.community
.commons
.comparison
.combat
.comprehend
.compatriots
.commerce
.company


1_9169

 


Send To Printer Email to Friend

Bush Negotiated with the Taliban: Interview with Guillaume Dasquié
Interview by Valerie Plomb for Amazon.fr
http://www.lematin-dz.com/ledossierdujeudi_20122001/entretien.htm
Translated for Democrats.com by Corinne Sinclair

One month before the New York terrorist attacks, the White House was on speaking terms with Kabul. In this interview, Guillaume Dasquie, co-author, with Jean-Charles Brisard, of "Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth", reveals how the billionaire terrorist is nothing but a product of the dangerous liaisons maintained by Saudi Arabia, the United States and the UN with extremist movements, which led to the 9-11 terrorist attacks. These affirmations are based on several years of investigation. Dasquie decodes here the political and financial networks where bankers, oil companies, diplomats and terrorists cross each others' paths.

Question:
You name a lot of people and a lot of companies in your book. Have you been subjected to pressures during the writing and the publishing of "Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth"?

Answer by Guillaume Dasquie:
Investigative journalism is one of these jobs where you make yourself the least number of friends. But we have not been subjected to any pressure. We put in a lot of names of people and companies because it was the simplest and most sincere way to translate all the information we had received and which was going against everything we heard during the first weeks after the terrorist attacks. For example, the non-specialists are under the impression that terrorism is falling from the sky, that we can't defend ourselves against it and that it is unforeseeable. We hear about "blind terrorist attacks". To come forward with a book full of investigations going against this feeling, we needed solid arguments. We have been able to come up with them because there is today a real interest for the subject. In normal times, to publish a book relating by the detail what were the relationships between certain members of the George W Bush Administration, oil companies and the Taliban, was interesting only to a limited number of specialists. We have been able to reveal to the general public a work of investigation that produced a maximum of elements. While usually the book is only the visible part of the investigation and doesn't mention the details. But, in this kind of event, details allow you to have a global view of the situation. I am not a commentator, I don't do theory. My job is to restore an information. Our first articles on Intelligence Online concerned the contacts between the Taliban, the American administration and the UN are dated in March 2001. The Bush Administration had just come into power at the end of January, the UN Security Council had reinforced the sanctions against the Taliban in December 2000, and the Taliban were banned by most nations.

Question:
Let's start with a meeting of Jean-Charles Brisard with John O'Neill, a Deputy Director of the FBI in New York. He had led the investigation following the terrorist attack against the USS Cole in October 2000 in the port of Aden, which resulted in 17 deaths, and which was most likely the work of Al Qaida. But, he apparently got obstructed a lot by the State Department. Where does this American schizophrenia come from?

Answer:
John O'Neill was in charge of all the anti-terrorist investigations. And he was the one who, personally, and since 1998, was leading the investigations against Bin Laden. Talk about "American schizophrenia"; it is rather a schizophrenia related to the relationships between the big industrialized powers and the oil monarchies. Our economies depend from the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia and in the Persian Gulf countries. Concretely, until September 2001, Osama Bin Laden had always been considered as being an annoying matter, not a criminal one. For a very simple reason: the Saudi power rests on the Wahhabite clergy who considers that Osama Bin Laden is a soldier participating in the extension of Wahhabism; it therefore never disavowed him. The occidental countries consider, in general, that criminal matters are "small bait" and must not strangle the strategic matters. After the Nairobi and Dar es-Salam terrorist attacks in 1998, the Justice Department wanted to stop Bin Laden, while the State Department considered that nothing should be done to hurt Saudi Arabia, and that the Bin Laden case had to be solved by the Saudis themselves. Until 30 August 2001, the person who was dealing with the capture of Bin Laden was Turki Al-Faysal, the Chief of the Saudi Secret Services, and he is the very same man who recruited and trained Bin Laden during the war in Afghanistan against the soviets. That's why John O'Neill had no illusions as far as the Bin Laden case was concerned. He knew he might be able to arrest his lieutenants on American or Egyptian soil. Certain authors of the Nairobi and Dar es-Salam terrorist attacks had been captured in Saudi Arabia. But when the FBI had arrived to interrogate them, they had just been beheaded.

Question:
Bush Junior assumed office on 26 January 2001. Right after 5 February, negotiations were resumed between the new Bush administration and the Taliban via the UN. Why were these negotiations resumed and what were the objectives?

Answer:
Obviously, they are energetic objectives. Why does one negotiate with the Taliban? The negotiations between the Taliban and the UN had started in 1999 (by the "6+2" group, meaning Afghanistan's neighbours, the United States and Russia). The American administration was leading parallel talks with the Taliban. The Taliban are the product of economical interests. They were put in power by the Saudi Secret Services via the ISI, Pakistan's Secret Services. Saudi Arabia considers that this region of the world is strategic, because it allows it to contain the influence of the Iranian (Shiites, while the Saudis are Sunnis). Saudi Arabia wanted a strong Sunni regime in power; so did the Pakistani who wished to have a regime close to theirs as a countermeasure against India. Economical considerations grafted themselves onto these strategic considerations of the Arab-Muslim world. That is why the first financiers of the Taliban are oil companies like Unocal (American) and Delta Oil (Saudi). From Washington to London, it was a lucky streak, because valuable oil and gas resources had been discovered between 1992 and 1995 in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Oil companies like Elf, Chevron, Exxon want to invest in the region, but it is deep set in a zone under Russian influence, and gasoducts and pipelines are controlled by the Russians, who rent them at an incredibly high price. So, one solution is to create pipelines that would go through Afghanistan, then through Pakistan, and end in the Persian Gulf. This strategic dimension means that the Occidentals witness the rise of the Taliban with some satisfaction, because after the civil war that followed the departure of the Soviets, they imposed a strong and stable governing power in Afghanistan. But as it is often the case in modern history, in Africa or in the Middle East, the Occidentals put in place very hard regimes, because it is in their best interest, and these become uncontrollable. Like Khomeini in Iran, who was supposed to counterbalance the power of the Soviets. In 1997, European Commissioner Emma Bonino went to Kabul, and was jailed. Rapidly, the Taliban officially became a government of outcasts. But officiously, one was still talking to them. After the Nairobi and Dar es-Salam terrorist attacks, Bin Laden's guilt was proved, and in 1999, the State Department's number two went to Kabul to present the proofs of Bin Laden's guilt to Mullah Omar. For the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden was more than just a simple criminal they were protecting. Mullah Omar and him were trained together at the time of the war against the Soviets. Mullah Omar was the legs, and Bin Laden, the brain. Despite that reality, the Occidentals continued to discuss with the Taliban. Until the Clinton administration understood, in November 2000, that it was vain to discuss with the Taliban and demanded UN sanctions against them, just before leaving power. But, right after assuming office, the Bush administration undid what had been done. Contrarily to the Clinton administration, who had a global vision of this region of the world, the Bush administration comes largely from oil companies. Therefore it considers that the stabilisation of Central Asia is the priority. And negotiations with the Taliban started again.

Question:
Why do the Taliban resume negotiations until August 2001?

Answer:
A proposal of international recognition and financial aid from the IMF (International Monetary Fund?) did not interest them. They want to gain time to impose the Arab emirate of Afghanistan and develop their influence, avoid the blocus while letting the Occidentals think they could make pipelines go through Afghanistan. The US State Department and the UN Security Council are looking for stability in the region. And as they think that the Taliban are the only ones who are capable to ensure this security, they support them. It is not the first time that the United States supported a hard Islamic dictatorship, like Saudi Arabia. But they want to transform them and make them more "presentable" amidst the "concert of nations". That is why the return of King Zaher Shah is proposed to them, as soon as April 2001. If he could impose some rules that would satisfy the occidental television networks, open negotiations could take place again. So, it is suggested to the Taliban that they should put in power again a king who had been chased out of the country in the '70s on grounds of corruption - and who is, for the Taliban, the last of the Muslims - and that they should extradite Bin Laden towards Saudi Arabia. When Bin Laden has strong personal links with Mullah Omar! What an aberration!

Question:
Isn't that a very risky bet when one knows the military power of the Occidentals, as we saw during the Gulf War?

Answer:
The Arab-Muslim world feels very bitter about it, and it is generally not well known. The Middle East is a region under development, with weak economical resources, totally under the grip of very hard powers that are maintained by the Occidentals, the first beneficiaries of what lies underground. What was highly resented during the Gulf War was that Saudi Arabia welcomed the American Army on the land of Islam's Holy Sites, and that it remained there! There are very important military bases near Mecca and Medina. Hence the support of the Sunni fundamentalists to Al Qaida. Saudi Arabia has the sixth defence budget in the world and calls the US for its security. But, the first duty of the reigning family, and what legitimates is power, is the defence of Islam's Holy Sites.

Question:
In Afghanistan, the Taliban have already lost the power. Effectively, they have lost the war. But has the Saudi clergy lost?

Answer:
It's not sure. The Saudi clergy heads most of the foundations that finance mosques in the world. So the military campaign is used to radicalise the Sunnis of the world against Occident. It is a disaster for the Taliban, But if we consider that the Taliban were nothing more than soldiers of the Saudi clergy, it is a very relative disaster. What counts is that the new power in Kabul still be Sunni orthodox and continue to counter the influence of Iran.

Question:
What are the links between the Bin Laden family, Osama Bin Laden himself, the reigning family and Saudi businessmen like Khaled Ben Lahfouz?

Answer:
Khaled Ben Mahfouz is the son of the founder of Saudi Arabia's first bank, and one of the richest men in the kingdom. But, not only is he Osama Bin Laden's brother-in-law, from 1991 onwards, they conduct business together. This is the testimony of these links against nature between people who are close to the Saudi government and the soldiers of fundamentalism. Thanks to these links, Bin Laden has been able to build a financial empire of several hundreds of millions of dollars, including an agro-alimentary holding and a bank. This financial power will allow him to federate the fundamentalist movements. In the '90s, all the movements converge towards Khartoum, at first because they are chased elsewhere, for example in Egypt, and also because Bin Laden receives funds from the Saudi clergy.

Question:
What is the role of the national governmental organisations financed by the Saudis?

Answer:
They are the demonstration of the activism of the Saudi clergy behind Al Qaida. The clergy gathers funds estimated at ten billion dollars a year. Then this money is given to national governmental organisations everywhere in the world. These associations sometimes do a real field work helping out needy Muslims, in Kosovo or elsewhere. But sometimes, they aid terrorist organisations. The IRO, based in Great Britain, finances entities close to Al Qaida while distributing food to under-nourished populations. These actions come from a same intention, which is the expansion of Sunnism.

Question:
Would the arrest or the death of Osama Bin Laden change something?

Answer:
The neutralisation of Bin Laden would mean the neutralisation of a hearty soldier of the Muslim fundamentalism from 1996 to now. In a movement there are always different entities. Here, one is trying to solve the problem of the military entity. But if one does not negotiate with the Saudi clergy, if one does not obtain a change of attitude, sooner or later the same problem will resurface.

Question:
You detail in "Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth", the composition of a number of boards of companies having a link more or less close with Al Qaida. But, one can identify structures were people close to Bin Laden and George W Bush himself were seated next to each other!

Answer:
There is this revealing case, but which remains anecdotic, of a small oil services company in the '80s named Harken Energy, whose main shareholder was George W Bush. Like all the sons of big Texan families, GW Bush headed a small oil company in which was also Khaled Ben Mahfouz, Osama Bin Laden's brother-in-law. One should not draw conclusions too hastily because at the time, Bin Laden had no political existence. But this is an interesting indicator because it is an example among so many of these links between the religious power, the financial power and the oil interests. These links partly explain the complex situation that the Occidentals have partly created when deciding to support the Taliban, and the difficulty in solving it.

 


Democrats.com:%20The%26nbsp;aggressive%20progressives%21%26nbsp;%26nbsp;
Join%20us%26nbsp;%26amp;%26nbsp;contribute

Privacy%20Policy
Copyright%202003%20Democrats.com.%20All%20rights%20reserved.

'"()&%