clandestina

Migration and Struggle in Greece

Posts Tagged ‘intelligence services’

“Every object… every transaction… and almost everywhere they go…”

Posted by clandestina on 1 June 2009

grenze2grenzephotos’s source: http://grenzposten.blogsport.de/mach-ein-foto/

“Every object the individual uses, every transaction they make and almost everywhere they go will create a detailed digital record. This will generate a wealth of information for public security organisations, and create huge opportunities for more effective and productive public security efforts.” 

EU COUNCIL PRESIDENCY

 

This is the Fortress Europe – Dungeon Europe of the future – this is what the bosses want our societies to become.  Much more about the “Stockholme Programme” here (we already posted something about it in this post).  Immigrants and refugees are indeed the guinea pigs for the suveillance mega-state  they visualise. What follows are the informative coclusions of the text “The Shape of Things to Come” – the EU Future Group by Tony Bunyan at Statewatch – without the footnotes. 

clandestinenglish

 

“The Shape of Things to Come” – the EU Future Group”

by Tony Byan

 

 

 

The new programme, scheduled to be called the “Stockholm” programme, will be adopted
by the European Council – a meeting of all the Prime Ministers from the 27 member states
– and will “set in stone” the priorities for home affairs for the following five years.
The “convergence principle” and “state-building”97
The introduction of the “convergence principle” is another step in the building of the EU
state. This is described in the background papers for the Future group as: “the pooling of
sovereignty”. It builds on the “principle of availability” (Hague programme) of all data,
information and intelligence held all agencies across the EU to all other agencies and
outside and the “interoperability” of EU information systems must be compatible so that
all agencies can access each others data
“Convergence” means too shifting from harmonising laws at national level to standardising
training, equipment and information technology across all the law enforcement agencies
in the EU. This ensures “interoperability” and efficiency, and is much cheaper if EU-wide
standards are set and then licences are negotiated with the multinationals. Agencies will
still work at the national level but their environment will be determined (harmonised) by
EU standards and more and more roles will be undertaken at the EU level.
“Convergence” also requires further legal harmonisation so that “obstacles” (eg: judicial
authorisation) to gathering, accessing and transferring data and intelligence are removed.
In the Lisbon Treaty “state-building” is evident in both the creation of bodies and agencies
to act on an EU-wide basis and the creation of administrative and operational cooperation
centrally organised by the EU. “Cooperation” will cover all “criminal offences” and
embrace all agencies. This will include the establishment of measures for the: “collection,
storage, processing, analysis and exchange of relevant information” and for “investigative
techniques” (which means telephone-tapping, bugging, informants, agent provocateurs
etc). 98
Overseeing operational activities will be the new Standing Committee on Internal Security
(COSI) which is planned to oversee and direct all operational matters – with national and
European parliaments only to be “informed” about its activities.99

The new programme, scheduled to be called the “Stockholm” programme, will be adopted by the European Council – a meeting of all the Prime Ministers from the 27 member states – and will “set in stone” the priorities for home affairs for the following five years.

The “convergence principle” and “state-building”

The introduction of the “convergence principle” is another step in the building of the EU state. This is described in the background papers for the Future group as: “the pooling of sovereignty”. It builds on the “principle of availability” (Hague programme) of all data, information and intelligence held all agencies across the EU to all other agencies and outside and the “interoperability” of EU information systems must be compatible so that all agencies can access each others data

“Convergence” means too shifting from harmonising laws at national level to standardising training, equipment and information technology across all the law enforcement agencies in the EU. This ensures “interoperability” and efficiency, and is much cheaper if EU-wide standards are set and then licences are negotiated with the multinationals. Agencies will still work at the national level but their environment will be determined (harmonised) by EU standards and more and more roles will be undertaken at the EU level. “Convergence” also requires further legal harmonisation so that “obstacles” (eg: judicial authorisation) to gathering, accessing and transferring data and intelligence are removed.

In the Lisbon Treaty “state-building” is evident in both the creation of bodies and agencies to act on an EU-wide basis and the creation of administrative and operational cooperation centrally organised by the EU. “Cooperation” will cover all “criminal offences” and embrace all agencies. This will include the establishment of measures for the: “collection, storage, processing, analysis and exchange of relevant information” and for “investigative techniques” (which means telephone-tapping, bugging, informants, agent provocateurs etc). 

Overseeing operational activities will be the new Standing Committee on Internal Security (COSI) which is planned to oversee and direct all operational matters – with national and European parliaments only to be “informed” about its activities.

This analysis only deals with certain aspects of EU state-building, those concerning justice and home affairs and internal security. Another aspect is the proposed European External Action Service envisaged under the Lisbon Treaty which would turn the current European Commission  plus missions around the world into EU embassies with powers of intelligence-gathering.

Yet another example is the EU Security Research Agenda. This is described, in what should be viewed as a complementary study to this one, in Arming Big Brother as: “the development of the security-industrial complex in Europe and in particular the development of the EU Security Research Programme (ESRP). Spawned by the military-industrial complex, the security-industrial complex has developed as the traditional boundaries between external security (military) and internal security (security services) and law enforcement (policing) have eroded.” 

The “digital tsunami and the EU surveillance state” 

The coded language in the main Future group report hides the broader intent which is revealed in other documents, especially the one from the Portuguese Council Presidency. The assumption behind the “digital tsunami” is:

“Every object the individual uses, every transaction they make and almost everywhere they go will create a detailed digital record. This will generate a wealth of information for public security organisations, and create huge opportunities for more effective and productive public security efforts.” 

The implications of this statement are breath-taking. Across the EU – following the 2004 EU Directive – governments have, or are, adopting national laws for the mandatory retention of everyone’s communications data – all forms of communication (phone-calls, faxes, mobile calls including locations) which will be extended to keeping a record of all internet usage from 2009 – even though few are aware this is happening. This allows law enforcement and security agencies to get access to all traffic data – in the UK access is already automated. Access to the content should, under national law, be authorised by judicial authorities – though state agencies have had the technological capability to access content for years.

When traffic data including internet usage is combined with other data held by the state or gathered from non-state sources (tax, employment, bank details, credit card usage, biometrics, criminal record, health record, use of e-government services, travel history etc) a frightening detailed picture of each individual’s everyday life and habits can be accessed at the click of a button.

The harnessing of the “digital tsunami” by public security organisations, as set out in the Portuguese Council Presidency’s paper, means that behaviour will be predicted and assessed by “machines” on the basis of which directions are given to state officials on the spot.

To this must be added the fact that state agencies can access any home or work computer and look at its contents – and, if they can look at its content they could add or alter it too. It was a proposal by the German government in June 2008 which confirmed the ability of the agencies to do this, by seeking the power to authorise online computer searches in private homes through: “remote searches of computer hard drives”.

Taking all these extensive powers of surveillance together it is not too hard to see, for example, why lawyers, journalists and civil society groups might be concerned. The monitoring of a lawyer’s communications and correspondence could reveal the defence’s case and counter-evidence gathered – especially in cases which are politically sensitive. A journalist’s contacts and communications could be watched in order to pre-empt a story or to prepare a plausible denial in advance. While a group organising a protest could find its preparatory work undermined and disrupted and its organisers targeted for detention or arrest – with their demonstrations surveilled by spying “drones”.

“Ordinary” people who “have nothing to hide” are under the illusion that this sweeping surveillance system has nothing to do with them – which is why they will never realise they did not get a job interview because the employer had accessed to a criminal record based on a “spent” conviction or why their application for an insurance policy failed because the company had access to their health record. The European Data Protection Supervisor put it politely when he said of the police and, by implication, all state agencies:

“It is not sufficient to start from the assumption that the police under all circumstances and in all cases operate within the legal limits of their legal obligations”.

There is an assumption, on this and wider issues in the EU, is that “if it is technologically possible why should it not be introduced?” This brings to mind the discussion in the EU over the age at which children should be subjected to finger-printed for passports, visas or ID cards. The discussion in the working parties of the Council of the European Union (the governments) have been based not on moral questions but rather at what age is it technologically possible to collect accurate fingerprints – most want this to be from six years old and upwards, some even want to collect them at birth

At the heart of this issue is the “ownership” of personal data. Is it our personal data, which we “own” and which we may consent to be used for a specific, stated purpose? Or is it “owned” by the collector and holder of the data (internet service provider, airline, bank or credit card companies or state agencies)? For example, the European Parliament is currently discussing a proposal from the Commission on users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks. The European Data Protection Supervisor has raised the question of whether Internet Protocol addresses (“IP”) are personal data, as the Data Protection Directive and the Privacy Directive apply whenever personal data are processed, but:

“If IP addresses are not deemed personal data, they can be collected and further processed without the need to fulfil any legal obligation arising from the two above mentioned Directives. For example, such an outcome would enable a search engine to store for an indefinite period, IP addresses assigned to accounts from which, for example, materials related to specific health conditions (eg: AIDS) have been searched.”

It will be remembered that under the EU Directive on mandatory data retention all ISPs are obliged, from 2009, to store records of all internet usage by everyone in Europe. What if searches for “specific health conditions” are captured and stored by ISPs then accessed by state agencies and further processed by them – who “owns” this data, the individual or the state?

The security-industrial nexus

In the immediate aftermath of 11 September 2001 the EU, and national governments, adopted measures said to be necessary as “exceptional” because of the “war on terrorism” and that they were not permanent but time limited. Seven years on the “exceptional” has become the norm.

What is much clearer now is that 11 September 2001 was used to accelerate a process already underway. Globalisation and its “technological revolution” – nurtured by Western states and developed by multinationals – was ready to break out of the constraints imposed by liberal democratic values. Notions of privacy and data protection espoused as basic values stood in the way of progress. The welfare state, where a benevolent state protected and cared for the people, has been replaced by the market state requiring the social control of market forces, unhindered by rights and regulations. In place of theoretically serving the people, the state now serves the interests of international capital.

Moreover, the “war on terrorism” presented a massive opportunity not just to use its monopoly of information technology but to apply it to new, highly lucrative, areas: The surveillance of travel and communications, new systems for data-sharing, data-mining, interpreting behaviour, the collection of biometrics and readers to check them. The construction of EU-US standards to record, check and hold people’s travel records is intended to set standards which will be laundered to set global standards too – and new markets for the West’s multinationals to pursue and profit from.

EU-USA

Internationally, the prospects are little better. It is often forgotten that 21 of the 27 member states of the EU are also in NATO, which is why the majority are supplying “peace-making” or “peace-keeping” troops in Afghanistan.

Through NATO and other fora the influence of the USA on the EU has grown enormously since 2001. The most significant, largely unseen, influence has been through the numerous high-level meetings between the EU and the USA on justice and home affairs issues. All the evidence shows that this is an unequal relationship with nearly all the demands coming from the US side.

Top EU officials are fond of saving the EU and the USA share “common values”, but do we? What they mean is that the political elites (governments and officials) share the same values.

Now the Future group is proposing that the EU finally “make up its mind” (ie: it has already been discussed) by 2014 on the creation of a: “Euro-Atlantic area of cooperation with the USA in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice”.

This goes way beyond the existing mechanisms for cooperation. Since 2001 six agreements have been reached with the USA – all of them controversial. High-level officials have been meeting regularly though these meetings concern specific issues not every aspect of justice and home affairs.

The Future group’s “area of cooperation” would cover all aspects of justice and home affairs: policing and terrorism, immigration, asylum and border controls, laws and rights of suspects, databases and data-sharing, privacy and data protection. The USA would be sitting at the table with a very powerful voice with its demands and influence hidden from public view.

The politics of EU values

One of the myths that the EU seeks to perpetuate is the idea that it is based on “common values”. Amongst these are “freedom”, “justice”, “fundamental rights” and in this context “privacy” (and data protection). In practice these values have changing meanings according to the general political climate. For example, the “values” of the EU are not the same as they were in 2000 when Austria’s membership of the EU was suspended under the

Treaty because of the inclusion in its government of a fascist and racist party. If the EU still had the same “values” then the membership of the Italian government could have been suspended this summer over its policies of targeting, detaining and deporting on Roma with overt racist statements.

In reality we have an EU in which national governments predominantly come from the centre-right and far-right, 21 out of 27 governments. This, in turn, means that the 106 Official EU documents recording EU-US meetings are censored so that all the views expressed by the US are deleted:  discussions in the Council of the European Union and all its working parties are dominated by representatives (officers and officials) from the very same centre-right and far-right perspectives.

The European Summit (dominated by the centre and far-right) will lay down the new justice and home affairs programme and the Council of the European Union through the Justice and Home Affairs Council (dominated by the centre and far-right) will, as it always does, have the final say on the content of each and every measure.

In the European Parliament the centre-right and its far-right allies can put together the largest parliamentary block which can only be defeated if all the other groups (PSE, socialist, ALDE, Liberal, Green and GUE, united left) vote together – which happens occasionally. With the European Parliament elections in June 2009 there is a possibility that the centre-right and far-right will have a permanent majority.

EU “values” are not “shared” or “common” but those of the ruling elite who assume they can define and propagate as a “consensus” where there is none.

 

Posted in Content Reproductions/ Adaptations/ Translations, Other Groups' and Organisations' Releases, Publications, Long Reports, Analyses, Reviews & Research | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“The growing threat of radical Islam […] encroaching also on the Western Balkans” said the Chief of Greek para-state administration in warmongers exchibition

Posted by clandestina on 23 May 2009

This is a Kathimerini article.  More to the point, as regards “terrorism” and “illegal migration”,  this is the State Department talking.  And this is a war, a war proper.  This article has it all, both ” innovative ““green projects”, and restructuring of the nation’s defence industry”..

clandestinenglish

 

Director of Greece’s National Intelligence Service (EYP) Ambassador Ioannis Corantis speaking on the threats of international terrorism and illegal immigration.

ATHENS– With international terrorism thriving, Greece should be prepared to tackle new and more potent forms of terror, exchanging intelligence information with other nations and combating illegal immigration, Greece’s Director of National Intelligence said Friday.

Ambassador Ioannis Corantis made the remarks during an unprecedented conference staged on the sidelines of Athens International 2009, an exhibition focusing on defence, security, energy and civil aviation in Southeast Europe.

“Terrorism remains the main international threat, but it is continuously evolving, with new methods of operation that require new means of response,” Mr. Corantis said. “Greece must be prepared to react [because] the magnitude of prospective attacks may increase.”

The head of Greece’s National Intelligence Service (EYP) did not elaborate, but he underscored the growing threat of radical Islam spreading across Europe, encroaching also on the Western Balkans, including Bosnia, Albania, Serbia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

He said there were growing trends of European-based militant jihadists returning to Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq for training, while radical religious leaders in Europe and the Internet were facilitating the growing reach of religious extremism.

“The Internet has become an ideal means for spreading radical Islam,” Mr. Corantis told an audience of Greek and foreign diplomats, defence officials and politicians. “It is a cheap and undetectable tool terrorists use to disseminate their propaganda.”

With growing numbers of people fleeing Iraq, Afghanistan and the Caucasus, Mr. Corantis stressed the need for Greece to grapple with the rising tide of illegal immigration.

“We are doing everything to guarantee that those coming in are nothing more than what they claim to be: illegal refugees seeking a better life,” he said. “It’s not an easy task. But that Greece remains safe and untouched by radical forms of Islam bears proof of our hard and effective work.”

Earlier this month, the US State Department expressed concern over the “drastic increase” of illegal immigration, suggesting that Greece “could become a transit route for terrorists traveling to Europe and the United States.”

Mr. Corantis said Greece was open to exchanging intelligence information with allies but denied any existence of Al-Qaeda terror cells in the country.

“The concern may be there, but there is not a single kernel of proof, that militant Islamists have either entered the country or that Muslims residing here are turning radical.”

Last year, more than 140,000 illegal immigrants arrived in Greece, mostly via Turkey, up from 118,000 in 2007 and 96,000 in 2006.

Thousands more are said to arrive undetected.

Once caught, however, undocumented migrants are fingerprinted, held for a few days in overcrowded detention centers and then released with orders to leave the country within 30 days.

Most, though, end up in the Greek capital because Turkish officials no longer respect a bilateral agreement to return illegal refugees, according to Greek police officials.

“We need a concerted effort of cooperation among various agencies to grapple with illegal immigration,” Mr. Corantis told the conference.

Organized in cooperation with the Constantine Karamanlis Institute for Democracy, the Andreas Papandreou Institute of Strategic and Development Relations (ISTAME) and the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP), the conference touched on a range of security and defence-related issues.

A keynote speaker, Deputy Defence Minister Yannis Plakiotakis underscored the need for regional cooperation in Southeast Europe.

“The Balkans are no longer the powder keg of Europe,” he said. “Still, the state of affairs in the region is fluid and volatile.”

“We believe that regional cooperation and joint action operations can afford tangible solutions to a string of problems plaguing the region; it can help countries focus on a host of issues that unite rather than separate them.”

Earlier, Louka Katseli, the shadow finance minister of the socialist opposition PASOK party, warned of the need for “qualitative government reforms” to safeguard stability, security and development in Greece.

“The need for quality government is so much more pronounced now within this period of economic turmoil,” she told the conference. “Swift and efficient government intervention is the only way out the crisis… enabling social cohesion and promoting social prosperity.”

Mrs. Katseli also called for measures to improve Greece’s competitiveness, including investments in innovative “green projects,” and restructuring of the nation’s defence industry.

“With the necessary planning, Greece’s defence industry can focus on new and select activities and markets that can guarantee financial gains and a competitive edge,” she said.

Drastic spending cuts and a new regulatory system in defence procurement projects were also required, Mrs. Katseli said, to increase spending in social security, education and investments.

Held at Athens International Airport’s Metropolitan exhibition center, Athens International comes at the height of Greece’s 2006-15 military procurement programs.

Defence spending in Greece runs at around 3 percent of GDP, one of the highest levels in the EU and NATO, partly because of a policy to keep an arms balance with neighboring Turkey.

Though both NATO allies, Greece and Turkey remain at odds over air-and-sea boundaries and flights in the Aegean Sea.

Despite longstanding differences, relations between the two countries have improved significantly in recent years, cementing strong energy links with the creation of the Greece-Turkey-Italy Interconnector, a project that entails the creation of a pipeline that will transfer natural gas from Caspian countries to Western Europe, Minister of Development Kostas Hatzidakis told the conference.

Athens International kicked off last year focusing almost exclusively on defence. It has since then come to encompass Greece’s key infrastructure industries, including energy, security and civil aviation.

The exhibition runs until Sunday

Posted in Content Reproductions/ Adaptations/ Translations, Publications, Long Reports, Analyses, Reviews & Research, Undeclared War news | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Pakistanis in Greece: the misfortune of being a refugee in a state that participates in a war against the state you left your family and friends …

Posted by clandestina on 22 May 2009

This is the English version of an article in this month’s Sarajevo Zine (www.sarajevomag.gr).  It is about the organized assaults against Pakistani immigrants in Athens we have posted about and does grasp various things we agree with: that “spontaneous” racist violence is not that “blind” ; that the notorious political inactivity of the majority of immigrants is not a result of apathy but a decision under various heavy pressures – in this case the pressure of a war ; that Greece’s “soft” imperialism  does  play its “soft” but deadly part in the frame of its coalitions ; that “sophisticated” analysts do provide these policies with rational backbones by means of their “sophisticated” mystifications.

We retain the spelling of the original Greek text – and have changed slightly the paragraph struture.   Here are the first paragraphs of the specific article in the zine’s webplace.  We thank the Sarajevo Zine editors for their help.

clandestinenglish

 

Pakistanis in Greece: the misfortune of being a refugee in a state that participates in a war against the state you left your family and friends … 

 

The fasco-thugs took it off again to day work.  Ambushes, bully attacks, assaults against immigrants from Pakistan in “above suspicion”, so to speak, neighborhoods, such as N. Ionia, Galatsi, Perissos, Kalogreza, Iraklion[1] … This is one more link in the chain of districts that includes Redi, Aigaleo, Kolonos[2]The outset of this methodic violence coincided “marvelously”with the summer of 2005, when squads of the greek secret services in collaboration with the english one “wiped out legally” thousands of immigrants from pakistan – and kidnapped «illegally» a few dozens…[3] 
Does anybody want to buy into the fairy tale that some fascists themselves discovered that the immigrants from pakistan are “eligible targets”, after having discovered the very [national] importance of the state of pakistan?  We don’t.  In this case, for the particular national group of immigrants / refugees, things look worse, much worse than a «racists-clacker-foreigners» scenario. 

The immigrants / refugees from pakistan (along with the ones from afghanistan, iraq, palestine and some african states) do not come around here hunted by poverty alone.  They come here chased by fascist regimes, and, primarily, they come here chased by wars, the ones erupting under the ongoing 4th World War.  The greek state is directly involved in some of these wars. In these wars the Greek state plays an absolutely “positive” part, even if an indirect one, through the cooperation with its allies in the war’s “rear”. 

This is what the greek government did in July 2005, this is the frame under which it acted the way it did: it was involved in a war, the “war against terrorism” (ie: the alliance with the anglo-americans) – against the migrants from pakistan.   Why then pakistan in 2005?  Well, the greek state would conduct operations against pakistan because even then  –“that early”-  pakistan was the actual target of the anglo-americans, despite the fact they were still typically fighting in afghanistan. 

It is a mistake to see migrants, any immigrants, as apolitical.  And the mistake is grosser in the case of immigrants from areas with a long history of social or political struggles, emergency regimes, wars…   The fact that one goes away from home does not mean that s/he has no opinion about what one leaves behind.   Immigrant communities, if one insists to treat them as such – communities, that is – do not only bear particular political characteristics, but also strong political oppositions within.  How could the case of Pakistanis be different, since the (unknown to us) history of pakistan is in so many respects an intense history? 

What, then, should one expect immigrants to do, if their country of origin had been bombed by the usa; if it had been officially designated as an “integrated warfield” together with afghanistan; if it had been predestinated to disintegrate (in a bloodbath), huh?  As far as we are concerned, we would expect that they would do everything they could to grab the attention of the society where they now reside on the issue; they would try to secure support (and resources) for what they thought as the resistance to these developments; they would organize protests (which may depart from different political standpoints) against the americans; and so on.  These would be the core manifestations of their political characteristics “in exilio”.   One might compare here what the Greek immigrants (and refugees) were doing in germany, italy or france during the greek junta … 

The thing is that greece, as a state, participates in war against Pakistan as well!  It may be doing so “indirectly” – and the abduction and interrogation of Pakistanis in the summer of 2005, what else might that be if not participation?  So immigrants from Pakistan  know very well that they are politically clandestine here.   And they cannot get away with it only by operating in a discreet manner.  As the war in “afpak” progresses, they are and will be increasingly targeted by the greek State and/or its allies. Especially the most politicized or the most active ones among them… 

In our humble opinion, this – the “unorthodox” war carried out by the greek state against politicized immigrants from pakistan –  is where the para-statals, whatever the fuck they are, enter the picture. They undertake the job of terrorizing which is a component of the war in the rear.  And it is possible that, in addition to the general terrorism, they have undertaken the “special treatment” of specific pakistanis.   Since the greek government cannot officially act – yet – against “members of the enemy” in its territory, it might very well have assigned “informal” hands for the job. 

The timing might be a coincidence, yet, the stakes are clear for one to see.  Just two days after the immigrants from pakistan openly complained about the ambushes/assaults against them, on Sunday, the 26th of April, the official organ of the anglo-greek alliance, the “Kathimerini” newspaper, dedicated a full page tribute, assuming in a way the «political responsibility” for these attacks. When we say «in a way the political responsibility for these attacks» we mean that it provided with the the political context that makes them understandable, even «reasonable»; no, it does not encourage anyone to “break pakistanis”… That would be a gross approach on the issue!  This falls under jurisdictions other than the one of a daily newspaper of mass circulation. 

So reads the first page of the newspaper article: 

…The empowerment of Islamic guerrillas in Pakistan, with its nuclear armament, poses a threat to regional stability and generates fears for the potential for radicalization of Pakistani immigrants in European countries like Greece … 
What the author leaves out of his story’s morale is why such a radicalization would be against the Greek state… 

Meanwhile, in the full page feature, one may find comments such as: 
… The head of the State Department [the American Foreign Minister Hillary Clinton] said in the Congress that Pakistan faces an “existencial threat”. “I think that the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists » she noted, adding that would the situation deteriorate, it would result in a «mortal threat to the security of the United States and the world» (by Declan Walsh, the Guardian).

… Today, nearly all leadership of the «global jihad» is concentrated on the Pakistani border.  When Washington realized this, it was already too late … (by Nikos Chrysoloras).

… At the same time, however, Greece is a western country, thus a potential target of radical Islamic organizations.  Moreover, the reluctance to fully incorporate a minimum percentage of immigrants – from all backgrounds – with the provision of citizenship to children born or raised in Greece may set the scene of the emergence of a pool of young people without future prospects, who could be recruited as members by either organized crime groups, or domestic or Islamic terrorist organizations.  Of course, the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are very hard working and peaceful people, but the despair and intolerance stand for strong motives … Moreover, given the poor international image our country bears today , we do not want to turn into the soft underbelly of Europe’s security, the easy passage of radical elements from Pakistan and other Islamic countries to Western Europe … (by Thanasis Ntokos, Executive Director of the ‘Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy’ – ELIAMEP)[4].

… Migration from Afghanistan since five years or so has its own dynamics, due to a very wide spectrum of reasons which are not directly related to the occupation of this region by the Talibans. Pakistanis on the other hand, and the immigrants who come mostly from other provinces, northeastern Punjab, that is, they also move to Europe in the context of wider upheavals … (by Plamen Tonchev, head of the Asian Studies Department at the Institute of International Economic Relations’ – IDOS). 

It comes as no surprise of course that none of them says “break their heads”! This can’t be written by serious analysts; this is done by thugs. The good and serious analysts do other things. 

  • They misrepresent any internal tension in pakistan as «the work of fanatics», not as the implementation of planning by Washington, London and their allies around there and anywhere the world. 
  • They misrepresent any active politicization against the imperialist war in central asia as [products of] «hopelessness and intolerance». 
  • They misrepresent the resistance against the occupiers of afghanistan (the greek army included) as “terrorism”. 
  • They misrepresent the forced flee of refugees as some general and vague (and possibly fraudulent) “moving of populations”. 

Everyone, whether in Washington, London, or Athens, agrees, that, along with the emphasis on the necessity to “prevent evil”, the above are the essential elements of  “in a way assuming the political responsibility” for the prolonged campaign of terrorizing “the extremists, the desperate ones, and the intolerants anywhere in this world”…

 


[1] Clandestinenglish note: “Typical” lower middle class districts.

[2] Clandestinenglish note: Mostly working class/low income districts, with high rates of long residing immigrant population.

[3] Clandestinenglish note: the “Abduction of Pakistanis” and their interrogation on CIA airplanes of that period “leaked”, creating some short-lived scandalous sensation for the involvement of Greece in “Guantanamo-like” operations.

[4] Clandestinenglish note: a Greek “think tank” institute, strongly associated with the “EU-convergence-integration” orientation of the “modernizing” paradigm/discourse in the Greek politics  that prevailed since the mid 1990s.  It is also working  on the “INTERATLANTIC” (Angloamerican/NATO) axis of Greece’s alliances [isn’t this supposed to be a contradiction 😉 ]? Among its executive council members one may find the ceo of coca cola hellas.  It does have an active department about immigration, human rights blah blah…

Posted in Content Reproductions/ Adaptations/ Translations, Other Groups' and Organisations' Releases, Publications, Long Reports, Analyses, Reviews & Research, Undeclared War news | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »