[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Just when Bush though he had the game in the bag,155DR JOHN COLEMANKing Hussein of Jordan almost threw a spanner in the works.Accord-ing to my intelligence source, and subsequently confirmed by PierreSalinger of ABC Television, King Hussein believed that the UnitedStates was acting in good faith and would welcome a settlement of theIraq-Kuwait crisis by peaceful means rather than by armed conflict.Proceeding on the basis of his belief in the integrity of the Bushadministration, Hussein called Baghdad and asked President Husseinto submit the quarrel to the Arab nations for arbitration.King Husseinassured Saddam Hussein that he had the blessing of Washington forsuch a move.On August 3, the Iraqi military advance toward theKuwait border was halted so that the proposed arbitration could begiven a chance.But Saddam Hussein had one other condition: Egypt'sdictator, Hosni Mubarak would have to agree to the arbitrationproposal.King Hussein called Mubarak, who readily gave his assent to the plan.Next, King Hussein called President Bush, who took the call in AirForce I, while en route to Aspen to meet Margaret Thatcher, who wassent to deliver the Royal Institute for International Affairs ultimatumthat U.S, military forces attack Iraq.According to intelligence sources,partly confirmed by Salinger, Bush was enthusiastic about KingHussein's initiative and promised the Jordanian ruler that the U.S.would not to intervene.But once King Hussein terminated the conversation, Bush calledMubarak and told him not to take part in any inter-Arab arbitrationdiscussions.Bush is reported to have called Thatcher and advised herof his converastion with King Hussein.Like Chamberlain at the timeof Munich, King Hussein was going to find out that a peacefulsettlement of the Iraq-Kuwait dispute was the last thing that theAmerican and British governments wanted.After getting approval from Thatcher, Bush reportedly called Mubarakagain and ordered him to do everything possible to derail the Arabmediation effort.The payoff, as we now know, came later, when Bushillegally "forgave" Egypt's $7 billion debt to the United States.Bushdid not have the constitutional authority to forgive Egypt's debt With156DIPLOMACY BY DECEPTIONMubarak violently denouncing the mediation proposals.Bush beganmaking threatening noises against Iraq.It was only a few hours afterKing Hussein told President Hussein that they had both been de-ceived, that the Iraqi Army crossed the border with KuwaitThe role of the United States and Britain in starting the war against Iraqis classic diplomacy by deception.While talking peace in the MiddleEast, our government that we so unwisely trust, had been planning forthe war against Iraq since the 1970s.The Gulf War was deliberatelycontrived in accordance with Kissinger's policy.Thus while Kissingerwas not a government official, he still exerted great influence over U.S.foreign policy in the Middle EastThe bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 is another terrible example ofcovert activity.All the facts are not yet in, and indeed, may never be,but what is known thus far is that the CIA was involved, and that therewere at least five top CIA agents on board, carrying $500,000 intraveller's checks.There are reports that the CIA actually videotapedthe loading of the bag containing the bomb, but thus far these reportshave not been confirmed by other sources.157"DIPLOMACY BY DECEPTIONPanama: The Naked Truth.VIII.One of the more recent examples is perhaps also the most blatantdiplomacy by deception case on record: The Carter-Torrijos PanamaCanal Treaty.The treaty deserves closer scrutiny than it was subjectedto at the time it was drawn up and allegedly negotiated.I hope to bringout important implications that were never fully nor properly ex-plored or addressed which now more than ever, need amplification.One of these is the danger that we, the sovereign people, face of beingforced under the jurisdiction of the United Nations in the near future.A slippery deal like Carter's Panama Canal give-away, could besprung on us again if we don't know what to look for.Not generally known is that Anglo-Persian, a British government-owned oil company, tried to buy a concession from the Colombiangovernment for canal rights flanking U.S.territory, at the time theUnited States was negotiating with Colombia for these rights.IrvingFrederick Yates, a British diplomat, almost pulled off a deal withColombia that would have thwarted U.S.plans to purchase the landfor the canal zone.Yates was stopped at the last minute by a diplomaticincident which invoked the Monroe Doctrine.A short review of the history of how the United States acquired theland through which the Panama Canal was built, might help us tounderstand subsequent events:In the period 1845-1849, the government of Colombia concluded atreaty with the United States, granting the U.S.right of transit acrossthe Isthmus of Panama.In 1855 Panama was given federal status bya constitutional amendment Prior to the revolution of 1903, Panamahad been part of Colombia [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]