AL
-QAEDA-BILDERBERG CONNECTION? -- FBI LINKING AL-QAEDA FUNDS, INSIDER
TRADING AMONGST GLOBAL FINANCE ELITES AND A SOURED TEXAS ASSET BUYOUT AS
PAKISTANI PRIME MINISTER UNDER INVESTIGATION
by Aaron Dykes
June 2, 2007
As we reported yesterday, an FBI
investigation led to charges for two high level Pakistani financiers on
multiple counts of conspiracy and fraud. The FBI has announced it is now
investigating further links to Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz ,
as well as Salman Shah, the Prime Minister's financial advisor, Ali Raza
, the president of the National Bank of Pakistan and a significant list
of other Pakistani financial heads.
The Times of India reported that FBI
investigators believe the criminal operation may also be tied to
allegations of money-laundering operations for Al Qaeda.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat
Aziz, also former Chairman of Citigroup
Pakistani Financial Advisor Salman
Shah, also governor of World Bank of Pakistan
Ali Raza, president of the National
Bank of Pakistan
The alleged insider trading took
place on knowledge of the TxU buyout , a largest-ever $45 billion
leverage deal brokered by Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR) and
Goldman Sachs, two key firms inside the Bilderberg group, who dominate
the investment banking world, and are shown to be very closely linked.
Credit Suisse First Boston, who
served as advisors on the TxU buyout and are also represented annually
at Bilderberg, are named in the FBI insider trading case that has so far
charged Hafiz Naseem, a Credit Suisse FB investment banker , with
criminal counts of conspiracy and fraud.
Is there a link between elite
Pakistani bankers who brokered the TxU leveraged buyout with Bilderberg
firms KKR, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse and the alleged Pakistani
role in a laundering scheme for Al-Qaeda?
Civil charges have been filed
against Ajaz Rahim , the head of investment banking at Faysal Bank in
Pakistan, on conspiracy and 25 counts of securities fraud.
The high levels of investigation are
interesting-- given the close relationship with Western banking, as well
as the pivotal role Pakistan plays in the intelligence community and the
so-called War on Terror . Pakistan is well known for harboring Al Qaeda,
though the government does not officially support the terrorist group.
It was from Pakistan that former ISI
chief General Mahmud Ahmad wired $100,000 to supposed lead-hijacker
Mohammad Atta , a known CIA-asset, to fund the 9/11 attacks. Of course,
the ISI is largely an extension of the CIA and other western
intelligence agencies, and works as base of operations for intelligence
in the Middle East.
Fmr. National Security Advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski with Osama bin Laden, circa 1979.
Just north of Pakistan, Zbigniew
Brzezinski funded, armed and created the Taliban-- headed by bin Laden--
to offset expected aggression by Soviet forces into Afghanistan in 1979
while Brzezinski was National Security Adviser to President Carter--
proving directly the U.S. link to bin Laden.
"I told the President, about six
months before the Soviets entered Afghanistan, that in my judgment I
thought they would be going into Afghanistan. And I decided then, and I
recommended to the President, that we shouldn't be passive...We weren't
passive," Brzezinski told CNN during a 1997 interview.
Brzezinski, of course, helped David
Rockefeller found the Trilateral Commission, and is also involved in the
Council on Foreign Relations, both of which bleed over into the
Bilderberg group, all of which serve an agenda working towards world
government.
When Osama bin Laden and his Taliban
became a red herring in the War on Terror, they simply moved south to
Pakistan, leaving American forces to seize control of Afghanistan (as
well as its land, oil, Caspian trade route, and opium crop) while
fighting a non-existent enemy. Despite the fact that the phony War on
Terror is supposedly fought globally, neither American, Pakistani or
U.N. troops have gone after the Taliban forces residing in Pakistan. The
reason for this is not Pakistan's duplicity, but that the terrorist
group was simply a pretense to control Afghanistan, as its governing
forces were perhaps not as accessible as Rick Perry has been in selling
out Texas.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat
Aziz has also been accessible to the globalists-- he is basically a
controlled asset, after all. While he is currently under investigation
in the related cases of insider trading over Texas asset deals and Al
Qaeda money laundering operations, he was Citigroup's Chairman-- a New
York-based investment group operating in the top echelon of the
financial world. Aziz spent approximately 30 years with the company.
Citigroup, obviously well
established in the banking web, has several Bilderberg ties, including
notorious former chair Walter Bigelow Wriston (who transformed Citigroup
into one of the biggest conglomerates in the world and also wrote a book
called The Twilight of Sovereignty [1992]). Former Citigroup Chairman
and CEO John S. Reed was a Bilderberg member as well and also Chairman
of the New York Stock Exchange. A number of other top Citigroup
executives are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, including
CEO Charles Prince, former president & CEO Richard A. Freytag and Vice
Chairman William R. Rhodes.
Citigroup grew out of the National
City Bank of New York, which was built up by William Rockefeller ,
brother of John D. Rockefeller. William's grandson James Stillman
Rockefeller also headed the bank and worked closely with Walter B.
Wriston.
Dr. Salman Shah, financial advisor
to the Prime Minister in Pakistan with Paul Wolfowitz in 2005. He also
serves as the governor of the World Bank for Pakistan.
Prime Minister Aziz also publicized
his relationship with the Carlyle Group and plans for Pakistani
investment while attending the 2007 Davos meeting. According to this
report:
On the second day of Davos,
Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told the group that the United
States' very own Carlyle Group, which "manages $46.9 billion worldwide,"
is planning to invest several billion dollars in the Middle East.
Salman Shah, financial advisor to
the Prime Minister in Pakistan with Paul Wolfowitz in 2005. He also
serves as the governor of the World Bank for Pakistan.
Aziz's attachments to Western
banking go too deep for him to have any real separation from it; on the
contrary, it surely those ties launched him into to the top of the
Pakistani government.
The Prime Minister's financial
advisor, Salman Shah, who is also under investigation, serves as the
Governor of the World Bank for Pakistan , which he spoke to in 2004 ,
2005 , 2006 (PDF links). He was educated in the United States and taught
for many years at a number of Western institutions. He has also spoken
at Credit Suisse First Boston conferences , the Bilderberg firm which
advised the TxU merger. Haseem, who has been criminally charged in the
case, worked for Credit Suisse FB.
Former Pakistani Prime Minister,
Moin Qureshi, was Vice President at the World Bank prior to becoming PM
and obtained permanent residence in the United States after his term
where he established the Emerging Markets Company.
Investigations probing top positions
in Pakistani finance and government have implications for the world
finance community at large, particularly as the investigations relate to
trading on the TxU buyout-- which was nothing more than the leveraging
of Texas assets by Bilderberg brokers, particularly Henry R. Kravis,
founding partner of KKR who led the TxU deal. Kravis also holds the
previous record for largest buyout-- the leveraging of R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company at approximately $26 billion in 1988-- a price that came
after a bidding war, which was dramatized in the film Barbarians at the
Gate.
Gov. Perry Summoned to Bilderberg
While Insider Trading Charges Mount in Related Texas Buyout
Ron Paul: Bilderberg "a sign that
he's very much involved in the international conspiracy" as Texas
Governor off to Global Government Think Tank's Secret Meeting
by Aaron Dykes
May 31, 2007
Texas Governor Rick Perry's
attendance at this year's Bilderberg meeting was reported today by the
Dallas Morning News and confirmed by the Governor's Press Office as he
left Austin for Istanbul-- where the exclusive and private meeting of
elites from throughout the Western world will take place. The trip could
be in violation of the Logan Act which prevents U.S. citizens from
unauthorized negotiations with foreign entities.
While the agenda of the meeting is
kept secret, the overlap in interests between Governor Perry and
Bilderberg are clear, as Texas becomes increasingly overrun by
international firms taking control over land, roads and newly privatized
utilities-- seizing Texas in a manner similar to IMF takeover of third
world nations.
Rick Perry has not only been
instrumental in the contentious development of the Trans-Texas
Corridor-- often argued to be necessary infrastructure for regional
government under C.F.R. plans for a North American Community and the
Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP.gov) signed by
President Bush-- Rick Perry has also privatized TxU (Texas Utilities),
handing it off to global investment firms and private control who are
heavily involved in the Bilderberg group.
The $45 billion dollar TxU buyout is
no less than the largest buyout ever, and involves at least three firms
represented annually at Bilderberg, each characteristic of global
investment-- Goldman Sachs, represented by its Chairman Peter D.
Sutherland (also Chairman of British Petroleum [BP]), Kohlberg, Kravis,
Roberts & Co. (KKR) represented by Henry R. Kravis, founder and partner,
and Credit Suisse First Boston represented by Chairman and CEO Ronald S.
Lloyd.
Now, the biggest ever buyout is
unfolding in scandal-- as Ajaz Rahim, head of investment banking at
Saudi owned Faysal Bank in Pakistan, is criminally charged with
conspiracy and securities fraud for insider trading based on information
he received from Credit Suisse, who advised on the TxU deal.
Hafiz Muhammad Zubair Naseem, an
investment banker with Credit Suisse Securities USA was also charged
criminally with conspiracy and securities fraud earlier in the month.
Whether further charges could be
forthcoming in the TxU insider trading scandal remains to be seen.
Governor Perry was involved in facilitating the TxU buyout, including
the issuance of an executive order to instigate fast-track approval for
TxU plant deals:
"Last year, after private meetings with TXU executives, Perry
fast-tracked the permitting process for TXU's 11-plant expansion through
an executive order, slashing the time frame in half, to six months...."
"The bottom line: Only Governor Perry and TXU, which stands to make a
lot of money, are championing these plants."
While his executive order was challenged by politicians, his
accessibility to globalist firms is clear-- he is willing to take part
in the total and literal looting of Texas land and other resources-- as
public interests and private property are seized then sold off to
business partners and exploited for profit.
The unprecedented leveraging of Texas to foreign entities follows
closely the blueprint for control used by the IMF in the buyout and
seizure of third world nations-- which the IMF takes over after
impossible loans are not paid back. The IMF loans themselves are
specifically designed so that default is certain-- matched against
stringent conditions that give leverage and control to the bank and its
interests.
Texas' pivotal role in plans for regional government in North America
through the Trans-Texas Corridor, as well as its close relationship with
Mexico, has made it a central target for globalist development
operations-- thus, insuring total access to figureheads like Perry is
critical for Bilderberg and its web of global influence. Furthermore,
Texas has been relatively free from federal control in terms of land
ownership up to this point, and has been partly targeted for seizure of
family-owned private land.
Indexed by a 1996 government resource, Texas ranks 9th lowest in federal
land ownership by percentage (with only 1.194% Federally owned in 1996),
but second lowest by total acreage, with over 166,209,769 acres NOT
owned by the federal government. Only Alaska has more un-owned land,
though 47% of its land is federally owned, and much of Alaska may not be
useful property anyway. No other state comes anywhere near the 100
million acre mark for land available for federal control (that is,
currently not federally owned)-- thus Texas has become a target for
expanded control.
However, much of this Texas land not currently under federal control is
now being acquired through eminent domain and other means for use in the
TTC project and many other deals benefiting private foreign
corporations.
Rick Perry has not only been accused of hatching the entire Trans-Texas
Corridor plan, and handing it over to foreign corporations like
Cintra-Zachry, who will toll existing roads for private profit in many
cases, he also lobbied to allow these corporations to keep the details
of the arrangement secret, in the face of opposition and outcry by Texas
Congress and the public, respectively.
Gov. Perry also vetoed a bill that would place some limitation on the
profit potential for foreign companies running tolls, and more recently
decried the two-year moratorium on toll road contracts to foreign
companies, which he is seeking to overturn.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) stated today on the Alex Jones Show
regarding Perry's announced attendance at the Bilderberg meeting that it
"sure is a sign that he's very much involved in the international
conspiracy and, of course, he's been the promoter of the highway, but
wasn't it pretty neat how the people in Texas spoke out and the
Legislature also, all of a sudden, backed away with a moratorium."
Ron Paul also added that he was "impressed" that Bilderberg was covered
by the "regular media," calling it 'hopeful.'
Governor Perry with former Mexican President Vicente Fox
Governor Perry has also been cozy with Mexico's kleptocracy in the past,
meeting in 2003 with then President of Mexico Vicente Fox, who awarded
local police for giving sanctuary to illegal immigrants while the two
heads discussed other business and cooperation, including a water deal.
Fox was a signing member of the 2005 SPP.gov agreement (Security and
Prosperity Partnership of North America). Alex Jones protested the
occasion.
Perry has other interesting overlap with the Bilderberg agenda,
including his shameless promotion of the dangerously untested Gardasil
vaccine which is supposed to protect against HPV, which can lead to
cervical cancer. Governor Perry went so far as to mandate the HPV
vaccine, which-- by mandating-- conveniently protects Merck, the
manufacturer of the vaccine, from all liability.
Meanwhile, the Rockefeller Foundation announced a campaign pushing HPV
vaccines worldwide, calling for "immediate action to ensure rapid global
access to new cervical cancer vaccines"-- a vaccine that only prevents 4
of approximately 100 mutating strains of the human pappilomavirus and
has already caused 1,637 adverse reactions reports and killed three
girls. David Rockefeller has a vested interest in the pharma-industrial
complex and is also one of the cornerstones of the Bilderberg group, who
still attends every year, even at age 92.
Typically, the agenda of Bilderberg is kept secret, though this year has
garnered unprecedented media coverage of the bashful consortium of
international elites who would prefer to remain in the shadows. In the
recent past, rumors have circulated that Perry could be a potential
candidate for president or vice-president in the future.
That, too, fits in with Bilderberg's legacy as a kingmaker-- both George
H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton attended Bilderberg before winning the
presidency. The mainstream media reported that John Edward's nomination
as vice president was due to Bilderberg.
Perry's rise in Texas politics was largely due to his close association
with President Bush, who pushed him into his position as Lieutenant
Governor while governor of Texas; Bush's advisor Karl Rove reportedly
persuaded Perry to switch to the Republican party in the 80s during
massive Republican realignment throughout the state.
Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones contributed to this report.
Pakistani Prime Minister Under
FBI Lens in Stock Scam
Times of India | May 29, 2007
KARACHI: Pakistan's who's who are being investigated for committing
white-collar crimes under the US intra-trading legislation. According to
sources, an FBI probe into a multi-million dollar insider-trading case
involving a Pakistani banker may be looking at the involvement of some
top Pakistani decision makers, including prime minister Shaukat Aziz, in
the scandal.
The probe is also looking at some
top bankers and government officials who are allegedly involved in
money-laundering operations for Al Qaida, sources say.
The scam came to light recently when
Hafiz Naseem, a Pakistani banker, was arrested in New York in the first
week of May and charged with 26 counts of conspiracy and securities
fraud. He is accused of leaking details about nine deals, including the
record $32 billion leveraged buyout of Texas energy giant TXU.
A FBI team arrived in Pakistan
recently to probe the case and interviewed many top Pakistani bankers,
say sources. Among those the FBI wanted to talk to, according to
sources, were the financial adviser to the Prime Minister, Salman Shah;
president of National Bank of Pakistan, Ali Raza; Chief of House
Building Finance Corporation, Zaigham Mehmood; chairman of Arif Habib
Brokerage Houses, Arif Habib; chairman of Karachi Stock Exchange,
Shaukat Tareen; and chairman of Pakistan International Airlines, Zafar
Ali Khan.
The prime minister, formerly a
senior official in Citi Group, has also been linked to the probe,
sources claim.
Salman Shah
by Wikipedia
Dr. Salman Shah (Urdu: سلمان شاہ)
was the former caretaker Finance Minister of Pakistan. He has also
served as an advisor to the Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on finance,
economic affairs, statistics and revenues. He is the son-in-law of
former Chief of Army Staff General Asif Nawaz. He has two sons, one of
whom is Asif Nawaz Shah, and three daughters.
Dr. Shah, a Lahore based Economist,
holds a PhD in Finance and Economics from Indiana University,
Bloomington's Kelley School of Business. He has 16 years of teaching
experience at institutions such as University of Michigan, Indiana
University, University of Toronto, and Lahore University of Management
Sciences. He is one of the most highly educated members of Shaukat
Aziz's team.
Prior to his current appointment as
Finance Minister, he has served on following positions:
Economic consultant, to
different Pakistani governments including that of Nawaz Sharif.
Chairman of Privatization
Commission during the tenure of caretaker government of Prime
Minister Malik Meraj Khalid.
Member, Board of Governors -
Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).
Member, Board of Directors -
Pakistan International Airlines.
Member, Central Board of
Directors - State Bank of Pakistan (2002-2003)
Member, of various
government's task forces.
Dr. Shah was also appointed as a
member of the task force on investment by Dr. Abdul Hafeez Sheikh which
gave recommendations to the Board of Investment to increase investments
in the country. Dr Shah headed the regional task forces of Karachi and
Lahore regions for the BOI under Dr Hafeez Sheikh.
He has taught in several prestigious
institutes, such as Indiana University in Bloomington and the University
of Michigan in Ann Arbor and LUMS, in Lahore.
Prominent Pakistan banker Rahim
charged for conspiracy, insider trading
May 30, 2007
By Chad Bray
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- A
prominent investment banker from Pakistan has been charged criminally in
an alleged insider-trading scheme using leaked information about pending
mergers, including TXU Corp.'s proposed buyout by a private-equity
group, according to court documents.
According to a criminal complaint,
Ajaz Rahim, country head of investment banking at Faysal Bank, has been
charged with conspiracy and 25 counts of securities fraud. Rahim
allegedly netted more than $7.5 million in improper profits in the
scheme, including more than $5.1 million from trading prior to the TXU
announcement.
Prosecutors have alleged that Rahim
was tipped off about proposed acquisitions involving nine publicly
traded companies between April 2006 and February 2007 by Hafiz Muhammad
Zubair Naseem, a Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC (CS 42.31, -2.41,
-5.39%) investment banker.
Naseem, a member of Credit Suisse's
Global Energy Group in New York, was charged criminally with conspiracy
and securities fraud earlier this month.
The transactions included Express
Scripts Inc.'s (ESRX) failed bid for Caremark RX Inc. and the proposed
buyout of TXU by a group led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and TPG
Inc. Caremark was eventually sold to CVS Corp.
Earlier this month, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission brought civil insider-trading charges
against Rahim.
Feds Charge Prominent Pakistani
Banker In CSFB-TXU Insider Trading Case
Posted by John Carney, May 30, 2007,
2:37pm
Federal prosecutors yesterday
brought criminal charges against Pakistani banker Ajaz Rahim, who they
allege traded on inside information leaked to him by a junior Credit
Suisse banker. Rahim is a prominent figure in Pakistani investment
banking, and until quite recently worked as the country head of
investment banking of the Faysal Bank in Karachi.
The picture to the left appears to
be of Rahim and Farook Bengali, the chief executive of Faysal. It was
prominently placed on the bank's website until recently but has been
removed. DealBreaker was not able to confirm that the picture is Rahim.
Earlier this month, federal
prosecutors arrested Hafiz Mohammed Zubair Naseem, a junior associate in
the energy group at Credit Suisse, on charges that he had leaked
information on nine deals which his employer was involved with,
including the buyout of Texas energy giant TXU. At the time of the
arrest, prosecutors said that Naseem had leaked the information to a
banker in Pakistan but did not name him. A little more than a week
later, the SEC amended its civil complaint against Naseem and named
Rahim as a defendant. The complaint alleges that in at least twenty-five
instance, Rahim made trades several minutes after concluding phone calls
with Naseem.
An arrest warrant has been issued
for Rahim but his whereabouts are currently unknown. After the SEC named
him as a defendant, Rahim’s lawyer, Spencer Barasch, had said that his
client would not come to the US for a deposition in the suit unless he
received guarantees that he would not be arrested. Naseem had also said
he planned to call Rahim as a witness for the defense in his own trial.
Through his lawyer, Rahim is denying
any wrong doing. “Mr. Rahim looks forward to vigorously defending
himself against the charges,” Barasch told DealBook yesterday.
9/11 funds came from Pakistan,
says FBI
by MANOJ JOSHI, TNN
1 Aug 2003
The Times of India
NEW DELHI: India played a key role
in providing US authorities the information that funding for the
September 11 attacks came from Pakistan. A top FBI counter-terrorism
official told the US Senate governmental affairs committee on Thursday
that investigators have “traced the origin of the funding of 9/11 back
to financial accounts in Pakistan.’’
John S. Pistole, deputy assistant
director of the FBI’s counter-terrorism division, however, did not
specify how those accounts in Pakistan were funded, or the role of
Pakistani elements. The Times of India first reported on October 10,
2001 that India told the US that some $100,000 had been wired to the
leader of the hijackers, Mahmud Atta, by British-born terrorist Ahmad
Saeed Umar Sheikh.
Indian authorities also told the
US that the trail led back from Sheikh to the then chief of ISI, Lt Gen
Mahmud Ahmad who was subsequently forced to retire by Pakistan president
Pervez Musharraf. The FBI had been provided with the details,
including Sheikh’s mobile numbers. But Pistole’s testimony is silent on
these issues. The FBI has estimated the September 11 attacks cost
between $175,000 and $250,000. That money — which paid for flight
training, travel and other expenses — flowed to the hijackers through
associates in Germany and the United Arab Emirates.
Those associates reported to
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who managed much of the planning for the attacks
from Pakistan, US officials have said. The Bush Administration is
being cagey about declassifying 28 secret pages in a recent report on
the 9/11 incident which officials say outline connections between Saudi
charities, royal family members and terrorism.
US authorities are silent about
the role some Pakistanis may have played in the conspiracy. The role of
Sheikh and Lt Gen Ahmad has yet to see the light of the day. Sheikh,
wanted for kidnapping and terrorist conspiracy in India, has since been
sentenced to death in Pakistan for the murder of Wall Street Journal
reporter Daniel Pearl.
Zbigniew Brzezinski
by Sourcewatch.org
Zbigniew Brzezinski, born in Warsaw,
Poland, in 1928, the son of a diplomat posted to Canada in 1938, serves
as Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and
is Professor of American Foreign Policy at the Paul H. Nitze School of
Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University,
Washington, D.C. Brzezinski is said to be a protege of both Nelson A.
Rockefeller and Paul H. Nitze, his CSIS profile states. [1]
In the private sector, Brzezinski
serves as an "international advisor of several major US/global
corporations." He is a "frequent participant in annual business/trade
conventions" and is President of Z.B. Inc. "(an advisory firm on
international issues to corporations and financial institutions). Also a
frequent public speaker and commentator on major domestic and foreign TV
programs, and contributor to domestic and foreign newspapers and
journals."[2]
Brzezinski's career with the U.S.
Government spans several presidents: advisor to John Fitzgerald Kennedy
and Lyndon Baines Johnson; policy advisor to James Earl Carter, Jr.; and
George Herbert Walker Bush's co-chair on the National Security Advisory
Task Force (1988).[3]
He earned his B.A. (1949) and M.A.
(1950) at McGill University and his Ph.D. at Harvard University (1953).
He holds honorary degrees from several universities.[4]
Honorary Trustee, Institute of
International Education
International Advisory Board,
Journal of Democracy [1]
Honorary Member, Academy of
Political Science [2]
Former Director (1992),
National Endowment for Democracy [3]
Taliban-al Qaeda Machinator?
In a 1997 interview for CNN's Cold
War Series, Brzezinski hinted about the Carter Administration's
proactive Afghanistan policy before the Soviet invasion in 1979, that he
had conceived.
Interviewer: How did you interpret
Soviet behavior in Afghanistan, such as the April revolution, the rise
of... I mean, what did you think their long-term plans were, and what
did you think should be done about it?
Brzezinski: I told the President,
about six months before the Soviets entered Afghanistan, that in my
judgment I thought they would be going into Afghanistan. And I decided
then, and I recommended to the President, that we shouldn't be passive.
Interviewer: What happened?
Brzezinski: We weren't passive.
The National Security Archive,
Interview with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, for CNN's Coldwar Series, June
13, 1997
7 months after the interview for the
CNN series, Brzezinski, in a interview for the French publication, Le
Nouvel Observateur, was more forthright, and unapologetically claimed to
be the mastermind of a feint which caused the Soviet Union to embark
upon a military intervention to support their client government in
Kabul, as well as training and arming extremists, which later became the
Taliban government.
Q: When the Soviets justified their
intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret
involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe
them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything
today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret
operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the
Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that
the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter:
We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.
Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable
by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and
finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having
supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to
future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important
to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet
empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and
the end of the cold war?
Le Nouvel Observateur, Interview
with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Paris, January 15-21, 1998, translated by
Bill Blum - [5]
Higher Educational Institution
Affiliations
1949-50 - McGill University;
B.A. and M.A.
1953 - Harvard University;
Ph.D.
1953-60 - Harvard University,
faculty
1960-89 - Columbia University,
faculty
Public/Political Positions Held
1966-68 - Member of the Policy
Planning Council of the Department of State
1968 - Hubert H. Humphrey
presidential campaign, chairman of the Foreign Policy Task Force
1973-76 - Trilateral
Commission, Director
1976 - James Earl Carter, Jr.
presidential campaign, foreign policy advisor
1977-80 - James Earl Carter's
NSA
1985 - Ronald Reagan's
Chemical Warfare Commission, member
1987-88 - NSC-Defense
Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy, member
1988 - George H. W. Bush
National Security Advisory Task Force, member
1987-89 - President Reagan's
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, member
Source for Timelines: Jeri Charles
Associates, a speaker's booking agency; Brzezinski webpage
Published Works
The Grand Chessboard: American
Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives
The Grand Failure: The Birth
and Death of Communism in the 20th Century
Out of Control: Global Turmoil
on the Eve of the 20th Century
Power and Principal: The
Memoirs of the National Security Advisor
Affiliations
Advisory Board, America Abroad
Media
Advisory Board, Partnership
for a Secure America
Chair, American Committee for
Peace in Chechnya
Honorary Chairman, AmeriCares
Foundation (also used by CIA to finance Solidarity in Poland in the
eighties)
Former Director, Amnesty
International
Honorary Council of Advisors,
American Turkish Council
Chairman, American-Ukranian
Advisory Committee (organized by Brzezinski)[6]
Former Director, Atlantic
Council
Center for Strategic and
International Studies
Director, Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) (1972 to 1977)[7]
Trustee, Freedom House
Chairman, International
Advisory Board for the Yale Project on The Future Culture &
Civilization of China
Vice Chair, International
Crisis Group
Director, Jamestown Foundation
Director, Polish-American
Enterprise Fund, reputed CIA front
Director, Polish-American
Freedom Foundation, reputed CIA front
Former Director, National
Endowment for Democracy (Congressionally-funded organization)
Governor, Smith Richardson
Foundation
Trustee, Trilateral
Commission; Director (1973-1976)
Advisory Board, US-Azerbaijan
Chamber of Commerce
Advisory Committee, AmeriCares
(at least in 2004)
INTERVIEW WITH DR ZBIGNIEW
BRZEZINSKI-(13/6/97)
The National Security Archive,
Interview with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, for CNN's Coldwar Series, June
13, 1997
(Preliminary talk)
INTERVIEWER: Thank you very much for being willing to do an interview.
I'll start by asking about arms control: what were the Administration's
arms control objectives when they came into office?
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: It was essentially to limit, first of all, the arms
race, and then, if possible, to scale it down. I remember vividly how
committed the newly elected President was to the idea of a significant
cut in the nuclear weapons on both sides. That was kind of a central
goal of his.
INT: How were these ambitions received by the Soviets?
ZB: Hah, with some ambiguity. They, I suspect in retros...
INT: Can you say "the Soviets" in your answer, because you'll never hear
my question?
ZB: All right. And the Soviets received these proposals with some
ambiguity and indeed suspicion. I suspect myself that they felt that
Carter was not sincere, that he was merely trying to put them on the
defensive, and that he was trying to back out of the earlier Vladivostok
agreement that had been concluded between President Ford and Mr.
Brezhnev. This, incidentally, was not Carter's intention) - he really
was very sincere; if anything, he was over-ambitious.
INT: Can you describe Brezhnev's response to the proposals, the letter
that he sent in February of 1977, what your own reaction was to that?
ZB: I thought Brezhnev's letter was excessively negative, close to
hostile, somewhat patronizing.
INT: The next thing I want to ask you about is SS-20s, and how much of a
threat to the security of Europe was the Soviet deployment of SS-20s.
ZB: The Soviet deployment of the SS-20s worried the Europeans - frankly,
initially more than us. I remember being somewhat startled when
Chancellor Schmidt started making a big issue out of the SS-20s, but
then I came to realize that in a sense he was right: namely that the
SS-20, while perhaps not a decisive military weapon, posed the risk of
de-coupling Europe's security from America's; namely, of posing before
us the dilemma that maybe Europe was threatened by nuclear devastation,
but that we were not, and therefore, should we risk the devastation of
our own people and our own cities in order to protect Europe? That was
the element of potential de-coupling involved in the Soviet deployment,
and in that sense it posed a serious challenge to NATO, to which we had
to respond, and to which we did respond.
INT: How?
ZB: By deploying the Pershings and the ground-launch cruise missiles,
which put the Soviets very much on the defensive, and the Pershings
particularly gave us the capacity to devastate the Soviet command and
control centers in the very first few minutes of any conflict.
INT: What was your response to Chancellor Schmidt when he accused the
Americans of not taking sufficient account of the Europeans' fears?
ZB: I think it's an exaggeration to say he accused us. I think he posed
the dilemma, the possibility of a de-coupling of American and European
security. And as I said earlier, after initially thinking that perhaps
this was not a real issue, we came to the conclusion that indeed it was
and that we should respond to it seriously. So we did. The President
sent me to Europe; I talked to Chancellor Schmidt at length, and we came
up with a formula: namely, that we would deploy the Pershings, which
were theatre missiles, shorter range but very fast, very accurate, and
the ground-launch cruise missiles - slower, but extraordinarily
accurate: we could put one right through a window in the Kremlin, and if
it had a nuclear tip on it, it would make a bit of a bang.
(Request in b/g re: next question)
INT: Yes. Could you reflect on the dual-track policy of NATO for us?
ZB: Well, essentially our position was that if the Russians want to
discuss it, we will discuss; if not, we'll deploy.
INT: The neutron bomb - why did President Carter decide to cancel the
project of the neutron bomb?
ZB: The President decided to cancel the neutron bomb, I think for two
reasons, though one was emphasized. First, there wasn't sufficient
support in Europe for it, and there was a great deal of reluctance in
Europe to it. But secondly, I think the President personally found it
morally abhorrent.
INT: SALT II - there was a lot of opposition to SALT II. Can you explain
why opposition built up to SALT II?
ZB: The opposition in the United States to SALT II was the result both
of serious concerns over some of the technicalities, specifics of the
agreement - it was a very complicated agreement - and therefore some
feeling that perhaps we weren't getting as good a bargain as we should;
and maybe also of a more pervasive suspicion within some quarters that
President Carter wasn't tough enough with the Russians. So these two
things kind of coalesced and built up a degree of opposition to SALT II
that shouldn't have been there. Now, in addition to that, before too
long there was a third factor at play: namely, the Soviets started
acting in a way that made movement forward on SALT II very difficult,
culminating eventually in the occupation, invasion of Afghanistan.
INT: That leads on to the Soviet expansionism. How far did you believe
the Soviets were becoming an expansionist threat and were undermining
American influence, really from '77 onwards?
ZB: The Soviets at that time were proclaiming over and over again that
the scales of history were tipping in the favor of the Soviet Union: the
Soviet Union would outstrip us in economic performance, the Soviet Union
was getting a strategic edge, the Soviet Union was riding the crest of
the so-called national liberation struggles. The Soviet Union was moving
into Africa, it had a foothold in Latin America; it was using that
foothold, and particularly Castro himself, to see if something couldn't
be done on the mainland of [the] Southern hemisphere. So all of that
made it quite essential, in my view, to demonstrably show that these
analyses were false: that the scales of history were not tipping, that
Soviet assertiveness will not pay, that we can compete effectively,
eventually put the Soviets on the defensive, if necessary.
INT: What was your view, particularly in Africa...? I'm thinking of the
arc of crisis and your response to that.
ZB: My view of Soviet activities in the arc of crisis in Africa, so to
speak, was that it was incompatible with the notion of détente to which
we were subscribing, to which we thought the Soviets had subscribed in
the course of their negotiations with Presidents Nixon and Ford; that
you can't have your cake and eat it too. And that if that's what they
were going to be doing, then clearly we are entitled to play the same
game, wherever we can, to their disadvantage. But then we'll not have
détente: we'll have competition across the board. So there is a real
choice: either détente across the board, or competition across the
board, but not détente in some areas and competition in those areas in
which we were vulnerable.
INT: Moving on to Poland, what support you could give to Solidarity from
1980 onwards?
ZB: We gave them a great deal of political support. We encouraged
Solidarity as much as we could. We made it very clear as to where our
sympathies are. We of course had certain instruments for reaching
Poland, such as Radio Free Europe; we had a very comprehensive
publication program; we had other means also of encouraging and
supporting dissent. And when the critical moment came in December of
1980, when the Soviets were poised to intervene in Poland, we did
everything we could to mobilize international opinion, to galvanize
maximum international pressure on the Soviets, to convince the Soviets
that we will not be passive. And by then we had some credibility,
because the Soviets knew that already for a year we were doing something
that we had never before been done in the entire history of the Cold
War: we were actively and directly supporting the resistance movement in
Afghanistan, the purpose of which was to fight the Soviet army. So the
notion that we wouldn't be passive, I think had somcredibility by then.
INT: How important was the Iran hostage crisis to Carter's prestige?
ZB: I think it was devastating. I think the Iran hostage crisis was one
of the two central regions for Carter's political defeat in 1980, the
other reason being domestic inflation. Iran and inflation - both were
politically devastating.
INT: The downfall of the Shah and the Iranian hostage crisis - how much
did they influence Americans' reaction to Soviet policy in Afghanistan?
ZB: I think the crisis in Iran heightened our sense of vulnerability in
so far as that part of the world is concerned. After all, Iran was one
of the two pillars on which both stability and our political preeminence
in the Persian Gulf rested. Once the Iranian pillar had collapsed, we
were faced with the possibility that one way or another, before too
long, we may have either a hostile Iran on the northern shore of the
Persian Gulf facing us, or we might even have the Soviets there; and
that possibility arose very sharply when the Soviets marched into
Afghanistan. If they succeed in occupying it, Iran would be even more
vulnerable to the Soviet Union, and in any case, the Persian Gulf would
be accessible even to Soviet tactical air force from bases in
Afghanistan. Therefore, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was
viewed by us as of serious strategic consequence, irrespective of
whatever may have been the Soviet motives for it. Our view was the
objective consequences would be very serious, irrespective of what may
or may not have been the subjective motives for the Soviet action.
INT: Before the actual invasion, how much do you think the exit of the
Shah affected Soviet plans for that area of the world?
ZB: The collapse of the American position in Iran had to have a rather
strikingly reinforcing impact on Soviet expectations. This was a major
setback for the United States. There's no doubt that from the standpoint
of the Soviet analysis of the situation, the collapse of the regime in
Iran meant that the position of the United States north of the Persian
Gulf was disintegrating.
INT: How did you interpret Soviet
behavior in Afghanistan, such as the April revolution, the rise of... I
mean, what did you think their long-term plans were, and what did you
think should be done about it?
ZB: I told the President, about six months before the Soviets entered
Afghanistan, that in my judgment I thought they would be going into
Afghanistan. And I decided then, and I recommended to the President,
that we shouldn't be passive.
INT: What happened?
ZB: We weren't passive.
INT: But at the time...
(Interruption)
INT: Right, describe your reaction when you heard that your suspicions
had been fully justified: an invasion had happened.
ZB: We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the
Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and
sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and
the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be
adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the
Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my
going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint
response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as
much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a
collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the
Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from
various sources again - for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians
and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist
government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives;
and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the
Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.
INT: How united or divergent were the views in the Carter
Administration, responding to the invasion of Afghanistan?
ZB: They were surprisingly uniform. That is to say, I remember that the
State Department, which earlier had opposed taking a very tough stand on
Afghanistan, and certainly didn't want us to be issuing any public
warnings directed to the Soviet Union, came in with a long list of
something like 26 or 28 proposed sanctions against Soviet Union,
including the most severe ones that subsequently were adopted by the
United States. So once the Soviets had acted, some of the hesitations
and reticence regarding how we should respond to the Soviet challenge,
dissipated almost instantly.
INT: But you managed to increase the powers of the National Security
Council?
ZB: Well, I didn't increase the powers of the National Security Council,
but obviously what the Soviets did confirmed what we were arguing for
some time: namely, that if we don't draw the line clearly enough, we're
going to get an escalation in Soviet misconduct, that simply
acquiescence was not good enough. And in that sense, yes, I suppose one
could say the political scales within the US Government were somewhat
tipped in the favor of the NSC.
(B/g talk)
INT: How tough was President Carter's approach to the Cold War?
ZB: I think, on balance, it was much tougher than most people realize.
Not only did he take some historic decisions which no other president
had before - such as the decision to aid directly the Mujaheddin against
the Soviet army - but he took a very tough position in December 1980,
when the Soviet Union was poised to invade Poland. He took that
decision, and it was a very tough decision, and we did all sorts of
things to convince the Soviets that we wouldn't be passive. In addition
to it, he took the decision to engage in a strategic relationship with
the Chinese, and it was again directed at Soviet expansionism. But what
is even less known is that even in the early years, when he was
generally perceived as being soft and overly accommodationist, he took
some very tough-minded decisions which were simply not known publicly.
Robert Gates, the subsequently director of the CIA, and at that time a
member of my staff, reveals in his book that as early as 1978, President
Carter approved proposals prepared by my staff to undertake, for
example, a comprehensive, covert action program designed to help the
non-Russian nations in the Soviet Union pursue more actively their
desire for independence - a program in effect to destabilize the Soviet
Union. We called it, more delicately, a program for the "delegitimization
of the Soviet Union". But that was a rather unusual decision. He took
some others along these lines, too. So his public image to some extent
was the product of his great emphasis on arms reductions and a desire to
reach an agreement on that score with the Russians. But it didn't quite
correspond to the reality, and it certainly didn't correspond even to
the public reality in the second half of the Carter Administration.
INT: Could you summarize the reasons for the shift that seems apparent
from the 1977 détente and co-operation, inordinate fear of communism,
through to the Carter doctrine in 1980?
ZB: Well, that question was prepared before my answer to the previous
question. (Laughs)
INT: Can you give me a summary?
IN BACKGROUND
The reasons for it.
ZB: I don't think there was a shift. As I said, I think even prior to
the public realization that he was much tougher than most people had
assumed, he was taking some decisions privately in the first two years
of his presidency which were quite tough-minded. The reason he was
perceived by a lot of people as not being tough enough, was rooted
largely in his passion for arms control, for arms reductions, and that I
think created an image that was somewhat one-dimensional and not
entirely accurate.
INT: Well, following on that, how successful was Carter at laying the
foundations for increased defense and security which the next
administration inherited?
ZB: Any answer by me in that respect is inevitably self-serving. But I
think you would find a good answer tothat question in the book written
by the Republican head of the CIA, Robert Gates, who says that Carter
deserves enormous credit in responding assertively, energetically and in
an historically significant fashion, to the kind ochallenge that the
Soviets -erroneously - thought they were ready to pose before us, when
they assumed in the mid-Seventies that the scales of history were really
tipping in their favor and they could now act assertively in keeping
with that shift. It was our response in those years which provided the
basis for what subsequently was done by Reagan, and this is what is
being said by Robert Gates and not by me.
INT: But in your own book, you do stress that Carter laid good
foundations for strengthening ...
ZB: Well, as I think is evident from my answer, I don't disagree with
Robert Gates, but I think...
INT: Tell me (Overlap) from your own point of view...
ZB: ... but I think Robert Gates may be a better judge and more
dispassionate judge of that than I, because obviously I would be accused
of engaging in a self-serving diagnosis.
INT: OK.
(Request in b/g re: next question)
INT: Why was the Horn of Africa so important to America?
ZB: The Horn of Africa was not important to America as of itself, but it
was important as a measure and a test of how the Soviets were
interpreting détente; and it seemed to us, given the strategic location
of the Horn of Africa, that the Soviets were engaged in activities which
they should know would be a sensitive concern to us. And if they were,
notwithstanding that, doing precisely that, then obviously they were
exploiting détente to try to attain some significant geopolitical gains,
and that we simply could not tolerate.
INT: Did America underreact to start with to the activities of the
Soviets in Africa?
ZB: Absolutely, I think we underreacted, and that's why they gradually
escalated, and eventually, as I have said earlier, SALT was buried in
the sands of Ogaden, the sands that divide Somalia from Ethiopia, and
eventually led to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which then
precipitated a very strong, overtly so, American response. I would have
preferred us to draw the line sooner, and perhaps some of the things
that subsequently happened wouldn't have happened.
INT: Just to follow on to that, is how events in Afghanistan affected
the US relationship with Pakistan.
ZB: There was a certain coolness and distance in the American-Pakistan
relationship prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. After that
invasion, we collaborated very closely. And I have to pay tribute to the
guts of the Pakistanis: they acted with remarkable courage, and they
just weren't intimidated and they did things which one would have
thought a vulnerable country might not have the courage to undertake.
We, I am pleased to say, supported them very actively and they had our
backing, but they were there, they were the ones who were endangered,
not we.
INT: Reflecting on that whole situation in Afghanistan, do you think it
was worth all the suffering that was involved?
ZB: I think the Soviets made a tragic mistake, and therefore it wasn't
worth their while to go in. I think it would have been a tragedy if we
had allowed them to overrun the Afghans.
INT: Well, I would like to ask about détente. ... By 1980, the principle
of détente was dead. Can you explain why détente died, how it died, and
for what reasons?
ZB: Détente of the kind that existed in the mid-Seventies was really
undermined by the Soviets, who thought that they could have détente and
a fundamental shift in the balance of power at the same time. Instead of
accepting détente as a relationship designed to stabilize the
relationship between the two major countries, they viewed détente
essentially as an umbrella under which a fundamental shift in the
correlationship of power could be effected, and they thought they could
do so both on the strategic level and on the geopolitical level, via
their activities in the Third World. This is what contributed to the
collapse of détente. I fail to see how anyone can argue that it was up
to us to maintain détente at a time when the Soviets were very reluctant
to accept any reductions in strategic arms, and felt themselves free to
engage in military activities in the Third World, ranging from Africa
through to Central America, and eventually culminating in Afghanistan.
That is not the definition of détente in my book.
INT: The Vance mission in March 1977 - was that a turning point in any
way on that route that you've just been describing?
ZB: The Vance mission in 1977, the March mission to the Soviet Union in
order to conclude an arms control agreement, was a big disappointment to
us, and it's not well understood, because most people assume that Vance
went to Moscow all of a sudden confronting the Russians with a proposal
for deep cuts in the strategic arms relationship, and that the Russians,
annoyed by this sudden development, turned him down. The fact of the
matter is, he went there with that proposal, but also with another one:
namely, "If you're not prepared to have deep cuts, then let's have
essentially the kind of deeps cuts - but less deep, much less deep -
that were agreed to in Vladivostok," with two issues yet to be resolved,
which in our view had not been resolved: the question of the cruise
missiles and of the long-range new Soviet bomber called the Backfire,
and these two issues we had to resolve. And the Russians took the
position: "We don't accept deep cuts, but we also don't accept your
fall-back position, unless you accept our definition of what the
agreement ought to be regarding the cruise missiles and the Backfire."
And of course, we couldn't do that, because that would have placed in
jeopardy our own strategic position, and I doubt very much that Congress
would have approved any such agreement. So the Russians adopted a very
intransigent attitude, and that was a disappointment to those who
thought that perhaps we could start a new administration, the Carter
Administration, with some wide-ranging agreement with the Russians. It
became clear that this would be much more difficult, and that in fact
perhaps the Russians have a very one-sided, distorted, self-serving
definition of what détente really ought to be.
INT: One side only.
(A bit of discussion)
INT: Why did President Carter take up the issue of human rights,
especially on the Soviet Union, and what effect did this have on
Soviet-American relations?
ZB: The President should really speak for himself on that, but President
Carter, in my view, was deeply committed to human rights as a matter of
principle, as a matter of moral conviction, and he was committed to
human rights across the board. I mean, he felt very strongly about human
rights in Argentina, as well as in the Soviet Union. I was deeply
committed to human rights; I felt this was important, but I will not
hide the fact that I also thought that there was some instrumental
utility in our pursuit of human rights vis-à-vis the Soviet Union,
because at the time the Soviet Union was putting us ideologically on the
defensive. They saw themselves as representing the progressive forces of
mankind, marching toward some ideologically defined future; and raising
the issue of human rights pointed to one of the fundamental weaknesses
of the Soviet system: namely, that it was a system based on oppression,
on mass terror, on extraordinary killings of one's own people. Focusing
on human rights was in a way focusing on a major Soviet vulnerability.
So, while I was committed to human rights - and I am committed to human
rights - I do not deny that in pushing it vis-à-vis the Soviets, I saw
in this also an opportunity to put them ideologically on the defensive
at a time when they saw themselves rightfully on the offensive.
INT: Thank you very much.
(End)
Shaukat Aziz
by Wikipedia
Aziz at the 2007 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting.
Shaukat Aziz (Urdu: شوکت عزیز),
(born March 6, 1949 in Karachi, Pakistan) was the Prime Minister of
Pakistan from 2004 to 2007. He became Finance Minister in November 1999
and was named by the Pakistan Muslim League for the position of Prime
Minister after the resignation of Zafarullah Khan Jamali on June 6,
2004. He became Prime Minister on August 28, 2004 and served until
November 15 2007. He became the first Prime Minister of Pakistan to
complete a full term in office. He is a rare high-level government
leader of a major power with a strong background as a successful
businessman and financier.
Education
Aziz attended Saint Patrick's High
School, Karachi and Abbottabad Public School, Abbottabad. He passed his
Intermediate from Saint Patrick's College, Karachi. He graduated with a
Bachelor of Science degree from Gordon College, Rawalpindi, in 1967. He
obtained an MBA Degree in 1969 from Institute of Business Administration
(IBA) in Karachi, one of the premier business schools in Pakistan. It
was during his studies at the IBA that he secured an internship at
Citibank and began his banking career.
Pre-politics
In 1969 he joined Citibank, serving
in various countries, including Pakistan, Greece, the United States, the
United Kingdom, Malaysia, Philippines, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and
Singapore. He served as Citibank's head of Global Wealth Management &
Private Banking, Corporate and Investment Banking for the Asia Pacific
region and the CEEMEA region (Central & Eastern Europe, the Middle East
and Africa); as Corporate Planning Officer, Citicorp; as Managing
Director, Saudi America Bank; as Citibank's Chief Country Officer in
Malaysia and, later, in Jordan. He has been a board member of Citibank
subsidiaries, including Saudi American Bank, Citicorp Islamic Bank, and
of several non-profit organizations[1].
Finance Minister
On 26 November 1999, while
addressing a gathering of PakPAC, a political lobbying sub-body of the
Association of Pakistani Physicians of North America (APPNA), Musharraf
stated that Shaukat Aziz has come to Pakistan with forty other financial
experts who have offered free service to revive the Pakistani economy.
Then he asked Shaukat Aziz to stand up and introduce himself to the
audience.
In November 1999 Aziz became the
government's Finance Minister with responsibility for Finance, Economic
Affairs, Statistics, Planning and Development, and Revenue Divisions. As
Minister of Finance Aziz also headed the Economic Coordination Committee
of the Cabinet, the Cabinet Committee on Investment, the Executive
Committee of the National Economic Council, and the Cabinet Committee on
Privatization.
In 2001 Aziz was declared 'Finance
Minister of the Year' by Euromoney and Banker's Magazine.
By October 2007, at the end of Prime
Minister Shaukat Aziz’s tenure, Pakistan raised back its Foreign
Reserves to $16.4 billion. Pakistan's trade deficit was at $13 billion,
exports were $18 billion, revenue generation was $13 billion and
attracted foreign investment was $8.4 billion. [2]
Pakistan's fiscal performance was
praised by IMF and World Bank.[3] The World Bank further reiterated that
Pakistan's Economic growth bolstered International confidence.[4]
World Bank Praises: World
Bank President Mr Wolfensohn said, ""The progress has been terrific. Now
Pakistan must stay the course until the benefits of its achievements
reach the vulnerable sections of the society including the very poor,
women, children and the disabled,".[5]
IMF Praises: IMF's new Middle
East director Mr. George Abed, said he was "very pleased with the record
of Pakistan in the past three years of continued macroeconomic and
financial stabilisation and we have begun to think of Pakistan as a
country of promise and a country of potentially high rate of growth."[6]
Asian Development Bank also
praised Pakistan's Micro-Finance [7]
Media Recognition: In 2001,
Mr. Aziz was also named "Finance Minister of the Year" by the
prestigious Euromoney and Bankers Magazines.
Prime Minister
Shaukat Aziz at the White House
with US president George W. Bush, 24th January, 2006.
Aziz was named by the Pakistan
Muslim League (Q) as the next Prime Minister after Mir Zafarullah Khan
Jamali resigned on June 6, 2004.
The post was held by Chaudhry
Shujaat Hussain while Aziz fulfilled the constitutional requirement of
securing a seat in the lower house of parliament. Aziz ran from two
constituencies, Tharparkar-I in Sindh, and Attock District.[8] While
campaigning on July 29, 2004 Aziz survived an assassination attempt in
the small town of Fateh Jang in Attock District. A suicide bomber blew
himself up next to a car in which Aziz was travelling, killing his
chauffeur and eight others. However, Aziz continued campaigning and won
from both constituencies. Since he could retain only one seat, he
immediately vacated his Tharparkar seat, preferring to represent Attock,
where he had won by 76,156 votes to 29,497.
Aziz was elected Prime Minister by
parliament on August 27, 2004, by a vote of 191 to 151 in the National
Assembly of Pakistan, and was sworn in on August 28, 2004. He retained
his position as Minister of Finance, and he presided over an
unprecedented boom in the Pakistani economy as well as broad based
structural reforms.
Aziz left office on November 16,
2007, at the end of the parliamentary term and became the first Prime
Minister of Pakistan who left seat after completion of parliamentary
term of five years.[9]
Assassination attempts
While campaigning on July 29, 2004
Aziz survived an assassination attempt in the small town of Fateh Jang
in Attock District. A suicide bomber blew himself up next to a car in
which Aziz was travelling, killing his chauffeur and eight others.
Nuclear Policy and Energy Policy
Shaukat Aziz, as Prime Minister of
Pakistan, played an important role in establishing of both military and
civilian purpose nuclear power plants within Pakistan. Aziz launched
work on the 325-megawatt plant in Chashma, which is the second to be
built at the site with Chinese help. He also met with then-PAEC Chairman
Mr. Parvez Butt, who, together with fellow scientists and engineers,
submitted a long-term nuclear power plants and nuclear technology plan.
On December, 28, 2005, Aziz inaugurated Chasma nuclear power plant along
with PAEC Chairman Parvez Butt, where both Chinese and Pakistani nuclear
scientists attended. In an inauguration, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz
said "a milestone" in the history of nuclear technology in
Pakistan"[10]. He also allowed PAEC to upgrade its nuclear laboratories
and Karachi nuclear power plant. He also sat up funds of PAEC to
established more nuclear power plants within the country. Prime Minister
Shaukat Aziz allowed PAEC to designed another heavy water power plant in
Khushab district of Punjab.
Aziz played a pivotal role in
hydroelectric power plants project in Pakistan. He also assisted
President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf in the Diamer-Basha Dam
project. On January, 17,2006, he announced the decision of Government to
construct 5 multi-purpose storages in the country during next 10 -12
years. Diamer Basha Dam Project will be undertaken in the first phase.
His efforts were heavily involved in launching of wind power plants in
Pakistan. Aziz also set up Solar Power plants in different cities of
Pakistan]. Heis also credited with establishing particle accelerators in
the universities of Pakistan. He, along with known Pakistani chemist and
research scientist, Atta ur Rahman, worked closely to establish particle
accelerators at Quaid-i-Azam University and many other universities of
Pakistan. He also alloted funds of Riazuddin National Center for
Physics, also at Qau.
Aziz chaired a meeting of WAPDA's
and KESC scientists on 2006. He was briefed by the Deputy Chairman
Planning Commission Dr. Muhammad Akram. He issued directions to the
concerned ministries and departments to focus on energy requirements of
the country with a view to sustaining the tempo of development. He would
also convene a meeting soon to draw up a plan for the purpose[11]. Dr.
Akram said in the Press Conference that the "Prime Minister has given
special directives to meet the energy demand in the country. He said
that Prime Minister will be convening a meeting of WAPDA, its
transmission and distribution departments and petroleum sector in next
two weeks to discuss with officials the energy issues to ensure future
requirements and not to affect industrial and agricultural growth in the
country.
Involvement in Pakistan's
Astronautics and Aerospace Program
On March 2007, Aziz met with PAF
Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed, where he
discussed him about the Pakistan's JF-17 Thunder program. He also set up
an separate fund for JF-17 Thunder program. On April of 2007, Aziz
visited the People's Republic of China, where he met with high
government and military officials. Aziz signed a deal with Chinese to
deliver Chengdu J-10 fifth-generation aircrafts.
On August 2006, Aziz visited
People's Republic of China. He sought Chinese cooperation in rocket
science and space technology. China can help Pakistan in developing and
launching satellites[12]. In a joint statement of Prime Minister Shaukat
Aziz and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said that "both countries are
determined to elevate their friendship and strategic partnership".
In 2007, after a visit to China, the
Prime Minister said in a press conference held in Islamabad that serial
production of JF-17 Thunder would soon start in 2008 and Pakistan would
like to sell fourth generation JF-17 Thunder multirole combat aircraft
to those interested. The Prime Minister also confirmed that the JF-17s
in Pakistan had completed 500 combat missions/sorties.
The same year, he met with chairman
of SUPARCO, the leading Pakistani space agency, where he was briefed by
the chairman on the status of Pakistan's Space Program. Prime Minister
Shaukat Aziz gave green signal SUPARCO to developed PAKSAT-IR and
Satellite Launch Vehicle to be developed. However, the status of SLV are
remained unclear.
Shaukat Aziz's credentials and
Economic Policy
Shaukat Aziz is a banker by training
and extensive experience in New York. His credentials are similar to
those of the successful US treasury secretaries such as Bob Rubin and
Nick Brady who did well under Clinton and Reagan administrations. He
understands the role of banking, finance, investment and consumer credit
in economic growth of a nation. He focused on building strong banking,
investment and finance sectors in Pakistan to underpin its economy. He
strengthened capital availability, an essential and increasingly
important economic input, in addition to labor and land improvements.
With higher education budget up 15-fold and overall education spending
up 36% in two years, he focused on education to improve the availability
of skilled labor to fill new jobs. He pushed land development and public
and private construction spending to improve infrastructure and
facilities to attract greater business investment. Aziz was largely
successful in his efforts. He was regarded as a reformer, with
Pakistan's structural reforms ranking high amongst emerging economies.
Aziz co-chaired the Secretary-General's High Level Panel on the United
Nations System-wide Coherence in the areas of development, humanitarian
assistance and the environment.[13]
Pakistan’s economy grew by
100% — to become $ 160 billion[14][15]
Revenue grew by 100% — to
become $ 11.4 billion
Per Capita Income grew by 100%
— to become $ 925
Foreign Reserves grew by 500%
— to become $ 17 billion
Exports grew by 100% — to
become $ 18.5 billion
Textile exports grew by 100% —
to become $ 11.2 billion
Karachi Stock Exchange grew by
500% — to become $ 75 billion
Foreign Direct Investment grew
by 500% — to become $ 8.4 billion[16]
Annual Debt servicing
decreased by 35% — to become 26%
Poverty decreased by 10% — to
become 24%
literacy rate grew by 10% — to
become 54%
Public development Funds grew
by 100% — to become Rs 520 billion.[17]
In 2008, Aziz participated in the
Global Creative Leadership Summit, organized by the Louise Blouin
Foundation. As a delegate, he delivered a keynote speech for the panel
entitled “Economic Crisis, Economics of Change: Credit, Commodities, and
Trade.”
Walter Wriston (August 3, 1919 –
January 19, 2005) was a banker and former chairman of Citicorp. As chief
executive of Citibank / Citicorp (later Citigroup) from 1967-1984,
Wriston was widely regarded as the single most influential commercial
banker of his time.
Personal information
Walter Bigelow Wriston was born in
Middletown, Connecticut to Ruth Bigelow Wriston, a chemistry teacher,
and Henry Merritt Wriston, a history professor at Wesleyan University
who was later president of Lawrence College and Brown University.
Reared as a traditional Methodist
in Appleton, Wisconsin, Wriston was not allowed to listen to the radio
or go to the movie theater on Sundays.
He received a Bachelor of Arts
degree from Wesleyan University in 1941 where he was a member of the
Eclectic Society and received the "Parker Prize" (awarded to the
Wesleyan sophomore or junior who excels in public speaking). He also
received a Master's Degree from Tufts University's Fletcher School of
Law and Diplomacy in 1942.
After graduate school, Wriston
became a junior Foreign Service officer at the State Department in which
position he helped negotiate the exchange of Japanese interned in the
United States for Americans held prisoner in Japan. Drafted into the
U.S. Army in 1942, he served in the U.S. Army for four years, being with
the Signal Corps on Cebu in the Philippines during his service.
In 1942, Walter Wriston married
his first wife, Barbara Brengle Wriston, with whom he had one daughter.
Two years after Barbara’s death in 1966, he married lawyer and
businesswoman Kathryn Dineen.
He kept himself trim, playing
tennis regularly and acting as a carpenter, electrician, plumber,
backhoe operator, front-end loader operator and chain-saw-wielding tree
farmer on his Connecticut retreat. During the July 1977 New York City
blackout, he walked down 23 flights from his high-rise apartment, hiked
to corporate headquarters, then climbed 15 flights up to his office.
Wriston was an Eagle Scout and
recipient of the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award.[1]
Wriston died in January 2005, aged
85. Wriston's papers, including the text of hundreds of speeches and
articles spanning his lengthy career, are at Tufts University's Digital
Collections and Archives.
Politics
From 1982 to 1989, Wriston was
chairman of President Ronald Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board,
and in June 2004 awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's
highest civil honor, by President George W. Bush.
Wriston admitted he was twice
offered the job of Secretary of the Treasury, in the administrations of
Presidents Nixon and Ford. He turned down the offers, but said it was
not because of the public scrutiny he was sure to face. "I've been
living in Macy's window for 20 years," he said. One report is that
Wriston declined the offers because these were not made to him
personally by the-then President. Wriston also would have had to take a
substantial pay cut had he accepted the government position.
In 1987, the Manhattan Institute
of Policy Research initiated a lecture series [1] in honor of Mr.
Wriston, and in 2004, the Idea Channel organized a seven-part series of
interviews with him as well.
Quotes
Capital goes where it's welcome and stays where it's well treated.
(Discovery)--Walter B. Wriston
Information about money has become almost as important as money itself
John Shepard Reed (born 1939) is the former Chairman of
the New York Stock Exchange. He previously served as Chairman and CEO of
Citicorp, Citibank, and post-merger, Citigroup.
He was born in Chicago, Illinois, and raised in
Argentina and Brazil. Reed earned his undergraduate degrees in a 3-2
program from Washington and Jefferson College and MIT, earning an B.S.
from the MIT Sloan School of Management in 1961. He was also a member of
Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity while at W&J and MIT. He served two years in
the U.S. Army before returning to get his master's degree in management
from the MIT Sloan School of Management in 1965. [1]
Reed was heavily responsible for pushing for the adoption
of the ATM around the USA, and led Citicorp through a perilous period in
the early 1990s. He was approached by Sandy Weill to merge with
Travelers Group after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (repealing the
Glass-Steagall Act of 1932), allowing banking and insurance companies to
merge. The result was Citigroup, where Reed was later ousted in a
management shakeup with Weill. Reed's departure was announced in a
February 28, 2000 press release. In the aftermath of the November
2008 federal bailout of Citigroup, Reed was described as deeply
skeptical of the "Wall Street financial engineering" that led to its
collapse and "committed to consumer banking and sound commercial
underwriting."[1]
Reed was asked to be interim CEO of the New York Stock
Exchange after the Richard Grasso over-compensation scandal. He accepted
the job for a $1 salary and set up new governance rules as the NYSE
became a public corporation.
Reed is on the board of directors at Altria Group.
CITIGROUP CEO
CHARLES PRINCE NAMED CO-CHAIR OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR NEW YORK CITY
by Partnership for New
York City
February 10, 2005
Prince Joins Martin
Lipton at the Helm of New York City's Leading Business Organization
The Partnership for New
York City announced today that Charles Prince, Chief Executive Officer
of Citigroup Inc., has been elected to serve as Co-Chair of the
Partnership. Mr. Prince joins Martin Lipton, Senior Partner at Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz, at the helm of New York City’s business leadership
organization.
“I am extremely pleased
that Chuck Prince will be serving as Co-Chair with me,” said Mr. Lipton.
“This is a critical time for the private sector and for the future of
New York City. I look forward to working with him on important issues
such as public education, five borough economic development, mass
transit and the other priorities of the business community.”
“The Partnership is
grateful that Chuck Prince has undertaken this leadership role within
the business community,” said Partnership President and C.E.O. Kathryn
S. Wylde. “Chuck is a highly respected New Yorker who will ensure that
the Partnership continues to be an effective champion of the City and a
promoter of its economic growth.”
Prior to being named
Chief Executive Officer of Citigroup, Mr. Prince was Chairman and CEO of
Citigroup's Corporate and Investment Banking Group, which provides
corporations, governments and institutional investors in more than 100
countries with corporate and investment banking, sales and trading and
transaction services.
Mr. Prince began his
career as an attorney at U.S. Steel Corporation in 1975 and in 1979
joined Commercial Credit Company (a predecessor company to Citigroup).
Mr. Prince was promoted
to Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Commercial Credit
Company in 1983, a post he held through its initial public offering in
1986. He assumed additional administrative responsibilities in 1995 and
was named Executive Vice President in early 1996. He was made Chief
Administrative Officer in early 2000 and Chief
Operating Officer in
early 2001. He was named Chairman and CEO of the Global Corporate and
Investment Bank in 2002. He became CEO of Citigroup in 2003.
Born in 1950, Mr.
Prince is a graduate of the University of Southern California in Los
Angeles. He also holds a Master's Degree in International Relations and
a law degree from the University of Southern California as well as a
Master of Laws degree from Georgetown University.
Mr. Prince is a member
of various bar associations and other professional associations as well
as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is a past member of
the Board of Directors of the New York Urban League and is a member of
the Board of Directors of Citigroup, the United Negro College Fund and
Teachers College, Columbia University.
William Rockefeller
by Answers.com
William Avery
Rockefeller, Jr. (May 31, 1841-June 24, 1922), American financier, was a
co-founder with his older brother John D. Rockefeller of the prominent
United States Rockefeller family. He was the son of William Avery
Rockefeller, Sr. and Eliza (Davison) Rockefeller.
Youth, education
Rockefeller was born in
Richford, New York, and in 1853 his family moved to Strongsville, Ohio.
As a young pupil in public school, he was inspired and motivated by his
teacher-mentor, Rufus Osgood Mason, whom Rockefeller later named "A
Rockefeller Patron".
Business career
In 1865, he entered the
oil business by starting a refinery. In 1867, his older brother (John D.
Rockefeller)'s partnership of Rockefeller & Andrews absorbed this
refinery. In 1870, that company became Standard Oil.
William was considered
far more personable and receptive man to work with than his more
conservative older brother. However, he was very adept in business
matters. Rockefeller served as the company's New York representative
until 1911 when Standard Oil of New Jersey was split up by the United
States Supreme Court. He also had interests in copper, railways, and
public utilities, and built up the National City Bank of New York, now
part of Citigroup.
In the late 1890s,
Rockefeller joined fellow Standard Oil principal Henry H. Rogers in
forming the Amalgamated Copper Mining Company, a holding company that
intended to control the copper industry. Rockefeller, along with Henry
Rogers, devised a deceptive scheme which made them a profit of $36
million. First, they purchased Anaconda Properties from Marcus Daly for
$39 million, with the understanding that the check was to be deposited
in the bank and remain there for a definite time (National City Bank was
run by Rockefeller's friends). Rogers and Rockefeller then set up a
paper organization known as the Amalgamated Copper Mining Company, with
their own clerks as dummy directors, saying the company was worth $75
million.
They then had the
Amalgamated Copper Company buy Anaconda from them for $75 million in
capital stock, which was conveniently printed for the purpose. Then,
they borrowed $39 million from the bank using Amalgamated Copper as
collateral. They paid back Daly for Anaconda and sold $75 million worth
of stock in Amalgamated Copper to the public. They paid back the bank's
$39 million and had a profit of $36 million in cash. So, by deceiving
Daly, the bank, and the public, Rockefeller and Rogers had made
Amalgamated Copper a $36 million profit before the company was even
operating.
With help from banker
John D. Ryan, Amalgamated acquired two large competitors, and soon
controlled all the mines of Butte, Montana, later becoming Anaconda
Copper Company, fourth largest company in the world by the late 1920s.
Home, family
In 1886, Rockefeller
bought property along the Hudson River from General Lloyd Aspinwall, and
turned it into an ostentatious mansion named "Rockwood Hall". The
property was subsequently located within the Rockefeller family estate
of "Pocantico", in Westchester County, New York (see Kykuit).
He married Almira
Geraldine Goodsell in 1864. Her sister, Esther Judson Goodsell, was
married to Oliver Burr Jennings, who became one of the original
stockholders of Standard Oil. Their son William Goodsell Rockefeller
married Elsie Stillman, daughter of National City Bank president James
Stillman, and they were the parents of James Stillman Rockefeller.
He died in 1922 in
Tarrytown, New York, and was interred in the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery,
Sleepy Hollow, New York.
The New York Times, in
discussing a trust he set up for his born and yet-to-be born
great-grandchildren, states that "The original William left a gross
estate of $102,000,000, which was reduced to $50,000,000 principally by
$30,000,000 of debts and $18,600,000 of inheritance and estate taxes."
(New York Times, Aug 5, 1937, page 1 "Estate of William Rockefeller
Increasing $1,000,000 a Year")
Children
1. Lewis Edward
Rockefeller (1865–1866)
2. Emma Rockefeller McAlpin (1868–1934) married Dr. David Hunter McAlpin
3. William Goodsell Rockefeller (1870–1922)
4. John Davison Rockefeller (1872–1877)
5. Percy Avery Rockefeller (1878–1934)
6. Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge (1882–1973) married Marcellus Dodge
James Stillman
Rockefeller
by Answers.com
James Stillman
Rockefeller (June 8, 1902 - August 10, 2004) was a member of the
prominent U.S. Rockefeller family.
Personal life
A paternal grandson of
William Rockefeller, his maternal grandfather James Stillman and uncle
James Alexander Stillman served as president of the National City Bank
of New York, now Citibank. His father was William Goodsell Rockefeller
and his mother Sarah Elizabeth Stillman.
He graduated from
Yale University in 1924, where he was elected to the secret society
Scroll and Key. That same year Rockefeller captained a crew of Yale
teammates, winning a gold medal in rowing at the 1924 Summer Olympics in
Paris, France and appeared on the cover of Time magazine on July 7,
1924. (Dr. Benjamin Spock, who would later become a famous expert on
child-care, was a member of the crew.)
On April 15, 1925, he
married Nancy Carnegie, grand-niece of Andrew Carnegie. During World War
II, Rockefeller served in the Airborne Command. He had four children:
James Stillman Rockefeller, Jr., Nancy Sherlock Carnegie Rockefeller,
Andrew Carnegie Rockefeller, and Georgia Stillman Rockefeller.
On August 5, 2004,
Rockefeller suffered a stroke. His advance directives for medical care
specified that he not be put on life support. He died at 4am on August
10, 2004, at the age of 102. Rockefeller was survived by four children,
fourteen grandchildren, thirty-seven great-grandchildren, and one
great-great granddaughter.
Business career
Rockefeller joined the
National City Bank in 1930 after working at Brown Brothers Harriman and
served as president from 1952 to 1959 and chairman from 1959 to 1967. It
was during his tenure that the bank merged with the smaller First
National Bank and took the name The First National City Bank of New
York.
(Under each of his
successors, the bank's name has changed: George Moore shortened it to
"First National City Bank" and formed a holding company, First National
City Corp.; under Walter Wriston these became "Citibank" and "Citicorp";
under John Reed the firm merged with Travelers Group to become
Citigroup.
James Stillman
Rockefeller also concerned himself with other family investments, and
prior to his death was America's oldest living Olympic champion, and the
earliest living cover subject of Time magazine.
For the readers of the financial pages it would seem
that the world's movers and shakers moved from around the world to the
small town of Davos, Switzerland. And for those who believe that our
world is motivated by conspiracies -- starting with Yale's Skull & Bones
Club, through the Bilderberg meetings, to the raucous gatherings at
Bohemian Grove -- Davos, in January, has become the 21st century's
conspiracy epicenter.
Davos is either famous or notorious for hosting the
World Economic Forum, which has met every year since 1972. There, the
self-styled elite and leadership of the world's politicians and the
richest corporations that fund them meet, discuss and plan our future.
Davos was not always like that. It still is known as
an exclusive winter sports area with a wonderful climate that for more
than 100 years was a treatment center for the wealthy with lung
diseases. The city reinvented itself in the 1990s to become the forum's
near-permanent meeting place under the supervision of the Swiss
government.
Prior meetings had taken place in London, New York and
Washington. The cities were disrupted by demonstrations and it was very
apparent to those attending that the sessions were controversial and
unwelcome.
Inevitably, using the word "security" as the magic
wand, Davos was shown to be ideal: a remote mountain town accessible
only by one road and one railway line. During a forum, which makes an
enormous profit for Switzerland, the meeting site is further isolated by
the Swiss army, which for a few days ensures the safety of the world's
elite.
Perhaps the respiratory cripples of the past have been
replaced by the mental cripples of 2007 or maybe they are only wearing
blinders to the real needs and problems of the people that they claim to
represent.
On the second day of Davos, Pakistani Prime Minister
Shaukat Aziz told the group that the United States' very own Carlyle
Group, which "manages $46.9 billion worldwide," is planning to invest
several billion dollars in the Middle East.
Naturally, Aziz did not know where these investments
would be, what their return would be to Carlyle and what benefits they
might bring to Americans. After all, we don't need to be told again that
trade with China brings wonderful profits: "CHINA: Communists High
Investment in North America."
The Mercedes limousines trailed the private
helicopters carrying a near 2,500 of the world's elite into Davos for
more than 200 workshops on the "shifting power equation" -- by which
they mean from the West to Asia, a quiet nudge to show China that the
elite believe that they are ahead in the power struggle.
It was an amazing attendance list, at a mere
$25,000 per person. The first man listed was Palestinian territory
President Mahmoud Abbas, followed by the chairman of Deutsche Bank,
Josef Ackerman. Then there was the president of Venezuela's oil
companies, Enrique Garcia, and Bill Gates of Microsoft. And let's not
forget Saudi Minister of State Abdullah Zainal and DaimlerChrysler
Chairman Dieter Zetsche.
Eight hundred of the most powerful chairmen of the
largest companies met privately to polish and change their images. They
made and consolidated deals with two dozen heads of state and Cabinet
members from Tony Blair and Angela Merkel, most of George Bush's Cabinet
and their opposite numbers in China, Russia, India and Japan.
Because of complaints that everyone's democratic
institutions were being overridden, this year the World Economic Forum
became "transparent." Fifty percent of the meetings were open to
journalists, who were allowed to take notes and watch videos.
The wheeling and dealing at Davos was remarkable;
rules of ethics have to be revised and enforced to separate persuasion
from corruption -- a near impossible task. So, it was a minor relief to
read about our own Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff heading
a panel on the possible use by terrorists of nuclear weapons.
Poor Chertoff was supported on his panel by David
Cameron, a new head of Britain's conservatives, who admits to a
"pre-political" drug use, and a Dutchman, Gijs de Vries, the European
Union's anti-terrorism coordinator, who didn't appear to admit that
terrorism even existed.
The fourth member was Pakistan's Aziz, who said his
country was "wildly successful" in fighting terrorism.
Aziz did not mention the decade of deals negotiated by
A.Q. Khan, head of the Pakistan nuclear agency, in selling -- for his
personal bank accounts -- nuclear equipment and technology to Iran,
Iraq, Libya and North Korea.
And no one asked why Pakistan was protecting Khan from
the FBI and Western law enforcement.
Secretary Chertoff faced a battery of hostile
questions about use of secret CIA prisons, relaxing the rules on torture
and America degrading basic human rights. Unprepared for so much
antagonism from a very select audience, Chertoff did not improve his
position by saying, "We have to be precise about what truly is
fundamental and what isn't fundamental."
But who will tell the secret organizers that the World
Economic Forum is not fundamental to anyone's needs.
Dateline D.C. is written by a Washington-based British
journalist and political observer.
Moeenuddin Ahmad Qureshi
by Wikipedia
Moeenuddin Ahmad Qureshi, usually referred to as Moeen
Qureshi, (born 1930) is a Pakistani economist and political figure. A
former Vice President of the World Bank, he was the acting Prime
Minister of Pakistan from July 18, 1993 until 19 October, 1993.
Education
Mr. Qureshi holds a B.A. (Hons.) and M.A. (Economics)
from the University of Punjab and a Ph.D. (Economics) from Indiana
University.
Experience at the World Bank
From 1980 to 1991 he was at the World Bank, first as
Senior Vice President for Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the
Bank from 1980-1987, and then as Senior Vice President for Operations,
in charge of all Bank operations during 1987-1991. Prior to that, Mr.
Qureshi was at the International Finance Corporation as Vice President
and second in command between 1974-1977, and as Executive Vice President
and Chief Operating Officer from 1977-1981. He served with the
International Monetary Fund from 1958 to 1970 and served both at
headquarters and in the field in a variety of senior economic and
operations assignments before joining the IFC.[1]
As the Interim Prime Minister
The continuing political crisis of 1993 in Pakistan
came to an abrupt halt when the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and
President Ghulam Ishaq Khan both resigned after two weeks of intense
negotiations among the Nawaz Sharif government, Benazir Bhutto, and the
army. The resolution of the crisis was unique because for the first time
in the nation's history a government had voluntarily stepped down in
order to avoid a possible military intervention. The negotiations had
been mediated by General Abdul Waheed Kakar, the Army Chief of Staff.
The resultant agreement and its implementation followed strict
constitutional procedure. Ghulam Ishaq Khan was replaced by the chairman
of the Senate,Wasim Sajjad, who functioned as Acting President until the
elections. More important, Moeen Qureshi, a former civil servant and
senior World Bank official, agreed to serve as caretaker Prime Minister.
Qureshi, a Pakistani national, had left the World Bank in 1992, obtained
permanent residence status in the United States, and established his own
company, Emerging Markets Corporation . He is currently Chairman,
Managing Partner and a founder of the company.