CUI BONO? WHO BENEFITS FROM PUSHING WHAT OWN AGENDA

This is a REVISED version of my document 
CUI BONO: WHO BENEFITS FROM PUSHING WHAT OWN AGENDA?
in response to the events of September 11, 2001 

Please post or REpost if previously posted in garbled form
[eg. a-net] and/or forward for posting as you deem appropriate.

This posting consiste of two parts:
1. a short several screen INTRODUCTION by me -
Gunder Frank, sent here as ordinary e-mail at the top of this message
and
2. a much more extensive documentation 
ATTACHED BELOW IN MS-WORD FORMAT 
on WHO is trying to hitch WHAT own agenda to U.S.policy in response to the 
events of September 11, 2001.
Where possible these several dozen documents about particular agendas around 
the world come from the horse's mouth and/or from other institional sources. 

INTRODUCTION 

CUI BONO? 
WHO GETS TO APPEND AND PUSH FOR WHAT OWN AGENDAS
TO THE COMMON AFTER MATH OF SEPTEMBER 11?

     Introduction and Selection of Documents
                by
          Andre Gunder Frank

Find short Introduction in e-Mail Message below is by A.G. Frank and 
Documentation in the following long appended Attachment is from sources 
indicated
[except that appended explanations in brackets [ ...] are also by A.G. Frank 

PREFACE
 by Catherine Fitts:

CUI  BONO? Building a Map to Solve the Crime
To understand events such as wars or any of the events on the nightly news,  
always ask the question "Cui bono?" which translates as "Who benefits?" 
Cui Bono?  Who Benefits?

  Catherine Austin Fitts
  [Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Housing and  Urban   Development 
  and former managing director of Dillon Read. 
  Today she is Director of the Solaris Group]   --------------------
INTRODUCTION by Andre Gunder Frank

At the beginning of the Cold War, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles 
threw down the gauntlet : "Those who are not with us, are against us." The same 
phrase has 
been invoked again by President Bush after September 11, 2001. In both 
instances, the self-evident purpose and effect was to throw the weight  of the 
United States around 
to intimidate as many  states and others to make all possible military, 
diplomatic, political, economic and other concessions  to the United States 
that it demanded of them. 
Then, it was in the name of fighting  the common cold war enemy, and today it 
is in the name of fighting the common  terrorist enemy.  However worthy the 
causes, in both cases 
the cause then was and now again is used to promote agendas as well that have 
no visible connection  with the cause – until the United  States ‘'links'‘ 
them, also to invoke the old cold war terminology. Through this simple 
mechanism, any number of other agendas of the  U.S., other states, and a myriad 
of private interests are conveniently linked to an offer to good- or too 
dangerous -  to refuse. By way of example, particular interest groups saw and 
took the opportunity immediately to attach ‘'riders'‘ that promote their own 
agendas to disaster and defense spending bills that were sure fire bets to be 
immediately passed by the U.S. Congress. That however, is but a tip of the 
iceberg example of how countless other state and private interests around the 
world opportunistically saw and cynically and 
shamelessly sought - and often already succeeded - to turn a monstrous human 
tragedy to their own  particular advantage. Literally first was Israel, waiting 
no more than a day to launch an expanded military campaign against what it 
likes to call Palestinian ‘'terrorism,'‘ which with U.S. help it has persuaded 
much of the non-Arab world to accept as such. 

NOW CUI BONO?  The agendas are without limit, both in number and in the 
distance and breadth  of the ‘'link'‘ to the cause as well as in the cynical 
ingenuity or ingenious cynicism of establishing making these links. Below are 
assembled only a tip-of-the-iceberg SHORT list of other agendas that have 
already been so  linked – mostly as per the horse's mouth testimony of the 
actors themselves and/or
institutional and other observers of the same.

Only one major agenda is not represented by their own voices in the items 
below, although with  a bit more diligence in searching them out, it should not 
be altogether too difficult to document that as well. That agenda of more than 
a decade's standing and that has now received an enormous new boost: is the 
further promotion by President George W. Bush [son]  of what  President George 
Bush [father] called   ‘'THE NEW WORLD ORDER ‘'that he was constructing with 
his  War against Iraq in 1991. That THIRD WORLD WAR as I then termed it [in 
which THIRD  meant both the 3rd following the 1st and 2nd AND a war fought in 
and against the THIRD WORLD] put one and all on  notice that ‘'the bully on the 
block'‘ alas now in the world as a whole, was prepared to bomb and maybe even 
to nuke any country in the Third World, that not being ‘'with ‘'us, is 
‘'against'‘ us. President Clinton made the Bush Doctrine his own and extended 
it onwards to Europe in the first 'out of area'‘ war by NATO against Yugoslavia 
, which not coincidentally was the only country in Europe that refused to 
knuckle under the US Treasury/IMF line - excepting only Belarus, which for that 
simple reason is the other bete noire. All of this done always with the loyal 
support of the world's # 1 cynical  hypocrite opportunist Tony Blair, who goes 
on and on about  his latter day mission to ‘'save civilization'‘ with 
radio-active depleted uranium for refugees in Kosovo and cluster bombs for 
starving ones in Afghanistan. It may appear as though that represented another 
innovation as well, namely the invocation of ‘'human rights'‘ to crush human 
rights. Alas Clinton and Blair cannot legitimately claim originality, for a 
half century earlier  the  invasion of Czechoslovakia and then of Yugoslavia as 
well was also ‘'legitimated'‘ in the name of  ‘'the defense of the human 
rights" of the victims –  by Adolph Hitler. 

This now third war in the series of THIRD WORLD WAR/S promises to advance the 
NEW WORLD ORDER agenda still further. Today of course that agenda includes 
first and foremost  the oil rich regions of the  Caspian Sea and Central Asia, 
which also ‘'happen' to be the soft under-belly of Russia, which already fought 
 " The Great Game'‘ in Central Asia against its British rival in the nineteenth 
century. Today, of course Britain has been dis- and re-placed by the United 
States, although formerly ‘'Great'‘ Britain is now satisfied opportunistically 
still to play at least second fiddle to the  American tune. There as in the 
U.S. and in any number of other countries, not only foreign policy agendas, but 
also any number of domestic agenda s that are being opportunistically used in 
the wake of human tragedy. The first and foremost of course is the 
administration's understandable desire to rally popular political support for 
and to legitimate itself by catering to public demand for revenge, which the 
administration and its servants in the media  have themselves have been 
irresponsibly whipping as much as possible with all manner of jingoism. and to 
do so by military action even without any other visible purpose or definable 
enemy and target. Both are highly irresponsible and do the American public an 
enormous disservice in failing to educate it about the causes behind the tragic 
action by others, and in adding  to and accentuating these causes. Instead of 
seeking to protect the public, the administration and the media are instead 
knowingly exposing the people of the United States and others in the West to 
ever more terror and pain. Indeed, the administration, its own cabinet members 
and other high ranking politicians have even made numerous  public statements 
signifying their lack of concern over how their own actions are certain to 
incite others to escalate attacks of reprisal.

To that effect a recent Strategic Command document recommend a recent revision 
of  U.S. strategy anywhere in the globe: 
    We must understand in advance, to the degree                possible, what 
an adversary values," the paper says,     adding that "what a nation's 
leadership values is 
    complex, since, to a considerable extent, it is rooted      in a nation's 
culture." In addition, it also says that      the United States "must 
communicate, specifically, what     we want to deter without saying what is 
permitted." It     also adds, "We must communicate in the strongest ways 
    possible the unbreakable link between our vital         interests and the 
potential harm that will be directly      attributable to any who damages, or  
even credibly         threatens to damage, that which we hold of value." 

To that end, the Strategic Command paper says the United States should not say  
"whether the reaction would either be responsive or preemptive" and as a  
result the country should never adopt declaratory policies such as "no 
first use" of nuclear weapons. The personal characteristics of the U.S. leader, 
the paper says, play a part. "Fear," the authors say, "is not the possession of 
the rational mind alone." But they go on to say that deterrence "must create 
fear in the mind of the adversary -- fear that he will not achieve his 
objectives, fear that his losses and pain will far outweigh any potential 
gains, fear that he will be punished."

Also high on the list of answers to the question of cui bono is the American 
domestic right's agenda to roll back civil liberties. Not by accident did the 
VERY REVERENDS Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in the United States rush to 
assure us only days after  the tragedy of September 11, 2001 that it was God's 
punishment of American  transgressions, including abortion, gay/lesbianism, and 
all manner of ‘'liberal excesses'‘ in civil liberties.  Still Confederate flag 
waving Attorney General Ashcroft immediately sent Congress a long laundry list 
of X with demands vastly to curtail civil liberties. Concomitantly, the 
dictatorships in Central Asia take advantage of the situation to protect and 
shore up their own  power. Experiance with Saddam Hussein and  Dragoslav 
Milosevic demonstrate the almost certain recurrence of such consequences with 
Taliban in Afghanistan and the Central Asian dictators inherited from the 
Soviet ear. The difference is that, excepting Taliban, this time the U.S. and 
NATO have an interest in protecting and using these known devils for their own 
purposes in the region instead of running the risk of having to deal with as 
yet unknown ones. That is the case even in Afghanistan, where the U.S. is loath 
and Pakistan is completely opposed to letting the ‘'Northern Alliance'‘ replace 
Taliban, whose ‘'moderate'‘ elements are therefore designated also to have a 
role in any post-war settlement and government in Afghanistan. 

To add a historical footnote, it is revealing that nobody seems to have 
recalled, much less made any connections with, that other Tuesday September 11 
when the Presidential Palace in Chile  was bombed and  a military dictatorship 
was installed in 1973, which  in the course of a decade and a assassinated and 
disappeared some 30,000 victims, tortured unknown thousands of them and among 
survivors, and exiled well over 100,000 people – with the collaboration of the 
US CIA and at the direct instance of US President Richard Nixon and his 
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. [Their role was documented in the US Senate 
hearings of the Church Committee , which resulted in reigning in some CIA 
excesses with some restrictions in the 1970s that are now being again 
eliminated and then some in the name of fighting international terrorism. The 
role of Kissinger was recently documented also in the pages of Harper's 
Magazine  by Christopher Hitchins, who a few months ago called for the 
indictment of Kissinger for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but now 
rises in defense of the same in the present War against Afghanistan]. .Instead, 
the new administration in Washington is now intent to unleash the CIA, and 
undoubtedly also the much less known but much more important Defense 
Intelligence Agency, to pursue and push American government policies around the 
world.

Before proceeding to the documentation below of some of the many agendas that 
are being promoted in the wake of and lugubriously ‘'thanks to'‘ the human 
tragedy of September 11, we should make no mistake in noting as well how and to 
what extent one other agenda is being promoted probably more than any of the 
other by present policies and events: that of  Osmani bin Laden, who first and 
foremost seeks to replace the Saudi regime in his native Arabia, secondly. the 
corrupt American puppet regimes in neighboring Arab states, and thirdly Israeli 
colonization of Palestine, whose roots he sees in the neo-colonialist partition 
of the whole area, especially by Britain, in the 1920s to which refers in his 
statements about ‘'80 years ago.'‘ Neither of the Holy Warriors bin Laden and 
Bush , nor the promotion of their respective  agendas, could be better served 
than by the policies and praxis of the other.

cui bono.doc