields.
However, Britain was unable to do it alone, despite the establishment of an
extensive MI6 network in Tehran. On Churchill’s request, the Americans also
began to consider the removal of Muhammed Musadeq’s democratically elected
government. America, being an independent Capitalist nation with it’s own
interests, only came on board when it realised that Musadeq was a ‘weak’
leader who could destabilise Iran in the face of Communist agitation,
leading to a complete Communist takeover. This was despite having backed the
rise of Musadeq in the first place.
In March 1953, secretary of state John Dulles spoke to his brother Alan
(head of the CIA) and informed him that it was no longer in America’s
interest for the Musadeq government to remain in power in Iran. He then
requested that the CIA initiate a plan to remove him from office.
By mid April, Alan Dulles had concluded that the objective could be
fulfilled by way of covert operations in a military coup. British MI6 agents
already in place and the CIA’s own operatives would be used. Dulles approved
$1 million for the operation. In May, British and American agents met in
Cyprus to discuss what was named Operation T P Ajax. Cyprus was to become
the base of the operation. On June 14th, 1953, the final plan was submitted
to Churchill and Eisenhower for approval.
The Shah was central to the success of the operation, as he would be
influenced into issuing two royal edicts, one to dismiss Musadeq, and the
other to name a new government. Armed forces loyal to the Shah would back
his edicts and remove Musadeq. The edicts provided the legal justification
necessary for the coup to succeed.
On July 25th, 1953, Kim Roosevelt went to Iran and met up with British
agents on the ground. Special radio linkups were created with command and
control headquarters in Cyprus, and meetings with the Shah were arranged.
Eventually, Roosevelt managed to win his backing after much pressure.
However, the Shah still refused the sign the edicts, fearing his throne
should the coup attempt fail.
General Fazula Zahidi was chosen as the successor to Musadeq, as he was seen
as a strong leader. The CIA hired Iranian officers who subsequently
purchased MPs and bribed newspaper editors. By this time agent provocateurs
were agitating the masses into coming onto the streets in fear of a
‘communist threat’. Newspaper editors were bribed into writing articles
attacking the Musadeq government for being to weak on the communists,
anybody and everybody was paid who could bring trouble makers onto the
streets to riot and create civil strife, which was then blamed on the
communists.
In this unexpected atmosphere of revolt, Musadeq realised that a conspiracy
was unfolding against him but could do little to stem the violence. So on
August 3rd, Musadeq held a referendum to dissolve parliament. On August
13th, and under pressure, the Shah finally agreed to sign the much-required
edicts. August 15th was set as D-Day for operation T P Ajax.
The Operation started badly, as loyal army officers informed Musadeq of the
imminent coup. Immediately, known army conspirators were rounded up and
imprisoned. The Shah fled to Switzerland, and General Zahidi went into
hiding, as a warrant was issued for his arrest. CIA and MI6 agents were in
disarray as the entire plan fell apart.
A few days later, Musadeq felt sure that the coup attempt had failed, and
moved crucial army units loyal to him away from Tehran and back to barracks.
General Zahidi, however, was still in hiding and remained uncaptured. The
CIA was in no mood for giving up, and so after secret consultation with
Zahidi, a makeshift plan was hatched which involved photocopying and mass
producing the royal edicts, in order to incite public opinion against
Musadeq for disobeying the Shah’s instructions and acting illegally.
When finally news broke out that Musadeq had in fact gone against the Shah,
the masses took to the streets in support of the Shah. Army units still
loyal to Zahidi took advantage of Musadeq’s standing down of his loyal
units, and swiftly took the capital.
Musadeq was out of power and a new, ‘friendlier’ leadership was now in
control.
Conclusion
The old statements of the British foreign secretary in 1848, Lord
Palmerston, must be viewed as the cornerstones of Capitalist foreign policy.
When he said that Britain does not have neither permanent friends nor
enemies, only its interest are permanent, he was defining the basis of the
foreign policy as being Britain’s ‘interest’ and ‘benefit’ only. And when,
during a discussion on oversees policy, he stated ‘trade without rule if
possible, but trade with rule if necessary’, he was blatantly stating that
Britain as a Capitalist nation almost has the right to take power in foreign
lands just for the sake of trade and self-benefit.
When talking about the Kuwait oil resources in 1958, British Prime Minister
Selwyn Lloyd had the following to say- "... at all costs these oil-fields
must be kept in western hands. The immediate problem is whether it is good
tactics to occupy Kuwait against the wishes of the ruling family".
This is how the West defines its role in the Middle East, or any other
conflict/region around the world- on the basis of benefit. And for the sake
of securing their interests, the Western powers would go to any lengths
necessary- even if it meant forsaking democracy.
America is not participating in negotiations in the Middle East without a
reason, or for the sake of ‘Christian Charity’. Rather, America sees a
benefit in involving itself in the current peace process.
Indeed, it was America that hatched this entire process, kick-starting it in
the Madrid Conference in 1993, as a means of permanently securing its
presence and interests in the region and curtailing the growing ability of
Israel to undermine those interests. America wishes to see a resolution to
the Israeli-Palestinian issue on the basis of U.N. resolutions 242 and 338,
which enshrine the concept of ‘land for peace’. Under these resolutions,
Israel must withdraw to its pre-1967 borders, and permanently demark its
borders on this basis. An independent Palestinian state would become
established, acting as a buffer to Israeli expansionism in the region.
Linked to this, and more importantly for America, is control over the
strategic Golan Heights along the Syrian border. Whoever controls the Golan
controls the entire region. Hence the Syrian track in the peace process is
also vital for America to bring to a suitable conclusion, which will involve
Israel pulling out of the heights and U.N. forces comprising of American
units move in as peacekeepers.
The CIA is providing technical assistance to both Israelis and Palestinians
with regards to security, and this may seem innocent enough. But in reality
the CIA’s involvement in the peace process is based upon US foreign policy
objectives for this region.
About technical assistance, the US government has the following to say-
“Technical Assistance is not something to be done, as a Government
enterprise, for its own sake or for the sake of others. The US Government is
not a charitable institution, nor is it an appropriate outlet for the
charitable spirit of the American people. That spirit finds its proper
instrumentality in the numerous private philanthropic and religious
institutions, which have done so much good work abroad. Technical Assistance
is only one of a number of instruments available to the US to carry out its
foreign policy and to promote its national interest abroad…. These tools of
foreign policy include economic aid, military assistance, security treaties,
overseas information programmes, participation in the UN and other
international organization, the exchange of persons programmes, tariff and
trade policies, surplus agricultural commodities disposal policies and the
traditional processes of diplomatic representation.”
Technical Assistance: Final Report of Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, 12 March 1957
The CIA continues in its role as America’s shadowy forces of ‘facilitation
by any means necessary’, a Machiavellian tool specially built to enact the
concept- ‘the end justifies the means’.
This same principle was what guided them in the Philippines in 1948 (when
the CIA directed a civil war against the Filipino Huk revolt), Guatemala in
1954 (when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Arbenz and placed
Colonel Armas in power), Cuba in 1961 (when the CIA-directed Bay of Pigs
invasions failed to overthrow the Castro government), Indonesia in 1965
(when the CIA orchestrated a military coup), Chile in 1973 (when the CIA
orchestrated a coup, killing President Allende who had been popularly
elected and helped to establish a military regime under General Pinochet),
Angola in 1976 (when the CIA backed South African rebels fighting against
Marxist Angola), El Salvador in 1981 (when the CIA, troops, and advisers aid
in El Salvador's war against the FMLN), Nicaragua also in 1981 (when the CIA
and NSC directed the Contra War against the Sandinistas), and Haiti in 1994
(when the CIA restored Aristide to power).
Although aiding and not removing governments in its current assignment, the
CIA is nonetheless facilitating American interests. We should not welcome it
or the Americans as friendly forces/peace keepers, despite their deceptive
appearances.
Athar Jamil
Political Correspondent
Americas
30 June 2001
Source: Kcom Journal
www.khilafah.com
George Tenet, the CIA Director, recently returned from the Middle East after
reviving peace negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The
visit marked the return to the high profile negotiating role the CIA had
previously played in the Middle East conflict under the Clinton
administration.
The CIA has played an intermediary role in the region since 1997; with Mr
Tenet personally mediating between top officials to ensure the peace process
did not collapse. The agency's role was formalised by the 1998 Wye River
agreement, which called for a high-level committee including representatives
from Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the US to meet regularly to
discuss security issues.
Tasks previously undertaken believed to have included passing messages
between the two sides, arbitrating in disputes, and handing on Israeli
intelligence to the Palestinian authorities about the activities of Islamic
militants.
The CIA was also involved in training Palestinians to help them develop a
more professional security operation. And its Director, George Tenet, who
made many visits to the Middle East, attended last October's emergency
summit in Sharm el-Sheikh. The Palestinians are known to value the
relationship highly as a channel of communication with Washington and a
counterweight to Israeli influence. They are reported to have pressed for
the CIA's role to be revived after it had been put on hold by the new Bush
administration.
It seems ironic that Arab leaders today call for the involvement of the CIA
in their affairs. In years gone by, the CIA was the scourge of Middle-East
governments that dared to hold anti-American policies. To understand the
role it has played and continues to play, one must understand the change in
reality that took place in the Middle East after the Second World War, as
well as the nature of U.S. foreign policy.
The foreign policy applied by countries such as Britain and America is
derived from their ideology, Capitalism, named after the most prominent
aspect of the secular ideology- that of freedom of ownership. In reality
this translates to freedom of possession, consumption and exploitation. Thus
Colonialism, the political, cultural, and economic control over the weak
nations in order to exploit them is the method employed by American Foreign
policy. Various styles can be used to implement this method, depending upon
current international realities. In the modern era of ‘freedom and democracy
’, the western powers have abandoned resorting to military occupation and
have replaced it by other means. Current styles include the backing of agent
rulers, suspicious aid deals and inciting civil wars/ regional tension.
This article aims to expose the CIA as a tool of the leading capitalist
nation- America- and a means of maintaining her hegemony on the affairs of
the Muslim world. This tool has been used effectively for the last 50 years
to remove governments and control loyal agents, who ran the affairs of the
Ummah according to American interests, and continues to be used for this
purpose.
Post war Middle East situation.
Britain's efforts in World War 2 had exhausted her. The cost of maintaining
its presence in the Middle East was one that it could no longer afford.
Furthermore, Russia was making major efforts to re-establish its standing as
a major power in the area. The Soviet threat in Iran, Turkey and Greece in
particular forced Britain into inviting America into the area. The United
States overwhelming economic and military power provided Britain with the
resources it needed to keep Russia out of the area.
However once in, America was not willing to play the role of passive
partner. In 1944 the State Department described the Arabian Peninsula as
constituting "A stupendous source of strategic power and the greatest
material prize in the world's history.” The United States was aware that the
control of the region's oil supplies was a lever to control the world. As
George Kennan, the influential planner put it in 1949, if the U.S controlled
the oil it would have "veto power" over the potential actions in the future
of rivals like Germany and Japan.
The Americans realised that the British brought them to the region to
strengthen themselves, and would fight to the last American soldier, as they
did during the past in other regions of the world when they fought to the
last French soldier. Eventually the U.S. began taking over the British
colonies, and one of these colonies was Iran. The words of Roger Davis, the
Deputy Under Secretary of State for the Middle East and Southern Asia,
reveal the American hatred towards the British who prevented the U.S. from
exploiting the countries around the Persian Gulf. Davis said in 1971, during
the celebration of Bahrain's independence:
"It was not Bahrain alone or the Gulf States who regain their economic
freedom, but additionally the U.S. feels that it regained its economic,
political, and military freedom in the Gulf after Britain prevented her from
access to it for almost a century. The British Blockade in and around the
Persian Gulf excluded the U.S. as much as it did the Soviet Union and China”
.
The United States however had to develop its Middle East policy within the
framework of alliance politics and thus it was important to the U.S that
alliance solidarity be maintained. The United States embarked on a policy of
easing the British out of its dominant role by using its vast economic and
military power without an open confrontation with Britain.
To achieve its aims the United States sought to maneuver its supports into
power, using the CIA as its primary tool. The Central Intelligence Agency
was founded in 1947 with assistance from ex-Nazi Gestapo agents, and was led
by Alan Dulles, then Secretary of State John Dulles’ brother.
What followed was a series of CIA engineered coups and counter-coups in
Egypt, Syria, Iran and Iraq, amongst others. Democratically elected heads of
state were removed simply because of their lack of compatibility with US
foreign policy. This made a mockery of America’s claim to be champions of
democracy around the globe.
The activities of the CIA in the region at this time are well documented in
Miles Copeland's books "The Game of Nations" and "The Game Player".
Nasser And Egypt
America wanted British influence over Egypt to come to an end. But an openly
pro-American client government would be met with antipathy and
anti-imperialist feelings that were dominant at the time.
The CIA supported coup d'etat that ousted the British puppet King Faruk and
brought the Free Officers to power is particularly important because from
1952 to 1970 Gamal Abdel Nasser dominated Arab politics.
Miles Copeland, former CIA operative specialising in the Middle East, writes
in his autobiography entitled “The Game Player”, that in 1951 and 1952 the
CIA worked on a project known in the secret annals of the CIA as “The Search
for a Moslem Billy Graham.”
According to Copeland, who activated the project in 1953, the CIA needed a
charismatic leader who would be able to divert the growing anti-American
hostility that was building up in the area. The CIA task was to create
'something' more menacing than Israel, to be a substitute for the US and the
Jewish state.
Copeland recollects that in the first secret meeting he had with three army
officers one of whom was Major Abdel Moneim Ra’ouf (a member of Gamal Abdel
Nasser’s inner circle). In March 1952, four months before the coup d’etat
that ousted King Faruk, Kim Roosevelt (head of the CIA Near East Operations)
and Nasser began a series of meetings that led to the coup. After much
discussion it was agreed that no support from the Islamic groups was
required, and that the army would take control and gain the support of the
urban populace.
It was also agreed that future relations between the US and Egypt would
publicly eschew phrases such as “re-establishing democratic processes”, but
privately there would be an understanding that the pre-conditions for
democratic government did not exist.
Both the CIA and Nasser were in agreement on Israel. For Nasser talk of war
with Israel was irrelevant. Much more of a priority was British occupation
of the Suez Canal Zone. Nasser’s enemy was Britain.
The US could assist Nasser by not opposing the coup. Right up to the day of
the coup (23rd July 1952), the CIA station operatives stayed in very close
contact with the members of the Free Officers. According to Copeland the
coup took place without a hitch, with General Mohammed Naguib nominally at
its head. For the next six months the only contacts with Nasser and the
Revolutionary Command Council were maintained by the embassy, not the CIA.
After the coup in 1953, the CIA assisted in the reorganization of the
Mukhabarat (intelligence service). Key courses were set up designed to
acquaint members of the Revolutionary Command Council with what they could
reasonably expect from the USA. Nasser agreed to all of this. In addition,
Zakaria Mohieddin, head of the Mukharabat, agreed to send an
English-speaking Free Officer, Captain Hassan Touhami, to Washington. There
Touuhami was shown the whole range of services the CIA, FBI and police
agencies could offer the government.
The CIA’s relationship with the Egyptian government was kept secret and to
assist this Copeland’s employers, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, and the CIA joined
forces advising on the organization of the Interior Ministry. This entailed
making improvements in the immigration and customs services, tackling the
system of identity cards and vehicle registrations. All this was a cover for
the CIA’s real agenda.
The CIA helped him with his anti-American propaganda by sending an agent,
Paul Linebarger, to Egypt to coach the Egyptian-American team that turned
out the anti-American propaganda that poured out of Radio Cairo. Linebarger
advised both the Minister of Information and Nasser on how the Egyptian
press and Radio Cairo could issue stories and editorials which were
seemingly pro-Soviet but did the Soviets and Communism more harm than good.
Despite differences, Secretary of State Dulles and the CIA fundamentally
agreed that Nasser must be kept in power. Nasser’s response to the
withdrawal of the loan to finance the Aswan Dam was to nationalise the Suez
Canal Company. This brought the Anglo-French-Israeli attack on Egypt,
resulting in the US government under Eisenhower to support Nasser and
forcing the coalition forces to cease hostilities. Perhaps this incident was
one of the more explicit examples of the true relationship between America
and Egypt.
Through agents such as Nasser the United States was successfully challenging
and undermining Britain's position in the region. At the same time the US
was duping the Muslims and Arabs into thinking that its puppet and Arab
nationalism was their saviour.
Syria
The first few years after the 2nd World War saw the U.S. challenge a
war-weakened Britain for political influence, oil supremacy and markets in
the Middle East. In respect of the newly independent Syria, a tremendous
increase in Middle East oil production enhanced Syria’s importance as an oil
transit state; America wanted a trans-Syrian pipeline to carry their Saudi
Arabian oil to the Mediterranean.
Britain, who still occupied militarily Iraq, Transjordan, Egypt and
Palestine, was decisively in control of Syria and resisted America’s
efforts. This pushed America into thinking that the only way to change the
situation of the region was for the U.S. to apply the same policies she had
carried out in South America, namely, bringing military leaders to power
through military coups. The first fruit of the new U.S. policy was to be the
Za’im coup of 1949, by the time Hafiz Assad took power in 1970 a further 15
coups had taken place - not all inspired by America, but it was America that
started this chain of coups in the Middle East.
Tabitha Petran in her book ‘Syria’ published in 1972 writes “on 29 March
1949, Colonel Husni Za’im seized power, ousted and exiled President Quwatly,
dissolved parliament, and established military rule. This first overturn in
the Arab world after the Palestine war was engineered by the American
embassy in Damascus” (p96).
The CIA engineered coup to bring Husni Za’im to power became a standard case
history for study in CIA training classes and is discussed by Miles Copeland
in his books “The Game Player” and “The Game of Nations”. In brief, Copeland
maintains that a ‘political action team’ systematically developed a
friendship with Za’im, then Chief-of-Staff of the Syrian army, suggested to
him the idea of a coup d’etat, advised him how to go about it, and guided
him through the intricate preparations in laying the groundwork for it.
Once in power Za’im agreed to allow construction of the Aramco oil pipeline
and endorsed a U.S. project for a Middle East military pact. The Za’im coup,
however, was short lived. In August 1949 Colonel Sami Hinnawi overthrew him
in a British supported coup.
Iran
Britain before the war had complete control over the Iranian oil fields.
This lucrative state of affairs continued until the Musadeq government of
the early fifties nationalised the oil industry and kicked out the British.
In response to losing a major resource asset, Prime Minister Winston
Churchill began to think of the replacement of Musadeq with a friendlier
government. This came after he was denied support by the Truman
administration in 1951 for an invasion of South Western Iran, in order to
capture the oilfields.
However, Britain was unable to do it alone, despite the establishment of an
extensive MI6 network in Tehran. On Churchill’s request, the Americans also
began to consider the removal of Muhammed Musadeq’s democratically elected
government. America, being an independent Capitalist nation with it’s own
interests, only came on board when it realised that Musadeq was a ‘weak’
leader who could destabilise Iran in the face of Communist agitation,
leading to a complete Communist takeover. This was despite having backed the
rise of Musadeq in the first place.
In March 1953, secretary of state John Dulles spoke to his brother Alan
(head of the CIA) and informed him that it was no longer in America’s
interest for the Musadeq government to remain in power in Iran. He then
requested that the CIA initiate a plan to remove him from office.
By mid April, Alan Dulles had concluded that the objective could be
fulfilled by way of covert operations in a military coup. British MI6 agents
already in place and the CIA’s own operatives would be used. Dulles approved
$1 million for the operation. In May, British and American agents met in
Cyprus to discuss what was named Operation T P Ajax. Cyprus was to become
the base of the operation. On June 14th, 1953, the final plan was submitted
to Churchill and Eisenhower for approval.
The Shah was central to the success of the operation, as he would be
influenced into issuing two royal edicts, one to dismiss Musadeq, and the
other to name a new government. Armed forces loyal to the Shah would back
his edicts and remove Musadeq. The edicts provided the legal justification
necessary for the coup to succeed.
On July 25th, 1953, Kim Roosevelt went to Iran and met up with British
agents on the ground. Special radio linkups were created with command and
control headquarters in Cyprus, and meetings with the Shah were arranged.
Eventually, Roosevelt managed to win his backing after much pressure.
However, the Shah still refused the sign the edicts, fearing his throne
should the coup attempt fail.
General Fazula Zahidi was chosen as the successor to Musadeq, as he was seen
as a strong leader. The CIA hired Iranian officers who subsequently
purchased MPs and bribed newspaper editors. By this time agent provocateurs
were agitating the masses into coming onto the streets in fear of a
‘communist threat’. Newspaper editors were bribed into writing articles
attacking the Musadeq government for being to weak on the communists,
anybody and everybody was paid who could bring trouble makers onto the
streets to riot and create civil strife, which was then blamed on the
communists.
In this unexpected atmosphere of revolt, Musadeq realised that a conspiracy
was unfolding against him but could do little to stem the violence. So on
August 3rd, Musadeq held a referendum to dissolve parliament. On August
13th, and under pressure, the Shah finally agreed to sign the much-required
edicts. August 15th was set as D-Day for operation T P Ajax.
The Operation started badly, as loyal army officers informed Musadeq of the
imminent coup. Immediately, known army conspirators were rounded up and
imprisoned. The Shah fled to Switzerland, and General Zahidi went into
hiding, as a warrant was issued for his arrest. CIA and MI6 agents were in
disarray as the entire plan fell apart.
A few days later, Musadeq felt sure that the coup attempt had failed, and
moved crucial army units loyal to him away from Tehran and back to barracks.
General Zahidi, however, was still in hiding and remained uncaptured. The
CIA was in no mood for giving up, and so after secret consultation with
Zahidi, a makeshift plan was hatched which involved photocopying and mass
producing the royal edicts, in order to incite public opinion against
Musadeq for disobeying the Shah’s instructions and acting illegally.
When finally news broke out that Musadeq had in fact gone against the Shah,
the masses took to the streets in support of the Shah. Army units still
loyal to Zahidi took advantage of Musadeq’s standing down of his loyal
units, and swiftly took the capital.
Musadeq was out of power and a new, ‘friendlier’ leadership was now in
control.
Conclusion
The old statements of the British foreign secretary in 1848, Lord
Palmerston, must be viewed as the cornerstones of Capitalist foreign policy.
When he said that Britain does not have neither permanent friends nor
enemies, only its interest are permanent, he was defining the basis of the
foreign policy as being Britain’s ‘interest’ and ‘benefit’ only. And when,
during a discussion on oversees policy, he stated ‘trade without rule if
possible, but trade with rule if necessary’, he was blatantly stating that
Britain as a Capitalist nation almost has the right to take power in foreign
lands just for the sake of trade and self-benefit.
When talking about the Kuwait oil resources in 1958, British Prime Minister
Selwyn Lloyd had the following to say- "... at all costs these oil-fields
must be kept in western hands. The immediate problem is whether it is good
tactics to occupy Kuwait against the wishes of the ruling family".
This is how the West defines its role in the Middle East, or any other
conflict/region around the world- on the basis of benefit. And for the sake
of securing their interests, the Western powers would go to any lengths
necessary- even if it meant forsaking democracy.
America is not participating in negotiations in the Middle East without a
reason, or for the sake of ‘Christian Charity’. Rather, America sees a
benefit in involving itself in the current peace process.
Indeed, it was America that hatched this entire process, kick-starting it in
the Madrid Conference in 1993, as a means of permanently securing its
presence and interests in the region and curtailing the growing ability of
Israel to undermine those interests. America wishes to see a resolution to
the Israeli-Palestinian issue on the basis of U.N. resolutions 242 and 338,
which enshrine the concept of ‘land for peace’. Under these resolutions,
Israel must withdraw to its pre-1967 borders, and permanently demark its
borders on this basis. An independent Palestinian state would become
established, acting as a buffer to Israeli expansionism in the region.
Linked to this, and more importantly for America, is control over the
strategic Golan Heights along the Syrian border. Whoever controls the Golan
controls the entire region. Hence the Syrian track in the peace process is
also vital for America to bring to a suitable conclusion, which will involve
Israel pulling out of the heights and U.N. forces comprising of American
units move in as peacekeepers.
The CIA is providing technical assistance to both Israelis and Palestinians
with regards to security, and this may seem innocent enough. But in reality
the CIA’s involvement in the peace process is based upon US foreign policy
objectives for this region.
About technical assistance, the US government has the following to say-
“Technical Assistance is not something to be done, as a Government
enterprise, for its own sake or for the sake of others. The US Government is
not a charitable institution, nor is it an appropriate outlet for the
charitable spirit of the American people. That spirit finds its proper
instrumentality in the numerous private philanthropic and religious
institutions, which have done so much good work abroad. Technical Assistance
is only one of a number of instruments available to the US to carry out its
foreign policy and to promote its national interest abroad…. These tools of
foreign policy include economic aid, military assistance, security treaties,
overseas information programmes, participation in the UN and other
international organization, the exchange of persons programmes, tariff and
trade policies, surplus agricultural commodities disposal policies and the
traditional processes of diplomatic representation.”
Technical Assistance: Final Report of Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, 12 March 1957
The CIA continues in its role as America’s shadowy forces of ‘facilitation
by any means necessary’, a Machiavellian tool specially built to enact the
concept- ‘the end justifies the means’.
This same principle was what guided them in the Philippines in 1948 (when
the CIA directed a civil war against the Filipino Huk revolt), Guatemala in
1954 (when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Arbenz and placed
Colonel Armas in power), Cuba in 1961 (when the CIA-directed Bay of Pigs
invasions failed to overthrow the Castro government), Indonesia in 1965
(when the CIA orchestrated a military coup), Chile in 1973 (when the CIA
orchestrated a coup, killing President Allende who had been popularly
elected and helped to establish a military regime under General Pinochet),
Angola in 1976 (when the CIA backed South African rebels fighting against
Marxist Angola), El Salvador in 1981 (when the CIA, troops, and advisers aid
in El Salvador's war against the FMLN), Nicaragua also in 1981 (when the CIA
and NSC directed the Contra War against the Sandinistas), and Haiti in 1994
(when the CIA restored Aristide to power).
Although aiding and not removing governments in its current assignment, the
CIA is nonetheless facilitating American interests. We should not welcome it
or the Americans as friendly forces/peace keepers, despite their deceptive
appearances.
Athar Jamil
Political Correspondent
Americas
30 June 2001
Source: Kcom Journal
www.khilafah.com