Terrorism: Lest We Forget Switzerland
Download, Save and share this pdf.
But Taiwo Akinola, an Intelligence expert thinks the war on terror is
not holistic enough. In as much as he appreciates the various efforts
being made to stamp out terrorism and make the world free, he warns
that a more dangerous, but subtle act, such as financial terrorism is being
perhaps, and for obvious reasons, deliberately down played.
A total war on terror would be to him to also scrutinise and punish
terrorist activities by States. And of much concern to him in this essay, is
the State-sponsored financial terrorism policy of the Swiss Government
which has for years made eunuch of third world economies, their polities
and led to incalculable deaths and hunger of many.
Mr.Akinola concludes his essay by calling for the declaration of
Switzerland as a terrorist State and be sanctioned accordingly.
Executive Summary
The world community is besieged with many critical problems such as
availability of small weapons which fuels civil wars, failed states, piracy,
drug trafficking, racketeering and poverty; wrong economic policies,
credit crunch and terrorism.
Unarguably, one of the greatest threats to human community at this time
is terrorism- an inhuman act which can be committed by non-State actors
and State actors alike. In reaction the world community is currently
involved in wars on many fronts to root out terrorists and its supporting
infrastructures.
One issue stands out in the sustainability of this world crisis. Terrorism is
dependent on the circulation of illegal monies- which cannot not take place if there are no dirty financial institutions or channels to act as vehicles. Intelligence reports indicate that the war on terror is not holistic enough.
In particular it indicates that the financial terrorism being
perpetuated by a state such Switzerland, though subtle- but in terms of
intensity and scope makes the greatest contribution to the sustainability
of terrorism, and other world crisis.
The Swiss State knowingly supports and promotes financial terrorism as a
State policy and it is the basis for her economic and security strategy.
Over the years, it has built a reputation as a State-sponsored world
centre for tax evasion, fraud accounting, money laundering for terrorist,
racketeering, and above all, a staunch ally of corrupt third world leaders
and a great beneficiary of third world corruption.
For so long, the powerless developing countries have been the victims of
the Swiss State’s acts of terrorism. And in recent times, developed
countries like the United States, Germany and France have protested
loudly that the Swiss finance terrorism threatens their national security:
In 2001, the United States learnt that the Swiss had protected the
bank that handled finances for Osama Bin Laden and in 2009, an
action by the US Justice Department against the Swiss banking
giant UBS earned the United States close to $1 billion.
Switzerland holds a third of the world’s “off shore” money- crooks
who patronised the State’s policy of economic terrorism.
Through their collusion with corrupt politicians, civil servants, the
business elite and corrupt multinational corporations to loot and
hide the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains, the Swiss state have
plunged third world nations into debts, poverty, misery,
malnutrition, diseases, economic meltdown, infrastructural decay
and political instabilities which has caused the deaths of millions of
people, including women and children, with millions yet starving
and suffering in those countries. It has led to the killing of more people, destroyed more properties than Al-Qaeda has, and have
caused more wars than the Taliban. This is indeed a crime against
humanity.
If the International Criminal Court for crime against humanity can
try anti-peace leaders, such as Slobodan Milosevic, Ratko Mladic,
Charles Taylor, who use guns to kill, why can it not try some of the
Swiss politicians and banks executives who are responsible for
those inhuman and criminal policies which have lead to greater
atrocities? The attached article from an intelligence expert shows
that the law against terrorism supports such move and its execution
is long overdue.
The Swiss State, her institutions and citizens knowingly export, aid
and abet criminality and terrorism against all other States for its
own benefits.
Switzerland is a rogue State- experts such as Richard Murphy,
director of Tax Research LLP says: "The idea that Switzerland has a
clean economy is a joke; it is a dirt-driven economy". Lord Adusei
says “Switzerland can best be described as economic vampire, parasite
and predator feeding on the economies of poor African and third world
countries”.
Action:
The sad thing about the parasitic behaviour of the Swiss State is that it is
supported by almost all the citizens of that country. The Swiss Bankers
Association claims that four-fifths of the nation supports banking secrecy-
‘revealing a society deeply embedded in a culture of criminality and
exploitation, where the illicit acts as a shield protecting the illicit in a
terribly respectable manner’. The implication is that the Swiss State
cannot be trusted on its own to act responsibly without the supervision of
the international community. The international community can no longer
afford to abdicate its responsibilities while the Swiss State dehumanises
many more millions of people as it has done over a century. We call for the world community to support the campaign for the
declaration of Switzerland as a terrorist State and be sanctioned
accordingly.
Actions
Sign the attached petition using the Comments feature
Support picketing of the Swiss Embassies worldwide.
Ask for more actions.
Introduction
Unarguably, one of the greatest threats to human community at this time
is terrorism, an inhuman act which can be committed by non-State actors
and State actors alike. Currently, the Allied Forces led by the US are in
Iraq and Afghanistan taking terrorists head on in seemingly endless war,
while the west as a whole is combing its streets, households, campuses to
fish out new breed terrorists from their cells.
Switzerland is indisputably a prosperous nation with a gross domestic
product (GDP) higher than that of some larger western European nations.
The question arises: Why would Switzerland without any natural
resources, a country that chose to do mercenary military slaughtering for
centuries for foreign powers, that sent its daughters abroad as scullery
maids and its sons as chimney sweeps be today the world's richest nation
with the lowest taxes in the world, yet have the most sophisticated,
meticulous infra-structure of any nation?
The answer is simple: over the years, Switzerland has built a reputation
as a State - sponsored world centre for tax evasion, fraud accounting,
money laundering, racketeering, and above all, a staunch ally of corrupt
third world leaders and a great beneficiary of third world corruption. From
these actions, it is evident that the Swiss State, her institutions and
citizens knowingly export; aid and abet criminality and terrorism against all other States for its own benefits. We also know that States which
support such actions do directly get involved in assassinations and other
criminal activities. These may account for the mysterious disappearance
and actual deaths of opponents of corrupt third world leaders.
For so long, the powerless developing countries have been the victims of
the Swiss State’s acts of terrorism. And in recent times, developed
countries like the United States, Germany and France too, have
increasingly begun to feel the impact of the threats from the Swiss State.
Their campaign has witnessed an open row between the German Finance
Minister and members of the Swiss Parliament. These nations claim they
are losing billions of dollars annually through tax evasion and other illegal
financial activities and that the moneys that criminals launder through
Swiss banks finance terrorists who threaten their national security.
In 2001, the United States learnt that the Swiss had protected the bank
that handled finances for Osama Bin Laden. One of them, the Bahrain
International Bank, had funds transiting through non-published accounts
of Clearstream, which has been described as a “bank of banks” and was
involved in one of Luxembourg’s major financial scandals.
In 2009, an action by the US Justice Department against the Swiss
banking giant UBS earned the United States close to $1 billion. Western
governments have realised that dirty money in many forms received by
Switzerland encourages corruption, terrorism, drug trafficking which are
now recognised as a serious problems in West Africa, and racketeering to
tag alongside and deny the world´s poor the chance to escape poverty.
Consequently, many of them migrate as refugees and commit crimes in
these countries.
If you commit crimes for a living, Switzerland is the place to put your
money. Corrupt leaders, ranging from the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos
to Nigeria's Sani Abacha, have used Swiss banks to hide their loots. In an article entitled ‘Switzerland: A Parasite Feeding on Developing
World’, posted on www.ghanapundit.blogspot.com on June 17, 2009, Lord
Adusei, an anti-corruption campaigner observes that:
The cost of Switzerland's collusion with the corrupt entities in Africa and
the third world affects the poor people in those poor countries who are
denied the right to good life- a denial of their fundamental human rights.
They are denied basic necessities of life such as safe drinking water, basic
health and sanitation facilities, electricity, housing and even food. Over
one million people in those poor countries die of malaria, 90% of them
from Africa with most of the victims being children. Millions of others also
die of starvation, hunger, malnutrition, polio, measles, tuberculosis and
the six killer diseases. These destructions are bestowed on them because
they happen to have corrupt leaders and a counterpart crook State ready
to protect their looted funds.
1
The international community also picks part of the cost arising as a result
of the Swiss’s financial terrorism. As moneys meant for development are
stolen and stashed in Swiss banks, aid agencies from developed countries
are forced to give additional aids running into millions of dollars, while
millions of the victims seek refuge in those developed countries. The
Swiss financial terrorism has caused the deaths of millions with millions
yet starving and many more suffering. In the 21st century, there is no
justification for these sufferings. Switzerland cannot continue to be a
willing accomplice in crimes involving the deaths of millions of people
including children and women. This is by every known standard an act of
direct terrorism as well as aiding it. The Swiss have killed more people,
destroyed more properties than Al-Qaeda has, and have caused more
wars than the Taliban. This is a crime against humanity
Defining Terrorism
For greater clarity, it is pertinent at this juncture to examine the meaning
of terrorism and who a terrorist is. The term "terrorism" comes from a
Latin word ‘terrere’, which means “to frighten”, to fear, to panic, horror,
insecurity, fright, dread, alarm. Acts carried out to cause any of these are
terrorists’ acts.
The word “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged. As such, it
prevents many countries to fully recognise the reality about State’s
involvement in terrorism. Denying that States can commit terrorism is
generally useful, because it exonerates some states in a variety of
situations in their roles as the ‘police man’ of the world.
2
The disadvantage is that it might also get hostile States such as
Switzerland off the hook - which is why there, has to be a list of States
that are said to "sponsor" terrorism while not actually committing it
themselves. This is the probable reason a small State like Switzerland has
for so long been allowed to unleash the worst form of terrorism on the
rest of the world. The reality is that there are States such as Switzerland
which is directly involved in terrorism via its economic policy and so
actively promotes it. Consequently, this has seen more people dead,
maimed or turned into ‘living dead’ than the First and the Second World
Wars combined, while the world still looks on.
Despite this problem of definition, to many countries, acts of terrorism are
legally distinguished from criminal acts done for other purposes.
Moreover, common principles amongst legal definitions of terrorism
provide an emerging consensus as to the meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries.
Some such definitions are so broad like the United Kingdom’s Terrorism
Act 2000 which defines terrorism as the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2); (b) the use or threat is
designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or
a section of the public and; (c) the use or threat is made for the
purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause;
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it: (a) involves serious
violence against a person; (b) involves serious damage to property;
(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person
committing the action; (d) creates a serious risk to the health or
safety of the public or a section of the public or; (e) is designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic
system.
This is a type of psychological violence or intimidation and an economic
warfare.
In order to accommodate the various definitions of “terrorism”, the United
Nations currently has 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols on
terrorism. The League of Nations Convention (1937) defines terrorism as:
"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to
create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of
persons or the general public". The UN Resolution language (1999):"
Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as
criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed; 2.
Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of
terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for
political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the
considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic,
religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res.
51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism). The United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 issued under Chapter VII
of the UN Authority and the (UN Security Council Resolution 1566,
The General Assembly Resolution 49/60, entitled: "Measures to
Eliminate International Terrorism," adopted on December 9, 1994,)
3
refer to it as: criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages,
with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a
group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel
a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from
doing any act.
Academic Consensus Definition defines terrorism as “an anxiety-inspiring
method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine
individual, group or State actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political
reasons… depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is
primarily sought," (Schmid, and Jongman 1988).
4
The Supreme Court
of India adopted Alex P. Schmid's definition of terrorism in a 2003 ruling
(Madan Singh vs. State of Bihar), defining acts of terrorism veritably as
'peacetime equivalents of war crimes.'",
5
while SAJID DAWAR defines
terrorism as "The act or threat of violence by any individual, group,
organization aimed to secure predetermined ends through illegal
channels".
6
The United States, under the Federal criminal code. 18 U.S.C. §2331 the
United States defines terrorism as:
…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a
violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State
and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian
population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a
government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…."
7
The European Union employs a definition of terrorism for legal/official
purposes which is set out in Act 1 of the Framework Decision on
Combating Terrorism (2002).
8
This provides that terrorist offences are
certain criminal offences set out in a list comprised largely of serious
offences against persons and property which:
"given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or
an international organisation where committed with the aim of:
seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a
Government or international organisation to perform or abstain
from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying
the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social
structures of a country or an international organisation."
for more open the link and see pdf
