Comment l’attaque des trafiquants de drogue en Afghanistan n’intéresse pas Washington

Le livre de James Risen, State of War, fait beaucoup de bruits, à mesure qu’on en découvre détails et implications. A propos de l’attaque US contre un village pakistanais (au moins 17 morts), The Independent observe que le livre de Risen révèle une affaire de mésentente de plus entre Américains et Britanniques, et bien entendu aux dépens des Britanniques. (On n’en finit jamais de détailler tous les étranges “avantages” qu’obtiennent les Britanniques de cette relation spéciale qui leur fait tant sacrifier de leur souveraineté et de leurs intérêts politiques au profit des Américains.)

Dans cette affaire Risen/The Independent, on voit (nième confirmation) combien les Américains se foutent du tiers comme du quart de l’aide qu’ils prétendent apporter aux nations qu’ils investissent pour le bien de ces nations, notamment pour ce qui est de la fameuse mission du nation-building. On voit (nième confirmation) que rien ne compte que la mythique “war on terror”. On voit (nième confirmation) combien tous les doutes qu’on peut entretenir à l’égard de leur attitude vis-à-vis du trafic de drogue ont de bonnes raisons d’être explorés (la CIA a souvent été soupçonnée d’y être partie prenante).

« News of the attack coincides with the disclosure in a new book that Britain was ‘screaming’ for the US to bomb drugs laboratories and warehouses in Afghanistan in late 2001, but the Pentagon refused. It quotes a CIA source who says bombing the facilities “would have slowed down drug production in Afghanistan for a year or more”.

» State of War, by New York Times reporter James Risen, has already caused controversy in the US with its revelation that President George Bush authorised illegal wiretaps on American citizens. But the book also reveals a rift between Britain and the US as they planned to drive al-Qa'ida out of Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Intensive surveillance of remote Afghan areas, prompted by the search for al-Qa'ida, yielded high-quality digital images of the headquarters of a number of the country's leading drugs warlords, a Whitehall source told The Independent on Sunday.

»  “We were looking at what could have been military installations,” said the source. “They were so well-guarded and well-equipped it was amazing. It gave us an insight into just how seriously organised the heroin trade is at the top.”

» Geoff Hoon, then Secretary of State for Defence, was keen to mount air attacks on the facilities that were used to process opium and store the highly valuable product. Since more than 90 per cent of Britain's heroin comes from Afghanistan, he believed the strikes would deliver a direct benefit to the UK and bolster domestic support for the military intervention. But when he took the proposal to Downing Street, he was over-ruled. No 10 blamed qualms by legal officers for its decision, claiming they believed such strikes could not be justified under international law. According to Mr Risen, however, Washington was the obstacle.

» Intelligence officials had spent years compiling a list of potential targets in Afghanistan, including “20 to 25 major drug labs, warehouses and other drug-related facilities”. But a CIA source told him the list was rejected, despite the fact that “the British were screaming for us to bomb those targets”. This was the first sign, says the writer, that the White House and Pentagon wanted nothing to do with ‘nation-building’ problems such as narcotics in their single-minded campaign against terrorism. »

Mis en ligne le 15 janvier 2006 à 06H44