| Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) | |
| Is Avian Flu another Pentagon Hoax? By F. William Engdahl | |
| October 30, 2005 | |
| No sooner are indictments being handed down to Scooter Libby, the Chief of Staff of the Vice President of the United States for lies and coverup of information used deliberately to suppress the fact the Bush Administration had no ‘smoking gun’ to prove Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear arsenal, but a new scandal is surfacing every bit as outrageous and ultimately, likely also criminal. Against all scientific prudence and normal public health procedure, the world population is being whipped up into a fear frenzy by irresponsible public health officials from the US Administration to WHO to the United States Centers for Disease Control. They all warn about the imminent danger that a malicious viral strain might spread from infected birds, primarily in Vietnam and other Asian centers, to contaminate the entire human species in pandemic proportions. Often the flu pandemic of 1918 which is said to have killed 18 million worldwide, is cited as an example of what ‘might’ lie in store for us. On November 1, appropriately enough the day after Halloween, President Bush is scheduled to visit the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda Maryland to announce his Administration’s strategy of how it will prepare for the next flu epidemic, whether from Bird Flu or some other strain. The plan has been a year in the making. On October 28 the Senate passed an $8 billion emergency funding bill to address the growing Avian Flu panic. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, in a moment of candor during the debate on the Senate bill told the press, ‘If it isn’t the current H5N1 virus that leads to an influenza pandemic, at some point in our nation’s future, another virus will.’ In the meantime taxpayer billions will have gone to a handful of pharmaceutical giants positioned to profit. None stands to reap more lucre than the Swiss-US pharmaceutical giant Roche Holdings of Basle. The only medicine we are told which reduce the symptoms of general or seasonal influenza and ‘possibly’ might reduce symptoms also of Avian Flu, is a drug called Tamiflu. Today the giant Swiss pharmaceutical firm, Roche, holds the sole license to manufacture Tamiflu. Due to the media panic, the order books at Roche today are filled to overflowing. Roche recently refused a request from the US Congress to lift its exclusive patent rights to allow other drug manug´facturers to produce Tamiflu with the improbable excuse that it was in effect, too complex for others to rapidly produce. However, the real point of interest is the company in California who developed Tamiflu and gave the marketing rights to its patented discovery to Roche. ‘Rummy Flu’ Tamiflu was developed and patented in 1996 by a California biotech firm, Gilead Sciences Inc. Gilead is a NASDAQ (GILD) listed stock company which prefers to maintain a low profile in the current rush to Tamiflu. That might be because of who is tied to Gilead. In 1997, before he became US Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld was named Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, where he remained until early 2001 when he became Defense Secretary. Rumsfeld had been on the board of Gilead since 1988 according to a January 3 1997 company press release. An as-yet-unconfirmed report is that Rumsfeld while Secretary of Defense also purchased an additional stock in his former company, Gilead Sciences Inc., worth $18 million, making him one of its largest if not the largest stock owners today. The Secretary of Defense, the man who allegedly supported the use of contrived intelligence to justify the war on Iraq, is now poised to reap huge gains for a flu panic his Administration has done everything it can to promote. It would be useful to know whether the Pentagon’s successor to Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans developed the strategy of biowarfare behind the current Avian Flu panic. Perhaps some enterprising Congressional committee might look into the entire subject of plausible conflicts of interest regarding Secretary Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld stands to make a fortune on royalties as a panicked world population scrambles to buy a drug worthless in curing effects of alleged Avian Flu. The model suggests the parallel to the brazen corruption of Halliburton Corporation whose former CEO is Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney’s company has so far gotten billions worth of US construction contracts in Iraq and elsewhere. Coincidence that Cheney’s closest political friend is Defense Secretary and Avian Flu beneficiary Don Rumsfeld? It is another example of what someone has called the principle of modern US corrupt special interest politics: ‘Concentrate the benefits; diffuse the costs’ President Bush has ordered the US Government to buy $2 billion worth of Gilead Science’s Tamilflu. GMO Chickens come home to roost But Tamiflu conflicts are perhaps just the tip of the iceberg of the Avian Flu story. There is high-level biological research underway in Britain and presumably also the United States to develop a genetic engineering method to make chickens and other birds ‘resistant’ to Avian Flu viruses. British scientists are reportedly genetically engineering chickens to produce birds resistant to the lethal strains of the H5N1 virus devastating poultry in the Far East. Laurence Tiley, Professor of Microular Virology at Cambridge University and Helen Sang of the Roslin Institute in Scotland are involved in developing ‘transgenic chickens’ which would have small pieces of genetic material inserted into chicken eggs to allegedly make the chickens H5N1 resistant. Tiley told the Times of London on October 29, ‘Once we have regulatory approval, we believe it will only take between four and five years to breed enough chickens to replace the entire world (chicken) population.’ The real question in this dubious undertaking is which GMO giants are underwriting the research and development of GMO chickens and who will control their products. It is increasingly clear that the entire saga of Avian Flu is one whose dimensions are only slowly coming to light. What we can see so far is not at all pretty. Global Research Contributing Editor William Engdahl is author of ‘A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Pluto Press and the soon-to-be released book, ‘Seeds of Destruction: The Geopolitics of Gene-ocide’. He can be contacted through his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net. | |
| | |
November 02, 2005
Is Avian Flu another Pentagon Hoax?
Pros and cons of Kosovo dilemma
Pros and cons of Kosovo dilemma
In a ten point critical and thorough commentary analyst Aleksandar Mitic reasons why Kosovo should not be independent
1)Why should one side get it all, the other side lose it all?
The independence of Kosovo is a maximalist solution in which one side – the Albanian community – gets it all, and the other side – the Kosovo Serbs and Serbia – loses it all. The Kosovo Serbs and Serbia will never accept this solution – it can only be imposed but can never be a result of a compromise. Such a solution also plants on the long run the seeds of injustice, frustration and instability in the region.
2)Why create a completely new state from the scratch?
An independent Kosovo would be a completely unprincipled solution for the borders in the Balkans, after that same independence was refused to some other nations during the 1990s. Let’s take the example of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is, under the Dayton accords, composed of two entities – the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Muslim and Croat entity) and the Republika Srpska (Serb entity). Just as Kosovo, Republika Srpska is a protectorate, with the troops from NATO countries on its soil. Just as in Kosovo, some 90 percent of its population is made of one ethnic community. Strategically, the Serbs as the majority community in Republika Srpska have the same aspirations as the Kosovo Albanians: to become independent. But in Republika Srpska, the international community is tearing down all existing symbols and structures of statehood, even those allowed by the Dayton peace accords. Republika Srpska is in fact, in the process of being absorbed in a centralized state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the proclaimed name of stability, multiethnicity and European integration – but against the will of the majority community. In Kosovo, only 100km south, that same international community is doing a completely opposite thing: it is building a new state from the scratch and treating Kosovo as an “independent state in the making”. Is there any logic in that?
3)Why break up the most multiethnic country in the region?
Just as it rushed with the breakup of the former multiethnic Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, with an independence of Kosovo, the international community could be rushing to break up Serbia, the most multiethnic country in the Balkans. If the majority Albanian community in Kosovo gets independence, what kind of example would that represent for the Muslim majority in the Sandzak region, the Albanian one in southern Serbia, the Serbian one in eastern Montenegro, the Albanian one in western Macedonia, the Serbian one in eastern Slavonia or the Hungarian one in northern Vojvodina?
4)Why endanger international law?
It is clear that Kosovo could get independence only outside the UN Security Council, where at least Russia and China would veto such an option (due to Taiwan, Tibet, Chechenya). A solution without the UN Security Council approval would be a new slap in the face of international law. The framework for the resolution of the future status of Kosovo can be found in the resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council. Under that resolution, “the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”, nowadays Serbia and Montenegro. In Resolution 1244 “self-governing” is mentioned three times, “self-government” four times, “self-administration” one time, “substantial autonomy” three times whereas neither “self-determination” nor “independence” is mentioned in the document. The “sovereignty” of Yugoslavia is mentioned three times.
5)Why would Kosovo be an exception in the world?
Kosovo cannot be an exception in the world. It would be necessary to carefully consider the future status of Kosovo since it would likely have an effect on secessionist movements elsewhere in the region, in Europe and in the world: Basque province, Corsica, Tibet, Taiwan, Kurdistan, Scotland, Quebec, Tamil Eeam, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Kashmir, Southern Thailand, etc. All the secessionist movements in the world will follow with great attention the situation in Kosovo as a possible precedent.
6)Why did NATO intervene in 1999?
Given the developments in Kosovo since 1999, the independence of Kosovo would, sooner or later, most probably lead to a monoethnic Albanian Kosovo. As such, it would completely undermine the arguments of those who supported the NATO bombings in 1999 in the name of the “multiethnicity” of Kosovo. The bombing of 1999 would historically be seen as a campaign for the independence of Kosovo, which is light years away from the proclaimed goals of a “humanitarian intervention”.
7)Why punish the democratic Serbia?
The democratic authorities in Belgrade are firmly on the pro-European road. They have opened negotiations on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with the EU – a first step towards full membership —, they are adopting European laws and reforms proposed by the international financial institutions. They have established an efficient cooperation with the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague (all those indicted for the 1999 war crimes in Kosovo are in The Hague).
Serbia has fulfilled all security demands required in the process of reforms: it has respected from A to Z the articles of the 1999 Kumanovo accords with NATO on the retreat of security structures from Kosovo; it has shown restraint and close cooperation with NATO in the management of the Albanian uprising in 2000-01 in southern Serbia; it has succeeded in preventing the spillover of violence from Kosovo to the rest of Serbia during the March 2004 massive anti-Serb violence in Kosovo; it has been praised by Western diplomats for its management of ethnic tensions in southern Serbia and in the Vojvodina province; it has reformed its military and police structures along the lines of the standards of the OSCE and the Partnership for Peace. It is proposing a compromising solution for the future status of Kosovo.
Why punish it with the loss of a part of its territory, a birthplace of the Serbian state, which is still today home to some 1,300 Serbian monasteries, churches and other Orthodox objects – many of them jewels of medieval architecture. What kind of consequence would an independence of Kosovo have on democracy in Serbia? If the Albanian side gets a maximum of its demands just so that it does not provoke new tensions and conflicts, who can guarantee that Serbs would peacefully watch and accept the loss of Kosovo? Does that mean that the threat of barbarism and violence is winning over interethnic cooperation and tolerance?
8)Why create a second Albanian state?
The independence of Kosovo and its likely monoethnic character would mean the creation of a second Albanian national state in the world: the nation of “Kosovars” in fact does not exist in the European meaning of the word. There are Albanians, Serbs and other communities who live in Kosovo. On the other side, according to the UNDP, there are some 5,000 different ethnic groups living in some 200 countries of the world. Under the figures of the study “Minorities at Risk”, some 509 ethnic groups in the world consider themselves as politically discriminated. A huge number of them are dreaming of autonomy. Why would one nation – the Albanian one – get two independent STATES?
9)Why impose independence as “The only solution for Kosovo”?
The key objective should be to give the Kosovo Albanians a maximum of opportunities and real means to manage their future without feeling threatened, but also without threatening the interests of other groups, the security and the shaky stability of the region. Within the principles of the international community (no return to the situation from before 1999, no joining to neighbouring states, no partition), there is a series of options that look much more like a compromise that an imposed solution of independence.
A sustainable and just solution is one that lies between the standard autonomy for Kosovo - unacceptable for the Albanian aspirations - and the full, “conditional” or “immediate” independence - unacceptable for the Serbs and the Serbian state. Between these two, there is a myriad of thinkable options - for Kosovo in the region and internally inside Kosovo: substantial autonomy, confederation, Kosovo as a Euro region, the Hong Kong model (one state – two systems), South Tirol, Bavaria, etc.
10)Why create new states in a “Borderless Europe”?
If the entire southeastern Europe is going towards European integration and membership in the European Union – where borders are no longer “important”, if this process is underway and will be finished in the decade to come, why create a new state in the heart of Europe? Why create new borders at such high cost if those same borders will be brought down in the matter of several years? Where is the logic of European integration in the independence of Kosovo?
(Aleksandar Mitic is Chief Analyst at the Institute of Serbia and Montenegro in Brussels and Lecturer at the University of Belgrade)
