Search This Blog

Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts

June 3, 2012

Drugs, Dollars and Banks

Drug is a precious commodity but also a powerful social disruptor able to wreak havoc in a society and weaken it; it was used in the past in China during the Opium Wars to weaken the Qing Dinasty and accumulate huge profits for Britain or today in Afghanistan and many other Latin and African countries to fragment and destroy the social fabric and control its production and profits.


Political use of drugs

Drugs are a powerful weapon when deployed on a population, its many advantages include:
  • docility of addicted population
  • increase of economic indebtedness
  • increased stress on health services and social services
  • social fabric fracture and degradation
  • massive outflow of capitals to foreign banking systems and suppliers
  • increased corruption and illegality
  • creation of an indentured service system
Drugs have the same effect of war mines on a population, their purpose at war is not to kill in many cases but simply cripple people in order to create a taxing burden for the society.

Drugs have many similarities with oil as well; the reserve currency for drug smuggling and transactions is the dollar, every drug transaction is practically paying a fee to the US Federal Reserve, not surprising that such a trade is protected by concerned governments all over the world.
If the Iraqi wars were fought for oil; Afghanistan was in part fought for opium and it started shortly after the Talibans started to destroy opium fields and banned drugs trade.

This is past history and it can explain why war to drugs is and will always be a lost war, no one is really interested to fight such a profitable business regardless of occasional moral proclamations broadcasted on TV.

New Drugs economy

The future of drugs is the new synthetic trade growing rapidly and evolving technologically to become independent from natural sources.

If the new Canadian producers of synthetic drugs will succeed the economical landscape of drugs could change rapidly in the following years, removing the difference between producers and consumers countries and allowing for mass production of drugs without need of natural resources and reducing the time to market and cross-border illegal trade.

Still now though who is profiting the most from drugs is the banking system who launder the profits and reap the hidden tax of the dollar as a reference currency in the case of USA.
Let us not forget that when the Euro was introduced a 500 Euro bill was created specifically for the necessities of smugglers, cartels and bankers, at that time the major aspiration for the Euro was to replace the dollar as preferred currency of choice for drug barons, arm dealers and robber barons.

The Guardian today added an interesting outlook (brief excerpt below) on where and how profits from this trade are done.
It will not raise any parliamentary discussion or moral debate on the war to drugs, the issue has disappeared slowly and silently from public debates while drugs have been more and more popularized by the media as socially acceptable if not socially cool, after all banks are drowning in debt, economies are collapsing then what better way to fill the empty coffers with an increased number of addicts and stupor their futures and fortunes away.

From The Guardian:
 
The vast profits made from drug production and trafficking are overwhelmingly reaped in rich "consuming" countries – principally across Europe and in the US – rather than war-torn "producing" nations such as Colombia and Mexico, new research has revealed.
The most far-reaching and detailed analysis to date of the drug economy in any country – in this case, Colombia – shows that 2.6% of the total street value of cocaine produced remains within the country, while a staggering 97.4% of profits are reaped by criminal syndicates, and laundered by banks, in first-world consuming countries.

Gaviria and Mejía estimate that the lowest possible street value (at $100 per gram, about £65) of "net cocaine, after interdiction" produced in Colombia during the year studied (2008) amounts to $300bn. But of that only $7.8bn remained in the country.
"It is a minuscule proportion of GDP," said Mejía, "which can impact disastrously on society and political life, but not on the Colombian economy. The economy for Colombian cocaine is outside Colombia."

The mechanisms of laundering drug money were highlighted in the Observer last year after a rare settlement in Miami between US federal authorities and the Wachovia bank, which admitted to transferring $110m of drug money into the US, but failing to properly monitor a staggering $376bn brought into the bank through small exchange houses in Mexico over four years. (Wachovia has since been taken over by Wells Fargo, which has co-operated with the investigation.)
But no one went to jail, and the bank is now in the clear. "Overall, there's great reluctance to go after the big money," said Mejía. "They don't target those parts of the chain where there's a large value added. In Europe and America the money is dispersed – once it reaches the consuming country it goes into the system, in every city and state. They'd rather go after the petty economy, the small people and coca crops in Colombia, even though the economy is tiny."

With Britain having overtaken the US and Spain as the world's biggest consumer of cocaine per capita, the Wachovia investigation showed much of the drug money is also laundered through the City of London, where the principal Wachovia whistleblower, Martin Woods, was based in the bank's anti-laundering office. He was wrongfully dismissed after sounding the alarm.
Gaviria said: "We know that authorities in the US and UK know far more than they act upon. The authorities realise things about certain people they think are moving money for the drug trade – but the DEA [US Drugs Enforcement Administration] only acts on a fraction of what it knows."
"It's taboo to go after the big banks," added Mejía. "It's political suicide in this economic climate, because the amounts of money recycled are so high."

August 21, 2011

Libya's war close to end, who is next?

It appears the unreported and unofficial war in Libya could be close to an end. It appears, according to mainstream media, rebels are close to the capital and our fearless leader Gaddafi is close to throwing the towel and leave the ring. Regardless of the reliability of this information is clear that strong powers want the war ended and fast.
Together with the latest news from Syria this is indicating we are getting closer to the turning point I was mentioning at the start of the Libyan war.
Once Libya will be under control and it could be a matter of months things will turn nasty, once the Libyan oil will be on the grid again the situation will unravel fast. It seems we are facing a crisis escalation on both the military and financial side, the financial domino both in Europe and the USA is falling and a major rush to get control of Libyan oil reserves is becoming imperative at this point.
To understand this chess game is possible only if we consider the broader picture, the financial crisis, the war in Libya and the unrest in the Middle East and North Africa are all connected pieces of a bigger puzzle.
The reality is that the financial system has reached a terminal stage, leverage is getting harder and harder and cash injection has reached a structural limit, there is not enough money to bailout the black hole of debt created and  peak oil is already here making impossible to go back to growth and inflate ourselves out of this mess.
Growth is not available because the current system has reached the maximum capacity and is deflating fast while debt has reached levels never seen before in history.
There are few options left either declare insolvency and bring the entire system down or go to war and make harsh austerity a war necessity for the population while stealthily bankrupting the western world and all its creditors.
In this situation there is a rush to control and manage the reduced resources available and gain the preservation or well reduced deterioration of the population's standard of life together with a competitive advantage over other nations who are not so blessed of controlling those essential resources.
It is a strategic imperative for every nation to get access by any necessary mean to strategic resources whose lack would bring to an halt the economy and its democracy.
No wonder China is getting very jittery lately although regardless of its strategic links with Iran will not react aside from verbal shows when the situation will escalate.
After all should China lose access to the western world markets and treasuries It would risk economical and social collapse, they will play along with US and EU since they are into the same game, they will get concessions due to their symbiotic relation with the West after all the West still need China's cheap productive capacity but they are caught into the same game all right.
The next target is clearly Syria, which has been thrown into chaos already although with this week clear innuendo from Obama is clearly the next regime to be toppled down as soon as the major Libyan headache will be solved.
The only major variable in this scenario is Turkey, the situation is very volatile at this moment with the confrontation between the Muslim Erdogan's government and the secular Turkish Army, how Turkey, a member of NATO will play this game is a major diplomatic variable to be considered.
One thing is clear Middle East and Central Asia is the prize in this dangerous power game and this could escalate quickly if financial distress will raise in the following months.














June 27, 2011

$20 billion air conditioning bill for US troops

Today, NPR reported a stunning story: Air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan costs $20.2 billion annually.
That’s more than NASA’s budget. It’s more than BP has paid so far for damage during the Gulf oil spill. It’s what the G-8 has pledged to help foster new democracies in Egypt and Tunisia.
To power an air conditioner at a remote outpost in land-locked Afghanistan, a gallon of fuel has to be shipped into Karachi, Pakistan, then driven 800 miles over 18 days to Afghanistan on roads that are sometimes little more than “improved goat trails,” [retired Brigadier General Steven] Anderson says. “And you’ve got risks that are associated with moving the fuel almost every mile of the way.”

In 2010, the US spent $165.1 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Congressional Research Service. This means roughly 12% of expenditures were on air conditioning.
Fuel is not only a budget breaker, it’s a logistical nightmare that can cost lives. Anderson, who manged operational logistics for Gen. David Patreaus in Iraq, explained the impacts of air conditioning on a commander:

“He literally has to stop his combat operations for two days every two weeks so he can go back and get his fuel. And when he’s gone, the enemy knows he’s gone, and they go right back to where they were before. He has to start his counter-insurgency operations right back at square one.”

May 2, 2011

Osama Bin Laden puzzle

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 02:  A passerby looks at ...Image by Getty Images via @daylife
The world has changed considerably since 2001 and US enemies are no longer terrorists but real countries with governments and armies, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden have outlived their usefulness as symbolic villains, if the 9/11 events were essential to turn around public opinion on foreign intervention and to obtain enforcement of authocratic laws, the time is approaching for major events to be unleashed in which Al Qaeda and Jihadist from all over the world have no place to be, they could still find their usefulness here and there when some major attack will be staged to rally the population into war but they are no longer the key actors, the conflict is back to the large scale scenario of warring countries and armies and the death of Osama Bin Laden could well be the prelude to the end of the era of terror.

What is surprising of all this story as in a classical slapstick comedy is the return of a long forgotten character  on the scene and the sudden commotion for someone who was forgotten and missing for almost 10 years. Even more interesting is the dumping of his body into the sea, quite an unusual treatment for the biggest villain in American history I would actually have considered to bring him as a trophy in the United States and run him all over for propaganda purpouses well unless the body was for some reason unpresentable to the public.
It has always been surprising how Bin Laden has had the ability to appear always at the eve of a major election or event to provide the american media and their spectators with a convenient scapegoat.
Even more suprising is how many persons talked publicly during this decade of how he was supposed to be dead, I just picked some of the most influential:


- On December 26, 2001, Fox News, citing a Pakistan Observer story, reported that the Afghan Taliban had pronounced Bin Laden dead and buried him in an unmarked grave.

- On January 18, 2002, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf announced: “I think now, frankly, he is dead.”
- On July 17, 2002, the then-head of counterterrorism at the FBI, Dale Watson, told a conference of law enforcement officials that “I personally think he [Bin Laden] is probably not with us anymore.”
- In October 2002, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told CNN that “I would come to believe that [Bin Laden] probably is dead.

- On November 2, 2007, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto told Al-Jazeera’s David Frost that Omar Sheikh had killed Osama Bin Laden.

- In May 2009, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari confirmed that his “counterparts in the American intelligence agencies” hadn’t heard anything from Bin Laden in seven years and confirmed “I don’t think he’s alive.”
Musharraf, the President of Pakistan said by accident three months ago that bin Laden was dead. 


On a different note though in 2003, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told Fox News Channel analyst Morton Kondracke she suspected Bush knew the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and was waiting for the most politically expedient moment to announce his capture.
And if former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had the nerve to tell us this on public television well we would better to start figuring out what is the real reason and why now.
Enhanced by Zemanta