FOREIGN POLICY
 

 

MODERN PROBLEMS

THE NEXT SUPERPOWER
August 6th, 2006

Who will it be? Who will rule the world in twenty years? As things stands, there are three contenders: East Asia (with China in the lead), the European Union and Islam (the Islamic countries).
 
Now, let's examine the merits of each one of them.
 
East Asia: a political and military union of Russia, China and India could dislodge the US as number one in less than ten years. Indications of possibility: those countries hold joint military manoeuvres for more than two years now. Barking dogs like North Korea would join such a union, but more disquieting, some Islamic countries like Pakitan could forget their quarrel with India and join too.
 
EU: the European Union with a total of 25 countries and 450 million people constitutes a bigger market than the US and a greater productive force. So far, this entity is only an economic union without a common political purpose; should it establish however a common foreign policy and a unified military command, things would change dramatically. It would be able to supplant the US as number one in less than ten years. Granted, Europe has no nuclear strike force comparable to the Americans, but in case of war, Russia will certainly take her side. So, Russia provides Europe with the nuclear umbrella it needs.
 
ISLAM: the Islamic countries. As a whole, Islam is low tech; so it could take it more than twenty years to overtake America, if it ever does. On the other hand, 2 billion people are hardly negligible.
 
Now what happens to the present no.1 according to the famous professor Paul Kennedy? A slow decline, like the British empire. The British started to decline with the Boer war, and by 1940 it was clear that they were not top dog anymore. So, a 40 years decline. Will it be the same this time? Most experts agree that by 2050, a new world leader will have emerged.
 

Simply because if America should ever be involved in a war against China, the US army would run out of spare parts in less than six months. There are so many components that were manufactured in China and in the Pacific Rim (under Chinese influence by the way) in American weapons and vehicles, that any stop of trade for a significant length of time with Asia would create gigantic problems for the war effort. We're not talking only about avionics parts here, but how many components in your computer come from Indonesia, Singapore, the Philippines and ...China? You'd be surprised.

So, unless a world economic crisis changes everything, a war is impossible. Oh, both nations may disagree on UN resolutions, gesticulate, protest, start a ''war of words'', and act as if they were in opposite camps, but they have grown so dependent of each other economically that, for the time being, a war is quite impossible.

Traditionally, a bounty is a reward offered for the capture of a fugitive criminal (a convicted felon at large). Usually, in Europe and elsewhere, it is a civic duty for the public to help the police with information in such cases, and with a much more active help if need be. The citizens will do it for free, because it is their duty. But in America, people needed a more powerful incentive to help the authorities: money. A sizeable reward or bounty was sometimes necessary to help capture those dangerous criminals, and as you know there were the legendary Bounty hunters.

Here we use the word in a much looser sense: the reward promised for carrying out a political assassination. In the 20th century, many such rewards have been promised and not always by governments or political authorities, because of the moral implications. To put a bounty on the head of political leaders and Heads of State is not uncommon and sometimes such offers have been very real and taken seriously by all parts.

The assassination attempts on De Gaulle and Castro, the reward offered for the head of Salman Rushdie, further rewards promised for the capture of Milosevic, Osama Bin Ladden and Saddam Hussein, it all shows that political bounty has taken many forms in recent years. But before we study one by one the six major cases of bounty offered for the capture or assassination of political leaders in the XXth century, there are many questions that come to mind.

1- Who makes these offers? Governments, private institutions, religious groups, wealthy businessmen, industrialists?

2- Are these bounty offers always made public? Or are they restricted to a certain milieu, for example: the underworld, political circles, etc...?

3- Are these offers serious and genuine (is there a guarantee that mission completed you will effectively be paid, anonymity respected, no strings attached and escape or safe return to safehouse facilitated)?

From the six major bounty offers made in the last century, only one could be said to have been completely successful, that is the capture of Saddam Hussein. There was a successful completion of mission, people were paid, they were relocated and their anonymity preserved. All the others were unsuccessful for various reasons.

There was this talk in the 1970's of a bounty laid on the head of Fidel Castro among Cuban immigrants, and of another later in government circles that became soon publicly known. One maybe two million dollars were offered to the shootist who could kill Fidel Castro. Apart from the fact that one man with a sniper rifle could never have succeeded due to the dense protection surrounding the president, such an offer was completely unrealistic. Hundreds, thousands of devoted fanatics constantly surrounded Fidel and even the luckiest sniper could never have survived to collect his reward. Even if you had sent a whole termination team, two million dollars was hardly enough. Do you have any idea how many people you must bribe to get closer to the head of state for such an endeavour, even in third world countries? My estimate is between 50 and 200. In the case of Fidel Castro and taking into account inflation and the value of the currency at the time, it would have taken at least 25 million to do it. Problem is, no government at the time could officially offer such a reward for diplomatic reasons. And a covert operation? In times of peace all countries of the world, even the United States are afraid of a special op that goes bad and turns sour. So taking out Fidel like that was probably never seriously considered in military circles.

The bounty on the head of De Gaulle president of France. Probably true. Disgruntled ex-military, unhappy about the end of the war in Algeria, put a 2 million dollars bounty on the head of Charles De Gaulle. An attempt was made. Here again, 2 millions was not nearly enough in view of the excellence of the security service protecting the president.

The case of Salman Rushdie is slightly different, but not much. Here again a bounty of 3 millions was put on the head of a popular writer (Rushdie) by Muslim clerics close to the Iranian government. There again, no serious attempt was made, then Mr. Rushdie hired private bodyguards and he was offered police protection by the British government.

A bounty was also offered for the capture or elimination of Milosevic, president of Serbia (former Yugoslavia), but he surrendered himself to the authorities (NATO forces) before any attempt could be made.

Was there a bounty put on the head of president John F. Kennedy? If yes, who made it? Who collected the reward? The two most popular theories have some merit. According to the first, it was a Mafia operation, the vengeance of the mob. In that case, there is a possibility that a bounty or contract was advertised in the underworld and that a Mafia boss paid for the entire operation (reward and the expenses of the crew). In the second theory, this was an operation entirely financed by a branch of the American government (the FBI and the CIA were involved). There was no bounty and they did not subcontract outside of the agency. The entire operation was ordered, planned and carried out internally.

The last but not least: Osama bin Ladden. How is it that after the United States Department of State offered 25 million, the FBI 5 million, and another federal agency for air traffic control and civil aviation offered another 2 million, how is it that after a collective bounty of 35 million dollars was put on his head, Bin Laden was never found? For such a sum, any normal person, American or Canadian will betray his neghbour, sell his mother, become an informant and denounce a coworker, etc.. But in some regions of the world, there is something more precious than money. Some people of conviction cannot be bought (especially those harbouring religious convictions), and there are things that cannot be sold. If Ben Laden was a common criminal in any Western country, he would have been betrayed long ago and sold to the authorities by one of his fellow fugitives. The fact that it is not so after five years shows only one thing: a bounty does not always work in certain parts of the world where there are other values besides money and capitalism. Where there is faith and decency, there are things that cannot be bought or sold: devotion, friendship, loyalty. There is maybe a lesson to be learned here: if in the richest and most advanced countries of the Western world everything can be bought or sold (your mother, your wife, your daughter, your neighbour or even yourself), maybe there is a problem. Don't you think? A problem of values. And the existence of a system of bounty may be a symptom.

The sizeable reward promised for the capture of Osama Bin Laden failed to produce results after five years. His close friends won't sell out, even for 35 millions? What special friends he must have! Those are probably better human beings than myself and the greedy ones we can find in our part of the world.

But let's not discuss that. By far the most interesting aspect of the modern concept of bounty is, as we have seen earlier, when it is used as a tool, as an inducement to promote and produce political assassination in other countries. Although it could be said that, until now, rewards for mere information leading to the capture of fugitives from justice had much more success than the rewards offered as incentive to commit political murder, it by no means implies that the latter is impossible. It is true that no bounty put on the head of a president or Head of State can be said with certainty to ever have produced a successful political assassination, but the theoretical possibility still exists, especially if we are made aware of the reasons why such endeavours have failed in the past. If we correct those mistakes, even a bounty put on the head of the most well protected political leaders of the world has a chance of success.

Let's recall that we are not promoting political assassination here, we are merely discussing theoretical possibilities and some historical precedents; but like we said, if we learn from past mistakes, even the assassination of a US- or Russian president is not anymore quite out of reach.

First, we must remember that in times of peace no government could put a bounty on the head of the leader of another country without risking war and the disapproval of the international community. With Saddam Hussein, even if it was made in times of war, the United States did set a dangerous precedent that could haunt them and turn against them some day. For example, the Iranian fatwa for the execution of Salman Rushdie issued in 1989 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and especially the sizeable reward of 3 millions, could be said to have been directly influenced by an American bounty tradition that goes back to the Wild West. Now, both traditions (the fatwa and the bounty tradition) are active in modern thinking, witness the evangelist Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on August 22, 2005. But up close, this is neither a fatwa (then issued by a non-Muslim) nor a bounty (no reward offered).

Imagine if someone (a country or a criminal organization) would put a bounty on the head of the President of the United States! Unthinkable, the people doing that wouldn't be taken seriously! Perhaps, but as I see it, the later developments in the concept of placing a bounty on the head of political leaders and Heads of State amounts to the discovery of a new tool in the history of psychological warfare. To put a bounty on the head of Saddam, do you realize that this was a psyop? Let's talk about Saddam for a while and missed opportunities that he blew up in his days, because he lacked the imagination. Remember 1991, when a group of American computer hackers approached Iraqi intelligence and Saddam, and offered to give them at all times the exact location via satellite of the American fleet, both in the Mediterranean- and in the Arabian Sea? It would have been a golden opportunity to sink a few prestigious units of the American Navy, perhaps even a Carrier. What did Saddam do? He dismissed them. I told you, the guy lacks imagination. If he would have done otherwise, maybe the first Gulf war would not have been such a clear cut American victory.

Further in the realm of the what ifs, what if Saddam in October-November 2002 had publicly put a bounty on the head of George Bush, for say one billion dollars. Let's point out here that it was clear by then that his country would be invaded and that last minute measures to show good faith and avert the worst would avail to nothing (like the destruction later of 40 Scud missiles). He had nothing to lose anymore, only a wild stunt like that could perhaps have saved him. But like I said, Saddam lacked the imagination.

What if he had done it? I bet you anything I have that the invasion would have been postponed then. Paranoia would have seized Capitol Hill and a witch-hunt of incredible proportion would have been set in motion in the administration to weed out possible traitors.

Let's go back to examine the main problems with modern political bounty offers. The first is that the reward is not big enough in most cases, at least when political murder or -abduction is called for. Remember that all expenses must be paid plus a reward guaranteed. Second, there is the difficulty of advertising those offers (legal-, political problems). Third, these offers must be taken seriously. Those carrying out the mission must trust their sponsor, they must have confidence that they will effectively collect the reward afterwards.

There is a way around those problems however. Let's see: the reward must be big enough, the organization issuing the offer must inspire trust and respect. Provisions must be made that after each assassination the reward is paid in full without problems (the sponsor keep his word), and it must be made public that it was paid in full and that the perpetrator got away safely. To attain all that, there is only one way: to build a tradition. That way, even successful and rich perpetrators will come later for more; it would even be possible to DO REPEAT BUSINESS. Incredible!

INSTITUTE OR FOUND A TRADITION
To institute or found a tradition in this bounty business, it takes a very wealthy organization, but there is no way around it since some targets are so big and so well protected. For instance, the president of a major country, a world power (the US, China, Russia). Such targets are big ones, there is a huge security service at work here. So, you cannot proceed directly, you cannot aim for the president at the first shot, you must build a reputation. If you make the mistake of offering right away a reward numbered in hundreds of millions for the president's assassination, no one will take you seriously, all potential clients and prospects would shy away. So, to build confidence, you must begin with subsidiary targets. Depending on the country, to begin with a colonel or two stars general, the director of a government agency or the mayor of a major city is a very reasonable choice for a first target. The protection is not too big: an ''aide de camp'' and a platoon of soldiers for the general, two to four bodyguards for the mayor and the director, nothing that cannot be handled. Remember that you have the element of surprise on your side, and even if the number of guards has been increased slightly because the bounty offer has been made public in the meantime, you probably have already bribed one or two of those guards who will fight on your side when the attack begins. When it is done, pay the reward faithfully and in full. You have now completed the first step in building a reputation in this business.

To reach the main target, a three (3) steps approach is probably needed. The first subsidiary target should cost you no more than 10 millions in most countries. As choice for a second target, I suggest an important minister, like a minister of defence (in the US, the Defense secretary), the minister of the interior, a Secretary of State, the Chief of staff, etc... Now this is a much harder target: more protection, more people to bribe, precise information as to schedule, way of traveling, location, etc... Those targets are much more expensive, but a 100 million reward (+ fees and expenses) should do it. And now, you are ready to go for the gold.

The president himself is a much more expensive target. One billion dollars in the US and China, probably 500 millions in Russia. You need all kinds of things: satellite coverage, bribed people in key position, contingency plans when something goes wrong; but if the bounty is big enough, nothing is impossible, nothing can go wrong... even if it does. If one shooter misses, another one that covers the same field will hit the target, if one loses the opportunity of pouring the poison in the tea cup, another one will succeed later. The thing is, with one billion dollars you can bribe 200 people in key positions with 5 millions each. And who could resist? Some will gladly sell for less than one million, but some will require more. The important thing is that you have the money, the bounty is big enough. Everybody will sell out for a price, except the real wealthy (and you never know): a police officer, an analyst or a programmer in an intelligence agency, a deputy director of the NSA, a director of the CIA, an FBI agent, even a whole Delta team or a Secret Service security detail. It seems that everybody has a price. The funny thing about bribing a whole Secret Service detail is that instead of protecting him, these men will terminate the President.

And now, a few closing remarks. We chose the president of the United States in the above examples, simply because he is the best protected man in the world. The Chinese and Russian presidents are no doubt well protected too, but perhaps not quite as well. Second, let us recall that putting a bounty on the head of Saddam Hussein, even if it was done in times of war, sets a dangerous precedent in international affairs. No doubt that the way had already been paved earlier since the sixties with other precedents in political bounty offers, but it is the first time that a government does it so openly on the head of the political leader of another country. The case of the fatwa against Rushdie is quite different. Even though the Imam that did it had ties with his government, it was however never backed officially by that government. Finally, the fact remains that the use of political bounty in such a fashion like it was done in recent years, adds but another tool to the already impressive arsenal of modern psychological warfare.

Would you like to become a member ? EASY
Just write to us, give us your appraisal of our work so far (what you think of this site), tell us why you would like to become a member and don't forget to include everything on a large SASE.
Write where, what is your Address ?

Of course we have an Internet Address (giskhan@ca.inter.net), it is just that we don't trust entirely the E-mail system. Why ? Too many hackers and crackers out there, possible privacy problems, monitoring of your communications by government agencies or worse by foreign governments, but stop the paranoia : it is interesting for you to know that we also have an HARD ADDRESS. HARD or hard core Address means a real street and street number, a real city in an identifiable country and a real Postal (ZIP) Code. Quite reassuring, don't you think ?
J.C.Rochefort (Webmaster) #107, 5970 21th avenue, Montreal, P. Quebec, CANADA H1X 2G4

Donations are also welcome, but we don't need them to maintain this site. If you ever consider a donation, just send a cheque to J.C. Rochefort at the address above.

Thank you !
Note that our best stuff is noton the Internet.