Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions

We speak with John Perkins, a former respected member of the international banking community. In his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man he describes how as a highly paid professional, he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies.

John Perkins describes himself as a former economic hit man–a highly paid professional who cheated countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars.

20 years ago Perkins began writing a book with the working title, “Conscience of an Economic Hit Men.”

Perkins writes, "The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been his clients whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits–Jaime Roldós, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Roldós and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in.

John Perkins goes on to write: “I was persuaded to stop writing that book. I started it four more times during the next twenty years. On each occasion, my decision to begin again was influenced by current world events: the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1980, the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the rise of Osama bin Laden. However, threats or bribes always convinced me to stop.”

But now Perkins has finally published his story. The book is titled Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. John Perkins joins us now in our Firehouse studios.

• John Perkins, from 1971 to 1981 he worked for the international consulting firm of Chas T. Main where he was a self-described “economic hit man.” He is the author of the new book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

AMY GOODMAN: John Perkins joins us now in our firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!

JOHN PERKINS: Thank you, Amy. It’s great to be here.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Okay, explain this term, “economic hit man,” e.h.m., as you call it.

JOHN PERKINS: Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring—to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It’s been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It’s only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that.

AMY GOODMAN: How did you become one? Who did you work for?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, I was initially recruited while I was in business school back in the late sixties by the National Security Agency, the nation’s largest and least understood spy organization; but ultimately I worked for private corporations. The first real economic hit man was back in the early 1950’s, Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of Teddy, who overthrew of government of Iran, a democratically elected government, Mossadegh’s government who was Time‘s magazine person of the year; and he was so successful at doing this without any bloodshed—well, there was a little bloodshed, but no military intervention, just spending millions of dollars and replaced Mossadegh with the Shah of Iran. At that point, we understood that this idea of economic hit man was an extremely good one. We didn’t have to worry about the threat of war with Russia when we did it this way. The problem with that was that Roosevelt was a C.I.A. agent. He was a government employee. Had he been caught, we would have been in a lot of trouble. It would have been very embarrassing. So, at that point, the decision was made to use organizations like the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. to recruit potential economic hit men like me and then send us to work for private consulting companies, engineering firms, construction companies, so that if we were caught, there would be no connection with the government.

AMY GOODMAN: Okay. Explain the company you worked for.

JOHN PERKINS: Well, the company I worked for was a company named Chas. T. Main in Boston, Massachusetts. We were about 2,000 employees, and I became its chief economist. I ended up having fifty people working for me. But my real job was deal-making. It was giving loans to other countries, huge loans, much bigger than they could possibly repay. One of the conditions of the loan—let’s say a $1 billion to a country like Indonesia or Ecuador—and this country would then have to give ninety percent of that loan back to a U.S. company, or U.S. companies, to build the infrastructure—a Halliburton or a Bechtel. These were big ones. Those companies would then go in and build an electrical system or ports or highways, and these would basically serve just a few of the very wealthiest families in those countries. The poor people in those countries would be stuck ultimately with this amazing debt that they couldn’t possibly repay. A country today like Ecuador owes over fifty percent of its national budget just to pay down its debt. And it really can’t do it. So, we literally have them over a barrel. So, when we want more oil, we go to Ecuador and say, “Look, you’re not able to repay your debts, therefore give our oil companies your Amazon rain forest, which are filled with oil.” And today we’re going in and destroying Amazonian rain forests, forcing Ecuador to give them to us because they’ve accumulated all this debt. So we make this big loan, most of it comes back to the United States, the country is left with the debt plus lots of interest, and they basically become our servants, our slaves. It’s an empire. There’s no two ways about it. It’s a huge empire. It’s been extremely successful.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. You say because of bribes and other reason you didn’t write this book for a long time. What do you mean? Who tried to bribe you, or who—what are the bribes you accepted?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, I accepted a half a million dollar bribe in the nineties not to write the book.

AMY GOODMAN: From?

JOHN PERKINS: From a major construction engineering company.

AMY GOODMAN: Which one?

JOHN PERKINS: Legally speaking, it wasn’t—Stoner-Webster. Legally speaking it wasn’t a bribe, it was—I was being paid as a consultant. This is all very legal. But I essentially did nothing. It was a very understood, as I explained in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, that it was—I was—it was understood when I accepted this money as a consultant to them I wouldn’t have to do much work, but I mustn’t write any books about the subject, which they were aware that I was in the process of writing this book, which at the time I called “Conscience of an Economic Hit Man.” And I have to tell you, Amy, that, you know, it’s an extraordinary story from the standpoint of—It’s almost James Bondish, truly, and I mean-–

AMY GOODMAN: Well that’s certainly how the book reads.

JOHN PERKINS: Yeah, and it was, you know? And when the National Security Agency recruited me, they put me through a day of lie detector tests. They found out all my weaknesses and immediately seduced me. They used the strongest drugs in our culture, sex, power and money, to win me over. I come from a very old New England family, Calvinist, steeped in amazingly strong moral values. I think I, you know, I’m a good person overall, and I think my story really shows how this system and these powerful drugs of sex, money and power can seduce people, because I ceSrtainly was seduced. And if I hadn’t lived this life as an economic hit man, I think I’d have a hard time believing that anybody does these things. And that’s why I wrote the book, because our country really needs to understand, if people in this nation understood what our foreign policy is really about, what foreign aid is about, how our corporations work, where our tax money goes, I know we will demand change.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to John Perkins. In your book, you talk about how you helped to implement a secret scheme that funneled billions of dollars of Saudi Arabian petrol dollars back into the U.S. economy, and that further cemented the intimate relationship between the House of Saud and successive U.S. administrations. Explain.

JOHN PERKINS: Yes, it was a fascinating time. I remember well, you’re probably too young to remember, but I remember well in the early seventies how OPEC exercised this power it had, and cut back on oil supplies. We had cars lined up at gas stations. The country was afraid that it was facing another 1929-type of crash—depression; and this was unacceptable. So, they—the Treasury Department hired me and a few other economic hit men. We went to Saudi Arabia. We—

AMY GOODMAN: You’re actually called economic hit men—e.h.m.’s?

JOHN PERKINS: Yeah, it was a tongue-in-cheek term that we called ourselves. Officially, I was a chief economist. We called ourselves e.h.m.‘s. It was tongue-in-cheek. It was like, nobody will believe us if we say this, you know? And, so, we went to Saudi Arabia in the early seventies. We knew Saudi Arabia was the key to dropping our dependency, or to controlling the situation. And we worked out this deal whereby the Royal House of Saud agreed to send most of their petro-dollars back to the United States and invest them in U.S. government securities. The Treasury Department would use the interest from these securities to hire U.S. companies to build Saudi Arabia—new cities, new infrastructure—which we’ve done. And the House of Saud would agree to maintain the price of oil within acceptable limits to us, which they’ve done all of these years, and we would agree to keep the House of Saud in power as long as they did this, which we’ve done, which is one of the reasons we went to war with Iraq in the first place. And in Iraq we tried to implement the same policy that was so successful in Saudi Arabia, but Saddam Hussein didn’t buy. When the economic hit men fail in this scenario, the next step is what we call the jackals. Jackals are C.I.A.-sanctioned people that come in and try to foment a coup or revolution. If that doesn’t work, they perform assassinations. or try to. In the case of Iraq, they weren’t able to get through to Saddam Hussein. He had—His bodyguards were too good. He had doubles. They couldn’t get through to him. So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is our young men and women, who are sent in to die and kill, which is what we’ve obviously done in Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain how Torrijos died?

JOHN PERKINS: Omar Torrijos, the President of Panama. Omar Torrijos had signed the Canal Treaty with Carter much—and, you know, it passed our congress by only one vote. It was a highly contended issue. And Torrijos then also went ahead and negotiated with the Japanese to build a sea-level canal. The Japanese wanted to finance and construct a sea-level canal in Panama. Torrijos talked to them about this which very much upset Bechtel Corporation, whose president was George Schultz and senior council was Casper Weinberger. When Carter was thrown out (and that’s an interesting story—how that actually happened), when he lost the election, and Reagan came in and Schultz came in as Secretary of State from Bechtel, and Weinberger came from Bechtel to be Secretary of Defense, they were extremely angry at Torrijos—tried to get him to renegotiate the Canal Treaty and not to talk to the Japanese. He adamantly refused. He was a very principled man. He had his problem, but he was a very principled man. He was an amazing man, Torrijos. And so, he died in a fiery airplane crash, which was connected to a tape recorder with explosives in it, which—I was there. I had been working with him. I knew that we economic hit men had failed. I knew the jackals were closing in on him, and the next thing, his plane exploded with a tape recorder with a bomb in it. There’s no question in my mind that it was C.I.A. sanctioned, and most—many Latin American investigators have come to the same conclusion. Of course, we never heard about that in our country.

AMY GOODMAN: So, where—when did your change your heart happen?

JOHN PERKINS: I felt guilty throughout the whole time, but I was seduced. The power of these drugs, sex, power, and money, was extremely strong for me. And, of course, I was doing things I was being patted on the back for. I was chief economist. I was doing things that Robert McNamara liked and so on.

AMY GOODMAN: How closely did you work with the World Bank?

JOHN PERKINS: Very, very closely with the World Bank. The World Bank provides most of the money that’s used by economic hit men, it and the I.M.F. But when 9/11 struck, I had a change of heart. I knew the story had to be told because what happened at 9/11 is a direct result of what the economic hit men are doing. And the only way that we’re going to feel secure in this country again and that we’re going to feel good about ourselves is if we use these systems we’ve put into place to create positive change around the world. I really believe we can do that. I believe the World Bank and other institutions can be turned around and do what they were originally intended to do, which is help reconstruct devastated parts of the world. Help—genuinely help poor people. There are twenty-four thousand people starving to death every day. We can change that.

AMY GOODMAN: John Perkins, I want to thank you very much for being with us. John Perkins’ book is called, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

Source: Democracy Now! Dec. 9, 2004

Zbigniew Brzezinski: the Empire’s Adviser

The outrageous strategy to destroy Russia
by Arthur Lepic

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s former adviser, embodies the continuity of U.S. foreign policy whether it is democratic or republican. A great admirer of Henry Kissinger, Brzezinski has always defended, praised and shown an absolute respect for the master’s two diplomacy concepts: the balance of the powers theorized by Metternich and George Kennan’s containment doctrine. Zbigniew Brzezinski recommends how Russia should be militarily weakened and intimidated. He is convinced that the best way to achieve it is by destabilizing its border regions, a political strategy that arouse the interest of former presidential candidate John Kerry’s team who recruited his son Mark Brzezinski as its foreign policy adviser.

Based on George W. Bush’s speech during year 2000 presidential campaign, a rigid, even aggressive attitude towards Vladimir Putin’s Russia would have been expected -according to his adviser “hawk” Wolfowitz’s doctrine. But, instead, we have seen an unprecedented approach in the political relations of these two great nations. And this has happened after September 11, 2001.

For many observers and analysts there was an agreement between Putin and Bush not to criticize Russian military operations in Chechnya whereas Putin would ignore American interventions and interferences in the Middle East.

This explanation does not really value September 11 facts. It actually considers them as an abstraction and the same with Kremlin’s position on this. We can say that Republican administrations have always attached too much importance to the Middle East whereas Democrat’s political tradition on foreign policy has been more focused in Eurasia.

To design its strategy towards the former USRR and then on the Easter states, recently emancipated from the Soviet influence, Democrats have trusted -since Jimmy Carter took power- a brilliant, unscrupulous and anti-Russian man: Zbigniew Brzezinski.

This well-known professor’s doctrine has many followers outside of the Democratic Party because it has defined the actual imperative of the empire’s survival and prosperity: the conquest of Eurasia.

This professor was born in Warsaw in 1928, the son of a Polish diplomat. At the age of ten, Brzezinski immigrated to Canada when his father was distinguished. He did his degree and his master at the University of Mc Gill, Montreal, and then his PhD at Harvard in 1953. After that, he became an American citizen and married the daughter of Czechoslovakia’s former president Eduardo Benes.

Between 1966 and 1968 he was a member of the Council of Policy Planning of the State Department where he developed the “peaceful involvement” strategy towards the Soviet Union in the framework of the Cold War. In October 1966, he convinced President Johnson to modify the strategic priorities in order to have the “thawing-out” before the German reunification.

During 1968 presidential campaign, Brzezinski was the head of the working party in charge of democratic candidate Hubert H. Humphrey’s foreign policy, who would lose to Richard Nixon.

The Inspiring Leader of the Trilateral Commission

At the beginning of the 1960s, Brzezinski distinguished himself as an analyst when prophetically announced the appearance of bigger actors in the world power. He was talking about Europe and Japan whose economies have had a rapid growth after WWII.

In an article published in Foreign Affairs magazine in 1970, he talked about his vision of this “new world order”. «A new and more daring vision is needed - the creation of a community of developed countries capable of efficiently handling the problems of mankind. Apart from the U.S. and Western Europe, Japan should be included (...) A good start would be a council formed by representatives of the U.S, Western Europe and Japan, which will hold regular meetings among the heads of governments and less relevant personalities.»

In 1970, Brzezinski also proposed new ideas in his new book Between two Ages [1] where he explained that the moment to balance world power had arrived and it had to be in the hands of a new global political order based on a trilateral economic tie between Japan, Europe and the U.S. The revolution in production techniques and the transformation of the heavy industry into electronics had to cause a disruption of political systems and a new generation of power elites. David Rockefeller, excited about these concepts, hired him to create the Trilateral Commission and appointed him director. The commission was officially established in 1973 and gathered important personalities related to world trade, the international banking system, governors and the big European, Japanese and American media.

When the first oil crisis took place, the main concern of these world finance masters was to get rid of the foreign debt of developing countries by strengthening the role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It was also about strengthening and extending U.S.’s hegemony - by that time vulnerable due to its military defeat in Viet Nam- in every geographical boundary of the Eurasian continent where they were very influential after WWII

This mission, if analyzed from an outsider’s point of view, depicts Brzezinski as a peace advocate, a man in favor of multilateral relations and diminishing world tension (Cold War) and -to the eyes of the extreme right- as a man inspired by Marxism.
The best to be done in order to implement the plans of the Trilateral Commission was to make one of its members the President of the United States.

President Carter and the Double-Dealing

Since the creation of the Trilateral Commission, shepherd Jimmy Carter was among the members of Rockefeller-Brzezinski’s team. He has opened the first trade offices of the state of Georgia in Brussels and Tokyo and this turned him into the ideal model or the founding concept of the Commission. [2] For his nomination as an election candidate and to the presidential election in 1976, Rockefeller used his relations in Wall Street and put Brzezinski to work, whose academic influence assisting democratic candidate Jimmy Carter was very helpful for wining the election. And, of course, when Carter won the elections, Brzezinski was appointed national security adviser. [3]

As president, Carter stated the reduction of the military nuclear arsenal of the two blocks (U.S. -USRR) as a priority. However, the Soviet SS-20 missile crisis aimed at Europe forced Carter to deploy the Pershing missiles, an action that ruined his efforts, whether they were sincere or not, and caused the reciprocal distrust of the two countries.

It can be affirmed that by that time, the Soviet block had good reasons to believe that its adversary was involved in double-dealing: the U.S. military defeat in Viet Nam forced it to keep certain reserve in the strategic and military fields whereas Brzezinski was working on his war plan to set a trap for the Soviet Union and force it to come into a peripheral conflict.





















The destabilization of the Afghan communist regime and the financing and delivering of the first weapons to anticommunist Jihad followers in 1979 caused, as expected, the intervention of the Red Army in Afghanistan. Brzezinski had the support of Pakistan intelligence and espionage services, the fearful ISI.

When the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur interviewed Brzezinski in 1998, he admitted that the equipping of Bin Laden’s anti-Soviet troops was before the Russian invasion and was aimed at provoking its reaction:

Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director, Robert Gates, says in his memoirs: the American secret services assisted Afghan mujahedeen six months before the Soviet invasion. By that time, you were President Carter’s adviser and you played a key role on this. Do you confirm it?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of the story, the CIA began to assist mujahedeen in the year 1980, that is, after the invasion of the Soviet army against Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the truth that remained secret until today is quite different: it was on July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed his first order on the secret assistance to Kabul’s pro-Soviet regime opponents. That day I wrote a memorandum to the President in which I told him that that assistance would cause the Soviet intervention (...) we did not force the Russian intervention, we just, conscientiously, increase the intervention possibilities.

NO: When the Soviets justified their intervention by affirming they were fighting against a secret American interference nobody believed them, though they were telling the truth. Don’t you regret it?

Z. Brz.: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. Its objective was to lead the Russian to the Afghan trap, and you want me to regret it? The very same day the Soviets crossed the Afghan border I wrote the following to President Carter: «This is our chance to give Russia its Viet Nam» (...).

N.O.: Aren’t you sorry either for favoring Islamic fundamentalism and providing weapons and consultancies to future terrorists?

ZBrz.: What is the most important thing when you look at world history, the Taliban or the fall of the Soviet empire? Some excited Islamists or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War? [4]

When Brzezinski talked about «some excited Islamists» in this interview, he did not underestimate Al Qaeda’s power. He just described the reality of what the neo-conservatives has turned into a myth while justifying their world crusade. It is obvious that none of the members of the Council on Foreign Relations would be so categorical.

Objective Alliance with China and Unconditional Support to the Shah of Iran

Even when Nixon and Kissinger were cautious about besieging the Soviet Union and restored relations with China, a number of Carter’s closest advisers did not support this rapprochement Brzezinski had in mind.

When Carter became President, he stated he would establish a dialogue with the USRR and keep the People’s Republic of China at a distance. But, his Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, opposed Brzezinski anti-Russian obsession and Carter had no choice but to conciliate its administration’s antagonism.

Usually, the mediator between these two poles was Richard C. Holbrooke, U.S. future ambassador to the UN and John Kerry’s foreign policy adviser during his campaign, along with Mark Brzezinski, Zbigniew’s son. According to Cyrus Vance and some others in favor of establishing the dialogue, like democrat renegade Averell Arriman, the triangular logic of besieging would only lead, at its best, to a misunderstanding with the USRR, not to mention war.

They recommended dialogues on disarmament and cooperation with the Soviet Union to neutralize the Third World conflicts. The re-establishment of relations with China kept on; Brzezinski even completed a joint program of strategic cooperation and managed to have good personal relations with Deng Xiaoping, something that has really helped him nowadays.

Brzezinski’s distrust towards the USRR can be perceived again in his attitude towards Iran, which under the Shah’s regimen was considered as a bastion against the Soviet influence in the Middle East. Brzezinski promised Shah his support until the last moment and requested U.S. military intervention to keep him in power even when part of Carter’s administration, led by his Secretary of State, opposed it.

However, Washington’s concrete actions were implemented according to the state Department’s point of view and despite all negotiations with the generals that defeated Shah to guarantee a moderate regime in the country; it was Khomeini who took power after a popular seafloor spreading. Khomeini joined Carter at Camp David negotiations in 1977 and played a key role in the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt without even being present in the most important debates. However, when the USRR was the main topic, he was always there.

The Russian Threat and the American Supremacy

In 1989, Brzezinski quit his job at Columbia University where he taught since 1960 to work on Ukraine’s independent status plan. This marks the beginning of his compromise to prevent the resurgence of Russia as a superpower. He defended Russia’s integration to the Western system and the “geopolitical multiparty system” in the territory of the former Soviet Union.

He also developed a “plan for Europe” that included NATO’s expansion to the Baltic republics, a dream that came true when three of them joined NATO in 2002. During the 90s he was the special envoy of the American President to promote the most important oil infrastructure project of the world: the Baku-Tbilissi-Ceyhan pipeline which was his best opportunity to prevent the resurgence of Russia. He has also been, since 1999, the president of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, whose headquarters are located at the Freedom House facility. This position allows him to intervene in peace negotiations between the Russian government and independence fighters led by Mashkadov. However, the truth behind these good will “democratic” activities is to assist independence followers to maintain a war in the area, like the Afghan one, to weaken Russian and to keep it away from the gains of the Caspian Sea.

Brzezinski’s doctrine («The power ruling Eurasia will control two of the most economically advanced and productive areas of the world») is related to NATO’s expansion to the East, something the Clinton’s Administration actively worked on. But, how could they sell NATO to Europeans? «The European region located in the Western border of Eurasia and next to Africa is much more exposed to the risks of the increasing global disorder than a more politically united, military powerful and geographically isolated America (...).

The Europeans will be more exposed to risk if an imperialist chauvinism encourages Russia’s foreign policy», said Brzezinski to National Interest magazine in year 2000. [5] The whole thing is quite clear: the deployment of NATO’s forces around Russia was a preventive measure. If Russia’s reaction is to be defensive, it means that it is planning to restore its empire and totalitarianism.

Brzezinski has been working also as a consultant for BP-Amoco and Freedom House in Azerbaijan. His objective is to worship Heidar Alyiev’s image and in a New York Times interview he characterized the dictator as a «nice guy». [6] Brzezinski justifies Aliyev’s Anglo-Saxon support by explaining that after seven decades of communist government nobody can expect Azerbaijan and the former Soviet republics to become democratic nations in such a short period of time.

Even when Aliyev’s political repression increased during the last few years and the gains from the Caspian Sea diminished, Azerbaijan was still considered by Freedom House as a “partially free” country. In 1999, Secretary of State and Brzezinski’s disciple, Madeleine Albright, invited Heidar Aliyev to NATO’s anniversary ceremony. On their part, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine organized some joint military maneuvers, sponsored by NATO’s “Association for Peace” program, on April 16, 1996. [7]

Despite his activities as BP-Amoco and Freedom House’s consultant, Brzezinski assisted a system of funds and NGOs (non governmental organizations) in support of the former Soviet top-classes, intellectuals and elites.

As an initiative of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, whose chairman was Brzezinski, a meeting between the main leaders of the Chechnya movement was held from August 16 to August 18, 2002 in Lichtenstein, two months after the one held in Bassaiev and Maskhadov, where an agreement was signed on the mutual direction of the “Armed Forces of the Ichkeria Republic of Chechnya”. The participants concluded that Chechnya should not longer be a part of Russia, that a real autonomy was necessary and the time to negotiate with Maskhadov had arrived. But, was Beslán’s hostages event, as claimed by Bassaiev, part of Chechnya independence demand process or part of Russia’s destabilizing process? [8]

Several questions could be raised if we take into account that the main consequence of this action was a tightening of tensions between North Odessa and neighboring Inguchia, that is, a much more relevant balkanization of the region.

Nowadays, Brzezinski is very active in CSIS but he still the brain of the Democrats foreign policy program, something that is quite evident in candidate Kerry and his partner John Edwards’s obsession with Russia. Following Mark Brzezinski’s advises they chose as their main priority Russia’s nuclear disarmament in a moment in which it has recovered the same oil production it had before its demise and is benefiting widely of the current oil prices which has allowed it to double its defense budget. Therefore, Russia’s nuclear arsenal is not, as John Kerry says, a present-day threat.

Kerry’s real objective is related to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s strategy of Russia’s subordination but, from now on, it will be much more difficult to convince the world public opinion of Russia’s evil and totalitarianism. [9] Therefore, it is necessary to provoke its reaction as was done with the Afghan case in 1979, because Russia will have no problems with its energy supply in the next decades, a real concern the U.S. has. This is why in some recent Wall Street Journal and Novaya Gazetta interviews, Brzezinski characterized Vladimir Putin as «Russian Benito Mussolini».

Arthur Lepic, French Journalist, member of the French section of Voltaire Network and specialized in energy and military affairs.

Published originally in Voltairenet, 22 October 2004

[1] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between two Ages: America’s Role in the Technotronic Era, Harper publishing house, 1971. French Edition, Révolution technetronique, Calman-Lévy publishing house, 1971.

[2] The Trilateral Commission will also lead French President Giscard d’Estaing to choose one of its members, Raymond Barre, professor of economics and political unexperienced, as Primer Minister.

[3] Brzezinski included in his team Madeleine K. Albright (whose father served in Czechoslovakia during Eduard Benes’s government, Brzezinksi’s father in law) and the two theorists of The Clash of Civilization, Bernard Lewis and Samuel P.Huntington.

[4] Le Nouvel Observateur, No. 1732, from January 15 to January 21, 1998, p.76.

[5] Quoted in George Szamuely : «Bribing Montenegro - It didn’t work», antiwar, June 15, 2000.

[6] «Freedom spells B-A-K-U», Counterpunch Magazine, 1999.

[7] See: «Freedom House, quand la liberté n’est qu’un slogan», Voltaire, September 7, 2004. Article written in French that will soon be published by Red Voltaire.

[8] Marivilia Carrasco : «Beslan: responsibility of slaughter points towards the Anglosaxons», Voltaire, September 19, 2004.

[9] Thierry Meyssan: «115 atlantists against Rusia», Voltaire, November 26, 2004.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Defeated by his Success

When in the first half of 1979 Carter’s hawkish former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski designed the Afghan trap to the Soviets, he never dreamed with a further URSS collapse. He only wished to engage the soviet army in a kind of Viet Nam, meanwhile USA was going ahead in the gulf. That trap was code named "Operation Cyclone".

So, six months before Soviets decided to invade Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arab and the CIA had begun to train mujahideen in neighbor Zia ul-Haq’s Pakistan. As much as the mujahideen are not so prone to have any deal with the "Big Satan", the Stingers, bucks and ammo were funneled to Gulbuddin Hekmayar through the ISI, the Pakistani Secret Services.(1),(2),(4)

The guy who provided the funds to the Robert M. Gates CIA's (from dec/18/2006 US Secretary of Defense) was drawn from the buckle of the Bible Belt, the D-TX Charlie Wilson, a beloved friend of the nicaraguan dictator "Tacho" Somoza, whilst the CIA put Gust Avrakotos(5) in the Pakistani side to distribute ammo and bucks.

Those mujahideen were mainly recruited from the Pashto tribes dwelling in the FATA (Federally Administred Tribal Areas) Pakistan's NW Frontier, but a minority of Arab mujahideen were trained so, in a group called Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK). And guess you who was between them? If you thought about Osama, yes, you’re right.

When the mujahideen that the CIA had trained began to fight in Afghanistan to spur the Soviets, then they had bitten the fishhook and invaded Afghanistan. Ten years later, they had to withdraw and two years later, the URSS plummeted.

Never Brzezinski dreamed so much. The trap’s main aim was only to distract and keep Soviets engaged in dealing with a vietnamese-like guerrillas. So, when he received such gift, he told Le Nouvelle Observateur: “To repent of what? This secret operation has been an excellent idea!”.

But you know how this tale ends: Pashto mujahideen turned into Taleban, Taleban into Osama, Osama into WTC, WTC into Northern Alliance, Northern Alliance into Karzai, and then USA and NATO forces seeking for a window on how to leave the Brzezinski’s “Russian” trap. Without scheduling a withdrawal, of course, but best if we can do it in ten minutes!

And where’s Brzezinski nowadays? Well, after writing a couple of “:” books, and chaired another couple of “Freedom Organisations”, then he retired and in 2006 he was engaged on signing a Fairfax County neighbors treaty on how a sidewalk should be done(3). I suggest he call it SALT IV.

Further readings:
1. "How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen”, Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76,
2. "Oui, la CIA est entrée en Afghanistan avant les Russes...” orginal interview (in french)
3. “Forever the Negotiator: Brzezinski in a Stalemate Over a Sidewalk”, The Washington Post, April 9, 2006,
4. "The Largest Covert Operation in CIA History", By Chalmers Johnson for LA Times
5. "CIA Agent Gust L. Avrakotos Dies at Age 67", By Patricia Sullivan for the Washington Post