Startseite > Ex-Kommunistische Länder > Russland kritisiert die USA – NATO als Verantwortliche für 30.000 Drogen Tode

Russland kritisiert die USA – NATO als Verantwortliche für 30.000 Drogen Tode

März 22, 2010
Wie auch in Albanien und dem Kosovo, tragen die USA und die NATO, die alleinige Verantwortung für die Drogen Produktion in Afghanistan, wo es in Folge zu 30.000 Toden in Russland pro Jahr kommt. Die Drogen Verteil Stelle der NATO mit dem Kosovo ist ja gut bekannt.
Russia criticizes US, NATO over Afghan drugs

By SLOBODAN LEKIC (AP) – Mar 12, 2010

BRUSSELS — Russia’s envoy to NATO has sharply criticized the alliance’s battle with drug trafficking in Afghanistan, saying it has led to a surge in heroin smuggling that is endangering Russia’s national security.

In an interview late Thursday, Dmitry Rogozin also highlighted the lack of cohesion within NATO, saying Moscow is worried about declining public support in Europe for the war.

Russia „is losing 30,000 lives a year to the Afghan drug trade, and a million people are addicts,“ Rogozin said. „This is an undeclared war against our country.“

„We are obviously very dissatisfied with the lack of attention from NATO and the United States to our complaints about this problem.“

For years, the allies tried to eradicate poppy crops, but that resulted in a boost to the insurgency as impoverished poppy farmers joined the Taliban. U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s new policy of trying to win the support of the population means that these farmers are now left alone, enabling them to tend crops that produce 90 percent of the world’s heroin.

Last month, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime said Afghanistan’s cultivation of opium — the main ingredient in heroin — is unlikely to rise or fall dramatically in 2010, after a major drop over the last two years. But even during 2008 and 2009 Afghanistan was producing far more opium a year than the world consumes, the Vienna-based office said.

Russia claims that drug production in Afghanistan has increased tenfold since the U.S.-led invasion that ousted the Taliban regime in 2001. Smugglers freely transport Afghan heroin and opium north into Central Asia and Russia, and also on to Western Europe.

Rogozin pointed to Washington’s inconsistency in its attitude to international drug trafficking saying that in contrast to Afghanistan, it was waging a drug war in Colombia because that was the primary source of cocaine that goes to America.

„But in the case of the heroin which goes to Russia, they are doing practically nothing,“ he said. „This is not how you treat your friends and partners.“

NATO spokesman James Appathurai said the alliance understands Russian concerns, and that the problem affects Europe as well. The most important part of solving the drug trade was helping to defeat the insurgency, and NATO has 120,000 troops trying to do just that, he said.

Appathurai noted that the U.N. cites the Marjah region, where NATO has just completed a large-scale offensive, as one of the world’s foremost opium-producing areas. „By helping re-establish government control there, we are making a substantial contribution to the counter-narcotics effort,“ he said.

„We would welcome increased support from Russia for our overall effort and (NATO) has made very specific requests to Moscow which they are considering,“ Appathurai said.

Russia contributes logistical support for NATO- and U.S.-led operations by providing a vital land and air transit corridor for the shipment of supplies to the international force. It also services Soviet helicopters and organizes training for the Afghan anti-drug police. But Moscow always has ruled out sending ground troops.

During the Cold War, the Soviets provided military support for the secular Afghan government, and deployed over 100,000 troops to defend it against religious fundamentalists being financed by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Britain, and other Western nations. About 15,000 Soviet soldiers died in the 10-year war in the 1980s.

„Today we are helping them fight the same fanatics whom they supported against us 20 years ago,“ Rogozin noted.

He expressed concern over weakening support for the nine-year war from America’s European allies, „who ended up in Afghanistan without really knowing what they were doing there.“

„The result is falling public commitment to the war,“ he said.

Last month, the Dutch government collapsed because it tried to comply with a NATO request to keep its 2,000-strong contingent in Afghanistan. The Dutch crisis, and growing public opposition in other European countries to further involvement in Afghanistan, has sparked fears that other NATO nations might also pull out their troops.

„NATO is still dominated by the United States, and European allies still fall in line just to keep the alliance going, (by) participating in U.S.-initiated military adventures, even though their national interests in doing so are far from clear,“ said Ian Buruma, a professor of democracy at Bard College in New York.

„It is hard to see how this can continue for much longer.“

In a related development, NATO’s top official said Russia’s military doctrine — which still identifies the Western military alliance as a top threat — is outdated and „does not reflect the real world.“

Speaking in Warsaw, Poland, Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said NATO will „never invade Russia.“ He has repeatedly called for the two to forge a „strategic partnership“ and cooperate more closely in Afghanistan, anti-piracy operations, and countering terrorism and drug trafficking.

AP corespondent Vanessa Gera in Warsaw contributed to this report.

U.S.  Senate Republican Policy Committee - Larry E. Craig, Chairman - Jade  West, Staff Director
March 31, 1999
The Kosovo Liberation Army: Does Clinton Policy Support Group with Terror, Drug Ties?
From ‚Terrorists‘ to ‚Partners‘

On March 24, 1999, NATO initiated air attacks on Yugoslavia (a federation of two republics, Serbia and Montenegro) in order to impose a peace agreement in the Serbian province of Kosovo, which has an ethnic Albanian majority. The Clinton Administration has not formally withdrawn its standing insistence that Belgrade sign the peace agreement, which would entail the deployment in Kosovo of some 28,000 NATO ground troops — including 4,000 Americans — to police the settlement. But in recent days the Clinton public line has shifted to a demand that Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic halt the offensive he has launched in Kosovo, which has led to a growing humanitarian crisis in the region, before there can be a stop to the bombing campaign.

One week into the bombing campaign, there is widespread discussion of options for further actions. One option includes forging a closer relationship between the United States and a controversial group, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a group which has been cited in unofficial reports for alleged ties to drug cartels and Islamic terrorist organizations. This paper will examine those allegations in the context of the currently unfolding air campaign.

Results of Week One

The air assault is a product of a Clinton policy, which for months has been directed toward intervention in Kosovo, in either the form of the use of air power or of the introduction of a peacekeeping ground force — or of air power followed by a ground force. [For details on the turbulent history of Kosovo and of the direction of Clinton policy leading to the current air campaign, see: RPC’s „Senate to Vote Today on Preventing Funding of Military Operations in Kosovo: Airstrikes Likely This Week,“ 3/23/99; „Bombing, or Ground Troops — or Both: Clinton Kosovo Intervention Appears Imminent,“ 2/22/99; and „Bosnia II: The Clinton Administration Sets Course for NATO Intervention in Kosovo,“ 8/12/98.] Just hours before the first bombs fell, the Senate voted 58 to 41 (with 38 Republicans voting in the negative) to authorize air and missile strikes against Yugoslavia (S. Con. Res. 21). The Senate then approved by voice vote a second resolution expressing support for members of the U.S. Armed Forces engaged in military operations against Yugoslavia (S. Res. 74).
………………….
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/fr033199.htm

  1. aron
    Juli 20, 2010 um 4:31 pm

    Afghan heroin ’sponsored‘ by West?

  2. nena
    November 9, 2010 um 3:35 pm

    Diese stinkenden Müll Haufen von Verbrechern, inzenieren Kriege, für ihre Geschäfte!

    „Ich schätze persönliche Diplomatie und lege viel Wert auf Vertrauen“, schreibt Bush – und fährt mit Blick auf Schröder fort: „Als dieses Vertrauen verletzt wurde, war es schwierig, noch einmal eine konstruktive Beziehung zu unterhalten.“

    Bush schreibt in seinem Buch, Schröder habe ihm bei einem Treffen im kleinen Kreis im Weißen Haus am 31. Januar 2002 die volle Unterstützung für die Irak-Politik zugesagt. Er selbst habe dem Kanzler bei dem Gespräch klar gemacht, dass er als letzte Option auch mit militärischer Gewalt gegen Iraks Machthaber Saddam Hussein vorgehen würde.

    Schröder habe daraufhin geantwortet: „Was für Afghanistan richtig ist, ist auch für den Irak richtig. Nationen, die den Terrorismus unterstützen, müssen mit Konsequenzen rechnen. Wenn Sie es schnell und entschieden erledigen, dann bin ich mit Ihnen.“ Bush fährt fort: „Dies habe ich als Erklärung der Unterstützung aufgenommen.“

    „Ich war schockiert und wütend“

    Bush wirft dem damaligen Kanzler vor, einige Monate später im deutschen Bundestagswahlkampf von der Zusage abgerückt zu sein. „Als die Wahlen in Deutschland bevorstanden, hatte Schröder plötzlich einen anderen Dreh“, schreibt Bush. Schröder habe öffentlich gegen eine Invasion im Irak mobil gemacht.

    Besonders beleidigend seien Äußerungen der damaligen Bundesjustizministerin Herta Däubler-Gmelin (SPD) gewesen, die Bush im Wahlkampf in die Nähe von Hitler gerückt hatte. „Ich war schockiert und wütend“, erinnert sich Bush. „Man kann sich kaum etwas Beleidigenderes vorstellen, als von einem deutschen Regierungsvertreter mit Hitler verglichen zu werden.“ Danach habe er seine Kontakte zu Schröder auf das Nötigste reduziert.

    Der frühere US-Präsident wirft Schröder außerdem vor, gemeinsam mit dem damaligen französischen Staatschef Jacques Chirac und Russlands Präsident Wladimir Putin eine Achse gebildet zu haben, „um dem Einfluss Amerikas entgegenzuwirken“. Als Gegenleistung hätten Schröder und Chirac dann Putins zunehmend autoritäre Machtausübung verteidigt.

    http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,728163,00.html

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Kommentare sind geschlossen.
%d Bloggern gefällt das: