zaterdag 29 juli 2023

Secret Warfare: Operation Gladio and NATO's Stay-Behind Armies

 

Secret Warfare: Operation Gladio and NATO's Stay-Behind Armies

Synopsis of the Book


Chapter One: A terrorist attack in Italy

This chapter describes the discovery of the secret stay-behind army “Gladio” in Italy. The chapter takes the reader back to the Peteano terrorist attack of 31 May 1972. In that year an anonymous phone call after the attack suggested that the left-wing terrorist organization “Red Brigades” had carried out the atrocity, and for many years Italy believed that the crime had been carried out by the political left. Yet in 1984 Italian judge Felice Casson reopened the Peteano case after having discovered large-scale manipulations. The chapter describes how Casson during his investigations discovered the Italian secret stay-behind army “Gladio” hidden within the military secret service and how it had linked up with right-wing terrorist Vincenzo Vinciguerra who confessed to having carried out the Peteano terrorist attack. The chapter focuses on the agitated Italian public debate that followed when Vinciguerra exposed the so called “strategy of tension” through which members of the secret stay-behind armies and the military secret services had manipulated the public through terrorism. The secret armies supplied right wing terrorists with explosives to carry out terrorist attacks on the Italian population who were thereafter blamed on the communist party and the political left in general in order to discredit the political opponent.

"The terrorist line was followed by camouflaged people, people belonging to the security apparatus, or those linked to the state apparatus through rapport or collaboration”, Vincenzo Vinciguerra testified. Right-wing organisations across Western Europe “were being mobilised into the battle as part of an anti-communist strategy originating not with organisations deviant from the institutions of power, but from the state itself, and specifically from within the ambit of the state's relations within the Atlantic Alliance."


Chapter Two: A scandal shocks Western Europe

This chapter describes how the democracies in Western Europe in 1990 dealt with the discovery of the secret stay-behind armies in their respective countries. The chapter shows that only three countries, namely Italy, Belgium and Switzerland, carried out a parliamentary investigation into their secret armies and thereafter presented a public report, and details how all other countries dealt with the issue behind closed doors. The chapter describes how the press reacted, with for instance the British daily the Observer speaking of "the best-kept, and most damaging, political-military secret since World War II". 

Furthermore this chapter relates how the parliament of the European Union (EU) on 22 November 1990 dealt with the issue and how for instance Italian MP Falqui had insisted: "Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, there is one fundamental moral and political necessity, in regard to the new Europe that we are progressively building. This Europe will have no future if it is not founded on truth, on the full transparency of its institutions in regard to the dark plots against democracy that have turned upside down the history, even in recent times, of many European states. There will be no future, ladies and gentlemen, if we do not remove the idea of having lived in a kind of double state - one open and democratic, the other clandestine and reactionary. That is why we want to know what and how many "Gladio" networks there have been in recent years in the Member States of the European Community."


Chapter Three: The silence of NATO, CIA and MI6

This chapter describes the reactions of NATO, the CIA and MI6 to the discovery of the secret stay-behind armies. The chapter details how NATO reacted defensive and at times inconsistent and tells the story of how NATO Spokesman Jean Marcotta on Monday 5 November 1990 at SHAPE headquarters in Mons, Belgium, first denied that NATO had ever been involved in secret warfare, whereupon the next day another NATO spokesman explained that NATO's statement of the previous day had been false, adding that NATO never commented on matters of military secrecy. Thereafter NATO ambassadors on 7 November 1990 were informed behind closed doors by NATO secretary-general Manfred Wörner and Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) US General John Galvin. 

The chapter describes how written requests by the author for further information on the stay-behind networks and NATO’s stay-behind command centres “Clandestine Planning Committee” (CPC) and “Allied Clandestine Committee” (ACC) were declined in subsequent years. The chapter reports how during the same years specific data on CPC and ACC surfaced in Italy. General Gerardo Serravalle, who commanded the Italian Gladio secret army from 1971 to 1974, and General Paolo Inzerilli, who commanded the Italian stay-behind Gladio from 1974 to 1986, both confirmed in their books on the topic that the ACC and the CPC had been founded at the explicit order of NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE).

The chapter also records how the foreign secret service of the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), has somewhat inconsistently both commented and refused to comment on its stay-behind armies in Western Europe. William Colby, Director of the CIA from 1973 to 1976, in his book Honorable Men related that the covert action branch of the CIA, the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC), had after World War Two “undertaken a major program of building, throughout those Western European countries that seemed likely targets for Soviet attack, what in the parlance of the intelligence trade were known as 'stay-behind nets', clandestine infrastructures of leaders and equipment trained and ready to be called into action as sabotage and espionage forces when the time came.” 

Several years later Admiral Stansfield Turner, director of the CIA from 1977 to 1981, strictly refused to answer any questions about Gladio in a television interview in Italy in December 1990. When with respect for the victims of the terrorist attacks the journalist insisted and repeated the question the former CIA director angrily ripped off his microphone and shouted: "I said, no questions about Gladio!" whereupon the interview was over. The chapter also relates how academics at the distinguished National Security Archive at George Washington University in Washington filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request with the CIA on 15 April 1991 which was declined. It also notes how a FOIA request which the author handed in on 14 December 2000 was first declined, whereupon the author appealed to which the CIA replied that it will provide an answer in the future which is still lacking. The chapter also details that the British foreign secret service MI6 with its legendary obsession for secrecy did not take a position on stay-behind questions at all but confirmed its involvement through a somewhat unusual channel in the “secret wars” exhibition in the London based Imperial War Museum in 1995.


Chapter Four: The secret war in the United Kingdom

The chapter takes the reader back to World War Two when British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered that under the label “Special Operations Executive” (SOE) a secret army had to be created "to set Europe ablaze”. SOE operated behind enemy lines, and following World War Two the British were widely recognised as the leading experts in secret warfare. The chapter describes how the British foreign secret service MI6 together with the British Special Forces “Special Air Service” (SAS) and the CIA during the Cold War set up and trained the secret stay-behind armies in Western Europe. 

Among those trained by the SAS ranged Decimo Garau, an instructor at the Italian Gladio base Centro Addestramento Guastatori (CAG) on Capo Marargiu in Sardinia who recalled: "I was in England for a week at Poole, invited by the Special Forces. I was there for a week and I did some training with them. I did a parachute jump over the Channel." Reinhold Geijer, a former Swedish military professional and member of the Swedish stay-behind army recalled that his training in Britain was very tough: "In 1959 I went, via London, to a farm outside Eaton. This was done under the strictest secrecy procedures, with for instance a forged passport. I was not even allowed to call my wife. 

The aim of the training was to learn how to use dead letter box techniques to receive and send secret messages, and other James Bond style exercises. The British were very tough. I sometimes had the feeling that we were overdoing it." The chapter concludes by observing the United Kingdom to this day has been very reluctant to comment on the secret war. In 1990 British Defence Secretary Tom King, in the midst of preparations for the war against Saddam Hussein, refused to answer stay-behind questions and went on the record with the statement: "I am not sure what particular hot potato you're chasing after. It sounds wonderfully exciting, but I'm afraid I'm quite ignorant about it. I'm better informed about the Gulf." And also years later journalist Hugh O'Shaughnessy lamented: "The silence in Whitehall and the almost total lack of curiosity among MPs about an affair in which Britain was so centrally involved are remarkable."


Chapter Five: The secret war in the United States

This chapter describes US secret warfare operations in Western Europe from the end of the Second World War in 1945 to the end of the Cold War in 1991. It relates how the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Council (NSC) were created and how directive NSC 10/2 gave them the task to engage in secret warfare. The chapter details how the CIA together with the support of the Pentagon set up the secret stay-behind armies in Western Europe and how the secret war was fought. 

It describes the tactics and strategies used, including the “strategy of tension” as presented in the Field Manual FM 30-31B: "There may be times when Host Country Governments show passivity or indecision in the face of communist subversion and according to the interpretation of the US secret services do not react with sufficient effectiveness. Most often such situations come about when the revolutionaries temporarily renounce the use of force and thus hope to gain an advantage, as the leaders of the host country wrongly consider the situation to be secure. US army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger … These special operations must remain strictly secret …Only those persons who are acting against the revolutionary uprising shall know of the involvement of the US Army in the internal affairs of an allied country. 

The fact, that the involvement of forces of the US military goes deeper shall not become known under any circumstances." The chapter concludes by observing that the United States have until today refused to talk about this difficult aspect of the transatlantic partnership, which in turn has lead to a certain criticism in Europe.


Chapter Six: The secret war in Italy

This chapter describes the complicated and violent history of the secret Cold War in Italy. It describes how the United States in a strategic gamble weakened the Italian Communists and Socialists by supporting the conservative Democrazia Italiana (DCI) whom they manoeuvred into power in the 1948 rigged elections and backed in the decades to come till the Cold War ended. 

The chapter describes how the Gladio stay-behind army became an asset in this strategy and how the military secret service linked up with right-wing terrorists to manipulate the population with the so-called “strategy of tension”. The chapter relates that Italy suffered from both left and right-wing terrorism during the Cold War. Large-scale right-wing terror started in 1969 when in Milan the “Piazza Fontana massacre” killed 16 and maimed and wounded 80 most of which were farmers who after a day on the market had deposited their modest earnings in the Farmer's Bank on the Piazza Fontana in Milan. 

The terror was wrongly blamed on the Communists and the extreme left, traces were covered up and arrests followed immediately. In 1974 another bomb exploded in Brescia in the midst of an anti-fascist demonstration, killing eight and injuring and maiming 102, followed by a terror attack in the same year on the Rome to Munich train “Italicus Express”, killing 12 and injuring and maiming 48. 

The chapter describes how the terror wave culminated on a sunny afternoon during the Italian national holiday when on 2 August 1980 a massive explosion ripped through the waiting room of the second class at the Bologna railway station, killing 85 people in the blast and seriously injuring and maiming a further 200. "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game” right-wing terrorist Vincenzo Vinciguerra later explained. “The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the State to ask for greater security. This is the political logic that lies behind all the massacres and the bombings which remain unpunished, because the State cannot convict itself or declare itself responsible for what happened.”


Chapter Seven: The secret war in France

This chapter relates how secret stay-behind armies linked to NATO were set up in France following World War Two. It shows how the clandestine forces, designed to fight the strong French Communist party as well as to prepare against a Soviet invasion, tragically target the French government during the process that lead to the independence of the French colony Algeria in 1962. Following defeats in World War Two and Vietnam sectors of the French military and intelligence opposed the plan of French President Charles de Gaulle to grant Algeria independence, as in their eyes this plan meant yet another defeat for the proud French army. When President de Gaulle proceeded with his plan sections of the French military and intelligence took up arms against the government in Paris. 

Admiral Pierre Lacoste, director of the French military secret DGSE from 1982 to 1985 under President Francois Mitterand, confirmed after the discovery of the secret NATO armies in 1990 that some "terrorist actions" against de Gaulle and his Algerian peace plan were carried out by groups that included "a limited number of people" from the French stay-behind network. Yet Lacoste insisted that he believed that Soviet contingency plans for invasion nevertheless justified the stay-behind program. The chapter concludes by observing that France to this very day has been very reluctant to investigate the history of its secret armies as well as their links to both the CIA and NATO.


Chapter Eight: The secret war in Spain

This chapter investigates how the Spanish secret stay-behind army developed during the period when Spain was a right wing dictatorship under Francisco Franco. It relates how the country served as a save haven and how according to Italian investigations right-wing terrorists who had cooperated with the Gladio stay-behind armies were regularly flown to Spain after having carried out a terrorist attack. In Spain they were protected from further investigations and in return offered their services to Franco. Among the most notorious right-wing terrorists in Spain ranged Stefano delle Chiaie who had allegedly carried out well over a thousand bloodthirsty attacks, including an estimated 50 murders. 

Members of Delle Chiaie's secret army, including Italian right-winger Aldo Tisei, later confessed to Italian magistrates that during their Spanish exile they had tracked down and killed anti-fascists on behalf of the Spanish secret service. The chapter relates how following the death of Franco in 1975 the country entered a fragile transition period during which further terrorist attacks were carried out in an attempt to prevent the Spanish left from regaining strength. Among these ranged in 1977 the Atocha massacre in Madrid which had targeted a lawyer's office closely linked to the Spanish communist party and killed five lawyers. The Italian Senate investigation into Gladio notes that when Delle Chiaie was arrested in 1987 in Venezuela he made it clear that he had not acted alone but had at all times closely cooperated with the secret services in Spain, Italy, Chile and other countries: "The massacres have taken place. That is a fact. The secret services have covered up the traces. That is another fact."


Chapter Nine: The secret war in Portugal

The chapter describes how similar to neighbouring Spain also in Portugal the secret army during the Cold War operated within the context of a right-wing dictatorship. The Portuguese military secret service PIDE of dictator António de Oliveira Salazar cooperated closely with the secret army who not only helped to support the dictatorship through assassination operations in Portugal but operated also overseas in the Portuguese colonies in Africa. 

Operating under the code name “Aginter Press” the secret army allegedly was involved in the assassinations of Humberto Delgado, Portuguese opposition leader, killed 14 February 1965, Amilcar Cabral, leader of the national liberation movement in Guinea-Bissau and one of Africa's foremost revolutionary figures, killed 20 January 20 1973, and Eduardo Mondlane, leader and President of the Mocambique liberation party and movement FRELIMO (Frente de Liberacao de Mocambique), killed in colonial Mocambique on 3 February 1969. The chapter relates how Captain Yves Guerain Serac, a French born militant catholic and anti-communist, played a central role in the secret war in Portugal. Serac was convinced that the West had to use terror, assassinations and manipulation to fight communism: "In the first phase of our political activity we must create chaos in all structures of the regime. 

Two forms of terrorism can provoke such a situation: The blind terrorism (committing massacres indiscriminately which cause a large number of victims), and the selective terrorism (eliminate chosen persons). This destruction of the state must be carried out as much as possible under the cover of 'communist activities' ... After that, we must intervene at the heart of the military, the juridical power and the church, in order to influence popular opinion, suggest a solution, and clearly demonstrate the weakness of the present legal apparatus ... Popular opinion must be polarised in such a way, that we are being presented as the only instrument capable of saving the nation. It is obvious that we will need considerable financial resources to carry out such operations."


Chapter Ten: The secret war in Belgium

This chapter relates that Belgium, together with Switzerland and Italy, was among the very few countries in Western Europe which following the discoveries of the NATO stay-behind armies in 1990 set up a parliamentary commission to investigate the national secret army and presented a public report on the subject. Belgian Socialist Defence Minister Guy Coeme, who had been unaware of the existence of the secret armies, had insisted on television that he wanted to know the entire history of the Belgian secret army, even if that included links to terrorism: “Furthermore I want to know whether there exists a link between the activities of this secret network, and the wave of crime and terror which our country suffered from during the past years." 

Coeme was referring to the years 1983 to 1985 when in the geographic area around Brussels called Brabant 14 particularly brutal terrorist attacks on shoppers in supermarkets left 28 dead and many more injured. The chapter relates how the Belgian Senate found that the secret army was code-named SDRA8 and that it was directly linked to NATO’s stay-behind centres Allied Clandestine Committee (ACC) and Clandestine Planning Committee (CPC). It also details how the Belgian Senators were unable to clarify whether the secret army had anything to do with the Brabant terror as the Belgian military secret service refused to cooperate. Presenting the larger historical context of the secret war in Belgium the chapter draws on the data from Journalist Allan Francovich who in his television documentary on the secret NATO armies had suggested that the Belgian secret army SDRA8 had linked up with the Belgian right-wing organization Westland New Post (WNP). “There were projects” WNP member Michel Libert confirmed to Francovich. Allegedly he had been told: “'You, Mr. Libert, know nothing about why we're doing this. Nothing at all. All we ask is that your group, with cover from the Gendarmerie, with cover from Security, carry out a job. 

Target: The supermarkets. Where are they? What kind of locks are there? What sort of protection do they have that could interfere with our operations? Does the store manager lock up? Or do they use an outside security company? We carried out the orders and sent in our reports: Hours of opening and closing. Everything you want to know about a supermarket. What was this for? This was one amongst hundreds of missions. Something that had to be done. But the use it was all put to, that is the big question."


Chapter Eleven: The secret war in the Netherlands

This chapter relates how in the Netherlands a secret stay-behind army was set up following the traumatic occupation experience in World War Two. The network, which was never linked to acts of terrorism, consisted of the two branches “Intelligence” (I) and “Operations” (O), and was referred to as “I&O”. The chapter relates how the Netherlands dealt with the exposure of the military secret and why there was no public investigation nor a parliamentary report. 

"Successive Prime Ministers and Defence Ministers have always preferred not to inform other members of their cabinets or Parliament", Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers of the Christian Democrats party told parliament in 1990, adding that he was proud that some 30 Ministers had kept the secret. The chapter details how some parliamentarians were greatly surprised when the secret was lifted and contemplated that democratic checks and balances had been violated. "I don't particularly worry that there was, and perhaps still is, such a thing”, Hans Dijkstal of the opposition Liberals observed in parliament. “What I do have problems with is that until last night Parliament was never told".


Chapter Twelve: The secret war in Luxemburg

This chapter tells the story of how Luxemburg prepared for the secret war in Europe. Dutch and Belgian stay-behind research suggests that in March 1948 the so-called "Western Union Clandestine Committee", short WUCC, was set up with the task to carry out peace-time preparations in Luxemburg, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France against an eventual Soviet invasion. 

Following the creation of NATO in 1949 the stay-behind coordination centre WUCC in April 1951 handed over its functions to the newly created Clandestine Planning Committee CPC operating under the control of NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium. The chapter concludes that the limited data available so far suggests that Luxemburg was part of the network of the NATO secret armies from the very beginning but was never involved in acts of terrorism. Or as Prime Minister Jacques Santer phrased it in front of parliament: “The only activities of these persons, and this is the case for the entire time period in which this network has existed, have been limited to the training in preparation of their missions, including the training of how to behave individually in a hostile environment, and how to coordinate efforts with allied countries."


Chapter Thirteen: The secret war in Denmark

This chapter looks at the secret history of the stay-behind army in Denmark which remains fragmentary because the Danish parliament decided to deal with the issue behind closed doors. The chapter presents the testimonies of former members of the Danish secret army who explained that the stay-behind was never linked to terrorism. The anti-communist secret army was code-named "Absalon” after the Danish Bishop who with the sword in his hand had defeated the Russians in the Middle Ages, an event commemorated in Copenhagen by a large bronze statue of Absalon on horseback in battle gear. 

The chapter details how Defence Minister Knud Enggaard was reluctant to inform the Danish parliament Folketing in 1990 and first rejected the claim that "any kind" of NATO supported CIA organisation had been erected in Denmark, adding that "further pieces of information on a secret service operation in case of an occupation is classified material, even highly classified material and I am therefore prohibited from giving any further information in the Danish parliament."


Chapter Fourteen: The secret war in Norway

This chapter details how strongly the Norwegian planning for a stay-behind army was influenced by the occupation experience during World War Two. Never again, the heads of the Norwegian military concluded, was the country to be occupied without a resistance network in place. The chapter details how the Norwegian Intelligence Service (NIS) under Vilhelm Evang set up and controlled the secret stay-behind army after World War Two. The Norwegian stay-behind was at no time involved in domestic terror. 

The chapter details how Evang stirred the secret army through a crisis which came in 1957 when NIS discovered that NATO was spying on Norwegians setting up a blacklist of persons sharing strongly pacifist and negative attitudes to NATO. Evangs was extremely angry and protested strongly during a meeting of the stay-behind centre CPC in Paris in the same year: “When high ranking persons in Norway are being included on such a blacklist, then something must be wrong” Evangs stressed. “My government also views this in a very serious light, and I have standing orders not to take part in international planning if such activities are going on … As far as Norway is concerned, our interest in CPC planning as such has since 1954 declined steadily because there is no future in it for us. We are of the opinion that we are developing a Stay Behind which is to be used at home for the purpose of liberation from an occupation." Only when NATO assured to never again violate Norwegian sovereignty did the NIS resume the stay-behind cooperation.


Chapter Fifteen: The secret war in Germany

This chapter relates how following World War Two a number of Nazis were integrated into the German secret armies. It tells the story of how a branch of the German stay-behind army was already discovered in 1952 under the name "Bund Deutscher Jugend - Technischer Dienst" (BDJ TD) and the mysterious circumstances under which all arrested right-wing members of the BDJ TD walked free. 

The chapter details how Germany during the secret Cold War did not only suffer from the left wing terrorism of the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion), but also from right-wing terrorism which on 26 September 1980 in a bomb terror attack in the midst of the popular Munich October festival killed 13 and wounded 213, many gravely. Gundolf Köhler, a 21-year-old right wing member of the Wehrsportgruppe Hoffmann according to the police investigation had planted the Munich bomb and died in the terrorist attack. The members of the Wehrsportgruppe Hoffmann testified that forest ranger Heinz Lembke had supplied them with explosives. The claim that right-winger Lembke controlled large underground arms caches was confirmed on 26 October 1981 when forest workers by chance stumbled across an underground arsenal of 33 caches containing automatic weapons, chemical combat equipment Arsen and Zyankali, about 14'000 shots of munitions, 50 anti tank guns, 156 kg of explosives, as well as 230 explosive devices and 258 hand grenades. 

Presumably the Lembke arms caches were part of the German stay-behind set up for the emergency of a Soviet invasion, and Lembke himself was probably a secret soldier. The chapter tells the story how Lembke was arrested and in prison informed his interrogator that he might reveal the entire truth soon, whereupon on 1 November 1981, Lembke was found hanging on a rope from the ceiling of his prison cell. The chapter concludes by noting the difficulties of the German secret service BND to inform the German parliament and public on the secret armies when they were rediscovered in 1990.


Chapter Sixteen: The secret war in Greece

This chapter tells the story of how the Greek stay-behind army LOK (Lochos Oreinon Katadromon) was involved in the at times violent Cold War history of the country. „In the eyes of senior CIA officials, the groups under the direction of the paramilitary branch are seen as long term ‘insurance’ for the interests of the United States in Greece,” former CIA agent Philipp Agee related, “to be used to assist or to direct the possible overthrow of an 'unsympathetic' Greek government. 'Unsympathetic' of course to American manipulation." 

The chapter relates how tensions in the country between the political left and the political right intensified when in the 1963 elections the leftist Centre Union under George Papandreou secured 42 per cent of the vote and Papandreou was elected Prime Minister. It tells the story how Papandreou in a secret war became the target of Jack Maury, chief of the CIA station in Greece, and how Maury together with Greek royalists and right-wing officers of the Greek military manoeuvred Papandreou out of office by royal prerogative. 

One month before the latter was about to return to power through the national elections in May 1967 the military coup d’état was carried out which shocked Greece and the world. The chapter relates how the Greek secret stay-behind army LOK was involved in the coup and how 78-year-old George Papandreou was arrested in his house just outside the capital Athens and how he was imprisoned along with thousands of citizens, some of which were tortured. The chapter relates how many years later Andreas, the son of George Papandreou, became Prime Minister, discovered the secret NATO army, and in memory of his father gave the orders to close it down.


Chapter Seventeen: The secret war in Turkey

The chapter tells the story of how the secret NATO stay-behind army - which in Turkey operated under the code-name “Counter-Guerrilla” - prepared not only against a Soviet invasion but also targeted domestic opponents and during the Cold War became repeatedly linked to acts of violence. According to Turkish General Talat Turhan the Counter Guerrilla was involved in torture following the military coup d’etat in 1971. Turhan was himself among the torture victims and later testified: „Then they told me that I was now 'in the hands of a Counter Guerrilla unit operating under the high command of the Army outside the constitution and the laws.' 

… In this villa I was with tied up arms and feet chained to a bed for a month and tortured in a way which a human being has difficulty to imagine. It was under these circumstances that I first was made familiar with the name Counter-Guerrillas." The chapter relates how the Turkish secret army in the 1980s was involved in clandestine terror operations against the Curds, and how difficult it was for the Turkish democracy to face the history of the Counter-Guerilla when the secret NATO stay-behind armies were discovered in 1990. "When it was discovered in 1990 that Italy had an underground organization called Gladio, organized by NATO and controlled and financed by the CIA, which was linked to acts of terrorism within the country,” General Turhan recalled, “Turkish and foreign journalists approached me and published my explanations as they knew that I have been researching the field for 17 years 

… In Turkey the special forces in the style of Gladio are called Counter-Guerrilla by the public“ Turhan explained to the press and once again lamented that „despite all my efforts and initiatives of political parties, democratic mass organizations and the media the Counter-Guerrilla has still not been investigated."


Conclusion

The book concludes by noting that the data available so far shows that the NATO secret stay-behind armies existed and that for the first time long hidden aspects of the secret war in Western Europe can be studied in a larger international context. 

The conclusion highlights that the data on the NATO stay-behind armies as well as on the links to terrorism and crime remains fragmentary and notes that large differences exist from country to country. In some countries there are links to terrorism and crime, while in other countries the secret soldier strictly limited their operations to training for a Soviet invasion. 

What did NATO know? What did the Pentagon, the CIA and MI6 know? Which terrorist attacks were deviations, and what was planned? Within the context of the so called "war on terrorism" the data on NATO's stay-behind armies opens up an entire field of so far unexplored questions and raises fundamental questions also on the “strategy of tension” for which the answers are still lacking.

 

DANIELE GANSER worked as a Senior Researcher at the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich in 2003-2006.


https://phpisn.ethz.ch/lory1.ethz.ch/collections/coll_gladio/synopsis76c1.html?navinfo=15301

dinsdag 25 juli 2023

Gulf stream could collapse as early as 2025, study suggests

 




Gulf stream could collapse as early as 2025, study suggests

A collapse would bring catastrophic climate impacts but scientists disagree over the new analysis

The Gulf Stream system could collapse as soon as 2025, a new study suggests. The shutting down of the vital ocean currents, called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc) by scientists, would bring catastrophic climate impacts.

Amoc was already known to be at its weakest in 1,600 years owing to global heating and researchers spotted warning signs of a tipping point in 2021.

The new analysis estimates a timescale for the collapse of between 2025 and 2095, with a central estimate of 2050, if global carbon emissions are not reduced. Evidence from past collapses indicate changes of temperature of 10C in a few decades, although these occurred during ice ages.

Other scientists said the assumptions about how a tipping point would play out and uncertainties in the underlying data are too large for a reliable estimate of the timing of the tipping point. But all said the prospect of an Amoc collapse was extremely concerning and should spur rapid cuts in carbon emissions.

Amoc carries warm ocean water northwards towards the pole where it cools and sinks, driving the Atlantic’s currents. But an influx of fresh water from the accelerating melting of Greenland’s ice cap and other sources is increasingly smothering the currents.

A collapse of Amoc would have disastrous consequences around the world, severely disrupting the rains that billions of people depend on for food in India, South America and west Africa. It would increase storms and drop temperatures in Europe, and lead to a rising sea level on the eastern cost of North America. It would also further endanger the Amazon rainforest and Antarctic ice sheets.

“I think we should be very worried,” said Prof Peter Ditlevsen, at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and who led the new study. “This would be a very, very large change. The Amoc has not been shut off for 12,000 years.”

The Amoc collapsed and restarted repeatedly in the cycle of ice ages that occurred from 115,000 to 12,000 years ago. It is one of the climate tipping points scientists are most concerned about as global temperatures continue to rise.

Research in 2022 showed five dangerous tipping points may already have been passed due to the 1.1C of global heating to date, including the shutdown of Amoc, the collapse of Greenland’s ice cap and an abrupt melting of carbon-rich permafrost.

The new study, published in the journal Nature Communications, used sea surface temperature data stretching back to 1870 as a proxy for the change in strength of Amoc currents over time.

The researchers then mapped this data on to the path seen in systems that are approaching a particular type of tipping point called a “saddle-node bifurcation”. The data fitted “surprisingly well”, Ditlevsen said. The researchers were then able to extrapolate the data to estimate when the tipping point was likely to occur. Further statistical analysis provided a measure of the uncertainty in the estimate.

The analysis is based on greenhouse gas emissions rising as they have done to date. If emissions do start to fall, as intended by current climate policies, then the world would have more time to try to keep global temperature below the Amoc tipping point.

The most recent assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that Amoc would not collapse this century. But Divlitsen said the models used have coarse resolution and are not adept at analysing the non-linear processes involved, which may make them overly conservative.

The potential collapse of Amoc is intensely debated by scientists, who have previously said it must be avoided “at all costs”.

Prof Niklas Boers, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, revealed the early warning signs of Amoc collapse in 2021. “The results of the new study sound alarming but if the uncertainties in the heavily oversimplified model [of the tipping point] and in the underlying [sea temperature] data are included, then it becomes clear that these uncertainties are too large to make any reliable estimate of the time of tipping.”

Prof David Thornalley, at University College London, UK, agreed the study had large caveats and unknowns and said further research was essential: “But if the statistics are robust and a relevant way to describe how the actual Amoc behaves, then this is a very concerning result.”

Dr Levke Caesar, at the University of Bremen, Germany, said using sea surface temperatures as proxy data for the strength of the Amoc currents was a key source of uncertainty: “We only have direct observational data of the Amoc since 2004.”

The extrapolation in the new analysis was reasonable, according to Prof Tim Lenton, at the University of Exeter, UK. He said the tipping point could lead to a partial Amoc collapse, for example only in the Labrador Sea, but that this would still cause major impacts. Divlitsen said he hoped the debate would drive new research: “It’s always fruitful when you do not exactly agree.”

Prof Stefan Rahmstorf, at the University of Potsdam, Germany, said: “There is still large uncertainty where the Amoc tipping point is, but the new study adds to the evidence that it is much closer than we thought. A single study provides limited evidence, but when multiple approaches have led to similar conclusions this must be taken very seriously, especially when we’re talking about a risk that we really want to rule out with 99.9% certainty. Now we can’t even rule out crossing the tipping point in the next decade or two.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/25/gulf-stream-could-collapse-as-early-as-2025-study-suggests

maandag 24 juli 2023

The End of Israeli Democracy?

 




The End of Israeli Democracy?

Netanyahu’s Latest Reforms Come Straight From the Autocrat’s Playbook

In front of a picture of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Israel, January 2023
In front of a picture of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Israel, January 2023
Corinna Kern / File Photo / Reuters
After winning an unexpectedly large electoral victory in November 2022, Benjamin Netanyahu went on to form the most right-wing government in Israel’s history. Its ultranationalist and ultra-Orthodox members don’t agree on everything, but they are united on one objective: weakening Israel’s judiciary and strengthening government control over both the courts and the civil service.
Last month, Netanyahu’s government unveiled plans to do just that. Although they are couched in moderate terms, these planned changes would erode almost all institutional checks and balances, concentrating immense power in the hands of the executive. This would, in turn, enable further steps already agreed upon by the coalition to push the nation in the direction of authoritarianism—both in Israel and in the territories it occupies.
Netanyahu claims that these reforms are necessary to restore the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary. Many Israelis disagree, and on January 21, over 130,000 people took to the streets of Tel Aviv and other cities to protest the proposed changes. Since then, there have been daily protests against what many Israelis fear is an impending dictatorship. Another demonstration on January 28 attracted a crowd of over 100,000 people. Following the populist playbook, Netanyahu and his allies have dismissed the protests as elitist, foreign funded, and radically left-wing. But students, academics, professionals, and members of civil society have all mobilized against the government’s plan, which economists warn could harm the economy and affect Israel’s ability to attract foreign investment for its high-tech sector.
Israeli politics have never been so polarized. Netanyahu’s party has repeatedly attacked the judicial system, particularly as the charges against him have gathered steam. Netanyahu vehemently denies that the changes he is planning have anything to do with his trial. But if they are enacted, he will have the power to restructure the offices of the attorney general and chief prosecutor and appoint the officials who might review his cases. Asserting government control of judicial appointments could also enable Netanyahu to determine which judges hear his appeal.
For now, the reforms seem likely to pass. Netanyahu enjoys a stable majority in parliament, and his coalition has fast-tracked its assault on the judiciary in a blizzard of legislation that the opposition has criticized for flouting accepted procedures. There is a chance the Supreme Court could invalidate the reforms once they are approved, which would plunge the country into a full-fledged constitutional crisis. But either way, Netanyahu’s government will have deepened Israel’s divisions and weakened its democracy.           

JUDICIAL WARS

Netanyahu’s proposals will be relatively easy to enact because Israel, unlike the United States, does not have a rigid constitution. Plans to draft such a constitution were drawn up when Israel was founded in 1948, and in 1949, a constituent assembly was elected for this purpose. But the assembly reached a deadlock, and its members decided to convert the body into a legislature (the Knesset) that would retain the assembly’s constituent power. Rather than adopting a completed constitution, the Knesset agreed that the constitution would be split into chapters, each comprising a “basic law,” that would one day become part of a formal constitution.
From 1949 to 1992, the Supreme Court performed judicial reviews of administrative decisions, which meant that it considered the legality of executive actions but could not strike down legislation on the ground that it violated individual rights. In 1992, however, the Knesset passed two basic laws dealing with such rightsthe Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty; and Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation. Those laws were novel not only because they protected certain rights, such as dignity, liberty, privacy, property, movement, and occupation, but also because they contained so-called limitation clauses specifying that the enumerated rights could be limited only if the derogation was compatible with the values of the state, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required. On this basis, three years later, the Supreme Court held that the basic laws were superior to ordinary legislation and that it therefore had the power to strike down any legislation violating them.
Since then, the Supreme Court has struck down 22 laws and provisions in matters including the imprisonment of asylum seekers, the privatization of prisons, and the expropriation of private Palestinian land to enable Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Over time, the Court has also interpreted the right to dignity enshrined in the basic law as encompassing a right to free speech and equality.
The Court has consistently refused to rule on the overall legality of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank.
Since 1953, Israel has selected its judges through a diverse committee composed of three Supreme Court justices, two government ministers, two members of the Knesset, and two members of the Israel Bar Association. To appoint a Supreme Court justice, a seven-vote majority of the nine-member committee is required, which means that no group can act alone. Judges can veto what the politicians want, and the politicians can veto what the judges want. This has led to a system of consensus-building and bargaining that produces judges who are for the most part perceived as centrists.
But the combination of its rulings in defense of the basic laws and its membership has made the Supreme Court a target for the Israeli right, which has increasingly accused the Court of being too liberal and overreaching its powers. Netanyahu and his allies argue that the basic laws did not explicitly empower the Court to invalidate laws and that in any case, the Court has interpreted both its constitutional and administrative review powers in the broadest manner while expanding its standing rules. Right-wingers also allege that the Supreme Court has been exceedingly interventionist in manners of national security.
In fact, the Court has been quite deferential to the state, particularly on matters of national security and most explicitly when reviewing the government’s actions in relation to the occupied territories. The Court has consistently refused to rule on the overall legality of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, which are considered unlawful under international law. It has also authorized the demolition of Palestinian militants’ homes, which violates the laws of war. Indeed, beyond providing limited protection to private Palestinian property, the Court has authorized almost every policy related to settlements while providing a veneer of international legitimacy to the 55-year-old occupation.
For Netanyahu’s new government, this is not enough. Determined to strip the Supreme Court of its powers to provide even the most meager protections, the far-right coalition has set about overhauling everything from the process by which judicial appointments are made to the status and powers of government legal advisers.

AN ALL-OUT ASSAULT

Under the government’s proposed plan, the Supreme Court will only be able to strike down laws if all of its 15 judges consider the matter and 12 of them agree. Such a high bar would mean that very few laws, if any, would be struck down. Even if the Court did manage to invalidate a law, that would not be the end of it. The plan also includes an unlimited “notwithstanding clause,” which would allow the Knesset to override any decision to strike down a law by a simple majority vote of all the body’s members. In Israel’s parliamentary system, every government possesses a majority. This clause would therefore allow any right to be overriden: fundamental basic rights, rights relating to political participation, even the right to vote. To ensure that the Court does not deviate from the government’s agenda, the plan also seeks to transform the judicial appointments committee so that the government will enjoy an automatic majority.
Unlike many democratic countries, Israel has few checks on legislative and executive power. The government controls the Knesset, and the coalition usually votes as a bloc in accordance with decisions made by a ministerial committee, meaning that several powerful ministers, led by the prime minister, control legislation. Consequently, the most important check on executive power is judicial review, which the government’s plan would effectively end.
The Supreme Court would not be able to review basic laws at all under the proposed plan. Once basic laws are immune from review, extreme pieces of legislation could be recast as basic laws to circumvent judicial review. A far-reaching immigration bill that would allow the unlimited detention of asylum seekers has already been submitted as a basic law for precisely this reason.
The government insists that these reforms are in line with other countries’ arrangements. Canada has a notwithstanding clause, for instance, and strictly speaking, the courts cannot strike down legislation in the United Kingdom. But these countries have checks and balances that do not exist in Israel, and the Israeli government has no intention of introducing them. If any international comparisons should be made, it should be to Hungary, which under Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been transformed from a liberal democracy into an autocratic regime. The situation in Israel is potentially more perilous. Hungary is under the umbrella of the European Union, which has powers to slow down, if not reverse, this decline. Israel is under no comparable international oversight and is embroiled in an intractable and explosive conflict.
Eliminating restraints on government power will appease religious fundamentalists.
Orban entrenched his rule by changing the constitution, the composition and jurisdiction of the judiciary, and the rules governing elections. He also stuffed the civil service with party loyalists, tightened his grip on the press, and redirected government funding to pro-Orban media outlets. Now, only 20 percent of Hungarian media outlets are independent, and they are under constant political, regulatory, and economic pressure. Dismantling the courts made this possible, which is why it is no coincidence that the Israeli government has chosen to target the judiciary first.
Once it overhauls the judiciary, Netanyahu’s government wants to amend election laws to prohibit even sporadic statements in “support of terrorism”—which could be interpreted as including severe criticisms of Israel’s occupation and even vague encouragement of Palestinian resistance—will be prohibited, effectively barring many Arabs from running for election to the Knesset. If this law passes, it will likely cause a significant drop in voting turnout among Palestinian citizens of Israel, further strengthening Netanyahu’s government by making it more difficult for the opposition to achieve the minimum of 61 Knesset members needed to form a government.
Eliminating restraints on government power will appease religious fundamentalists and enable Netanyahu to keep his promises to his governing partners. In his coalition agreements, he pledged to amend the country’s anti-discrimination laws, allowing business owners to refuse service based on religious beliefs, which will affect the LGBTQ community and other minorities.
Netanyahu’s government has also announced plans to reform the media. Shlomo Karhi, the minister of communications, has declared his intention to privatize Israeli state-funded television and radio stations. The move is seen by most observers as an attempt to clamp down on critical press coverage and independent reporting. Indeed, Galit Distel Atbaryan, the minister of public diplomacy, wants to go further. She has expressed support for shutting down state-funded media altogether instead of privatizing it because, she said, “whenever you privatize, the left seeps in.” Meanwhile, Culture Minister Miki Zohar has announced his own plans to limit government spending on the arts, denying funding for works that “harm the image of the state.” This two-stage program of policy changes has a clear purpose: stifling expression by removing critical content from the public sphere and strengthening the government’s grip on power.
Netanyahu has stated that Jews have exclusive rights to all the land of Israel, including the West Bank.
The proposed media reforms have sparked a significant backlash, and in early February, the government announced that it was putting them on hold. The reason it gave for this U-turn was telling: judicial reforms are the government’s top priority, so there must be no distractions before it secures their approval. And in any case, once the judicial reforms are passed, dismantling public television and radio stations will be easier.
Finally, the government plans to take a harder approach in the occupied territories. In presenting his government’s policy platform, Netanyahu stated that Jews have exclusive rights to all the land of Israel, including the West Bank. This effectively ended any pretense that Palestinians have rights in the territories. And in his coalition agreements, Netanyahu promised his far-right partners that his government would promote more settlements in the West Bank and lay the groundwork for its eventual annexation. He also declared that he intends to “regularize” settlement outposts established on private Palestinian land after a law seeking to do so was invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Netanyahu has appointed Bezalel Smotrich, a settler and one of the most extreme anti-Palestinian politicians in Israel, as a special minister within the Ministry of Defense tasked with supervising civilian affairs in the West Bank. By effectively taking this authority from the military and giving it to a political appointee, Netanyahu has signaled his government’s annexationist intent.
Taken together, these proposed reforms amount to an assault on Israel’s already flawed democracy. The government’s agenda and the authoritarian turn it portends have already provoked a mass protest movement. They have also stirred broad concern outside Israel, prompting countries including France and the United States to express reservations about the impending changes. If Netanyahu and his coalition continue to drag Israel down the Hungarian route, they will threaten not just the country’s democratic institutions but also its relationships with allies.